Do you "save" the PCs?

[Nifft]

Yes, but you're a reasonable dude - I'll be willing to bet (admittedly small) money that you specifically choose something level-appropriate. And, if it did turn out to be too much, and wiped the floor with the party, you'd probably not be too happy with your choice.

That's sufficient for my point.

I absolutely do try... but at the time of my choosing the module, it's uncomfortably close to random. If I had time to "do it right", there would be no module at all.

Anyway, I'm just serving as one datapoint on this issue.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Reynard]

Well, look at your own jumping through hoops to bring in "modules" -- and so to add a camel to the flea.

Some trends go back a long time, back before some folks started playing. Some people have never known anything but the rigging of things, from the DM fiat suggested in the thread's title to the DM dictation of "encounters" that SOTS took for granted, and upon which certain notions of "balance" depend. White Wolf was pushing a couple of decades ago a model that has since become the new norm.

It is not exceptional for people to lack the mental agility to consider that there might be other possibilities.

I actually have no idea what you are talking about. The only play method I can imagine that does not involve the GM choosing *something* is one in which everything -- every location, every NPC, every object -- is determined via the game engine (random tables, for lack of a better term). And I am sure some people play this way, I imagine it is relatively rare.

ANd at the same time I don't think this is what you are talking about. What are you talking about? Can you describe your method of play? I am honestly curious how you play, as it does not intuitively leap to my mind.

 

[Ariosto]

By my recollection, you've tried the equivalent of this hyperbolic line of argument several times before in similar threads.

By my recollection, and most definitely as my intent, it precisely parallels your hyperbolic line of argument that I quoted directly above it.

Specifically, I think you're the only one who has used the word "always" here.

Drop that then, if you will. If you meant "sometimes" in your rhetorical questions, then you ought to have been explicit. I do not see that it would have made the hyperbole any more relevant.

well, it'll be a hard sell

As hard as however many computer games!

Are there "killer" DMs, who make the game too hard? Are there "Monty Haul" DMs who make it too easy? Has that anything to do with creating scenarios, as in writing modules?

Are there both? I think there are. And, having two gray cells to rub together, I am not about to buy into your shell game there.

There is a lot of slippery slope down which to slide between trying to be impartial -- and wholeheartedly embracing partiality!

I think I stated very, very, very clearly where my interest lies: in my friends' having a fun game. If you mean to say that you, in a similar position, would consider yourself to have some interest opposed to that -- then that is you saying something about yourself.

I wonder whether you are even conscious of your tendency to "question" other people's statements about their own experiences and values as if you are in a position to know better what those are. There was a delightfully surprising exception in your first post to this thread, but here you are back to form.

 

[Ariosto]

Can you describe your method of play?

E. Gary Gygax and others have devoted many words to describing it, but a little fraction of which had been written when I learned to play. That was sufficient then, in combination with an hour's learning by actually playing. I have met people who learned from books alone.

The only play method I can imagine that does not involve the GM choosing *something* ...

Being a fair judge does not anything to do with a requirement that one choose nothing. It has to do with applying the rules by which the players have chosen to play.

I have absolutely no reason to "defend" a position that is not mine.

 

[Nagol]

So your GM doesn't happen to put together the monsters, and put them in the locations? Your players do that too?

In my mind, there are two roles that may or may not be the same person: designer and DM.

The designer puts together the circumstances, situation and poplulation. His job generally ends once the group gets together to play. A good designer builds good designs -- ones that interest, challenge, and engage the prospective players.

The DM runs the table arbiting the players stated actions in context of the situation. A good DM, while rooting for the players, judges results in a disinterested manner that is consistent with the table input (both player statements and game results) and the design.

 

[SteveC]

A lot of this depends on what kind of opponents the group is facing. Intelligent NPCs might see a reason to keep some members of the group alive, be it ransom or having something to gain out of the group's defeat.

In a recent game I ran the group was captured by the bad guys who turned their defeat into a major political coup against the group who had originally hired them, for instance. That defeat was way worse than death for some party members. I think a GM should always consider their alternatives, especially when an intelligent opponent is involved.

On the other hand, hungry ghouls or mindless undead? Time to start creating a new group...

 

[Imaginary Number]

I have no problem killing off individual characters, even in situations where the PCs have a run of bad luck or make some bad choices. That's what Raise Dead is for. In a potential TPK scenario, however, I'll try to find some way to save some or all of them unless I'm convinced that the players don't want to continue with the campaign, regardless of what would cause the TPK. There are lots of consequences short of death that can make a total defeat meaningful, many of which are mentioned upthread, and as a GM I'll grab one of those if I can in order to keep the story going for players who have an investment in it.

 

[esstillia]

LOL I think my DM does the same thing! He gets that worried look on his face..you know THAT one :/

 

[Hussar]

I actually have no idea what you are talking about. The only play method I can imagine that does not involve the GM choosing *something* is one in which everything -- every location, every NPC, every object -- is determined via the game engine (random tables, for lack of a better term). And I am sure some people play this way, I imagine it is relatively rare.

ANd at the same time I don't think this is what you are talking about. What are you talking about? Can you describe your method of play? I am honestly curious how you play, as it does not intuitively leap to my mind.

You could always go alphabetical:

Fight one, round one, Aarocockra.... FIGHT!

 

[Reynard]

E. Gary Gygax and others have devoted many words to describing it, but a little fraction of which had been written when I learned to play. That was sufficient then, in combination with an hour's learning by actually playing. I have met people who learned from books alone.

Being a fair judge does not anything to do with a requirement that one choose nothing. It has to do with applying the rules by which the players have chosen to play.

I have absolutely no reason to "defend" a position that is not mine.

Ah. I get it. You're engaging in some sort of geek-cred/badwrongfunism hybrid. That's fine. Enjoy it.

I, on the other hand, enjoy fruitful discussion with other posters, even those with whom I rarely agree (hi Hussar!), because gaming -- and D&D gaming in particular -- is a fundamentally social activity, shared across decades and leagues between people that have a common language and experiential foundation.

Except for, you know, people that want to flourish a black cape every time they leave a room.