Do you "save" the PCs?

[Hussar]

On the "Gank the Newbie" thing.

I had a new player show up to my World's Largest Dungeon game. He was very new. First time using Virtual Tabletop stuff, had played a little bit of 3e, but not very much. Very, very newbie.

First encounter - dies in the first, maybe the second round.

I played it straight. Didn't pull any punches. Whacked the newbie. Never saw him again. He quit my game, and, judging from the website where I picked him up, I'm not sure if he quit GAMING after that.

Playing with kids gloves, at least for a little while, isn't a bad thing. If you want to play again with someone, it's a good idea to let them win at least once.

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

And that's perfectly fair. But, it's certainly not the only way of playing. Nor is it the "right" way either. I think all that people are saying here is, that there are different styles, some of which might entail a bit of fudging to save the PC once in a while.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Playing with kids gloves, at least for a little while, isn't a bad thing. If you want to play again with someone, it's a good idea to let them win at least once.

That's a good way of getting me not to show up. If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back. I find the very notion abhorrible. Winning is only fun when it's earned.

 

[billd91]

That's a good way of getting me not to show up. If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back. I find the very notion abhorrible. Winning is only fun when it's earned.

It's not just about letting someone win. It's about teaching them the fundamentals without them dying right off the bat.

It's like beginner soccer without a score. Half the kids don't even know which way they're going so there's no point in keeping score anyway. But you teach them a little about ball handling, field boundaries, and passing. Once they've got a clue about those, you add the scoring.

 

[Steel_Wind]

That's a good way of getting me not to show up. If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back. I find the very notion abhorrible. Winning is only fun when it's earned.

C'mon man. Don't take the quote out of context. He explains exactly how and why that approach is appropriate -- and he's right about it too.

Given the context in which the example arises, I would go do far as to not only say that it is appropriate - but that "let the dice fall as they may" in those circumstances was clearly inappropriate.

If you are cheating to save the player in such an overt and obvious fashion that the player knows it, the REAL problem at the table isn't the noobie player - it's the incompetent DM who hasn't learned how to pull his punches without appearing to do so.

Yes. Cheating to aid the overall aim and fun of the players while not appearing to be doing so is an important acquired DM skill.

 

[pawsplay]

I agree.

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.

I agree with you. The potential problem I was alluding to is when the metagame is setup in such a way that the desired outcome is unlikely. For instance, if you have a long thread in mind, but you put several dicey encounters in the middle, you would seem to be defeating your own purposes.

 

[Hussar]

That's a good way of getting me not to show up. If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back. I find the very notion abhorrible. Winning is only fun when it's earned.

It's not just about letting someone win. It's about teaching them the fundamentals without them dying right off the bat.

It's like beginner soccer without a score. Half the kids don't even know which way they're going so there's no point in keeping score anyway. But you teach them a little about ball handling, field boundaries, and passing. Once they've got a clue about those, you add the scoring.

Unfortunately, I can't posrep Billd91 again. But, yeah, it's ridiculously easy to splatter some newbie at any game. So, when teaching someone a new game, perhaps not crushing them by check mating in seven moves the first time out is a good idea no?

 

[pemerton]

The potential problem I was alluding to is when the metagame is setup in such a way that the desired outcome is unlikely. For instance, if you have a long thread in mind, but you put several dicey encounters in the middle, you would seem to be defeating your own purposes.

Agreed. I personally find "filler" encounters to be just about the worst feature of published D&D modules, and when I run those modules I do my best to get rid of them, either by ignoring them, or - where they are necessary to the pacing and overall XP budget - changing them from "filler" encounters to encounters that actually contribute to the overall flavour/storyline of the adventure.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Unfortunately, I can't posrep Billd91 again. But, yeah, it's ridiculously easy to splatter some newbie at any game. So, when teaching someone a new game, perhaps not crushing them by check mating in seven moves the first time out is a good idea no?

Well, pulling back is a bit different than letting them win. Shaving points is fine, after all you don't have to dunk on the seven year old every time, a jump shot will suffice, but "letting them win" is not cool. As a kid, I absolutely HATED it if someone let me win, and I've learned more from losing than I ever did from winning. It's simple enough to run mock combats and whatnot, explain that if it were for real, his pc would be dead. But flat out letting him win just rubs me the wrong way. Unless he's a wookie. But yeah, maybe my post was a bit more incendiary than I intended, for that I apologize.

 

[steenan]

I strongly agree with JRRNeiklot.

When my dad taught me chess, he, at first, played without rooks and queen. Then, as I got better, he added the pieces, until it was a normal game. But he always played to the full with what he had available and I needed to fight for every victory. Similar approach worked when I taught Go to my wife.

And I think it is how you should get newbies into RPG, if you are decided to use a gamist game for that. Choose a system that makes it hard (or impossible) to die or be permanently disadvantaged, but still has the failure as a possibility. Play it, see them win and lose - and let them have fun by winning against the odds by their own ingenuity.
If you play a lethal game with newbies, but then you fudge and ignore rules to save their characters, you'll make them feel entitled to winning. They will expect you to continue doing it - and get frustrated when you don't. That's not a way to get a healthy campaign.

 

[Aus_Snow]

That's a good way of getting me not to show up. If I find out someone "let" me win, I doubt I'd ever be back. I find the very notion abhorrible. Winning is only fun when it's earned.

Quoted for truthiness. But, 'must spread XP around, blah'.

On the other hand. . .

Cheating to aid the overall aim and fun of the players while not appearing to be doing so is an important acquired DM skill.

This is rubbish. The vast majority of roleplayers I have met IRL would agree, incidentally. And all of those I would ever wish to game with.