|
I think this has been hammered until dead. lol However I like everyone else still want a piece of the action.
I think if Players don't trust their GM, that at the very beginning is an issue. As was said earlier, if they do not like it let them GM. Players cannot play if no one will GM.
Also, there is a reason every gaming system in the world has a GM screen, and it isn't just so you can have easy to get stats and information.
Also, if they complain when you hide rolls, you simply state, I will stop hiding rolls, if you stop using out of character information to motivate your characters when you see what dice are rolled.
on my final note, none of that should really be necessary, if you want to hide the rolls, as a GM that is your right. Meta gaming is a disease. I wish I would have seen this thread a few years ago when our podcast covered metagaming munchkins and minmaxxers. I would have loved to cover this topic, and who knows I might still.
Personally, I don't need to hide rolls from my players, as I emphasize Roleplaying over Rollplaying, and they know better. However, if I ever feel I need to hide a dice roll which does happen, my players trust no matter the outcome of what I say, they roll with it.
In the end it isn't Players vs. GM Which is how a lot of people see gaming these days (god I sound like an old guy) That is a place where a lot of issues we see come these days. Often some of the Players feel they need to "beat" the GM. So they cheat, min max, complain, etc. and sometimes GM's do it as well.
Trust each other and work together to make a good game. And for "f"'s sake be honest and just tell them in a non conflicting manner how you feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
It's not that they don't trust me. However charater death is a big thing in our games. Personally I don't like killing characters. We limit res by mutual consent so death is more often than not death.What do you do then, ask the player to leave the game?
As I posted before:
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?
Making the same exact character to circumvent the inherent rules of death in the game is more metagaming than fudging dice rolls or applying out of character knowledge to your character to help him survive. Well, technically it's equal, but on a much larger scale, and is more adhoc than the other examples I've provided.
I'd also be surprised if a GM would let you do that. No sane GM that I'm aware of would let that fly. [sarcasm]All I can say is prepare an Insanity spell and throw it at your GM. If he allows this sort of thing to work, you'll know he failed his saving throw.[/sarcasm]
Also, if a person has died 86 (read: EIGHTY SIX) times with the same exact character, in that very same campaign, I highly doubt making the same exact character again (and again) is going to fix the problem that he dies all the g%&!&@n time. The problem isn't with the GM, but with the player (and by relation, the PC). I know it's an example, but kind of a poor one at that.
And that's assuming he's making the same exact character. If he isn't making the same exact character, then maybe all the loot that Knuckles guy has wouldn't be applicable or functional for the next character. Maybe there was some Fighter-only stuff, or stuff that functioned when a Paladin wore it, and the new character isn't either of those classes?
No sane GM I'm aware of would allow the "You're out of the campaign until the next one begins" issue either. Most every GM would allow them to create another, DIFFERENT PC, and they'd be brought in at an appropriate time for the party. Proposing a highly unlikely alternative is the result of a player simply dealing with bad gaming because he doesn't realize that no gaming at all is better than bad gaming.
I usually give my players the choice between being resurrected or bringing a new character, even though I try to avoid to kill them in random ways, but sometimes death just happens.
Sometimes they have to wait until it's tematically appropiate for the campaign to be resurrected or their new character to be introduced.
But I try to avoid to make them die as a punishment (I do as a logical consequence of what they do) or to make them survive when it seems obvious they have no chance. That destroys any kind of illusion of realism the game could have had.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, if the players know they won't die, they make stupid decisions. there needs to be a healthy fear of morality in their character. which means you also need to have them feel invested in their character to care about that.
So as a Gm you have to make sure they know, "you are first level, you should run when you hear there is XYZ obvious higher level monster in the next town." as opposed to either "who cares if we die, it'll be worth the loot." or "We can fight it, the GM won't actually kill us." or worse, both.
Healthy fear for morality is a good thing.
You know, it is not very much for morality to go about killing things for the loot.
I get the GM hiding dice rolls (Ive done it)..... but it does open the door to petty spiteful behaviour towards particular PCs (Ive seen it!)
I show my rolls, just because it is more fun for the players. Not due to trust. Just fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to do all rolling behind a screen, that's just the way things were done when I was learning the hobby. Over the past few years i have transitioned over to rolling most combat rolls out in the open. I find it does add excitement to the game, enough to outweigh the amount of meta-knowledge that the players get from it.
Obviously there are still a fair number of rolls that I do in secret behind the screen too. Anything that I feel would cause issues if the players knew the results of, but that really depends on the group I find. Some players are excellent at separating in and out of character knowledge, others have a hard time with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get the GM hiding dice rolls (Ive done it)..... but it does open the door to petty spiteful behaviour towards particular PCs (Ive seen it!)
Very true. Then again, a spiteful GM targeting certain PCs (or players) is it's own special problem.
There's a difference between the occasional GM fudge and outright GM cheating. Fudging is done for the players (not necessarily the PC's) benefit. This is usually also for the PC's benefit, but not always. For example, allowing a combat to go on for another round or 2 because some of the players haven't had a chance to do their Awesome Cool Combo Of Awesomeness yet. Extending combat probably isn't in the PC's best interest, but it makes things more fun for the players.
Outright GM cheating (and I use that word carefully and deliberately) is always done against one or more players/PCs. It's a sign of a poor (or at least a highly immature) GM. If the GM is being spiteful toward a player, he should either work out whatever issue he has with that player, or just remove the player from the game. Sometimes personality conflicts come up and can't be resolved. In that case, instead of being spiteful and poisoning the table atmosphere, remove the player.
The problem may turn out to be the GM's baggage rather than anything the player is actually doing, but ultimately that doesn't matter. If the GM can't run for a player without spiteful behavior and/or cheating, he needs to not run for that player. (Ideally, the player should also be making 'can we work this out' overtures toward the spiteful GM, but that isn't always viable.)
I get the GM hiding dice rolls (Ive done it)..... but it does open the door to petty spiteful behaviour towards particular PCs (Ive seen it!)
Yeah, that or players feeling like they're being targeted by the GM just because the dice seem to always fall against them. If I'm GMing and my dice can't seem to roll less than a 17 whenever someone needs save against one of the wizard's spells, the player might start wondering if I'm not being honest if he can't see the dice. It's not that rare to see threads in the Advice forum where a player talks about how a GM uses hidden rolls and the dice always seem to fall against them.
Open rolling can avoid that issue. Instead of players wondering if I'm targeting them, we can all just laugh about my crazy luck while I grumble good-naturedly about how I never roll that when I'm playing.
Then again, if I was hidden rolling and my dice were on fire, I'd probably just start fudging them after a while so everyone would still get some successes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose others have weighed in already so... I roll in secret so that I can fudge the occasional roll, don't like killing the party so I might pretend that was not a critical, sometimes the battle goes on for too long so... hem hem... "the bad guy missed the reflex save". Also, I'm new to GMing with rules so I've screwed up the CR more than once, rolling secretly helps correct the mess.
Generally though its a matter of trust.
I took a different path. Instead of keeping the dice secret so that I can avoid catastrophic results from crazy misfortune, I homebrewed a bunch of new mechanics to help prevent such situations from happening to begin with. For example, I make characters die at double negative constitution score; this makes a hit capable of knocking out someone from conscious to outright dead way, way less probably. Especially from random mooks. Burrowed mythic surges (without the rest of the broken mythic stuff) to help them avoid failing their saves against SoD/SoS effects (giving them at least a little time to try to disable the creature before it gets to force too many saves), and such. I'm GMing a low level game and with those, I haven't felt the need nor desire to really fudge any die roll, at least compared to what I remember of my old 3.x days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen more campaigns end at an anti-climactic point from a gm not hiding a hot streak on the dice than i have problems from a gm hiding or fudging rolls in 30 years of gaming.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I prefer the GM rolling in the open; it's not because I'm worried they'll fudge against me, but moreso that's they'll fudge in my favour. It steals the feeling of having earned a victory by the skin of your teeth when you know the GM has felt pity or gone easy on you. I think there are a lot of GMs who think they're really clever about hiding fudging, but good players can figure out pretty quickly that the monsters somehow seem to start missing more as the PCs get hurt more. For me, the excitement of combat encounters comes from knowing anything can happen, not that the GM will step in to save me if it's not "cinematically appropriate" for my PC to die.
As a player, I prefer the GM rolling in the open; it's not because I'm worried they'll fudge against me, but moreso that's they'll fudge in my favour. It steals the feeling of having earned a victory by the skin of your teeth when you know the GM has felt pity or gone easy on you. I think there are a lot of GMs who think they're really clever about hiding fudging, but good players can figure out pretty quickly that the monsters somehow seem to start missing more as the PCs get hurt more. For me, the excitement of combat encounters comes from knowing anything can happen, not that the GM will step in to save me if it's not "cinematically appropriate" for my PC to die.
Would you be okay with the GM rolling in secret provided that they said they wouldn't fudge? Or do you think fudging is too tempting?
Would you be okay with the GM rolling in secret provided that they said they wouldn't fudge? Or do you think fudging is too tempting?
That's a good question. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, so if they told me that I'd trust them. But I'd also be observant. If I started noticing the GM always asking people how many hit points they have left before rolling attack rolls or that we start one-hit/one-killing monsters that took us several hits to kill earlier in the encounter, I'd get suspicious :)
|
What do you do then, ask the player to leave the game?
As I posted before:
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?
I'd say it depends on whether the players have all agreed on a house rule before the first session or not.
My group goes on the premise that you have to pass a skill check to resurrect someone, each time they die that difficulty increases by 2 points until it becomes a point where only a 20 on the dice will succeed... we find it helps to reduce the risk of mindlessly rushing into combat.(when we have a new player join part of the way into the campaign, I'll often ask the group if they want to continue with the house rule or change it from that point on-wards. Nobody has wanted to change it yet though)
If a player's character falls during a session, I'll always have a bank of NPCs that the group could possibly cross paths with (they're all written into the world so they're not completely random people) in their current location. When a player chooses not to go through with resurrection, I'll let them choose one of the NPCs to inject into the story which they can control for the session... unless they particularly want to watch and think for a session.
The group tends to enjoy being the NPC every now and then as they get to add a bit of side story to the campaign through that character, it makes me have to work a bit harder to tie it all together but I enjoy that work.
Sometimes you want the GM to tell the story.
Other times you want the dice to decide.
To hide, or not to hide...
That's a good question. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, so if they told me that I'd trust them. But I'd also be observant. If I started noticing the GM always asking people how many hit points they have left before rolling attack rolls or that we start one-hit/one-killing monsters that took us several hits to kill earlier in the encounter, I'd get suspicious :)Would you be okay with the GM rolling in secret provided that they said they wouldn't fudge? Or do you think fudging is too tempting?
A GM wanting to fudge can do it without rolling the dice hidden.
He can change tactics, for example: instead of casting the magic missiles that would finish off the wounded ranger, he tries to put the wizard asleep instead...There are countless ways to try to 'save' the group, some will be recognizable (but it may still be hard to prove that it's happening), some won't. Fudging dice rolls is just one of them.
A GM wanting to fudge can do it without rolling the dice hidden.
He can change tactics, for example: instead of casting the magic missiles that would finish off the wounded ranger, he tries to put the wizard asleep instead...
There are countless ways to try to 'save' the group, some will be recognizable (but it may still be hard to prove that it's happening), some won't. Fudging dice rolls is just one of them.
For sure. But again, smart players will pick up on it. If the enemy who was quite effective and tactically-clever early in an encounter suddenly starts making sub-optimal choice after sub-optimal choice later in the encounter, players will start to notice after a while and realize the GM is letting them off easy.
The same logic applies to the wide variety of ways GMs can make encounters or sessions easier: having NPC allies show up at the nick of time, skipping rolling for random encounters for long stretches of time (whenever the PCs are severely injured), throwing in extra healing potions/restoration scrolls/"just what we needed!" items, etc.
Let me put it this way: I think most GMs who fudge a lot think they have a higher Bluff modifier than they actually do; most players who Sense Motive the deception are just too polite to say anything ;)
I have always disliked the term 'metagaming'
Call it what it really is - cheating.
A lot of people have the exact same opinion about a DM "fudging" dice rolls.
just do this.
Stop the game. Tell them that is not the game you want to run. It is NOT fun for you as the DM. Tell them you want a heroic style game. If they are not willing to play one, you cant be their DM.
Lots less work. And some people need the direct approach.
That approach is certainly honest; no way to fault it on that account. But I'll see your "stop the game" and raise you one: why not just ask them up front what kind of game they're looking for? If they all want a murderhobo game, then you can either run that, or tell them in advance you're not interested and someone else can run it. No harm, no foul. Of course, if the consensus is for a heroic game up front, they're unlikely to start murderhoboing anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM wanting to fudge can do it without rolling the dice hidden.
He can change tactics, for example: instead of casting the magic missiles that would finish off the wounded ranger, he tries to put the wizard asleep instead...
I feel like nudging the damage down so that the low level character who just took a crit to the face is in "STABILIZE NOW" territory rather than "INSTANT DEATH" territory is a lot subtler than making the monsters fight foolishly.
Like if a low level character is dead instantly if they take 14 or more damage, and the monster is rolling, say, 2d6+4 and two fives come up, if you tell people "okay, that's 12 damage" you're going to get away with that almost every time.
Honestly I wouldn't fudge in that situation. The only time I ever feel like fudging is when a player death is completely out of nowhere, like an absurd crit. In that situation they're on very low health against a creature they should at least suspect to be capable of one-shotting them. If you fudge it then, when will your pcs ever die?
I think if the encounter's gone south for them, letting someone die just makes sense. If they just miraculously win everything despite it seeming desperate then there's no real challenge involved. Pcs have to be mortal.
16 STR enemy using a spiked chain 2-handing it, critical hitting against a level 2 half-orc barbarian who had taken a hit already in the 1st session is an appropriate time to say "make a new character"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
16 STR enemy using a spiked chain 2-handing it, critical hitting against a level 2 half-orc barbarian who had taken a hit already in the 1st session is an appropriate time to say "make a new character"?
Yep.
Or...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if the encounter's gone south for them, letting someone die just makes sense. If they just miraculously win everything despite it seeming desperate then there's no real challenge involved. Pcs have to be mortal.
I don't think they have to be mortal, but you have to weigh the costs of saving them versus the costs of preserving their immersion. Some players reject GM fiat in the face of character death, some prefer to let the illusion of danger stand.
I don't think they have to be mortal, but you have to weigh the costs of saving them versus the costs of preserving their immersion. Some players reject GM fiat in the face of character death, some prefer to let the illusion of danger stand.
I think if the big tough "most HP" guy gets knocked unconscious and needs emergency medical attention lest they die, that gets the point across about the potential lethality that "you don't get to play for the rest of the night"/"stop so so-and-so can make a new character" doesn't. I think it's wholly reasonable to have kid gloves on for 1st and 2nd level characters so people don't have to constantly make new ones (or just completely eschew classes that are liable to get hit in the face ever.)
The scramble to save the (now ironically named) Sven the Bloody before he bleeds out is free drama in a way that "Sven's dead, should we bury him? Or notify somebody?" is not.
Danger must be real. Character deaths might happen and not every encounters must be solved in the first attempt. But having a character dying in a completely random and needless way doesn't add anything to the game.
I remember one of my first sessions as a player in RoW. I don't actually know if GM fudged a roll or if my character survived for good (probably the second, my GM is not the kind that fudges a lot of rolls).
The only thing I know is that we all failed our perception rolls. The CD for that roll was very high for 1st level characters. So a large creature just popped out and left my character at negative hit points on the surprise round, with only 2 or 3 negative points left.
I was completely WTF. I think losing my character in such a way, at the beginning of the story, without having nothing I could do to avoid it, would have not been good for the story. And it was anyway dramatic enough to leave me thinking "That was close! I'm really squishy!!!"
As a GM, I try to avoid that kind of PC deaths because I find them to be kinda unfair. It's not an epic fight, there's anything the PCs can do. You're just walking around and then you are dead, so bring a new character to the game.
It's not the way I like to play, as I try to develop my characters and make them fit to the story that's being told. I put a lot of effort in making believable characters with a solid backstory, and I'd feel kinda disappointed to have all that work cut by a poor roll. I know death is a possibility when you are roleplaying and it's OK. But dice rolls are made to serve the story and the enjoyment of the players and the GM. If a poor dice roll is going to cut that fun, the GM should have his devices to keep the story going in the best way possible. That sometimes means having to fudge a roll or two.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I avoid PC death because it's a narrative PitA to work in new characters. There was a point in Carrion Crown where I eventually stopped the PCs from going back to a certain dungeon and just gave them the requisite information via an NPC because they were dying so often they were at grave risk of being a bunch of strangers who couldn't even remember why they were originally trying to get through that bloody place.
Also, PC death is quick. If you really want to psychologically brutalize your players, the slow, patient path lined with difficult-to-remove conditions and grinding environmental conditions is much more effective... and more satisfying... like making a souffle of despair and gamer tears...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the death is in some way foreseen by the players (or if the players should have foreseen it, based on clues and information already provided) then I have no problem with allowing a character to die. The only situation where I am disinclined to let a character die is if they weren't given a chance to escape their fate.
Exactly my thoughts.
I've been into situations where PCs have access (via scrolls or via prepared spells) to, say, Death Ward. They have been warned that there will be incorporeal undead, a lot of incorporeal undead. And they go on without taking any kind of measures.
Then I'll take delight on killing them. If they are ambushed and killed by a death effect without even being able to act, I don't have any kind of remorse because they have been warned and they could have taken measures to avoid it. But if they have not been warned and the same situation happens, it would be a very different thing.
Let me put it this way: I think most GMs who fudge a lot think they have a higher Bluff modifier than they actually do; most players who Sense Motive the deception are just too polite to say anything ;)
That, or they're the sort of players who don't mind their characters being saved from death.
As far as the fudging debate goes when it comes to critical hits insta-killing someone, as long as nobody at the table knows the NPCs damage modifiers you could always just break out a little fuzzy math to save the character. I did that once when our party fighter got one-hit-killed by a Frost Giant's Power-Attacking Greataxe Critical (9d6+66 is nothing to sneeze at, especially when I rolled high).
As far as the fudging debate goes when it comes to critical hits insta-killing someone, as long as nobody at the table knows the NPCs damage modifiers you could always just break out a little fuzzy math to save the character. I did that once when our party fighter got one-hit-killed by a Frost Giant's Power-Attacking Greataxe Critical (9d6+66 is nothing to sneeze at, especially when I rolled high).
I feel like this works a lot better when you keep the 66 but you're making the 9d6 result fall in the range of something not fatal (I mean it's 9-54, it's a big variance). After all, if they can't see the dice they can never prove that you didn't roll a 19 on 9d6.
As far as the fudging debate goes when it comes to critical hits insta-killing someone, as long as nobody at the table knows the NPCs damage modifiers you could always just break out a little fuzzy math to save the character. I did that once when our party fighter got one-hit-killed by a Frost Giant's Power-Attacking Greataxe Critical (9d6+66 is nothing to sneeze at, especially when I rolled high).I feel like this works a lot better when you keep the 66 but you're making the 9d6 result fall in the range of something not fatal (I mean it's 9-54, it's a big variance). After all, if they can't see the dice they can never prove that you didn't roll a 19 on 9d6.
Yeah, but that requires hidden rolls. If you're hiding your dice, fudge the roll: if you're rolling in the open, fudge the math. Same result, just different ways of getting there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Fudge as necessary but don't abuse it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think many players who think they have spotted fudging think they are way more observant than they truly are.
I feel like this whole issue ultimately boils down to trust between players and GMs created by compatible expectations. If you trust that your GM is going to make calls, and sometimes bend rules, but always do so in the interest in making the game more enjoyable for everyone, it doesn't really matter whether the GM fudges, provided that they are good at identifying "what is fun for the people playing the game."
When you run into a problem is when players are of the mindset that they're not having fun unless they are in constant peril with a real threat of character death, and the GM just doesn't want to kill characters. Or, alternatively when you have players who want to tell a fun heroic story about these characters they've invented and care a lot about and thus don't really want to see them die ignominiously and a GM who wants to run their players through a deadly gauntlet in which they pull no punches.
So I guess the only real solution is for people to talk about their expectations and what they want out of the game and to come to some sort of mutual understanding about this. I do find that people are a lot more apt to talk about "I want my character to face real danger" when they're not actually playing and their character is in literally no danger, when in fact what they really want is a feeling that can just as well be cultivated when the GM creates a convincing impression of danger (whether or not there was actual danger.)
After all, as any veteran GM can tell you, while every player wants agency and choice, sometimes a convincing illusion of meaningful choice is just as compelling (and much less work) than creating actual choices. Players, after all, are likely to never know what would have happened if they chose differently.
And remember, not everyone always has to be in the same game together. Way back when, I asked what players' expectations were, and got these answers:
If my PC dies and you 'miraculously' keep him alive, I will walk out the door and never come back.
I just want to have fun and maybe buy a pony for my gnome. I don't want the game to ever be death-y!"
My response: two campaigns, not one, are what's needed here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players would be sad if I hid my rolls behind a screen. They take glee in both the low and the high rolls. To rob them of my nat 1's and 20's would be a crime against fun.
I think Hero Points can work pretty well for helping players with different expectations get along in the same group. I'm probably more in the "magic tea party" camp with Mrs. Gersen and consider "challenge" to be kind of optional as long as I can talk with a silly accent and maybe have some imaginary pets. Another guy I play with is infamous for saying, "It's no fun if you're not bleeding out!" I hoard my Hero Points in case of emergency, but folks who like to die are free to spend them willy nilly re-rolling whatever they'd like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if you feel you MUST witness all the rolls, be the GM. Better still, drop RPGs altogether and get into tabletop miniatures battles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That approach is certainly honest; no way to fault it on that account. But I'll see your "stop the game" and raise you one: why not just ask them up front what kind of game they're looking for? If they all want a murderhobo game, then you can either run that, or tell them in advance you're not interested and someone else can run it. No harm, no foul. Of course, if the consensus is for a heroic game up front, they're unlikely to start murderhoboing anyway.just do this.
Stop the game. Tell them that is not the game you want to run. It is NOT fun for you as the DM. Tell them you want a heroic style game. If they are not willing to play one, you cant be their DM.
Lots less work. And some people need the direct approach.
Not entirely, because the DM gets to have fun also, and he doesnt want to run that sort of game.
but yes, if he says "I want a heroic game, no murderhobos" and they syu "well, we wont play anything but random sociopathic killers" you can then say someone else will run it.
But that's the same result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely, because the DM gets to have fun also, and he doesnt want to run that sort of game.
Like I said, if GM X for whatever reason doesn't want a murderhobo game, that's totally OK -- but it's sort of his responsibility to make that clear up front, rather than ignore the possibility and then rage-quit when it happens.
I think if the big tough "most HP" guy gets knocked unconscious and needs emergency medical attention lest they die, that gets the point across about the potential lethality that "you don't get to play for the rest of the night"/"stop so so-and-so can make a new character" doesn't. I think it's wholly reasonable to have kid gloves on for 1st and 2nd level characters so people don't have to constantly make new ones (or just completely eschew classes that are liable to get hit in the face ever.)
The scramble to save the (now ironically named) Sven the Bloody before he bleeds out is free drama in a way that "Sven's dead, should we bury him? Or notify somebody?" is not.
Agreed. I do everything I can to not kill level 1 PCs, especially during the first session that the PC is played. (This does not apply in PFS, of course.) Killing level 1 PCs is too easy, and does a lot to damage emerging party cohesion.
I often even go out of my way to tell my players that I don't kill level 1 PCs unless they force me to it. I'd rather that they take a few risks while exploring who their character is, rather than be afraid to do anything, lest their squishy PC die.
In a situation where a PC would ordinarily die, I substitute the next-most-likely outcome. For example, rather than being killed by a gang of back alley muggers after being beaten down, the PC wakes up naked with a knot on the back of his head.
Of course, I'll get the occasional player that has to push the issue. If a couple of 'speaking' looks and "Are you sure you want to do that?" warnings don't get the point across, then I go ahead and kill the PC. Or more accurately, allow the PC to kill himself.
For example, a player decided that his level 1 rogue was going to try to assassinate a well-loved nobleman for no apparent reason. In open court. With bodyguards nearby. And a wizard advisor standing by. And a bank of archers stationed in the balcony. The rogue rolled his stealth, 'snuck' around behind the dais where the noble was seated, drew his weapon to attack, and was turned into a pincushion by the archers before the bodyguards even got the chance to jump on top of the noble and/or the rogue. Hello dead level 1 rogue. <sigh> Sadly, the rogue's player did not learn. Happily, everyone else at the table did.
Naturally, as soon as they hit level 2, that limited window of safety closes, and I tell the players so. Hiding my rolls allows me to preserve level 1 PCs from my sometimes inexplicable luck with dice. Continuing to hide my rolls keeps my players from metagaming, while allowing me the rare option of a dice fudge in the interests of better story.
I don't think it's so bad killing a level 1 PC. Replacing a PC at that point isn't as disruptive to the campaign as replacing one in the middle of a story, and players are usually more upset by losing a character they've been running for a month than a couple of hours. If you're trying to establish a sense of danger ("I am an impartial GM - any combat might be your last and it is up to you to make sure you don't die"), letting a level 1 character die does that - even if you start fudging in their favor later on, it will be easier to maintain the illusion of danger if they've lost someone in the past.
On the other hand, killing off the character of a player who is new to the game might drive them away for good.