DMs: Fight to Win or Fight for Fun?

[swrushing]

Did I, as DM, whine that it was unfair that they CdG'ed all of my NPCs? No - so why should they complain if their PCs are in a situation that warrants getting killed?

BTW did they CDG all your PCs or just the ones you setup sleeping in the room?

Choose from the below, and there are certainly more...

1. Because the NPCs in question are not the stars of the campaign, while the PCs are.
2. because the situation the orcs found themselves in was set by you, while the situation the PCs find themselves dying in isn't one set by their players, necessarily.
3. because you have multiple NPCs to run, some important and likely not set in a position to CDG, and others lesser important you choose to set in CDG setup, while the PCs have just their own PC.
4. because they have been working on this character's story and development for a while, perhaps year or more, while you generate new NPCs routinely.
5. because they are SUPPOSED to be invested in their characters and to care about those characters while your NPC are just storytelling tools and not supposed to be characters you are "playing" as if they were your PC.
6. because its not supposed to be "you" vs "the players", you are not equals competing in a game, and so what is fine for one side isn't necessarily fine for the other, given that difference.
7. because they "played" this character thru the advancement and the skills and traits they acquired, "earning" their abilities if you will, while NPCs are designed to meet the situation from scratch, the Gm never "working them up thru lower level challenges" and so to them the PCs are worth more than your brand new PC thugs are to you, or ought to be. (Kill them enough and hey, that whole "they care about their characters" issue likely won't be a problem at all.)

etc...

really though, if one doesn't see a difference between NPCs getting killed and PCs getting killed, *IMO* one should not be GMing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My INT 13 varmint would have grabbed the paralyzed foe and setup a CDG. he would have then offered to spare the life of the helpless victim in exchange for getting away. Its a hostage situation. Do the heroes want to let the bad guy go, keep their friend alive and still take the temple, or do thewy want to risk seeing their friend die in order to kill the last or last two varmints?

Yeah, I've done that too....fully described in my story hour.

IMC, though, ghouls are driven by hunger more than by survival.


RC



EDIT:

Of course you have to tailor your DMing style to your players, and if they like CDGs being common then that's what you should give to them.

This, however, I sorta disagree with. If you're putting in most of the work (and anyone who thinks the DM isn't doing considerably more work than the players is on the wrong side of the screen) then you should run the type of game you enjoy. If the type of game you enjoy is any fun for anyone, then pretty soon there'll be a lineup of people waiting in the wings. At least that's been my experience.

(Conversely, if you find yourself sitting alone at the table, perhaps you shouldn't be DMing. )

 

[Pielorinho]

For me itsa more "fun" to come up with these before the action isn chosen and to have my game run so that when my NPCs do something "unexpected" the reactions of the players are more "yeah, we should'a seen that coming" as opposed to "uhh... are you sure thats what it would do?"

That's one approach, sure. But I often find in a game that my NPCs do things that surprise even myself, the guy that created them; and I love it when that happens. Authors often relate having a similar experience, in which their character does something unexpected that takes the story in a new direction.

If the ghouls has been portrayed as calm, rational, and highly concerned with its own survival, then you definitely need to have a very good reason to have it switch its behavior. However, most ghouls that I've encountered as a player (or thrown at my players as a DM*) haven't ever had a moment of conversation with the PCs: it's been slay at first sight. As such, there's pretty much no way I can contradict my depiction of their behavior by having them continue to behave viciously.

As for intelligence and wisdom, consider that many animals have a high wisdom: it can reflect strength of will, not merely an ability to predict consequences and devise plans. Intelligence, likewise, may reflect cunning. Neither stat reflects a desire to live; running ghouls who do not value their life as highly as humans value theirs is entirely consistent with their stats.

But even were it not, it's my prerogative as the DM to decide--on the fly, even--that these ghouls are stark raving nuts with a wisdom of 3, if I believe that doing so will make for a more interesting story, and if my players are after the swashbuckle more than after the rules.

Daniel

* There was one notable exception, in which the PCs encountered a recently-ghoulified victim tied to an altar, and with whom they carried on a few abortive moments of conversation; but that's definitely not the standard ghoul meet-and-greet.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1. Because the NPCs in question are not the stars of the campaign, while the PCs are.

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

2. because the situation the orcs found themselves in was set by you, while the situation the PCs find themselves dying in isn't one set by their players, necessarily.

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.

3. because you have multiple NPCs to run, some important and likely not set in a position to CDG, and others lesser important you choose to set in CDG setup, while the PCs have just their own PC.

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

4. because they have been working on this character's story and development for a while, perhaps year or more, while you generate new NPCs routinely.

5. because they are SUPPOSED to be invested in their characters and to care about those characters while your NPC are just storytelling tools and not supposed to be characters you are "playing" as if they were your PC.

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.

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.

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.

6. because its not supposed to be "you" vs "the players", you are not equals competing in a game, and so what is fine for one side isn't necessarily fine for the other, given that difference.

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

7. because they "played" this character thru the advancement and the skills and traits they acquired, "earning" their abilities if you will, while NPCs are designed to meet the situation from scratch, the Gm never "working them up thru lower level challenges" and so to them the PCs are worth more than your brand new PC thugs are to you, or ought to be. (Kill them enough and hey, that whole "they care about their characters" issue likely won't be a problem at all.)

etc...

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

IMC ghouls are driven by hunger, and the only reason they don't go rampaging through towns is fear. 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. Run into ghouls IMC, and you'd better be prepared for them to CDG the fallen. I won't intervene to save you.

Fight some orcs or some spider cultists, and they may well be willing to use the "Let us go or he dies!" routine. Goblins might scatter and let their comrades get slaughtered to cover their escape. A manticore might try threats against normal villagers to drive adventurers out of the area...but may just as well blunder it.

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.

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.

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.



RC

 

[Pielorinho]

But, as reasonable Gming (possible reasonable storytelling) when you want to put a life or death drama into your scene, it does well to make sure they know its there. I know my players would not expect suicidal "take-you-down-with-me" choices as a standard thing.

Sure--but I prefer for most battles in the game to have a feel of risk to them, and I prefer for undead to be especially inhuman in their motives. Players should expect undead to act in a vicious, depraved manner as often as not, and projecting human motives on them should be a very bad idea.

I'll note again that in a campaign in which players are strongly attached to their characters, I almost never have character death, and so I'd come up with a different set of motives for ghouls. The set of motives I'm describing doesn't work well for a low-mortality game.

Daniel

 

[swrushing]

But even were it not, it's my prerogative as the DM to decide--on the fly, even--that these ghouls are stark raving nuts with a wisdom of 3, if I believe that doing so will make for a more interesting story, and if my players are after the swashbuckle more than after the rules.

ABSOLUTELY!

but if that had been the basis you used for a scenario and the decisions of ghouls... you would not be likely the guy on thr web shortly after justifying your choices by mentioning how smart the ghouls were and giving reasoned tactical point by point explanations as to why they chose their action, how it made sense. you would i suspect instead be emphasizing how you run them as wis 3 lunatics, feral, etc and not the type of guys who do the smart thing.

You might also be talking about how this had already been seen by the actions of the other ghouls and so forth and came as no surprise to your players, as it was a consistent thing, not something they question "would it do that?" to you about.

As for the animals have high wis, sure some do, tho i am not sure how many also have high int? My point with the game stats stems from the INT of the ghoul being raised to justifyn its choice, that it was intended to be played as a thinking adversary, and that there seem to be other options, even better choices, for a thinking adversary than "suicide with company."

Its just not normally the kind of actions i call immediately to mind when someone says "its a int 13 guy with a 14 wis."

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Sure--but I prefer for most battles in the game to have a feel of risk to them,

IMX most battles can have a feel of risk to them, if the players care about their characters, without PC character death.

heck, given the scene described, had the CDG been foreshdaowed, so the characters considered it a credible threat, then the paralysis itself would have turned into a HUGE risk of death driving everyone's actions as they struggle to save their comrade.

its the surprise "ooops, what? Would it do that?" dead and done nothing you can do now that seems to not be working as well.

and I prefer for undead to be especially inhuman in their motives. Players should expect undead to act in a vicious, depraved manner as often as not, and projecting human motives on them should be a very bad idea.

For my intelligent undead, I play them intelligently and certainly a fairly vommon "inhuman" trait stems from their sense of immortality. While my intelligent undead are prone to non-human thinking, true death to them is a SERIOUS affair, not one they are likely to leap into.

I'll note again that in a campaign in which players are strongly attached to their characters, I almost never have character death, and so I'd come up with a different set of motives for ghouls. The set of motives I'm describing doesn't work well for a low-mortality game.
[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'll note again that in a campaign in which players are strongly attached to their characters, I almost never have character death, and so I'd come up with a different set of motives for ghouls. The set of motives I'm describing doesn't work well for a low-mortality game.

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 wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be a match between GM and player expectations, and that the GM bears a huge amount of the responsibility for making sure that the players understand what to expect from the campaign world.

I'll also agree that, while I would have ghouls CDG an opponent, I would not have a ghoul do so while the ghoul was being attacked. Hungry, yes. Hungry to the point of being potentially suicidal, yes. Hungry to the point of being completely suicidal, no. I mean, a ghoul doesn't have a whole lot to live for. Hunger outweighs survival in the (IMC, pretty short) long term, but in the round-to-round play I would assume that an immediate (i.e., attacking now) threat takes precedence.


RC

 

[Kelleris]

This, however, I sorta disagree with. If you're putting in most of the work (and anyone who thinks the DM isn't doing considerably more work than the players is on the wrong side of the screen) then you should run the type of game you enjoy. If the type of game you enjoy is any fun for anyone, then pretty soon there'll be a lineup of people waiting in the wings. At least that's been my experience.

(Conversely, if you find yourself sitting alone at the table, perhaps you shouldn't be DMing. )

I guess it depends on how you derive enjoyment from DMing. I'm typically having more fun if my players are having more fun, so it's no big deal to me to change the way I handle something, within reason. Of course, it's maddeningly difficult to get feedback from them and I still have my strengths and weaknesses, so it's not like I'm capable of some complete shift in how I DM.

It's just that this case (and CdGs more generally) strikes me as one that can be changed really easily based on what the players want without the DM having to do tons more work or destroy his or her artistic integrity or whatever. There are a number of equally plausible ways to run the ghoul in the situation described, and CdG with very little warning is only one of several options. Picking the one that leads to a more enjoyable game for the players seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Picking the one that leads to a more enjoyable game for the players seems like a no-brainer to me.

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 suppose that I am also assuming that killing PCs isn't enjoyable...or, conversely, if it is enjoyable then the DM in question has already succumbed to the Dark Side [and the players, perhaps, to a better DM].)

Having run games both where I took an active hand to prevent PC deaths and where I did not, I have observed the following to be consistently true:

(1) The games where I did not take an active hand had some unhappy moments, but were consistently more fun for all involved (DM and players alike),

(2) The games where I did not take an active hand consistently had more players lining up in case there was an opening, and

(3) The games where I did not take an active hand lasted longer, with higher player interest throughout.

I ran my first game on Christmas of 1979, and have never wanted for players...except following games with a more hands-on approach to avoiding PC deaths. Obviously, your mileage may vary, but my experience has been unvarying: not being adversarial, but also letting the cards fall where they may, always makes players happier in the long run.


RC