D&D General Kobayashi Maru: Should the fate of the character always be in the player's hands? POLL

[MGibster]

In another thread, I saw this comment by @Marc_C (discussing Savage Worlds RPG):

"TPK without any reason for it. PCs didn't do anything wrong. I was turned off."

In one of my Savage Worlds games my party almost suffered a TPK when they encountered some alligators in a swamp. What I thought would be a simple straight forward fight with little risk ended with 3 of 5 PCs unconscious and the other two tenuously clinging to consciousness because I just kept rolling well to hit and high damage.

I was genuinely curious what people thought about these different styles in D&D. So I'm putting up a poll, and hoping for a great discussion in the comments.

It's perfectly fair for players to die over events they have no control of. Though, I must say, how many situations do player characters get into where they have no control? Was running an option? Could they have used better tactics?

 

[kenada]

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?

The players should engage the system’s escape procedure. If the group is playing an edition that lacks one, the GM should assume the group escapes when they declare their escape and work with the players to figure out a cost. What did they do to create distance? Did they drop anything or do anything to create a distraction? Does someone make a heroic stand to ensure the survival of the rest of the party? Assume that the opposition won’t follow the PCs forever until they’re dead.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's perfectly fair for players to die over events they have no control of. Though, I must say, how many situations do player characters get into where they have no control? Was running an option? Could they have used better tactics?

Great question! Personally, I am more interested in the different ways that people perceive the issue and the way in which they frame their responses to what they perceive the question to be.

Take an example- imagine you are playing an old-school version of D&D, and the party encounters a "classic" Banshee with a save or death wail. A player rolls a 1 and dies. Did the player have no control over it?

Arguably, yes. But some might say that the players (the party) could have done a number of things prior to the encounter- they could have scouted the area better. Done research. They could have contingencies for Banshees (earplugs? silence spells?).

You can go round and round on the issue; it's like the young guy who says, "I was late for the job interview and lost the job." And the old grumpy guy says, "That was your fault." And the young guy says, "No, it wasn't. There was an accident and traffic." And the old grumpy guy says, "Well, if you really wanted it, you would have left a few hours earlier." Etc. Is either of them right? Are both of them wrong? It really depends on your perspective.

In framing this, I would say that arguably there might be situations beyond a player's control; sometimes, no matter how well you plan, no matter how "skilled" your play, no matter how imaginative you are, you're just unlucky. You can try and stack the odds in your favor, but sometimes you just get that 1 (or succession of 1s) and you're S to the O to the L.

For some people, that's exciting- that's why we have dice. Best laid plans and all that. For others, it's infuriating- that no matter what you do, you can still get the shaft.

I think that the way that people approach the question is actually more interesting that the final answer that they give.

 

[Reynard]

Great question! Personally, I am more interested in the different ways that people perceive the issue and the way in which they frame their responses to what they perceive the question to be.

Take an example- imagine you are playing an old-school version of D&D, and the party encounters a "classic" Banshee with a save or death wail. A player rolls a 1 and dies. Did the player have no control over it?

Arguably, yes. But some might say that the players (the party) could have done a number of things prior to the encounter- they could have scouted the area better. Done research. They could have contingencies for Banshees (earplugs? silence spells?).

You can go round and round on the issue; it's like the young guy who says, "I was late for the job interview and lost the job." And the old grumpy guy says, "That was your fault." And the young guy says, "No, it wasn't. There was an accident and traffic." And the old grumpy guy says, "Well, if you really wanted it, you would have left a few hours earlier." Etc. Is either of them right? Are both of them wrong? It really depends on your perspective.

In framing this, I would say that arguably there might be situations beyond a player's control; sometimes, no matter how well you plan, no matter how "skilled" your play, no matter how imaginative you are, you're just unlucky. You can try and stack the odds in your favor, but sometimes you just get that 1 (or succession of 1s) and you're S to the O to the L.

For some people, that's exciting- that's why we have dice. Best laid plans and all that. For others, it's infuriating- that no matter what you do, you can still get the shaft.

I think that the way that people approach the question is actually more interesting that the final answer that they give.

And I think the core of that particular frustration is often: "Real life has bad stuff happen and you have no control over it. That's not what I play D&D for. I get enough of that in real life. I play D&D to be a big damn hero." or similar.

To which I would respond: there are lots of games that provide the players with tools for narrative control. Play one of those, or at least introduce some of those tools into your D&D game. (The simplest approach would be to allow Inspiration to be an auto-success rather than just a reroll.)

 

[MGibster]

Take an example- imagine you are playing an old-school version of D&D, and the party encounters a "classic" Banshee with a save or death wail. A player rolls a 1 and dies. Did the player have no control over it?

In Rise of the Runelords for 3.5, my Rogue was sneaking ahead of the group and decided it was a good idea to sneak attack a hillbilly ogre. My Rogue did a negligible amount of damage and the next round the ogre returned the favor by using a meat hook on his face, scoring a critical success, and killing my Rogue with one hit. Was that fair? Sure, I had control over the situation in that I deliberately chose when my character would enter combat. But that critical success could have come at any moment. If things had gone differently, we could have whittled that ogre's hit points to 1 and he still could have critically struck my Rogue killing him in one blow.

So I'll certainly accept that at times the PC might be killed by something the player has no control over. And I'm okay with that. It's been about 14 years since my Rogue died in that campaign and I still remember it distinctly. Good times.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And I think the core of that particular frustration is often: "Real life has bad stuff happen and you have no control over it. That's not what I play D&D for. I get enough of that in real life. I play D&D to be a big damn hero." or similar.

To which I would respond: there are lots of games that provide the players with tools for narrative control. Play one of those, or at least introduce some of those tools into your D&D game. (The simplest approach would be to allow Inspiration to be an auto-success rather than just a reroll.)

I'm totally fine with people that want to play D&D in the super-heroic fashion! Back in the day, we'd just call it Monty Haul.

It's one of those market-power issues; the good news about the (relative) dominance of D&D is that it gives us a lingua franca* to discuss RPGs, and it means that in this hobby, there is at least one game that a group of people are likely familiar with.

The bad news is that D&D is so dominant, that a lot of people aren't able to just play some other game; if I had a nickel for every time someone said that they couldn't convince their table to play something other than D&D, I'd, um, hmmm... well, maybe I wouldn't be ordering off the dollar menu exclusively! "Give me one of them extra value meals. And ... MAKE IT A LARGE!"

*Do you ever wince when someone, correctly, says that English is the lingua franca of the world today? I mean, it's right, yet so wrong.

 

[MGibster]

*Do you ever wince when someone, correctly, says that English is the lingua franca of the world today? I mean, it's right, yet so wrong.

I've been speaking English my whole life. I just assumed everyone else had as well.

 

[Reynard]

I'm totally fine with people that want to play D&D in the super-heroic fashion! Back in the day, we'd just call it Monty Haul.

It's one of those market-power issues; the good news about the (relative) dominance of D&D is that it gives us a lingua franca* to discuss RPGs, and it means that in this hobby, there is at least one game that a group of people are likely familiar with.

The bad news is that D&D is so dominant, that a lot of people aren't able to just play some other game; if I had a nickel for every time someone said that they couldn't convince their table to play something other than D&D, I'd, um, hmmm... well, maybe I wouldn't be ordering off the dollar menu exclusively! "Give me one of them extra value meals. And ... MAKE IT A LARGE!"

*Do you ever wince when someone, correctly, says that English is the lingua franca of the world today? I mean, it's right, yet so wrong.

I often wonder what would happen if, say, Critical Role, chose a different game for their next season. Would their popularity upset the RPG industry status quo?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've been speaking English my whole life. I just assumed everyone else had as well.

Today, I learned that there was a word for people too stupid to learn to speak 'Murikan.

....foreigners. I mean, c'mon, even a slack-jawed yokel (otherwise known as my nephew, Jed) is able to say, "Y'all want fries with that?"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I often wonder what would happen if, say, Critical Role, chose a different game for their next season. Would their popularity upset the RPG industry status quo?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: In the short term, they can goose the sales of a product. They could, if they really wanted to, probably make a viable competing product (or boost a product into viable competing status) ... by competing, I mean second place.

Longest answer: The essential problem is not that they lack popularity; there are many people that are fans of Critical Role as an entertainment piece regardless of the underlying system. Which is to their credit; however, D&D (for various reasons) has all of the mindshare within the field itself, and it isn't even close. If this was during a "down product" cycle, like 4e ... maybe? But we saw with the launch of 5e just how easy it is for D&D to reclaim what they have. So, assuming Critical Role moved permanently to a new product, you have to remember that D&D is in a different position as well. Hasbro wouldn't just be like, "Cool. Our cash cow is being killed. Let's do nothing." They are rolling out all the big guns right now in terms of the IP. They would go to war with CR to preserve D&D at this point in time; and my money would be on the big company, not CR.