DMs: Fight to Win or Fight for Fun?

[Kelleris]

Well, my experiences have been very nearly the opposite (though I haven't DMed for as long as you have) - games where I made sure there were other things to worry about besides/in addition to dying were better than ones that I played in a more hands-off style. You've been DMing for longer than I, though, and in any case this aspect of the game definitely needs a YMMV sticker.

My main concern in this thread is that people don't equate little risk of dying with little risk, period.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Me too....I merely assume that what might be somewhat more enjoyable right now might make the game a whole lot less enjoyable a year from now.

I have to agree wholeheartedly. Killing a PC might be a bummer for a while, but it makes the game more exciting in the long run. When the players know you're going to kill their PCs should the situation arise, the game becomes much more satisfying when they defeat their enemies. Sometimes they die sometimes, sure. But, that just makes the victories that much sweeter. If I ran an entire campaign with no deaths, it just wouldn't be as memorable as one with deaths. This is my experience here.

Well, my experiences have been very nearly the opposite (though I haven't DMed for as long as you have) - games where I made sure there were other things to worry about besides/in addition to dying were better than ones that I played in a more hands-off style. You've been DMing for longer than I, though, and in any case this aspect of the game definitely needs a YMMV sticker.

My main concern in this thread is that people don't equate little risk of dying with little risk, period.

You realize you've made a mistake equivlent to people equating risk of dying to little risk. You seem to have equated risk of dying to that being the only risk. Other things to worry about? Sure! You can run a game with five sessions of pure roleplaying, and the sixth be a no holds barred fight to the grusome end. Just because I see nothing wrong with NPCs using a CDG on a PC doesn't mean that I don't run a heavy intrigue game. It just means that when the chips fall, so can the PCs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, my experiences have been very nearly the opposite (though I haven't DMed for as long as you have) - games where I made sure there were other things to worry about besides/in addition to dying were better than ones that I played in a more hands-off style. You've been DMing for longer than I, though, and in any case this aspect of the game definitely needs a YMMV sticker.

My main concern in this thread is that people don't equate little risk of dying with little risk, period.

LOL. Having "other things to worry about besides/in addition to dying" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you're hands-on saving the PCs' collective bacon or not. So, yes, obviously a vibrant, colourful game with different types of problems & potential scenarios occurring is infinitely better than one in which the only problem is dodging the anvils falling from the sky.


RC

 

[cmanos]

I would have. No it does not make you a bad DM. It puts the fear of death into the players. Without that fear, they will run into stupid dangerous places expecting you to go light on them.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I have to agree wholeheartedly. Killing a PC might be a bummer for a while, but it makes the game more exciting in the long run. When the players know you're going to kill their PCs should the situation arise, the game becomes much more satisfying when they defeat their enemies. Sometimes they die sometimes, sure. But, that just makes the victories that much sweeter. If I ran an entire campaign with no deaths, it just wouldn't be as memorable as one with deaths. This is my experience here.

My expereince is the opposite. As a player, when a PC is killed, especially in a casual fashion, I often begin to lose interest in my character and the challenges we face. (especially if the DM, overtly or subtly, treats the death as a victory of sorts.) The victories have been no more sweet under a 'killer dm' than a low death one, and in my expereince, DMs who rachet up the body count to make things exiting or risky are less likely to include other kinds of risk and challenge. (the number of people who respond to these sort of discussions with comments like "whats the point if there's no risk of failure" should be a clue to that 'dicotomy'.)

I accept that a game is more exciting to you if you think your character could die in any combat, but its not a universal thing. This is why I try to get a feel for perfered story style of a GM right at the outset, and let new players know what my style is.

 

[Old One]

It's all about expectations...

If the DM sets up the expectations that:

(a) The world is a dangerous place, and

(b) PC can and will die due to heroic action, over-confidence or just plain bad luck, and

(c) I, as the DM, will play opponents intelligently and/or true to their nature and not pull any punches, and

(d) The players sign on board, then

There shouldn't be any complaints. Knowing a bit about Destan and the Valus (great campaign setting, btw), I would imagine that all the above are true and I would have done the same thing (heck, I "killed" 2 PCs with 4 rats and a hole).

~ OO

 

[swrushing]

LOL. Having "other things to worry about besides/in addition to dying" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you're hands-on saving the PCs' collective bacon or not.

Equally tho, the scene at point here, paralyzed foe, intelligent adversary, friend actively defending helpless target, situation dire, etc... has almost nothing to do with "hands-on saving" the PCs bacon.

There are plenty of options for an intelligent foe to choose from, and a big range of options for the Gm who wants to make use of them between having an intelligent foe chose to suicidally take down a PC instead of take some action that might lead to self-preservation.

The ghoul is one of an infinite number of NPCs the Gm has, and he should perhaps try and find a middle ground between suicidal "take you down with me" NPCs and the "hands on saving" you seem very worked up over.

I for one, would not have looked at this scene and, had it gone the "ghoul takes hostage and tries to escape" way, seen it as "hands on saving" but instead seen it as "well, ghouls are smart guys."

 

[Pielorinho]

Agreed. There needs to be a match between Gm and player expectations, and "would he do that?" isn't usually a great sign of such a match.

I can see how you're getting that. On the other hand, "would he do that?" might well be a sign of a player whose come to expect a high level of pseudoverisimilitude from the DM, and who is momentarily surprised.

In the end, I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to folks who come on the boards asking for feedback on their actions; especially when the player who was most adversely affected chimes in on the DM's side in the thread.

Daniel

 

[Raven Crowking]

Equally tho, the scene at point here, paralyzed foe, intelligent adversary, friend actively defending helpless target, situation dire, etc... has almost nothing to do with "hands-on saving" the PCs bacon.

Sure. I, for one, would not have a ghoul perform the CDG while being beat about the head and shoulders either. I would have paralyzed the defender and CDGed them both (if possible). For me, ghouls are not about trying to "take one down with me" -- they're simply very hungry and not especially concerned about their own survival. Which does not mean that they are stupid. Again, active defender = active target.

But I do not read the question as "Was there something else I could do?" I read the question as "Was what I had the NPC ghoul do unacceptable?"

If the question is "Was there something else I could do?", then regardless of what the DM did, the answer will always be a resounding "YES!" There are always other options.

If the question is "Was what I had the NPC do unacceptable?", then there are really two questions at hand:

(1) Is it okay for NPCs to CDG PCs? I think that it is not only acceptable, but in some circumstances it is the way to go. As always, ymmv.

(2) Is it okay for a ghoul to ignore the defender in order to CDG the fallen? This is a far more difficult question to answer. It depends very much on the dynamic of the game and how you see/describe ghouls. "The PCs (who supposedly value their lives) CDG fallen but defended opponents" would certainly make this seem reasonable for NPCs on the surface, but the YMMV sticker is written in mile-high letters here. Overall, I would say that the ghoul probably should have simply attacked the defender first.

Therefore, my overall answer would be, that what the DM did was acceptable, but not the best possible solution in this particular case. But, of course, this depends entirely on how one envisions certain types of monsters, and if I trusted the DM otherwise I would assume that there were reasons for the CDG here, too. Maybe that is how ghouls are in this world. I would certainly fear them more than if they only hamstrung their opponents.

Also, I, for one, would never have a ghoul take a hostage. Hostage-taking is completely alien to ghouls, imc.


RC

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I take it that the corner table in the bar by the fireplace is always open for the PCs?

No, unless that would be appropriate in character. However, as stars of the show, the PCs appear in every scene.

There are all kinds of nifty divination spells in the game for a reason. Fail to use them at your peril. You do, indeed, participate in "setting up the situation" you find yourself in, the vast majority of the time. The remainder includes the party being teleported to some location, falling through the roof unaware that it existed, and so on.

The GMs characters are in their position by his, the Gms, choices. The PCs may or may not be in the situation by their choices. Thats why i said "necessarily". Sometimes it might be of their own devising, Other times, it wont be.

For the GM, it will always be.

Every orc is important to himself; every green dragon would prefer that her hoard be the largest.

You seem confused. The quotes you are responding to are about the PLAYERS and the GMs, not the characters feelings in world.

you seem to be confusing those. If so, thats a whole 'nuther problem but not one we can probably make much headwya on.

It is true that the DM has less invested in each individual NPC than the players do. Ultimately, the best DM has nothing at all invested in the individual NPCs. However, the DM has put quite a bit of work into the campaign world, and should consider that investment as more important than the investment of any given player to any given PC.

Wow, Ok, well, not really wanting to dredge up that old discussion, lets just say that I did not refer to the GM killing/losing his campaign or killing/losing his CAMPAIGN or ALL THE WORK he put into the campaign, just to him losing AN NPC as compared to the player losing A PC.

I might argue that if losing a single NPC is sufficient to the Gm to put the entire campaign en prise, he may well be too invested in his NPC.

Obviously, ymmv, and some out there are extremely offended by this notion. Nonetheless, I will always choose to do what makes sense IMC over what would accomodate anyone.

Me, i would tend to consider that when "what makes sense" is apparently at conflict with "what accomodates anyone" that I have a problem.

NPCs are not just "storytelling tools" -- they are aspects of the world you are creating. If you treat them as merely tools, then you shouldn't be surprised when your players treat them the same way.

I would be. I have been running NPCs as such for quite a while and the fact that I, the GM, don't have an emotional stake or investment in my NPCs DOES NOT equate to somehow my players or their characters not having investment in theirs or to treating the NPCs IN CHARACTER as "non-people."

Really, those two while they might make for a cool looking sound-byte, don't go hand in hand much in my experience.

Agreed, but neither is it supposed to be you holding the players' hands and making sure that they wear their bicycle helmets, either.

Which is a far cry from what we are discussing.

There is a huge range between "holding their hands" and the things and options we are discussing here.

If somehow you want to turn this into a discussion between "kill PCs whenever possible" and "never allow PCs to die" then thats cool but its not really the discussion i thought was going on. Its also a much less interesting one, IMO of course, since neither extreme is all that common.

Again, agreed. But, of course, they won't have really have "earned" anything if you are stacking the deck in their favour.

While i would actually say "thats incorrect" given that their are many levels of "stacking the deck" (The normal CR encounter system for instance stacks the deck in their favor, as an even CR encounter, most encounters, are expected to be won by PCs) I get the context that you seem to be considering only the "more extreme" case of deck stacking.

And to the most extreme cases of deck stacking, the "wont allow death" I can only say that IMO IMX most cases do not get to that point. Even if death is not on the table, much can still be EARNED by hard work, by clever thinking, and by sacrifice in CHARACTER none of which have to involve death.

At least, IMX.

A good DM sets up challenging situations, including situations where death is a possibility, and allows the players to decide how to deal with those situations.

I think you and i differ in what we would call a GOOD GM. I consider it quite possible for a good GM to run a game where the risk of PC death were not an issue. In general, i find much more story potential and in some cases much more "to risk" from a live PC.

IMC, if I tell you that there is an ancient dragon atop Mt. Crumpet, and you choose to invade its lair at 3rd level, I won't intervene to save you.

Ok, but thats not all that related to the discussion here.

IMC ghouls are driven by hunger, and the only reason they don't go rampaging through towns is fear.

forgive me for saying but, if these are the factors that most dictate the creatures actions, it reaolly sounds a whole lot more like a low int animalistic creature, not an INT 13 Wis 14 guy?

Is that part of the thing going on here? Do people more see ghouls are "beasts" as opposed to intelligent thinking creatures as their stats suggest?

I tend to run ghouls as intelligent guys, above average int in some cases. Thy are the flesh eating undead: still possessing human intellect and with a desire for eating flesh as opposed to the vampire's desire for blood and so forth.

My ghouls fear sunlight. They try to preserve themselves and pick around the edges as much as they can. Once engaged in a fight, they will often die before giving up on fresh meat....but daylight (or equivilent) can make them break off an attack. One of the things that makes undead "undead" is that they are not driven by normal rules of self-preservation.

a difference between us. My INTELLIGENT undead also take a different take on self-preservation. being immortal, it is MORE important to them, not less.

Now my unintelligent (or less intelligent) undead, thats another story entirely. They tend to fit your description of a much more instinctive unreasoned approach to things and will often "think with their stomach."

Run into ghouls IMC, and you'd better be prepared for them to CDG the fallen. I won't intervene to save you.

and likely, given your game and your players knowing what to expect, had such occured they would not have been asking "would it rally do that?" unlike the case here.

Different creatures behave differently. Some aren't likely to kill you even if they are the villains of the adventure. Others are likely to kill you (if they can) even as wandering encounters. Players (and PCs) are expected to learn about the world.

Skills such as Knowledge, Profession, and Gather Information can grant PCs valuable information. Bardic lore, divination spells, and contacts should be used to learn about the world around you. That's what they're for.

cool. not sure about the relevence but sounds cool.

I don't DM to babysit. I will not intervene to save you. The campaign world might intervene to save you, if I feel it is appropriate, but I will never admit to having intervened even then. Because I have gone that route, and the results were ugly.

Again, i really think there is a lot of room between whats being discussed here and the seemingly extreme level of GM intervention you seem focused on.

Specifically, there is a HUGE RANGOE of options, where many games are pleyed every day, between "treating PC death and NPC death the same" and "intervening at any cost to save PCs."

If that means I shouldn't DM, fine. If that means I'll never gain another player, well, I've got more than enough already.

Ok, uh, cool!

goodie for you?