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

[CleverNickName]

Back in the earlier editions, this was quite a problem. Fail a save vs. poison, roll up a new character. But I think this is a rare problem nowadays, and it gets conflated and overstated in D&D discussion forums.

In 5th Edition D&D, character death is a multi-step process involving several dice rolls, and most of them weighted heavily in the player's favor with bonuses and rerolls. Playing the rules as written, a player character is never* in a situation where they will "roll a 1" and die from it.

Most often, character death involves compounding consequences of several bad decisions. The Sunk-Cost Fallacy ("But I've used all my high-level spell slots! We can't flee now, all those spell slots will be wasted!"), or the Gambler's Fallacy ("The dice are going to turn around. I've rolled less than 10 for the last eight rolls...the odds of rolling low nine times in a row are impossible!!!") have killed more characters at my table than anything else, including luck.
--------------------------------
*I realize that maxims like "always" and "never" are problematic in a tabletop RPG. I mean, there are DMs out there who will do anything they can to kill a character so that the player "loses." There are players out there who will do anything they can to break the game so that they can "win." But for the sake of this discussion, I'm considering both to be statistical outliers (and jerks who wouldn't be welcome at my table).

 

[Quartz]

Fair isn't the same as interesting or fun.

Agreed, which is why I didn't say it was fun. Indeed I drew the difference between the two earlier in my post.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I think you are mostly right, although it is probably worth mentioning that it arguable that 5E is as popular as it is partly because of Critical Role, not the other way around.

 

[OB1]

I chose Other, because the specifics of the situation could make it fair or unfair.

Unfair - Players have no choice in engaging with an encounter, and the encounter is unwinnable.

Somewhat Fair - Players have no choice in engaging with an encounter, and the encounter is so difficult it could result in a TPK, but the players have the means to overcome it or escape.

Fair - Players have a choice in starting the encounter, are aware of the stakes, and choose to engage anyhow. This could be an encounter where their main objective is able to be achieved, but they could die either before or after, or could simply be deciding to pick a fight with something the DM has sufficiently telegraphed is beyond their capability.

DM controls the Fate of what players encounter, Players always have a Choice in their actions, results of actions are sometimes determined by Chance.

 

[Democratus]

I'm not sure I can think of a reasonable situation where players have no choice or agency. They alway have the option of saying "no" to the DM.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not sure I can think of a reasonable situation where players have no choice or agency. They alway have the option of saying "no" to the DM.

I think the question is how far back the choices go and how much information they had. If for example the PCs find a cursed ring they did not identify as such that says they will fail any poison saving throw, and then much later are struck by a poison save or die trap they did not see coming, where does that fit?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think the question is how far back the choices go and how much information they had. If for example the PCs find a cursed ring they did not identify as such that says they will fail any poison saving throw, and then much later are struck by a poison save or die trap they did not see coming, where does that fit?

This is just the mouth of the rabbit hole - did they have reason to suspect the curse? Are they the sort of player who would think of it? Is it the sort of game where deadly curses are expected? Is it save or die immediately, or just save or take a lot of damage? Or save or you're reduced to 0 hp? Did they have the tools to find the curse? Could they have avoided the poison trap? Were there clues for the trap the players ignored? Were the clues only going to mentioned if the players asked bout them? Have there been no poisons used in the time between the ring being found and this incident?

And with almost any answer, more details will just lead to more questions.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The specific situation I DMed once that made me ask was this:

Party had entered a complex that, while there was various choice where to go nce inside, only had one way in or out. Going in they hit a glyph that did some big amount of damage but not enough to kill anyone; they then realized the glyph was permanent (reset after a few minutes) and not just a one-shot deal. Attempts to dispel it had no effect (if memory serves their odds weren't great but they did have a chance of getting it).

Party then proceed into the complex and get hammered. All their healers either die or run out of spells (well, except for the psyonically-charmed one who turned against the party and then - having been told the glyph's password - fled outside) and the remaining few characters are beat to ratcrap.

They try to leave, but the glyph is still there; only now the PCs all realize they're in bad enough shape that it'll kill any of them. So, they thought it over for a few minutes and then - in one of the most heroic things I've ever seen a character do - one of the PCs says "Hoist one for me, guys" and walks into the glyph, dying so the others could escape.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The specific situation I DMed once that made me ask was this:

Party had entered a complex that, while there was various choice where to go nce inside, only had one way in or out. Going in they hit a glyph that did some big amount of damage but not enough to kill anyone; they then realized the glyph was permanent (reset after a few minutes) and not just a one-shot deal. Attempts to dispel it had no effect (if memory serves their odds weren't great but they did have a chance of getting it).

Party then proceed into the complex and get hammered. All their healers either die or run out of spells (well, except for the psyonically-charmed one who turned against the party and then - having been told the glyph's password - fled outside) and the remaining few characters are beat to ratcrap.

They try to leave, but the glyph is still there; only now the PCs all realize they're in bad enough shape that it'll kill any of them. So, they thought it over for a few minutes and then - in one of the most heroic things I've ever seen a character do - one of the PCs says "Hoist one for me, guys" and walks into the glyph, dying so the others could escape.

I see no issue with that. There were lots of choices that informed that outcome, and it could have played out completely differently (for example, if the glyph had been successfully dispelled).

Heck, even at that point they still had other options (as I understand the situation). One alternative might have been to hide, or barricade themselves in a room, and hope they remained undisturbed long enough for their healers to recover their spells.

It sounds like the player weighed the risks and decided that sacrificing the character was preferable to risking a TPK. Which is a noble choice, but most importantly, it was a choice.

 

[Lanefan]

I see no issue with that. There were lots of choices that informed that outcome, and it could have played out completely differently (for example, if the glyph had been successfully dispelled).

Heck, even at that point they still had other options (as I understand the situation). One alternative might have been to hide, or barricade themselves in a room, and hope they remained undisturbed long enough for their healers to recover their spells.

While they could have barricaded themselves in somewhere, it wouldn't have helped the healers: the only party healer still alive was the one who was now on the enemy's side via psionic charm, the rest were all dead. Such potions etc. as they had had already been used just to survive this far.

Further, resting rates in my games are slow enough they'd have had to hold their fort for at least a full day (I forget specific numbers now, this was about 15 years ago) to even get one character healthy enough to be able to survive the glyph; and holding station for a day would not have been guaranteed in the slightest - again due to the turncoat Cleric who could simply cast Locate Object in order to find the PCs.

The party was in the 6th-10th level range with lots of characters, the main enemies were a group of Beholders backed by a few very competent adventuring types, and those Beholders were nasty!

It sounds like the player weighed the risks and decided that sacrificing the character was preferable to risking a TPK. Which is a noble choice, but most importantly, it was a choice.

Had someone not self-sacrificed to get the others out a TPK was all but certain; the only thing in doubt would be how long it would have taken.