DM Schticks That Grind Your Gears

[The Shaman]

I'm not sure I see how this relates to what I was saying. I didn't say characters should be protected. I said that there are reasons why allowing a new character in may not be appropriate. How those who are left get to the end may be important to both the players and the DM.

Since my post you responded to initially was specifically about introducing new characters in the event of a character dying before the "big finale", I would have to say that your reply was a tangent that had nothing to do with what me and Keifer113 were discussing.

Huh? Not allowing a new character to enter the game near campaign end is not "fudging the dice".

What Keifer113 suggested is that it is better to fudge the dice and keep a character alive to avoid upsetting the plot with a character death that isn't meaningful - again, you're responding to something without regard for the context in which it was first posted.

 

[Jubilee]

Every NPC is an obnoxious, sarcastic jerk

Doesn't matter who you're talking to - the recently deceased assassin your party just killed, the talking cloak, the mysterious patron of your adventures, the city council, someone at the bar... - they're all the same, obnoxious, sarcastic, unhelpful jerk - no matter how high your intimidate or diplomacy might be.

 

[sniffles]

If getting everyone to the "big bang" at the end is so important, then why pretend that the characters will face any chance at all of being killed off or otherwise taken out of play? Why not just cut straight to that big wrap-up and get on with it?

As a player in a campaign in which the GM is reluctant to let PCs die because he has a big finale in mind, I defend his style for this reason: sometimes the journey is just as much fun as the destination.

 

[The Shaman]

As a player in a campaign in which the GM is reluctant to let PCs die because he has a big finale in mind, I defend his style for this reason: sometimes the journey is just as much fun as the destination.

Fair 'nough.

If it's fun to go through the motions, facing encounters that are meant to appear dangerous to the characters but really offer no meaningful consequences for missteps, then more power to you. Putting the narrative ahead of the game is certainly one way to play.

It is, however, anaethema to my own preferences when I play.

I hope that game masters are upfront about this with their players - if story protection is in place, then let the players know at the outset, so they can decide if that's really the game experience that they're looking for or not.

 

[IcyCool]

Fair 'nough.

If it's fun to go through the motions, facing encounters that are meant to appear dangerous to the characters but really offer no meaningful consequences for missteps, then more power to you. Putting the narrative ahead of the game is certainly one way to play.

You know, just because the GM will be keeping alive during those last few encounters, it doesn't mean he isn't draining your resources before the "final battle". There's plenty of danger and tension when you know that the disintegrate that you just used on the BBEG's left-hand man was your last, and you are down to half hp when the BBEG shows up.

 

[Agent Oracle]

As a player in a campaign in which the GM is reluctant to let PCs die because he has a big finale in mind, I defend his style for this reason: sometimes the journey is just as much fun as the destination.

Absolutely true! however, sometimes...

Well, once, A good friend of mine was DMing, she killed her boyfriend's PC during one fight, and it clearly shook her up rather badly. Every time after that, suddenly, the group was immortal. If we were low on HP, the Baddies would bug out, or be routed by a GMPC. I wasn't sure if this was overt favoritisim or just her playstyle. So I experimented for a bit. I stopped talking about my hit points, alltogether. Never asked for healing, never told anyone what condition I was in (I was sick of the character I had created anyway, he was poorly concieved and his "wish" that he had been told to make in the first game session (post rollup, pre-well-concieved background) was annoying me to no end. I Just waanted him to die. I regained hp each night, only. After a full week of flirting with death, he FINALLY was dropped by a first-round sneak attack from a NPC (with a better background than I had). and i was cheering that he had hit -10 hp. The GM has a GMPC npc run up and lay a Cure Serious Wounds on me, restoring me to a significant fraction of health. apparently I couldn't die in a minor skirmish.

 

[The Shaman]

You know, just because the GM will be keeping alive during those last few encounters, it doesn't mean he isn't draining your resources before the "final battle".

I admit the whole concept of "draining resources" is a bit weird to me. I don't plan my encounters around reducing hit points or using up prepared spells.

I assume that the players' characters will either press on if their estimation of the situation demands it, or fall back and return later when they are rested and ready. Either way the encounters are what they are - it's up to the players to decide how to procede, not me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know, just because the GM will be keeping alive during those last few encounters, it doesn't mean he isn't draining your resources before the "final battle". There's plenty of danger and tension when you know that the disintegrate that you just used on the BBEG's left-hand man was your last, and you are down to half hp when the BBEG shows up.

Though that does beg the question why you are using that last disintegrate if you know you'll survive the encounter anyway.

 

[merelycompetent]

So, how much would that bug you?

Moderately, but not a game-breaker for me. When I'm playing, half the fun is pulling off a really heroic move or scene and getting credit for it, or out-thinking the trap/puzzle/situation and earning the rewards. XP is part of that credit, a way of acknowledging that my character has exceeded the normal limits. If I'm having fun, and my character's still advancing in power/success at a rate commensurate with the risks my character faces, then I don't mind a flat XP award. It does, however, make me less likely to take physical risks with my character, and more likely to pursue role-playing quests for power and glory - instead of risking my character's neck in battle. If the rewards of success are reflected in the game (such as more secular power, more influence within the city/country/empire, or more allies), then I'm happy. On the other hand, if I just saved the Prince's only heir, again, and all I got was a T-shirt, I'm not going to be happy.

Frankly, though, after a week at work, I'm ready to massacre evil-doers and get showered in wealth and power (and likely to lose the wealth only slightly slower than it was acquired). Even if it is by proxy in a fantasy game.

 

[IcyCool]

I admit the whole concept of "draining resources" is a bit weird to me. I don't plan my encounters around reducing hit points or using up prepared spells.

Do you not use the CR system at all then?

Though that does beg the question why you are using that last disintegrate if you know you'll survive the encounter anyway.

It's a choice, to be sure. Do I use that disintegrate in the hopes that the party has more hitpoints? Or do I save the disintegrate and let the monster(s) eat up a bunch of hitpoints?