DMs: Fight to Win or Fight for Fun?

[Destan]

I'm a bit hesitant to post this because I generally have a way of upsetting a large group of folks with my opinions, but here goes nothing!

Alright, we had a PC death the other night. The situation seems to have been correctly resolved in accordance with the rules (at least, I think it was). A PC was paralyzed by an undead creature (homebrewed creature, but think ghoul) and - on a subsequent round - was coup de grace'd.

A few of my players and a couple folks on these boards disliked my decision as the DM to execute a CDG on a downed character - especially because there were still very healthy, very active, very threatening PCs standing around. One could (quite convincingly) argue that an intelligent undead creature would not concentrate its attacks on a fallen, helpless opponent - but would rather target those PCs that remained threats.

As for me, I opted for the CDG.

***

The facts:

1) This was an intelligent (Int 13) creature. (And since my Int is 7, I'm already playing over my head when running this guy.)

2) The party had already mowed through many of the undead's buddies. The proverbial writing was on the wall. The PCs would "win", eventually.

3) The party was engaged in plundering the undead creatures' burial chamber. Their home, so to speak.

4) The undead creature saw an opportunity to "take one of the invaders down with him" and took it.

5) Other than the CDG-delivering (badly wounded = 4 hp) undead, there was only one other undead creature still standing (out of an orginal grouping of six).

***

So, I guess the question here is: Was I incorrect to deliver a CDG in this situation? I understand the type of question can only be interpreted by peoples' opinions, and that's fine. I'm interested to hear what those opinions are.

Normally I take my kids to Dairy Queen and buy flowers for my wife whenever I kill a character. It's cause for celebration. But I felt a bit badly about this one, especially when some of my players (whose opinions I respect greatly) sorta gave me the ol' "Ahh...you sure that's what he'd do?" look.

I guess what it comes down to is that when I'm playing baddies I usually try to play them as well as I can. I try to inject motivations and emotion into their actions. Sometimes this may mean they run away, even if there's still hope for defeating the PCs. Sometimes it means, as in this case, that they just want to take down one of their enemies if they can before it all ends.

This question - To Kill or Not To Kill - sorta transcends this situation. As a DM, especially in higher-level play, I've found myself sitting behind the screen wondering if I should go after a wounded, helpless, or exposed PC...or whether I should ignore him and concentrate on greater threats that are still around. For me, I make that determination based upon the type of creatures I'm running in that encounter.

I think, like most topics that get raised on these boards, it depends on the group at hand. If you're playing with a group that wants challenged and wants "realism" - even if it means naughty DM tricks like CDG's - then you're good to go with this approach. If you're playing with a group that would prefer "heroism" over "realism", then it'd be best to not get too deadly.

Anyway, I'm not knocking either side of the question. Again, I think we may have guys in both camps in my own gaming group. Ultimately, I want to do what will be the most enjoyable for the most people.

I'd like to hear what you do as a DM, or what you prefer as a player. And, yes, feel free to slam me for my decision. I'm pretty sure it can't get as bad as it did when I brought up cross-gender PCs. At least, that's my hope.

D

 

[Crothian]

YA, he'd have done the CDG. THe game is deadly and the PCs need to know this. And with raise dead beign so common its not like its that big of a deal. Soi, I see nothing wrong with what you did.

 

[Destan]

What if raise dead were not so common? (I limit resurrection availability quite a bit...)

 

[Crothian]

What if raise dead were not so common? (I limit resurrection availability quite a bit...)

Then I salute you and still think its a good idea. Characters die, smart villians need to act smart.

 

[Hand of Evil]

A good death is not a bad thing for a character, plus death is not the end-all in D&D, people come back, just don't go out of your way to kill your players or the game becomes US vs DM. You just have to script/arch-type your villians, a henchman will not act like a mastermind, a madman may, etc.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

CDGs are always tough. Heroes will use them like there's no tomorrow whereas they seem to act like you just did something nasty to their favorite album when it happens to them. Though, I think they may have a point.

Honestly its hard to say. Do you let it be known that the campaign is deadly? Do characters die a lot? Or was this kind of a suprrise?

The other night I ran a game where a character was down and I made a point of mentioning to others that some creatures were moving toward the downed friend with a look of evil determination (*hint hint*) I felt that was a fair enough warning they had best do something.

 

[ForceUser]

Then I salute you and still think its a good idea. Characters die, smart villians need to act smart.

I agree with Crothian 100%. PCs need to respect death; without fear of death, they won't respect your monsters.

Welcome to the club! Just wait until your first TPK!

 

[francisca]

I personally would have had the creature turn to attack the other PCs, but that's just my particular strategy. Nothing wrong with you CDG, in my opinion.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I remember the "freak-out" reaction I got from the party when a monster CDG'd a PC. It certainly violated the boundaries of what the players were expecting.

Of course, what I was doing was demonstrating that death wasn't permanent in the world they were visiting, so that reaction was pretty much what I wanted.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I'm a bit hesitant to post this because I generally have a way of upsetting a large group of folks with my opinions, but here goes nothing!

You've upset me! I'm upset! And I'm big enough to be a large group all by myself!

I'll find a reason to be upset eventually. But this is the internet, I can take my time with that.

So, I guess the question here is: Was I incorrect to deliver a CDG in this situation? I understand the type of question can only be interpreted by peoples' opinions, and that's fine. I'm interested to hear what those opinions are.

Buy the wife flowers and take the kids to Dariy Queen, but no ice cream for you.

What's wrong with you saying: "Hmmmm. OK, pal, the ghoul is going to want to make sure you stay down, but he's not giving up on the other PCs. With one talon-like finger he hamstrings your right leg and uses the rest of his action to advance on the party. You'll need a restore/regenerate/whatever spell to heal up properly and in the meantime you have a permenant -10' movement penalty.

If your buddy protests, point to the CDG rules and ask him if he really wants you to play by the book.

More limbs need to get lopped off in this game. A partial round action to do that instead of CDG would go a long way to making players miserable improving the rules.

I'm pretty sure it can't get as bad as it did when I brought up cross-gender PCs.

Well if you would stop wearing Wonder Woman underoos when you post, we'd go easier on you.