Those groups where no one ever dies

[diaglo]

Finally, caution should become a watchword in ANY situation these days! You can't depend on any little weak kobold to be a 4 hit point pansy like in the old days - these days JoJo the Kobold could be a freaking 12 th level sorcerer!

JoJo the Kobold could've been a witch doctor/shaman in ye olde dayes too.

 

[Philip]

8 years of campaigning: 0 character deaths.

I roll everything out in the open, stick to the rules and rarely fudge things (when not rolling in the open you can fudge thing like opponent's hit points or saves). Additionally, I have a preference for tough fights, which in 3e means that the PC are usually facing EL's 1 - 4 higher than their average level.

Yesterday we had a session when one of the players asked: "but what if two or maybe three (of the four PCs) had failed their save against the paralysis instead of just one, wouldn't we all be killed?" To which I answered "Yes, but I like fights in which you guys can loose, and I trust my dice"

I have story and character driven campaign, and I would positively hate it if PCs were killed, let alone a TPK.

I just keep on trusting my dice.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In regard to players not using metagame knowledge to run from tough encounters, remember that there are subtle means that one can use in the game to pass information on an encounter's difficulty. Knowledge checks are one example; the new Knowledge (Dungeoneering) skill, as well as Knowledge (Nature) and Knowledge (Undead) and (The Planes) can give someone many clues to a creature's lethality.

Because the DC for Knowledge skills is based on the hit dice of the monster (DC 10 + HD to know one fact about a given creature) they are actually pretty useless when the party is faced with CR that's much too high for them.

For example, a 1st level party is unlikely to have knowledge skill checks of more than +8. If they're facing a creature with 19 hit dice or more then by the rules they will know *nothing* about it.

Knowledge skills are actually much better when facing an opponent of appropriate CR for the PCs.

 

[IronWolf]

For example, a 1st level party is unlikely to have knowledge skill checks of more than +8. If they're facing a creature with 19 hit dice or more then by the rules they will know *nothing* about it.

While your example is an extreme one I would venture to say that if a party knows *nothing* about the creature they see, they may want to reconsider charging in with swords drawn. Then depending on the environment allow a stealthy party member to observe the said creature.

As Henry said, there are also visual context clues that would not require knowledge checks to help determine the lethality of the creature in question. A party observing a giant on the hill across the way, knocking down trees and picking its teeth with a longsword is a potential threat, perhaps one that is too difficult for the party.

The characters are not acting in a vacuum. In my campaigns the encounters they face are for the most part within their range to defeat, some are easier than others and vice versa. But I have nothing against a band of ogres passing by in the distance which may or may not be above their ability at their current level. It lets them know the world they play in is full of monsters, some they can tackle and others they should leave for another day.

 

[Amaroq]

I had a good time with my players in a more 'lethal' world: I told them up front, "I'm not going to make sure that every encounter is 'balanced' for your party level: there will be some encounters that it is wiser to avoid, especially at low levels. I'm not going to use 'DM et machina' to bring your character back if you get him or her killed."

This led to a game which was a bit heavier on role-playing, as players attempted to use Bluff and Diplomacy to avoid situations, and spent time while in wilderness adventures making sure they avoided their betters. The PC's also learn to break off combat or surrender.

One party I ran through that campaign world managed to survive with no PC deaths, while the other experienced several deaths and were okay with it.

I'd echo the overhwelming advice you're getting, though: warn the players; make sure their expectations are set correctly; make sure this is okay-with and enjoyable for them; and kill an NPC first.

Your players should be okay at that point; any who don't want to play in a game environment of that challenge level have been warned, and have two other campaigns to enjoy if they opt out of yours.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I am against death being thwarted by the DM and where the DM is constantly saving the PCs.

Me too. I want to know that my PC's actions have consequences, good and bad. Being saved by the DM when things go wrong is just as bad as being shut down by a DM even though you have the [appropriate for the situation] skill at +30. In either case, your PC's actions and abilities are being artificially circumvented by the DM.

With that being said I do like to throw the occasional very difficult encounter at a party,

I have no problem with a very difficult encounter. It definitely creates suspense and drama, both of which are good things. The most recent game I played in was a killer. Two NPCs, one PC, and an animal companion bit it over the course of three successive tough encounters. I loved the session. But even though the encounters were tough, they were not unbeatable, which is what I'm arguing is bad.

I find that often times the party can surprise me with some very creative thinking and get out of a sticky situation. I have usually attributed this creative thinking a result of them knowing simply charging in swords drawn, fireballs blazing is probably not going to lead to a positive resolution.

I understand your thinking, and agree with it in part. There is often a change in player attitudes, when the line between "there may be death" and "there won't be death" is crossed. But again I'm not arguing for "there won't be death." I'm arguing that "there may be death" does not, and should not, include encounters that are completely out of the PC's defeatable range.

To throw out an exaggerated example, say a group of 1st-level PCs are traveling through the forest and encounter an adult green dragon. Is this a good encounter? The DM might say "sure it is, the PCs can negotiate with it, and it'll let them live if they give it all their stuff," or something along those lines. Personally, I don't think it's a good encounter at all. It's placing a creature the PCs have no hope of defeating squarely in their path.

If the PCs decide to go exploring the "Cave of the Adult Green Dragon" then sure, they get what's coming to them. But setting up impossible encounters the PCs must confront doesn't make for a good game.

At least, IMO. YMMV, of course, and from the posts here clearly does.

I am not actually sure what would have happened in that encounter. We didn't even learn they were medusa's until after the adventure completed (it was a one-shot, goal oriented adventure). Judging from the make-up of the group and what we had already been through I would have expected perhaps one to two characters being turned to stone, possibly a PC death. Difficult to say though.

If your party could have defeated the medusas, then the encounter isn't "unbeatable" as I'm defining it, even if it could cost a PC death or two.

But, because we knew PC death was definitely possible we as characters attempting to accomplish a specific goal decided it was not worth battling them regardless of what they were as they didn't seem to be related to the goal we were after other than being able to provide us with some directions. Instead of rushing in to do battle where we could have lost a member or two (either to death or pertrification) we chose to play out the encounter in a more peaceful manner.

Which is great. Very similar to the game I currently play in.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Can they run? Can they hide? Does the dragon automatically see them? Is it flying overhead? Is it engaged in its own thing?

In Jurassic Park, the characters clearly cannot fight the T. Rex. They could fight the velociraptors, but they spent most of the time running. If they could fight the T. Rex, the movie (and book) would have been very, very different.

This example doesn't have any relevence. D&D is not a movie or a book, it's a game. This distinction is of the utmost importance. Books/Movies and Games have different priorities and dramatic tools. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other.

In your example, Jurassic Park would make a horrible D&D session. (I respectfully disagree that the people could fight the velociraptors, btw.) Instead, it would be better served by a diceless storyteller type game that de-emphasizes combat, or excludes it entirely, even.

IMC, the characters run into things they shouldn't be fighting all the time. Sometimes they fight them anyway. Sometimes they end up running. Sometimes they end up winning. PCs do die, but most often due to other PCs (either directly or indirectly).

Fair enough. As I said before, YMMV, and yours clearly does. My position hasn't changed, though. Perhaps it has to do with how I view D&D in general as a heroic game. Most likely, combat will be a serious option when confronted with any beast. That's what heroes do. Tossing in encounters with CRs so high as to guarantee a TPK is asking for a TPK in the long run.

 

[Malic]

A game world just feels realler to me, as a player, if it contains things more dangerous than me and I am not guaranteed only to meet things I can kill.

This also makes us think about other ways of dealing with things. If I can kill any obstacle I meet, why would my fighter do anything else?

I am happy to encounter things much tougher than my party. As long as they don't appear out of the sky and attack us unprovoked and kill us all, I don't consider this bad dming at all.

BTW I'd guess that most things with 19 hit dice are going to be pretty obviously tough looking to a first level party - gigantic or demonic or bizzare looking or something.

On topic : WRT party death - like other people have suggested, I think talking to your players is critical. I like the explanation in your handout.