Do you like being slated to win?

[mirivor]

As a DM of 18 years, it is my personal opinion that nothing is more satisfiying than creating/running a world and having the players and the random dice energize it and bring it to life. The interplay of chance and input from the players gives a setting a life that it otherwise would not have. Even the dreaded TPK is nothing more than a detail in a story that continues on. I as a player do not mind being killed in the least. The whole concept of D&D, to me, is a group of heroes in a dangerous (Read: Deadly) world where you try to surmount all odds and stay alive.

I suppose I would like to know what your opinion is. Do you like a very tiny chance of death? Do you want the odds stacked incredibly in your favor? Or do you prefer a more organic result from your games, where you really do help write the history of a setting even if it is with your death?

For me, being stacked to win takes away the entire reason for playing the game. If I want to win every time I will go play a computer game where you just talk to the spirit healer. Knowing that I played in a storyline and that my actions, whether the results are good or bad, helped develope a history/feel that my next character can see and experience is the best reward. I do not like fudging dice or DMs that hold back. I want the world thrown at my character in full force, no holds barred. That way, when I DO survive, I know that I have accomplished something.

I do not necessarily mean for death to be the outcome every time, but that failure, whether ultimate or not, is not unheard of.

Later!

 

[AllisterH]

It depends on the edition actually.

In 1E, I don't really care if I get gutted by the orcs even before my 1st swing. It's easy enough to make up a new character.

In 3e/4e? Oh hell yeah, I'd be seriously peeved if the same thing happened.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm on the story side. I do not like being slated to win, but dislike random deaths.

I, as DM and player, want to have consequences for failing. But death isn't among the preferred ones. It's a) too often just a showstopper as it stops the progress of the story, and b) often too easy on the characters - dealing with consequences is fun.

That's why I voted heroic. The PCs are not supposed to die, except when it's crucial to the story and fits the dramatic flow (Gandalf-like: "I stop the Balor" - good. Critted by a troll from a random encounter: Bad.)

Cheers, LT.

 

[wayne62682]

I've always played D&D under the "action movie" mentality - it is the DM's job is to create the illusion of failure while steering the PCs towards success in the end.

 

[BeauNiddle]

If I'm giving up my free time then I don't want to fail.

There have been times where characters have died and it's been glorious win. There have been time when characters complete adventures and it's been abject fail (mostly due to DM NPCs or excessive handholding)

The thread title and the poll don't match since one talks about win and one talks about death.

But I do think random and unavoidable death counts as a fail so they're not completely unrelated I guess.

 

[malraux]

I don't mind death too much. When my gnome paladn died while traveling down the behir's intestinal track as a distraction to keep the rest of the party alive, that was a good death. A random encounter with some giants killing a character is less fun. So for DnD, I really don't favor death all that often.

 

[DragonLancer]

As both a DM and a player, I voted normal though I would add the "dice are not fudged" to the end of that.

 

[phindar]

I voted "Normal", but that represents an average of my preferences. My preferred default style is Gritty, but I like to have a limited number of karma-based resources (Hero or Action Points) that can stave off death.

AE's Hero Points are the best example; a character might have 1 or 2, they are only awarded for doing exceptionally cool things, and they provide a slight "crumple zone" so that the character's first collision isn't fatal.

I also like Hero Points to preemptively avoid death, rather than the Raise Dead/Resurrection that bring you back. Death is a little less random, but more likely to be final. (Hero Points also have a neat feature where if you spend one to avoid death, you get a battle scar or lose an eye or a hand, usually player choice but its a nice flavor detail.)

This is getting off the subject slightly, but one of the flaws I perceive in D&D is that the default setting for failure is death, which I think takes the game in a lot of directions I don't care for; either by putting the PC's in situations where they can't fail (because the game would stop), or by making death a temporary setback.

My real preference is for an extremely gritty game where the PC's have to work hard not to fail, where death is final and irreversible but also reserved for the most story-appropriate moment. (There's a lot of really horrible things that can happen to a PC other than death, all of which can make the game more interesting. The only truly bad consequence is the one that makes you stop playing.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

I didn't vote in the poll as I like powerful 'superheroic' characters with a real threat of failure and no dice fudging.

Even the dreaded TPK is nothing more than a detail in a story that continues on.

If all the protagonists are dead then in what sense is it the same story? It's very, very rare in fiction for this to occur, I can think of only two examples - the movies Psycho and Deathproof - and you could argue that neither count because Norman Bates and Stuntman Mike are protagonists.

I was wondering recently what's the highest death rate that could work in a game. If every single session ends in a TPK for example then you don't really have a campaign, just a series of incredibly deadly oneoffs and most likely no players pretty soon.

 

[Wormwood]

The last year or so that I ran 3e, I applied the Drama Point system from Eden's Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG.

One of the (myriad) benefits of that system is that a character simply cannot die without player consent.

Suffice it to say that it was my most enjoyable turn at 3e, and it gave lie to the assumption that games without character death lack tension and drama.

I'm implementing a similar scheme in 4e as we speak (but without the Drama Points this time---just a flat rule that characters only die when their player says so)