|
As a DM, should I pull punches. My group walked in to the Cathedral of Wrath, low on spells and hit points. Needless to say had to fub some rolls just to keep from TPK. Do I continue to pull punches or do I make the statement that running is a good thing.
I generally don't pull punches. The fear of failure is one of the things that keeps combat interesting for many players. If there's no chance of death (or other negative consequences) it would be easier and faster to narrate over the combat and move on with the story.
That being said, fudging a few rolls in the first few encounters isn't at all a bad thing. It's no fun to spend all the time making the character only to have it die after 4 combats. Later on however, the players have resources to bring people back from the dead (even if it's very difficult) and they have contacts that can be brought in as new PCs.
Roll the dice on the table and play your villains true to their personalities. Everything's more rewarding when you have to work a little for it.
All choices come with consequences. If you go into the home of evil low on HP and spells, that's your choice. If you die there, that's the consequence of trying to act beyond your means. Discretion is the better part of valor, after all.
I don't advocate pulling punches either.
|
I'd prefer not to pull punches, but sometimes the game enters this "test" mode where you wonder if you've thrown too much at the PC's, or whether or not they've had a fair opportunity to realize they are in over their heads before it's too late.
Maybe that is rectified by having the kinds of spells and abilities that help them respond to surprises like that, and having the insight to scout or have a battle plan that starts with testing the waters and completes with full dedication of force.
Pulling punches really takes something away from the player, though. I'd prefer to be just as much a spectator to the action as a referee, instead of carefully finessing what happens to ease things up a bit for the players. That way, when the fight is over and the PCs are victorious, we can all cheer about it.
|
All choices come with consequences. If you go into the home of evil low on HP and spells, that's your choice. If you die there, that's the consequence of trying to act beyond your means. Discretion is the better part of valor, after all.
I don't advocate pulling punches either.
This is my stance also. Not to mention that when the NEXT group of adventurers hears about the group that went in un-ready and ended up never seen again, the new group will be sure to prepare better.
I have a rule that I as DM will roll all combat rolls in the open and the dice will fall as they will. I also do this with trap rolls and saves. It lets the group know that if they aren't prepared they will have a rough time.
I only pull punches if I'm using a published adventure. That sounds weird, but here's why. I play with two PCs and put in one or two cohorts to help out. Even then, we don't always end up with the balanced party or most thoroughly optimised characters that many pre-written adventures assume we have. So sometimes there are fights where a missing component or my group's less than fantastic grasp of tactics can easily kill them off. That being said, if they have the opportunity to rest and recover hp/spells (in an adventure where they aren't on the clock, for instance) and they choose not to partake then they deserve what they get. I also generally avoid having enemies coup de grace fallen characters: they tend to prefer to deal with enemies that are still up and fighting and assume downed enemies are out permenantly. Unless they have a personal grudge.
If I've written the adventure, though, I pull no punches. I have their capabilities in mind when I design encounters and do my best to provide challenges that aren't completely impossible. If they do something stupid and get in over their heads, it's their problem.
Chief Technical Officer
|
As a DM, should I pull punches. My group walked in to the Cathedral of Wrath, low on spells and hit points. Needless to say had to fub some rolls just to keep from TPK. Do I continue to pull punches or do I make the statement that running is a good thing.
I have to go with the answer that it's ultimately a game, and you have to do what will be the most fun for all involved. At the right time, with the right players, sometimes a TPK can actually be kind of fun (especially when you're looking back on it a couple months later). But at the wrong time, with the wrong people, the players might flip your game table over and never speak with you again. And only you know your players, so it's in your court!
I think there are generally two styles of gaming in this regards and its going to depend significantly on what camp your in.
If your view of the game is one in which all the players and the DM get together to weave a story about this group of adventurers and their lives then killing characters should generally only be something that happens for dramatic tension. In other words the DM almost asks permission to kill the character. Its nearly always against some BBEG and serves to enhance all the other players desire for revenge etc. Your character is probably very elaborate and, since the character is likely to live a long time, involved in many sub plots. The fun of this style of game comes from the communal story being weaved.
Option number two sees the game as a series of obstacles to be overcome. Your essentially involved in a game and part of the game means playing smart and sometimes suffering reverses. Death is one of the penalties for bad choices or bad luck. If death is not a very real possibility then everything else is cheapened. Your character is less detailed and should never be critical to the plot line. The fun of this style of gaming comes from the sense of accomplishment when you overcome the challenges and the drama built into the dice since death lurks around every corner and it might focus on you at any moment.
I've played in the story style. Its fun in a lot of ways, I don't DM it however, much preferring the D&D as obstacle based game version.
|
|
We had to add a house rule that -10 isn't death as long the combat is still going on. You go down to -10 and you can still stabilize at -10 (only one shot to do that) but even if you don't, if you get healed or stabilized by someone else till the end of the encounter +1 round you can live.
We get such great characters with some really awesome RPing oppurtunities that are never realized because of the high difficulty level of Paizo adventures (I blame James for playing with 40-something point buy lol)
Using that rule I've only had one death so far in RotRL, and it's because the body was thrown off of thistletop
|
As a DM, should I pull punches. My group walked in to the Cathedral of Wrath, low on spells and hit points. Needless to say had to fub some rolls just to keep from TPK. Do I continue to pull punches or do I make the statement that running is a good thing.
I say defiantly not, and then place any deaths in the obituaries thread
As a DM, should I pull punches. My group walked in to the Cathedral of Wrath, low on spells and hit points. Needless to say had to fub some rolls just to keep from TPK. Do I continue to pull punches or do I make the statement that running is a good thing.
I am not afraid to kill my players, but I try to make the deaths fun and 'herioc' if I can. I want to avoid a death that makes then regret playing and investing all the time they have put into a character..
Sometimes a player is just about to do something dumb, because they are not thinking it through or they are not very experienced in playing an rpg.. Then I try to help without coming right out and saying, "that is going to get your killed!"
If a player is doing something that a character of the type and level they are playing would know not to do, I will usually remind them in an inner voice sort of way..
"Your character would realize that he was out of torches and that the tunnel ahead was pitch black.. "
or
"As a ranger, you would likely recognize this creature as very dangerous .."
|
|
Depends on your play style. When I am judging in a shared world campaign like Blackmoor or Arcanis, the gloves are off and it is on. I advocate full consequence for all decision players make.
However, running Pathfinder for my 7 and 10 year old and their friends requires a different aesthetic. This is as much about teaching them the game as it is holding to an abstract principle of detached consequence and mechanics. A certain... sensitivity to the experience and tolerance of the players is prudent. TPKing a table of newbies does not bring them back. Thye will migrate to WoW and the game shrinks some more.
Likewise, some campaigns are more concerned with narrative than mechanics. If it is not a aethetically satisfying moment in the story for someone to get whacked,you don't whack them. This is not my standard mode of play with adults, but I have run and participated in games like this and had a great time.
In general, I will only fudge when players have had a stupid run of luck or when the actions of one of them are about to wipe out all of them. I often don't fudge the dice directly. What I will do is say, "Ok folks, I hate to metagame on you here, but if you push forward there's a good chance you'll get squished." I'll point to relevant clues that support an in character decision to step back or rethink it. This is especially useful when developing new players.
Anyhow, my two coppers.
I am not afraid to kill my players . . .
You realize that you just admitted that you don't mind committing real-world felonies?
Man, and I thought I'd seen some tough DMs before;-)
Real world felony? They signed the paper (well, I did sign for them, but I did the the signature just right!): In my campaigns, death is always 100% real. After a character death, the only way to bring in a new character is to believe in reincarnation and have your new self show up.
About pulling punches: I'm inclined to do it in the following circumstances:
- in a bout of bad luck: If their natural ones are followed by several natural twenties, I won't let them die just because of it: I'll soften it a bit. Not so much that they spot it from a mile away, but enough to give them a fighting chance
- First time they're really reckless and/or stupid. I also tell them that they were really lucky there and that a bit of thinking things through always helps. If they repeat it, I'll probably waste them.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've allowed action points, in part to compensate for bad luck.
Last night my party went into the catacombs of wrath, they'd just crested 2nd level.
I don't pull punches, since I too feel that risk makes the reward. I also feel that if you pull punches the players don't feel the rush of "Do I burn that last action point, knowing I'm only haflway through the level? Do I blow that firball scroll, even though I'm second level?"
Referring to Jeremy Mac Donald's post, I would catagorize myself as story driven GM.
But I don't run my Pathfinder game that way. Before the game started we had a brief conversation about GMing styles, and my players communicated that they would prefer no punches to be pulled. So I don't pull any. Getting back to Vic Wertz's post, I've identified what is fun for the players and met their expectation. That makes for a more fun game for them.
The events in a game serve to teach, and sometimes you have to step back and ask yourself "What lesson am I teaching here?"
In this case, it's intelligent game play. That's why video games and MMO's have some marginal penalty when you die (even if it's starting over at an old save point), they are rewarding intelligent game play.
There are other examples of 'teaching'.
Death teaches.
Now if you're looking for an instance where it might be alright to pull a punch? Perhaps when what is happening has nothing to do with a poor choice on the part of the player. Those should be few and far between, but you might see something like that happening.
I've pulled one punch.
If they're just being sloppy, then they need a wake-up call. Your game will be more satisfying for them and you if they take it seriously (in context of being a game of course).
Referring to Jeremy Mac Donald's post, I would catagorize myself as story driven GM.
But I don't run my Pathfinder game that way. Before the game started we had a brief conversation about GMing styles, and my players communicated that they would prefer no punches to be pulled. So I don't pull any.
Seems a tad odd. Why did your group elect to switch styles?
|
|
I olny pull punches in the first few sessions, after that the party should be able to work as a team, fill the gaps, etc... and the dice fall where they may.
Pure stupidity is rewarded all by itself and I will pull no punches with a dumb or assholish player...ie CN does not mean you wander aimlessly or open random stuff, now shut up and roll up a new character, try NG.
I olny pull punches in the first few sessions, after that the party should be able to work as a team, fill the gaps, etc... and the dice fall where they may.
Pure stupidity is rewarded all by itself and I will pull no punches with a dumb or assholish player...ie CN does not mean you wander aimlessly or open random stuff, now shut up and roll up a new character, try NG.
Lol. Require them to make low INT low WIS characters.
Seems a tad odd. Why did your group elect to switch styles?
Ah! Good but easy question.. This was a different group of players!
I guess I was trying to underscore to the OP that communication helps. Player contracts and all that jazz can seem really forced, but in my case I just disclosed how I usually GM. They scratched their heads and looked at each other and said, "That's cool, but we respond to this style better," and from there I didn't question it. Like others have said, I roll my dice where they can see it if they care to make the effort.
By communicating upfront, you give them what they want, and the burden is off the GM's shoulders.
And yeah- as an outsider to this style of play, I will attest to the OP that the players get a whole lot of satisfaction from dealing with a tough fight or a difficult obstacle when you don't pull your punch. It's made me revise my thinking a little.
CN does not mean you wander aimlessly or open random stuff, now shut up and roll up a new character, try NG.
Yeah, exactly!
This could easily become an alighnment discussion, but an immature player often misinterprets CN as:
1.) An excuse not to take the game seriously and be disruptive for
others who are.
2.) Not be responsible for their IC actions.
3.) Playing a sociopath, unable to distinguish right from wrong.
CN is not a license to be a dumbass. I have a pretty jaundiced eye towards CN characters unless I have confidence that they player understands the alignment without lapsing in to 'schticks.'
Real world felony? They signed the paper (well, I did sign for them, but I did the the signature just right!): In my campaigns, death is always 100% real. After a character death, the only way to bring in a new character is to believe in reincarnation and have your new self show up.
Ms. Frost, is that you? I just made 8th level. ;-)
I am not afraid to kill my players . . .
You realize that you just admitted that you don't mind committing real-world felonies?
Man, and I thought I'd seen some tough DMs before;-)
Ha! Must be Freudian!
|
|
CN does not mean you wander aimlessly or open random stuff, now shut up and roll up a new character, try NG.Yeah, exactly!
This could easily become an alighnment discussion, but an immature player often misinterprets CN as:
1.) An excuse not to take the game seriously and be disruptive for
others who are.
2.) Not be responsible for their IC actions.
3.) Playing a sociopath, unable to distinguish right from wrong.CN is not a license to be a dumbass. I have a pretty jaundiced eye towards CN characters unless I have confidence that they player understands the alignment without lapsing in to 'schticks.'
I completely agree. Too many people treat CN as an excuse to play a character as if insane, or somehow immune to causality. I generally don't allow people to make LG, CN, or any evil characters until they show they can actually run a character without playing it as a 'brain-damaged stereotype'.
Real world felony? They signed the paper (well, I did sign for them, but I did the the signature just right!): In my campaigns, death is always 100% real. After a character death, the only way to bring in a new character is to believe in reincarnation and have your new self show up.Ms. Frost, is that you? I just made 8th level. ;-)
Frost? None here by that name. Why I need this hot hairdrier? Washed my hair. No, that puddle on the ground with the two pieces of coal and the carrot are a mere coincidence.
I generally pull some punches now and then. I do not play with raise dead in my campaigns, so this is kind of a balance issue. Death is still a factor, but it is rarer.
If I did use raise dead, I wouldn't pull any punches.
I don't use any kind of raise dead type mechanic in my game. Even something that reverses time will fail if your trying to reverse it to bring a character back from the dead. Dead is dead in my game.
I don't use action points or anything like that.
I'm never kind when bad luck strikes the players. Generally I find thats when its easiest to kill the varmints. So if a player rolls a 1 I start smiling and rubbing my hands with glee 'cause that was your ass and now I'm coming for you.
My characters deaths are not heroic - their gory. I go nuts on the flavour text when I get that killing blow in.
A tip - if you kill a females PC make sure you wreck her characters face. The girls like to leave a good looking corpse and it pisses them off to no end if you go beyond just killing their character and take it to the next level of really messing up the characters dead body - especially their characters face. You know you have hit a nerve when its not just her calling you an a*+~@#@. All the girls at the table should be calling you an a!!%!!!.
When I kill a character I anoint my DM screen with a little skull sticker to tally up how many I have gotten so far.
I scale my DMing on the 'a*#&$+#' meter. The more times a session my players call me an a&$%$~* the better I must be doing.
Generally speaking, I pull punches, or fudge dice rolls as it were, in combats or events that are relatively inconsequential. Unless the PCs do something foolish, the thugs don't get to take heads. Big monsters or leaders take heads. I've crucified PCs near to death and usually maim a few per campaign (never underestimate a good maiming). John Wick wrote an article for the L5R RPG that argued (paraphrasing here), the more you punish your player's characters, the more the player's will love the game, and I believe that. Tonight my PCs are surrounded by thugs in the Seven's Sawmill. They might not be able to take the opposition, being out numbered two to one. Now, the bad boss might not be around, so I'll probably beat the PCs unconsious and then torture them (I just saw Casino Royale recently)! I might maim one, or all!!
Pull your punches with thugs, but punish your PCs.
Believe me, they'll be back next week on the edge of their seats.
Both of our SCAP campaigns died because they were just too difficult and the players got worn out and discouraged, stopped enjoying themselves, and quit.
I am vetting RotRL carefully and trying to avoid repeating those bad experiences. I'll kill a PC if I have to, but I'm trying to set things up so I don't have to. I'm also trying hard to avoid sending the message "This is too hard for your PCs" which we find even more destructive than PC death.
The shadow encounter in Thistletop was one I wish I'd spotted earlier; it was not a good encounter for our PCs at that stage and I regret running it. You could just see the player's enthusiasm for the scenario evaporate. (Not just the PCs' enthusiasm; the player's.)
Bottom line is that it really, really depends on your players (and your own tastes). Strategies like "punish them, they'll love it" work for some player groups and are immediate disasters with others. There are no universal rules for keeping players happy. You're going to have to find out what makes your particular group happy.
If you do find you want to make things easier, it's worth looking into how to make them easier in advance. You can really ruin the sense of danger by throwing too-hard scenarios and then rescuing the PCs from their consequences, whereas appropriately-hard scenarios can seem challenging without actually being lethal. I wish I had changed the shadows to one shadow and five or six skeletons.
Mary
Bottom line is that it really, really depends on your players (and your own tastes). Strategies like "punish them, they'll love it" work for some player groups and are immediate disasters with others. There are no universal rules for keeping players happy. You're going to have to find out what makes your particular group happy.
I concur.
My players tell me not to pull any punches, and I haven't by my book, but no one has died. They get beaten up pretty bad, but no one has died.
Big difference there. :)
And they're happy as clams.
I'm not sure this topic can be easily reduced to broad sweeping statements.
|
|
I mostly agree with Mary and Watcher. I recently discussed this point with my players (I'm running RotRL for a six-player group so some changes have to be made), and while they didn't ask me to pull any punches they did ask me not to make it too deadly. They prefer story over combat and have created quite some background-heavy characters so I'll try my best to challenge them without killing them. There's no guarantee though and I won't fudge dice to prevent a kill. The possibility to die has to be real or the game will loose one of the most important factors with respect to identification with one's character.