DM versus Players

[Ariosto]

The game by its very nature needs ...

"What's all this 'we', paleface?" (translation: It's a whole new game.)

PC death quite reasonably could be the next thing to go. "Well, in our games we always got resurrected anyway, so this just takes out the tedium. How are you supposed to play when your character is dead? This way it's all fun all the time!"

It's no fun if you know you're always going to win without cost.

Well, there's a problem as "cost" is eliminated left and right. If significant cost were restored, then there could be interesting variations in outcomes that nonetheless all look like "winning". Otherwise, it's hot rails out Game City.

... and no fun for the DM if she knows she's always going to lose to no lasting effect at all.

The "lose" and "to no lasting effect" I don't get. The always part has got to be at least as dull for the DM as for the players, though, whatever is reduced to rote repetition.

 

[Starfox]

* Points to quiz result in my sig.

For me, this is all a matter of game style. As a storyteller, I concentrate on giving the illusion of danger, but it is very rare for someone to actually be permanently harmed in my games. Having a character disappear from the action would harm the unfolding story. But of course, this is not the only way to play. If you're a tactician, you want challenging encounters so you can show how brilliant you are. if you are a butt-kicker, you want to feel there is a challenge, but basically you want to win. Some risk is acceptable because it increase the feeling of accomplishment.

 

[BryonD]

Your gear is more valuable than any likely reward gained from tangling with the Rust Monster.

This presumes that one only tangles with a rust monster in order to get the bling behind the rust monster. Either that or they are "forced" to do so.

That doesn't resemble the game experience I seek.
Sure, getting new and better gear is an element of the fun.
But so is overcoming things when under various disadvantages, such as fearing losing gear or having lost gear.

But even more important is the character's involvement in larger than life adventure.
As you express the point of "screw those children", I really see us talking about very different ideas of what makes the fun be fun. For all I know, you are having vastly more fun than me. But it is certainly different.

You don't have to be "save the children" characters to have fun playing. That implies good guy "hero" characters only. But, to me, there must be something the characters care about or have some drive to go after. And you seem to be using "save the children" as a simple placeholder for whatever accomplishment the party is after.


A separate angle on your response is: why must every monster be something you defeat? Monsters that can only be *defeated* by "nuke for orbit" can be GREAT creatures to use. I disagree with the implication that this constitutes the only sensible response. To paraphrase a friend from around here: If the DM puts a river of acid in front of the party it does not mean that the party is expected to drink it away. And if a player concludes that this is the only sensible option, then there is a real problem in mismatch between DM and player.

A *BAD DM* can screw up a game in all kinds of ways. But I'm assuming a good DM. With a good DM, you can decimate the party's supplies and resources and then throw a seemingly (or even truly) overwhelming challenge in the party's path and still create a really fun experience. But I'm also assuming the party won't try to drink the acid and won't expect every encounter to provide a material profit.

 

[Betote]

I might have played/run too much CoC, but I've never felt that "run away very, very fast" wasn't a very viable option for "defeating" a creature

 

[Hussar]

But, there is a huge difference in approach between CoC and D&D though. In D&D, you are EXPECTED to kill the monsters. You are rewarded for killing them. Most of the character abilities, almost all the rules and certainly the basic assumption is that monsters in the Monster Manual are there to be killed.

This is certainly not true in CoC.

Jacking up the lethality of the game runs counter to what the game is about. If the game is about killing stuff, then, well, you should be killing stuff, not getting killed two or three times per session.

Now, I do believe in killing PC's. I roll 100% in the open, so, if the dice gods declare you dead, you're pushing daisies. Nor will I save PC's from player stupidity. I might give some warnings or a "Are you SURE you want to do that?" but, if the player absolutely wants to stick his head in the green demon mouth, well...

Honestly, I'm a bit in the middle. I have no real issues with whacking PC's or getting whacked. But, the level draining thing I loathed and always did. Particularly in 2e where gaining levels was SLOW. It just seemed to negate everything you did in the past several sessions.

 

[billd91]

But, there is a huge difference in approach between CoC and D&D though. In D&D, you are EXPECTED to kill the monsters. You are rewarded for killing them. Most of the character abilities, almost all the rules and certainly the basic assumption is that monsters in the Monster Manual are there to be killed.

This is certainly not true in CoC.

Actually, it is true. If you survive the experience, you get SAN back based on the SAN loss the monster can inflict. By vanquishing these freakish monsters, you achieve a certain psychological benefit.
On the other hand, most stuff is a lot harder to kill, relative to the PCs than in D&D.

Honestly, I'm a bit in the middle. I have no real issues with whacking PC's or getting whacked. But, the level draining thing I loathed and always did. Particularly in 2e where gaining levels was SLOW. It just seemed to negate everything you did in the past several sessions.

While I don't mind dangerous special abilities, I never liked level drain either. I don't like the idea of earned levels being removed. It's not good for character bookkeeping and it simply makes no sense to me. I much prefer PF's take on negative levels - a variation on 3e's that I had largely already adopted as a house rule. You don't lose an actual level, the negative level just doesn't go away (without remediation, that is).

 

[pawsplay]

But, there is a huge difference in approach between CoC and D&D though. In D&D, you are EXPECTED to kill the monsters.

*cough* No, not really. Sometimes you are expected to run. And maybe this goes back to a difference in viewpoint: in my view, there is not a huge difference in approach between CoC and D&D. Both are about adventuters who encounter monsters, whose chosen career path is ultimately likely to lead to a sticky end.

You are rewarded for killing them. Most of the character abilities, almost all the rules and certainly the basic assumption is that monsters in the Monster Manual are there to be killed.

In CoC, nothing is worse than losing Sanity (apart from sudden death, I suppose). It does not then logically follow that CoC is a game about avoiding encountering any monsters under any circumstances.

Jacking up the lethality of the game runs counter to what the game is about. If the game is about killing stuff, then, well, you should be killing stuff, not getting killed two or three times per session.

Maybe you deserved it. I'm just sayin'.

If the XP is the ultimate prize, and loot next in line, then things that threaten XP and loot are actually some of the most exciting things that could happen. Monopoly is about making money, but you can surely lose it.

I don't like level drain for a simple reason: I think forgetting Knowledge (royalty) because something drained your life force is kind of dumb. Ok, sure, it can make sense in some contexts, as some wight or whatever things your body and soul until you are an undead, but for a standard encounter, or particularly for something like a vampire, it's just not very logical. I don't obect at all to the idea that PCs can be worse off than they started... losing a level is relatively mild to losing a limb in GURPS or Warhammer, losing your Sanity in CoC, or your Humanity in Vampire.

 

[Alan Shutko]

I think a big thing we should consider is what the players want in a given game. If I want to play A-Team, where it's understood that nobody dies and we all win somehow in the end, I'm looking to get a certain experience out of it. The entertainment is the stuff that happens in the middle, but there are no lasting bad effects. If I'm looking to challenge my tactical abilities and ability to conquer truly tough battles, that's something different.

It's the difference between Demon Souls and Diablo. If the party wants Demon Souls and the DM wants it too, that's great. It sounds like a lot of people here are commenting that as a player, they want it, or that as a DM, they think it would make their players "better players" in some way if they had that kind of experience. If you want it, great. And it's true that in order to be successful at that you will have to learn and exercise different skills, so that could make you a better player. Just as if I wanted to beat Demon Souls I'd have to learn a whole lot.

But honestly, that kind of game is not one I'm interested in playing right now. I'm in for more light, escapist hijinks, and I get frustrated by games where the DM is out for more of a feel of "difficult struggles against darkness".

 

[BryonD]

But, there is a huge difference in approach between CoC and D&D though. In D&D, you are EXPECTED to kill the monsters. You are rewarded for killing them.

Actually, you are rewarding for overcoming them. "Killing" is not obligatory.

I very much agree that the implications of D&D and CoC are quite different.

But I'd also say that my game style is different than what you have described for D&D. Bad luck and player stupidity can both certainly result in PC death. But there are plenty of other scenarios where risk vs reward (reward meaning accomplishment of some objective, possibly or even probably having no bling associated) means you take calculated risks.

And there are PLENTY of monsters you are most certainly NOT expected to kill. It might be not that sticking your head in the green demon's mouth was player stupidity, it might be that engaging it in the first place was questionable. Or maybe it was just the kind of heroism that they will sing songs about for ages.

And we will recall around the table for years. Honestly, the great victories and the great deaths almost always make the "things we talk about years later" list. And every one had the potential to be the other. Take away those great deaths (not the bad luck or plain stupid deaths*) and you automatically take away the really great victories with them.


* - These are often recalled as well, but more with laughter. That is different. Still fun, but different.

 

[BryonD]

I think a big thing we should consider is what the players want in a given game.

100% agree. Everyone needs to find both a group and a system that fits their style.