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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Am I the only one who isn't a fan of the whole 'pick your fights', 'run away a lot' stuff?

I like... actually engaging with the actual focus of the game rules and genre. I want to take part in action, not survival horror.

There are those who would say that the reason that there are rules for stealth, for invisibility, and for running (away?) as well as spells and items that let you do the same is to give you alternatives. That there are strategies and tactics - when to fight, when to run, when to steal, when to avoid, and when to parlay.

Still others are less-than-impressed with a game that is nothing more than a series of staged encounters, each calibrated to ensure your eventual victory. Perhaps a little light apertif of roleplaying to break up the monotony of CR-appropriate combats.

I kid, mostly, but only to illustrate the point that your snark is somewhat unfounded. People like what they like, and just because you enjoy what you like (and I am sure you wouldn't describe it as a monotonous litany of CR-appropriate encounters), doesn't mean that other people are not "engaging with the actual focus of the game rules and genre."

TLDR- that's awfully similar to telling a large number of people that you are playing D&D the rightway, and they are engaged in badwrongfun.

 

[Mort]

Am I the only one who isn't a fan of the whole 'pick your fights', 'run away a lot' stuff?

I like... actually engaging with the actual focus of the game rules and genre. I want to take part in action, not survival horror.

I'm all about engaging in the genre and making sure action takes front and center.

But at the same time. I want players to understand:

Not every encounter is a fight to be won - often negotiation etc. will get you significantly farther;

Some encounters/situations simply CANNOT be won with a fight and will almost certainly lead to a TPK if the party tries.

 

[iserith]

Am I the only one who isn't a fan of the whole 'pick your fights', 'run away a lot' stuff?

I like... actually engaging with the actual focus of the game rules and genre. I want to take part in action, not survival horror.

"Pick your fights" generally turns a potential combat challenge into an exploration challenge (stealth, avoidance, etc.) or a social interaction challenge (parley, negotiate, ally, etc.). "Run away" turns a combat challenge into (mostly) an exploration challenge, if the escape is successful. If it's not, we're back to a combat challenge.

All of that is in genre and covered by the rules (in D&D 5e anyway). What it sounds like you're saying is that you prefer combat challenges that can only be resolved via combat and that the combat is calibrated so that losing is not really an option in most cases. Which is fine, but it's worth noting that the game is intended to be run with all three pillars - combat, social, exploration - in play. Picking your fights and running away can be part of that.

 

[Krachek]

the DM have all the tools to let a PC alive, so if one die it is willingly or by omission.
Is it fair or useful depends on players expectation.

 

[Laurefindel]

1) It is clear for me that it is never the DM's job to decide when to TPK, it will happen through the actions of the PCs and to the dice. Anything else, might be considered adversarial DMing if not handled properly with a good back story as to explain why somethings happen.

Fair enough. I never got an adversial DM vibe from you or your post actually. It was more about DM deciding when TPK is not going to happen. That could have been clearer, my bad.

2) Uncompromising DM? I would not call myself that as everything from optional rules to setting is voted upon by me and the players (of which I have twelve). I see my self as a referee that is there to adjudicate what will be the results and consequences of players' actions. Of course, I get to decide what type of adventures and challenge they will face. But the rest is entirely on their hands and the hands of fate.

Again, bad choice of words; I didn't mean it in any pejorative or demeaning way. "Definitive outcomes" might have been more appropriate? What I meant was that risks and thrill can exist even when the DM is not an impartial arbitrator of the rules.

 

[Helldritch]

Fair enough. I never got an adversial DM vibe from you or your post actually. It was more about DM deciding when TPK is not going to happen. That could have been clearer, my bad.

Again, bad choice of words; I didn't mean it in any pejorative or demeaning way. "Definitive outcomes" might have been more appropriate? What I meant was that risks and thrill can exist even when the DM is not an impartial arbitrator of the rules.

No need to feel bad. I did not really took it personnnaly. Yes, risks and thrill can be there if the DM is not impartial. There are games of story telling that works quite well. But for the most part, being impartial is for me, the most desirable thing to do and DM type to have. Every time I have been on the player's seat, I have had the chance to get an impartial DM. Even if it was to the detriment of my character. I much prefer a game where my decisions matters than a game where the outcome is set in advanced. I much prefer a world where I can get in way over my head and must flee than in a world where the world adapts to my level.

Sometimes, a group of 10th level PCs can encounter and old ancient dragon and sometimes they are jumped by 10 goblins sure that the players will surrender... Your level is not tattooed on your forehead. And strangely, it makes the world much more believable. It makes the world alive and the players know, when they get such encounters that they both have much to progress to beat that Uber dragon, but that they progressed so much that ten goblins are no longer a treath. It shoes that they have accomplished much more. When every fights, encounters and situation is of your level, it is hard to believe the world. SkyRim is a great game, but it should stay on a computer, not at my table.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have a difficult time answering this question, because I believe the character’s fate is always in the player’s hands, since the player makes decisions for the character. Yes, randomness is an element of the game, but if you’re in a situation where unlucky rolls could result in your character’s death, it’s your decisions as a player that lead you to that situation. The only case where it’s unfair is if the DM didn’t give you enough information to make decisions that would lessen your risk of character death. I think Save or Die effects, for example, are perfectly fair, as long as they’re sufficiently telegraphed. If they come out of nowhere and the players had no way of knowing about them or preparing for them, then they’re aren’t fair.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Some encounters/situations simply CANNOT be won with a fight and will almost certainly lead to a TPK if the party tries.

See? That's my thing.

I'm a fan of RP encounters; most of my campaigns go multiple sessions without drawing steel. I'm... okay... with exploration encounters even though in my experience they're usually either trap fests* or MGS-style stealth cascade failures where characters not statted to be ninja are going to end up in a fight anyway.

My problem is with combat encounters thrown in there to make you run. I feel like it's the DM/designer punishing you for trying to have fun and have action. It's worse than a trap, because at least you know traps are going to show up in exploration, but this is a trap pretending to be a combat.

*I don't like D&D traps. You know, the ones where you have to paranoia your way through every square of the place that would be interesting to explore if you weren't watching every floorboard for a spike shooting into you liver. I like Bond villain death traps that are puzzles to get out of, or escape room antics.

 

[Charlaquin]

See? That's my thing.

I'm a fan of RP encounters; most of my campaigns go multiple sessions without drawing steel. I'm... okay... with exploration encounters even though in my experience they're usually either trap fests* or MGS-style stealth cascade failures where characters not statted to be ninja are going to end up in a fight anyway.

My problem is with combat encounters thrown in there to make you run. I feel like it's the DM/designer punishing you for trying to have fun and have action. It's worse than a trap, because at least you know traps are going to show up in exploration, but this is a trap pretending to be a combat.

*I don't like D&D traps. You know, the ones where you have to paranoia your way through every square of the place that would be interesting to explore if you weren't watching every floorboard for a spike shooting into you liver. I like Bond villain death traps that are puzzles to get out of, or escape room antics.

I think both of these problems are solved by proper telegraphing. Yes, it sucks to get told you have to take damage because you stepped on the wrong square when there was no indication that the square wasn’t safe to step on, and it sucks to randomly wander into a fight you have to run from or die. But, if the DM gives proper clues in their description of the environment, you get the opportunity to discover and engage with the trap. If the powerful enemy is well-foreshadowed, or found in a place that is known to be full of such powerful enemies, you can take steps to avoid it, and know to run if it finds you.

 

[Mort]

My problem is with combat encounters thrown in there to make you run. I feel like it's the DM/designer punishing you for trying to have fun and have action. It's worse than a trap, because at least you know traps are going to show up in exploration, but this is a trap pretending to be a combat.

I think that's the disconnect.

For the most part I don't see combat and non-combat encounters, I see encounters. Sure there are encounters that are very likely to result in combat, but it's still an encounter.

If I force a combat onto a group for the express purpose of making them run? - Yeah that's kind of crappy. And likely not great DMing, frankly.

But if the group forces a combat in an encounter and finds themselves way over their head (so have to run)? well that's on them.