The ethics of ... death

[Ahnehnois]

Another issue is that the more swingy the game is, the harder it is to learn before a new group gives up D&D and moves to another game where their PCs don't have the life expectancy of a mayfiy.

I'd be concerned that if every encounter lasts five rounds and uses up 20% of the PCs' resources, they will get bored quickly and find a more interesting hobby.

The dirty secret was that DMs around here secretly fudged all the time to avoid killing PCs, (expecially the poor player of his third M-U in a row who couldn't roll hit points to save his life - 1 hp characters don't live long, and the idea of minimum hp values as a house rule hadn't developed.)

I don't see that as being a "dirty secret". The DM is in charge. If he wants to alter the outcomes dictated by the rules to serve his goals, that is not only his right, that's his job to begin with.

I'm not saying that a swingy game isn't a valid playstyle, just that there are severe downsides to making it a default.

True, and D&D characters get enormous protections for that reason. Even with SoD's, you'll notice the "S". I think effects that simply kill without a save (such as the mythical Medusa) are entirely fair game. But D&D doesn't generally go that far, because it wants to protect the PCs. Yes, there are downsides.

But there are also downsides to the antithesis of swingy: predictable. When battles become rote, you get people complaining they feel "video game-y". You get draggy combats that last too long because everyone has to have their fair chance before they die. You get players that don't feel like their characters are in real danger, and you lose some of the immersive aspect of the game.

So there are two sides to this thing.

 

[Hussar]

Is this objectively poor game design in every case, or just your preference (perhaps commonly shared with others or even the majority)? And, if the former, can you please explain to me why you think it's objective, when design goals are chosen based on preference? I think that'd help me in this conversation. As always, play what you like

I do believe this is objectively poor game design.

Let's be crystal clear here. You are claiming that a monster for D&D, designed in such a way that it will almost certainly kill at least one PC in any given encounter is a perfectly acceptable design.

No monster is ever designed that way. Well, that's not true. SoD monsters kinda are, but, that's because they are poorly designed, not because that's intentional.

Show me a single monsters, outside of monsters with SOD, which you would consider to fit the design: "Will probably kill at least one PC in any encounter, regardless of PC level."

 

[Hussar]

The D&D relevance, in my mind, is that situations in which characters must die are often the climax of a great campaign, IME.

Wow. Have you actually done this to players? Put them in a situation where they must die? And you still have players?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Wow. Have you actually done this to players? Put them in a situation where they must die? And you still have players?

It's almost a regular thing for me at this point to end a campaign with a character or characters dying for a cause. And some of the other DMs in our group have done it as well.

And yes, I have players clamoring for me to DM even when I'd rather take a break or be a player myself for a week. Even though I kill a PC every now and then. Even though there were times in my early days where PCs were being lined up for the slaughter. Even though I've occasionally forced PCs into "Kobayashi Maru" scenarios or killed them without giving them a fair chance to survive.

Or, perhaps, because of those things.

 

[Guest 85555]

Wow. Have you actually done this to players? Put them in a situation where they must die? And you still have players?

Everybody has different preferences on this sort of thing. As a player I find it way more exciting when things can crop up (say from a random encounter roll or if we make an unfortunate choice to explore a cave that happens to have a medusa) when these sorts of possibilities are in play (and it makes for a truly exciting night even if it results in a party getting wiped). What is important here though I do not just want the GM to decide at the beginning of the game that a possibly quite lethal creature is going to be sprung on the party. It is more fun when it is in the mix of possibilities and happens to come up. I don't know that I would say an encounter with such a creature must result in at least one party member dying, but it does raise that risk tremendously (sometimes the party might just run away, get lucky, or find away around the challenge).

I think this is why it is important to keep in mind in these discussions, people have genuinely different preferences for play. I recognize that mine isnt the most popular these days, and I often have to comrpomise with my group (which I am happy to do). But I have the most fun playing when these kinds of threats are around and when encounters are not just tailored to the abilities or level of the party. I like not knowing what is going to happen by the end of a session, and I enjoy combats that are not very predictable.

 

[Guest 85555]

I do believe this is objectively poor game design.

Let's be crystal clear here. You are claiming that a monster for D&D, designed in such a way that it will almost certainly kill at least one PC in any given encounter is a perfectly acceptable design.

No monster is ever designed that way. Well, that's not true. SoD monsters kinda are, but, that's because they are poorly designed, not because that's intentional.

Show me a single monsters, outside of monsters with SOD, which you would consider to fit the design: "Will probably kill at least one PC in any encounter, regardless of PC level."

But all you are doing here is setting an objective standard based on your subjective preference that monsters shouldn't have a strong chance of killing a party member (I think many might quible over your characterization of the threat here, depending on the monster, but even if we take your "one party member will die" conclusion, that is still clearly a subjective preference).

 

[Doug McCrae]

I played in a campaign in which the PCs all died at the end, and I felt it worked quite well. It was a superhero game. After we'd confronted the Dr Doom-style megavillain in his secret island headquarters, the US military dropped a nuclear bomb on us, as they feared we were too powerful. The GM actually rolled damage for the nuke. We were all teenagers at the time, which helps explain the nihilistic cynicism!

On the whole I think that, as a player, I prefer for all the PCs to die at the end of campaign. It's certainly a definitive ending.

Clearly such an approach would not work for many playstyles, for example any form of gamism (including Gygaxian D&D) in which PC death is seen as a failure. Many players balk at the idea of success or failure being pre-ordained.

 

[Guest 85555]

I played in a campaign in which the PCs all died at the end, and I felt it worked quite well. It was a superhero game. After we'd confronted the Dr Doom-style megavillain in his secret island headquarters, the US military dropped a nuclear bomb on us, as they feared we were too powerful. The GM actually rolled damage for the nuke. We were all teenagers at the time, which helps explain the nihilistic cynicism!

On the whole I think that, as a player, I prefer for all the PCs to die at the end of campaign. It's certainly a definitive ending.

Clearly such an approach would not work for many playstyles, for example any form of gamism (including Gygaxian D&D) in which PC death is seen as a failure. Many players balk at the idea of success or failure being pre-ordained.

i find uncertainty of survival is my ideal. It is the not knowing how the end will turn out, taking a risk, rolling the dice and feeling the rush of excitement that comes with hoping your character makes it through, but being far from certain about it. I do not root for my character to die, but the genuine possibility of the death is a key part of maintaining my enjoyment.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Show me a single monsters, outside of monsters with SOD, which you would consider to fit the design: "Will probably kill at least one PC in any encounter, regardless of PC level."

Dragons.

I'm willing to bet that the PC fatality rate when facing a red dragon is higher than when facing a cockatrice.

Not that the premise holds water in the first place. Most encounters involving an SoD don't kill any PCs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Clearly such an approach would not work for many playstyles, for example any form of gamism (including Gygaxian D&D) in which PC death is seen as a failure. Many players balk at the idea of success or failure being pre-ordained.

That's true. However, if they really did not like success or failure being predetermined, they would be against any kind of system that predetermined their success as well (say, one which posits encounters that they are expected to win). An SoD is a great way of avoiding predetermined outcomes.