D&D General Kobayashi Maru: Should the fate of the character always be in the player's hands? POLL

[Snarf Zagyg]

In another thread, I saw this comment by @Marc_C (discussing Savage Worlds RPG):

"TPK without any reason for it. PCs didn't do anything wrong. I was turned off."

And that resonated with me, as it had me thinking about a specific application to a general concept I had been considering. I often think about the difference in general style between the TSR-era editions of D&D (especially OD&D / early 1e) and the more recent editions (such as 4e and 5e), as well as the difference between older game design and more recent game design.

Now, putting aside one-shot adventures or games that are specifically designed to kill characters (such as Paranoia), I've been thinking about the sentiment expressed in the comment I just read. Not that it's good, or bad, but contemplating it ... and contrasting it with the famous example from Star Trek of the Kobayashi Maru.

A brief explanation for those five people who do not fit within the Venn diagram of the overlapping circles of, (1) people who read these forums; and (2) people who get the Kobayashi Maru reference ... Kobayashi Maru refers to a training exercise at Star Fleet academy that, famously, was impossible to win; they wanted to see how cadets react when they know they can't prevail. Famously, James T. (the T stands for TERRRRRRR-IFFIC!) Kirk "won" the exercise by cheating- because he didn't believe that there is such a thing as a no-win scenario.

Putting this back into the context of D&D, I was thinking about whether or not it is "fair" to have players die due to events over which they have no control. A famous example of this, in early versions of D&D, is the "save or die" type of situations- sometimes, you just roll a 1. For the most part, 5e has replaced most of these "save or die" (and similar really bad effect) with various types of "save or suck" type of things, and replaced the "death" with "death saves" and so on.

But at the core of the issue, while 5e is much more forgiving that 1e, it is still possible, through pure bad dice rolling, to not do anything wrong and die/TPK. They have not eliminated dice swinginess altogether, although they have ameliorated it a great deal. In contrast, there are TTRPGs and other systems that are resolutely "fail forward" - that there is narrative control of not just good events, but bad events, such that there will not be an ultimate sanction when the "PCs didn't do anything wrong."

I was genuinely curious what people thought about these different styles in D&D. So I'm putting up a poll, and hoping for a great discussion in the comments.

 

[S'mon]

I certainly have no problem with PCs dying through bad luck, a failed save or such.
I also have no problem with 'doomed heroes' in an impossible situation - Thermopylae is famous for a reason.
If a random red dragon just swoops down and kills all the level 1 PCs in session 1, hmm. Probably ok to do a do-over.

 

[Alzrius]

A brief explanation for those five people who do not fit within the Venn diagram of the overlapping circles of, (1) people who read these forums; and (2) people who get the Kobayashi Maru reference ... Kobayashi Maru refers to a training exercise at Star Fleet academy that, famously, was impossible to win; they wanted to see how cadets react when they know they can't prevail. Famously, James T. (the T stands for TERRRRRRR-IFFIC!) Kirk "won" the exercise by cheating- because he didn't believe that there is such a thing as a no-win scenario.

As much as we're supposed to root for Kirk in that particular instance, it's worth remembering that in a tabletop RPG this is the equivalent of bringing loaded dice to the table.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I voted 'Unfair', although that isn't the descriptor I'd use for the event. I don't treat RPGs as board games to win. And a death due to the randomness of the board game I feel is a waste of what an RPG is. If I want to see an elimination playing a board game... I'd play board games where that is a specific part of the rules for winning the game-- Monopoly, Diplomacy etc. The advantage of these board games is that they only last a couple hours or so and then the game ends and we can move on with our lives and then maybe play a new game later. Whereas D&D will last several hours per session, and then countless sessions moving on over the course of months and years. To play a game like that and then lose and be eliminated through no choice of my own because a die roll happened is a massive waste of time in my opinion and not a game worth playing.

If my character is going to die... it's because the story of the game has been set up wherein that becomes a narrative possibility, and my choices and actions will inevitably be what causes it. Deaths of the protagonists should mean something to the story. To do otherwise is a waste of a character.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If my character is going to die... it's because the story of the game has been set up wherein that becomes a narrative possibility, and my choices and actions will inevitably be what causes it. Deaths of the protagonists should mean something to the story. To do otherwise is a waste of a character.

That is actually a great description, and a fair summation of the generalized idea I've been thinking about (and that the quote was a more specific example of).

I think that there are people that genuinely believe that the type of story must be emergent from the confluence of randomness and player choice, and that means that some (a few, many) of the stories won't necessarily be as meaningful- but that the meaning of those emergent stories is great when that happy circumstance come about. Put another way, you remember Bob VII's success as being so much sweeter because of Bob I-VI's failures.

On the other hand, I think it's also fair to say that there are many people who prefer that the story be informed by the dice, but not determined by that randomness; the choices of the player determine the narrative. Put another way, life is too short to play through Bob I-VI just to maybe enjoy Bob VII.

Or something like that. Still noodling around with the concept.

 

[Reynard]

Players should always have control over what their characters choose and attempt to do. The GM should always endeavor to provide narratively consistent responses and adjudications to those actions. The dice provide a disruptive element that stokes creativity by forcing everyone to improvise based on unexpected outcomes. Sometimes, some of those things -- player choices, GM adjudications, and the dice -- kill PCs. That's a feature.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sometimes, some of those things -- player choices, GM adjudications, and the dice -- kill PCs.

"DMs don't kill people. Traps do."

In other news, I was recently reminded of the Suel Organization of Necromancers- you know ... Wight Power.

 

[Campbell]

Completely fair. My personal caveat is that a GM should not purposefully design an unwinnable scenario that players are expected to engage with or contrive to make something unwinnable. Absolutely let the dice fall as they may. Just design scenarios and play the world with a sense of integrity.

 

[kenada]

I voted for fair, but that’s because of how my group plays. If we were doing something story-driven where an untimely death screws things up, then it wouldn’t be fair. However, that’s just not what we play.

There are certain games where this feels a bit fuzzy. We’re playing Scum & Villainy, and the GM told us early on that we should play our characters like we’re driving a stolen car. My character has got some trauma. He’s probably going to get himself into a lot of trouble trying to take down the Church of the Stellar Flame, and that could end in an untimely demise. However, it’s not exactly like how things go in an OSR game, but it’s also not like in the story-driven games where character arcs are important. I don’t know when or whether this will happen, but it’s a possibility if I keep pushing things (which I will because that makes the story entertaining).

 

[Alzrius]

"DMs don't kill people. Traps do."

In other news, I was recently reminded of the Suel Organization of Necromancers- you know ... Wight Power.

Don't forget that the Kingdom of the Ghouls, from Dungeon #70, was also called the White Kingdom. Flesh-eating undead or not, you can believe that this name would never have been used if the adventure was written today.