Do you "save" the PCs?

[ExploderWizard]

But I still think there can be things at stake without any of them being PC life/death.

There certainly can be. You can set up a game with whatever win/loss conditions the participants agree to. If none of those conditions can result significant (game ending) loss then you have a game of infinite continuity. Logically if the game is still a game that one cannot end by losing then it cannot end in victory either. If there ever was a decisive victory possible and no chance of a decisive loss then there is no game, return to square one.

On the issue of "moulding results", I found a post by LostSoul on an old thread linking to this interesting blog about narration sharing. I don't mind the GM being able to impose adveristy on the PCs if the randomness makes that a possibility. I just don't see why PC death (as opposed to capture, or some other sort of story-twisting rather than story-ending possibility) has to be one of the options.

It doesn't. See above.

So I guess we kind of agree (but have different preferences) but I think maybe you're not putting the most sympathetic spin on your less-preferred playstyle (not that you're obliged to, obviously!).

I'm trying my best not to spin anything. There is either a game on or some other activity the participants enjoy taking place. Players choice.

 

[Haltherrion]

And a "storyteller game master" doesn't sit in front of the group reading aloud from his novella, either - at least I hope he doesn't.

Absurd extremes which mean nothing in the context of how people really play don't add much to the conversation, in my humble opinion.

No, not really. In this case, we have the universe of the "strict simultion-ist" and everyone else. Everyone else is inserting their judgement into various aspects of the game. Once that door is open, taking responsibility for TPKs isn't really much of a stretch. If it was your calls that got the party into a TPK situation then you bear some responsibility in how it plays out.

So this isn't the case of one extreme versus another with 99% of the population in the middle at neither extreme. It is the case of 1% versus the other 99%.

 

[catsclaw227]

Actually, "you screwed up" was from just a few posts ago, and "it's your fault" (twice) was from the poster who first saw fit to "school" me on my game.

I am going to take a guess and state that the poster you think is trying to "school" you on your game was using a generic "you" and "your" to describe DMing in general and not a "you == Ariosto" or "your game == Ariosto's game".

Maybe with this in mind, it makes more sense to not take these posts personally and instead understand that the poster may be describing the playstyle that they enjoy, or discussing the circumstances they and many other DMs that post here might have experienced in the past.

Then again, I may be wrong, and the poster was personally addressing you specifically and no one else, but I really doubt it.

 

[Haltherrion]

It's simply not possible for anything involving creatures getting hit to be "suddenly lethal". An average 84% to 91% dead after two hits is where it started! Guess what happens to a lot of the PCs' foes?

Why is it not possible for it to be suddenly lethal? In your game, are the players in control of every encounter? If there are traveling from point A to point B, they understand all the likely encounters (often the classic 'random' ones) that they will meet on their path so that they can make informed decisions as to the risks they are taking?

If not, if you the referee with your charts or your judgement select a random encounter and that proves too much for the party to handle, do you make sure there is a non-lethal way out as I and many others have suggested (capture, fleeing, bargaining, etc.) or do you just kill them?

If you see to it they never face a lethal situation in those types of encounters, that's all fine in dandy if you never, ever make a mistake. If you do, then as I said seems sensible to see about fixing it. If you provide exits for them, seems like you are doing what most of us say- you see to it there are non-TPK ways out.

And yes, of course, if the players willfully go in over their heads, death is a sensible outcome. Few would say it isn't.

 

[Haltherrion]

The question now becomes: "What in the world are you talking about?" because none of that has appeared in this thread at all.

I don't think it has happened either but I believe what Arioso is objecting to is my own statement:

Therefore, when the encounters are suddenly lethal, one thing to consider is whether you screwed up or even if not, you owe it to your players, per this implicit understanding to not necessarily destroy them.

Which some how became from Arioso:

"You screwed up!"

Asking someone to consider whether you made a mistake is not the same as saying they made a mistake. A little self-reflection and critique seems to be a good thing in a referee to me, eh?

 

[catsclaw227]

Why is it not possible for it to be suddenly lethal? In your game, are the players in control of every encounter? If there are traveling from point A to point B, they understand all the likely encounters (often the classic 'random' ones) that they will meet on their path so that they can make informed decisions as to the risks they are taking?

I think he is saying that the lethality isn't sudden because in the ruleset he plays there is "An average 84% to 91% dead after two hits". The lethality was there after you rolled up your PC.

Considering how long it takes to gain a level, a different thread topic could discuss whether that would be fun or not, but that's not the point of this thread.

my own statement:

Therefore, when the encounters are suddenly lethal, one thing to consider is whether you screwed up or even if not, you owe it to your players, per this implicit understanding to not necessarily destroy them.

Which some how became from Arioso:

You screwed up!

Asking someone to consider whether you made a mistake is not the same as saying they made a mistake. A little self-reflection and critique seems to be a good thing in a referee to me, eh?

I had guessed that you were also using the "you" in a more generic fashion and not specifically targeting and singling out Ariosto. But, like I said, I could be wrong...

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I am going to take a guess and state that the poster you think is trying to "school" you on your game was using a generic "you" and "your" to describe DMing in general and not a "you == Ariosto" or "your game == Ariosto's game".

You guessed correctly. I was talking about the times it's undeniably the party's fault for getting into trouble by being stupid, like not fleeing from an obviously superior foe when they can. In that context, I used the collective "you" to say when it's because of the DM that PCs die, not an attack on Ariosto. If I put the PCs in a situation where they can't escape against an enemy I grossly misjudged the power level of, I did in fact screw up a far as I'm concerned. And I have screwed up, on many occasions. The important thing is recognizing it as soon as possible and taking steps to correct it. Covertly if still possible, but if not, just be up front about it and admit you misjudged the encounter and that you're going to adjust the enemy's hp or stats to compensate.

Maybe it's just my playstyle, but to me PC death should be rare or for when they "deserve" it. I have the ability to throw whatever the hell I want at them, a TPK is not a challenge to produce. I find it much more enjoyable, for the PCs and for me, if I can walk the fine line of nearly killing them in a fight, putting the fear of DM into their hearts but still leaving the encounter level such that they can survive and overcome it. And I don't mean every time i roll damage, I fudge to what's thematically coolest. I go with what's rolled generally, until it becomes a big problem. I mean that I try to tailor the encounters I plan to attain that "extremely dangerous but 100% survivable if you use good tactics" level.

Maybe with this in mind, it makes more sense to not take these posts personally and instead understand that the poster may be describing the playstyle that they enjoy, or discussing the circumstances they and many other DMs that post here might have experienced in the past.

Then again, I may be wrong, and the poster was personally addressing you specifically and no one else, but I really doubt it.

Basically. Though I do refuse to believe any DM is "just" a referee, like he claimed. Unless the PCs are telling you what monsters and how many to encounter, you're still choosing their antagonists, which makes you more than a referee. The PCs can say "we're going to explore the volcano dungeon!", sure. But the DM still determines just what they encounter in that dungeon, the layout of the terrain and map, the effects and/or abundance of dangerous lava pools at various points, how well adapted the enemies are to the situation for kicking PC ass (orcs on flying carpets with str composite bows hovering over impassable lava? just a quick example, I'm sure it's "flawed"). Even if you're just running a module verbatim (I find it hard to believe a DM wouldn't at least review it beforehand and consider tweaking it to fit the party or his goals as DM better), you're still effectively determining what the PCs face by your inaction.

Actually, "you screwed up" was from just a few posts ago, and "it's your fault" (twice) was from the poster who first saw fit to "school" me on my game.

I was contesting what you said. Not "schooling" you. Cripes.

What does "misjudged an encounter" mean? On what basis is it to be "judged"? How would I know that I was not "misjudging" it again?

Well, if you...
1. Think that with the DM's power to select and/or stat out the opponents the PCs face gives you any influence at all in how difficult an encounter turns out to be.
2. Recognize that as DM there's no real challenge in just killing off the party (and if you are doing an adversarial style of DMing, you're also not just a referee), and thus question what exactly is the "challenge" in DMing -- Is it possible to "fail" the group as a DM? Is there any general measurement of what makes a person a good DM?

Then I guess I expect a person who realizes those two things to come to the conclusion that if the party's dying in encounters despite seemingly making sound choices in combat, to wonder if "maybe the problem is me?"

I'm mostly familiar with 3E rules. In 3E, something that was considered an "equivalent challenge rating" was supposed to have a very, very low chance of being fatal. The idea was that a party should in fact be able to go through 3, 4, 5, even 6 of these things on a given adventuring day, each encounter draining some of their resources, but otherise leaving them alive. If each encounter of "equivlant" challenge were significantly deadly, then by probability alone no adventuring party would last for very long.

If you disagree with those points or see what's "normal" as different, then obviously you disagree with me. But the whole "just a referee" comment is still hard for me to believe.

Finally, why should I break my word to my friends?

You shouldn't. My friends just expect me to be fair in the situations I throw them into, as part of my "word" in being DM.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why is it not possible for it to be suddenly lethal? In your game, are the players in control of every encounter? If there are traveling from point A to point B, they understand all the likely encounters (often the classic 'random' ones) that they will meet on their path so that they can make informed decisions as to the risks they are taking?

Speaking of my own campaigns only, the players have decisions to make when dealing with potential encounters. As far as informed decisions are concerned, that depends on the information available. If the players ask around about any potential hazards in an area they wish to travel then they may get a really good idea about what might be out there. If they were headed into unknown territory from which " none have returned" then there wouldn't likely be any information available.

Knowing all the likely encounters? This depends on the quality and quantity of information gained. Players may know that the road ahead is often used by farmers bringing thier crops to market but that knowledge wouldn't translate into knowing that random encounter result 7 is a mean spirited former fighter turned cabbage farmer named Brak, driving his crop to market and that Brak hates nosy travellers and refuses to yield the right of way on the road.

If not, if you the referee with your charts or your judgement select a random encounter and that proves too much for the party to handle, do you make sure there is a non-lethal way out as I and many others have suggested (capture, fleeing, bargaining, etc.) or do you just kill them?

There are always options. Some options may not be available depending on choices made earlier. Once combat begins the options available depend on the nature of the opposition. If the party is set upon by a pack of ghouls then the range of options is narrower than if thier foes were bandits.

If you see to it they never face a lethal situation in those types of encounters, that's all fine in dandy if you never, ever make a mistake. If you do, then as I said seems sensible to see about fixing it. If you provide exits for them, seems like you are doing what most of us say- you see to it there are non-TPK ways out.

I don't see to it. Exit opportunities are situational and vary wildly. What I am careful about is communicating the threat level of goal oriented objectives relative to one another. If the PC's choose to tackle something then they should understand the basic risk vs reward scheme so they can plan accordingly.

And yes, of course, if the players willfully go in over their heads, death is a sensible outcome. Few would say it isn't.

Agreed.

 

[Nagol]

Basically. Though I do refuse to believe any DM is "just" a referee, like he claimed. Unless the PCs are telling you what monsters and how many to encounter, you're still choosing their antagonists, which makes you more than a referee. The PCs can say "we're going to explore the volcano dungeon!", sure. But the DM still determines just what they encounter in that dungeon, the layout of the terrain and map, the effects and/or abundance of dangerous lava pools at various points, how well adapted the enemies are to the situation for kicking PC ass (orcs on flying carpets with str composite bows hovering over impassable lava? just a quick example, I'm sure it's "flawed"). Even if you're just running a module verbatim (I find it hard to believe a DM wouldn't at least review it beforehand and consider tweaking it to fit the party or his goals as DM better), you're still effectively determining what the PCs face by your inaction.

For me, the DM is the role at the table running the game. The guy who chooses to construct the world environs and populate it? He's the game designer. They may be the same person, but the roles are separate.

That the roles are separate is obvious once you consider there is a industry offering professional game designer resources (campaign worlds, adventure paths, modules, etc.) for DMs to take advantage of.

As a game designer, do I place "too hard" encounters? Sure. The game my players and I expect to play is based around a simulated world where vaiable power levels exist simultaneously. It is the game designer's job to make sure sufficient areas of different power levels exist to engage interested PCs and to make the transition between power levels either gentle or obvious.

As a DM is it my job to shepherd the character to "appropriate" encounters? I don't think so. If the players decide to aim high, so be it. If the players decide to aim low, so be it. It is my job to make the players aware of the known power level expectations for areas and inhabitants and to adjudicate the consequences of their actions on the game world environment. The adjudications should be "fair" in the sense that the mutually agreed game rules are followed so that players can have a good expectation for success / danger level. The adjudications should be impartial in that the same ruling would be used regardless of the PC affected if the circumstances remained identical.

As soon as I save the PCs, I introduce a skew to the risk/reward ratio and thus the player's expectations are affected and it sets precedent for the imprtiality since I should now "save" the group in idenitcal or near identical circumstances.

If the group is failing because they hit an outlier probability distribution, well they picked their choices and took their chances and thus reap their rewards.

 

[Janx]

My outlook on GMing translates to the GM having some responsibility in the potential death of PCs. And as I said before, to kill or not, the answer is "it depends."

The matter is muddied by what the PCs did, what the players know, and what the GM has put against them, and how lucky everybody is.

Add in the fact, that we are talking about "unwanted lethality" in an encounter where both sides are trying to kill each other. That's a contradiction right there.

I've said before, that as a GM, I kind of expect the players to win. I don't know how, that's the fun part. I'm pretty sure the players pretty much expect to win as well. Not as in the GM is handing out easy victories, but as in confidence in their own ability to triumph over adversity. That's not a bad thing.

I have run an encounter with 3 first level PCs versus something like an orc or bugbear with a great-axe. A couple of lucky hits, and a PC was dead. oops.

It was my choice to but the critter there, I picked it by CR relative to the party level, and it was stock from the MM (including the great axe). But statistically, 2 hits on a PC, and the PC is likely to die. Very lethal.

It was also my choice to accept the hits and damage as I rolled them. I could have fudged, especially on the last hit.

It was the players' choice to stay and fight the critter. For them, this was the BBEG of the mission, and if retreat were possible, they'd only have to face him later as they try again (from their thinking). For a first level, other options may not have been obvious to defeat the BBEG. Since it wasn't a plain dungeon crawl, they had personal storyline reasons to want to take this guy down.

In any event, this kind of scenario can happen. The GM has a choice on how to avoid, shift or accept it. I'm not sure there's a universal wrong answer, though for individuals, certain options may be unacceptable solutions.

Which really ties into statements of "you screwed up" or "you're doing it wrong". It's a hard habit to break to avoid using those phrases as speakers. As listeners, we can expect it to happen, and try to get to the speaker's actual meaning, without taking it personally.

I certainly would not assume somebody is directly addressing me or my game unless they used my name or I was posting about a problem I was having.

Generally, the most valid scenarios (in regards to gaming) for "you're doing it wrong" is when one claims to be following the RAW and not actually doing it, especially in very clear cut situations, like handling the Swimming rules. Or when somebody is having a problem getting something to work, that others have successfully done. Like making combat faster. But if the person in question doesn't have a problem, and his group is happy with the results, it's not really wrong, just different.