Do you "save" the PCs?

[El Mahdi]

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

Hey! Don't ignore the fashion advantage of a good black cape!

It's an essential this year.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would agree with those who say that knowing the GM is pulling punches kills the fun for them. I would much rather my character die, and roll up a new one, than have the GM pull me out of the fire somehow.

As a GM though, I try to read the group. Some groups seem okay with a "let the dice fall where they may" approach. But just because I prefer this style, I am not going to ruin everyone's fun if the majority of players prefer a different approach. Also, if you are going to let characters die when the dice dictate, you really need to make your best effort to be fair at all times, and balance encounters as much as possible.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I NEVER save them.



As others have said...put the game on "God Mode" and they're not really playing...



That said, I've dm'ed different "difficulty levels". My last campaign was for my group of "D&D experts"...it was to test and break the system and it was hardcore...usually 1 or more deaths per session. My current campaign is heroic. I expect few deaths over the whole campaign...very few. The difficulty level is dropped...BUT that's going into the fights...the rules don't change if they screw up or have a run of bad luck.

 

[Umbran]

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

What you quoted was me pointing out that the GM was the one typically arranging the monsters and terrain (either by design, or by accepting a module). I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that's hyperbolic.

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

It is a very long and shallow slope, and not actually particularly slippery. Taking a step down it doesn't imply that you'll end up at the bottom.

I think I stated very, very, very clearly where my interest lies

Yes. And I don't see anyone questioning where your interest lies.

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.

I have not intended to question your experiences or values in the slightest.

What else I have to say is far enough away from the basic premise of this thread that I'll take it to PM.

 

[Longtooth Studios]

If I feel that they are trying to metagame and exploit the fact that I don't really want them to die and make a wreck of the campaign I have labored over, then yeah, they gotta die.

If I can get away with it, I will drop in a few opportunities and let them almost wipe, and allow them to save themselves.

There has to be the potential of death and failure or there is no hope for an exciting game.

 

[drothgery]

Yup. As a DM, it;'s my job to make sure that the players aren't blind-sided by this occurrence. I don't mind them trying to take on more than they can chew, but there should be hints that they're walking into a no-win situation.

... though it was quite common for monsters in 3.x to move much faster than PCs could short of teleportation or similar magic, so you could only run away if the DM decided the monster wouldn't pursue.

 

[Ariosto]

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

*W*T*F*?!

O/AD&D is just a game! What on Earth has it done to you, that you feel a need to engage in name-calling like that? It really comes down to an attack on a person just for playing it.

If you really, truly wanted an explanation of how to play it, then you could pick up one, or several, of the books on the subject (including compilations of classic articles from The Dragon, and Gygax's "Mastery" volumes). That would be much more helpful than my trying to duplicate the work.

Why I would want to go to such effort for someone who is going to be so nasty is a mystery.

Look, people, I don't know where you get off going out of your way to claim I'm lying or whatever about how I and my friends play a dang-blamed game!

I have not said one damned thing against your statements of your own practice, and I am far from the only one in this thread to have said that I let the dice fall as they may.

What's it to you? How does our enjoyment of our game in any way affect yours?

 

[Ariosto]

What you quoted was me pointing out that the GM was the one typically arranging the monsters and terrain (either by design, or by accepting a module). I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that's hyperbolic.

In that case, it was no more hyperbolic when I pointed out that the players are typically (in our game) arranging the courses of their characters through the world, both where they go and what they do. You can have your hyperbole-cake, or eat it, but not both.

There is a critical difference between on one hand "arranging the monsters and terrain", and monasteries and treasures, and cabbages and kings, on the campaign map -- and on the other hand, dictating "combat encounters" as SOTS had suggested.

I did not see why I must "defend" my statement about my personal experience, relationships and ethos from people who undertake to contradict me without knowing thing one. I did not want to get into an argument with someone who started by directly contradicting my statement of my own position (and the very terminology in the rulebook), someone using (twice) such loaded language as "your fault".

Therefore, rather than go into details, I pointed out that our game was not SOTS's (or Benimoto's) game, and the assumptions that would create the condition in the first place, much less make it "my fault" do not pertain.

I think that ought to suffice. A person ought to realize that he has plenty of which to speak whereof he actually knows.

Yet you insisted on not merely raising again the claim, but casting it in the form of mocking hyperbole -- or whatever you will choose to call it (and my own response copying your form).

Taking a step down it doesn't imply that you'll end up at the bottom.

That's repeating my point, framed as it being a "long" way, which was in response to

If you want to right off the bat claim the same person who makes up the other team, creates the ground on which the contest will be held, makes all the decisions for one side, interprets all rules for both teams, and hand out the rewards for winning, is somehow only neutral in the proceedings...

...well, it'll be a hard sell.

Where did you get this attitude that I must "sell" jack to you? How is it your place to pass such a judgment? You are as much as accusing me of being a liar! Oh, well.

Logically, why should some deviation from neutrality matter? I never claimed to be perfect, so that is just a straw man.

"The same person who ..." is very clearly an argument for bias "against" the players, is it not? It is perfectly the rhetoric to suggest such a conflict of interest! Or, let us suppose that it is not. What then? What if, indeed, one could just as well be biased in favor of the players?

Well, what of it? What on earth do you suggest?

The only alternatives presented are
(A) to be "only neutral" -- which is held close enough to impossible;
(B) to adjudicate to the best of my ability in accordance with the rules to which my friends have agreed -- which somehow marks me as wrongly biased; or
(C) violate that agreement in favor of what SOTC, and Benimoto, and you happen to urge -- which is to be thoroughly biased, to the point of using DM Fiat to get "my" (actually your) way.

So, yes, it certainly looks as if you were indeed asserting that "taking a step down" -- any deviation from perfection -- leaves no recourse but to abandon even trying and go straight to "fudging".

And I don't see anyone questioning where your interest lies.

Do you see now? When someone tells you that what you are doing has a particular effect on her or him, your choice is either to respect that or not.

I have not intended to question your experiences or values in the slightest.

What you in fact have done is question them only the more outrageously with each suggestion that your actions are not appreciated.

 

[pawsplay]

Ariosto, I have no idea what you are talking about, but I am quite certain I do not feel the same heat from the other posters in this thread that I do from you. May I suggest taking a deep breath, and considering how you might express your opinions in a way that will help others relate to you, rather than a defensive stance?

 

[pemerton]

There has to be the potential of death and failure or there is no hope for an exciting game.

For me, this raises two questions.

First, is the possibility of PC death crucial for excitement? A lot of people live lives that they regard as at least moderately exciting, although they face no very large risk of death (eg sports people, performers, politicians, gamblers just to pick a few).

And a lot of movies are exciting even though - at the meta level - it's obvious there's no chance of the protagonist dying. The excitement consists in finding out how the protagonist survives, and at what cost. I think this can be applicable to RPGs too, including D&D.

Second, who should face the possiblity of failure - PCs or players? If the former, fine - that's part and parcel of dramatic protagonism. If the latter - well, some people like to play a game where they can lose, but some people like RPGs precisely because they can be played in a non-competitive way. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing if the rules create a serious risk of some players not having a good time playing the game.

DMG2 has some useful stuff to say on the pass/fail cycle, although it gives poor (or at best half-baked) advice on implementing it. (It's more-or-less recycled from HeroQuest, but the 4e mechanics are different enough from HeroQuest that you can't just drop in HQ withou any changes.)

The last TPK in my 4e game I had the PCs taken prisoner (except for the one whose player wanted a new character - that PC died, and the new PC was in the goblins' jail wghen the others turned up - party introductions made easy!). The 4e rules make that an easy option.

Another possibility would be to have a 3rd party intervene in the conflict, and hold the PCs to some sort of ransom in exchange for saving them. This requires a bit of finesse so that the players don't feel like they're being railroaded, but is something I'd probably try if I had to.

I'd only allow a TPK to be literally that if the players were all happy to start over with a new set of PCs and/or a new campaign.