Am I guilty of this mentality because I believe that combats should challenge my players and the threat of death to characters should be real and not "make-believe"?
I am not looking for anything like a TPK but I do enjoy the occusional PC death. Maybe I just come from a different era of play where it wasn't a big deal if your PC died and you just spent the remaining session making a new one. In my gaming circle we use to talk about the characters that died more then the characters that survived.
PC Death can be a powerful moment and is only fairly achieved in combat as opposed to say the powerful moment that is a storyline death of an NPC.
The one thing that I seem to miss about 3.x is the lethality of it over 4E. I have seen far less characters die in a longer time span then in 3.x... I think between a handful of campaigns that I've only seen a single Feylock and a Swordmage die (and the Swordmage was my PC in another game, also just so happens the Feylock died in the same battle.)
I am done rambling now...
|
Am I guilty of this mentality because I believe that combats should challenge my players and the threat of death to characters should be real and not "make-believe"?
You're not alone. I personally hate fights that don't feel real, and the players always know they're going to win. If there isn't at least a chance of dying, I find players get either a mentality of "oh well, just another fight, we'll win" or pure sillyness, such as using foam weapons or elaborate, world creating fanciful attacks.
I think that it comes down to a DM over a game in the end though. While I haven't played enough 4e to really get the lethality feel for it, it sounds almost like your DM (and maybe some of your players) don't react well to character death. These are usually people who take a fit if their characters die, as they put a lot of time and effort into them.
Granted, for me, that's why we have resurrection spells and trips to the planes of death...
|
I don't think you're alone.
When I DM, I find that during combat I try to keep an emotional detachment from a victory on either side - what I'm really after is trying to find the sweet spot for how a creature or monster might really act.
Sometimes, that means completely unleashing hell on a character who got in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't want them to think "the DM is against us", but I do want them to think "geeze, we won't make that mistake again."
There's a few reasons why I think I like my style:
- It promotes player tactics, and teamwork. All of those fancy skills and spells are there for a reason, and the players become acutely aware of when their more squishy friends were left unprotected.
- Potions, scrolls and consumables. Far, far too often, I've seen games where these things go completely unused. The players earn cash to replenish these goods, they should feel enabled to use them, and in games where there's a true threat the players will stock up nicely.
- NPCs. My players are slowly becoming fans of highering NPC mooks. All those NPC price charts are there for a reason, and when the players know that a den of monsters is going to come after them like a den of monsters, they're likely to ask for help.
Of course, in all things YMMV.
I see it both ways. A combat should have a purpose in this game. The question is what is the purpose of the combat you are presenting at this time.
It would be a mistake to think every combat must have the same purpose, or that there can only be one central reason to any combat.
Reasons to include a combat in a game include (but aren't limited too)
1. Remind the players something is bigger than them.
2. Challenge the players
3. Remind the players they are bigger than most things (sometimes PC's need the love of running through a crowd of mooks unchallenged... it helps prevent turtling and "DM vs Playerism")
4. To introduce a new concept.
5. To discredit an old concept (at least partially, simply to show a one trip... err, trick pony where his problem is)
6. To offer an alternative solution for a problem (maybe you have a puzzle you don't think the PC's will be able to solve... so offer an alternative route with a nasty monster in it to give them an option).
7. Role play enhancement (sometimes physical conflict is a part of good role playing *Note not real life physical conflict! IN GAME IN GAME!)
8. Simple way to disseminate loot (sometimes it's an easy way to get the PC's that extra bit they are missing in some 'random' loot).
And it could be a combination of these reasons.
|
|
As a DM and a player i want the characters to face a very real chance of death. Otherwise it gets boring fast for me anyways. Of my group of the 6 of us 5 agree, 1 does not. 1 thinks PC's should only die when the character does something blantently stupid and puts themselves knowningly into a dangerous situtation.
The rest of us feel with out the danger that at any time, one wrong move, just get unlucky or fail to plan well can lead to death. Adds to the game and makes it more fun.
Least that has been my experience but it seems more of playing styles to. As most of those that don't like it tend to enjoy similar style games it seems, same with those of us that do like it.
As a player, I rarely see fights that are too easy on the group. We might battle creatures just a little below us on occasion, but normally we fight things just a little higher than us on the CR scale. Now this has come back to bite us on occasion (dire maulers that nearly ate the party come to mind).
I want fights to have some sort of purpose or meaning. It can be the logical result of our actions (Axel, no, you shouldn't have started making fun of those dwarves). It can be a fight to save the world. Doesn't matter. I prefer fights to happen because in-game reasoning says they should.
When those fights break out, we rarely have deaths. We've gotten close in the current campaign; the paladin took a massive 73 point critical from a frost giant in one fight and was only saved by the DR of his adamantine full plate and the shadowdancer's quick efforts to pour a potion of cure serious wounds down his throat (dropped to -9 hp exactly). I guess as a player I've been blessed by DMs that can gauge the party's abilities quite well. In my time, I've only been in 1 TPK, and we did that to ourselves by exploring a side-corridor and running into a yellow musk creeper and blew our saves.
That said, I usually feel like our battles give us the possibility of dying without making us feel like we're wimps. We tend to be very attached to our characters in our group and don't like the feeling of failure that comes from dying, so we tend to be careful in battle regardless. Though there are a few exceptions. I don't remember the last time we had someone roll up a new character after their old character died in combat, though we spend a fair bit of time at level 9 or higher so raise dead is usually an option.
I personally hate it just as much when the world as a whole is supposed to have an average level of "3~7" and after level 10 I never see anything in that range. It breaks continuity when everything I face is the same or higher level than I am. Surely some PC somewhere has noticed that the more you level, the more powerful you get, the more stuff you find, the worse peril the world is in?
It's super league syndrome.
Heck you want to challenge those level 13 PC's with a bunch of orcs? Give them hostages, and remind the PC's that not everyone comes back from a Raise Dead spell. They'll spend more time planning how to save the hostages than they will strategising on how to face that next dragon/demon/devil/construct you got three rooms over.
|
|
I like to give my players a decent chance of making it to the BBEG or the end of a great story...if they get TPKed at the crescendo of an adventure, so be it...their next group will be the one that has to clean up after them...
Will I pull punches prior to the end story, absolutely.
I consider myself a director of a movie...whether the movie has a happy ending or not doesn't matter as long as you get to see the entire movie.
If it's an unhappy ending, then there will be new actors for the sequence.
While I'm declared enemy of all things "DM vs Player" "red shirt parade" and otherwise old-school GMing vices, as a GM I -never- pull punches. On a most basic definition (statistics-wise at least), for a game to be a -game-, it must be an event with two posible outcomes (success and failure).
Fortunately, I haven't seen a single character death in my table in years, because my players know I -won't- pull their behinds out of the fire if they get in over their heads, and so they play smart. Also, given how my players tend to invest themselves in the campaign world, they always go the extra mile because they know a defeat at the wrong time will carry consequences far worse than their deaths ("remember that temple of Lamashtu you desecrated and the chosen you converted? Well this Kraken she sent has the specific purpose of killing two birds in one stone and take away from you what's most dear, wrathful, gigantic eyes aiming towards your wife").
The only times I've actually pulled punches is times when I've actually screwed up with poorly-planned encounters, which I adjust on the fly once I realise the heroes don't stand a chance in hell (slashing enemy's hit points, dropping AC and saves, etc)... of course, when I do this I -don't- let my players know, the moment your players become aware you -saved them- they start losing fear of death, as soon as fear of death leaves the game so does your credibility as a GM.
It's super league syndrome.
I rather call it Faux Growth. I mean, what's the point of the lvl 1 party to enter the dungeon and come out as lvl 3 only so they find out now even the -bartender- is lvl 4? If everything is going to be stronger than you all the time, then what's the point of leveling up altogether? Throw in some kobolds! Road brigands! Have the bad guy use mooks! It won't kill the heroes to remind them they're -heroic-. You can always throw at them a big scare later if they ever get into a comfort zone.
Heck you want to challenge those level 13 PC's with a bunch of orcs? Give them hostages, and remind the PC's that not everyone comes back from a Raise Dead spell.
Heh, reminds me of the "mob rules" a friend got me acquainted with. I can't remember which book he took that from, but stated that whenever enemies were 30+, they counted as a 'mob' that automatically does 5d6 upon moving to your space.
The mob rules are in phb 2.
I personally hate it just as much when the world as a whole is supposed to have an average level of "3~7" and after level 10 I never see anything in that range. It breaks continuity when everything I face is the same or higher level than I am. Surely some PC somewhere has noticed that the more you level, the more powerful you get, the more stuff you find, the worse peril the world is in?
In a one shot game I ran, the Ship Captain wouldn't let the PCs on board or take them anywhere because they were too high level which meant tougher monsters would attack his ship.
Everyone got a good laugh out of it.
I like the players/PC's to be challenged, though I'm definitely not against them. The challenge's I typically throw are moral ones, or obstacles, only occasionally combat encounters. I am a DM who pulls punches, I will freely admit that, but never with dice rolls. Typically, if an encounter is going south fast I may opt to choose poorer tactics (and depending on what they are fighting it may make sense) for the monsters/npc's then they might otherwise use. This might be a crutch that I over use too often. But I'm more interested in challenging the players with the abstract than the tangible.
One note: my current group I GM for/play with are not tacticle players at all, they aren't terrible mind you, they just don't think tactically about combat. So it makes it a little more important for me to pull punches tactically in the games I run, as I could easily kill off the PC's with things below their Level with little effort. My last group however was the exact opposite to an extent.
That's the great thing about these games; they take all kinds.
To the OP, what prompted the thought?
I have noticed (as a player now in two games versus having been the DM) that we die a lot. I have also noticed the availability of raise dead and other methods of returning PCs get used a lot more than in my 1E days because it's a) easier for the party to get access to healing to prevent death and b) PCs get to higher levels where they can frequently cast restorative spells themselves. Wouldn't this have happened in first edition if we were all awash in potions and healing spells?*
*Fun side story. I gave out a staff of curing in 1E to a party. You had to hit the PC with it to heal them. That's how it activated. Cured 1d6, and dealt 1d4 damage. Great fun for me. *Usually* the party healed more than they took in "friendly fire". Use it they did however.
|
DM vs. Player means you see the game as a challenge to you (the DM) to kill the PCs off as much as possible/in as nasty ways as possible/etc...
Making encounters that are difficult (or even *gasp* unwinnable) reinforces the idea that there are tough monsters/NPCs/environmental conditions out there. It establishes verisimilitude in the game world, and allows for more immersive roleplaying.
Softballing the game, setting everything to "easy mode", breaks that illusion of reality. This causes the players to innately KNOW they are playing a game, rather than thinking "in character" and trying to act accordingly. At least, that's what I've found.
In my games, death and near-death is a pretty constant expectation. If I can have a series of encounters that leave the party very low on HP, ability damaged, running on empty for spells/powers/etc, and still get the doohickey/rescue the princess/slay the evil monster, THAT is the success point. They overcame truly difficult challenges, showing their heroic character, and walked/crawled/were dragged back out triumphant. These are the fights/dungeons the group will talk about for years to come, not the cakewalk one-shot-killed mook or the easily duped sleeping dragon.
-t
Imagine:
So I'm watching a show and every week half of the characters die off and they bring in new ones. I'm freaken lost. What the hell is going on? Why are these new people following in the foot steps of the old ones?
So now consider if instead of a show, it is a roleplaying game. Does that make the above any "better"?
Some people lean more to the challenge aspect and some lean more toward the story. It really comes down to what your groups wants out of the experience.
DM vs. Player means you see the game as a challenge to you (the DM) to kill the PCs off as much as possible/in as nasty ways as possible/etc...
Making encounters that are difficult (or even *gasp* unwinnable) reinforces the idea that there are tough monsters/NPCs/environmental conditions out there. It establishes verisimilitude in the game world, and allows for more immersive roleplaying.
Softballing the game, setting everything to "easy mode", breaks that illusion of reality. This causes the players to innately KNOW they are playing a game, rather than thinking "in character" and trying to act accordingly. At least, that's what I've found.
In my games, death and near-death is a pretty constant expectation. If I can have a series of encounters that leave the party very low on HP, ability damaged, running on empty for spells/powers/etc, and still get the doohickey/rescue the princess/slay the evil monster, THAT is the success point. They overcame truly difficult challenges, showing their heroic character, and walked/crawled/were dragged back out triumphant. These are the fights/dungeons the group will talk about for years to come, not the cakewalk one-shot-killed mook or the easily duped sleeping dragon.
-t
Just as boring to sit around and go "Gee we almost got our butts handed to us, again! Seems like each monster we face is twice as bad as the last one... what happened to all those orcs from a few levels back? You know the ones that had such a population they were a threating an invasion just to cull their own numbers?"
"Oh yeah, we killed a hundred then gained a level, and now the other 10,000 just disappear."
Getting "challenged" to death is no better than a bunch of cake walks. It takes more finesse to run something than just "challenging the players" each time.
There is no verisimilitude in a world that goes from "dragons are rare and powerful, demons unseen and dangerous" to "Hey look, it's our four balrog this week, and he brought another red dragon cohort!"
OR from "wizards are rare and mistrusted" to "This is our seventh would be wizard overlord in the past month, don't they know this isn't going to work?"
It breaks down into a game of power rangers, and the players respond in kind, "Geeze if everything is so tough we need more powerful characters to deal with these challenges".
***********************************
In summary it requires a mix of different encounter types. Easy to difficult, from odd to straight forward.
Just like each class has a different place in the game each encounter and type of encounter has a place too.
A DM that only throws the "big guns" and "Deathly challenges" at his players is an inept as the player that always goes with a one trick pony, uber wizard, or CoDzilla.
(last part is a general rant, I've seen plenty of DM's who think the only way to be a "good" DM or present a "good" game is to constantly try and kill the PC's. That doesn't happen in life, and doesn't make anymore sense in a game.)
|
|
That doesn't happen in life, and doesn't make anymore sense in a game
Except in life the sewers aren't filled with carnivorous blobs of fleshy man-eating planar creatures, the forests aren't full of shapechanging animals, and there really is a dragon where 'thar be dragons.
If real life was anything like your average RPG Setting, there would be no such thing as a non-combatant.
[threadjack]
CoDzilla
I know this has something to do with a cleric buffing itself out the wazoo into a one-PC death machine, but can someone please tell me exactly what it stands for? Thanks.
[/threadjack]
Oh, yeah, a mix of stuff and all that jazz....
|
[threadjack]
CoDzillaI know this has something to do with a cleric buffing itself out the wazoo into a one-PC death machine, but can someone please tell me exactly what it stands for? Thanks.
[/threadjack]
Oh, yeah, a mix of stuff and all that jazz....
Cleric or Druid [God]Zilla. Basically what you described; clerics and druids going totally overkill with their buff selections and making almost all the other party members (except the Wizards) feel useless.
It's a tale told by many, but I've thankfully never had to deal with it.
[threadjack]
CoDzillaI know this has something to do with a cleric buffing itself out the wazoo into a one-PC death machine, but can someone please tell me exactly what it stands for? Thanks.
[/threadjack]
Oh, yeah, a mix of stuff and all that jazz....
Cleric or Druid [God]Zilla. Basically what you described; clerics and druids going totally overkill with their buff selections and making almost all the other party members (except the Wizards) feel useless.
It's a tale told by many, but I've thankfully never had to deal with it.
Thanks! Yeah, I've never seen it, either; but that may have to do with not having been at high levels in a loooong time. When we were, only one guy ever played a cleric. He wouldn't do something like that, though (mainly because he wouldn't have the time to get all the buffs going before combat usually ended).
|
I prefer to keep the adventurers as a long standing group. However I started four years ago with a group of friends who had never played DnD and so they have had some growing pains.
Like the time the paladin prodded a dragon awake while his friends were busy nearby with a monster. I TPKed the party and the campaign and they have never forgotten it. The guy (a very good friend) went home and told his wife all about it.
Then we played again in a different part of my world and the party did much better. They knew about consequences still they were learning the rules and so made the odd mistake.
Then I offered them the Temple of Elemental Evil and we have played for nearly two years. After one year, they lost one PC to an assassin but no one complained, it was one against many and he was nasty. The Player brought in a monk and somehow his roleplaying has improved.
But last week they actually ventured into the Temple. They had been too afraid until then. It was a mess. I gave them chances to talk, I gave them chances to run, I gave them four large elementals.
In the end, the cleric was taken as a sacrifice and the party legged it out the dungeon. The guys who had the chance to talk, have since both realised that they should have grabbed the olive branch. The high priest of the Earth Temple wanted their help. He didn't want them dead.
But do you know what the most telling words out of one guys mouth was, "we've been doing this for two years and its coming down to this..." The two others were shocked by what they had done and the repercussions.
I personally am not motivated at all if I have to fear the loss of my character. I play for fun, and I have no fun if I need to make a new character - a few hours work with the sketches, background history and build - when I really want to keep playing the character I had.
|
In summary it requires a mix of different encounter types. Easy to difficult, from odd to straight forward.
Absolutely. Well stated.
The story evolves. The campaign evolves. Characters develop. And along the way its the diversity of challenges in the mix that make the "challenge" occur, because PCs must be judicious in what they deem an appropriate response. Some are easy, some are difficult, some are straight forward, some are odd. Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
I personally am not motivated at all if I have to fear the loss of my character. I play for fun, and I have no fun if I need to make a new character - a few hours work with the sketches, background history and build - when I really want to keep playing the character I had.
I've run a few campaigns where the state-of-nature was so harsh that PCs were in fear of their lives every session.
Thanks a fine way to play .... for a little while. then it becomes time to stop.
As a player, I agree. I don't want to keep running like a scene from the fugitive, week after week. I want things mixed up. And a lot of the challenges that I like best are the ones that I choose to go after/,.
|
|
I agree you don't want every encounter to feel like life and death risk or making the PC's consider running constantly. It makes for a much more believable world when their is easy encounters often, some tough ones, a few very dangerous ones and every so often you run across something unwinnable. Like stumbling across a dragon eating cows in a farmer field while low level.
My players don't kill everything that challenges them, especially if it is lower level and not really a threat. Likewise, there may be situations where the PCs get in over their head and their opponent doesn't kill them. Death isn't the only way to show someone that they made a poor choice. Often times humilation from NPCs works just as well, if not better.
My players don't kill everything that challenges them, especially if it is lower level and not really a threat. Likewise, there may be situations where the PCs get in over their head and their opponent doesn't kill them. Death isn't the only way to show someone that they made a poor choice. Often times humilation from NPCs works just as well, if not better.
I just don't see the living-hating undead in the catacombs as being merciful and not killing the PCs if they go down. I don't seem them attempt to humilate the NPCs in an attempt to run them off... I don't see how many "evil" characters would have anything against killing some pesky adventurers to avoid them coming back and hearing "If it wasn't for those meddling adventurers." Also I would love for my group to leave some things behind them alive, because it may bite them in the rear in a later encounter when the "to weak" to kill Kobolds hit them in the flank against the not-so-weak monsters and start granting them flanking bonuses.
As a player, I agree. I don't want to keep running like a scene from the fugitive, week after week. I want things mixed up. And a lot of the challenges that I like best are the ones that I choose to go after/,.
My PCs often fear for their lives. But I do not need to fear for my PCs to roleplay their fear of death. I don't have them pull suicidal stuff, or act as if they knew they'd not die just because I know they won't.
One of the stated goals of the 4E designers was to increase PC survivability, particularly at low levels. This is/was in the service of making the game more fun, according to them because it is not much fun if PCs are getting blown away left and right and you have to keep stopping your game and starting something new. They did achieve this goal. Whether or not you believe it was a goal worth achieving is a separate question.
I tend to prefer your point of view. I've always felt that one of the coolest things about having higher-level characters is knowing that you made it through the first couple, when a single shot could have killed you. It doesn't mean as much if you know that your survival was never much in doubt. One the other hand, one thing I dislike about Call of Cthulhu is that you know your characters are nearly always going to be overmatched, and that if you fight you will almost certainly be destroyed, even at higher levels. High-level characters in CoC are still quite vulnerable. Also, you know that eventually your investigator will probably go insane.
Regardless of edition, however, I think that controlling information is one of the keys to good GMing. I don't like the idea of fudging rolls constantly or lying to your players all the time, but I think that some judicious 'what the players don't know....' is important.
|
|
Reading this thread, I'm guessing there aren't many Midnight fans here :D
Not at all, it is my favorite setting of the bunch ;)
My players delight, as do I, in the fact that often the land of Midnight is as against you, as much as the foe is. I guess that probably explains why we have a few Dark Sun fans as well.
Worlds like Midnight are fun, but it is not something I would like to always play. I am a big fan of Ravenloft back in the day which had a similar feeling. But not every campaign.
Relating to worlds like Midnight and Ravenloft, how do the posters on this thread (particularly those who are against relatively frequent character death) feel about games where the player knows their character isn't going to survive long, such as Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia? Are these games unplayable because of the short-term characters, or is there another motivation?
In my gaming group, creating characters has always been half the fun, so character death was never a big issue; you always got to play something new afterwards.
I just don't see the living-hating undead in the catacombs as being merciful and not killing the PCs if they go down.
There are much worse things then being killed. If you can't come up why an intelligent undead would want to capture some folk alive, well that is lack of creativity on your part perhaps. I certainly could think of some reasons why a living prisoner might be preferable. Anybody read the 2nd issue of pathfinder? There was some undead taking people alive (at least until they succumbed) in there.
I don't seem them attempt to humilate the NPCs in an attempt to run them off...
Getting pwned by a zombie is pretty humilating even if the zombie itself is not saying so.
I don't see how many "evil" characters would have anything against killing some pesky adventurers to avoid them coming back and hearing "If it wasn't for those meddling adventurers."
Well, some evil characters have more motivations than just kill everything. Thus there may be reasons why the choose not.
Also I would love for my group to leave some things behind them alive, because it may bite them in the rear in a later encounter when the "to weak" to kill Kobolds hit them in the flank against the not-so-weak monsters and start granting them flanking bonuses.
Well sure, if you punish them for doing that, then they are not going to do it. Of course a different approach might be that the kobold realizes that the "evil bigfolk" really aren't and right before they walk into a trap the kobold they spared steps out and warns them. "We even now! Me finally get to sleep now that I no owe you anything!"
One of the stated goals of the 4E designers was to increase PC survivability, particularly at low levels. This is/was in the service of making the game more fun, according to them because it is not much fun if PCs are getting blown away left and right and you have to keep stopping your game and starting something new. They did achieve this goal. Whether or not you believe it was a goal worth achieving is a separate question.
Just to point out this was not exclusive to 4e. Even PFRPG has the same design goal, which is why the are boosting hps for classes, giving extra hps if you stick to your prefered class, and nerfing save-or-die spells.
One of the stated goals of the 4E designers was to increase PC survivability, particularly at low levels.
Strange, that was also one of the goals of 3.x, IIRC. According to some, 2nd Ed AD&D made things too easy on PCs, so it all depends on expectations and the implementation of the rules by the GM.
In 1st Ed AD&D, compared to 4e (or even 3.x), surviving to even 5th-6th level was an accomplishment that often took several months of play; surviving to 9th-12th level was a big deal that could take one or two years of play, at which point the expectation was to "retire" from constant adventuring to become a church official, minor noble, guildmaster, etc (to become part of the setting and possibly be brought out for the occasional high-level adventure). Adventuring was considered dangerous and you needed preparation, planning, quick thinking, and possibly a small amount of luck to live past 1st or 2nd level (especially with the "roll 3d6, in order" default character generation). Of course, there were a lot fewer guidelines on how quickly PCs should advance and what sort of treasure they should receive, so there were also "Monty Haul" campaigns where the PCs would be loaded down with high-powered magic by the time they hit 6th level after a month or two.
Having experienced several versions of D&D/AD&D and other systems, I think some gamers lose track of a couple principles:
1) Combat is dangerous. This is not to say that every fight should push the PCs to the limit (or over the limit into a TPK if they fail to run away), but they shouldn't feel as if they are in no danger and can do whatever they want without consequence. Even against weaker opponents, the players shouldn't always expect a cakewalk (the foes may be just as aware of the power differential and use hit-and-run tactics, terrain, etc. to equalize things).
2) There is almost always someone/something tougher. Sure, the PCs can kick kobold butt, bash bugbears, etc., but what about dragons, mind flayers, etc.? Some players may also feel that because they can beat up any member of the town guard, they can break they law, etc. with impunity. What are they going to do about it? Sure, they can defeat the average guardsman, but there are probably town champions, knights, church officials, etc. who will band together to prevent any extreme disruptions. And if that fails, then they can appeal to higher authority (up to the kingdom/nation level if necessary) as the legitimate legal representatives of society. The PCs may be able to trash a town, but then they have to deal with the consequences of having the kingdom/nation declaring them outlaws, mobilizing military units against them, etc.
3) Death is not "losing." RPGs are more than just a tactical combat game, where "winning" and "losing" are sharply defined. RPGs are just as much about the story, not just the individual character's story, but the party's, the adventure's, the NPCs', and the campaign's. In many cases, the overall story advances just fine without any one individual character; in some cases, the character's death can even serve to enhance the overall story, if handled correctly (i.e., see The Age of Worms Playtest journal regarding "Abelard's Band").
|
|
2) There is almost always someone/something tougher. Sure, the PCs can kick kobold butt, bash bugbears, etc., but what...
As an aside, I think this is an important part of world design that is often forgotten.
It seems like the conceits of systems like 3.x and 4E assume at a baseline that every challenge the PCs face is appropriate to *them*. But what about the rest of the world?
My players appreciate the versimilitude of knowing that some areas of the world really are too strong for them, and know that I won't pull any punches if they decide to brave those areas.
I even gone as far as marking certain areas on maps as a relative CR... so forest 1 might be CR4 creatures on average, but forest 2, known for it's community of dragons might be CR10 on average, regardless of the level of the PCs.
They are fun but it is not the kind of game I would want to play all the time either. As in a campaign every so often with other stuff between them is fine. Just my opinion of course.
I can get behind that.
As an aside, I think this is an important part of world design that is often forgotten.
2) There is almost always someone/something tougher. Sure, the PCs can kick kobold butt, bash bugbears, etc., but what...
Not to be too argumentative, but I think it's a part of world-design that's often over-emphasized. It seems to be a double-standard and prone to the DM vs. Player mentality which originated this thread. Think about how many adventures feature people who do bad things, like murdering townsfolk, wiping out villages, etc., etc.; and the only people on hand to do anything about it are the PCs. That is often a default model because it provides a world where the PCs are the only ones capable of making that kind of change. But if the PCs take certain actions (usually actions the DM simply doesn't want them to take), suddenly there are high level knights and wizards and whole armies being mobilized against them? By this same kingdom/town/state/ice-cream shop who couldn't do anything about the same kind of actions when the PCs were expected to be the heroes?
I know video and computer games are oft (over) maligned, but look at something like the Elder Scrolls. It's free range. If you can theive and steal, you get away with it. Of course, even those games are weighted against less scrupulous characters, because the guards all over the game world will suddenly become aware of your illegal actions if someone detects you performing them. There is no consideration to how some common city watcher on the other side of a kingdom would know you performed said illegal actions.
All I'm saying is that the DM has to be careful about how they respond to "PCs gone wild," lest they break many of the vaunted codes of verisimilitude which are otherwise espoused, all for the sake of punitive action against the players.
I agree wholeheartedly with pres man, I don't want heroic fantasy where the main characters only live a couple of episodes. They fall victim to a bunch of orcs that ambush them.
Would you watch a series, in which they basic premise is they are on a quest that some guy, who was killed a month ago, heard from this other dude before that dude died, that some other guy joined a quest in the company of a long-dead knight to save a damsel-in-distress.
Heroic fantasy has the hero dying just after saving the damsel from the dragon, not fighting a couple of mooks on the way to dragon's lair.
The threat of dying needs to be there. That being said, I try to avoid (read: fudge, cheat, lie, whatever) having a character die in a random or capricious manner.
I truly hate save or die effects for this reason. One bad roll and "Oops, roll 3d6, repeat six times." Do I use save of die spells, sure, but I just open up on them without giving them a chance. They've heard rumors, seen the NPC kill someone already, the NPC might even monologue about how torturous their death may be. The point being it is not random, the players know what they face.
The last PC I killed was in just such a situation. The BBEG had the McGuffin, but needed to escape. He cast slay living, holding the charge, warned the PCs to back off, then readied to attack if the PCs didn't. One brave (fool-hardy) adventurer, thought he could take him. He was wrong. Of course, now defenseless the BBEG, was easily overwhelmed.
The PC's death, in my opinion, was much more heroic than if I just, cast the spell and killed him. He knew the risks. He did it any way. (Funny, now that I think about it, he was actually surprised, when I killed his character--maybe I am too nice).
True stupidity needs to "rewarded." If a player knowingly has their character do something epically foolish, they deserve to die. They do not deserve to die merely because they sat down at the table, lost initiative, and failed a saving throw.
To me a good fight is one if which the players think that their characters might die; you shouldn't need actual deaths to remind them of that.
I also don't like the mentality that every single fight needs to be life-threatening to be fun. Allow the PCs to kick butt one in a while, they worked hard to become powerful. Stage a series of encounters to wear the PCs down.
Also I would love for my group to leave some things behind them alive, because it may bite them in the rear in a later encounter when the "to weak" to kill Kobolds hit them in the flank against the not-so-weak monsters and start granting them flanking bonuses.
I am not saying you do this, Arcmagik, but this is part of the problem I see with 'the players made stupid choices and therefore should be punished' mentality. If you whack them every time they make a poor tactical step, then do not be surprise when they over-prepare.
Personally, I get bored with campaigns that spend 30 minutes at every door, listening, checking for traps, ect. ad nauseam. Can we move on with the plot line now? If the players have been hit with traps enough times (two would be more than sufficient) I do not really see any other course of action.
|
|
I really like the idea of a dragon eating cows as the 1st levelers look on - nice one. That's the sort of game I want to run and play in. The concept of "it's in the game therefore we can defeat it" is frankly b&+%!@&s to me. Players shouldn't be only deciding how many "squares" to move to get flanking (or any other silly bonuses) they should have to learn to size up the foe and sometimes say "screw that, where off - rescue your own darn princess!". Of course this is more a campaign style game I'm talking here rather than a one-off.
S.
I really like the idea of a dragon eating cows as the 1st levelers look on - nice one. That's the sort of game I want to run and play in. The concept of "it's in the game therefore we can defeat it" is frankly b!&@@&~s to me. Players shouldn't be only deciding how many "squares" to move to get flanking (or any other silly bonuses) they should have to learn to size up the foe and sometimes say "screw that, where off - rescue your own darn princess!". Of course this is more a campaign style game I'm talking here rather than a one-off.
S.
One can of course have that kind of game and not choose to TPK the party when they do something stupid like charging the mature dragon when they are 1st level. The dragon could just pimp-slap the lot of them (-4 for non-lethal damage), "Go away boy, you bother me." This shows that they picked the wrong target, it also showed that dragons are more than just mindless automatons that run around killing things.
Killing cows is one thing, but a dragon would know that if it starts killing people, then other people are going to get upset and then they are going to send heroes and then the dragon's time is going to be wasted and ... It might just not be worth it to the dragon to kill the party, what with all of the potential headache of that choice.
I find it interesting that many people want a "living, breathing world" and yet they run the foes/creatures as mindless computer generated foes. Just as a CE party member can have reasons not to be a total bother in a party, so can foes have reasons why they don't always TPK the party when they have the chance.
I really like the idea of a dragon eating cows as the 1st levelers look on - nice one. That's the sort of game I want to run and play in. The concept of "it's in the game therefore we can defeat it" is frankly b*~%@@!s to me. Players shouldn't be only deciding how many "squares" to move to get flanking (or any other silly bonuses) they should have to learn to size up the foe and sometimes say "screw that, where off - rescue your own darn princess!". Of course this is more a campaign style game I'm talking here rather than a one-off.
S.
I've heard this a lot recently, and I've never had problem putting encounters out of the PC's league in the campaign, but I've tended to avoid it unless I had another purpose to the encounter. My issue has been how are the PC's supposed to know?
At the start of third edition our DM ran us through the WotC adventure, the Forge of Fury. Somewhere at around 4th or 5th level we ran into a roper. Well, a TPK should have ensued, but there was some obvious DM fiat. Later I learned that the monster is just there to show the PC's that they should run from stuff, but how were we supposed to know? Even if we were familiar with ropers, wouldn't it be metagaming to run from it? There was no system of identifying monsters with skills then, but even if there were, what if we just failed?
I guess my point is how do you let players know they should leave something alone? I guess it's easy to say a huge dragon should scare a 3rd level party, but what about the roper? And if you just let the characters escape after getting smacked down, yes they learn there's stuff out there that's too tough, but do they learn to fear it? Or do they feel like if they stumble into something too tough you'll pull out the kid gloves? And if you just kill them, won't they only become frustrated because they didn't know any better?
I'm not trying to criticize the idea, I'm just looking for better ways to implement the concept.
|
|
Mostly I think it comes from the DM knowing their group and adjusting things to fit said group. It doesn't help that xp is based on defeating encounters.
I find if you describe it as scary that is often enough to make characters think twice about it. For example a roper might be described in a way, the PC's elect to see if they can find a way around it. If they do, make sure at the end of the adventure you award them xp for it and let the know it.
Once you have the pattern set where they know things are sometimes to tough and they can get xp for bypassing it, they will be more cautious. Also keep the fight to the deaths to being very rare. If the PC's attack something they shouldn't and withdraw let them unless their is a very good reason not to. In nature most fights between animals are not to the death, baring a predator killing to eat.
So same thing, if the do attack the roper and it starts to beat the tar out of them and they are making little headway. Be sure to describe how they are barely hurting it, let them withdraw and not have the roper chase them. Maybe it recently ate so is not hungery or what have you.
But mostly it just comes down to the DM knowing their group and their group knowing and "trusting" their DM.
Relating to worlds like Midnight and Ravenloft, how do the posters on this thread (particularly those who are against relatively frequent character death) feel about games where the player knows their character isn't going to survive long, such as Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia?
I -love- Ravenloft and CoC, but then horror, death, and madness ARE what those games are all about, it's about seeing how far down the rabbit hole you can you peek before it swallows you whole. It all depends on what we're playing, if we're playing Werewolf I'll play kamikaze and enjoy greatly, if it's Midnight I'll be careful, sneaky, stay damn away from Izzy's business, and enjoy greatly, and if it's default DnD I go by my default parameters.
I've heard this a lot recently, and I've never had problem putting encounters out of the PC's league in the campaign, but I've tended to avoid it unless I had another purpose to the encounter. My issue has been how are the PC's supposed to know?
At the start of third edition our DM ran us through the WotC adventure, the Forge of Fury. Somewhere at around 4th or 5th level we ran into a roper. Well, a TPK should have ensued, but there was some obvious DM fiat. Later I learned that the monster is just there to show the PC's that they should run from stuff, but how were we supposed to know? Even if we were familiar with ropers, wouldn't it be metagaming to run from it? There was no system of identifying monsters with skills then, but even if there were, what if we just failed?
Knowledge (specific) was always the fallback in 3.0, even before 3.5 quantified it a bit more (3.5 PHB, pg 78):
(Arcana) - constructs, dragons, magical beasts
(Dungeoneering) - aberrations, oozes
(Nature) - animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin
(Religion) - undead
(The Planes) - outsiders, elementals
I know there were issues in 3.0 with "too many" skills for characters with extremely limited skill points (which 3.5 improved, along with feats, somewhat), but 1) one of the PCs could have taken Knowledge (Monsters), 2) one of the PCs could have attempted a Knowledge check using some other plausible category, or 3) the DM could have allowed a straight Int check to drop a clue. IIRC, there's also a succubus in the module that can TPK the party if they try to fight her.