Do you like being saved? Or the Dues ex machina in action

[Gundark]

We are playing a sci fi game, and while I am enjoying the story I absolutely hate the game mechanics, but really that's neither here nor there and not what the thread is about. Anyhow last night the GM misjudged the power of an encounter and we soon found ourselves outgunned and on our backs to a bunch of faceless goons. The GM had some random event happen (random bullet that detonated these air tanks that exploded and killed the bad guys).

As a player I hate this. I would rather play to let the dice fall where they may and if my character dies...then so be it. I know not everyone does though, even at my table amongst my fellow gamers some prefer that their characters live, "the heroes never die clause" if you will. Some don't mind character death as long as it's in a dramatic fashion fighting the BBEG, they don't want to die to random goon #62. I am even okay playing games where death is removed from the picture ie. 7th Sea. As this is the assumption of the game going in.

What do you think? What's your preference? Do you like being saved?

 

[Niccodaemus]

I might do something a little different than your GM. Say I realized I had misjudged the encounter, and want to give the players a break. I decide that there are air canisters that can explode. I might make each character make an observation roll, to notice the existence of the canisters. Then you'd have to shoot one.

The result of them blowing up wouldn't kill the bad guys, but might stun them for a round or two and do some damage. Maybe the guy standing right next to one gets killed.

But no, as a player or DM I don't like "magic" saves

 

[GSHamster]

Well, the thing is, as you said, that the DM misjudged the encounter. As such, I don't think it's fair for him to kill the players.

Now, if it had been a fight where the players could have won or survived, but maybe their tactics were bad or the dice went against them, or they chose not to retreat or surrender, then yes, the result should stand.

 

[Niccodaemus]

Well, the thing is, as you said, that the DM misjudged the encounter. As such, I don't think it's fair for him to kill the players.

Now, if it had been a fight where the players could have won or survived, but maybe their tactics were bad or the dice went against them, or they chose not to retreat or surrender, then yes, the result should stand.

So you fix it by evening the odds mid fight, not by eliminating the bad guy.

 

[GSHamster]

So you fix it by evening the odds mid fight, not by eliminating the bad guy.

Yeah, but sometimes as the DM, you only realize you screwed up in the middle of the fight, and you panic, and just grab the first fix you think of. It's an understandable reaction.

 

[Squire James]

I've misjudged several encounters just in my last campaign alone. The PC's are very powerful for their level and can easily handle most PL +3 encounters, but twice I hit a bad match-up of PL +2 encounters that would have wiped them out without intervention.

What I chose to do was play out the battle until it looked hopeless, and then played a Deus Ex Machina With a Cost. In one, a major ally was incapacitated and will basically be unable to help them for the rest of the campaign. In the other, a major item component that was tantamount to a Wish was expended. At least then the players felt like they purchased their salvation rather than being given it.

 

[saskganesh]

An old standby is just having the players taken prisoner.

Gamewise, it's a good idea to end the session at a TPK or neo TPK. Leave the players hanging (but also letting them cool off); next session they will sharp and committed.

In the meantime, take the time to work out the nature of the captors (yeah they won't be nameless goons anymore, which is a win), their motives in taken the PC's prisoner, and possible escape scenarios including ... inside help. Can be a lot of fun.

 

[gamerprinter]

I don't know any perfect GMs. I myself have underestimated the power of a given encounter in more than one occassion, such that in mid fight I changed something in the encounter to lessen it's difficulty. Though I try to obfuscate it, so the players are unaware of the change in status has even happened. After game, I'll admit to what happened, and ask if any of the players noticed.

Of course, not everyone is so creative as to weaken the opponents the best way, so sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. No reason to get upset with the GM. They'll either learn to create more balanced encounters, or they learn to make mid-combat adjudications that aren't so obvious to the players, so as not to remove the immersion in play. GMing is actually a tricky task and can be difficult.

Give your GM, or yourself (if you're the GM) a break. Suggest amiably ways that he might have done that encounter differently so as not break the suspension of the scene, so they might learn to do a better job, next time it happens. And it probably will happen again.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't like to be saved. I don't like to have DMs plan out encounters for me either. Let me be the one to misjudge the difficulty of the encounter; then it's my poor choice that leads to my PC's death.

If I were to play a game where the DM was choosing which encounters we faced, then sure, save my PC's ass.

 

[was]

being captured and forced to use your wits to escape would have made an interesting adventure.