IS Your GM Out To Get You (Serious)

[R_J_K75]

In 45 years, I only met one DM, who was out to get us. It was during the first years of AD&D 1e. The guy was older and a captain in the army. Playing in his game felt like an army grunt trying to survive a deadly training obstacle course.

I'm by no means sticking up for this DM, but wasn't the early days mostly about hack and slash dungeon crawls, that just strung modules together with little rhyme or reason? I remember our earliest games being like this. Was this person writing their own adventures or running modules?

 

[The Soloist]

I'm by no means sticking up for this DM, but wasn't the early days mostly about hack and slash dungeon crawls, that just strung modules together with little rhyme or reason? I remember our earliest games being like this. Was this person writing their own adventures or running modules?

Yes and no. His attitude towards us was wrong. When I took over, I wasn't belligerent but the module dungeons remained deadly. I was a neutral referee as you should RAW, he was out to get us.

 

[R_J_K75]

His attitude towards us was wrong.

I have a feeling that some people just can't grasp the concept that D&D and other RPGs are set aside from other games because it's not a game with a concise ending, or a winners or losers and it's a cooperative effort.

In the mid-90s during a 2E game I had a DM begin an adventure by declaring that a PC was going to die. Didn't say who, but it added a lot of tension to the session. No one died but it was fun, everyone played extremely paranoid that night as we thought the DM was out to get us.

 

[The Soloist]

I have a feeling that some people just can't grasp the concept that D&D and other RPGs are set aside from other games because it's not a game with a concise ending, or a winners or losers and it's a cooperative effort.

We also played war games and board games with him. He wanted to win every time, often twisting the meaning of rules or omitting a victory condition when showing us a new game. He would declare it and then say he won. A very flawed individual. We did not miss him.

 

[R_J_K75]

We also played war games and board games with him. He wanted to win every time, often twisting the meaning of rules or omitting a victory condition when showing us a new game. He would declare it and then say he won. A very flawed individual. We did not miss him.

I’ve run across people like this but to a lesser extent. As soon as this type of behavior in them comes out is when Im done playing games with them or hanging out with them period.

 

[The Soloist]

In the mid-90s during a 2E game I had a DM begin an adventure by declaring that a PC was going to die. Didn't say who, but it added a lot of tension to the session. No one died but it was fun, everyone played extremely paranoid that night as we thought the DM was out to get us.

Indeed, Ravenloft modules scared the sh:t out of the players. One of them always said 'the DM wants to kill us'. Never happened but the tension was great.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I don't think anyone finds arbitrary death fun

Is there any other kind unless the DM is actively seeking, planning to kill a PC? Characters die, it happens either because a player does something dumb, they get bad dice rolls, or they enter into a situation or combat that is above their abilities to survive.

It really does depend on your play style. In my style of play, no-one dies just because they get bad dice rolls, or just because they get in over their heads. That would be what I call arbitrary. In the style of game I run, it has to be a combination of things: Doing something you know is dangerous AND being dumb / unlucky, for example.

For me, unless a player has a chance to see that they are in danger and decide to risk it, I am taking away too much of their agency.

As a result, most of the character deaths in my games are enacted with the approval of the players. I've had characters die when ...

• ... they deliberately dived into deadly combats because they had an unhappy love life
• ... they sacrificed for the team (multiple times, very often involving explosives)
• ... their player wanted to play a new character (multiple times)
• ... they decided it would make a good story (moistly in storytelling games)

The last "unexpected" death was in my Pendragon game. I had established with the group that they were happy with the high risk of playing Pendragon, and the player adopted an aggressive stance versus some barbarians (this is a highly dangerous option). They critically failed their passion check and when downed, the healer critically failed to heal them. I asked the player if they wanted heroic GM measures to save them and they said no.

A combination of knowingly high risk activities and a lot of bad luck, but even then it was a player choice. That's about as close to arbitrary as I get.

To be clear, that's just the style I like. Not trying to claim that the arbitrary deaths you get in, for example, an Aliens campaign (which is often 2 bad rolls -> dead) is bad, just that there are other styles of play. It's a continuum where different people find fun at different points.

 

[R_J_K75]

As a result, most of the character deaths in my games are enacted with the approval of the players.

I suppose it really is a matter of what style of play one group likes. Maybe I'm not following you 100%, but I would never even consider running a game as a DM where a player gets to choose whether or not, and how their character dies. The only exception would be if they ran headlong into certain doom with the intention of sacrificing themselves, committed suicide or just wanted to play a new character. That's just not how we've ever played. I would never actively kill a character outright, but if it happens during the course of play, I wouldn't ask them if they were OK with it.

Let's say I create a corridor in a dungeon riddled with traps. The party is pretty beat up, not knowing the passage is trapped they decide to proceed down it anyway. Now obviously there's a lot of variables in this example such as whether the party is surprised, they fail to detect, remove or bypass the trap, they fail their saving throw/skill check, etc. The end result is one of the characters dies by one of the traps. I would say that their agency was still intact as they made the decision to traverse the hallway even if I don't tell them it could be trapped.

 

[TheSword]

In limited circumstances I think a DM vs players approach can work when.

• All players are good sports and don’t try to break the game
• They are running a strong well designed module.
• The module is challenging
• Everyone knows the game reasonably well and can be competent.

I think something like Rappan Athuk or Undermountain when the DM plays it straight can definitely work for a group when the DM wants to put the players through hell.

 

[aramis erak]

Is there any other kind unless the DM is actively seeking, planning to kill a PC?

Yes.
In Traveller (CT, MT, TNE, T4, T5, T20, MgT1, MgT2, Cepheus Engine), the game itself can kill your character before you even hand it to the GM for approval... And if the stats really suck, many PC's put them in the scout service in hopes of the game terminating the character so they don't have to bring it to table.

Accidental kills (crits/fumbles at key points) can happen in MANY games if the GM is proceduralist and/or refuses to alter die rolls. Rare in D&D after about 4th level in recent eds, or 6th in TSR editions... because few things will be one hit.

Player has them semi-suicide - the PC who takes risks outpacing their damage capabilities.

Player has them "Suicide by cop" - provoking a clear overpowered threat until the only setting valid response is immediate termination. (had a player do this in a Traveller game. Wasn't invited to replace them.)

GM unintentional misinterpretation of rules. (Had this happen with a poison back in the 90's. Had it happen two weeks ago in Jackals. I forgot it lacks death saves.)