D&D General Biggest DM regret

[MarkB]

On the contrary, I take the entirety of the statement - not just one bit or another - seriously since it tells us that my character could be torn apart by vicious monsters and/or my party could fail to achieve its goals and I should still have had a good time. It's very clear as to the expectation that character success or survival is not a prerequisite to fun. The game experience as a whole is what is being judged in this regard.

No it doesn't. It says that if you still had a good time, it's a win. It defines everyone having a good time as being the goal of the game - it doesn't say that doing so is always achievable, or that failing to have a good time is somehow a character flaw.

If I found myself upset at a character death to the extent that it overrides what was otherwise a good time and a memorable story, I would consider that a serious personal flaw that would demand my attention to rectify immediately. That is especially so if I was aware of the expectations the game itself sets forth before it happened. Luckily, this is not an issue for me.

That's perfectly fine, if it's just yourself that you're talking about. When you're setting that expectation for other players, especially new players who know nothing of the game's 'expectations', it's judgemental and prejudiced. Nobody has an obligation to have the same level of investment or detachment as you do when it comes to their character.

 

[Charlaquin]

OP, I think you made the best call you could have in that situation. Unless the group decides otherwise ahead of time, character death is one of the potential risks of adventuring. Everyone should know and be prepared for that possibility. And in my experience, the best way to lessen the sting of character death is to roll out in the open, and stick to the results of the rolls. Having to take it on the DM’s word that they rolled that natural 20 and maxed the damage dice sucks. Actually seeing the DM roll that natural 20 and max the damage dice might still suck, but it at least feels more fair. It is unfortunate that getting one-shotted turned that player off of the game, but I don’t think that’s your fault at all. I blame the rule that you die outright if the attack does enough damage to reduce you to 0 and still has your max HP or more left over, combined with 1st level characters having such low HP. Most of us who have been DMing 5e for any significant amount of time have had 1st level characters get one-shotted by an untimely crit, and it always feels bad. This is, in my opinion, a flaw in the rules, which can be fixed in a home game, but is sadly something you just have to deal with in Adventurer’s League.

 

[iserith]

No it doesn't. It says that if you still had a good time, it's a win. It defines everyone having a good time as being the goal of the game - it doesn't say that doing so is always achievable, or that failing to have a good time is somehow a character flaw.

Taken as a whole, I think my interpretation is correct. Yes, you can still have a bad time with or without a character dying. But the game sets forth the expectation that character success or survival is not a prerequisite to the win condition of the game, that is, having fun and creating a memorable story. A player is well-advised in my view to buy into this.

That's perfectly fine, if it's just yourself that you're talking about. When you're setting that expectation for other players, it's judgemental and prejudiced. Nobody has an obligation to have the same level of investment or detachment as you do when it comes to their character.

I'm only in control of myself, so yeah, it's just me I'm talking about. That said, I likely would not play with people whose good time is necessarily predicated on voluntarily engaging in stakes for which one of the outcomes is the ruin of their good time. That's not well thought-through in my opinion.

 

[Aldarc]

Unless you were that player, you have no basis for this assertion.

I have no basis to speculate "probably not" regarding her resulting fun? The OP seems to be under a similar persuasion. He reported that she looked dejected and did not return.

In my experience, a character death contributing to a bad time is often due to unfairness leading to that result and the actual objection is to the lack of fairness, not to the character death itself. Other issues may also be contributing to the game experience not being very fun.

IME, it varies from person to person. And key here in your statement is that "often" is not "always."

 

[MarkB]

Taken as a whole, I think my interpretation is correct. Yes, you can still have a bad time with or without a character dying. But the game sets forth the expectation that character success or survival is not a prerequisite to the win condition of the game, that is, having fun and creating a memorable story. A player is well-advised in my view to buy into this.

I'm only in control of myself, so yeah, it's just me I'm talking about. That said, I likely would not play with people whose good time is necessarily predicated on voluntarily engaging in stakes for which one of the outcomes is the ruin of their good time. That's not well thought-through in my opinion.

But do you really expect someone without prior experience to even have the capacity and context to have a well thought-through position when it comes to this?

 

[iserith]

I have no basis to speculate "probably not" regarding her resulting fun?

No, since "probably" means "almost certainly." We don't have enough details to say one way or the other. Nor does the OP, based on what has been posted, though I certainly respect his self-reflection on the matter. That's a sign of a good DM in my experience.

 

[iserith]

But do you really expect someone without prior experience to even have the capacity and context to have a well thought-through position when it comes to this?

No. My comments as to the sorts of people with whom I prefer to play were of a general nature, not about this specific person. Of course slack is cut for people who are unaware of the expectations. I'm not a monster.

 

[Aldarc]

No, since "probably" means "almost certainly." We don't have enough details to say one way or the other. Nor does the OP, based on what has been posted, though I certainly respect his self-reflection on the matter. That's a sign of a good DM in my experience.

Given that the OP knows more based upon their own experience regarding what transpired, I would say he has a better hunch than either of us.

 

[iserith]

Given that the OP knows more based upon their own experience regarding what transpired, I would say he has a better hunch than either of us.

Maybe, maybe not:

...I'll admit I'm also neurotic and self-conscious. For all I know she had a great time and just started playing home games.

 

[billd91]

The killing blow was a ranged magic attack, so KO was not technically an option.

Honestly, I don't think that matters. The rules just characterize it as an attack, not a melee attack.