But I also have some inclination to agree with this. And I'd add - part of what can make a combat fun is that the players get a chance to express their PCs via the action resolution mechanics. This is a bigger deal in some systems than others - not such a big deal in AD&D or RQ, where there is not much round-by-round choice to be made (your best attack, defence etc were already chosen at character generation) but a big deal in 4e and Rolemaster, for example, because every round the player has a range of options from which some selection has to be made. Especially where those choices are flavourful and affect the way the combat unfolds, they can be meaningful choices even if death is not on the table.
To give a concrete example. Suppose the player of the samurai chooses a high risk, high reward strategy. If the samurai cuts down all the opponents like chaff, we have a story about prowess and also, perhaps, about arrogance. If the risks are realised, and the samurai is actually beaten off by one of the opponents, having to fall back and receive healing wile the monk goes on to finish the combat, then the story becomes one about reliance, teamwork, succour and perhaps comeuppances.
These meaningful player choices which lead to differences in what's happening in the story - both in the gameworld, and at the metagame/thematic level - can take place even if PC death is not on the table because the samurai and monk are virtually guaranteed, if played cleverly, to wipe out the opponents one way or another.
To try and reconcile my two inclinations: I agree with Exploder Wizard that we should avoid meaningless encounters, but really want to stress that combat and encounters can be meaningful (for some players) even if death is not on the table because they can still provide an outlet for meaningful choices that express the character of the PCs and drive the story forward. And I'm saying this not just as theory, but based on my actual play experience.
On the other hand, Exploder Wizard, I get a strong sense that what I've described is really not the sort of D&D game you're interested in playing. And obviously that's fair enough. I'm enjoying this conversation about different playstyles. Apart from anything else, it's making me work hard to try and express what exactly it is that I enjoy about fantasy RPGing, and how the mechanics of the game feed into that.
In my games, once the dice come out, there are no guarantees.
I think a note here about death and the stakes of combat are in order. I do not mean to imply that every confrontation in the campaign will effectively be " toe to toe nukkler combat against the russkies".
First and foremost, results arising from the loss of combat will dependent on the nature of the enemy and the game world situation. This is a factor that affects the decision making process.
For example: The party opens up a door while exploring a dungeon. They see a filthy room infested with giant rats. One of the factors in play regarding their decision to fight the rats is the nature of the threat. The rats are critters of animal intelligence most likely to eat fallen PCs. The threat is therefore one of a grisly death and becoming rat food.
The rats will not capture a fallen PC or give any quarter no matter how much it might suck for a PC to become rat chow.
A different example: The party is asked to turn over their money and possessions by a group of bandits in the forest.
Unless the party has information that these thugs are merciless killers a fight with these enemies need not be lethalif the party is unable to defeat them. Smart bandits know that a sheep can be sheared many times but roasted only once.
The bandits will likely knock out, strip and bind the PC's and make off with their stuff. This is good for the bandits. After all the PC's might get new stuff, come back looking for vengeance, and the bandits can rob them again!
Every situation is different and the NPC's/monsters will do whatever they believe is in their best interestwith regard to defeated PC's. The players can certainly try and influence the default situation with offers of surrender, parley, or whatnot. Once again, the viability of these attempts depend on the nature of the foe.
In these situations there doesn't need to be any fudging to arrive at a less than lethal outcome.
The point I'm trying to make is it's still a possible to make a game about a group of protagonists who rarely, if ever, die. Death-lite doesn't mean game-light (or predetermined story-heavy).
If the game you are playing doesn't feature activities that players could possibly think could result in character death then I agree.
There are, of course, more options than "playing a game" and "wish fulfillment storytelling." There's a whole spectrum of playstyles in there that cannot be characterized by either of these two extremes.
Not to pick on ExploderWizard, because this is common in this thread, but the words you choose to state your position affect others' reactions to it.
If you don't like fudging and say "Fudging is fine...if you like wish-fulfillment storytelling. I'd rather play an honest game", that's loaded with implications. Similarly, "Fudging is fine...as long as you realize you're being dishonest".
Implications, or the harsh truth?
If you really believe that fudging is simply a matter of preference, there's no need for dismissive language such as this. Now we know that some posters don't believe it's a matter of preference, but that's a different story.
It is, and always has been a matter of preference, to play a
game or not.
Neither option is badwrongfun if the participants are enjoying the process.
)
