DMs: Fight to Win or Fight for Fun?

[StupidSmurf]

this is the place where the fundemental divide happens. This philosophy leads to a game I would be annoyed, unhappy and yes, bored with. ANyone who thinks that a game without player fear of character death* is the magic item crapping fluffy bunnies, doesn't get my play style at all.

*I could have a GM flat out tell me "I hate to kill characters and will avoid it if possible", and this wouldn't cause me to take stupid character actions because of this great thing called 'roleplaying'. I am playing a character with whatever degree of foolhardiness or caution that my character concept requires, buffered at either end by the background of having a) become an adventurer and b) lived this long. If the 3rd level party charges the great red wyrm because "the DM won't let us die" they have had a complete meta gaming spasm and sould be sat down & straightened out forthwith.

Well, granted, I was using a bit of hyperbole there. My point is that I've always believed that, as a DM, I should not take any heroic measures to shield PCs from death, but that also I shouldn't "gun" after PCs either, and set them up with a Kobiyashi Maru situation.

Those who've played in my campaigns over the years (and have paid attention) notice certain characteristics common to all of my games. One of them is, "there's always a back door, if you can find it." And that means, hey, there may be a way to avoid death, even if it's as simple as "run like Hell!" (an art that surprisingly few players seemed to have mastered). But obviously, you don't want to have too many adventures where the best solution is to run away screaming, because then you'll be adventuring in the world of the D&D cartoon!

Sometimes, in certain special situations, death can be avoided (which I assume is where 'fates worse than death', mentioned earlier, come into play). As a for instance, just this past weekend, my campaign's party was being led into what could have been considred a death trap. See, a few sessions ago, my group managed to defeat a band of Cyricists. Well, eventually the Cyricist cell noticed that some of their number were missing, and sent out scouts and spies to make inquiries as to their fate. Their efforts were rewarded when they discovered that "my" group was responsible. Sooooo....a Cyricist Ranger/Assassin passed himself off as a Paladin of Kelemvor (fitting, dontcha think?), befriended and recruited the party to help "finish off" the rest of the Cyricists that he had discovered. And I came SO close to getting them into an ambush, but they caught on at the last possible moment and took the guy down then...um...ran like Hell. Point is, the ambush, had it happened, wasn't going to be lethal. Nossir, the Cyricists were going to capture as many of them alive as possible, render them unconscious, keep them drugged up, and send them off to a small, out-of-the-way fortress run by yet other Cyricists for the purposes of torture, interrogation, and possible selling as slaves.

But, as you pointed out, KB, having a 3rd level party charge a dragon because the DM is a no-kill DM is meta-gaming at its worst. So, I guess, once again, the answer to this thing is, "all things in moderation."

 

[3catcircus]

All good points - but what about the situations where the DM may want to specifically present an encounter that he wants the players to realize that they are too weak to fight against - where stealth, subterfuge, or diplomacy is the way to go, or where he specifically wants the PCs to "get a taste" of the baddies without committing everyone to a fight too early in the campaign (he needs time to further develop the baddies machinations, for example).

Should a DM hold back if the players are too "no kill, no thrill" oriented to take the hints presented before the encounter begins?

Honestly, swrushing, I think that our positions are not really that far off here. I fully agree that the DM has to set up things to give the PCs a reasonable chance. The PCs should be able to get information about foes before being forced to commit...unless the foes are significantly weaker than the PCs. This might be through gossip, spells, or obvious monster signs.

(snip)

It sounds to me like your DM hasn't figured out two fundamental tricks of the game yet:

(1) Setting up balanced encounters.

(snip)

Your described scenario should never happen in an optimal game. If the DM realizes that you're getting your clocks cleaned, something else should happen that forces the battle to be abandoned temporarily. A third party enters the fray. The clock strikes midnight. The babysitter phones. The point is that neither side wins, and the PCs now know they have an enemy out there that they ought to start preparing for.

And even that should only happen if the DM realizes absolutely that he flubbed the set-up for the encounter. If the encounter is reasonable, then the DM risks too much by intervening. Not only does he risk the potential of PCs expecting that they can just sit back and everything will work out (which, unfortunately, I have witnessed first hand from both sides of the screen), but he risks the players catching onto his use of Trick #2, above.

So, in any conversation, I am always on the side of not pulling punches. The above is just a small digression between you and I.


RC

 

[Kelleris]

All good points - but what about the situations where the DM may want to specifically present an encounter that he wants the players to realize that they are too weak to fight against - where stealth, subterfuge, or diplomacy is the way to go, or where he specifically wants the PCs to "get a taste" of the baddies without committing everyone to a fight too early in the campaign (he needs time to further develop the baddies machinations, for example).

Should a DM hold back if the players are too "no kill, no thrill" oriented to take the hints presented before the encounter begins?

It's a judgement call, really. At what point do the players seem to have slipped from playing (possibly foolhardy) adventurers and started to metagame themselves into believing they're invincible? That's usually when I drop the hammer, if I need to.

But the key is presenting a sliding gradient that only ends in death, but could pass through warnings, humiliation, loss of items, chastising by those who are older and wiser, severe beatings, and what have you. If the PCs are dumb enough to plow through all that without getting the hint (I've never had a group that obtuse, but I'm sure they exist), well, then you might have to kill one (or more) off to communicate the message. But there are varying degrees of holding back available before you let them reap the benefits of stupidity once they reach whatever threshold of recklessness you're comfortable with.

I'm sure nobody here believes in restraining themselves in the face of an unlimited amount of dummkopfery.

 

[S'mon]

6. Fudging dice is a slippery slope. Beware. There have been times that I've overridden a die roll because I have this Unwritten Rule that says "If the player has taken the time to come out with a really really great, creative idea, it would be a crime to let a random roll of the dice determine whether it actually works." But this is sparingly used.

I don't fudge dice rolls - I do all rolls in the open. But if I think an action ought to work, it works. I only roll dice if I'm uncertain. If the great creative idea requires use of PC skills I'll announce the DC, which in this case will be low, and if the PC is skilled in that area they'll succeed automatically.

 

[swrushing]

All good points - but what about the situations where the DM may want to specifically present an encounter that he wants the players to realize that they are too weak to fight against - where stealth, subterfuge, or diplomacy is the way to go, or where he specifically wants the PCs to "get a taste" of the baddies without committing everyone to a fight too early in the campaign (he needs time to further develop the baddies machinations, for example).

Should a DM hold back if the players are too "no kill, no thrill" oriented to take the hints presented before the encounter begins?

If the GM KNOWS his players don't go in for that type of game, running that type of encounter is something he should certainly think several times before doing.
not all themes or all encounters are right for every group and what may be going on here is a serious mismatch between player desires/expectations and Gm desires/expectations.

Now, if this isn't a case of mismatch and its a good scenario/dramatic choice, then the Gm needs to be rather sure his stage is set well. I don't know about your games but MOST DND games i have been involved in saw MOST of the combat encounters being a fight, not a hit and run. So you have to expect that that will be the players/characters most common initial choice.

This makes the scripting of the object lesson scenario very tricky. There is often a fine line between "hanging in and winning" and "stayed one round too long" especially if there are downed people you need to get out. I would hope the Gm doesn't want to "let the players know this one is too tough and they should run" by killing their characters real dead.

often the killing of an NPC or two, especially if they are stronger or as strong as the PCs which means they ought to be introduced well before the killing, can do the trick. A band of mercenaries the PCs encounter several times suddenly found slaughtered is a good hint. Especially if the PCs have speak with dead and can gain info from the dead guys.

Redshirts, not just for star trek.