To Kill or Not to Kill (PCs): That is the Question...

[Argyle King]

To give the absurd form of the argument:

If the GM puts Tiamat on the first level of the dungeon and allows 1st level characters to walk into it without warning, their death pretty much is on the GM's shoulders.

Now, maybe you personally are so fantastically good that you never over-challenge without telegraphing it. But as a generalization, GMs cannot (and should not) outright disavow culpability. The GM is part of the process, and some of the responsibility can thus fall on them.

I would not say I necessarily disagree with this; however, it assumes a game where things such as level and CR (or XP budget) are built into the game. That is not the case for all games. There are plenty of rpgs which do not have levels.

If I'm running a game where there is no such thing as 'encounter design' in the same way D&D typically uses the words, and I am instead running a game in which the world evolves naturally and responds to the players, I do not believe it is my fault if the PCs willingly seek out a being such as Tiamat and find hardship & death. I am not suggesting the players in my games never encounter anything unexpected. However, I am suggesting that I prefer to run a game in which things evolve in a manner which is tied more to the in-game world than tied to out-of-game concepts such as level.

 

[Fifth Element]

I would not say I necessarily disagree with this; however, it assumes a game where things such as level and CR (or XP budget) are built into the game. That is not the case for all games. There are plenty of rpgs which do not have levels.

You don't need levels to see large disparities between relative power of characters and challenges. It may not be as precise as recent editions of D&D have tried to be, but you can still tell.

I do not believe it is my fault if the PCs willingly seek out a being such as Tiamat and find hardship & death.

No one here is suggesting that. If the characters seek something out, they reap what they sow. Stumbling upon an extreme challenge without warning is closer to what's being discussed.

 

[Fifth Element]

I do not agree with this at all. As a GM, if I make a rules mistake or something of that nature which causes the death of a PC, then -yes, that is my mistake. However -as I've said previously- when it comes to what is going on in-game; inside the game world, the entity of GM does not exist.

Conversely, without the GM the game world does not exist. How can the GM not have responsibility for the world if he effectively creates it?

How the characters choose to engage the world around them is something they choose for themselves.

And what there is available to engage is up to the GM. And the information they have available about those things.

 

[Umbran]

however, it assumes a game where things such as level and CR (or XP budget) are built into the game.

Um, no. It just uses such a game as an example. The situation of low-power characters and a high-power opponent is possible in just about any RPG ever published, is it not?

In games without a CR system, the GM is more likely to *accidentally* overpower the players, sure. But that just means the job of GMing is generally harder in those systems. The responsibility remains.

If I'm running a game where there is no such thing as 'encounter design' in the same way D&D typically uses the words, and I am instead running a game in which the world evolves naturally and responds to the players, I do not believe it is my fault if the PCs willingly seek out a being such as Tiamat and find hardship & death.

Yes, but since my example didn't have the party seeking out Tiamat, but instead had her placed where she'd not be expected, and encountered without warning, this is tangential.

The extreme example was only used to demonstrate the logic: The GM builds (or reviews and accepts) the adventure materials*. The GM has editorial rights on the adventure (or sandbox, or what have you). The GM is therefore responsible for the results of how he or she exercises those rights.

This is basic Spider Man "with power comes responsibility" stuff, and I find it odd that I'm getting pushback on it

However, I am suggesting that I prefer to run a game in which things evolve in a manner which is tied more to the in-game world than tied to out-of-game concepts such as level

That's fine. But then you're responsible for building the world logic governing that evolution. If you build a world-logic that has it sensible that a demon-god comes to eat low-power characters in a way the characters cannot reasonably avoid, you're still responsible for it.



*Tournament and organized play systems aside, that is

 

[Argyle King]

Conversely, without the GM the game world does not exist. How can the GM not have responsibility for the world if he effectively creates it?


And what there is available to engage is up to the GM. And the information they have available about those things.

Right, but the information comes from engaging the world. Knowledge skills and things of that nature are available for a reason. Even without such skills, there are plenty of opportunities for a party to learn more about the world. Before the campaign starts, I make sure to tell the players what their characters would know about the world; what things are common knowledge. Depending on character background, some characters might know a few things that another would not. During the campaign, there are the aforementioned skills, NPCs, libraries, taverns where alcohol may cause loose lips, and many other things - I cannot say exactly what because that is dependent upon the specific campaign world in question.

As for what is available; I believe that can partially be decided by the players as well. The actions and stories of their characters have the potential to change the game world.

I give the characters as much information as they ask for and successfully acquire. Likewise, I do the same for the players of those characters; on the level of player and metagame, I give plenty of opportunity to ask for clarification* is I feel that someone seems confused* by something I said. What the players (and by proxy their characters) choose to do with the world and the information I help them to acquire is up to them. If their choices lead to death, that's how the dice fall; and I prefer to leave the dice fall where they may.

I believe that if a GM comes to a point where he does not feel comfortable accepting the possible negative outcomes of a dice roll that he should not ask for the dice to be rolled.

*Though, in some situations, I may not clarify if the in-game intent was for the information to be somewhat obscure. A quick arbitrary example of what I mean would be a crazy hermit who only speaks in riddles.

 

[Lanefan]

Forge of Fury is a nicely designed environment. With better art it might have been a real classic. I ran it in 4e D&D with PCs higher level than it was written for, and perhaps did not get the most out of it. Chatting about it here, I'm tempted to run it again with the Pathfinder Beginner Box.

Forge of Fury is one of the best, if not *the* best, 3e/d20 adventure I've seen.

And I say that having lost a character trying to cross that damn rope bridge at the entry!

When I ran it (converted to 1e) the party got across the bridge, orcs arrived, one character still ended up in the ravine (tried to push an orc over the side and completely messed it up, the orc ducked...)

Lanefan

 

[Doug McCrae]

The just-world hypothesis is a useful GM tool to deny responsibility for PC deaths. I've noticed that players will tend to blame themselves for their PC's deaths even when I, the GM, am 90% or more responsible.

Any death is a result of a chain of decisions. Even if the system or random rolls come into play, the choice to use that system, to determine such an outcome by means of randomness, is always attributable to a human being, usually the GM.

If, say, 100 decisions in a chain lead to a PC death, the GM has made 99 of those decisions and the player has made one, then it seems clear to me that the GM is far more responsible. But thanks to the just world hypothesis, the player will be more likely to blame himself, focusing on that one decision that could have been otherwise.

 

[Fifth Element]

Right, but the information comes from engaging the world.

Right, and again, nothing here is to say that players bear no responsibility in general. Just that the responsibility is shared, and any DM that tries to absolve himself of any responsibility is fooling himself.

Especially considering that when the players are "engaging the world" they are actually engaging the DM. There is no autopilot setting for the game world. Everything the players glean from the game world ultimately comes from the DM. The DM is effectively the game world.

 

[Janx]

Um, no. It just uses such a game as an example. The situation of low-power characters and a high-power opponent is possible in just about any RPG ever published, is it not?

In games without a CR system, the GM is more likely to *accidentally* overpower the players, sure. But that just means the job of GMing is generally harder in those systems. The responsibility remains.

In many ways, I think Level, Hit Dice, CR/EL were designed as mechanisms so that a GM could take a comparitive measure of difficulty/safety.

This is why I always find it odd to get pushback against level appropriate challenges.

Yes, it is possible that a 1st level PC in a "realistic" world could randomly run into Tiamat. Or they could foolishly seek her out for combat.

In the game aspect of RPG, I fail to see what the benefit of such a possibility is. If the PCs survive, it is more by GM fiat than player finesse that the GM "allowes" Tiamat to not decide to just eat the morsels in front of her.

Such an overkill encounter is hardly the players fault if they die. It is most likely assurance of PC death, which thus, is no challenge, no fun, and a foregone conclusion.

It would be far more proof of player skil to see them survive a level appropriate challenge. El1, EL2, etc. Where the fact that it WAS practical to win, makes failure proof of really bad luck/incompetence, and victory implies skill.

While in my game, there are higher level NPCs, etc that the PCs COULD seek out, I don't place the ridiculously higher ones in the path of the PCs. There's no point, as it proves nothing, and tends to lead to DM show-boating.

If I hear tell of players who beat a ridiculously overpowered NPC, I am inclined to think DM intervention occurred. The DM either handed out too much loot, enabling PCs to mont-haul the monster, or the DM was lenient on the dice rolls or interpretation of reactions. It's possible the victory was legitmate, but that's my first impression because of how improbable that victory should be.

Whereas, a PC facing a simple Orc, why fudge the result? If the PC can't beat a reasonable opponent, he deserves what happens.

 

[Janx]

Right, but the information comes from engaging the world. Knowledge skills and things of that nature are available for a reason. Even without such skills, there are plenty of opportunities for a party to learn more about the world. Before the campaign starts, I make sure to tell the players what their characters would know about the world; what things are common knowledge. Depending on character background, some characters might know a few things that another would not. During the campaign, there are the aforementioned skills, NPCs, libraries, taverns where alcohol may cause loose lips, and many other things - I cannot say exactly what because that is dependent upon the specific campaign world in question.

That is an assumption about the level of detail a GM may prepare about his world and relays to the players.

I see your line of argument from "detailed" GMs who do cover their bases.

Most of us probably don't play under such GMs. There's a Otyugh in Room 12 because that's what the random encounter table rolled up. There are no clues leading to that, because the GM didn't think to leave any.

Furthermore, there are style differences. You cite using skills to gather info, etc. Not all games are run as investigative, information gathering before we race to where the bad guys are and run through the castle killing everyone in a red shirt using our cool powers and items.

Some play styles just don't support "the players had ample opportunity to figure this out" to make it the player's fault for not knowing.