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

[Fanaelialae]

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!

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.

Fair enough. It still sounds to me like different choices could have lead to a different outcome.

They might have turned back sooner, knowing that they had the glyph at their backs. It's possible they could have captured a denizen or critter (a large rat, for example) and used that to set off the glyph on their return.

This is not to armchair quarterback the situation. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.

I'm simply attempting to illustrate that the player's sacrifice was not a foregone conclusion. Based on my understanding, they had many choices, some of which could have resulted in a different outcome where none of the players felt that sacrificing their character was necessary or even practical.

By comparison, in a real Kobayashi Maru scenario, the dungeon door would have slammed shut behind them and would have been unable to be opened without sacrificing a party member. It would have been impossible to leave the dungeon without sacrificing a character.

Whereas the sacrifice that occurred in your game emerged from the choices made. It's possible that their choices had narrowed to a point where it was between sacrificing one vs TPK, when the player chose to sacrifice their character, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion the moment they stepped inside the dungeon. That, IMO, is a big part of what makes your scenario fair, versus an actual Kobayashi Maru which is unfair.

 

[Democratus]

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?

I was talking about player agency. Not PC agency.

The player can always veto something that happens to their PC. They have full agency.

There may, of course, be consequences to these choices. But the choice is there nonetheless.

 

[Helldritch]

I answered totally fair.
I have been rolling on the open for 35 years now. It took me 3 years to do it this way and never went back to a DM screen ever since.

Do I have TPK? Of course! Are they always meaningful? Unfortunately not, but life can be a real b**ch sometimes. Fortunately, TPK does not always mean the end of the group or the end of all characters. If played intelligently and if circumstances apply, a group might be brought back from a TPK. It happened more than once over the years. Making allies and friends might ensure that a rescue might be attempted. Once the players all died but I made them play their rescue with a group that they had saved from certain death years prior to their demise. One other time, they were brought back from the dead by a true resurrection cast by a high level priest they had helped and to whom they had given a tooth just in case. Players had forgotten that fact but not me.

So yes, bad die rolls do happen, and death might or might not be the result. I have had campaigns ending with players retiring as the campaign was over, I have had campaigns ending abruptly because of an untimely TPK.

What is important is that the players know that TPK and death can happen. It is not the DM's job to decide that. This will happen through bad luck, or most of the time, a series of bad decisions from the players. This is the fact that it might happen that makes the game interesting. Without risks, there is no thrill and it makes for a very, but very boring story.

 

[Reynard]

I was talking about player agency. Not PC agency.

The player can always veto something that happens to their PC. They have full agency.

There may, of course, be consequences to these choices. But the choice is there nonetheless.

While that's true, I think that there are degrees of "acceptable" vetos. If a GM (for whatever reason) has something happen to a PC that is gross, triggering, or otherwise a real problem for the player, the player absolutely can say "No." But aside from that, the events in the game are the purview of the GM. I certainly wouldn't want a player in my group that would try and "veto" the effects of critical hit on their character, for example, or their character facing consequences of their actions like being arrested for stealing the crown jewels or whatever. Granted, I have never actually run into a player like that, and I hope they exist more as a theoretical for the purpose of discourse rather than actual real world players.

 

[Laurefindel]

What is important is that the players know that TPK and death can happen. It is not the DM's job to decide that.

I think it can be the DM's job to decide that. On a personal level, a DM can announce that they will not make it their job to decide whether TPK happens or not, and it will lead to a certain ambiance and thrill that you and many player enjoy.

Without risks, there is no thrill and it makes for a very, but very boring story.

Indeed! But there is more to risks than TPK and uncompromising DMs. And I say this in all respect for this play style which I myself enjoy from times to times.

 

[Democratus]

While that's true, I think that there are degrees of "acceptable" vetos. If a GM (for whatever reason) has something happen to a PC that is gross, triggering, or otherwise a real problem for the player, the player absolutely can say "No." But aside from that, the events in the game are the purview of the GM. I certainly wouldn't want a player in my group that would try and "veto" the effects of critical hit on their character, for example, or their character facing consequences of their actions like being arrested for stealing the crown jewels or whatever. Granted, I have never actually run into a player like that, and I hope they exist more as a theoretical for the purpose of discourse rather than actual real world players.

I wasn't judging whether a player veto was right or wrong. Only that they always have it as an option, and therefore have no loss of agency.

My base assumption, and my personal experience, is that a game table has reasonable humans who are all there to help each other have a fun time. I feel that my sample size is reasonable, having played and run games for decades in both private groups and conventions.

So I don't cotton much to the white-room irrational/unreasonable player or DM scenarios.

If I'm running a game and a player tells me 'no', it's nearly always for a good reason. We have a chat and decide together what to do from there.

If a player is at my table and I tell them 'no', there is also nearly always a good reason. We have a chat and decide together what to do from there.

Everyone has agency because we're all humans playing a game.

 

[Reynard]

I wasn't judging whether a player veto was right or wrong. Only that they always have it as an option, and therefore have no loss of agency.

My base assumption, and my personal experience, is that a game table has reasonable humans who are all there to help each other have a fun time. I feel that my sample size is reasonable, having played and run games for decades in both private groups and conventions.

So I don't cotton much to the white-room irrational/unreasonable player or DM scenarios.

If I'm running a game and a player tells me 'no', it's nearly always for a good reason. We have a chat and decide together what to do from there.

If a player is at my table and I tell them 'no', there is also nearly always a good reason. We have a chat and decide together what to do from there.

Everyone has agency because we're all humans playing a game.

I think I misinterpreted your previous post. I thought you were leaning toward a discussion about safety tools or something similar. I agree wholeheartedly with your view on this. Of course everyone at the table is a person, and even if we are not familiar with one another (I run a lot of con games) I still treat you as a person.

 

[DnD Warlord]

I started playing (larp) in early 90s and in 1995 I started running 2e. Back in 90s I played and ran a lot (D&D plus other systems). I even was labeled a killer DM in early 2000s.
I have had a few dozen characters die in my games. I have only had 3 TPKs as a DM and only played through 2. So in almost 30 years that is 1 hand the number of TPKs

like Kirk I do not believe in no win sceneros. (Although my players often accuse me of having them if a fight goes past round 3 or if I drop multi party members).

bad luck happens.
dumb moves can lead to hard fights
Picking unneeded fights is the worst

when you combine all three you have lopsided battles... but I am still not used to tpks

 

[Helldritch]

I think it can be the DM's job to decide that. On a personal level, a DM can announce that they will not make it their job to decide whether TPK happens or not, and it will lead to a certain ambiance and thrill that you and many player enjoy.


Indeed! But there is more to risks than TPK and uncompromising DMs. And I say this in all respect for this play style which I myself enjoy from times to times.

1) It is clear for me that it is never the DM's job to decide when to TPK, it will happen through the actions of the PCs and to the dice. Anything else, might be considered adversarial DMing if not handled properly with a good back story as to explain why somethings happen.

2) Uncompromising DM? I would not call myself that as everything from optional rules to setting is voted upon by me and the players (of which I have twelve). I see my self as a referee that is there to adjudicate what will be the results and consequences of players' actions. Of course, I get to decide what type of adventures and challenge they will face. But the rest is entirely on their hands and the hands of fate.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Am I the only one who isn't a fan of the whole 'pick your fights', 'run away a lot' stuff?

I like... actually engaging with the actual focus of the game rules and genre. I want to take part in action, not survival horror.