Killer DMs

[SnowleopardVK]

I've been called a kind killer DM by a few players. That's their opinion though. *shrugs*

I know that I'm the only Pathfinder DM in my town who has ever TPK'd a group. (To be fair, there's only 3 local PF DMs. Darn small town...)

 

[Celebrim]

I'm NOT trying to tell you how to run your game (presumably you and your players enjoy it) but I find that death rate extremely high. Far, far higher than I or most of the people that I play with would tolerate.

As a side note, of course you are. You just did. There is no reason to be apologetic about it. Presumably mature people enjoy hearing other peoples advice about how to run their game; they just don't have to agree with it. Presumably mature people are happy about that. But you don't need to pretend that you aren't trying in some fashion or at some level to persuade people over to your opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. I bring this up only because its a personal peeve of mind when people say things like, "I'm not trying to be insulting...", or "Meaning no disrespect, but...", because in my experience the vast majority of times people do that what they are next going to say is the opposite of what they said their intention was and the indulgence or pretence just made it much more (I'm sure quite unintentionally) irritating.

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).

I think you fail to fairly grant just how difficult this problem is. For my part I don't feel like there is a lot of room between: "There is a LOT of room between "Killer GM" and "characters are immortal" I think those two things balance on such a fine knife edge that I've never really been able to successfully maintain such a balance for long. Death and not dying are absolutes. There really is no proof that the characters aren't immortal unless they die. Crafting the perception of real threat without occassionally having to make good on that real threat is very very hard. Sometimes players seem to go out of their way to get themselves killed. I mean what we are really asking is to play for hundreds of hours with a real risk of death, facing obstacles that require real effort and intelligence to overcome, and yet never once have a failure on the player's part. That's HARD.

 

[Elf Witch]

If your players are content then why is there any problem.

Our first 3.0 campaign we played for 18 months and got to seventh level. The DM just gave out small amounts of XP he didn't use the the by the book XP. It by far was my favorite game ever. I find that most games level way to fast and that most DMs can't really handle the higher level play and burn out.

Also being a certain level really lets you explore that level. I played a sorcerer and I found unique ways to use my spells that I doubt I would have found if we had every few weeks been on to newer and powerful stuff.

I am not a killer DM. I have things in place with my game that makes death much harder to happen like action points. Death can happen but it is rare. I find that doing this the risk is always there but since it is not happening all the time then the players really get into their characters something I don't believe happens as much if death happens all the time.

I used to play with killer DMs and I found that I didn't care about my characters at all. They were just numbers on a sheet. And as for death making the game more exciting I didn't find it so since I didn't care about my character losing it held no meaning at all.

bloodtide I have to disagree with you every game has a mechanic were you fail it is called losing. What is unique about DnD is that it is not about winning and losing the players work together to accomplish their goals. If I play monopoly and I lose the game it has no meaning other than I lost. Next time we play I could win. In DnD if I lose my character then it really matters if I can't find away to be brought back then everything that character was trying to accomplish is lost. I can play the shoe in monopoly over and over but if a character dies and is dead for good then I can never play the character again. That is a big difference.

If the designers meant for death to be a huge part of the game and be permanent they would not have put in spells that allow you to circumvent it.

There is a huge difference between death every session and immortal characters. In my game I have had a PC die. He did not use his actions points wisely and did some stupid things and death was the cost. So my players know they can die and that hangs over their head every combat but they also know that death is rare which makes them get attached to their characters and really develop them and care what happens to them.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

You said your players are content. Do you think they would remain that way if the difficulty bar were lowered just to advance the game?

Some players prefer a hard struggle and might lose interest in a game with too little challenge. Ask your group how they feel about the campaign and what, if anything , they would want to change.

I know you're right but still... If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
I think my game has already been established as deadly. Everyone knows it. When my players come at my place, they know that their PCs can easily get killed. Of course I can talk about it with them and sure we can talk about many details regarding the campaign. But usually I try to avoid democracy in games and I just try to do things in my own way, to tell the story in my words. In RPGs the role of the DM is not an easy one, but the word "Master" is there for a reason. Personally I don't like DMs who ask a lot of off-game questions. It kind of spoils the mystery of the game.

A good DM is fair but confident with his gaming style. He asks questions if he sees that something isn't right. A bad DM makes the game a democracy, asking questions about what should happen next. But this is just my opinion.

 

[Dioltach]

Killer DM? Please, death would come as sweet release to my PCs.

 

[Crothian]

Death is a very, very, very important part of D&D and it is one of the things that makes the game more unique then any other form of entertainment. It's possible for you to fail! That has a huge impact on the game.

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.

 

[Oryan77]

I try not to be a killer DM but I'm not afraid to let a PC die when I feel it is a legit death. I've killed plenty of PCs in my time.

But if it came to a point where PCs were dropping off left and right, or that my players even referred to me as a "killer DM", then that is a warning sign to me. I feel like that means I'm not a very good DM because I am not judging the difficulty level properly.

There are way too many things to influence the outcome of an encounter. You need to be good at balancing the difficulty so that it is hard without being unfairly difficult. Part of PC deaths can always be poor setup by the DM. Even if it is not necessarily my fault, I need to be aware if there is an issue while running that encounter. If I feel that the encounter is fair, although difficult, I'll let it play out normally and if someone dies, he dies.

But if I realize that a monster is more powerful for its CR than expected (maybe the party build is not built well against this enemies attacks), then I may "forget" to use an ability, or I may fudge a dice roll. But I only do this if I feel the encounter is much too difficult than I meant for it to be.

There is also the fact that I may be a better tactician than my players. I'm not playing chess. So my ability to "beat them" should not necessarily be used in my advantage unless it makes sense to do so.

People like to wear the "Killer DM" title like a badge of honor. But I think if there are enough PC deaths that it causes the game to not progress at a steady pace, then it's not an honor, it's an error. Keeping the game moving forward while at the same time still making it hard and lethal is what I prefer to be known for. I'm not a perfect DM, so I am not going to pretend that there isn't something wrong with an encounter when I'm running it. I don't think it is fair to the players if I kill their PCs because of some unfortunate oversights on my end.

 

[S'mon]

I tend to be regarded as a killer DM, though I regard it as a DM failure if I'm killing PCs every session - something has clearly gone wrong. I'm certainly the killerist DM I know. I see three types of DMs:

1. DMs who won't kill PCs, no matter what.
2. DMs who occasionally kill PCs who screw up badly.
3. DMs who regularly kill PCs who screw up badly, and occasionally kill PCs who are just unlucky.

I'm a #3. IME, players frustrated with type #1 DMs love my style, but players who expect type #1 GMing and then lose a PC can hate my style.

I have got kinder over the years, I think. On Sunday (Pathfinder Beginner Box) I took a brand new player's 1st level Rogue PC to 0 hp with the 2nd attack of a CR 5 Manticore's claw-claw-bite routine. 10 years ago I'd have just rolled the final attack and killed the PC. This time, I explained to the player that his PC could choose to fall prone and play dead, in which case the manticore would use its final attack on another PC. The player was quite reluctant, but agreed.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Personally I don't like DMs who ask a lot of off-game questions. It kind of spoils the mystery of the game.

Wait, are we talking about a DM asking "Hey guys, what monster would make a great villain for your next adventure?" or something like "Hey guys, feel free to tell me if the pace of the story or of leveling is a little slow. I know I can be a tough DM, but I don't want to drive you to frustration."

If the former, I'm in total agreement. If the latter, I'm in total confusion. I've literally never had a GM who I wouldn't have been happy to talk to about stylistics.

A good DM is fair but confident with his gaming style. He asks questions if he sees that something isn't right. A bad DM makes the game a democracy, asking questions about what should happen next. But this is just my opinion.

Seems to me you started this thread because you think something might not be right. And the only way to know for sure is to ask your players, unless of course you're a real life psion.

I'm not suggesting you turn the game into a democracy. Not at all. But the wisest dictators ask enough questions to keep their subjects desperate -- but not frustrated enough to revolt.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I know you're right but still... If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
I think my game has already been established as deadly. Everyone knows it. When my players come at my place, they know that their PCs can easily get killed. Of course I can talk about it with them and sure we can talk about many details regarding the campaign. But usually I try to avoid democracy in games and I just try to do things in my own way, to tell the story in my words. In RPGs the role of the DM is not an easy one, but the word "Master" is there for a reason. Personally I don't like DMs who ask a lot of off-game questions. It kind of spoils the mystery of the game.

A good DM is fair but confident with his gaming style. He asks questions if he sees that something isn't right. A bad DM makes the game a democracy, asking questions about what should happen next. But this is just my opinion.

I don't quite understand what "making the game a democracy" means. A good DM should always be asking the players for input. It means that neither the DM nor the players simply dictate what happens next. What happens is a result of PC's and the campaign interacting. As the DM, I am not there to tell a story in my words or anyone elses. I am there to referee the game. The story ends up being what the players make of interacting with the campaign world.

Far from a democracy, a great campaign is wonderous chaos.

Also, asking for general feedback about whether the players are enjoying the campaign isn't spoiling any mystery. They will be telling you things that might be good to know. This doesn't mean you have to discuss campaign specific details with them. Knowing what is engaging for your group, what bores them, and what is especially exciting to them are good things to know.

Last but not least, a DM should be confident with his/her gaming style, especially if the players are satisfied, but should never stop trying to find ways to make the game better for the group. I have been running games going on 32 years and still enjoy collecting tidbits of wisdom from other DMs. You never know when you will find something very valuable to add to your game or where it will come from.