I've both read and seen TMF and I'm pretty sure that in both versions, Sam Spade's wheelings and dealings leads Wilmer to kill the Fatman. Don't remember what happens to Joel Cairo.
Stick to your guns, Orthos!
Line from The Maltese Falcon that I've often paraphrased at work:
[Bogart]"It's been a long time since I've cried because my supervisor didn't like me."[/Bogart]
To OP.
In between adventures I create a some plot hooks. Most will be adventure-ideas geared for the party's level, a few will be lower level and a few will be higher level. These are just outlined paragraphs for each hook and how to introduce them, but the ones for the party's level will have the most detail for me, the DM.
I then present these plot hooks to the players in various ways; rumors being whispered in the taverns, broadsides posted in the city, etc. I try to give clues that the high level hooks are really dangerous and the low level hooks could probably be handled by some other local adventurers...but not always. If the PCs choose a lower level adventure then it's a cake walk and I can adjust/modify what is happening with the other plots as the players are busy with the easy job. If the PCs choose a higher level adventure then I do my best, in game, to give clues, hints, etc. as to how dangerous a path they are currently following. Even after all that, if the PCs continue to pursue the higher-level adventure then I that's how it goes and I get to see if I really designed a higher level adventure or if I underestimated the PCs. If they choose one of the goldilocks adventures then they're going up the "standard risks" which all carry with them the dangers of chance.
I'll play the bad guys to the best of my ability. Dumb and murderous enemies will simply seek to kill the. Smart and greedy enemies will prefer to subdue and ransom (well, at least the nobles in the party). In particularly dangerous encounters, if the PCs are in great danger and it's not due directly to in-character poor choices, I'll use monster rolls of 1s to give the PCs the opportunity to run...the monsters might still chase them, but at least opening up possibilities to save them.
But sometimes, every once in a while, I fail terribly and coddle the PCs. The last time this happened was only a few games ago. The party was traveling in the wilderness, found a deserted miner's shack where they holed up in for the night. There was a trail leading up the small valley from the shack, there was still an hour of light left in the day, so two of the PCs decide to head up the valley "just to check it out." Well, for the day's travel I rolled at got a positive hit for a random encounter (my tables average out to about 1 random encounter every 3 days) and it turned out to be 7 ghouls. So, before telling the players about the finding the shack, I determined that the ghouls would be holed up in the old mine which was about a mile up the valley and were content in their little dungeon and wouldn't come out unless the PCs made a lot of light nor noise in the night.
But the two players wanted to just "check it out." 7 ghouls is a CR 6.5. The two PCs were 4th level, so their APL was 3. So I expected this to be an epic challenge and resolved that if they encountered the ghouls, they'd probably die. If the entire party went, 5 PCs, 2 NPCs, APL of 5, I wouldn't have been worried. But the two wanted to just "check it out," as if mimicking the majority of macabre horror movies.
But I also didn't want to engage in a fight while the rest the players had to just sit there and watch. So, when they approached the mine, I told them that it smelled of death, but there were no animal droppings. That it felt like "undeath," and there were many day to two-day old bare human footprints in the dirt around the mine.
They approached and entered the mine. They lit a light. 20 feet down the 5-foot wide mine tunnel, in the dim illumination of their light, they could see it opened to a small room, and there were many many taught-fleshed undead who's eyes gleamed in the light with a malevolent intelligence and they began to approach. Roll initiative.
The to the players' benefit, they were tactically sound. They backed up to the entrance so that they'd only have to fight one ghoul at a time, the druid and his animal companion flanking the inquisitor who was directly in front of the mine. Several times I had the leading ghouls attempt a bull rush to push the PCs back but the ghouls failed and the inquisitor generally hit with her AoOs. For several rounds, when the ghouls hit, the PCs made their saves to avoid being paralyzed.
But then the inquisitor became paralyzed. And this is where I messed up, but I'll explain in a second. So the druid and the animal companion continue to attack from the sides of the mine's entrance which I determine is enough for the ghoul to be concerned about them and it tries to attack (and paralyze) the druid and the animal companion. But doesn't manage to. Rinse and repeat and fail to paralyze again and then the Inquisitor is back in the battle. Druid sends animal companion back for the rest of the party, Inquisitor gets paralyzed again (by this time one or two of the ghouls had been killed). At which point, one of the other players (who wasn't paying attention until the animal companion was sent back so he was getting ready for what he was going to get into), he says, "oh crap, they can coup de grace you when you're paralyzed."
I was then literally paralyzed. Looking at the miniatures. The druid had been using cover from attacking around the corner...and the ghouls had been getting cover from him as well. So no attacks of opportunity on the ghouls. And the ghoul could have coup de graces'ed: automatic 4-14 damage with a Fort DC of 14-24 or die.
But I couldn't do it. Because I hadn't been aware of it and hadn't been playing the ghouls that way so far (at least over two paralyses or more) it felt wrong to switch their tactics only because I as the DM was aware of it now. Also, I didn't want to do it and risk inter-player animosity, a "if it wasn't for you, my fellow player, my character wouldn't be dead" argument/moment.
I definitely coddled those two players then and I feel terrible for doing so. The ghouls should have ripped them limb from limb and fed on their flesh before the rest of the party found out. Or at least the inquisitor. But instead, the two managed to hold back the ghouls until the rest of the party arrived and then the battle was swiftly over.
But especially now that the party is aware of the paralysis and the coup de grace possibility...I'm looking forward to the next time I can introduce some ghouls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do want to thank all the folks who have participated in this thread. I think it's been a generally positive and informative discussion. I think I've learned a few things about my own gaming, as well as what games would be like if run by the participants of this thread anyway.
I've always been pretty comfortable in my own skin whatever I'm doing, and I will continue to GM the way that I think makes for the most enjoyment over the longest time for my players.
I've generally found over the years that taking any extreme position tends to reduce my options in dealing with situations, so I'll continue to follow a middle ground between the views on each extreme presented here.
Good luck to all with your gaming!
I think the way you really messed up is that you can move through the spaces of helpless enemies, so once the Inquisitor was paralyzed, the ghouls should have just walked through him and surrounded them.
And if you had a Druid, they should have just run, leaving an Entangle or something like that behind.
I also have to admit, ghouls have such tiny ACs, HP, and save DCs, I've never had PCs have any kind of trouble with them. I've never had anyone get paralyzed and only very rarely has a ghoul ever survived a round of getting attacked, especially by level 4 PCs.
The nice thing about Ghouls is there's almost no reason not to give them class levels.
There was a trail leading up the small valley from the shack, there was still an hour of light left in the day, so two of the PCs decide to head up the valley "just to check it out." ....
But the two players wanted to just "check it out.
Ah, here’s where you made your mistake. Never split the party. If two players decide to ‘check it out” the answer always is “you encounter nothing”. Just tell the players you don’t like to split the party as it means no fun for the other half.
I also have to admit, ghouls have such tiny ACs, HP, and save DCs, I've never had PCs have any kind of trouble with them. I've never had anyone get paralyzed and only very rarely has a ghoul ever survived a round of getting attacked, especially by level 4 PCs.
MPL, your games are so heavily houseruled and variented, that what happens there isn’t all that relevant to more mainstream games. Ghouls can be deadly, especially if there’s only two PC’s. Never had anyone fail their save? Wow. Happens everytime to us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tinalles, The concept that it is not meaningful unless there is a risk of PC death is one that I hear often, and it is frankly an idea that I find myself biased towards.
But I also acknowledge that it's not actually a fact, it's only an opinion. (One that I tend to share, as I said above.)
The reality is that the game is generally biased towards PC success regardless of any individual encounter outcome, so the expectation is that the PCs will win. What makes the player's actions meaningful is really not so much THAT they win, but more HOW they win. Sure, we know that a typical level 2 adventuring party should defeat the goblin war party, but we don't just roll a die and say ""you win." We give the players an opportunity to decide how they will approach the encounter and allow the scenario to play out according to the framework provided by the rules. Doing so allows players to immerse themselves in the fantasy situation and role play their actions as they decide, hopefully making solid enough decisions not to turn an expected victory into an ignominious loss.
There is plenty of fun to be had even if the actual risk of death is minimal or even non existent.
Deciding that the game is more fun if the chance of death is higher is strictly a flavor decision, not a game dynamics one. It's similar to the question of how "gritty" a game should be.
I read some of the first page to get an idea of how people are responding. And I have to say I sorta agree with all of you. Isn’t that nice fence sitting and obvious lack of taking a position?
I actually like different types of games at different times and with different groups.
My favorite way to play and GM is this:
Ok, the main bad guy is going to be a cleric 13 specializing in necromancy. He has these resources. He is head of a church with these resources that he can also call on. Then you try to put yourself in the mind of the bad guy and figure out what his plans are from there. Ok, he makes his lair this big, he puts this much into patrols, this much into traps, he has these as body guards, but he is arrogant at home so the body guards are not supposed to follow him closely when at home, and he is kinda cowardly when he goes out so double body guards in constant attendance, etc…
The bad guy is not trying to make a series of progressively slightly more difficult but beatable challenges to help the opposition. He wants to kill or scare off anyone dangerous and capture or subvert anyone not dangerous. But he also has limited resources. He also might not be too bright when considering mundane (non-caster) opponents. So he really doesn’t guard against that as seriously as casters.
The PC’s are ~6th level. They need to start investigating, preparing, and planning for the task. Spying and rumors will eventually give them a sense of what level he might be from the spells he’s cast and some idea of how powerful his lieutenants are. Then they might decide they are not yet powerful enough to take him on. So they have to figure out where some magic items can be gotten that will protect them from necromancy, maybe find some powerful allies, try and start a revolt against the clerics rulership, etc... Then when they think they’re strong enough, they formulate a plan come back, and kick his ash. Or realize that he is tougher than expected and run away. Or get stomped flat and turned into undead guardians that the next group will have to eventually face.
If they made a poor plan, did a bad job of gathering intelligence, or were just unlucky… Well, then they might all die. Sometimes that is the fate of special action teams send behind enemy lines to operate independently. Maybe the next team will prepare a little better and succeed. Then the group gets a real feeling of accomplishment Since they finally defeated that horrifically tough bad guy.
Sometimes the badguy is personally powerful but stupid. So then his lair/plans/defenses will be worse. Sometimes the bad guy is personally pretty weak 5th level aristocrat. But he is very rich and smart, but more importantly the nobility owe him a lot of favors. He will be really tough to get anywhere close to him.
But it takes a special kind of group to enjoy those games. You have to really work together and plan things out. You have to have alternate plans (especially escape and evasion when it goes bad). And you have to be able to deal with failing and coming back with another PC or even a whole nother group.
My current group does not like to play that way.
Things may be tough to accomplish, but the challenges faced are at least possible for the party at the level and equipment they currently have. If they are stupid or unlucky they may still get killed, but they won’t have to fight something they just have no chance of beating.
I most ways this is tougher for the GM. You have to guess what the party is likely to do (and how well they can do it) to be able to make it challenging without being overpowering. You need to have a much better understanding of all the PC’s capabilities and tailor everything to them. Then if you don’t want to lose the verisimilitude of the story it also has to make sense for the bad guys to have set things up that way.
I still won’t ‘coddle’ them too much. If they know they are going to be acting as diplomats and no one has any social skills, they are going to find succeeding very difficult. If a 4th level PC decides to be offended by the attitude of the King’s Champion and challenges him, he will probably get clobbered. He did not need to start that fight and a king is going to have an excellent choice of representatives.
I can’t guarantee where it comes from. But there seems to be a desire for fairness rather than realism. I would say at least some of it comes from the way video games are written. But I recognize it could just as easily be the other way around. People expect fairness so video games are written to meet that expectation.
It would be unfair to expect 3rd level PC’s to handle skeletal dire bears. So there shouldn’t be any encountered until they are higher level. My old group would have said ok this guy will have skeletal dire bears and the party should avoid them until they are capable of dealing with them.
With either type of game, there is 1 way I will fudge things for the players (I don’t know if you would call it coddling or not). Sometimes I will put a situation in place that is much more difficult than I expected.
For example, one time I had an opposing group of casters on top of a cliff. 2 of them were just countering every spell the PC’s tried to cast. The other 3 were casting things like slow, grease, fog cloud, stinking cloud, wall of wind, create pit, etc… Even though the enemy casters were much lower level than the PC’s I had not considered how synergistic the combinations were. With everyone having to make at least 3 saves every round, they were failing at least 1 almost every round. They couldn’t get off hardly any of their own magic to counter anything. They were almost immobilized and blind. And so the mook archers were just slowly grinding them down even though they didn’t hit all that often.
On the fly I started changing some things. The mooks only had 1 poisoned arrow apiece rather than 7. I got rid of the wands, scrolls, and potions the casters were originally going to be using on the PC’s after they ran out of spells.
When something is too tough by my mistake rather than by design, I will fudge things to make it less so.
Again, the idea that the potential for character death increases the immersive potential of the game is an opinion that I share. But that's because that's how I like to play, and it helps me to view my character as realistic.
But again, that's just my own preferred playstyle. I have learned over the years that other people have a different idea of what makes the game worth investing the effort into immersion. Because it is effort. I know many players who are LESS likely to immerse themselves into their characters if they think one mistake or one lucky crit is going to mean rolling up a new character. The emotional cost might be too high for them. Or they may just hate creating characters. Or they just may really like their current character.
Which play style is dominant? I dunno. I just know that they coexist, along with other playstyles that might be a mix of these two or might be something totally different.
I used to run much grittier encounters. PC death was fairly routine. You had to track arrows, food, amount of rope, whatever. The group I played with 30 years ago loved that. They demanded it.
My current group does not. They prefer a looser, more relaxed gaming style.
And you know what? I seem to enjoy them both.
MPL, your games are so heavily houseruled and variented, that what happens there isn’t all that relevant to more mainstream games. Ghouls can be deadly, especially if there’s only two PC’s. Never had anyone fail their save? Wow. Happens everytime to us.
I also have to admit, ghouls have such tiny ACs, HP, and save DCs, I've never had PCs have any kind of trouble with them. I've never had anyone get paralyzed and only very rarely has a ghoul ever survived a round of getting attacked, especially by level 4 PCs.
I was including other people's games that I've PCed in there, actually, since I don't use monster manual stuff straight up anyway (so I've never used by the book Ghouls). Ghouls (without class levels) seem like such a non-threat, I'm shocked to see them responsible for so much chaos and death.
And while my games are, indeed, heavily houseruled, they are not done so in a way that would affect their ability to fight ghouls--my main change removes magic items and "one bad roll and you lose" abilities. Ghouls are a low level threat that involves neither.
Not only should level 4 melee types have a save in the +6 realm (making it extremely likely for them to succeed) on, what is it, DC 11 or 12 saves, but ghouls have such low attack bonuses that they'll have a hard time landing hits to trigger the saves in the first place. Their AC is also really low (again, going off memory, but I want to say in the 12-13 range), so they're easy to hit, and with such low HP, they are easily one-shottable by just about anyone with a two-handed weapon and power attack (i.e. everyone fighting in melee that isn't using natural attacks).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, here’s where you made your mistake. Never split the party. If two players decide to ‘check it out” the answer always is “you encounter nothing”.
(1) This will work nicely for players who aren't too into things like clues, and cause-and-effect relationships, and internal consistency, and just want to throw dice. And there's nothing wrong with that. Those people might even be a majority, making this approach a pretty safe bet.
(2) But if you're DMing for people who think about those sorts of things (and that's a big if, but if you are), then you're actively encouraging them to split up the party, in order to avoid random encounters ("We never meet ghouls if it's just the two of us -- must be that smaller groups don't interest them as much as a whole party.") If you then turn around, change your mind, and let them die by ghouls because they're disobeying what you wanted them to do, you create a game world in which cause and effect fail to exist except that puny mortals are under the thumbs of capricious, passive-aggressive gods.
Now, remember, paragraph (1) might be the case for most groups, in which case it's good advice. But if his group is like the players in paragraph (2), then that advice could be 180 degrees off. Which goes back to what I keep saying -- there are lots of different playstyles, and it's best if everyone is on board with which one is being agreed on, right from the start.
Go watch it.
Seriously. Drop whatever you're doing and go watch it now.
Edit: Alright. Maybe not quite that good. You can afford to wait for some free time. But absolutely worth watching.
It's my all-time favorite movie, which is saying a lot, because Hammett is my favorite novelist and movies almost never live up to books -- except when they do. And this one does.
We used to use the merp critical charts for all natural 20's so the potential for death was always hovering over the table like a dark cloud.
Good times :)
Ah, here’s where you made your mistake. Never split the party. If two players decide to ‘check it out” the answer always is “you encounter nothing”.(1) This will work nicely for players who aren't too into things like clues, and cause-and-effect relationships, and internal consistency, and just want to throw dice. And there's nothing wrong with that. Those people might even be a majority, making this approach a pretty safe bet.
(2) But if you're DMing for people who think about those sorts of things (and that's a big if, but if you are), then you're actively encouraging them to split up the party, in order to avoid random encounters ("We never meet ghouls if it's just the two of us -- must be that smaller groups don't interest them as much as a whole party.") If you then turn around, change your mind, and let them die by ghouls because they're disobeying what you wanted them to do, you create a game world in which cause and effect fail to exist except that puny mortals are under the thumbs of capricious, passive-aggressive gods.
Now, remember, paragraph (1) might be the case for most groups, in which case it's good advice. But if his group is like the players in paragraph (2), then that advice could be 180 degrees off. Which goes back to what I keep saying -- there are lots of different playstyles, and it's best if everyone is on board with which one is being agreed on, right from the start.
This is where cutting of someones words means a lot. I continued by saying " Just tell the players you don’t like to split the party as it means no fun for the other half."
In other words, it's a "Fun for all the players issue". Not a realism or playstyle issue.
If I want to watch other people adventure, then I can turn on a movie.
I'd say you probably made the right call, FizzyGoo. Besides, to me the tactic of "paralyze the druid, my buddies can join me, then we can feast!" makes at least as much sense as "stop fighting druid to eat the inquisitor, risk getting pwned".
Thank you. I think if I had realized before hand that helpless + cover = coup de grace opportunity...and chose not to go there, I'd be fine. It's the total loss from my memory of what the helpless condition meant that's at the root of what bothered me about the situation.
I think the way you really messed up is that you can move through the spaces of helpless enemies, so once the Inquisitor was paralyzed, the ghouls should have just walked through him and surrounded them.
OMFG! Yup. That would have at least gotten the ghouls out into the open instead of fighting pez-dispenser style out of the mine. It must have been my fear of killing off the two characters that paralyzed me on all the implications of what it means to be helpless. Thank's for pointing that out. Time for me to go re-read the combat and conditions sections again.
I also have to admit, ghouls have such tiny ACs, HP, and save DCs, I've never had PCs have any kind of trouble with them. I've never had anyone get paralyzed and only very rarely has a ghoul ever survived a round of getting attacked, especially by level 4 PCs.
I agree, only I've seen the opposite outcome. The 2 PCs plus animal companion were killing the ghouls pretty swiftly even with the lead ghoul getting cover from the druid and the animal companion. But the last time ghouls had been encountered (I was a player at the time) one PC died and the un-paralyzed half of the party was throwing the paralyzed half on to the horses as we ran.
It's as thejeff points out, "a couple lucky rolls and you're gone."
Ah, here’s where you made your mistake. Never split the party. If two players decide to ‘check it out” the answer always is “you encounter nothing”. Just tell the players you don’t like to split the party as it means no fun for the other half.
I disagree with this. My mistake was in how I ran the ghouls, forgetting the implication of conditions, specifically the helpless condition.
But the players chose to split their group...that's on them. Players need to take responsibility for their character's actions and how they will affect the other characters and the other players. It's the only thing a player is responsible for...their characters; how they work towards being heroes and how they deal with the world around them, including and especially the other characters they travel with.
If a player or players continually split the party for selfish reasons then I have no problem telling those players that I'll deal with them/their exploration after the session for the evening or before the next game but I'm not going to arbitrarily tell them they encounter nothing especially when I've already decided (whether through adventure planning or random encounter rolling) that there is something to be encountered.
Additionally, if one applies the mantra: "the answer always is 'you encounter nothing'" to two players going out on their own...then A) there's no consequence for the players' decisions to do so, for good or ill, and B) it makes for a very strange world to immerse in. Character 1 "Hey, party, let's brave the dangerous thunderstorm and the monsters it brings out in order to get to the next city in time to save my brother." Character 2 "Well, we should just go in pairs, cause nothing ever happens if we travel in pairs."
And I don't mind when the party splits, save for my worry that players may become bored. But I've expressed this to them enough, and 2/3 of the group DMs on a regular or semi-regular basis, and all but 1 of them have over 10 years gaming experience with the same group of people...so if they want to split up then as their DM, I'm happy to oblige.
In a previous adventure with the same characters they split themselves up in an abandoned farmhouse: 2 went to explore upstairs, 3 to explore on the ground floor. Then 1 fell through the ground floor to the basement below and the nightmare began. It was lovely. The horror, the fear, the concern, and the stress of the players as illusions made hallways seem longer than they were just a second before and as things in the basement dragged players from room to room...I could taste it and in the end they all both survived and enjoyed the adventure...sure they felt their characters were scarred for life but they, the players, had a good time (or at least adequate enough that they continue to show up).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where cutting of someones words means a lot. I continued by saying " Just tell the players you don’t like to split the party as it means no fun for the other half." In other words, it's a "Fun for all the players issue". Not a realism or playstyle issue. If I want to watch other people adventure, then I can turn on a movie.
That's very much a playstyle issue (what's "fun for all players" is usually a playstyle issue). For example, I generally don't feel it's my place to dictate the characters' actions -- only to provide logical consequences for them -- and my players generally agree, with a few past exceptions. On the other hand, I've played with DMs who say, for example, "This is the plot hook, you're supposed to follow it exactly how it's written or you don't get to play." To me, that's a pretty blatant intrusion into the player's one area of volition. YMMV.
|
We used to use the merp critical charts for all natural 20's so the potential for death was always hovering over the table like a dark cloud.
Good times :)
MERP is for the weak.
Real players and GMs use the Rolemaster critical charts (especially the obscure elements ones) !!!
;-)
Better not get to used to your PC though. Emotional attachment is a weakness in this kind of playstyle :-)))
Player 1: I want to scout ahead.
GM: Oh, really? Okay. How far and how long are you willing to leave group? *turns the rest of the party* How long are you going to wait before you go looking for him?
Player 1: Ummm...
Player 2: We'd probably wait ...
GM: Uh-huh... *absently starts rolling dice, paging through bestiary*
I despise rolemaster with all my heart and soul. And body. And i use other people to enhance the power of my "despisal".
Seriously, if hate has hatred, what does despise have?
but, interestingly enough, there's a tiny but vocal minority here that wants PF to look more like other companies games.
I often have designed encounters that come somewhat in waves; in other words, not all of the opponents are on the field of battle when the battle starts, and various creatures filter in as the combat goes on, guards waking up and running in, etcetera. One way of modifying an encounter that seems to be going too poorly on the fly is to either delay or simply cancel an arrival or two ...
Its a journey vs destination possibility too. As a GM do you care about the overall experience of play, or do you care about "Story getting done"? I've played with some GMs that are so focused on their game world that in a sense, it was more like interactive story telling than true application of game mechanics.
As noted, a TPK midway through the GM's planned epic arc means that he has to find another way to bring the brand new PCs into that arc, abandon it or otherwise do some serious retooling.
In that sense, easier to 'keep them alive' and on track. Tho in a sense, that's also railroading.
Its a journey vs destination possibility too. As a GM do you care about the overall experience of play, or do you care about "Story getting done"? I've played with some GMs that are so focused on their game world that in a sense, it was more like interactive story telling than true application of game mechanics.
As noted, a TPK midway through the GM's planned epic arc means that he has to find another way to bring the brand new PCs into that arc, abandon it or otherwise do some serious retooling.
In that sense, easier to 'keep them alive' and on track. Tho in a sense, that's also railroading.
Is it railroading if you are preventing them from falling off of a cliff into a ravine and having their journey end altogether merely because of the random fate of a few shards of plastic?
A TPK is the ultimate removal of player agency.
I've had a lot of NEAR-TPKs; most of the party is stabilized at negatives while the remaining PCs pull victory out of some dark orifice and there's a resounding huzzah. I've also had PCs suffer long term effects from disease and ability drain instead of damage. But the last time I had a real character death it was a little like Prez upthread.
The ranger player turns to me (with 4 HP left and no healing) and says "on my turn on watch I sneak out, down the hall to scout." I remind him that he KNOWS there are ghouls about and that he has no light source. He shrugs and carries on. He rolls a good stealth, makes it out of camp, and into the hall; he spies movement and a pin-prick of light in the distance.
He goes after it. A few dice later Rang-Garr the Ranger was never seen again.
It turned out later the player was suiciding on purpose but at the time I didn't know that. In the game the character had been reckless like that before but I never figured he'd go that far. What he did was foolish and until I found out his intentions after the fact I basically justified his death through sheer stupidity.
My other players however were at once intrigued and mortified.
No one had died to that point in my campaign among these players. We were all fairly new to one another at that time. Yes, I'd run a gritty game (not quite as gritty as I used to but still) and people had slipped into negatives routinely, but no one had died yet.
Since then only one other death has occured. I don't think anyone became more or less immersed in the game world because of these, but they certainly realized their characters aren't immortal. Being foolish, irresponsible or downright stupid w/their characters will result in character death.
The threat of PC death seems to make my current players MORE adventurous, as if it's like "How close can I get to the edge before heroics become stupidity?" Ironically I just parted company w/2 players who felt the opposite. BECAUSE they could die, they didn't want to take chances. When in a situation where the odds were clearly against them they'd retreat, regroup, or vent frustration over feeling persecuted.
TLDR: I agree w/AD and others - there's lots of different players and so one man's Gritty is another man's Coddle.
I despise rolemaster with all my heart and soul. And body. And i use other people to enhance the power of my "despisal".
Seriously, if hate has hatred, what does despise have?
+1
The only game I've ever tried playing, where after 2 or 3 hours my character still wasn't finished. I quit playing that game, that night, before my character was finished. And I had someone walking us through character creation.And let me explain, I'm an engineer, I'm not afraid of math. I do draw the line at tedium (without pay!).
I find myself debating this in my head almost every session.
I've definitely gotten better over the past couple years and tailoring encounters to be the right level of difficulty, but it's rarely perfect. Sometimes something I thought would be manageable turns out to be much more difficult than I thought.
I almost never intervene to save a single PC. Generally speaking, the only times I "coddle" to make an enemy easier is if it looks like the fight is going to take way to long and devolve into roll-hit-roll-hit-spell-roll-hit that bores everyone, including me.
However, I've yet to come even close to a TPK. I don't think I'll ever allow a TPK to happen. If everyone dies, the story ends. No one makes it out to tell stories of the heroic sacrifice of his friends. In some ways, only having a sole survivor might make for an even BETTER ending than everyone lives. It would be something the players would likely remember for a long time.
So, in answer to the question:
Only coddle enough to keep the story good. Whatever that means to you.
I generally don't coddle my players, with a few exceptions.
1. New players. I want them to have a positive experience at least once before something really bad happens.
2. I tend give some very easy encounters at first level, because characters are so fragile.
To me, a negative outcome can be just as interesting as if the players were 100% successful. And I feel the same way when I'm a player. Which is apparently kinda weird, at least where I live. I have players who complain about having some difficult fight, and will sling casual insults at the GM (sometimes me, sometimes others) for cooking up a challenging encounter. Meanwhile I'm thinking, "Well, duh! That's his job."