Am I doing it wrong?

[El Mahdi]

No such thing.

GM'ing (and also playing) is an art, not a science. There is no such thing as a right or wrong way to do it. Their are guidelines and objectives, but in reality, there really are no rules.

However, everyone has objectives and standards for which they strive for. Our achievement of, and adherence to, these things is always a matter of degrees. We are never 100% perfect. Once you feel that there is nothing to improve, then all objectivity of your art has been lost. Keep striving to perfect your art, knowing that it will never be perfect, and enjoy the journey.

There is nothing written anywhere that says you have to "kill" characters. If you avoid it at all costs, in order to concentrate on things more important to you (i.e.: story, plot, campaign continuity, etc.), and that's the type of game your players want, then it's as "right" as anything else. If someone else prefers letting the dice land where they may (which probability wise, will eventually result in character deaths), and their players also prefer this type of game, then that is also just as "right". There are as many degrees in between these that are also just as "right". If your games have been fun and satisfying for you and your players, then you are doing it "right". Don't worry and keep having fun.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I have never killed off a character either. I have certainly challenged them, but never killed them. It doesn't serve the model of gameplay we enjoy, simple as that.

 

[roguerouge]

I read this as a fear of a TPK, at its core.

Have a TPK scenario in the back of your minds. Perhaps its something as simple as a capture and escape from imprisonment scenario. Perhaps its something as baroque as running a Ghostwalk quest or something like Goodman Games' "Escape from the Forest of Lanterns" to cheat death. In any case, that way you don't worry so much about going too far. Many mythic tales have the hero come back from a near death experience. Don't be afraid to use that.

Another alternative is to have them get captured or killed and then have them each RP one of their friends to get them back alive. That can be that they get together and run a one-shot posse rescue mission as these NPCs. Or it can be them trying to convince wealthy NPCs to put up the dosh to ressurect the PCs. Or a bit of both.

As for your first individual PC kill, make it memorable. Really make it brutal and bad-ass. If the PC repetitively fails the rolls and makes bad decisions, make it over-the-top bad. Have them be charred by that fireball, and when the PC cleric try to cure him, his touch causes the body to break up into ash and blow away. Have the paladin be yanked down by hordes of zombies and eaten alive as the PCs run away. Do your friends a favor: give them an epic death, not an ordinary one.

Ultimately, however, what makes narratives fun is consequences for failure. You don't need a TPK or an individual death for your players to be petrified of losing a combat. All you need is a sufficiently dear hostage.

 

[Betote]

I've been overprotective with my PCs for years, until something happened with my first 3.5 game. I killed a PC. It felt good. I became addicted

Nowadays, I'm what you'd call a killer DM. Almost every session, at least one PC is usually killed. Partly because they're a little reckless, partly because I don't pull any punches (I don't fudge any die roll, I play the monsters' tactics as I feel they would play them -and most monsters are dirty bastards ). I even keep little stickers on my DM screen with dead PCs' names, races, classes and levels.

We have a lot of fun this way. So I know I'm doing it right

But it really depends on you and your group. I won't be at your table, so it doesn't matter if I think you are too protective. Find your "sweet spot" and stick to it.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Am I doing it wrong? ...How should I rectify this, if at all?

If you were DMing our group, yes we would think you were doing it wrong. However, you're DMing your group, and from your responses they seem to be happy enough with how things are going.

A few questions: does your group feel the need to be highly challenged? Have you ever forced them to retreat (and/or are your group highly proficient at withdrawal from tricky situations)? Is the reason they have survived because of canny tactics or just repeated happenings of good luck or a mix thereof?

For some campaigns, it doesn't make sense for PCs to die unless under very particular circumstaces. For others (such as ours), there is an expectation that PCs are repeatedly under significant threat; character death is something we are familiar with.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Noah Ivaldi]

Everyone keeps saying that you can't be in the wrong as long as your players are having fun, and there's merit to that, but consider these angles: How comfortable are you? How much fun are you having? Could changing things up provide more fun to the players and/or you than you anticipated?

I recall a certain video that complained about how self-defeating the addition of an easy mode in a Dark Souls game was. The excerpt that I refer to is one in which the player explains this:
Some people have this silly idea that they already know everything that they like and enjoy, and anything novel will only get in the way. More "old school" gamers tend to, or tended to, perhaps, have a completely different philosophy. Trying out a different paradigm can be far more enjoyable than anticipated. In the example, the player had gotten into Dark Souls not because he enjoys a challenge, as is the hallmark of the franchise, but because he was told that the lore and production values were impressive, and others pressured him. Convinced that he, a lover of lore, would be too overwhelmed by difficulty to enjoy the game thoroughly, he gave a timid try. After overcoming initial adversity, he came to appreciate the challenge of the game, and then, he loved it. He learned to love something that he hated previously, something that he still hated in other settings.
I don't enjoy tieflings, aasimar, and other uninspired, eye-rolling demon/devil/angel/celestial-flavored characters, personally. However, for one evil party campaign, I played a horrible tiefling warlock bitch who had a pact with Abhoth, and it was loads of fun! I wouldn't like to dwell on the themes, but for that campaign, it was great.
I am easily bored by racing games, but Kirby Air Ride is the , man.

The fact that you're even asking about this means that you're open to the fact that your comfort zone is not omniscient. You need not go to the opposite extreme, as that will likely go poorly and be unsavory, but might I recommend my mentality as an alternative to try?

I deal with things realistically. I fudge nothing, but I also don't let the dice dictate the story more than I do. I look for reasons to give bonuses, penalties, advantage, disadvantage, and ways to circumvent. A die roll may help me decide between a plethora of scenarios to occur, but won't tell me that one PC is dead for sure or that the party gets a major, game-changing boon.
If my players make a mistake, I don't seek to punish them, but I adjudicate things reasonably, so consequences do tend to roll around. Just as in real life, they don't have to face the consequences of every failure, or not immediately, as things get shoved down the road, they escape and leave others holding the proverbial bag, others get blamed, what-have-you. Just as in real life, the consequences are sometimes softer or harsher than deserved, according to the personalities and motivations of those who persecute.
By the same measure, I don't give people unnecessary boosts every time that they do well. A nat 20 is a critical, not a turn of playing Superman, just as a nat 1 is a failure, not a meteor dropping onto your head. Yes, your cleric has been very faithful through your very thoughtful and intelligent RPing. Your deity conjures a common magical item, gives you an inclination of where you should go next, or gives a bit of healing; it doesn't start dropping free, daily miracles on you or slay the villain for you.
I tell people to have backup character sheets. I'm not a killer DM by any means. So far, my only administrative kills have been on my RP forum, and the two victims were entirely to blame for that one situation. Still, I don't guarantee anything. If players bite off more than they can chew, I play what they chew the way that it would logically play. If the T-rex is now pissed off and wants to kill them, it'll chase until they get away, it gets tired, or they manage to conquer the odds and beat it. If the apatosaurus is pestered by the party, but they screw off when it nearly one-shots one of them with a tail sweep, it doesn't want to bother with them; it just swatted some flies away and is going back to eating in peace. One lich may as soon kill the party as look at them, but another may be the kind that actually wants you to escape and eventually provide a challenge. When I'm not sure which to be, I may decide by die roll, or I may go easy or hard because I feel that it's healthier to the story.
I don't even give plot armor to NPCs. If I want someone to be resilient for story purposes, I design them to be resilient. If they die anyway, oh, well. That's why I make a bunch of contingencies and alternative scenarios like a good DM, rather than relying on one railroad.
Put briefly, I focus on making things go as they would go, not on coddling or brow-beating.

Maybe coddling has been just fine for you thus far. Maybe characters haven't gotten exceptionally stupid and broken your immersion, ruined the story, or ruined the mechanics of the game because the players behind them know that you're always going to be a marshmallow. Maybe everyone is totally happy with things as they are . . . but try a new paradigm, maybe with some warning, in which you let events fall as they may, and you may find yourselves getting a level of enjoyment that you didn't account for. Worth a shot, no?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

You're doing it right in this way - you're still open to questioning yourself whether you're doing it right. It means you have the interests of your players at heart and THAT is important.

I'd disagree with a few things though. It's all fine and well to say that if you're all enjoying the game then you're doing it right, but there is always the possibility of doing it BETTER. Counter-intuitive as it may seem, the complete absence of PC deaths is an issue for at least some degree of concern.

In the earliest versions of D&D PC death was almost of no concern at all. It may, at times, have even seemed like a way to keep score. If players simply managed to have a PC survive AT ALL then they had achieved something significant, and FREQUENT PC death was the NORM. With AD&D (1E and 2E) I believe that really began to change. The game had finally really begun to incorporate roleplaying as the real heart and soul of the game; the achievements and CONTINUED adventures of the player characters became more important to the ongoing success of the game than mere survival. DMing was far less about attempting to "score" the deaths of PC's by tricks and traps, by hook or by crook, and more about interesting worlds, interesting NPC's for PC's to interact with, interesting monsters to fight, and fun stories oriented around the PC's continued adventures to be played out. Think of it in terms of the TV show Survivor. The show isn't simply about, "All contestants must cross from one side of the island to the other, obtain a maguffin, and return to the starting point. Fail to do x, y, and z along the way and you LOSE." It's about the contestants backgrounds BEFORE they got to the island, the alliances they form (and break), a VARIETY of challenges that they are faced with, how well they succeed or fail at those challenges given their personal skills and abilities, and how they treat other people whether they are allied with them or not. It isn't JUST about survival. Neither is D&D - but like Survivor the game is more interesting when there are genuine consequences for failure. If the DM always ensures that the PC's NEVER die then that has a SERIOUS effect on how the game is played and enjoyed. Success tastes sweeter when you have worked hard for it, when you've EARNED it, than when it was simply given to you.

Now there's an additional complication with RPGs which is that sometimes failure is simply a random event. Sometimes you'll get into combats where the DM rolls well, the players roll poorly and suddenly - WITHOUT their having done anything particularly wrong - the PC's are about to die. Part of the enjoyment of the game - part of the SKILL of playing the game - is when players recognize that they are about to fail and that the CONSEQUENCE for that failure will be the death of their character. It is NOT supposed to be up to the DM to ALWAYS prevent their deaths. It is SUPPOSED to be up to the PLAYERS to recognize that developing threat and either take actions to overcome it or avoid it by the choices THEY make. And even then, sometimes they will not succeed and the price to be paid is the death of a PC.

But then the game has already anticipated this possibility and BUILT IN a means to take care of it. It's resurrection magic. Once PC's have survived to a certain level or whatever, then their characters achieve access to Raise Dead spells and similar magic so that when they die the consequence is not permanent like it used to be. Death still carries significant consequences but those consequences can, to a degree, be mitigated.

So, in that sense you are indeed doing it wrong.

The way to correct it, should you choose to do so, is to TALK TO THE PLAYERS. Tell them how you've been handling the issue up to this point, that it's become a concern of yours, and that you're going to CHANGE how you handle it and that at some point PC'S WILL DIE. When that happens, said players must be fully aware and accepting that this is not an attempt by you as DM to screw them over. It's an attempt to make the game they are playing more interesting and fun by increasing the ACTUAL challenge their characters face and not trying to constantly remove all lethal consequences.

Now I personally am still of the opinion that sometimes the DM might still want to surreptitiously cheat the dice or whatever to ensure that PC's survive. Dice don't run my game - _I_ run my game. Sometimes an encounter turns out far deadlier than I actually intended it to be (and that's much more likely in 1st Edition games that I run where encounter creation formulae just don't work). So, on occasion, I'll make changes on the fly to give the PC's a break and actually try NOT to kill them. My job as DM isn't to just achieve a regular rate of PC deaths. My job is to ensure that death is possible especially when it's appropriate - like when it's a consequence of the players/PC's POOR decisions. If they're making the right choices and an encounter is turning out deadlier than it's supposed to be - that's when I'll actively try to keep the PC's from dying by intentionally doing less damage, by having monsters NOT attack PC's who are already down, by choosing to have opponents break morale rather than continue to fight, by simply declaring that their attacks MISSED, etc. I don't do that very often, and in fact I REALLY TRY to avoid ever having to do it at all, but I permit myself to keep it as an option for when I want it or need it.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I'm a roll in the open guy. My reasoning is simple: it's there right in front of you, your argument is invalid. Apologies for the meme, but that's how I feel. Adventuring, to your common person, would be considered an extremely bizarre way to commit suicide.

That said, most creatures have a sense of self preservation, so the fight to the death that gets used a lot comes off as unbelievable. At the same time, I don't like it when I don't have a hope in Baator of even hitting an enemy. I notice, and don't like it, when GMs jerk me around to keep my character alive.

 

[Mallus]

How should I rectify this, if at all?

Do your players think this is a problem?

 

[Rechan]

Wow! Talk about thread necromancy.

Do your players think this is a problem?

Well, at this time I do not have players. I have not had players since 2012.

But I can report that I finally did kill a PC. He was a 3rd level striker of some sort, down in the single digits of HP, and bam, a skirmisher devil hit him to a quarter below his HP. Dead before he hit the ground.