Do you "save" the PCs?

[pemerton]

I think the single thing that fuels so much contention in these debates is a disagreement on which way the ball rolls down the slippery slope. Does excessive fiat lead to unsatisfying, arbitrary resolutions dictated by the GM? Does a slavish reliance on dice rolls lead to discontinuity, illogic, and anticlimax?

I'm not sure that this is the single thing. I rely on the dice - but there are parts of D&D 4e that are not dictated by the dice, such as encounter design and other aspects of scene framing, and also the question of whether a monster kills PCs or knocks them unconscious.

So relying on the dice doesn't settle the question of whether or not PC death - and especially TPKs - are on the table.

It's also not just GM fiat. For exampe, the last time in my campaign the entire party was taken down in a fight, I asked the players whether they wanted their PCs saved or wanted to bring in new PCs. One wanted to bring in a new PC, so his PC died - the others were taken prisoner.

 

[Raven Crowking]

@ the OP: No, I do not save the PCs. Either the players save the PCs, or the PCs do not get saved.

(In some cases, the addition of an NPC/other creature as a wandering monster may aid the PCs in getting out of hot water, but it is never an auto-save, and always has to be paid for in some way.......i.e., "Well, the T. Rex took out the velociraptor, but now we have to deal with the T. Rex".)


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

Interestingly, the 3e DMG uses the exact same word, 'tailored', when drawing a distinction between tailored and status quo encounters.

More great quotes, Doug. They also illustrate the trouble with quoting Gygax as support for one's position: he said different things at different times. But the advice here is sound.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not sure that this is the single thing. I rely on the dice - but there are parts of D&D 4e that are not dictated by the dice, such as encounter design and other aspects of scene framing, and also the question of whether a monster kills PCs or knocks them unconscious.

So relying on the dice doesn't settle the question of whether or not PC death - and especially TPKs - are on the table.

It's also not just GM fiat. For exampe, the last time in my campaign the entire party was taken down in a fight, I asked the players whether they wanted their PCs saved or wanted to bring in new PCs. One wanted to bring in a new PC, so his PC died - the others were taken prisoner.

But I don't think those are contentious. Maybe I'm misreading, but you seem to be agreeing with my central point, that the dice are not the central issue. Where I perhaps diverge is in generalizing that the debates on dice and TPKs seem to pivot on the use of dice, when in fact those are two fairly independent issues that interact rarely except when you ask, "Do you alter dice rolls to avoid a TPK, and how does that affect your decission-making prior to?" Subtract the dice, and you still have the decision-making.

 

[Ariosto]

I do not "quote Gygax in support of my position". Certainly that is at least as plausible an interpretation of what Doug McCrae does!

I recommended the Mastery books as part of what one might read, because they give different views from a different time. Gygax's next game, Dangerous Journeys, would be very different from AD&D. For one thing, it takes a lot longer to generate a DJ character (which also starts a lot more powerful). His final game, Lejendary Adventures, was something else yet again (much lighter on rules than DJ).

It is of course possible to apply what one personally prefers to all RPGs. It is no special hurdle if that happens to change from one year to another! However, I do not think it coincidence that, even had he stayed with TSR, Gygax anticipated notable changes (such as a "skills system") in his version of a Second Edition. DD, DJ and LJ are designed to do different things, and tend (like other tools) to do best the jobs to which they were fitted.

The point, to my mind, of reading those books, is the same as why I read rulebooks for games I do not mean to play. Seeing many different approaches enriches one's intellectual tool-kit. It is not for the sake of elevating anyone else to a blindly followed "authority", but for the sake of making one's own way.

If Mr. Gygax may be trusted to speak as to his own intent, in his monumental Dungeon Masters Guide he "made every effort to give the reasoning and justification for the game." The reason he wrote it is the reason to quote it.

The DMG is not the beginning and end of Gygax's (or anyone's, I should hope) views on RPGs as a genus. It is as comprehensive a treatment of the views that went into the design of Advanced D&D as one might find in a single volume.

The fundamental concept that the referee's object is to provide a good challenge had from the start been expressed in such terms as these:

The fear of "death", its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of the game. It therefore behooves the campaign referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistent with a reasonable chance of survival (remembering that the monster population already threatens this survival).

Traps should not be of the "Zap! You're dead!" variety but those which a character might avoid or overcome with some quick thinking and a little luck.
... Try to keep the dangers appropriate to the levels of the characters and the skill of your players. The possibility of "death" must be very real, but the players must be
able to win through with luck and courage, or they will lose interest in the game and not come back.

That's the game I play, and it requires no lengthy explanation (of which there is plenty more in the AD&D books and elsewhere) for me to see that it was indeed designed so.

Now, clearly some people have a very, very different view of the risk of character death (and often of player skill as well). That is fine. Let them be content to go forth and add and and subtract, and play their own games, and call them good.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Dangerous Journeys. Ah memories. I still have a promotional poster for
Dangerous Dimensions before TSR made him change it.

 

[Fifth Element]

I do not "quote Gygax in support of my position".

You'll forgive me, but your very reasoned response here is at odds with the aggressive stance you took earlier in the thread. The whole quoting thing, IIRC, started when you said "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." in describing your playstyle. This smacks of an appeal to authority, and the reaction followed that.

 

[Ariosto]

DJ, on which Gygax was already at work in 1986, is a very complex game. To my mind, it surpasses FGU's Space Opera and Aftermath in that regard.

"Heroic Personas" get "Joss Factors" that players can spend. As a rule of thumb, from 5 to 6 points will cause "an almost earth-shaking change" in the game's reality, in favor of the HP. At most 5, I think, would guarantee a result other than death from a Shock roll.

So, there's a handy tool for the players to save the PCs. One can get more Joss in the course of play (mainly with GM-awarded "Exceptional Performance Accomplishment Points"), having up to 14 JF at one time.

However, the initial supply depends on a single roll giving almost equal chances for any number from 2 to 14! Most are 8%, but the chance dips to 7% for values of 5, 6, 8, and 11. Why it's such a curious pattern beats me, except that the power to shape Kismet is by its nature uncanny.

Considering how much work it is to create a DJ character, I would definitely not want it to get wiped out in the first scene! I have had that happen to Rolemaster and GURPS characters, and considered it a bit of a drag, and even the "light" Mythus Prime rules seem to me roughly on that order.

Chapter 14, "The Campaign and Gamemastering", is throughout a great example of the nuance Gygax seemed most of the time to bring to the subject, encouraging deep understanding of the issues and a thoughtful approach to adapting the game to the tastes of the participants.

On Realism Versus Playability:

Remember playability when you consider realism and vice versa, and when you feel expert in the systems, do what is necessary to bring both into the right balance for you and your players.

On Interpretation of Rules:

What seems simply an arbitrary rule, one not well considered perhaps, might actually be there to make the game both more realistic and playable overall. The GM with such wisdom can only be a successful one.

On Gamemaster Only Versus Group Adjudication of Questions:

Many rules aren't questioned by players until after they are enforced. If they weren't objectionable before, why now? Is it because the players may have sour grapes because they are adversely affecting their characters? In such situations, the decision should ultimately be the GM's.

If a rule is obviously disagreeable to you and your group, use the guidelines given below to try to fix it, or ignore it entirely. But remember to be careful, for there might be other related rules that depend on it.

On Creating Specific Case "House Rules":

In any case, house rules must always be applied with consistency by the GM, or else they are not rules at all. And without rules there can be no game.

On Gamemaster Encouragement of Players:

Game-Play Reminders: A GM can often help a group stay in character by doing the same during the gaming session. When this fails, a tactful and brief reminder to the wayward player(s) may be necessary. It is not the Gamemaster's responsibility to continually keep the players in character. If a player is being particularly troublesome, more direct means should be helpful. Extra random encounters with beasts (or even a bolt from the blue) will soon encourage such players to mend their ways.

Now, that bit is pure "Gygax, circa 1992"!

 

[Ariosto]

This smacks of an appeal to authority, and the reaction followed that.

It smacks of referring to what are in fact the closest sources to "authorities" on the subject of "the method of play" of TSR-D&D. That, not "my playstyle", was the matter at hand.

Do I ever "choose something"? Do I even "place monsters in locations"?

The answers, as far as I am concerned, can be found in Gygax & Arneson (1974), or Holmes (1977). I have met plenty of people who found in all essentials the same instructions in Gygax (1979), Moldvay (1981) and Mentzer (1983).

I had already given my statement of what being a "referee" means to me in the relevant context. On that, I am most assuredly the authority!

As the early texts took for granted understanding of the term, one must look prior to them for the understanding they assumed.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe I'm misreading, but you seem to be agreeing with my central point, that the dice are not the central issue. Where I perhaps diverge is in generalizing that the debates on dice and TPKs seem to pivot on the use of dice, when in fact those are two fairly independent issues that interact rarely except when you ask, "Do you alter dice rolls to avoid a TPK, and how does that affect your decission-making prior to?" Subtract the dice, and you still have the decision-making.

The misreading was probably on my part.

Wrt the decision-making: OD&D, BD&D and 1st ed AD&D had rules for encounter/adventure design using dice. They also has wandering monster rules, which are dice-driven. So in relation to those cames, "leting the dice fall where they may" probably extends beyond action resolution into the GM's decision-making efforts. And dice in action resolution extend to morale checks.

A game like 4e, which expects the GM to engage in non-random decision-making for scene-framing and elements of action resolution (no morale checks, for example) probably increases the scope for the GM to be more or less generous to the players in making those decisions.