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

[Paul Farquhar]

PCs will usually be outnumbered when they try to flee and thus by the basic RAW will just all die

Just thought it worth mentioning that this is realistic. In most pre-firearm battles mast fatalities where inflicted when one side or the other was fleeing.

 

[Puddles]

I'm wondering if the abstract nature of the topic, i.e. whether or not character death through no fault of the players' own is desirable or not, is muddying the discussion. If so, I'd narrow things to a particular example that seems more germane to what's being debated.

For instance, what should the DM do in the event that a particular encounter proves to be too much for the PCs, not because of any imbalance regarding the number or level/CR of the NPCs, but where a combination of bad die rolls (and good die rolls for the enemies) and canny tactics on the bad guys' parts (whether ascribed in a module or as run by a DM), put them in a position to wipe out the party? Does the DM play the bad guys to the hilt, not fudging their rolls or compromising on the effectiveness of their tactics? Or does the DM fudge the rolls and have the bad guys be less effective than they could otherwise be so the party can escape?

As others have mentioned, at this point I would play it out to its conclusion. Anything else would be unsatisfying for the players.

But afterwards, I would ask myself as a DM what I could have done with the design of the encounter to give my players more avenues to explore when things started to get desperate, and I think the answer is to add more details to the encounter environment for the players to interact with and give them more items/tools for them to use in emergencies.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Just thought it worth mentioning that this is realistic. In most pre-firearm battles mast fatalities where inflicted when one side or the other was fleeing.

Yeah, but that's hilarious because it raises SO MANY different issues with D&D that make D&D on completely the wrong side of realism - not least that it's very easy to relatively cleanly kill people in single combat, rather than leaving them bleeding and screaming and so on. So probably don't go down the realism rabbit hole here. It's full of viscera and shrieking, and nobody likes it there.

Also RL battles are a bad comparison point for D&D, scale-wise, because D&D is more like back-alley gang fights, very, very small skirmishes (not even a full squad on the PC side) and so on, and I somewhat doubt the "most casualties inflicted whilst fleeing" thing holds true there, because those are likely to involve the "winning" side being somewhat exhausted and unwilling to race after people.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

For me the biggest lesson for a DM is putting too much weight on a single or few dice rolls. I think everyone can agree that "Save vs Death" mechanics are terrible in play and I would say the reason those mechanics are bad is because too much is riding on that one dice roll.

I think you had an overall thoughtful post, but I wanted to single this particular section out for a reason.

Most people, myself included, often fall into the trap of assuming that everyone agrees with me- most likely because I am smart, witty, articulate, and correct. That said, there are people that for whatever reason (most likely due to defects of their upbringing, such as being dropped on the head by their Uncle Goober and/or showing an unfortunate appreciation of Bards) do not agree with me.

The actual existence, and continued popularity, of games that involve mechanics that either are, or resemble, save v. death (whether people are continuing to play "old school" editions, or clones, or whatever) would seem to belie your statement that everyone agrees that those mechanics are terrible in play. I would even say that those mechanics are the quintessential (or, from your P.O.V., worst) example of an event that the player has no control over, that can result in death.

This doesn't mean that the player can't prepare, can't make plans, can't have contingencies, can't avoid combats, can't play safely, but sometimes, you just roll a 1.

I don't think that these mechanics qua mechanics are good or bad necessarily, and I do think that there are sound reasons for a lot of games to move away from those types of "unfun" mechanics, but I think that you have seen credible reasons in this thread why there are those who still enjoy playing that way- sort of a rule utilitarianism; while the instant event (failed death save, character death) is unfun, the overall experience of the game that has it, for those people, is more fun.

So I think that people might have different reactions to your overall post; on the one hand, players might appreciate that you put in "loads of hooks and levers for my players to draw upon when things start getting desperate" to change the conditions; on the other hand, I know that if I were playing, I might feel insulted that there were these obvious hooks and levers to bail me out of a situation; it would remove my sense of agency and triumph were I to succeed because it would feel too much like DM ex machina. That doesn't make your approach wrong- it sounds like a lot of fun! But different people have fun in different ways. Heck, did you realize that there are people that actually enjoy playing elves? Dead-eyed soulless automatons. Harumph.

 

[TheSword]

Kobayashi Maru was an unwinnable encounter. Impossible to win, escape or survive. It’s purpose was to teach character and humility to cadets.

That in D&D terms is fundamentally unfair. A D&D session isn’t generally training for a career in the armed forces.

That isn’t the same as saying a person rolls a few 1’s or suffers some unlucky 20’s and dies. That’s bad luck. Though people do make their own luck and can avoid situations where dice are even being rolled.

Unwinnable, inescapable, encounters that the characters aren’t expected to survive are definitely unfair.

If that isn’t what the poll is about. You should probably change the title.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If that isn’t what the poll is about. You should probably change the title.

100% correct prediction; in any given enworld thread, there will be someone that demands you change the title to something they prefer.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm wondering if the abstract nature of the topic, i.e. whether or not character death through no fault of the players' own is desirable or not, is muddying the discussion. If so, I'd narrow things to a particular example that seems more germane to what's being debated.

For instance, what should the DM do in the event that a particular encounter proves to be too much for the PCs, not because of any imbalance regarding the number or level/CR of the NPCs, but where a combination of bad die rolls (and good die rolls for the enemies) and canny tactics on the bad guys' parts (whether ascribed in a module or as run by a DM), put them in a position to wipe out the party? Does the DM play the bad guys to the hilt, not fudging their rolls or compromising on the effectiveness of their tactics? Or does the DM fudge the rolls and have the bad guys be less effective than they could otherwise be so the party can escape?

For myself, I tend to believe in the totality of the play. Which is to say that if you do not play the bad guys to the hilt, then the players will start to believe that they are invulnerable; they will no longer play realistically. They will no longer enter encounters cautiously.

They will no longer do basic things like have spells, abilities, or magic items that allow them to escape encounters, instead concentrating solely on offensive firepower.

On the other hand, if you play the encounters to the hilt, it will only take the unwary one time to understand that all of those "disused" items and spells and abilities (or even choosing not to engage in combat on occasion) really do have importance.

TLDR; the DM must be Cobra Kai. SWEEP THE LEG. NO MERCY.

 

[Laurefindel]

Just thought it worth mentioning that this is realistic. In most pre-firearm battles mast fatalities where inflicted when one side or the other was fleeing.

I guess that was the difference between a retreat and a rout.

 

[TheSword]

100% correct prediction; in any given enworld thread, there will be someone that demands you change the title to something they prefer.

...or change the title to something that represents the poll. Nice duck though

Do you honestly think die rolls are something that the players don’t have any control over?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

...or change the title to something that represents the poll.

Or, you know, you could, um, write your own thread starters. Make your own polls. Write your own titles. Then I will tell you how to make your titles.