Do you "save" the PCs?

[The Shaman]

First, is the possibility of PC death crucial for excitement?

The possibility of character death? For me, yes, it is.

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).

Their lives may be exciting on one level, but if you're playing a game about, say, exploring dark dungeons and trackless wastes filled with ravening monsters and evil villains, then it's reasonable to expect the adventurers to face hazards more dangerous than a torn ACL, a scathing review, or a well-funded primary opponent.

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.

Roleplaying games are not movies. Different medium entirely.

And many of those movies suck precisely because they are so predictable, in my opinion, but to stick with the example, just for the sake of argument, we can also watch movies in which we know the characters we care about are going to die, and still find them exciting as well.

But again, I don't think it's a valid comparison in the first place.

Second, who should face the possiblity of failure - PCs or players?

Both.

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.

Then those sensitive souls who would not have a good time playing a game where character death is on the table should perhaps play a game where character death is rare per the rules as written; Marvel Super Heroes comes to mind.

But if you play a game where combat and other hazards meant to be deadly, and your character dies, you probably shouldn't be too shocked or disappointed.

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!).

I don't know about anyone else, but for me that's not actually a total party kill.

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.

Being beaten over the head by deus ex machina isn't my idea of a good time, but others' mileage certainly varies.

Look, I agree that the model "failure equals death" is much too simplistic: characters may fail in many different ways without dying in the games I run. But there are circumstance which arise in the course of play in which death is explicitly on the table, and I won't shy away from allowing those situations to run their course.

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.

And if we're playing a game where you can get a sword through your eye, you are explicitly agreeing to the fact that your character may die in the course of play.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

For me everything comes down to: How bad did I screw up as DM?

If I feel I didn't withold important information from the players that would have changed their decisions or strategy, then I will let the game play out.

If I realize they are in deep because of my screwing up, I will find a way to extricate the party from the mess I created.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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).

This is a good question. My answer would depend on the nature of the characters and thier adventures. If the game being played features player characters such as performers, gamblers, etc. then life or death stakes are not a normal part of the game and may not be required to play out exciting adventures with these characters.

If the player characters are wizards, warriors, etc. and thier adventures involve going into dangerous places infested with monsters, tricks, and deadly traps then life or death stakes are a normal part of life for these characters and thus part of the game.

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.

Movies are a different medium of entertainment and a passive one. One enjoys a movie as a consumer of entertainment, not a participant in that entertainment. A movie story is set and canned. Viewers cannot change the outcome through active participation. In a game, it is the ability to create and modify the action that provides the entertainment.

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.

The character faces death. The player experiences failure of a sort. A heroic death with meaning may not be a failure for the character at all.
Without the possibility of defeat there cannot be a victory. Degrees of success and failure are certainly possible. Not every failure needs to involve death and some victories can have a high cost. An rpg with a GM should be non-competetive at least between GM and player. If one aproaches a game with the attitude that it is no fun to play if there is any possibility of losing then why play? Participate in story telling and dispense with the sham of dice rolling or mechanics.

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.

There is nothing wrong with this. The stakes of failure do not have to be universally lethal. When it makes sense for the NPC's to take captives then they should.

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.

This is the kind of situation that players hate worse than being captured or killed-being rescued. Regardless of finesse the players may feel railroaded. If made to appear as part of the adventure as designed it's even worse because the DM put them in a situation that required a rescue.

 

[the Jester]

The dice rolls are bad. The tactics have failed. The situation is grim. Yet, they won't run away. So what do you do?

If you are GMing and the PCs get themselves in a pickle, but through poor judgement, overconfidence or just plain stubbornness they refuse to leave a losing encounter and a TPK or similar fate seems imminent, do you save them?

No. Generally, my groups keep going until there's a tpk (I don't usually have an overarching story in my campaign, although one often develops based on the pcs' actions). This "out at 30th level" stuff that 4e brings to the table is very interesting, and I'm excited to see how it works out, though we haven't gotten there quite yet!

 

[Imaginary Number]

Then those sensitive souls who would not have a good time playing a game where character death is on the table should perhaps play a game where character death is rare per the rules as written; Marvel Super Heroes comes to mind.

But if you play a game where combat and other hazards meant to be deadly, and your character dies, you probably shouldn't be too shocked or disappointed.

Badwrongfun! I have no problem with players who want to play in games where everything gets rolled in the open and a TPK could result at any time; that's a legitimate playstyle preference. However, I think it's also a legitimate playstayle preference for my group to want the DM to try to avoid campaign-ending events like a TPK unless the group as a whole wants the campaign to end. Either way, I'm not aware of anything in the D&D "rules as written" that dictates explicitly how rare or common character death or TPKs should be.

 

[Janx]

there's a whole lotta factors that lead up to an encounter being lethal.

On the whole published module versus homebrew, the act of choosing a module to play is a "bulk" act of creating all the encounters by hand. The DM is simply accepting somebody else's judgement of "what's there initially". If all the encounters are badly written and the DM doesn't adjust them, it's still the DM's choice. Right or wrong.

In a good movie or rpg session, there is a suspension of disbelief going on. It's not active, the player isn't conciously doing it. They are sucked into it, and thus, they are engaged in what happens next, and not considering that "this is just a game" or "the hero can't die, because he's signed a contract for 2 more sequels."

Deus ex machina sucks as story telling tool for a reason. If it has to be wielded, somebody screwed up.

Having your PC die sucks, especially if you have a lot of investment in your PC, and getting raised is not an option. Honestly, in most the games I play D&D in, death is pretty permanent. That's not true of all campaigns, but if those it is, it shapes how one looks at PC death.

Replacing your PC with a new one, doesn't make the suckitude go away. Oh yay, my replacement PC that I have no emotional investment into and is at full health beat the guy who killed the PC I put 5 years of game time into.

As a player, I like feeling like the situation is dire, and then pulling out a victory. I don't like losing. A good GM can deliver that, regardless of actual difficulty level or lethality.

As a GM, I don't like rewarding really stupid or obnoxious behavior. A player who picks a fight with some NPC, just because, and it having nothing to do with anything else going on, gets no safety net.

As a GM, I have killed PCs, including on the first mission (actually, that's a good time to whack a PC and demonstrate the lethality, before players are invested).

PCs do die. I think a good GM takes in a lot of factors in considering whether to kill a PC, or make something different happen.

I think the answer is, "It depends"

 

[The Shaman]

Badwrongfun!

Awhile back I was informed by another poster on these boards that he would sulk if his character was killed without his permission. That was the exact word: sulk.

Yes, I think an adult pouting like a child over losing a game is bad, wrong, and pathetically unfun.

I have no problem with players who want to play in games where everything gets rolled in the open and a TPK could result at any time; that's a legitimate playstyle preference.

Agreed.

However, I think it's also a legitimate playstayle preference for my group to want the DM to try to avoid campaign-ending events like a TPK unless the group as a whole wants the campaign to end.

And what I'm suggesting is that there are roleplaying games out there which are written with this in mind, and that gamers who prefer this approach might be better served in playing one of them. This avoids the need to kludge the game to avoid certain outcomes.

Funny, I didn't think suggesting gamers should play a game which fits their playstyle would be controversial.

Either way, I'm not aware of anything in the D&D "rules as written" that dictates explicitly how rare or common character death or TPKs should be.

Other than the rules of the game which say when your character is alive and when it is dead, you mean?

 

[Janx]

Awhile back I was informed by another poster on these boards that he would sulk if his character was killed without his permission. That was the exact word: sulk.

Yes, I think an adult pouting like a child over losing a game is bad, wrong, and pathetically unfun.Agreed.And what I'm suggesting is that there are roleplaying games out there which are written with this in mind, and that gamers who prefer this approach might be better served in playing one of them. This avoids the need to kludge the game to avoid certain outcomes.

Funny, I didn't think suggesting gamers should play a game which fits their playstyle would be controversial.Other than the rules of the game which say when your character is alive and when it is dead, you mean?

I don't think you're saying it to be rude or mean, but telling me to go play a different game can be construed that way.

D&D is a very versatile ruleset. it can support a variety of play styles, usually with a shift in what the DM decides happens next, rather than specific arbitrary rules.

I like D&D. I like the rules overall. I like that I already own the books. I'm not going to jump systems when the effect I want is manageable by the GM.

If you're playing a dungeon crawl, where the challenge is really for the player, then PC death is just a setback, roll up a new one and get back in there.

If you're playing a story-driven game (and I cringe to see how some people interpret that), your PC is the vehicle, and if it dies, so does the story in many ways.

It's a valid way to play the game, which is why 2e seems to espouse it, and it came as recognition of that play style evolved in the 1e era. Is it truly a game, maybe not, but then the forward in the 2e PH says as much.

Anyway, I find suggesting somebody is playing the wrong game to be a bit off. I've been playing my way for 20 years. overall, I'm happy with the product.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Other than the rules of the game which say when your character is alive and when it is dead, you mean?

What about the guidelines in the DMG's that acknowledge the opposite is also allowed? That just because "the rules" say your charcter is dead, it doesn't necessarily have to be so. (Of course, only if the whole group accepts it). If the rules don't 100% support your playstyle, it's not necessary to change systems. If the disparity is too great, then maybe, but still not necessary. All systems are capable of supporting multiple playstyles, and no system supports any playstyle in a perfect manner. Sometimes, the system which one wants simply doesn't exist, in which case the only choices are to play them as is, or change them until the system is what you want. Systems are rules, and rules are simply tools to facilitate that which you (and the group) desire out of a game. No game rules are completely rigid unless you want them to be. Malleability of game rules is a plus, not a negative, that can be taken or left alone as one desires.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Funny, I didn't think suggesting gamers should play a game which fits their playstyle would be controversial.

It's a very good suggestion.

However, a problem some groups have is player "buy-in". The more casual gamers at a table often just don't want to bother with learning a new ruleset. Doing that can take a lot of session time away from a group that may only meet once every few weeks.

So the more agreeable option is simply to stick with the familiar rules in order to keep the group at the table, and leave it to the DM to make it work with the group's playstyle.