Am I doing it wrong?

[Rechan]

I have been DMing for just about eight years now.

In that time, I have never killed a PC.

In the past, I have usually wimped out, to the extent of changing an NPC's action in combat when I knew that one of the PCs would die from it. But as time passes, especially with the new edition, I'm starting to get concerned.

I've never racked in a kill. Sure, dropped below 0, but the lack of a kill is now starting to make me wonder if I'm doing something wrong, either from encounter design, or not being strict enough, not going for the throat (attacking PCs while they're dieing, etc).

The "doing it wrong" is a bit of a stretch, I know; there's far more important things to DM than putting a notch in your belt for all your fatalities, but I do wonder if there is something missing from my style. If anything, it is at least a DM cherry (well, the REAL milestone is a TPK, but still).

How should I rectify this, if at all?

 

[Phaezen]

I have been DMing for just about eight years now.

In that time, I have never killed a PC.

In the past, I have usually wimped out, to the extent of changing an NPC's action in combat when I knew that one of the PCs would die from it. But as time passes, especially with the new edition, I'm starting to get concerned.

I've never racked in a kill. Sure, dropped below 0, but the lack of a kill is now starting to make me wonder if I'm doing something wrong, either from encounter design, or not being strict enough, not going for the throat (attacking PCs while they're dieing, etc).

The "doing it wrong" is a bit of a stretch, I know; there's far more important things to DM than putting a notch in your belt for all your fatalities, but I do wonder if there is something missing from my style. If anything, it is at least a DM cherry (well, the REAL milestone is a TPK, but still).

How should I rectify this, if at all?

Don't stress too much about it, at the end of the day if you and your players are having fun then you are doing it right.

I think the best thing to do is let the game take its course. If the pc death feels like it could be arbitrary fudge things a bit. If it happens in a climtatic fight and the pc is going out in a blaze of glory then the chances are the player will remember the session more fondly than just getting randomly ganked by some monster they encountered in a swamp getting to theruined temple.

Phaezen

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yes, you're doing it wrong.

In all seriousness, all play styles are equally valid so long as you and your players are having fun. Personally, though, I find that the rewards of play are higher when there is a real element of risk -- there must be a concrete risk of PC death. It keeps player actions in check, and adds real value to eeking out a win in dire circumstances.

My personal approach is to roll all dice in the open and let the rolls fall where they may, not pulling punches. The opponents might not always play for optimal tactics, and only a few look to coup de grace fallen PCs, but the players know the risk is there.

 

[Ydars]

Ask yourself this question; are you serving the needs of your players? If the answer is yes, then you aren't doing anything wrong.

Now consider this; could you make the game more challenging and would this be more fun for your players?

Again if the answers come out as yes and yes or if you don't know, try a one-shot, one night where you roll up first level characters and really "go for the jugular". Let the PCs know beforehand that you will let the dice fall where they may and play this way so they are prepared. Maybe you could run one battle as a practise before the main event to get them used to the new level of violence. Now play your monsters as they would really react if they were real; this means running away but it also means killing characters who are down, especially if they are non-intelligent monsters wanting some chow. Let the monsters gang up and concentrate fire. You are not trying to kill the characters as DM, you are just playing the monsters with integrity, much as the players are.

After this session (bloodbath?) ask your players if they enjoyed it and what you could port across to your long running normal game. If they howl with fear then you know that is not the right thing to do but if they all nod eagerly then you know it is time to take the gloves off. The first time you run a game this way could be a shock, both for you and the players. I would try it several times before you give up on it. We used to call this kind of play "the bloodbowl".

There is no right or wrong way to play D&D if people are having fun. Sure, you may not be playing the way some people play but if it works, don't try to fix it.

 

[Zsig]

As long as your players don't get the feeling that they're unchallenged and that no matter what they do they'll always live to see another day, I don't think you're doing anything wrong.

 

[Rechan]

As long as your players don't get the feeling that they're unchallenged and that no matter what they do they'll always live to see another day

That is part of my concern. They aren't acting that way, but things haven't been overtly lethal or very dangerous yet, so I don't want to foster this sense of being bulletproof.

For some reason, in various combats, usually the PCs just chew through the opposition.

Although I will note I always roll dice in the open, unless it's secret DM dice rolling for surprise effects and stealth.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As long as your players don't get the feeling that they're unchallenged and that no matter what they do they'll always live to see another day, I don't think you're doing anything wrong.

Good advice here. If your players don't have thier characters act foolishly because they know that they cannot die, you are doing fine. If you find yourself having to regularly pull punches to save character lives then you might not be doing your players any favors.

Playing skills are never honed without dire consequences arising from stupid choices.

 

[Syrsuro]

You're doing it Wrong!

Seriously, it all depends on how much of a stretch it is to keep the players alive and how they feel about it.

The real problem with this is that the players eventually figure it out.

So it all depends on whether you never kill them, but occasionally come close so that they feel as if their survival is due to luck and good play OR you never kill them, even if they do stupid and foolhardy things so that they feel as if their survival is meaningless.

And we can't tell that from your post. But the best solution is to ask your players how they feel about it. Do they feel that the risk is there, but manageable or do they feel that there really is no risk at all? Are they bored by the 'safety' of the world, or do they feel that this frees them to play non-optimal characters and focus on roleplaying? If someone did happen to die now, would they see this as the odds having finally caught up with them, or would they feel as if a DM-player contract had been violated?

In short - you shouldn't be asking us. You should be asking your players.

But my gut reaction is that if you are doing it as obviously as it sounds, you are doing it wrong. I admit - it's hard to kill players, especially under the earlier system when death penalties were harsher than they are in 4E. I've pulled a few punches (I think I counted four times in the last year under 3.5, not yet under 4E) and they were mostly cases where I changed a crit into a non-crit when I knew that the crit would have killed the player (not just knocked him negative). But the characters still went down - they just didn't go down and out.

And no one has died in the last year (both 3.5 and 4E). But they have often come close (I had one player down to his last death save in 4E, forcing three players to coordinate their actions to manage to get a potion from the player at the far side of the room to the downed player and into the player in that last round to save him. For whatever reason that player just cannot manage to roll a death save. Ever.). So although they haven't died yet, the threat of death is always there. (And I, too, often look at my kill ratios back in the days of OD&D/1stAD&D and wonder whether the lack of deaths means I'm being too easy on them. But I think that represents a change in the system/hobby not a change in me alone).

That said:

I'd probably stop changing NPC actions just to keep them alive. The PCs should be doing whatever is most logical for them at the time.

I'd consider beefing up the encounters. Most well balanced groups can easily handle level+1 or level+2 so if you are sticking to encounters of their level, you probably should up it a bit.

I"m not sure what 'not strict enough' means, but generally I try to stick to the intent of the rules and not let the players get away with too much. But at the same time, I am trying to encourage 'out of the box' thinking and the "Say 'Yes, but...'" philosophy.

I wouldn't 'go for the throat' and attack players when they are down. I've told my players that, in general, opponents won't do that although bursts and blasts may still hit them and some opponents may specifically be written to go for downed opponents over living ones (especially animals who try to eat their prey).

And remember - defeat need not mean death. Some opponents may leave the party alive but beaten, captured, looted, etc. This allows you to have your cake (defeat the party) and eat it (the party survives) too. And it can be used as a tie in to future adventures (revenge is a powerful motive).

Carl

 

[Phaezen]

That is part of my concern. They aren't acting that way, but things haven't been overtly lethal or very dangerous yet, so I don't want to foster this sense of being bulletproof.

For some reason, in various combats, usually the PCs just chew through the opposition.

Although I will note I always roll dice in the open, unless it's secret DM dice rolling for surprise effects and stealth.

Try turning the gain up slightly on the odd encounter,increase one or two opponents level by one, small things like that to see what happens. Try this gradually, not with every encounter, but every third or fourth and with boss fights.

Also throw in the odd strange encounter to keep your players in thier toes. Encounter zones, natural hazzards, forest fires and things like that to keep things interesting and your players thinking.

Phaezen

 

[Orryn Emrys]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with running games where nobody dies, particularly if you're all having a good time, but I'd be remiss if I didn't share what I have gleaned from my own experiences.

I've been DMing for about 20 years. In the early (Monty Haul) days, character death wasn't overly relevant. Characterization was minimal, so all the player was losing was the clump of stats he'd worked on for the prior however-many-months... he'd just bring in a new one. But some time during the early 90's, I noted a shift in play-style inspired by an injection of new blood into my standard group... they were becoming *gasp* roleplayers.

Over the next few years, as I got consistently more addicted to my players' investment in their characters as people, I became ever more reluctant to allow characters to die. I took some pains to create the opposite illusion, fudging to save characters from certain death whilst letting them freak out as they lingered within a couple of hit points of demise in the midst of a dangerous fight. But eventually, gradually, my players got wise to the situation. Most of them never really seemed to lose their edge, but a couple (and it only takes a couple) began to behave in a manner that demonstrated that they believed themselves relatively invincible. They were more willing to take ridiculous risks.

On the surface, this doesn't seem so bad... it led to some over-the-top heroics, feats of derring-do, etcetera... but it also led to outright recklessness. When it finally struck me that this was all my fault, I reacted kinda badly. I became a killer DM for a short time.

I eventually found my balance. I do still occasionally take steps to avoid pointless death, but I try never to avoid it when it counts. Character death should, I think, be an acceptable risk of play, and is a vital component of the risk/reward element of the fundamental challenges of D&D. Players who never dread the potential expiration of their characters are less capable of truly appreciating their survival and hard-won accomplishments. I've consistently seen some of the most extraordinary bonding between players and their characters during moments when they were mere inches from death, desperately trying to survive against suddenly overwhelming odds.

I hate it when a PC dies. Nowadays my players are so intricately involved with their characters... their lives, their needs, their personal agendas... that when a PC dies, it damages the mood of the session. I've had to develop a set of coping tools to try and keep things moving in such an event, but I don't keep it from happening.

Though I do try to make it dramatic.

It sounds like this is more of a circumstantial issue for you, having simply never been through it. I wouldn't honestly suggest altering your play-style significantly to start killing PCs, but you might consider a little experimentation. If a fight seems to have a certain dramatic potential, and your players are into it (or could be, if its simply a matter of getting their attention), and a PC is engaged in a very dangerous situation, you might drive the character to the brink... and see how the player reacts. Find out if the assumption of a suddenly inescapable demise is enough to engage the player more than they've ever been.

If you can subtly help them survive in a situation where they honestly believe they're about to die, you might find your players taking a renewed interest in their characters' survival.