Do you like being slated to win?

[Ahnehnois]

I suppose my definition of a "challenging" battle is one that the PCs will win if they play their cards right, but if they don't, they will die.

I might fudge something a bit tosave a PC, but only if I think my battle is too hard rather than being poorly handled by the player.

 

[mirivor]

Very interesting. I think that I mis-labeled and mis-typed the whole darned thing.

I should have said "failure" instead of "death". I have seen the kind of game where the players cannot screw up bad enough for the DM to simply alter his setting in order to reflect that badness. In other words, the only impact that the game has on the setting is good. None of the bad player actions matter because the DM always leads em back to the right path.

I agree with FranktheDM the most though. If my choices do not matter then I do not want to play.

Thanks for your replies. As a DM it is good input to see what players think.

Next time I will word my post better ><

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I voted Superheroic. I play for both combat and character interaction, I would not like for my PC to die(I do not like it when other PCs die).

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I'll take the heroic level as both a DM and as a player.

 

[Lanefan]

As both player and DM, I am used to - and expect - gritty as defined here. Characters come and go, and if I feel I'm being given a free pass to "succeed" then I feel cheated somehow.

That said, someone above made an excellent point: the party's success overall matters far more than that of any one character. I've run games where by the end of an adventure there were no characters left from the party that began it...yet there was still a thing identifyable as the same party made up of different characters that had been picked up as the party went along.

And if all else fails: kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out.

Lanefan