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

[bloodtide]

Fair. Players should never have any control over the game. Once a player has control over a game, it's not even a game anymore...it's just an activity.

I'm a Killer DM that stacks up dead character sheets quickly....even more so with the "modern" player types.

I love the random chance that dice can give, both good and bad. Having the game change in unexpected ways on a rool or two.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

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.

This. The only situation where a TPK is not ok is when it really would have made no difference what the PCs did, the end will always be "death."

That said, I find TPKs extremely lame. I much prefer killing one PC, and taking the rest as prisoners. Gives way more RP interaction (and prison escape!) and makes the PCs hate these villains that much more.

 

[Mistwell]

I answered somewhat fair, but I wanted to clarify that I also do wish I had a kryptonite cross to slay vampire superman with.

 

[S'mon]

This. The only situation where a TPK is not ok is when it really would have made no difference what the PCs did, the end will always be "death."

That said, I find TPKs extremely lame. I much prefer killing one PC, and taking the rest as prisoners. Gives way more RP interaction (and prison escape!) and makes the PCs hate these villains that much more.

Sometimes a TPK can make for a great backstory to the next campaign I run a couple years later.

"Following his great victory over Varek Tigerclaw and the Heroes of Bisgen, the Necromancer Borritt Crowfinger and the Black Sun of Neo-Nerath brought all of western Altanis under their sway. Now, ten years later, the Black Sun turn their eyes to the east..."

Made for maybe my best campaign yet!

 

[DemoMonkey]

The players must believe at all times that they had at least a chance to prevail.

It doesn't have to be TRUE of course. But ya gotta spin it that way!

 

[Davies]

The thing that people forget about "I don't believe in a no-win scenario" is that Kirk's belief is shown to be horrifically wrong by the end of the story in which he makes that statement, and that even the undoing of that scenario's consequences costs him quite dearly.

 

[Marc_C]

That said, I find TPKs extremely lame. I much prefer killing one PC, and taking the rest as prisoners. Gives way more RP interaction (and prison escape!) and makes the PCs hate these villains that much more.

That is indeed a great way to do it. I've done it a few times. Much better than a random TPK.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Unfair.

I find random death unsatisfying in literally every media from games to movies and TV.

 

[D1Tremere]

I don't think fair has anything to do with it. D&D is not a game of chance, not gambling. Sure we use randomizers, but that is to add some variability to action resolution, not to make it a gamble in the true sense. In a cooperative narrative, suddenly having your story come to an abrupt end for nothing is unlikely to be fun for any one, and fun is the point.

 

[Mort]

I'm a Killer DM that stacks up dead character sheets quickly....even more so with the "modern" player types.

I've always found this to be an odd brag/point of pride.

As DM killing characters is easy even trivial, if that's what I wish to happen.

Challenging them, designing encounters in such a way that Players have to push their characters and certainly possibly fail (which may or may not mean death) - but still have a blast doing it, that's what I try for.