DMs: Fight to Win or Fight for Fun?

[DonTadow]

My preference as a DM is to run the game, and the fights, 'for' the players, not against them. As such, I can't envision a foe taking crazy risks for the chance to "get" a PC.

I kinda dislike the dicotomy raised with "heroic vs realistic". So called grim and gritty rpgs are no more realistic in the final analysis than heroic ones. It is no more 'realistic' for a creature in that situation to go out with a bang killing one PC but making its ultimate failure that much more certain than it is for it to start fighting defensively or using other tactics to try to whittle down the active PCs. Its a flavor choice - difficult but survivable, vs fast but deadly to a couple, and I don't see the realism lable as having relevance. Nor is it actually "fighting to win" when it comes down to it. The undead did not win, its burial ground was still looted.

Personally, I've never had a problem thinking my PC couldn't die. I had a problem in a group where I felt the party as a whole could not fail (or suceed outside the narrow plans of the adventure) but that my particular PC might be the one killed for flavor this week. I think of it like catching an episode of Stargate from a prior season. I know none of the major characters are going to die (permanenly ), and that doesn't change my interest at all, but if I already know if that eps bad will get away or not, which allies will survive, then I get a little less into it.

I agree that the game is not pcs vs dm, its pcs vs the environment and its up to the dm to give them a realistic enviroment. But playing smart npc villians (even vindictive) is not being (again'st the pcs) its providing them the challenge that they play the game for.

I could totally see a villian doing a cdg in that situation. I've seen it a dozen or so times in gooood anime. It's the point where the heroes have cornered the villian. the villian and his cronies have already proven to be cold-hearted killers. The heroes have the upper hand and theres no escape. I could see the npc thinking, if im' going to die, i'll be taking one of you with me.

SLICE!!

You can't overuse this in a campaign as it would lose its effect but a villian like this will stay in the pcs minds.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I could totally see a villian doing a cdg in that situation. I've seen it a dozen or so times in gooood anime. It's the point where the heroes have cornered the villian. the villian and his cronies have already proven to be cold-hearted killers. The heroes have the upper hand and theres no escape. I could see the npc thinking, if im' going to die, i'll be taking one of you with me.

just to clarify, I "could see it" too. But I could just as easily "see" multiple other completely realistic responses. My point is that the choice is not between a realistic response and a non realistic response that promotes the flavor of your game, the choice is usually among multiple realistic responses where you choose the one that enhances the flavor of your game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Play to have fun or play to win? What? There's a difference?

If I went and told my players that their PCs would no longer have a chance of dying, I would have no more players, most likely. If I killed them all in a TPK, we'd start a new game. Without the fear of death, nobody at the table is going to have any fun, so this is like asking if I would rather breathe or live.
Doesn't make much sense.

 

[was]

I would have done it.

 

[ForceUser]

Wait a minute.
Your character was being defended, yet the DM allowed a CdG past his protectors?

As long as the CDG attempt provoked AoOs and the defenders (assuming they were adjacent) took the opportunity to take the AoOs, that's RAW. All a defender can really do in such a situation is

1) Attack the ghoul or
2) Ready an action to attack the ghoul when it attacks his dying friend or
3) Aid his prone friend in his defense (+2 AC) or
4) Throw himself over his prone friend, thus providing a cover bonus to AC and (DM interpretation) preventing a CDG or
5) Wait for the CDG and take his AoO

For the sake of expediency, I'm sure Destan left out a few details. Always happens when trying to relate a game event on the boards.

 

[Chimera]

For all the folks that say "don't be mean to PCs" I'd counter with "please be mean to my PC". The moment you lose the fear of character death, the moment you lose some of the fun of the game. Again - in my opinion.

Right there with you. There has to be some danger or I may as well just play Doom in God Mode or something like that.

The worst case (for me personally) is when a GM pulls his punches while at the same time resorting to overwhelming monsters to generate a threat.

Facing that in one of my current games. The GM has a group of assassins after our PCs. We're a group of 6 3rd level characters. We get ambushed by a 7th or 8th level Monk/Assassin (or something like that) supported by a Psion, a Bard, A Monk and a Cleric. All of roughly 3rd level. The Assassin has two attacks per round and a Ring of Blinking. She automatically gets her sneak attack bonus and so therefore does 6d6 on each freaking attack!. Did I mention that she gets two attacks per round? Against third level characters??? Meanwhile, she has a touch AC of 19(!!!) (forget my wizard spells on that one...) and we've got a 50% miss chance due to her ring.

The GM was suprised when we ran for it on the first round. Duhhhhhh!!! (Now one of us has been elected to ask him to knock this off, since this is the third major baddie in a row who has been more than twice our level!)

The bottom line is; make realistic/equivalient level threats and then play them intelligently and reasonably. At the same time, have monsters act in their own self-interest and for their own survival, not brainlessly throwing themselves to their dooms.

If PCs die, they die. I'll respect you a whole lot more in the morning if you play with me in this manner.

 

[Pielorinho]

just to clarify, I "could see it" too. But I could just as easily "see" multiple other completely realistic responses. My point is that the choice is not between a realistic response and a non realistic response that promotes the flavor of your game, the choice is usually among multiple realistic responses where you choose the one that enhances the flavor of your game.

I agree. If you want a lethal game, you can always justify it; if you want a nonlethal game, you can always justify it. The main thing is to make sure that you and the players are clear on what sort of game you're running, on whether there's a net under the tightrope.

As I said, in lethal games I think undead are great villains, because playing the "psychology" of a creature who is not motivated by survival is just so creepy. While vampires, liches, etc. are likely to retreat from a fight or try to parlay or something, ghouls and zombies and wraiths and skeletons and mummies are wonderful enemies when their overwhelming desire in a fight is either to eat their enemies or to gain comrades in death.

There's another circumstance under which a CdG is a good tactic. I've used it once as a PC, when our enemies included a cleric. The second time we had to drop their big warrior leader down into negative hit-points, I decided to test drive the CdG rules. It worked wonders! An intelligent group of enemies might decide to CdG PCs if they see evidence of a cleric or other healer amongst the PCs. (And if they don't CdG them, they still might spend a round stabbing them)

Daniel

 

[William_2]

"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."

While the creatures may suspect, or certainly fear this outcome, it is only the DM who knows it. Having the creature act on that knowledge is meta-gaming. I think in this situation they should have been smart enough to use valuable time to do something, anything, that might actually have changed the outcome of the encounter - like strike someone else in the hope that they would also drop, etc. I don't think the CDG in this example was a good effort at portraying an intelligent creature, at least not one that was concerned with survival.

 

[danzig138]

Ironically, I've had monsters run away from the players rather than fight to the death, and this seems to bother the players MORE than just outright killing PCs.

Yeah, in my current game, several bad guys have gotten away from the group and that drives them crazy beyond anything. They don't cope well at all with the bad guys running when a fight turns against them.

 

[iwatt]

Yeah, in my current game, several bad guys have gotten away from the group and that drives them crazy beyond anything. They don't cope well at all with the bad guys running when a fight turns against them.

Yeah, my players enter psycho-mode when someone tries to run away. There blood boils when my baddies swim/run/climb/fly away, etc..

That's why I'm using the Hot Pursuit Chase Rules. Between a flying sorcerer and a Barbarian/Rogue with maxed out climb, jump, balance skills, the baddies just can't out run them except if they swim away, like my aboleth did.

Of course I'm just setting it up for the barbarian to bite more than he can swallow in the future....