• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Killer DMs

Well the only thing I have to say that I haven't already is: Do your players have a full Xmas tree of items to protect them, or are you frugal with loot and cash?

They are decently equipped and I've calculated their wealth by level pretty accurately. I'm thinking about over-equiping them actually, in order to improve their chances of survival.

I'd say that they are modest Xmas trees, not too bright ones though...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Partly I used that preamble for politeness. Politeness DOES matter. Hopefully phrasing it that way will make it more likely for others to consider what I say rather than to just immediately get defensive as they would were I to phrase things rudely.

Yes, I understand your intention, but for my part I find those preambles to make what you say less polite. Opening up with, "I don't mean to be rude, but...", to me is even more irritating and provoking than often what follows. This is because too often, people who use that sort of preamble, do mean to be rude, and obviously know that they are being rude, but not only persist in their rudeness despite knowing how they are going to come off, but are being passive agressive about. They treat such preambles as a free pass that somehow excuses them of whatever they say. Indeed, I've concluded that in many cases, the real meaning of those preamables like, "I don't mean to be rude...", is actually, "I do mean to be rude, but I don't want to think of myself as being rude, and I don't want other people hearing me being rude to think of me as someone who is rude."

In other words, I find that the phrase compounds error with self-deception, pretence, and dishonesty.

Whereas, without the preamble, I might simply think that the person is not meaning to be rude, is unaware that it might be taken as rudeness, and so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Or at the worst, I'll assume that there rudeness is intentional, but is only a sort of immature attack on my character or person that no one will really take seriously and which is indeed likely to reflect badly on them. Somehow, giving such an attack a preamble makes me feel that its potentially more damaging, in that it seems like a well played trick - a foul deed hiding behind a fair face.

And the same generally seems to hold true for all similar preambles where people try to deny that they are doing what they in fact (at some level) know they are doing.

I admit that it irritates me more often than it should, and, in your case in particular it didn't irritate me very much because I assumed from the content that followed that you meant it as politeness, but sometimes its that false pretence of politeness that is precisely what I find most impolite. Besides, "I don't mean to give you my opinion, but I will..." is more funny than irritating. :)

I gather from his writings that Tolkien had the very same issues. In fact, the Hobbit opens with a discussion of almost this very problem. Bilbo is being rude, but hides his rudeness behind false politeness, so that Gandalf says things like, "My what many uses you have for 'Good Morning'. Now you mean that it won't be a good morning until I go away." And Sam in particular, every time he is about to do something stupid and put his foot in his mouth, begins with a preamble where he denies (to himself) that he's doing exactly what it is he is doing. For example, when Frodo is speaking to Faramir, Sam is increasingly thinking that Frodo is being foolish and Faramir being unkind, so in response he says, "I don't mean to put myself forward...", while stepping in front of Frodo and placing himself at the center of attention (and shortly thereafter making a fool of himself).

I have no desire whatsoever to convince other people that I'm right and they're wrong. I know that there is NO right way or wrong way.

My opinion is similar but different. I believe that there are things that are right and things that are wrong, but for many activities most choices are matters of taste so that there is no ONE right way.
 

My two biggest problems with death rates that high are
  1. It is really hard to get interesting characterization when characters and interactions are so short lived
  2. It presumably makes the characters insanely cautious and paranoid which, IMHO, causes the game to drag immensely.
1.It's not that hard. In fact the idea that 'death can be around any corner' increases characterization and interactions and roleplaying. It's simple, when your character might die at any time, you need to live fast and play hard. For example 'Lone Wolves' don't do well in my game: when the player does the ''oh my guy is so cool and mysterious that he just pulls his cloak around him and sits in the back'' does not work out when a couple of rounds later that character needs help and he has not spoken more then six words to any other player in the last hour.

Also, near death is a great way to bond, both for characters and players. Joe and Bob are a wizard and a dwarf and don't really like each other, yet after an encounter with some dire crocodiles where they both had three hit points and only survived by working together, they bond quick.

2.I don't find this to be the case, my game stays very fast paced. Players maybe cautious and paranoid, but that does not stop them from playing.


Why does failure have to equal death? In the real world I fail all the time thankfully that doesn't mean I die for each time I fail. I like failure and I like challenge but always killing the PCs gets old and tiresome.

Failure does not always equal death. But the point is that no matter what and no matter when character death is possible.

And if your talking about the 'real world' as in modern America then yes your chances of failing and dying are slim....but in say real world Iraq.

Anyway, that aside, I basically agree with your point. High death rates are not particularly conducive to creating deeply meaningful, highly immersive, and compelling stories. And it may be that bloodtide plays the way he does because he doesn't care about such things, but if I may hazard a guess, I think from what he says about his stance that he does. In particular, a statement like, "Then your just reacting a cartoon or a Disney movie.", tells me that he is also motivated as you are by the desire to make deeply meaningful, immersive, and compelling stories (stories here contrasted with sterotypically shallow children's stories).

It's a lot about the wink and the handshake. Any movie, novel, TV show or other work of fiction has very little death. Everyone knows for an absolute fact that a main character can not die. Yet, the fiction will be full of deadly action. A character might dangle off of a building, or get in a sword fight or be trapped next to a bomb. But everyone knows the character will be fine. And everyone just pretends that they don't know that, and then pretend that the character might really be in danger. But they are not. (and yes death does happen in fiction, but only a small amount that is part of the story.)

And a lot of games are like that too. They just pretend there is danger, with the DM and players just winking at each other. A lot like kids cartoons and shows, that are full of lots of action, but no one gets hurt or killed.
 

Failure does not always equal death. But the point is that no matter what and no matter when character death is possible.

And if your talking about the 'real world' as in modern America then yes your chances of failing and dying are slim....but in say real world Iraq.

No one ever talks about other types of failure aside from death though. And even if places that are more dangerous then the American suburbs I have to think that there are plenty of people that fail every day that don't end up dead.

Death is always a possibility in deadly situations but the game is more then constantly putting the PCs in deadly peril.
 

Death is always a possibility in deadly situations but the game is more then constantly putting the PCs in deadly peril.

Way back on page one I did say that death is just an important part of the game.

The problem with the 'TV Style' game is that it's all goofy and light and fluffy. After the game has been going for a half hour and a character is attempting to open a trapped door. Everyone except the rogue and the DM just sits back and realaxes and jokes around. Everyone knows that the ''Good Buddy DM'' will never kill off a character with a random door trap just 30 minutes into the game. Everyone knows that the DM 'has a story to tell' and that all the characters get plot armor so the DM can spread his feathers and show off his story. So even if the character sets off the trap, everyone knows nothing will happen. (''Oh the trap goes off, you take 1d8 fire damage and it burns off your eyebrows...hehehe..hahahaha")

And then there is my game. Everyone knows the door trap is deadly. And there will be more then one...and it will likely have strange effects....and everyone knows that unless they all work together as a team, they have little chance of not only getting through the door, but keeping their characters alive. So all five players get together and come up with a complex plan just to open the trapped door and live.
 

And then there is my game. Everyone knows the door trap is deadly. And there will be more then one...and it will likely have strange effects....and everyone knows that unless they all work together as a team, they have little chance of not only getting through the door, but keeping their characters alive. So all five players get together and come up with a complex plan just to open the trapped door and live.

Did you read Grimtooth's traps and decide they were too friendly? :D

This sounds like what I would refer to as ridiculously deadly. At this point I start to wonder why my character and all the others are risking life and limb just to open a door. Hell, at some point I'd either be tossing fireballs from 50 yards away to blow up the suspect door or my character would have such a paranoia of doors that he would be catatonic whenever he saw one.

I don't play a game like the first extreme you described either. I like a happy middle ground and enjoy challenging the players with different kinds of scenarios that don't always lead to death.
 

No one ever talks about other types of failure aside from death though. And even if places that are more dangerous then the American suburbs I have to think that there are plenty of people that fail every day that don't end up dead.

Maybe it is a failure of my imagination here, but though you keep mentioning it and I keep straining to understand what you mean, I still can't imagine meaningful failures that can be summoned up at will to substitute for something like death.

I mean sure, on one level people fail all the time and they don't die. But on that same level, the PC's fail all the time and don't die. They get hurt. They sometimes take ability damage or acquire disease or other long term problems. They swing with their sword and miss. They fail saving throws and get paralyzed. They cast mighty magics only to see their foes be immune by virtue of strong will, magical resistance, or immunity. The smash things only to realize that they are incorporeal or have DR. They fail skill checks and are caught in traps, or have to bash down doors rather than silently pick locks. They fall on their faces or tumble off of cliffs. In short, their lives are filled with all sorts of petty failures.

I can certainly think of many sorts of less petty failures - relationships that go sour, valuable property lost or stolen, blows to their reputations, criminal charges pressed against them, loved ones killed, goals and dreams temporarily shattered, ambitions thwarted and so forth. But these, while they happen in my games, can't always or even usually be made to stand in for death as if they were substitutes for mortality. Even things like imprisonment, cursed, mugged and robbed, brain washed, maimed and the like aren't always available except as illogical consequences to a given situations. I don't see how you can use the existance of these other sorts of failure to negate death.

So I don't see how you can equate 'lots of characters die' with the absense of other sorts of failure or the presence of other sorts of failure with the absense of death.
 

The problem with the 'TV Style' game is that it's all goofy and light and fluffy. After the game has been going for a half hour and a character is attempting to open a trapped door. Everyone except the rogue and the DM just sits back and realaxes and jokes around. Everyone knows that the ''Good Buddy DM'' will never kill off a character with a random door trap just 30 minutes into the game. Everyone knows that the DM 'has a story to tell' and that all the characters get plot armor so the DM can spread his feathers and show off his story. So even if the character sets off the trap, everyone knows nothing will happen. (''Oh the trap goes off, you take 1d8 fire damage and it burns off your eyebrows...hehehe..hahahaha")

And then there is my game. Everyone knows the door trap is deadly. And there will be more then one...and it will likely have strange effects....and everyone knows that unless they all work together as a team, they have little chance of not only getting through the door, but keeping their characters alive. So all five players get together and come up with a complex plan just to open the trapped door and live.

So, earlier I said that it is quite hard to walk the line between having plot protection and being a killer DM. And I still believe that. But, you don't even seem to be trying, and there is a vast chasm between the two extremes that you are asserting here. You have excluded pretty much the entire middle. Very skilled players ought to be hard to kill, yet you boast you kill one of your PC's once a session. Either you should dial down the difficulty to suit the inexperience of your players, or else you have nothing really to boast about because killing players is easy if you have that as a primary goal. The DM can always win if he wants to. The trick of DMing, what is hard, is to arrange things so that if the PC's do well, you will always lose by slender margins and yet, to at the same time not fudge and previcate so that - had the PC's done less well - failure or death would not have awaited them.

I mean, maybe it's me, but after 30 years of opening trapped doors, a steady diet of that has gotten stale. Don't get me wrong; I can dungeon crawl with the best of them and enjoy an occasional Tomb of Horrors inspired puzzle section either as a player or DM, but if that's all you got in your DMing pallette then I think I'd find it a bit monotonous. Besides I long ago learned that the secret to winning those sort of scenarios was to refuse to play the DM's game.

My impression from your posts so far is that you had a bad experience with a pushover DM, and that you are overcompensating. Now this isn't to say that traps should do 1d8 fire damage/save for half if you intend the trap to be anything more than a nuisance/attrition. One famous trap in my current campaign involved a room with harpoon traps that, if they hit, not only did weapon damage but grappled the character and reelled the unlucky sap up to the ceiling 20' above for reverse falling damage. The ceiling was covered with spikes, which impaled the character leaving him trapped and bleeding out. And of course, unless a clever plan of rescue was discovered and great skill used, there was a good chance if you tried to cut yourself free from the barbs you'd only do more damage to yourself and then drop you 20' to the floor. This trap was used against 3rd level characters.

And did I mention their was an invisible evil cleric in the room as well?

So while I agree that plot protection or mechanical protection to the point where everyone knows death is not a real possibility is not enjoyable for the player, I think that you perhaps have not considered the possible joys of deciding not to kill PC's on purpose. If the dangers are real, they'll find ways to get themselves killed without your troubling to plan it. Neither your game nor the straw man of a game where failure has been made impossible describes my game remotely.
 

They are decently equipped and I've calculated their wealth by level pretty accurately. I'm thinking about over-equiping them actually, in order to improve their chances of survival.

I'd say that they are modest Xmas trees, not too bright ones though...
Well, you don't seem to be actively trying to kill PCs, and you've got your eyes open for warning signs of frustration. Your players could be politely 'meh,' but presumably they know that you don't directly ask for state-of-the-game opinions? So you're as sure that they're happy as you can be, without actually asking them.

I myself wouldn't be crazy about your game style, but kudos on finding a group that does!
 

The problem with the 'TV Style' game is that it's all goofy and light and fluffy. After the game has been going for a half hour and a character is attempting to open a trapped door. Everyone except the rogue and the DM just sits back and realaxes and jokes around. Everyone knows that the ''Good Buddy DM'' will never kill off a character with a random door trap just 30 minutes into the game. Everyone knows that the DM 'has a story to tell' and that all the characters get plot armor so the DM can spread his feathers and show off his story. So even if the character sets off the trap, everyone knows nothing will happen. (''Oh the trap goes off, you take 1d8 fire damage and it burns off your eyebrows...hehehe..hahahaha")

What a peculiarly eccentric definition of "everyone" you have.

I'm not even close to a Killer GM. And in my most recent game, the players found a wishing coin that had "pretty good odds" on the first flip of granting a wish with no real strings attached; the other results would be "mixed results" and "uh-oh." I made it as clear as possible that a bad flip would not be deadly, or end a character as playable -- it would just be interesting.

Only two PCs (and one minion) used it, and they got it back to its rightful owner ASAP.

My players obviously aren't "everyone." They're more of the sort who are careful to avoid failure because I'm going to make failure interesting. I take their trust in my creativity as quite a compliment.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top