|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There has been a lot of discussion about DMing styles and what is balanced and fair, who is underpowered, etc...so I thought I would put my two cents worth in and try and start a discussion about what people look for in a DM and a game.
And for me, it starts off with this. If you aren't worried every time you sit down at the game table that your character will die, your DM is doing it wrong.
This isn't to say your DM should be pulling TPK after TPK. But it is to say that if at a given game session at least a few times people aren't very close to death, something is amiss.
If there is no risk, there is no reward. If you don't worry, why bother?
If not, your DM failed.
I had a really good session last night. 5 in a group, 4 of them very nearly died in the first encounter due to some...lets be nice and say interesting, strategy choices. 3 were paralyzed and unconscious under water, all hurt, one grappled. They were saved by an attack roll that was literally a 50/50 chance, failing it would have assured at least one dead PC on the first encounter of the night.
I told the PC to pick high or low, the rolled that dice in front of the DM screen, to take away any possible DM fudge factor (the PC at risk is played by my wife, so I would have been tempted). She called low, it rolled under and lived. My wife sighed audibly, everyone else cheered and the person that made the successful attack did a little fist pump.
That, for me, is what it is all about. You don't get to be a big damn hero unless you believe you actually could have failed. Could have died. You can't take pride in beating a monster if the fight didn't put your PC at mortal risk.
On the flip side, if you don't feel like your specific character does something personally very impressive at least once every few sessions, you are also doing it wrong. Did your healer dash in and throw a breath of life into a dying comrade? Did your rogue make that ridiculous tumble check to get flanking and take out big baddie? Did your druid summon a ton of bears to hold of the horde single handedly? Did your Pally smite the hell out of that evil outsider?
Another thread was discussing it being wrong for a DM to exploit PC weaknesses...I disagree. I think you both have to reward strengths and exploit weaknesses. Force your characters to create a party, and not just min/max a character for combat or a specific outcome or maneuver. If your parties wizard always hides in the back, have things come up from behind every once in awhile. If you have a monk who insists on charging a head with all of the fast movement, set up a few traps or ambushes.
If you don't make your PC's mix it up, the game can fall into ruts. I tend to reward teamwork strategies (if the rogue and fighter buddy up for flanking, more power to them) and "punish" freelancing "brave" moves, in the same way I think life does. But...and this is the important part, I let the rolls speak for themselves so if you take a chance to make the risky move and pull it off despite my "punishment" you feel twice as good about pulling it off.
You then really get to be "a big damn hero"
3.5/Pathfinder is great because each class has times when they can really shine, and times when they need their friends to step up and cover a deficiency. This is why I find it far superior to 4E, where most people do much the same thing with a different name.
In 3.5 there are times when each class is a god for an encounter, but also times when each class is weak for an encounter. This is on purpose, and a good DM uses this to makes his players both afraid of dying and proud when they don't.
Last rule is the most important. Make your players know their characters, and then write the quest around that. Get your players to create back stories and concepts, and plug things into whatever you are running to make that a part of the quest. Play along when it makes sense to the character and don't be afraid to be creative.
One of my players developed a, shall we say, promiscuous PC. This had been going on throughout the campaign. She was/is sorcerer of Desna who encountered an angel of her Deity in a dream/real setting...let's say she liked him, and he liked her (sorcerer with ridiculously high Charisma)...and things proceeded from there.
So I did a few rolls, first one one failed, second one rolled a 20...so 9 months later she has Aasimar twins. She has already named them and I gave her freedom to roll out stats for when they hit puberty. And at various points her now being a mother has effected plot.
This is a bit extreme, but it illustrates my point. Sometimes the fighter finds a weapon perfect for his concept. Sometimes a wizard finds a book that fits his concept. Sometimes the PC's get bases and boats, and other things that may not make them more powerful, but fit what they want to do.
I'm rambling a bit now, but I was frustrated by other board comments about DM's sticking to book, and RAW. Other comments about "power mad" DM's.
You make the game to make the PC's feel things. Sometimes afraid of being killed, sometimes proud of being the right person for that job at hand, sometimes a specific key component of the story arc.
If you aren't doing this...well I think you are doing it wrong.
I would like to add to this that death can be a cool thing for a character too. I was in a campaign a few years ago which lasted for about three years with us playing every few months, but taking a whole day or weekend doing that. I played a lawful neutral cleric of Horus-Re (FR setting mulhorand) who was focused more on the law part of his faith. He was the kind of guy that preferred planning and careful order in any situation.
He was, however, part of this group of chaotic and impulsive characters. We had some very creative players who did what they felt like. For instance, there was a house of a lord who held a few slaves in one of the cities we visited, and the rest of the party demanded to free the slaves. This being against the law, my cleric vehemently disagreed and decided not to take part in any of this and let them go by themselves. (note that he was however not in a situation to leave them or report them, but this aside...)
He spent the entire campaign facepalming about their actions and various ways they got themselves killed because of stupidity and chaotic nature (they honestly were chaotic fools every once and a while). But they managed to do some GOOD acts too, and for this reason the cleric I played wrestled with his faith (and alignment) for the entire campaign. Indirectly they were restoring order and more importantly goodness in the world even though their methods were horribly chaotic. I contemplated making him move from LN to LG throughout the campaign.
In the last encounter with the BBEG we were overmatched. The BBEG managed to summon a Balor and a few other high CR demons. We failed what we were supposed to do. But a portal opened which the party could use to escape (all part of the plot of course). Problem was to get to the portal in the first place. Here is where my character came in and literally saved the day. Finally he made that shift towards LG as he got the attention of the demons and managed the other characters to escape, only to get turned to stone as the last party member jumped through the portal. His last words were, very appropriately: "Run... you fools!"
The morale is: character death can be awesome and satisfying. :D
If you aren't doing this...well I think you are doing it wrong.
One group that I play with is very into roleplay. They like their combat, too, but they put a lot of work into the characters and they really enjoy plot-heavy adventures. For them, playing D&D is about telling a story as a group, and less about taking risks. They're still cautious when I DM for them - they know that characters have died before - but there is a reasonable expectation at the table that as long as you aren't doing something really stupid, you'll probably come out alive.
That's a perfectly valid style of play. I have not failed as a DM by giving my players the gaming experience they want. Have an open mind.
That said, when I get a chance to get out from behind the DM screen, I like knowing that the only thing keeping my character alive is my wits and a little luck. I put a ton of work into my characters, too, but I accept that just about any death in the course of an adventure is a memorable one, so I don't mind if a beloved character gets the ol' Joss Whedon "anyone can die" treatment. But that's just one approach to the game - it isn't any more right or wrong than another.
D&D is about having fun with friends, and how you have fun is up to you.
|
Awesome death.
Good death. You know I'm surprised I haven't seen a "Best Death" thread.
...what people look for in a DM and a game.
I like the way you think. Personally, I like games where some thought is put into character development. Where PC background is not just "How did you get here?" but also affects where the character is going as the plot progresses. Another thing I look for in games is an opportunity to spend funds on things other than magical items. This includes pets, business ventures, hirelings, ships, and especially houses/castles. For me the game is more immersive if the characters feel like they have a home to which they can return after an adventure. That said, I also feel an attack on home base is almost obligatory.
|
|
That said, I also feel an attack on home base is almost obligatory.
Of course. This relates to something that bothered me on the other thread where the DM gave the character a flawed gift after they made a mistake and everyone freaked out.
Without problems, there is no game. Sometimes things come with strings attached.
On the other hand if a player has spent hours working up a back story carefully planning his character and equiping him to the best of his ability..losing him in the first combat is definitely discouraging..yes sometimes the dice are against them..but are you suggesting you should plan to kill them..the DM is there to facilitate the players enjoyment not to turn it into a me vs them scenario
|
|
On the other hand if a player has spent hours working up a back story carefully plasnning his character and equiping him to the best of his ability..losing him in the first combat is definitely discouraging..yes sometimes the dice are against them..but are you suggesting you should plan to kill them..the DM is there to facilitate the players enjoyment not to turn it into a me vs them scenario
I agree that you shouldn't kill your characters without many bad rolls and/or them making risky choices.
One of the best pathfinder changes was to make it negative your con modifier rather than -10 for death, as this saves a lot of low level characters from "dying".
I am saying you should plan encounters that will put your players at risk for dying if they don't play/plan well.
In the campaign I described above, all of the original characters are playing at around or at 4th level without a "death". But every single one has been incapacitated and/or below 0 hit points at least once during the campaign.
I'm proud of that record, as it means I've made a challenging but balanced campaign.
|
|
On the other hand if a player has spent hours working up a back story carefully planning his character and equipping him to the best of his ability..losing him in the first combat is definitely discouraging..yes sometimes the dice are against them..but are you suggesting you should plan to kill them..the DM is there to facilitate the players enjoyment not to turn it into a me vs them scenario
I wouldn't think most DMs plan to kill the PCs. However, a competent DM should be able to provide an encounter where the risk of death is possible, if not necessarily probable.
I game with a friend whose characters have a habit of dying on the second session of every new campaign. Its like he's cursed. However, he still puts a decent amount of thought and preparation into each of his characters.
But not too much. He approaches the game knowing death is possible and lets much of his character's development take place over the course of the campaign.
I'd also note that even in basic 3.5, even 1st level characters are more resilient than some folks think. In games I've played in, hitting negative hit points often means we get captured by the enemy and are facing a long and torturous recovery/escape.
Ciretose, the whole point of your post seems to boil down to you telling people to play the game the way you like to play it - and that if DMs do things differently than you, they are failures.
Am I wrong, or is that a little bigoted?
|
On the other hand if a player has spent hours working up a back story carefully planning his character and equiping him to the best of his ability..losing him in the first combat is definitely discouraging..yes sometimes the dice are against them..but are you suggesting you should plan to kill them..the DM is there to facilitate the players enjoyment not to turn it into a me vs them scenario
I spend hours on every PC I make. Try to give them all logical and fairly detailed backgrounds that actually explain where different feats, traits, abilities come from. I sometimes spend tens of hours if I am planning for an upcoming campaign. I changed, retooled, scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up, my Kingmaker Bard for the last three months that we were playing Second Darkness.
Would it have been upsetting to have him die in the first encounter? Hells yes it would! Would it be earth-shatteringly devastating? No. Not really. The OP is right, without risk there is no challenge. If that means hours of 'wasted' time creating a PC that died quickly, oh well. I get to enjoy coming up with an awesome new character to replace the last one.
No, that doesn't mean I won't walk away from a GM that seems 'bloodthirsty'. If there are PC deaths every session, I'm going to be more than a little upset. But honestly, I've encountered and walked away from more groups because the PCs were never seriously at risk.
Awesome death.Good death. You know I'm surprised I haven't seen a "Best Death" thread.
There is and it is an awesome read. It's called Happy Deaths! and is over in the Gamer Talk section.
As for myself I do agree that the players enjoy the game more when they believe there is risk for their characters. Please note I said "when they believe" which means a few key things to me:
1) If the players believe they can't do and then do it breaks their suspension of disbelief and can ruin their fun in the game.
2) Death should be a possibility instead of an inevitability. It's one thing to think you can die, it's something completely different to feel helpless.
3) If the player believes there is the risk of character death when there isn't then they will enjoy it just as much.
4) Death is not the only risk. Capture, torture, death of a loved one, loss of property, loss of power and even (if it's a mature group that accepts this in the game) rape are risks that characters run. Threatening something other than their life can be just as effective.
I've killed plenty of characters, but in most of my games I will go out of my way to think of something that will let them live. So even if the body count isn't terribly high the players still feel the risk and still have fun.
|
|
Awesome death.Good death. You know I'm surprised I haven't seen a "Best Death" thread.
There is and it is an awesome read. It's called Happy Deaths! and is over in the Gamer Talk section.
As for myself I do agree that the players enjoy the game more when they believe there is risk for their characters. Please note I said "when they believe" which means a few key things to me:
1) If the players believe they can't do and then do it breaks their suspension of disbelief and can ruin their fun in the game.
2) Death should be a possibility instead of an inevitability. It's one thing to think you can die, it's something completely different to feel helpless.
3) If the player believes there is the risk of character death when there isn't then they will enjoy it just as much.
4) Death is not the only risk. Capture, torture, death of a loved one, loss of property, loss of power and even (if it's a mature group that accepts this in the game) rape are risks that characters run. Threatening something other than their life can be just as effective.
I've killed plenty of characters, but in most of my games I will go out of my way to think of something that will let them live. So even if the body count isn't terribly high the players still feel the risk and still have fun.
I agree with all of this.
There has been a lot of discussion about DMing styles and what is balanced and fair, who is underpowered, etc...so I thought I would put my two cents worth in and try and start a discussion about what people look for in a DM and a game.
And for me, it starts off with this. If you aren't worried every time you sit down at the game table that your character will die, your DM is doing it wrong.
This isn't to say your DM should be pulling TPK after TPK. But it is to say that if at a given game session at least a few times people aren't very close to death, something is amiss.
If there is no risk, there is no reward. If you don't worry, why bother?
If not, your DM failed.......
For the most part you DM like I do, but I also realize not everyone games the same way. Some people like to pretend they are challenged, but really want a guaranteed victory, and there are DM's that like to run games that way. I won't be at that table as a player or DM, but I know it is not my place to tell them they are doing it wrong.
|
On the other hand if a player has spent hours working up a back story carefully planning his character and equiping him to the best of his ability..losing him in the first combat is definitely discouraging..yes sometimes the dice are against them..but are you suggesting you should plan to kill them..the DM is there to facilitate the players enjoyment not to turn it into a me vs them scenario
I see it as the players that put themselves in those positions in my experience. Let me ask you this; When is it alright to put a PC someone has carefully planned in peril?
OP +1
Yep, there is only One True Way to play this game.
** spoiler omitted **
+1.
If you feel the need to tell other people how to play....well, I think you are doing it wrong.
Cheers
Mark
|
+1.
If you feel the need to tell other people how to play....well, I think you are doing it wrong.
Cheers
Mark
If you take it that he's speaking to every GM as "How to Play, and if you deviate you're wrong" I think you're missing his actual goal. To Veteran GMs it's, "This is the goal, do you agree." Which I do, for the most part, with no major issue with any one part, and to Novice GMs "How to play and help you develop and avoid the normal GM pitfalls." which is what I think his true intended audience is.
If you take it that he's speaking to every GM as "How to Play, and if you deviate you're wrong" I think you're missing his actual goal.
It's hard to take it in any other context when he says things like:
If you aren't worried every time you sit down at the game table that your character will die, your DM is doing it wrong.
If not, your DM failed.
If you aren't doing this...well I think you are doing it wrong.
/sign @ TE % 2nd poster
Death is part of the P&P RPG if the cahracters aren't afraid of their death, they rampage.
And sometime a near death brings out the best of the character (like at the second post).
Had a similar experience with one of my players, a very quite guy, who wanted to play a Paladin, after a few rounds he was only a fighter, because he didn't helped some good peoples agains t a greater evil etc.
His Death was at least more heroic and in death he get his atonment.
BBEG (cleric) summons a Gate, big bad Demon want's to walk out, only the last sacrifice had to be made (the beautiful virgin etc.).
The player wakes up, I don't know why, but his character charge toward the gate, slash the chains of the virgin and tripped the BBEG. Next round he "pushed" the virgin to the other characters, the BBEG wounds him critical. The Gate beginns to close but the Big bad demon held it open. He then Bullrushed the Demon into the gate, including himself and closed the gate with it. Sacrificed himself to save a innocent .
I plan if the group ever get to the hell/abyss that this character will appears as an NPC. :)
|
Here is what I see this conflict as.
The difference between George R.R. Martin and David Eddings. My examples are, of course, 'A Song of Ice and Fire', and 'The Elenium Trilogy'.
Spoilers follow, open at own risk.
Were either of these authors 'wrong' to write their story like they did? No.
Are either ciretose or my playstyles 'wrong'? No.
I agree with everything
In a post a few days ago, my gming style was critisized very negatively. My group has been severely affected by the "MMO" syndrom and I'm trying to help break them of some of those symptoms. They do roleplay but not as much as they should, thus I'm having each of them make a character background and type it out. I have a base game and idea and I am putting in personal character background quests for each player, as well as making the main adventure something the character will want to complete due to both his morals and personal interests. I want to put the ROLE PLAY back in ROLEPLAYING GAMES. That's why I along with most people in the group choose Pathfinder over 4E
They do roleplay but not as much as they should,
...so you are going to tell them how to play the game? Perhaps d20 is a bit too loose of a system for you?
I want to put the ROLE PLAY back in ROLEPLAYING GAMES. That's why I along with most people in the group choose Pathfinder over 4E
My 4E game has 5x more roleplaying than either 3.5 game I'm in.
If anything, that shows that the PCs decide how a game is played, not tyrannical DMs.
|
|
It's hard to take it in any other context when he says things like...
Fortunately, the context is provided in the first two sentences:
There has been a lot of discussion about DMing styles and what is balanced and fair, who is underpowered, etc...so I thought I would put my two cents worth in and try and start a discussion about what people look for in a DM and a game.
And for me, it starts off with this.
So no, he's not telling you that you're doing it wrong or telling other people how to play the game.
So no, he's not telling you that you're doing it wrong or telling other people how to play the game.
None of that invalidates the fact that he said "If you aren't doing it this way, you are doing it wrong."
|
|
So no, he's not telling you that you're doing it wrong or telling other people how to play the game.
And for me, it starts off with this. If you aren't worried every time you sit down at the game table that your character will die, your DM is doing it wrong.
Exactly how is he 'not telling me I'm doing it wrong'?
I don't necessarily disagree with the OP's point, but I think there is a caveat. Namely, when a PC dies, what happens afterwards? And more specifically, what do you do with the player who is now sitting out of the game?
Either the players have ready access to resurrection magic, or they don't; there's not really a lot of middle ground. If they can cast it themselves, or return to a temple with some rapidity, than the death can be quickly fixed and the player can return to his character. Of course, then the problem of whether they're really risking anything comes back into play. If they don't have the levels, wealth, or access to town to access such spells, then the player has little choice but to create a new character. Much as the DM might like to attach an epic quest to gaining access to resurrection, in the meanwhile, the dead character's player is out of the game.
And then what to do in those situations where resurrection is unavailable, and there's no feasible way to introduce a new PC with any rapidity?
|
|
So no, he's not telling you that you're doing it wrong or telling other people how to play the game.
Exactly how is he 'not telling me I'm doing it wrong'?
And for me, it starts off with this. If you aren't worried every time you sit down at the game table that your character will die, your DM is doing it wrong.
I'm confused, because HD basically told me just about a week ago that he wants the thrill of deadly challenges when he plays. Isn't that how you guys play? I hate to be told I was doing it wrong too, hence my confusion as this disconnects for me.
They do roleplay but not as much as they should,...so you are going to tell them how to play the game? Perhaps d20 is a bit too loose of a system for you?
I want to put the ROLE PLAY back in ROLEPLAYING GAMES. That's why I along with most people in the group choose Pathfinder over 4EMy 4E game has 5x more roleplaying than either 3.5 game I'm in.
If anything, that shows that the PCs decide how a game is played, not tyrannical DMs.
Here we go again. What I'm referring to is in our games, our gm puts in a balance of roleplay, combat, and story, and I do the same when I run games. The players say they like this, but everytime we sit at the table, they seem to just wait for the next fight. They don't actualy roleplay out what their character does when we pull into port, what their likes or dislikes are, and their characters have no personality. Its just the player as "the rogue" or as "the fighter." Most of the time, the roleplay of what our characters do in town is "I go look for equipment." The gm and I talk mostly at this point since I go into town and go to other places than the saloon and item store. This is what I'm talking about. They want a roleplay heavy game but don't roleplay. If u ask them, they will tell u that's what they want. I don't tell anybody how to play their characters. They do what they want as do I. I also don't tell them the type of game to play. I say "I'm interested in running a game like this," and they'll say "ok, we will play that. Sounds fun." So before we get on the "I'm a horrible gm/player topic again, this is what I'm referring to. As for if I saw anything wrong with my statement, I didn't. Did u when u flat out said people are "doing it wrong?" I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm stating my experience in relation to the thread and many times people drop everything to critisize my style. Please leave that to ur own self and post for the thread topic's sake. If I wanted to be critiqued, id make a post of "critique my gm/play style. Thanks. :-)
|
|
Because he wasn't talking to you specifically. Or, in the case of my reply, to Chris P. Bacon. So there's no reason to take his general opinion of how the game should be played personally. :-)
So he's telling all the DMs that play like I do they are doing it wrong, but I shouldn't take it personally because he didn't call me out by name?
I'm confused, because HD basically told me just about a week ago that he wants the thrill of deadly challenges when he plays. Isn't that how you guys play?
I have mutiple games. ;)
I've never forced anyone to play my way. They can play however they want. Never mind. Just ignore my posts. Apparently I got everything wrong for the past 10+ years.
|
|
So he's telling all the DMs that play like I do they are doing it wrong, but I shouldn't take it personally because he didn't call me out by name? Is this like how 'Muslims attacked us on 9/11 but obviously I meant the extremists when I said that'?
Nope. Explaining your opinion on the level of risk a character in a tabletop roleplaying game should face is absolutely nothing like indirectly pinning the blame for a terrorist attack on an entire faith instead of specific members of that faith.
Fine. Then enlighten me, cause apparently, even though no one else in my group has said that they disagree with my play style, I've gotten it wrong. U tell ME how to play.
I've never forced anyone to play my way. They can play however they want. Never mind. Just ignore my posts. Apparently I got everything wrong for the past 10+ years.How long did people believe that the sun orbits the earth?
** spoiler omitted **
Then please explain this cause I may be reading it wrong. :-)
|
|
Explaining your opinion on the level of risk a character in a tabletop roleplaying game should face is absolutely nothing like indirectly pinning the blame for a terrorist attack on an entire faith instead of specific members of that faith.
That point was redacted as irrelevant.
Then please explain this cause I may be reading it wrong. :-)
People can be doing it wrong for eternity and never know. I did not say you WERE doing it wrong. :) I was mostly being humorous.
Thank u for clarifying this. The past few days, everytime I post it feels as if its time to be negative. I wouldn't post if these forums were like that. Everyone seems to be very helpful and its nice to still see that.
When I am a player rather than a GM, the risk of death is what makes the game worth playing.
And it doesn't make me play a coward, either. I love it when my PC dies, especially since the dice have a way of making those deaths really meaningful, in an eerie, superstitious manner.
Then if they live, I can know full well that what I did was not only impressive, but improbable!
Mind you, it took me and my players about 15 years to reach this point. Maturity is a factor, and I don't mean that pejoratively. When you're 8 you expect one thing from and RPG, when you're 14, or 18, you expect something else. I think that as I've aged, I've become a lot more comfortable with the finality of character death, and how it lends to the enjoyment of a live character.
I encourage everyone to recognize that style of play changes over time, and the thing you rail against today may give you great joy tomorrow. I can definitely remember railing against 3e a decade ago. :)
I like to think of everyone here as very spirited about the game. You don't post on a gaming forum if you aren't. Of course, that can lead you into negative places, and I am quite guilty of it myself.
Yeah, Tri, I must say that although I agree with almost everything I have seen you post in the last 24 hours, I still feel you're bringing out the nerdrage on people. Will you work with me in my attempt to tone the forums down a notch?
|
|
Yeah, Tri, I must say that although I agree with almost everything I have seen you post in the last 24 hours, I still feel you're bringing out the nerdrage on people. Will you work with me in my attempt to tone the forums down a notch?
I'm a recovering troll. It's still fun to needle some people some time. (seekerofshadowlight, LillithsThrall, others you can probably name.) I try to catch myself when I get too abrasive, but I have a habit of arguing from a position of unshakable confidence. I'm right, I know it, and I'll prove it. Which makes it hard to admit it when I'm wrong. So I try to channel my responses into the Middle Way. Rarely is an Extreme the true and correct choice. You have to find the balance between two sides. But that is very hard when you believe deeply in an Extreme.
So I make no promises save 'I can only try'.
Man it was hard to not say 'only Tri'. :)
Threadjack:
You would be shocked at how many complete posts I have typed up and then deleted because I have asked one of those two questions and got the wrong answer.
I am far from perfect in this regard. But I do feel that clashing with other posters reduces the value of the community. Asking and answering legitimate questions fuels legitimate discussion.
Jousting with other posters actually makes me feel worse throughout my day. Being constructive is self-gratifying to be sure.
|
|
Threadjack:** spoiler omitted **
At the same time, I think using a sharp or inflammatory statement should not be censored completely. Sometimes a clash needs to happen.
I like a good spirited jousting, because it feels more honest at times. Like everything else, it takes a balance between the two extremes.
Honestly, the best thing to remember about my posts is that 99% of them are meant in jest. Which means you shouldn't take me seriously most of the time.
And yes, I realize a lot of my jests aren't funny.
|
|
Threadjack:** spoiler omitted **
That is often why I tend to stick to simple question/answer posts and the occasional "fun" thread.
On the other hand if a player has spent hours working up a back story carefully planning his character and equiping him to the best of his ability..losing him in the first combat is definitely discouraging..
True. And I don't think that the Dragonlance saga would have been more interesting if Raistlin was killed by a random hobgoblin in the first 100 pages of the story, for instance.