Do you "save" the PCs?

[Janx]

I agree with Steel Wind and Umbrans posts right above this one, that I can't hand out more XP for yet...

I don't think my players think they have plot immunity, they are generally afraid of dying (they act like it). Perhaps because they have no idea if I think "today is a good day to die" for them.

It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.

Which doesn't mean I expect them to always take the left corridor, and never die. So much as when they start digging a tunnel into the dead end corridor because it leads somewhere, or a fight turned south in a horribly disastrous way, I make some changes because sticking to what's written down wouldn't make for a good story if retold (except perhaps as a tale of stupidity).

I might also fudge things for a newbie. Just last night, a friend wanted to try D&D for the first time, so I whipped up a PC for both, and a simply "kill some goblins who are ambushing travellers" adventure.

I had to fudge the rolls several times to reduce the damage I inflicted. Why?

Because it was tedious enough making a PC for the new player, let alone, having to do it again, AND set up the hook again to get them out there. It wasn't worth it. I would rather a new player's first session be one of success, than a PC meat-grinder. Especially when dealing with a person who was not a gamer, or used to anything in that genre, but had tried WoW and was curious about this other game.

A player can experience PC death and tougher expectations when they have a grasp of the basic rules and concept of the game. That's yet another reason to save a PC. To do otherwise, when you're effectively recruiting a shiny new player is bad marketting. Just ask anybody who is really good at demoing games at conventions. Let the potential customer win.

 

[pemerton]

That might shape some people's impression that everything in OD&D was randomly and "impartially" generated. I'm not sure GMs truly ran that way

When I used to GM AD&D and Basic I used some random generation, and some designed and placed deliberately - increasingly the latter under the influence of mid-80s Dragon magazine articles.

In changing in this way, I think I was an instance of a more general trend in approaches to fantasy RPGing, away from "Gygaxian"/"Pulsipherian" play and towards a more PC-protagonism centred approach.

 

[pemerton]

I agree with this completely. I don't roll behind a screen either. So the traditional fudgery to allow the PCs to survive is not something I am inclined to do.

Does not mean there are not other ways to accomplish the same task, mind you.

Agreed - I've been saying this over several posts.

A campaign can represent a significant investment of time (leisure time, at that, which is scarce for some folks these days), effort, and possibly even money. If all the folks concerned don't get sufficient return on that investment, they may not come back for another round.

The return doesn't have to be in terms of success - there are many kinds of return in an RPG. The issue is whether any of the kinds have happened, and if they haven't, do you save the campaign to allow them to happen or not.

Also agreed - for me and my group, at least, it's about the aesthetic satisfactoriness, or otherwise, of a TPK.

OK. I'm kind of of left saying, "So what?"

The "what" is the aesthetic satisfaction of the participants in the game.

It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.

Putting to one side the question of introducing new players - something I haven't done for many years - I don't especially like using this sort of editorial control. I prefer a mechanical system that allows other ways of preventing the undesirable outcome - eg one that allows the monsters to take prisoners rather than kill. This is part of my reason for having shifted games from RM to D&D 4e.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.

I like the way you've put it here. If something's going to happen that none of us are going to enjoy, you try to head it off. The point it to have fun, so fun is the goal, not some specific in-game result.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.

For some players, any outcome that occurs as a natural result of play is a desirable outcome.

 

[pawsplay]

So what? So, some of us don't have infinite leisure time to develop new content, is what.

And I do?

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with specific actions being successful.

Sorry, I'm guess I'm not clear on what you're advocating.

As for the matter of interaction - yes, that's exactly the point. A game that is built around who the characters are becomes disappointing if they all die. This is hardly surprising. However, some players and GMs find such play far more engaging and satisfying than a game where everyone is easily replaceable. So, for them, techniques to avoid that disappointment are useful.

Certainly there are games that have been dissatisfying because everyone lived, too.

Maybe you can walk me through this.

I've played everything from kick-in-the-door D&D to sprawling Vampire games to superhero parodies to Victorian horror, and even drawing on this palette, I am having trouble imagining the kind of game in which this situation does not represent a breakdown in campaign design. I am imagining, however, that you are describing a style of game which you have found satisfying in the past, so I therefore conclude that either I am not understanding what you are saying or that I would not find such a game satisfying. Anything is on the table, up to and including die fudging.

How does a campaign get to be too big to fail? It just sounds futile to me. If the campaign is predicated on uncertainty, then it needs to be real uncertainty. And if it's predicated on the continued survival of the PCs, then the uncertainty needs to be dialed down. If you are really interested in the soap operatics, to the detriment of risk-exploration, then something like a "random ghoul encounter" should just never happen.

 

[pawsplay]

The "what" is the aesthetic satisfaction of the participants in the game.

In that case, the "how" needs to be based on realistic expectations.

 

[pawsplay]

I agree with Steel Wind and Umbrans posts right above this one, that I can't hand out more XP for yet...

I don't think my players think they have plot immunity, they are generally afraid of dying (they act like it). Perhaps because they have no idea if I think "today is a good day to die" for them.

I don't want my players wondering what I think. I want them wondering if they are ready to face that dragon, visit that city, draw a sword in anger.

It's not that i seek out specific endings or outcomes, so much as I apply editorial control to prevent an undesirable outcome when it becomes apparent.

To me, excessive editorial control is an undesired outcome.

I might also fudge things for a newbie.

Is that a kindness? The day they stop being a newbie, will they thank you for it? Assuming adults here.

Just last night, a friend wanted to try D&D for the first time, so I whipped up a PC for both, and a simply "kill some goblins who are ambushing travellers" adventure.

I had to fudge the rolls several times to reduce the damage I inflicted. Why?

Because the goblins did too much damage?

Because it was tedious enough making a PC for the new player, let alone, having to do it again, AND set up the hook again to get them out there.

Whatever happened to the ol' Bart the Fighter II routine? Or just saying, "Look, I don't want to go through character generation again, so we're just going to say you're unconscious here instead of you being dead, which is what would normally happen?"

 

[pemerton]

If you are really interested in the soap operatics, to the detriment of risk-exploration, then something like a "random ghoul encounter" should just never happen.

I agree.

In that case, the "how" needs to be based on realistic expectations.

This is a little cryptic for me. But if you're talking about "ingame realism" eg if you don't want PC deaths, don't have PCs take excessive risks, then I disagree. It's possible to have fantasy RPG mechanics that allow for the PCs to take actions that are, within the parameters of the imaginary world, risky, but which are, in the metagame world of the players at the table, rather non-risky provided that the players use their game-mechanical resources effectively. I think 4e combat provides an example of this. So does mid-to-high-level Rolemaster combat (ie at a level where the PCs have big enough numbers to make meaningful choices about OB/DB split, and also have the capacity to mitigate the worst effects of random and potentially deadly criticals).

Is a game that drives this sort of wedge between player and PC risks and expectations exciting? In my experience, yes, but I play with players who also enjoy (for example) competitive board games and card games, which are exciting even though there is no risk to the player other than the very mild social sanction of being a loser rather than a winner at an essentially trivial recreational pursuit. The excitement comes from engaging the rules of the game in order to mitigate the risks and therefore succeed at the challenge. An RPG, unlike a boardgame or cardgame, adds the exciting colour and drama of a story unfolding in response to the players' decisions.

If I misunderstood what you meant by "the how", then the above might all be irrelevant. Sorry if that's the case.

 

[Reynard]

For some players, any outcome that occurs as a natural result of play is a desirable outcome.

^^^^This^^^^^

It isn't the "right" way to play, but it is my preferred way.