D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[hawkeyefan]

The replaceability of PCs is totally a preference and a table dependent thing. Some groups will have higher lethality and PC turnover and be totally comfortable with that. Others will treat lethality as a bigger deal and will minimize this to some extent. Many games will be a somewhere between these two ends. It's all preference and it's all fine.

What I think the original point was is that very often, the rules of the game don't actually support the concept of the party fleeing in any way that makes it a viable option for players. If there was such a rule, it would at least be available as an option. It would be a decision point for the players to make, and it would have clear mechanics of some sort in order for them to make an informed decision.

The game lacks such a rule, and so when the PCs flee, it's entirely up to the GM to have the NPC villains raise their arms and cheer in victory...or to hunt every last one of them down like the dogs that they are.

The rules of the game make that latter option very possible, and from comments I've seen in discussions online and at games I've seen played, many GMs will just proceed to have the NPCs act in "optimal" fashion to defeat the PCs and may not even consider the idea of having the NPCs stop their attack and let the PCs flee. Very often, GMs are more bloodthirsty than the villains they're portraying.

 

[billd91]

The rules of the game make that latter option very possible, and from comments I've seen in discussions online and at games I've seen played, many GMs will just proceed to have the NPCs act in "optimal" fashion to defeat the PCs and may not even consider the idea of having the NPCs stop their attack and let the PCs flee. Very often, GMs are more bloodthirsty than the villains they're portraying.

That's the "game" part of role playing game. And you see it with players too who won't let the enemy flee either.
And as far as the "optimal" fashion goes, there are reasons I'm not interested in always playing "optimally".

 

[Thomas Shey]

And so might an adventuring company.

The key word here is "might". You can't just assume it as a default, because its only the case in some campaigns, with some foci.

Which was part of Lanefan’s point. If you’re on an important mission, someone might need to survive to keep that mission going and recruit more help.

Most of the games where the mission is important enough that you can assume people will just throw their lives away, just anyone won't do as a replacement (unless its a quasi-military setup in the first place--and we should note Lanefan has been the guy in the past that thinks that PCs should be able to do whatever the hell they want barring exterior events, so he presumably doesn't think any campaign assumptions about what you're hear to do are binding anyway).

Throwing people under the bus is baggage you’re bringing to this conversation. Leaving the dead behind and fleeing a tough fight to enable fighting another day isn’t throwing them under the bus - and particularly not when there’s a more important mission at stake.

This wasn't just about people who were dead; this was also about people who were alive but unable to flee effectively. So, no, I don't think I'm the one to bring it to the discussion.

 

[Lanefan]

But again, that's because a military unit is an entity in and of itself, that serves a purpose separate from the individuals making it up.

So is a D&D party.

Much of the time a mission isn't given to any one character, but to the party. Much of the time renown and fame and reward (and, sometimes, blame!) doesn't fall on any one character, but on the party. So what's the key unit of measure here? That's right, the party.

As a parallel, a PC group may accept casualties because they're doing something important that needs to get done even if it costs some of them their lives. But that's the choice of the individuals losing their lives; its not just a case of "this encounter is too tough so some of us get thrown under the bus so the others can live". There's worlds of difference between the two, and deliberately setting up the second only works when you consider characters disposable, not something most people have felt or at least 40 years now in the hobby.

Disposable? No. Life expectancy uncertain and more likely short than long? Yes.

Adventuring is a dangerous trade; and the in-character choice to put your life on the line is made the moment you-as-PC sign up to become a practitioner of that trade. Whether you die heroically defending the door so others can escape or die unacknowledged at the bottom of a pit or die unexpectedly due to a trap doesn't matter: you took on a dangerous profession and it got you.

That the game provides means of revival from death is a bonus: as long as at least one party member survives there's always a chance of reviving the rest at some point.

 

[Lanefan]

What I think the original point was is that very often, the rules of the game don't actually support the concept of the party fleeing in any way that makes it a viable option for players. If there was such a rule, it would at least be available as an option. It would be a decision point for the players to make, and it would have clear mechanics of some sort in order for them to make an informed decision.

To have clear mechanics would require a considerable degree of complexity as a huge variety of situations would have to be accounted for. Doable, yes; but the returns may or may not be worth the effort.

The game lacks such a rule, and so when the PCs flee, it's entirely up to the GM to have the NPC villains raise their arms and cheer in victory...or to hunt every last one of them down like the dogs that they are.

The rules of the game make that latter option very possible, and from comments I've seen in discussions online and at games I've seen played, many GMs will just proceed to have the NPCs act in "optimal" fashion to defeat the PCs and may not even consider the idea of having the NPCs stop their attack and let the PCs flee. Very often, GMs are more bloodthirsty than the villains they're portraying.

Indeed, it comes down to the DM playing the opposition in good faith and as far as possible thinking as they would.

Sometimes the foes will chase fleeing PCs if it's to the foes' advantage to do so (almost always the case when, say, the foes can fly and the PCs cannot) and-or the foes know they have the upper hand and are smart enough to realize they need to strike while the iron is hot.

Sometimes the foes are just glad to see the PCs off (and almost always the case when the foes know they cannot outrun the PCs) as - unknown to the PCs - they too were barely hanging on, and-or they've defended what they need to defend (often, their homes) and see no reason to move away from its location.

Sometimes it's a mix.

 

[Lanefan]

Most of the games where the mission is important enough that you can assume people will just throw their lives away, just anyone won't do as a replacement (unless its a quasi-military setup in the first place--and we should note Lanefan has been the guy in the past that thinks that PCs should be able to do whatever the hell they want barring exterior events, so he presumably doesn't think any campaign assumptions about what you're hear to do are binding anyway).

Yes, and this includes the freedom to make an individual and independent choice to (try to) flee from an unwinnable situation.

This wasn't just about people who were dead; this was also about people who were alive but unable to flee effectively. So, no, I don't think I'm the one to bring it to the discussion.

The last time I saw some of a party flee from an unwinnable situation was largely self-inflicted on their part: they first announced their presence to a bunch of enemies defending their home and then face-charged the lot of 'em. And yes, they left behind a couple of characters who had overextended and simply couldn't be bailed out without sacrificing the whole party. End result: three of six survived, the party continued, the mission continued (after some recruitment*), and the game went on.

If I'm reading your posts right, you would have expected the remaining party to sacrifice themselves to try and bail out the overextended ones, is that correct?

* - they were of low enough level in both experience and wealth that revival from death was not a viable option.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So is a D&D party.

Again, not for most people in most groups. The fact you consider it so does not require players to agree with you, and the fact you feel its appropriate to force that view on them is not the sign of good GMing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, and this includes the freedom to make an individual and independent choice to (try to) flee from an unwinnable situation.

Yes. But you don't end it there. You expect it of them, or at least consider it dumb that they don't.

(And just to make it clear; I'm not talking about a situation where the players got themselves into this; once that occurs any solution is going to be different degrees of bad. But if you've actively placed them in it, especially without warning? There's no virtue to that whatsoever, and at least at the start of this sequence you included that and seemed to think it was a good thing to do).

 

[billd91]

Again, not for most people in most groups.

Is it? Is this an assumption/guess?

The fact you consider it so does not require players to agree with you, and the fact you feel its appropriate to force that view on them is not the sign of good GMing.

Is he? Or is this another assumption/guess?
Honestly, you seem to be taking a way too confrontational and judgmental approach to Lanefan's posts in this thread. He's posting a perfectly legitimate alternative to your take on things and you seem to be taking some kind of umbrage at it.

It may, in fact, be true that players will choose to have their PCs not abandon their fellows even when a fight is going south fast, but if so, it would certainly increase the chances of a TPK and a premature end to a campaign. And maybe that's really is bad advice to follow compared to cutting and running. It would certainly end a lot of Call of Cthulhu campaigns early, in my experience, leaving the plots of cultists to thrive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is it? Is this an assumption/guess?

An educated guess from experience. Feel free to ask around this board if you think its otherwise.

Is he? Or is this another assumption/guess?
Honestly, you seem to be taking a way too confrontational and judgmental approach to Lanefan's posts in this thread. He's posting a perfectly legitimate alternative to your take on things and you seem to be taking some kind of umbrage at it.

Why, yes, I am, because this started with the assumption that you should put your players into this whether they want it or not. In fact, he doesn't seem to think it matters whether they had any control over getting into the situation in the first place (see his third sentence in post #111) It makes no reference to the players buying-in to this approach, and in fact, early on he was dismissive of any players that didn't in the same post).

So, yes, I said I have disdain for the view that players are supposed to share your approach as a GM and if they don't you should "train" them to, and I do.

It may, in fact, be true that players will choose to have their PCs not abandon their fellows even when a fight is going south fast, but if so, it would certainly increase the chances of a TPK and a premature end to a campaign. And maybe that's really is bad advice to follow compared to cutting and running. It would certainly end a lot of Call of Cthulhu campaigns early, in my experience, leaving the plots of cultists to thrive.

In a CoC game most people are going to know they're in a fatalistic horror campaign from the get-go. Its really not parallel at all. it might be if a player got into a campaign blind and didn't understand what CoC is about, but that's a degenerate case, and doesn't parallel what people expect from most fantasy campaigns and D&D in particular (as I've noted, if you don't want people to expect to be able to behave in a heroic way, don't use a bunch of fictional heroes as examples).