DMs are too easy on their players

[Teflon Billy]

While I disagree with the way the point was made I DO agree with one thing especially in regards to some posts that I read on this board. When I read things along the line of "well, I try not to have character deaths in my game because that's no fun for the players" it makes me wonder if, well I'm just old. Because I just always assumed that death was part of the risk of adventuring and playing the game. TO ME it's like people griping about being sent back a few paces while playing TROUBLE, or losing your Knights or Queen while playing chess or landing on Park Place or Boardwalk when there are hotels on them. It's part of the risk when you play the game. Of course as a player you try to minimize that risk and it's up to the DM to set the tone of the game at the beginning (if your playing a political game then death has a higher crimp factor than a default adventure game).

Also I find (and this is just my experience, mind you) that when you challenge your players they tend to rise to the occasion. Even if they fail and escape with their lives the challenge is usually enough to motivate them to return or is impressive enough to make them stay away for a while at least. Some of my older players have wandered into situations after flat out ignoring hints that the threat might be too much for them and through planning and resourcefulness did better than I would have expected.

To me D&D is a GAME first and not an exercise in storytelling. That being said some of the best games that I've been part of as a player and as a DM is where things developed on their own and there was a very real element of danger. When you mollycoddle your players it pretty much neuters that danger and for me, the fun.

Now that was well-put

 

[Mouseferatu]

That's my feeling as well. When I heard that 3.0 was going to be striving for "Balance", my I was overjoyed, but really all I was wanting (and expecting) was a basically equal power level amongst the PC classes.

I don;t really need (or want) the EL system, I'm not certain what was so idealized about a party of 4 being able to get through an encounter with 25% of their resources gone.

I think the CR/EL system is a fantastic tool for eyeballing the difficulty of a fight based on the level and size of the party. It's something that was woefully lacking in prior editions; you could sort of use XP value for the same thing, but that was even more of a guessing game than the current system.

That said, I rarely throw the PCs against "CR-appropriate" encounters, and I won't play with someone who assumes/demands that they have the "right" to fights of a certain difficulty.

IOW, I use the CR/EL system as a measuring stick, to make sure I don't accidentally slaughter the group, but I do not use it as either a safety net or a means of restricting my options.

 

[Ahzad]

While I disagree with the way the point was made I DO agree with one thing especially in regards to some posts that I read on this board. When I read things along the line of "well, I try not to have character deaths in my game because that's no fun for the players" it makes me wonder if, well I'm just old. Because I just always assumed that death was part of the risk of adventuring and playing the game. TO ME it's like people griping about being sent back a few paces while playing TROUBLE, or losing your Knights or Queen while playing chess or landing on Park Place or Boardwalk when there are hotels on them. It's part of the risk when you play the game. Of course as a player you try to minimize that risk and it's up to the DM to set the tone of the game at the beginning (if your playing a political game then death has a higher crimp factor than a default adventure game).

Also I find (and this is just my experience, mind you) that when you challenge your players they tend to rise to the occasion. Even if they fail and escape with their lives the challenge is usually enough to motivate them to return or is impressive enough to make them stay away for a while at least. Some of my older players have wandered into situations after flat out ignoring hints that the threat might be too much for them and through planning and resourcefulness did better than I would have expected.

To me D&D is a GAME first and not an exercise in storytelling. That being said some of the best games that I've been part of as a player and as a DM is where things developed on their own and there was a very real element of danger. When you mollycoddle your players it pretty much neuters that danger and for me, the fun.

QFT!! Amen brother!

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Deleted for snark.

 

[Lanefan]

Not to the players, there isn't.

From the players' perspective, behind Door A is a DM that's out to get them, and behind Door B is a DM that's out to get them. The fact that DM B only pretends to be out to get them is irrelevant to the players - the end result is the same.

And that's what makes the game fun...that there's a (perceived) real challenge to it every now and then, and that characters and even whole parties *can* die if they're unwise or unlucky; the corollary to this is the fun of doing less-than-wise things and getting away with it anyway.

If I know that pretty much no matter what I do with my character it's going to live because the DM hasn't got the chops to kill it (or has a story that is completely dependent on certain characters' survival) then I'm going to get mighty bored mighty fast...a bad thing for all concerned.

Lanefan

 

[clarkvalentine]

Is it so hard to conceive that different people have different preferred play styles?

Personally I prefer games that aren't wall-to-wall combat where death is around every corner.

Others do.

Life goes on.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Okay, I realize that people tend to think in dichotomies--if something's not X, it's Y; if someone's not with me, he's against me--but come on!

This entire discussion has devolved into the assumption that there are only two options: Either the DM is constantly threatening the characters with horrible death every moment, or the entire campaign is a cake-walk where every PC has "plot protection" from anything worse than a stubbed toe.

I'd be a lot more interested in a discussion that took into account the enormous range of options between those two extremes, a range into which (I would wager) the overwhelming majority of games actually fall. You know, those games where death and failure are real and tangible threats, but not exactly common? In which story and character development occur without the benefit of plot protection, and where the dice are still permitted to fall where they may?

But every time it appears such a discussion may appear, it's suddenly crushed to death beneath another round of "You're a killer DM!" "Yeah, well your games have no challenge and you coddle your players!" accusation.

Bleah.




(Yes, I do feel like crap today. Why do you ask?)

 

[Mouseferatu]

And Edena, people would take your arguments, and your examples, a lot more seriously if you actually used the rules of the game you were trying to discuss. Just a thought to consider for next time.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Just want to say that the original post struck me as utterly ridiculous and the kind of game I would immediately get up from the table from and walk out the door. Yeah, I've had that kind of DM before, too. He got his kicks off of killing PCs... several each session. And, yeah, it became a game of "OK. What character should I bring in this week? What does the party need?" Not that I don't like a really challenging game. I do. But run competently.

All of the things mentioned in the OP about how you would run a game are almost the qualities of a challenging DM. I say almost because you seem to miss the point about what a balanced game is all about. You are SUPPOSED TO throw overpowering encounters at your party about 5% of the time. SUPPOSED TO... meaning it's not just that you are a cool hardcore bad ass DM for doing this sometimes. And 15% of the time you're supposed to throw encounters at your group that have an EL 1-4 times higher than your party's level. These are the ones that really kill PCs because they are deceptively challenging. We're talking high level monk kobolds, sorcerers, or barbarians kind of deceptive. These kind of encounters kill at least half of the party... nearly all the time. 50% of the encounters should be on a level with the party and they are supposed to be challenging. NOTE: challenging in the DMG doesn't mean push over encounters. Even these are deadly when you run them effectively and consistently and your players make stupid decisions or are just poorly prepared for them. 20% of the time you should have encounters that are lower than the party's level (anywhere from 1-5 lower than the party level), but if the PCs don't figure out the trick to handling it the "easy way", it can turn deadly or force them to flee. Then only 10% of the time you are supposed to run easy encounters that have an EL lower than the party's level.

It's also worth noting that a good challenging game doesn't have to always be combat and shouldn't. How boring. PCs should be challenged with difficult role-playing situations, puzzles to make those brain juices flow, and mystery solving situations as well.

If you actually play by the rules, your game should be just as tough as can be. Note: the DMG described this kind of balance as part of a "well-constructed" adventure.

 

[Umbran]

Deleted for snark.

Thank you. A few others here have been less discriminating.

Folks, a few of you have decided to disagree, but are doing so without adding substance to the discussion. If you don't like a thing, that's great, but why not add a little support and substance to your position? Coming into the thread, and being negative without that is what we call threadcrapping - we ask you to resist the urge to engage in it.