I'm a bad DM part 2

[Thanee]

This means attacking the fighters with stuff requiring WILL saves, attacking the Wizards with stuff that requires a FORT save. I fight nasty and capitalise party weaknesses. I don't cheat to kill them, but I definitely try.

As long as the BBEG doesn't act as if he/she/it knew the character sheets or effects affecting them, that's fine.

The BBEG should really do that, it's reasonable, but only based on whatever knowledge the BBEG could reasonably have.

Bye
Thanee

 

[sniffles]

So knowing your character will never die is fun?

Why not just watch a movie, then?

For some people, no, it's not fun to lose a character. And in watching a movie you don't get to make the character, direct the character, roleplay the character behaving the way you want him to behave. Which is why it's not fun for that type of player to lose a character. You've spent all that time and effort to have the character you want, and now he's dead.

 

[Festivus]

I thought in this particular instance the BBEG really does know and understand the capabilities of the characters. I won't go into spoilers as to how but if this is HOHR, that should be the case.

I would not pull any punches. My group is just starting HOHR, I don't expect them all to survive but they have surprised me more than once through the Age of Worms with clever ways to deal with problems.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

For some people, no, it's not fun to lose a character. And in watching a movie you don't get to make the character, direct the character, roleplay the character behaving the way you want him to behave. Which is why it's not fun for that type of player to lose a character. You've spent all that time and effort to have the character you want, and now he's dead.

I guess your character sheets don't have a space for "hit points", then. I mean, why would you need them, right? Your character can't die! Because that wouldn't be fun.

[shrug]

Hey, play any way you want to, dude. It's just not really orthodox, that's all. It's an RPG. Characters can, and do, die. You roll up a new one. Without the possibility of death, you aren't playing an RPG anymore -- you're playing make-believe instead. Which is cool, and all. It just ain't D&D.

 

[Chimera]

Having not read most of the thread before replying...

The problem that I have with this GMing style is that, but fudging and nerfing your players through the underlings, you are training them to act in a certain way and building certain expectations; along with building false confidence in their abilities and the way the game is played.

Then you completely change the rules for the climactic battle, which makes it considerably tougher than it would be if they had been forced to play a stronger and more tactical game all along the way.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

In and of its self, I do not think that it is inherently wrong to run monsters who are both capable of killing the PC's and make every reasonable effort to do so. There are however, limits to this.

- The players should have a reasonable chance of winning.
Your players must have a shot at winning the fight. Its ok if the players are a little out gunned, but do not over do it. This means that you should avoid doing fun things like throwing 1st level characters against Acerak the Eternal. Do not throw 1st level characters against a monster whose minimum damage will drop the highest HP player in 1 hit.

- The players should have the means to cut and run if they figure out they are losing
If your players get into the fight against the villian, and 3 rounds in they have lost their primary melee guy, and have only hit him once, they may want to flee. Now, if the players are in a sealed room, the DM screwed up. But if the players have the option of fleeing at any time, its not such a problem.

- The players should have some advance warning that your out for blood
Now, there is no in game way to handle this. You actually have to tell the players at some point "This villian is out for blood. If I can score a TPK here, I will". If you run every fight this way, no biggie. But if the players are used to fights that they can breeze through, they deserve more warning of the increased lethality than 3 of 4 characters being dropped in one round.

- The Villian should not be over customized against the players without reason
Emphasis on the 'without reason'. If you have a villian nail exactly the right targets with exactly the best attack to drop them in the first encounter, you screwed up. As an example, consider a party of Orcs showing up to fight the players. If they all mob the mage in the first round to prevent death by fireball, and give the combat reflexes character a wide berth and pepper him with arrows long before he gets cleaved reach attacks off, that is unfair. But if this is a 2nd encounter against orcs where a bunch of Orcs got away alive early on, you have an in game reason for the orcs to know who is dangerous.

- The situation must be justified in game
If your going to be out for blood, dont just do it on a whim. You should not throw the players up against a trained assassin in the middle of an adventure that the Asssassin is not a part of. If your going out for blood, the story should call for it. A near TPK should be a climactic event.

There are only two points at which you should put the PC's in mortal jeopardy.

Against a signifigant villian or other threat in the context of the story
Any situation in which the players bring it on themselves and they should know better (Waking up a sleeping dragon).

END COMMUNICATION

 

[frankthedm]

For some people, no, it's not fun to lose a character. And in watching a movie you don't get to make the character, direct the character, roleplay the character behaving the way you want him to behave. Which is why it's not fun for that type of player to lose a character. You've spent all that time and effort to have the character you want, and now he's dead.

The D&D game takes place in violent worlds where claw, sword and spell decide the day. One side is not coming out alive. The fights are [usually] already rigged to give PCs a chance and even if they fights are further rigged to give players a 90% chane of victory, there is still the 10%.

 

[Gundark]

I firmly believe that a TPK (unless it's early in the campaign) is typically the fault of the GM - he misjudged the playing abilities/character strengths/monster strengths of the encounter, and the whole party suffered as a result.

I agree that DMs can be at fault for a TPK. But all the time? You mean that poor planning/player stupidity/Bad luck has nothing to do with a TPK? I don't think I buy 100% into your theory.

 

[Gundark]

Are you exaggerating, or do you literally mean they were all dead in round 3? If the latter, you may have played something incorrectly.

Only slightly . By round 3 all the PC were stunned and it looked like the MF could go from PC to PC eating brains (I rolled high for how low they were stunned). I suggested as the DM we reset the fight. The group agreed. So I count that as a TPK

 

[Elf Witch]

I guess your character sheets don't have a space for "hit points", then. I mean, why would you need them, right? Your character can't die! Because that wouldn't be fun.

[shrug]

Hey, play any way you want to, dude. It's just not really orthodox, that's all. It's an RPG. Characters can, and do, die. You roll up a new one. Without the possibility of death, you aren't playing an RPG anymore -- you're playing make-believe instead. Which is cool, and all. It just ain't D&D.

If you have a real heavy role playing game with a lot of character development and world development death with no chance of raise dead can derail a campaign. A TPK can be the death blow to the campaign.

I don't know why some people feel the need to tell other people that because they play differently that they are not playing DnD.