Lanefan
Victoria Rules
No.
Should every single campaign I play in (or DM) have clear and obvious potential to end in a TPK?
Yes, it should.
D&D General Kobayashi Maru: Should the fate of the character always be in the player's hands? POLL
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
Should every single campaign I play in (or DM) have clear and obvious potential to end in a TPK?
Yes, it should.
Fanaelialae
Legend
If I am understanding the scenario correctly, I would consider it probably unfair, based on the information you've presented me with.
I don't think that the GM should set up unavoidable scenarios where the only "choice" is who dies, IMO. Any more than the GM should set up unavoidable scenarios that guarantee a TPK (or whatever). That's simply railroading IMO.
If the sacrifice is necessitated by the players choices, however, that's fine (and not an instance of railroading). If the players reset the trap to avoid being followed, that's more on them. The choice that determines whether it is fair or not doesn't necessarily need to be made during the scene where the consequences are felt. It can be a result of something the players chose prior, which informs those events.
Of course, it should have been possible for them to foresee this eventuality. If the players asked whether this would happen, and the GM said there was no way it could, and now it's happening, then that is unfair. The players work with incomplete information filtered through the GM, and the GM shouldn't intentionally mislead them. If they summoned a devil and asked the question of it, however, then that's on them (devils lie). There's a difference between the GM giving the players information that they are trying to determine through their characters' senses, and information that is communicated via an NPC. The former ought to be significantly more reliable than information communicated through NPCs (albeit the information received through their senses can still vary based on factors like Perception checks).
Additionally, it doesn't consider other possible solutions. If the players come up with a logical solution that should work given the trap, the GM shouldn't block it by fiat simply because it isn't the "right" solution. What about tunneling around the trap? Or sacrificing a summoned creature/henchman/animal companion/familiar to disarm the trap? Not every solution necessarily needs to be a great solution (if the PCs take the time to tunnel around the trap, the BBEG might use that time to advance his plans) but they shouldn't be blocked by fiat.
While I said that this scenario is most likely unfair, my real answer is that I simply don't have sufficient information to make an informed determination. I would need to know more about the circumstances and details of the scenario in order to deem whether or not it is fair. Ultimately though, I believe it comes down to the players having real choices.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
This thread seems to have completely missed the point. The point of the Kobayashi Maru isn't that it is possible to lose/die. The point is It's impossible to win. It's not comparable to "rolling a 1" or making a poor choice. It's comparable to rolling 20 and making all the right choices and still losing.
Puddles
Adventurer
I'm not sure the analogy between player-death and the Kobayashi Maru is the best. For me the Kobayshi Maru is more about encounter design than the minute-by-minute trading of blows, and I think players should always have the chance to turn an unwinnable scenario into a winnable one. This is the Matt Coville "change the conditions of the test" adage, and it's the great joy of D&D as a DM to have your players come up with a crazy plan and then pull it off despite the odds.
When it comes to player death, I think the threat of it is the necessary spice to make action compelling. Having the threat of death always being a possibility is what I love about the game, and while it will occasionally create an unsatisfying conclusion as mentioned in your OP, I think it's important to remember that those are far and few between, rather than the norm.
For me the biggest lesson for a DM is putting too much weight on a single or few dice rolls. This is why I dislike "Save vs Death" mechanics because too much is riding on that one dice roll. In my opinion, the threat of death should always be present but it should take a string of bad luck to cause it. This is to not only reduce the odds of it happening but also to foreshadow it narratively to the players. It's the reason why I think the Death Saves mechanic is great because, not only is it fairly unlikely, a player has had multiple rounds in combat to come to terms that their character might not survive this fight before it happens.
So I would say a good DM is one that makes sure no single dice roll ever becomes too powerful, or at least, no single dice roll can be the detriment of the entire team. Instead the DM should put as many dice rolls as possible between the character and death, but to make sure this doesn't feel contrived, you need to put in the work during encounter design. For me, what I like to do is just populate my encounters with loads of hooks and levers for my players to draw upon when things start getting desperate. This means once the string of bad luck begins, once the players' plans are thwarted more and more by the dice, they still have lots of things to try, lots of agency, lots of ways to pull off a James T. Kirk in the Kobayashi Maru and change the conditions of the test.
(Edit: Cleaned up the typos and removed my presumption in the 3rd paragraph that stated everyone dislikes 'save vs death' mechanics, it's of course just my opinion.)
When it comes to player death, I think the threat of it is the necessary spice to make action compelling. Having the threat of death always being a possibility is what I love about the game, and while it will occasionally create an unsatisfying conclusion as mentioned in your OP, I think it's important to remember that those are far and few between, rather than the norm.
For me the biggest lesson for a DM is putting too much weight on a single or few dice rolls. This is why I dislike "Save vs Death" mechanics because too much is riding on that one dice roll. In my opinion, the threat of death should always be present but it should take a string of bad luck to cause it. This is to not only reduce the odds of it happening but also to foreshadow it narratively to the players. It's the reason why I think the Death Saves mechanic is great because, not only is it fairly unlikely, a player has had multiple rounds in combat to come to terms that their character might not survive this fight before it happens.
So I would say a good DM is one that makes sure no single dice roll ever becomes too powerful, or at least, no single dice roll can be the detriment of the entire team. Instead the DM should put as many dice rolls as possible between the character and death, but to make sure this doesn't feel contrived, you need to put in the work during encounter design. For me, what I like to do is just populate my encounters with loads of hooks and levers for my players to draw upon when things start getting desperate. This means once the string of bad luck begins, once the players' plans are thwarted more and more by the dice, they still have lots of things to try, lots of agency, lots of ways to pull off a James T. Kirk in the Kobayashi Maru and change the conditions of the test.
(Edit: Cleaned up the typos and removed my presumption in the 3rd paragraph that stated everyone dislikes 'save vs death' mechanics, it's of course just my opinion.)
Last edited:
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I'm wondering if the abstract nature of the topic, i.e. whether or not character death through no fault of the players' own is desirable or not, is muddying the discussion. If so, I'd narrow things to a particular example that seems more germane to what's being debated.
For instance, what should the DM do in the event that a particular encounter proves to be too much for the PCs, not because of any imbalance regarding the number or level/CR of the NPCs, but where a combination of bad die rolls (and good die rolls for the enemies) and canny tactics on the bad guys' parts (whether ascribed in a module or as run by a DM), put them in a position to wipe out the party? Does the DM play the bad guys to the hilt, not fudging their rolls or compromising on the effectiveness of their tactics? Or does the DM fudge the rolls and have the bad guys be less effective than they could otherwise be so the party can escape?
For instance, what should the DM do in the event that a particular encounter proves to be too much for the PCs, not because of any imbalance regarding the number or level/CR of the NPCs, but where a combination of bad die rolls (and good die rolls for the enemies) and canny tactics on the bad guys' parts (whether ascribed in a module or as run by a DM), put them in a position to wipe out the party? Does the DM play the bad guys to the hilt, not fudging their rolls or compromising on the effectiveness of their tactics? Or does the DM fudge the rolls and have the bad guys be less effective than they could otherwise be so the party can escape?
jmartkdr2
Hero
Fair - but probably unfun, at least with any of the groups I've ever played with.
If it's a heroic sacrifice to finally defeat Orcus, then it's awesome. If it's just to get a little closer to some goblins' meager treasure hoard, it's neither epic nor heroic.
Mod Note:
Hey. Arguments of the form, "you are stupid if you don't agree with me" are arrogant and insulting, and thus are a good way to get yourself removed from a thread. So, please avoid them. Thanks.
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
A good question.
I don't believe in fudging the dice.
I would prefer not to compromise on tactics, at least once the competence level of the enemies has been established. Although there is potentially room for the "deadly bad guy gets overconfident and sloppy once a couple of PCs have gone down and he thinks he's got them overmatched" factor to come in.
I have specifically implemented fleeing rules to make it clear to the players that escape is an option.
If the bad guys are defeating the entire party I am willing to consider their motivations and whether they might wish to capture/ransom/leave some or all of the PCs alive. I'd rather go that route if it's a campaign with an involved plot that the players are into, but I always want defeat and death to be on the table, and I want the actions of the NPCs to be true to the fiction. If you're losing to a pack of bloodthirsty werewolves in a frenzy, it's less likely that they'll be interested in keeping you alive.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I think it is, yes.
People often somewhat knee-jerk assume that some broad behaviour is "fine" (because how could anything the DM is doing be "wrong"?!), but when presented with specific examples of it, usually have more nuanced and critical opinions.
Also, the "fairness" angle of the OP's post shows he's not really understanding what the complaint he referenced was about. Fairness isn't the issue. Fairness is a red herring.
The real issue is whether it's interesting, involving, or makes people want to keep playing that RPG in any way. My experience is that any system which has a good chance of producing a TPK solely because the players rolled low is not a system that tends to be very attractive when there are alternatives with similar characteristics which do not do that.
I've seen this extensively over 30+ years of TT RPGs. I felt like I needed to fudge in 2E at low levels because I used to roll the dice in the open, and it often produced results like the OP describes and all it ever did was make multiple different groups either not want to play RPGs generally, or make them not want to play AD&D 2E specifically. And with 2E above about level 3 to 5 it rapidly becomes less of an issue, and you can very directly see the change.
I think there's room for it with troupe play and OSR stuff where PCs are very explicitly disposable, and you're throwing them into a meatgrinder, but when a game isn't up-front that that's what it is about, and it produces results where the PCs all die despite showing good tactics and so on, that's not typically enjoyable for anyone involved (including the DM), nor a particularly good reason to play that specific rules-set ever again, given the vast choices we now have.
Makes sense. RAW in most editions of D&D, esp. 3E onwards, fleeing is pretty much certain death unless you seriously outnumber the side you're fleeing from (or are like, a dragon or something). PCs will usually be outnumbered when they try to flee and thus by the basic RAW will just all die (if you play fleeing out as round-to-round combat).
So fleeing, as much as people love to suggest it, is almost never a practical option w/o DM cooperation or special rules.
One thing I really liked from Worlds Without Number (an OSR D&D-relative with some really smart design) is the Instinct score for NPCs (alongside Morale). It's basically "roll not to do something stupid". If they roll under their Instinct on a check, the DM should have them make a dumb tactical move - so trained and experienced soldiers will have a relatively low value, but some overpaid, exuberant mercs who are largely there to loot and plunder might be quite dangerous in a fight, but have a high Instinct and be likely to make tactical errors.
Last edited:
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
As DM, I do nothing here. The worsening situation for the PCs is just another decision point for the players: Do we flee? Do we parley? Do we fight to the death? Then we see where the emerging story goes.
Similar Threads
