DM Schticks That Grind Your Gears

[shilsen]

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.

Fair enough. I think you're missing, however, that death isn't the only meaningful consequence for a misstep. I run two Eberron campaigns where death really isn't an option, since PCs can use action pts to change a killing blow into one that reduces them to -9 and stable. But combat is just as fun and exciting as in games I've run (or played in) where death is a possibility, for a few reasons. One is that even if PCs don't die, if they lose there are all sorts of nasty repercussions, including loss of equipment, being kidnapped, failing at something important to the PCs, etc. And one should never forget the simple issue that players just hate the embarrassment of their PCs having their asses handed to them.

Incidentally, taking death out of the equation isn't necessarily due to narrative protection. In my case, it began because I had a group of people who really, really hated creating and introducing new PCs. Since the campaigns have very low and almost no availability of resurrection magic, and also happen to be very heavily character-driven, with the current narrative arising out of the characters' choices rather than because of an overarching DM vision, it's just much easier not to have characters die.

 

[Shade]

One thing that bugs me is when DMs hand out extra "roleplaying xp" to the players who just happened to talk a lot in the game. Fine, they are roleplaying. But please don't overlook the fact that many players have "silent/moody/mysterious/unobtrusive" character concepts. Shouldn't they get bonus xp for roleplaying a character who isn't blabbing all the time?

Me too! In fact, I hate "roleplaying xp" altogether. It's just too subjective.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I hate to kill off PCs at inopportune times. But I'll do it. Especially in D&D. Why? The party has access to resurrection magic, either directly or through allies (they do have allies, right?). I'll generally let the players decide if they should spend the time/energy/magic to go get Ted ressed now or wait until later. Can they beat the BBEG without Ted? As far as the player, IMC there are 2-3 cohorts that Ted's Player can run if they decide to forge on without him.

As a player I hate to be the guy sidelined but I absolutely, totally, diaglo-hat-of-d20 hate it when my character's survival is totally story based. Face it, the same DM who'll make sure players survive any intervening encounter before the climax is likely to kill off PCs who threaten his big finale. It's a railroad either way. Nah, If I can't jump beneath the wheels of this bus there's no way I'm able to drive it.

I've got more sympathy for the position in "no res" settings. But standard 3x? No real excuse. Too many ways for an ally to divine "bad thing happened to Ted, send scroll of raise dead to party", the PCs to find a temple and say "ask your god how bad things will get if we don't do this thing we need Ted for", or have some other setting-appropriate deus ex machina: "An angel appears, wings blazing with brilliant energy. 'I am the guardian of last ditch efforts. Your foes have summoned powers that upset the cosmic balance. I can restore Ted and the balance but nothing more. Your fate is fully in your own hands and the Gods will watch with interest.'"

 

[IcyCool]

Nah, If I can't jump beneath the wheels of this bus there's no way I'm able to drive it.

Well, you certainly can't jump beneath the wheels of the bus while you're driving it.

But standard 3x? No real excuse. Too many ways for an ally to divine "bad thing happened to Ted, send scroll of raise dead to party", the PCs to find a temple and say "ask your god how bad things will get if we don't do this thing we need Ted for", or have some other setting-appropriate deus ex machina: "An angel appears, wings blazing with brilliant energy. 'I am the guardian of last ditch efforts. Your foes have summoned powers that upset the cosmic balance. I can restore Ted and the balance but nothing more. Your fate is fully in your own hands and the Gods will watch with interest.'"

So if death isn't a big issue, why is lack of it such a big issue? Is it like air? You only miss it when it's gone?

 

[The Shaman]

Fair enough. I think you're missing, however, that death isn't the only meaningful consequence for a misstep.

That's true whether or not there is narrative or some other form of character protection going on. My point is, rather than fudge the dice, design encounters that provide consequences other than death should the characters fail. This keeps the decision making where it belongs: with the players and their characters.

Incidentally, taking death out of the equation isn't necessarily due to narrative protection. In my case, it began because I had a group of people who really, really hated creating and introducing new PCs.

Why?

Since the campaigns have very low and almost no availability of resurrection magic, and also happen to be very heavily character-driven, with the current narrative arising out of the characters' choices rather than because of an overarching DM vision, it's just much easier not to have characters die.

Most of the games I run have no resurrection. It makes players smart or characters dead, and that's the way I like it.

That doesn't make any of them less character-driven or roleplay-intensive. Your. Mileage. May. Vary.

 

[The Shaman]

Do you not use the CR system at all then?

Nope. I wing it.

 

[IcyCool]

That's true whether or not there is narrative or some other form of character protection going on. My point is, rather than fudge the dice, design encounters that provide consequences other than death should the characters fail.

Well, there's an entire system for encounters in place that WotC gives to DMs (and it focuses heavily on death as a consequence). The only thing that pops to mind for encounters with consequences other than death are non-trap, non-combat, non-threatening encounters. In short, a roleplaying encounter without death as a consequence. Those are great. And safe. But eventually the characters are going to want to do more (most likely combat), and that sort of encounter has death as a consequence.

Most of the games I run have no resurrection. It makes players smart or characters dead, and that's the way I like it.

So long as your players like it as well, then it sounds like you're set.

That doesn't make any of them less character-driven or roleplay-intensive. Your. Mileage. May. Vary.

Correct. Just like dice-roll fudging doesn't make combat any less intense or entertaining.

 

[IcyCool]

Nope. I wing it.

Well, there you are then.

 

[sniffles]

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.

Yes, I agree with you completely. I have another GM who resists causing PC death not because he has an overarching plot that hinges around the specific PCs, but because he just doesn't like dealing with change. It's much more irritating in that situation. It makes me want to start suiciding my characters just to shake things up, which is a bad place to be.

 

[The Shaman]

I have another GM who resists causing PC death not because he has an overarching plot that hinges around the specific PCs, but because he just doesn't like dealing with change. It's much more irritating in that situation. It makes me want to start suiciding my characters just to shake things up, which is a bad place to be.

Ugh.