Should the players always win?

[Hairfoot]

In another thread, it was suggested that some D&D groups prefer campaigns run so that the PCs always win the day.

To me, that contradicts the very essence of it being a game and renders obsolete any sort of skilful play. I think that without the threat of failure or the dreaded TPK, D&D is just a self-indulgent fantasy with well-painted action figures.

But then, there's no "I" in "international roleplaying community". There are four, in fact, but let's not get hung up on details. What do you think?

 

[Yair]

No, BUT the possibility of SUCCESS should always be an option too IMO. I'm not much for a dark campaign where the players are consigned to failure and the roleplaying centers on the drama or coping with failure. Nope, I want to play heroes who win the day... or die trying to.

 

[Agent Oracle]

No, but they should allways have a fair shot.

My Brilliant DM allways believed in fairness, and his campaign had the highest PC Churn of anything. He was a brilliant tactician, and that was imparted on his monsters. So when a party member survived multiple encounters, they felt very, very lucky, and very, very proud.

Conversely, my Evil DM had only an abstract concept of play, and it was never fair. Since he never gave experience points, he just arbitrarily leveled us every few meetings., I can fairly say we were being cheated actively. On top of that, he regularly changed the BBEG from something believable and manageable (a Lich) to something more powerful (a wererat lich!) to something insane (an undead god-foetus who is bent on destroying all of time itself) At the end he was burnt out, so he put all the PC's on a bridge and had them face off against four OTHER PC-built monsters (A fighter-class cloud giant was one, a Sorcerer Pit Fiend was another. Nasty stuff.)

 

[Gothic_Demon]

A resounding NO from me.

Some of my best campaigns have been ones where the current PCs are picking up after the mistakes of their previous PCs. My players agree too: Success means nothing if there's no chance of failure.

 

[Thanee]

No, but they should always have a fair chance to win (even though that alone is not realistic).

In a single encounter, it is quite possible, though it should not happen too often, that it is effectively not 'winable'.

An adventure should always be possible to 'win'.

'Winning' doesn't necessarily mean a full, 100% success, there can be some downsides to 'winning' and sometimes there can be a cost attached, which can even be rather steep.

But, there should always be a fair chance, that the PCs can be successful, and the PCs actions should always have at least some influence in the outcome of events.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I would vote "other" if there was the option (and I'm a player, not the DM). The game should plan on the PCs winning but also make the PCs work for it.

If the DM wants the PCs to lose then the PCs die. It is that simple. The DM can always pull out a monster or an NPC that is so powerful that the players simply don't have a chance. Zoro, zip, zilch, nada. 0% chance of victory with 100% chance of TPK.

On the other hand it isn't fun to fight generic MM kobalds all day at 20th level. It is much more fun and memorable if we pull a victory off from a fght where it was nearly a complete slaughter. Now, that isn't to say that an easy fight every once in a while isnt a good thing. Sometimes it is fun to fight the same encounter that almost wiped us out two levels before (to have the DM show us how much we have advanced).

I, as a player, don't want a guarenteed win. That isn't any fun - but neither is losing a character that you have played since the start of the campaign because the DM wanted to end it. There should be a win at the end; but make me work for it.

 

[Zappo]

No. In fact, I think that all games should have both the possibility of success, and the possibility of failure.

 

[jinx crossbow]

No!

How else could they learn when its time to "run and hide".

If the PCs allways win the day its hard to play a campaign
where they are the underdogs or the hunted.

Jinx

 

[Bront]

They should always have a fair shot, but the occasional set back should be acceptable.

However, I don't view failure as death either. You can fail without dying, and those are usually the more interesting games.

 

[Imruphel]

As is normal for these boards, it's not really the best designed poll.

While I voted "yes" my real answer is very much in accord with previous posts: circumstances should be weighted more or less in favour of the PCs but they should still be able to fail.

The critical thing is to ensure that any success feels like a genuine success; ditto for failure.