Should the players always win?

[Ranes]

No. There is no satisfaction in making nth level if you knew it was going to happen anyway. If you think differently, more power to you. To me, gaining levels is the reward players earn for creative play and - yeah - a little luck.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

To me, that contradicts the very essence of it being a game and renders obsolete any sort of skilful play.

Given D&D is my secondary game, I play a more "simulationist" model than "gamist", if you will, but I have always winced at the "skillfull play" as it relates to RPGs.

If you are having fun, and so are the rest of the group and GM, and do so week after week, you are the most "skillful" player you can be. Being more tactical/using the rules is not skillful, it's just more tactical. And there is that hidden line of "munchkin/powergamer" there - if skilled play is playing character by the rules, there can't be a legal "too powerful" build, because it is just skillful character design and play.

Sorry, just a pet peeve, and I know that it goes against the accepted attitude around here, but I had to comment.

 

[Harmon]

The wife and I both vote "No."

Now our GM is scratching his head, cause my wife gets pissed when we don't win or the bad guys gets away. That as she said is what the role playing is about.

At the same time I feel that the chances of six people seccessfully going into the UnderDark to rescue some slaves, steal some artifacts and get out again would in a realistic game be near impossible. Reality would have it more as completely impossible. So the GM must fudge a little in the Players favor otherwise you will be making new characters or adjusting them down a level all night long.

It is far more gratifing to my wife and I to have characters for long periods of time, and believe that they can do all the extra ordinary things that they seem to be able to do.

Thanks for your time, and allowing me to bend your ear a little.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Short answer: No.

More involved answer: Players should usually win, but there should always be the risk of failure. Stupidity should not be rewarded, but the DM should not go out of his way to kill PCs either.

If a thrid level party goes looking for an ancient red wyrm's lair then a TPK is deserved.

The Auld Grump

 

[Moonstone Spider]

I'd like to chime in that there's different types of "Losses."

If the character dies a heroic death facing a mighty wyrm that's going to destroy the city if not stopped, that's okay. If he dies in a kamikaze attack to stop it that's a really good death.

If the character rolls a 1 on a saving throw and a kobold child cuts his throat while the character is unable to defend himself that's a really crappy death. The players should never be killed by mooks, random encounters, or low level traps.

Put another way PCs shouldn't be killed by Stormtroopers or Jawas but Vader and the Emperor should be lethal.

 

[Treebore]

No, just a fair game. If they blow it the PC's die.

 

[Hairfoot]

If you are having fun, and so are the rest of the group and GM, and do so week after week, you are the most "skillful" player you can be. Being more tactical/using the rules is not skillful, it's just more tactical. And there is that hidden line of "munchkin/powergamer" there - if skilled play is playing character by the rules, there can't be a legal "too powerful" build, because it is just skillful character design and play.

I don't think the concept of skill can be removed from any game, because it then ceases to be a game. It would be like, for instance, awarding victory to a basketball team because the players enjoyed the game the most, even though the opposition handled the ball far better and shot more hoops.

I see your point, of course - the aim is to have fun, so having fun equals successful play. But that's separate from the act of playing a game (any game) with rules which can which can be exploited to modify the player's chance of success or failure. In that regard, canny use of tactical rules to achieve greater rewards for the PCs is, by definition, skill.

Some players may enjoy creating hyper-optimised melee meatgrinders and taking them on slasher safari tours through the underdark with a DM who will always save the party if defeat or a rout seems imminent. Such a player has strong knowledge of the rules, but it only becomes skill if that knowledge is applied to avoid a real threat of defeat.

 

[Ion]

I voted yes.

However I don't think the PCs need to "win" every encounter but I do think it's important that at the end of the day the players felt like they had fun. I don't think it's fun to -always- win, but it's easy to have fun when your winning. It takes more skill (one that I need much more practice at) to have fun when your losing.

 

[FireLance]

I don't think the concept of skill can be removed from any game, because it then ceases to be a game.

By this definition, Snakes and Ladders is not a game.

Many simple gambles (e.g. heads = double, tails = nothing with a fair coin) also cease to be games.

I think what sustains interest in these simple games is not that the players' skills can affect the outcome, but the simple fact that the outcome is uncertain. The players enjoy the tension and excitement they experience while they watch the outcome unfold.

Even if the outcome is not in doubt (consider Saturday morning cartoons where the forces of Good and Justice always triumph, for example) it could be fun just to watch how they do it. Don't people re-read books and re-watch movies? Even if the plot holds no surprises for them after the second or third time, there are other elements of the book of film that they enjoy.

The same can go for a RPG also. Maybe the buttkicker barbarian simply likes hewing down hordes of weaker foes and gets a kick from his feeling of invincibility. Maybe the specialist paladin enjoys the vicarious thrill of putting down evil again. Meanwhile, the storyteller bard is just interested in the unfolding narrative. Of course, the DM still has to maintain the illusion of the possibility of failure, or the tactician wizard won't feel challenged.

 

[vulcan_idic]

I voted yes because the vast majority of the time I feel they should succeed.

Now just because they succeed doesn't mean that everything goes their way. Sometimes the road to ultimate success passes through interim failure. Sometimes you win in such a way that it is as costly as if you had lost - a Pyrrhic victory. And, of course, if characters are more than usually reckless then they must hope that chance is their friend.

What I like is collective storytelling, and as the main characters of the story being told the PC's have an extremely good chance of succeeding in their ultimate objective, rules system be hanged. After all what sort of a story would "The Lord of the Rings" be if Sauron won out in the end - a rather depressing story that not many would want to read in my opinion. But there are still the Mines of Moria, the Dead Marshes, the lost fingers, the Boromir's, and so on that come along at dramatic points to heighten the stakes and make the story become more interesting as it is being told.