These can be deployed when players want to go do something that you have nothing prepped for yet so you don't have to either railroad them away or try to making something up on the fly as a brand new DM. A combat and or another encounter can do a good job of filling a session and give you a week to create the path the party has chosen to go.
(I say random encounter but it doesn't have to be a random attack. You can have something up your sleeve in reserve s that is directly related to the plot or PC backstory)
If you're a new DM, there are tons of official and homebrew roll tables for road, carriage, air, and sea encounters if your party's journey takes a bit. Having players roll for their encounters can really bring the table together.
doesn’t need to be big or fancy or super detailed, but have some sort of dungeon ready for the players. One huge mistake that a lot of DMs are making nowadays is that don’t actually do this, believe it or not lol. They think the game is “talking” and dragons with maybe one uninspiring fight at some point.
A thread where a new DM asking for tips about how to run their first game is not a place to cynically give your subjective opinion about what you perceive as "issues" in games run at tables that you don't play in, and will never play in.
You can have excellent combat encounters without ever stepping foot in a dungeon. I love to run my players through a dungeon, but sass posting like this is hardly helpful.
Ok you are right maybe that was a bit sassy I apologize.
To be a bit more productive: Besides the given of learning the rules, there are two things a new DM needs to prioritize.
1. Learn how to make dungeons. This includes mapping the dimensions, creating an overall theme, adding details room by room, setting up the encounters (monsters, traps, hazards, obstacles, puzzles, skill challenges, etc), and finally figuring out how to present this all to your players in a satisfying way while formulating a process to follow these steps efficiently in the future.
2. Learn the monsters. I don’t mean memorize what each monster is, but study all the elements of a monster stat block and get a good feel for how it works and what to look for. Also start thinking about how to fight the monsters in a tactical and challenging way that makes the fights fun and meaningful for the game.
If you nail down these two things, then you can at least present a basic, core D&D experience. It might not have all the bells and whistles, but it is where I would highly recommend any new DM start.
Don’t roll your dice in the open for you first time, or your first 10 times. If after you have been DM/GMing for a while and decide that is how you want to operate that is fine(DM preference, and there are lots of arguments on both sides). Rolling the dice in the open completely removes 90% of your ability to actually run the mechanical side game as the DM/GM, and create a fantastic story for your players, which is your job. Instead you are just trusting fate, especially if you don’t have a lot of practices scaling encounters/ running a high power BB.
This is great advice. I rarely fudge dice. I think it's unfair to my players to do it in either direction- either in their favor or against them, because it robs them of agency. I don't let players fudge dice, so I don't think I should, but sometimes, even with hundreds of hours of running sessions, I screw up balance. I have been saved from incredibly unlucky rolls against the party that would have likely TPK'ed because, unlike I usually do, I happened to be rolling behind the screen and I didn't have to have mindflayers critically hit on their extract brain attack. If I had killed two characters in one turn, that would have ruined the experience of one player (who was pretty new) and made another forcibly retire a beloved character, as well as probably kill off a couple more characters in subsequent turns. When venturing into murky waters of balance, rolling in secret is one way to fix your mistakes. Just don't abuse it- most of the time, the dice are going to make things more interesting. However, sometimes the dice have a thirst for blood and keeping them pent up is a good way to make the game more fun for your players.
I'm behind rolling your dice behind the screen. Don't fudge them often, but sometimes you just need to make a tweak to fate in order to keep the game fun.
People keep using the term "Player Agency". I do not think it means what they think it means.
If the party enter combat and the first thing that happens is that a bandit looses an arrow at the wizard, critically hits and maxes damage, dropping them in one shot, then that's a rubbish story. The wizard player has lost all their agency, because they are dead, whereas if you adjust the dice that little bit - reducing the damage to "oh my goodness the wizard is almost dead" instead of "Whelp, you'd best make a new character while everyone else enjoys the combat", you are actively giving the player agency. If they take their next turn to run into the combat then well, that's on them, they chose death. If they instead hide behind a rock and start necking healing potions then that's also a choice they get to make.
Player agency is the players choosing to do things and those choices having effects in the game. Letting a player die "because the dice decided" isn't giving the players agency, it's taking away your own.
Because DMing is a very different kettle of fish to PCing. As a player, you want to win the combats, solve the clues, avoid the traps, slay the maiden, rescue the dragon, and be the hero. Or whatever motivates you. PCing is (by necessity) a selfish activity by proxy - you want what your character wants. Player agency is all about them making decisions which further their goals.
DMing is different. You don't want to win the combats, you don't want to stump the party with the riddle, you don't want to kill them in the traps, or for the maiden to escape with the kidnapped dragon. Your agency isn't to try to win, because if you wanted to you can drop 8 tarrasques being ridden by 1000 goblins in howdas who fire those arrows which force a bag of holding into a portable hole and wipe out the party in one move. You can just say "Rocks fall, you die" if you want to. The DM can "win" in a heartbeat, which is how you know it's not the DM's goal to win.
As a DM, we make encounters to A: further the story and B: challenge the players. We decide how much of a challenge that will be. Our agency is to maintain that level of challenge. If you want the challenge to be easy, then rolling critical hits for all the bugbears against surprised opponents on the first round is not going to make this an easy encounter, so you use the "DM Agency" to say "well, they shouldn't have all critted, the chances were very slim. I will change all but one to a normal hit, and the critical hit will go to the monk, who might catch the shot anyway". Because the DMs goal is to keep the game fun, interesting, and to make sure that the players don't lose their agency. The players agency is their character - they cannot do anything in the game without them.
Anyway, rant over. The important thing for the OP is tips on DMing, not a long winded reply about the merits of fudging and definitions of agency! to that end...
Aim for fun. If a player wants to do a flip and attack, then let them - don't say "but the rules don't cover that".
if you can't find the rule quickly, the make a ruling and stick to it. If you are playing over a few sessions, look the rule up in between and tell everyone next session "Ok, last session we did >X<, but it turns out it should be >Y<, so we're doing that from now on". It's far more important to keep the game flowing than to make sure someone follows the rules for holding their breath properly.
Tell the next player they're "on deck". So when initiative starts, you'd say "Player 1, it's your turn, player 2, you're on deck". That way player 2 can get their turn ready before it's their go, and your combats will flow smoother because of it.
If an attack deserved to kill a monster, and the monster has 1-2hp left after it, then just have it kill the monster. By this time, the combat is over, and if someone does a cool move and almost kills it, and it's going to die in the next turn anyway, then cut to the chase and let the monster die. I've done this a few times and it's always gone down well. Doing an awesome smite-curse-combo attack and then the monster dies next turn because the NPC threw a rock is a feel-bad moment.
Conversely, don't be afraid to add HP on the fly. If the monster is meant to last a couple of rounds but they roll poorly on initiative and the party would kill them in one round, you can always make them slightly tougher so they at least get one round in.
Contrary to that, don't be afraid to let things die early either. If the party knows they will never kill it in one round then they won't try, and that means less awesome combos and tactics. If the party unleash bloody murder on the troll, and deal 200 damage in one round, let that stand!
To decide what to do in these things, I suggest trying to gauge what you want the encounters to mean - a random encounter means little, it's only meant to wear down the party a bit, so if they deal with it easily then let it stand. The final showdown is meant to be dramatic and tense, so if they unleash hell on them and "should" kill them in one round, up the HP to make the fight interesting! Your job is to provide the settings and props for the playes to make a great story. Judge it accordingly - if they have saved their highest spell slots all dungeon to take on the BBEG, then let it happen (if the dice decide). Reward ther plans by giving them a chance to work!
This is easily a 50/50 topic (as in the community is split), and I'd argue for it except to say that it is heavily situational. Example: in one of my campaigns, a fellow player rolled obnoxiously high stats to start the game at level 3 and kept rolling super high on certain key checks that were originally "scripted to fail". Months later, DM admitted to raising the DC or just flat-out saying the roll didn't succeed so he could balance the campaign with this player's stats. I mean, what's the difference in fudging rolls or raising the DC? Not much in my mind. And what players don't know won't hurt them. BUT! DMs abusing their power and railroading players I think is a failure on the DMs part to write a world that is able to absorb the chaos of the PCs at the table and keep moving along. (emphasis mine)
I'm sensing that you're onto something more complex than fudging dice rolls altogether. You're highlighting a DM that is writing a failure into the story they are telling the players to potentially achieve a dramatic effect. This DM didn't allow for the possibility that the PCs would succeed. You are correct in the assessment that this is a DM failure, but fudging dice rolls, or setting an arbitrarily high DC, isn't the answer, it's the problem. Once you found out that you weren't expected to have a choice, that knowledge after-the-fact can creep into the other choices that you made and cause you to question the trustworthiness of the DM.
I mean, yes dont get in the habit of regularly fudging dice rolls, but is it really so bad for a new DM and a new party to maybe not have a TPK due to luck? You can still make a lucky attack hard hitting, but instead it only knocks out 1 person instead of the whole party.
There are other ways to mitigate damage from the DM side of the game besides throwing plot armor at your PCs. DMs telegraphing the lethality of the creature/s or area/s in their world that will objectively murder-ize the party might be a good start. Giving the players the required information to make appropriate decisions in-game is a key function of the DM. Asking for further information from the DM is a key function of the players.
I would ask the reverse question: Is it really so bad for a new DM to kill a PC or run a TPK because the players chose to do something that had dire consequences? (No. The answer here is No, it's not bad for PC death to happen.)
Here's another question: Why does every encounter *have* to be resolved by conflict? (It doesn't. Diplomacy might work out here, feel free to give it a try. If Diplomacy fails, then to the sword. It's called escalation of force, and is easily accomplished. De-escalation is so very much harder to pull off. Especially when the PCs get that murder-hobo-y look about them.)
Oh, no, I completely agree. I know DMs like to punish PCs for character growth, story development, or a number of other reasons, but yeah... TPKs seem counter-productive to the whole experience unless it's like... the last big BB battle or something similar.
Anecdotally, One of my favorite one-shots as a PC was having a TPK halfway through, taking a break thinking the game was over, Dm calls us back to talk about the experience, then being summoned to another realm because "your work isn't done yet, adventurers" and gaining the favor of lesser deities to be sent back and fight the BB again. Such a roller coaster. But, afterwards we learned that the TPK was not intended, lol... So, the DM went with it and changed his plan on the fly to keep the momentum going.
(emphasis mine)
This is a very reductive and generalizing statement. IMHO, any DM that practices punishment of a PC for whatever reason is not living up to the social contract at the table or performing the role of referee. You might personally know *some* DMs that like to punish PCs, but to cast that net at *all* DMs is objectively inaccurate.
@ OP, unintentional PC death, or TPK, is the way it should work. A DM might want to avoid starting out with the intent to kill a PC or cause a TPK. Most won't. Some might. Give your players the information that they need, and don't feel shy about checking in with your players to make sure they understand what you are giving them. Making a conscious decision fully aware of the possible outcomes is a well informed decision. Failing to provide the full scope of information required can sometimes feel like the DM is playing a "Gotcha" card.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I'd say the 50-50 split in fudging dice rolls is due to some having never faced a combat where the dice gods seem determined to kill a party. A small encounter, where the players are intended to kill the foes and uncover some info, players can't seem to roll higher than 6, enemies roll a couple crits, TPK, on an encounter that SHOULD have been easy. Open rolls brings an end to the campaign at what was supposed to be a pretty basic scrap, with a bit of info fed to the players.
In the end, do what you want, but be ready for a run of crap rolls can end the story.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I'd say the 50-50 split in fudging dice rolls is due to some having never faced a combat where the dice gods seem determined to kill a party. A small encounter, where the players are intended to kill the foes and uncover some info, players can't seem to roll higher than 6, enemies roll a couple crits, TPK, on an encounter that SHOULD have been easy. Open rolls brings an end to the campaign at what was supposed to be a pretty basic scrap, with a bit of info fed to the players.
In the end, do what you want, but be ready for a run of crap rolls can end the story.
Anothe excellent point. I don't spend hours writig up storylines, planning everything that has to be uncovered, and making the basis for what could be "an epic tale about how the party uncovered a plot to kill the king and ulitmately faced down a conclave of dragons in a specially-made airship" just for it to become "A cautionary tale of how one can die in a bar fight on session 1 if the dice gods hate you".
admittedly I'd reuse the plot but I have no qualms about the party as a whole getting some degree of plot armour against entirely dice-based results, EG all the bad guys critting whilst the good guys miss. bad tactics and all's fair, though!
As well with fudging rolls when needed, as DM you can literally wait until the last second to pull a rabbit out of your hat kind of thing. In at least 2 encounters I've put the group I DM for through, they should have easily won, and both had folks almost go down, (I think in one someone did drop) I was waiting and it was a near thing that really, shouldn't have been, with relatively weak monsters and a pretty well-balanced and outfitted party. Nothing more than bad rolling from them and amazing dice on my side of my screen. A Goblin.....regular, run-of-the-mill plain old Goblin, almost killed the level 4 Paladin, as poor Paladin couldn't roll over 4 and our Goblin was rolling 18+ and then 5/6 damage each time. Wizard sent 2 spells ripping into space, Ranger buried 2 arrows in the dirt, while Goblin archers scored every shot and one was a crit. I was almost laughing, it was so silly. Thankfully the Rogue managed to land his attacks and was taking the Goblins out one by one. Crap dice can ruin the whole evening if they fall at the wrong time and being ready to "not hit" on an attack at a critical time can be a game saver.
Of course I'll happily let 3/4 fall unconscious if the 4th has a reliable means to stabilize them and spoof a roll only when it's spoof it or wipe. I have no problem with them getting spanked pretty hard in a fight they should win, but actually allowing a TPK on a trivial encounter, put in to advance the tale is a no-no at my table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I would ask the reverse question: Is it really so bad for a new DM to kill a PC or run a TPK because the players chose to do something that had dire consequences? (No. The answer here is No, it's not bad for PC death to happen.)
That 100% depends on the players who are playing the game. I've played with people who are fine with character death and players who ended up not playing anymore due to it. DnD is about FUN. In session 0 one of the questions that should be discussed is how each PC feels about character death. If someone is not ok with it and it ruins the game for them, that is not fun. It's the DMs job to keep the game fun for everyone. You can keep things moving, challenging and fun without killing those who aren't ok with it. It really depends on the group sitting at the table and they are the only ones who can say if it's right or wrong for their game.
I would ask the reverse question: Is it really so bad for a new DM to kill a PC or run a TPK because the players chose to do something that had dire consequences? (No. The answer here is No, it's not bad for PC death to happen.)
That 100% depends on the players who are playing the game. I've played with people who are fine with character death and players who ended up not playing anymore due to it. DnD is about FUN. In session 0 one of the questions that should be discussed is how each PC feels about character death. If someone is not ok with it and it ruins the game for them, that is not fun. It's the DMs job to keep the game fun for everyone. You can keep things moving, challenging and fun without killing those who aren't ok with it. It really depends on the group sitting at the table and they are the only ones who can say if it's right or wrong for their game.
It is not the DM's job to bend over backwards to prevent thin-skinned players from dying. At session 0 the DM should state how dangerous their campaign is in general, from a story time cakewalk to a gritty meatgrinder, and from there the players can decide if they are interested in that or not.
I would ask the reverse question: Is it really so bad for a new DM to kill a PC or run a TPK because the players chose to do something that had dire consequences? (No. The answer here is No, it's not bad for PC death to happen.)
That 100% depends on the players who are playing the game. I've played with people who are fine with character death and players who ended up not playing anymore due to it. DnD is about FUN. In session 0 one of the questions that should be discussed is how each PC feels about character death. If someone is not ok with it and it ruins the game for them, that is not fun. It's the DMs job to keep the game fun for everyone. You can keep things moving, challenging and fun without killing those who aren't ok with it. It really depends on the group sitting at the table and they are the only ones who can say if it's right or wrong for their game.
It is not the DM's job to bend over backwards to prevent thin-skinned players from dying. At session 0 the DM should state how dangerous their campaign is in general, from a story time cakewalk to a gritty meatgrinder, and from there the players can decide if they are interested in that or not.
but again, there's a difference between saying "well, that surprise round just killed the wizard" and "Well, that surprise round almost killed the wizard, what do you do about it?"
The first has removed agency and is a boring way for the story to go, less fun for the player. The second is still crippling (one round and you're almost dead) but leaves you with decisions to make. If you make a stupid decision (EG "My wizard will stand in the open and cast a spell in front of the archers which nearly killed me") then yeah, you probably die next round.
Things can still be gritty and deadly without making the DM a slave to the dice.
I would ask the reverse question: Is it really so bad for a new DM to kill a PC or run a TPK because the players chose to do something that had dire consequences? (No. The answer here is No, it's not bad for PC death to happen.)
That 100% depends on the players who are playing the game. I've played with people who are fine with character death and players who ended up not playing anymore due to it. DnD is about FUN. In session 0 one of the questions that should be discussed is how each PC feels about character death. If someone is not ok with it and it ruins the game for them, that is not fun. It's the DMs job to keep the game fun for everyone. You can keep things moving, challenging and fun without killing those who aren't ok with it. It really depends on the group sitting at the table and they are the only ones who can say if it's right or wrong for their game.
It is not the DM's job to bend over backwards to prevent thin-skinned players from dying. At session 0 the DM should state how dangerous their campaign is in general, from a story time cakewalk to a gritty meatgrinder, and from there the players can decide if they are interested in that or not.
I agree, which is why it should be discussed in session 0 as I said. If your group tells you they aren't cool with PC death and you go ahead and run that campaign, don't be a jerk and kill them and then try to justify it as "oh the dice did it not me". Your a jerk and a bad DM in that situation. Similarly a player shouldnt sign up for a campaign that doesn't suit them. But that's not what this was about. It's about the question I quoted which will not be answered the same from table to table. To make a blanket statement that it's ok for PC death is not true. For some tables it is, for some it isn't. If someone doesn't want to spend their recreational time worrying about an imaginary character dieing that is ok. Plenty of groups out there for that. It also doesn't make those players thin-skinned. Not everyone enjoys playing games on hard mode.
If your group tells you they aren't cool with PC death and you go ahead and run that campaign, don't be a jerk and kill them and then try to justify it as "oh the dice did it not me". Your a jerk and a bad DM in that situation. Similarly a player shouldnt sign up for a campaign that doesn't suit them.
You are posing a strawman argument. No one has proposed doing this. While I respect the fact that you disagree with others about this opinion, I'm pretty sure that doesn't entitle you to call someone a jerk for having a different style. I absolutely agree that this is something that should be discussed in session 0, and that if a player doesn't wish to partake, they shouldn't be forced to. Also, I distinctly remember saying:
@ OP, unintentional PC death, or TPK, is the way it should work. A DM might want to avoid starting out with the intent to kill a PC or cause a TPK. Most won't. Some might. Give your players the information that they need, and don't feel shy about checking in with your players to make sure they understand what you are giving them. Making a conscious decision fully aware of the possible outcomes is a well informed decision. Failing to provide the full scope of information required can sometimes feel like the DM is playing a "Gotcha" card.
Must have gotten missed in your cherry-picking. The TL;DR here is: don't try to kill your PCs intentionally. Make sure that players have the information they need to make the decisions that matter.
But that's not what this was about. It's about the question I quoted which will not be answered the same from table to table. To make a blanket statement that it's ok for PC death is not true. For some tables it is, for some it isn't. If someone doesn't want to spend their recreational time worrying about an imaginary character dieing that is ok. Plenty of groups out there for that. It also doesn't make those players thin-skinned. Not everyone enjoys playing games on hard mode.
In the question you quoted, I didn't suggest that everyone be ok with it. I was implying that the DM is not required, nor are they responsible, for keeping a PC alive because a player made a poor decison. And no, before any hyperbole gets spun up, I don't expect people to make the "right-optimal-only-correct" decision. Just a well informed one. You are right that some tables will not want to broach the subject of PC death. Making a blanket statement that a DM shouldn't allow PC death is just as sujectively untrue as your opinion that PC death isn't ok. It will depend on the table. At every game I have run, the players know that PC death is a potential outcome, not a DM Goal. Every player has been ok with the concept that in combat, the "good guys" sometimes come back horizontally. Heroes fall. What they are doing when they fall is what makes them Heroes. Bottom line: I've not met a player that wanted to re-roll a PC every other session. Given the option, they would rather succeed than fail. And not a one has appreciated me handing them anything or not making the game a challenge that they have to work to overcome. Judging by your last response, your mileage does indeed vary.
Regardless, one of the Core Assumptions of this game is that conflict shapes the world. Those conflicts have to be resolved somehow. Diplomacy and combat are the two main go-to resources for these, and one has death as an outcome. Whether that's a PC's death, or an NPC's death is up to the players and how they handle said situation. And while I will agree with anyone who says "PCs would rather die than run from a fight.", I would point out that they still have that choice to make, maybe a DM could remind the players of the tools available in their toolbox from time to time.
Not allowing the dice to do their job as the neutral arbiters of the game goes against not assigning motivation to the DM (ie, being a jerk and killing PCs.) and prevents playing favorites towards any player/PC/NPC. (See Also: The Role of Dice) This little portion of the DMG tells us what we can and might want to do to suit our desired effect on gameplay. It doesn't say anything about the virtues of fudging dice rolls to alter outcomes to suit a pre-ordained story that we have dreamt up. It literally says that dice are to be used to prevent exactly this.
I have yet to DM, or be a player in a D&D game where death wasn't a topic and the dice don't matter. If that's how you and your group have fun, you won't catch me name-calling, telling you that's "bad-wrong-fun" and disparraging you for it. Not everyone that DM's a game of D&D is adversarial because they kill a PC.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
If your group tells you they aren't cool with PC death and you go ahead and run that campaign, don't be a jerk and kill them and then try to justify it as "oh the dice did it not me". Your a jerk and a bad DM in that situation. Similarly a player shouldnt sign up for a campaign that doesn't suit them.
You are posing a strawman argument. No one has proposed doing this. While I respect the fact that you disagree with others about this opinion, I'm pretty sure that doesn't entitle you to call someone a jerk for having a different style. I absolutely agree that this is something that should be discussed in session 0, and that if a player doesn't wish to partake, they shouldn't be forced to. Also, I distinctly remember saying:
@ OP, unintentional PC death, or TPK, is the way it should work. A DM might want to avoid starting out with the intent to kill a PC or cause a TPK. Most won't. Some might. Give your players the information that they need, and don't feel shy about checking in with your players to make sure they understand what you are giving them. Making a conscious decision fully aware of the possible outcomes is a well informed decision. Failing to provide the full scope of information required can sometimes feel like the DM is playing a "Gotcha" card.
Must have gotten missed in your cherry-picking. The TL;DR here is: don't try to kill your PCs intentionally. Make sure that players have the information they need to make the decisions that matter.
But that's not what this was about. It's about the question I quoted which will not be answered the same from table to table. To make a blanket statement that it's ok for PC death is not true. For some tables it is, for some it isn't. If someone doesn't want to spend their recreational time worrying about an imaginary character dieing that is ok. Plenty of groups out there for that. It also doesn't make those players thin-skinned. Not everyone enjoys playing games on hard mode.
In the question you quoted, I didn't suggest that everyone be ok with it. I was implying that the DM is not required, nor are they responsible, for keeping a PC alive because a player made a poor decison. And no, before any hyperbole gets spun up, I don't expect people to make the "right-optimal-only-correct" decision. Just a well informed one. You are right that some tables will not want to broach the subject of PC death. Making a blanket statement that a DM shouldn't allow PC death is just as sujectively untrue as your opinion that PC death isn't ok. It will depend on the table. At every game I have run, the players know that PC death is a potential outcome, not a DM Goal. Every player has been ok with the concept that in combat, the "good guys" sometimes come back horizontally. Heroes fall. What they are doing when they fall is what makes them Heroes. Bottom line: I've not met a player that wanted to re-roll a PC every other session. Given the option, they would rather succeed than fail. And not a one has appreciated me handing them anything or not making the game a challenge that they have to work to overcome. Judging by your last response, your mileage does indeed vary.
Regardless, one of the Core Assumptions of this game is that conflict shapes the world. Those conflicts have to be resolved somehow. Diplomacy and combat are the two main go-to resources for these, and one has death as an outcome. Whether that's a PC's death, or an NPC's death is up to the players and how they handle said situation. And while I will agree with anyone who says "PCs would rather die than run from a fight.", I would point out that they still have that choice to make, maybe a DM could remind the players of the tools available in their toolbox from time to time.
Not allowing the dice to do their job as the neutral arbiters of the game goes against not assigning motivation to the DM (ie, being a jerk and killing PCs.) and prevents playing favorites towards any player/PC/NPC. (See Also: The Role of Dice) This little portion of the DMG tells us what we can and might want to do to suit our desired effect on gameplay. It doesn't say anything about the virtues of fudging dice rolls to alter outcomes to suit a pre-ordained story that we have dreamt up. It literally says that dice are to be used to prevent exactly this.
I have yet to DM, or be a player in a D&D game where death wasn't a topic and the dice don't matter. If that's how you and your group have fun, you won't catch me name-calling, telling you that's "bad-wrong-fun" and disparraging you for it. Not everyone that DM's a game of D&D is adversarial because they kill a PC.
If it came across as me calling you a jerk, I apologize. That was not my intention. I was attempting to say that if a DM and the players agree in session 0 to have an "easy mode" type campaign/game, one in which they are not ok with PC death, respect that or don't DM those players. If a DM and the players agree to not broach that subject, it should be avoided. As the DM you have the most control over that. That should go for any possibly controversial topic. All parties agreed to not broach something, and then crossed that line. At least at my table and the tables i've been a player at, that is unacceptable. The goal is always to have fun, not push people's boundaries, or out right cross them. To me, that person or DM crossing those boundaries is a jerk, but lets be honest its subjective, different people have different levels of sensitivity.
I never once said PC death should not be allowed by DMs. I personally have no issues with PC death, but I have played with people and DM'd for people who do have issues with it. I said the topic should be discussed at session 0, and the decision that table comes up with should be respected. Each table will have their own answer to your original question.
I would ask the reverse question: Is it really so bad for a new DM to kill a PC or run a TPK because the players chose to do something that had dire consequences? (No. The answer here is No, it's not bad for PC death to happen.)
That 100% depends on the players who are playing the game. I've played with people who are fine with character death and players who ended up not playing anymore due to it. DnD is about FUN. In session 0 one of the questions that should be discussed is how each PC feels about character death. If someone is not ok with it and it ruins the game for them, that is not fun. It's the DMs job to keep the game fun for everyone. You can keep things moving, challenging and fun without killing those who aren't ok with it. It really depends on the group sitting at the table and they are the only ones who can say if it's right or wrong for their game.
Please let me be clear on that. Each table should make their own decision on if PC death is ok or not ok in that tables game. And whatever that table decides should then be respected by all parties involved, including the DM.
My advice to a first time DM is and always will be: (1)have a session 0 (2) keep the game moving (3)make sure everyone has fun. Thats it. Do what you need to to achieve those 3 goals and figure the rest out as you gain more experience.
Looks like there will be no consensus on the topic. There are those like myself, who will, in extreme situations, fudge a roll or 2 to prevent a campaign from crashing 2 hours in, and those who simply say "Welp, that's what the dice decided." and close up the books. Whatever works at your table is fine, really. I don't think it's a case of a jerk doing it, just someone who wants rules to run the game more than themselves, for whatever reasons they offer.
Personally, I am OK with PC death, when it makes some form of sense. Have my level 4 party determine an Adult Dragon is in the cave and they explore it anyway? Might be rerolling characters shortly. Same party running into 5 plain old Bandits and dice gods having a fit, dealing PC's 4's and 5's while NPC's roll 18-20 every time. Couple rolls in, the NPC's will start missing in my game, because RNG is not going to kill the campaign for me and my players. Not on a trivial encounter at least.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Please let me be clear on that. Each table should make their own decision on if PC death is ok or not ok in that tables game. And whatever that table decides should then be respected by all parties involved, including the DM.
My advice to a first time DM is and always will be: (1)have a session 0 (2) keep the game moving (3)make sure everyone has fun. Thats it. Do what you need to to achieve those 3 goals and figure the rest out as you gain more experience.
No one is arguing agaist this. I would suggest that most here are actually in agreeance with you regarding the adherance to a social contract that the table agrees upon. In the niche case where a table agrees that PC death doesn't happen or whatever gameply nuances they decide on that they want in their game is the specific set of rules for that individual table. I would also suggest that PC death is on the table by default until a group specifically removes it. Just like Long Rests resetting all HP is a general rule, a table can choose to ignore or alter that as they see fit.
If it came across as me calling you a jerk, I apologize. That was not my intention. I was attempting to say that if a DM and the players agree in session 0 to have an "easy mode" type campaign/game, one in which they are not ok with PC death, respect that or don't DM those players. If a DM and the players agree to not broach that subject, it should be avoided. As the DM you have the most control over that. That should go for any possibly controversial topic. All parties agreed to not broach something, and then crossed that line. At least at my table and the tables i've been a player at, that is unacceptable. The goal is always to have fun, not push people's boundaries, or out right cross them. To me, that person or DM crossing those boundaries is a jerk, but lets be honest its subjective, different people have different levels of sensitivity.
Then why not just lead with what you are attempting to say? That's reasonable and well thought out advice. Also much more palatable.
I never once said PC death should not be allowed by DMs. I personally have no issues with PC death, but I have played with people and DM'd for people who do have issues with it. I said the topic should be discussed at session 0, and the decision that table comes up with should be respected. Each table will have their own answer to your original question.Please let me be clear on that. Each table should make their own decision on if PC death is ok or not ok in that tables game. And whatever that table decides should then be respected by all parties involved, including the DM.
Yes, each table will have to decide on the nuances that are allowed or taboo at their table. Again, no one is arguing this. What I'm pushing back against is the villification of a DM, any DM, that allows, not forces, an imaginary PC to die during a game of make-believe that involves elves and dragons. No one is suggesting that anyone be made to do anything they aren't comfortable with.
Generally, PC death is a thing, until a table decides to remove it. It's not bad DMing, these things can happen unintentionally. I would suggest that it can be a powerful and emotionally charged event in the game and shouldn't be handled flippantly and without some forethought. It can be very memorable when handled appropriately, but also disastrously damaging if handled with too coarse of an approach.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
If it came across as me calling you a jerk, I apologize. That was not my intention. I was attempting to say that if a DM and the players agree in session 0 to have an "easy mode" type campaign/game, one in which they are not ok with PC death, respect that or don't DM those players. If a DM and the players agree to not broach that subject, it should be avoided. As the DM you have the most control over that. That should go for any possibly controversial topic. All parties agreed to not broach something, and then crossed that line. At least at my table and the tables i've been a player at, that is unacceptable. The goal is always to have fun, not push people's boundaries, or out right cross them. To me, that person or DM crossing those boundaries is a jerk, but lets be honest its subjective, different people have different levels of sensitivity.
Then why not just lead with what you are attempting to say? That's reasonable and well thought out advice. Also much more palatable.
Well I did. You just did not understand it. Below is my first post in this topic.
I would ask the reverse question: Is it really so bad for a new DM to kill a PC or run a TPK because the players chose to do something that had dire consequences? (No. The answer here is No, it's not bad for PC death to happen.)
That 100% depends on the players who are playing the game. I've played with people who are fine with character death and players who ended up not playing anymore due to it. DnD is about FUN. In session 0 one of the questions that should be discussed is how each PC feels about character death. If someone is not ok with it and it ruins the game for them, that is not fun. It's the DMs job to keep the game fun for everyone. You can keep things moving, challenging and fun without killing those who aren't ok with it. It really depends on the group sitting at the table and they are the only ones who can say if it's right or wrong for their game.
I was answering a question you asked in which you said the answer is No as in an absolute every table PC death is ok. I responded with it depends on the players who are playing the game. Seems pretty clear to me.
Looks like there will be no consensus on the topic. There are those like myself, who will, in extreme situations, fudge a roll or 2 to prevent a campaign from crashing 2 hours in, and those who simply say "Welp, that's what the dice decided." and close up the books. Whatever works at your table is fine, really. I don't think it's a case of a jerk doing it, just someone who wants rules to run the game more than themselves, for whatever reasons they offer.
Personally, I am OK with PC death, when it makes some form of sense. Have my level 4 party determine an Adult Dragon is in the cave and they explore it anyway? Might be rerolling characters shortly. Same party running into 5 plain old Bandits and dice gods having a fit, dealing PC's 4's and 5's while NPC's roll 18-20 every time. Couple rolls in, the NPC's will start missing in my game, because RNG is not going to kill the campaign for me and my players. Not on a trivial encounter at least.
The only piece of this I have question with is: If it's trivial or maybe really meant to be filler or background noise, why not just narrate the outcome instead? If the encounter is meant to not be a threat, maybe don't let the dice get involved and ask how the players want to handle the situation and what the intended outcome is and just narrate that and move on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Well, the idea of simply narrating an encounter doesn't appeal to me much from a player perspective, honestly. "You encounter a group of Bandits, who come out onto the road and demand you surrender your goods. What do you do?" Players decide: "We attack!" "Ok, you attack and kill them."
There are dozens of reasons to have a trivial type encounter, from looking to drain a few resources from the group, to giving them a chance to test some new abilities, to simply having SOME direct involvement with the story. This is a situation that can/will arise early in the campaign, I'd guess level 6 and under mostly, where a few crap dice rolls can be a HUGE factor in combat. Post 6, it tends to take a longer string of bad rolling to start putting the encounter into TPK territory. Again it's all personal taste, I just don't have any interest in being part of a campaign, on either side, where the DM isn't in control and that's what a fudged die roll s, the DM taking control. If you prefer to never "cheat" any rolls to either preserve the campaign or enhance the risk of a fight, then it's your call. I simply want to ensure the campaign is interesting, dynamic and enjoyable. Killing the party an hour in doesn't fit any of those criteria.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I would ask the reverse question: Is it really so bad for a new DM to kill a PC or run a TPK because the players chose to do something that had dire consequences? (No. The answer here is No, it's not bad for PC death to happen.)
That 100% depends on the players who are playing the game. I've played with people who are fine with character death and players who ended up not playing anymore due to it. DnD is about FUN. In session 0 one of the questions that should be discussed is how each PC feels about character death. If someone is not ok with it and it ruins the game for them, that is not fun. It's the DMs job to keep the game fun for everyone. You can keep things moving, challenging and fun without killing those who aren't ok with it. It really depends on the group sitting at the table and they are the only ones who can say if it's right or wrong for their game.
It is not the DM's job to bend over backwards to prevent thin-skinned players from dying. At session 0 the DM should state how dangerous their campaign is in general, from a story time cakewalk to a gritty meatgrinder, and from there the players can decide if they are interested in that or not.
I agree, which is why it should be discussed in session 0 as I said. If your group tells you they aren't cool with PC death and you go ahead and run that campaign, don't be a jerk and kill them and then try to justify it as "oh the dice did it not me". Your a jerk and a bad DM in that situation. Similarly a player shouldnt sign up for a campaign that doesn't suit them. But that's not what this was about. It's about the question I quoted which will not be answered the same from table to table. To make a blanket statement that it's ok for PC death is not true. For some tables it is, for some it isn't. If someone doesn't want to spend their recreational time worrying about an imaginary character dieing that is ok. Plenty of groups out there for that. It also doesn't make those players thin-skinned. Not everyone enjoys playing games on hard mode.
For those tables where PC death isn’t OK, how does this manifest in game? Do you just avoid combat entirely, or make it easy to the point of there being no threat at all? Do you start fudging dice like crazy in the PCs favor if the monsters start winning? Do the PCs have plot armor that protects them from any sticky situation?
Personally I would never play or DM a game like that. No thanks!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you're a new DM, there are tons of official and homebrew roll tables for road, carriage, air, and sea encounters if your party's journey takes a bit. Having players roll for their encounters can really bring the table together.
Ok you are right maybe that was a bit sassy I apologize.
To be a bit more productive: Besides the given of learning the rules, there are two things a new DM needs to prioritize.
1. Learn how to make dungeons. This includes mapping the dimensions, creating an overall theme, adding details room by room, setting up the encounters (monsters, traps, hazards, obstacles, puzzles, skill challenges, etc), and finally figuring out how to present this all to your players in a satisfying way while formulating a process to follow these steps efficiently in the future.
2. Learn the monsters. I don’t mean memorize what each monster is, but study all the elements of a monster stat block and get a good feel for how it works and what to look for. Also start thinking about how to fight the monsters in a tactical and challenging way that makes the fights fun and meaningful for the game.
If you nail down these two things, then you can at least present a basic, core D&D experience. It might not have all the bells and whistles, but it is where I would highly recommend any new DM start.
This is great advice. I rarely fudge dice. I think it's unfair to my players to do it in either direction- either in their favor or against them, because it robs them of agency. I don't let players fudge dice, so I don't think I should, but sometimes, even with hundreds of hours of running sessions, I screw up balance. I have been saved from incredibly unlucky rolls against the party that would have likely TPK'ed because, unlike I usually do, I happened to be rolling behind the screen and I didn't have to have mindflayers critically hit on their extract brain attack. If I had killed two characters in one turn, that would have ruined the experience of one player (who was pretty new) and made another forcibly retire a beloved character, as well as probably kill off a couple more characters in subsequent turns. When venturing into murky waters of balance, rolling in secret is one way to fix your mistakes. Just don't abuse it- most of the time, the dice are going to make things more interesting. However, sometimes the dice have a thirst for blood and keeping them pent up is a good way to make the game more fun for your players.
I'm behind rolling your dice behind the screen. Don't fudge them often, but sometimes you just need to make a tweak to fate in order to keep the game fun.
People keep using the term "Player Agency". I do not think it means what they think it means.
If the party enter combat and the first thing that happens is that a bandit looses an arrow at the wizard, critically hits and maxes damage, dropping them in one shot, then that's a rubbish story. The wizard player has lost all their agency, because they are dead, whereas if you adjust the dice that little bit - reducing the damage to "oh my goodness the wizard is almost dead" instead of "Whelp, you'd best make a new character while everyone else enjoys the combat", you are actively giving the player agency. If they take their next turn to run into the combat then well, that's on them, they chose death. If they instead hide behind a rock and start necking healing potions then that's also a choice they get to make.
Player agency is the players choosing to do things and those choices having effects in the game. Letting a player die "because the dice decided" isn't giving the players agency, it's taking away your own.
Because DMing is a very different kettle of fish to PCing. As a player, you want to win the combats, solve the clues, avoid the traps, slay the maiden, rescue the dragon, and be the hero. Or whatever motivates you. PCing is (by necessity) a selfish activity by proxy - you want what your character wants. Player agency is all about them making decisions which further their goals.
DMing is different. You don't want to win the combats, you don't want to stump the party with the riddle, you don't want to kill them in the traps, or for the maiden to escape with the kidnapped dragon. Your agency isn't to try to win, because if you wanted to you can drop 8 tarrasques being ridden by 1000 goblins in howdas who fire those arrows which force a bag of holding into a portable hole and wipe out the party in one move. You can just say "Rocks fall, you die" if you want to. The DM can "win" in a heartbeat, which is how you know it's not the DM's goal to win.
As a DM, we make encounters to A: further the story and B: challenge the players. We decide how much of a challenge that will be. Our agency is to maintain that level of challenge. If you want the challenge to be easy, then rolling critical hits for all the bugbears against surprised opponents on the first round is not going to make this an easy encounter, so you use the "DM Agency" to say "well, they shouldn't have all critted, the chances were very slim. I will change all but one to a normal hit, and the critical hit will go to the monk, who might catch the shot anyway". Because the DMs goal is to keep the game fun, interesting, and to make sure that the players don't lose their agency. The players agency is their character - they cannot do anything in the game without them.
Anyway, rant over. The important thing for the OP is tips on DMing, not a long winded reply about the merits of fudging and definitions of agency!
to that end...
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I'm sensing that you're onto something more complex than fudging dice rolls altogether. You're highlighting a DM that is writing a failure into the story they are telling the players to potentially achieve a dramatic effect. This DM didn't allow for the possibility that the PCs would succeed. You are correct in the assessment that this is a DM failure, but fudging dice rolls, or setting an arbitrarily high DC, isn't the answer, it's the problem. Once you found out that you weren't expected to have a choice, that knowledge after-the-fact can creep into the other choices that you made and cause you to question the trustworthiness of the DM.
There are other ways to mitigate damage from the DM side of the game besides throwing plot armor at your PCs. DMs telegraphing the lethality of the creature/s or area/s in their world that will objectively murder-ize the party might be a good start. Giving the players the required information to make appropriate decisions in-game is a key function of the DM. Asking for further information from the DM is a key function of the players.
I would ask the reverse question: Is it really so bad for a new DM to kill a PC or run a TPK because the players chose to do something that had dire consequences? (No. The answer here is No, it's not bad for PC death to happen.)
Here's another question: Why does every encounter *have* to be resolved by conflict? (It doesn't. Diplomacy might work out here, feel free to give it a try. If Diplomacy fails, then to the sword. It's called escalation of force, and is easily accomplished. De-escalation is so very much harder to pull off. Especially when the PCs get that murder-hobo-y look about them.)
This is a very reductive and generalizing statement. IMHO, any DM that practices punishment of a PC for whatever reason is not living up to the social contract at the table or performing the role of referee. You might personally know *some* DMs that like to punish PCs, but to cast that net at *all* DMs is objectively inaccurate.
@ OP, unintentional PC death, or TPK, is the way it should work. A DM might want to avoid starting out with the intent to kill a PC or cause a TPK. Most won't. Some might. Give your players the information that they need, and don't feel shy about checking in with your players to make sure they understand what you are giving them. Making a conscious decision fully aware of the possible outcomes is a well informed decision. Failing to provide the full scope of information required can sometimes feel like the DM is playing a "Gotcha" card.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I'd say the 50-50 split in fudging dice rolls is due to some having never faced a combat where the dice gods seem determined to kill a party. A small encounter, where the players are intended to kill the foes and uncover some info, players can't seem to roll higher than 6, enemies roll a couple crits, TPK, on an encounter that SHOULD have been easy. Open rolls brings an end to the campaign at what was supposed to be a pretty basic scrap, with a bit of info fed to the players.
In the end, do what you want, but be ready for a run of crap rolls can end the story.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Anothe excellent point. I don't spend hours writig up storylines, planning everything that has to be uncovered, and making the basis for what could be "an epic tale about how the party uncovered a plot to kill the king and ulitmately faced down a conclave of dragons in a specially-made airship" just for it to become "A cautionary tale of how one can die in a bar fight on session 1 if the dice gods hate you".
admittedly I'd reuse the plot but I have no qualms about the party as a whole getting some degree of plot armour against entirely dice-based results, EG all the bad guys critting whilst the good guys miss. bad tactics and all's fair, though!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
As well with fudging rolls when needed, as DM you can literally wait until the last second to pull a rabbit out of your hat kind of thing. In at least 2 encounters I've put the group I DM for through, they should have easily won, and both had folks almost go down, (I think in one someone did drop) I was waiting and it was a near thing that really, shouldn't have been, with relatively weak monsters and a pretty well-balanced and outfitted party. Nothing more than bad rolling from them and amazing dice on my side of my screen. A Goblin.....regular, run-of-the-mill plain old Goblin, almost killed the level 4 Paladin, as poor Paladin couldn't roll over 4 and our Goblin was rolling 18+ and then 5/6 damage each time. Wizard sent 2 spells ripping into space, Ranger buried 2 arrows in the dirt, while Goblin archers scored every shot and one was a crit. I was almost laughing, it was so silly. Thankfully the Rogue managed to land his attacks and was taking the Goblins out one by one. Crap dice can ruin the whole evening if they fall at the wrong time and being ready to "not hit" on an attack at a critical time can be a game saver.
Of course I'll happily let 3/4 fall unconscious if the 4th has a reliable means to stabilize them and spoof a roll only when it's spoof it or wipe. I have no problem with them getting spanked pretty hard in a fight they should win, but actually allowing a TPK on a trivial encounter, put in to advance the tale is a no-no at my table.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
That 100% depends on the players who are playing the game. I've played with people who are fine with character death and players who ended up not playing anymore due to it. DnD is about FUN. In session 0 one of the questions that should be discussed is how each PC feels about character death. If someone is not ok with it and it ruins the game for them, that is not fun. It's the DMs job to keep the game fun for everyone. You can keep things moving, challenging and fun without killing those who aren't ok with it. It really depends on the group sitting at the table and they are the only ones who can say if it's right or wrong for their game.
It is not the DM's job to bend over backwards to prevent thin-skinned players from dying. At session 0 the DM should state how dangerous their campaign is in general, from a story time cakewalk to a gritty meatgrinder, and from there the players can decide if they are interested in that or not.
but again, there's a difference between saying "well, that surprise round just killed the wizard" and "Well, that surprise round almost killed the wizard, what do you do about it?"
The first has removed agency and is a boring way for the story to go, less fun for the player. The second is still crippling (one round and you're almost dead) but leaves you with decisions to make. If you make a stupid decision (EG "My wizard will stand in the open and cast a spell in front of the archers which nearly killed me") then yeah, you probably die next round.
Things can still be gritty and deadly without making the DM a slave to the dice.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I agree, which is why it should be discussed in session 0 as I said. If your group tells you they aren't cool with PC death and you go ahead and run that campaign, don't be a jerk and kill them and then try to justify it as "oh the dice did it not me". Your a jerk and a bad DM in that situation. Similarly a player shouldnt sign up for a campaign that doesn't suit them. But that's not what this was about. It's about the question I quoted which will not be answered the same from table to table. To make a blanket statement that it's ok for PC death is not true. For some tables it is, for some it isn't. If someone doesn't want to spend their recreational time worrying about an imaginary character dieing that is ok. Plenty of groups out there for that. It also doesn't make those players thin-skinned. Not everyone enjoys playing games on hard mode.
You are posing a strawman argument. No one has proposed doing this. While I respect the fact that you disagree with others about this opinion, I'm pretty sure that doesn't entitle you to call someone a jerk for having a different style. I absolutely agree that this is something that should be discussed in session 0, and that if a player doesn't wish to partake, they shouldn't be forced to. Also, I distinctly remember saying:
Must have gotten missed in your cherry-picking. The TL;DR here is: don't try to kill your PCs intentionally. Make sure that players have the information they need to make the decisions that matter.
In the question you quoted, I didn't suggest that everyone be ok with it. I was implying that the DM is not required, nor are they responsible, for keeping a PC alive because a player made a poor decison. And no, before any hyperbole gets spun up, I don't expect people to make the "right-optimal-only-correct" decision. Just a well informed one. You are right that some tables will not want to broach the subject of PC death. Making a blanket statement that a DM shouldn't allow PC death is just as sujectively untrue as your opinion that PC death isn't ok. It will depend on the table. At every game I have run, the players know that PC death is a potential outcome, not a DM Goal. Every player has been ok with the concept that in combat, the "good guys" sometimes come back horizontally. Heroes fall. What they are doing when they fall is what makes them Heroes. Bottom line: I've not met a player that wanted to re-roll a PC every other session. Given the option, they would rather succeed than fail. And not a one has appreciated me handing them anything or not making the game a challenge that they have to work to overcome. Judging by your last response, your mileage does indeed vary.
Regardless, one of the Core Assumptions of this game is that conflict shapes the world. Those conflicts have to be resolved somehow. Diplomacy and combat are the two main go-to resources for these, and one has death as an outcome. Whether that's a PC's death, or an NPC's death is up to the players and how they handle said situation. And while I will agree with anyone who says "PCs would rather die than run from a fight.", I would point out that they still have that choice to make, maybe a DM could remind the players of the tools available in their toolbox from time to time.
Not allowing the dice to do their job as the neutral arbiters of the game goes against not assigning motivation to the DM (ie, being a jerk and killing PCs.) and prevents playing favorites towards any player/PC/NPC. (See Also: The Role of Dice) This little portion of the DMG tells us what we can and might want to do to suit our desired effect on gameplay. It doesn't say anything about the virtues of fudging dice rolls to alter outcomes to suit a pre-ordained story that we have dreamt up. It literally says that dice are to be used to prevent exactly this.
I have yet to DM, or be a player in a D&D game where death wasn't a topic and the dice don't matter. If that's how you and your group have fun, you won't catch me name-calling, telling you that's "bad-wrong-fun" and disparraging you for it. Not everyone that DM's a game of D&D is adversarial because they kill a PC.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
If it came across as me calling you a jerk, I apologize. That was not my intention. I was attempting to say that if a DM and the players agree in session 0 to have an "easy mode" type campaign/game, one in which they are not ok with PC death, respect that or don't DM those players. If a DM and the players agree to not broach that subject, it should be avoided. As the DM you have the most control over that. That should go for any possibly controversial topic. All parties agreed to not broach something, and then crossed that line. At least at my table and the tables i've been a player at, that is unacceptable. The goal is always to have fun, not push people's boundaries, or out right cross them. To me, that person or DM crossing those boundaries is a jerk, but lets be honest its subjective, different people have different levels of sensitivity.
I never once said PC death should not be allowed by DMs. I personally have no issues with PC death, but I have played with people and DM'd for people who do have issues with it. I said the topic should be discussed at session 0, and the decision that table comes up with should be respected. Each table will have their own answer to your original question.
Please let me be clear on that. Each table should make their own decision on if PC death is ok or not ok in that tables game. And whatever that table decides should then be respected by all parties involved, including the DM.
My advice to a first time DM is and always will be: (1)have a session 0 (2) keep the game moving (3)make sure everyone has fun. Thats it. Do what you need to to achieve those 3 goals and figure the rest out as you gain more experience.
Looks like there will be no consensus on the topic. There are those like myself, who will, in extreme situations, fudge a roll or 2 to prevent a campaign from crashing 2 hours in, and those who simply say "Welp, that's what the dice decided." and close up the books. Whatever works at your table is fine, really. I don't think it's a case of a jerk doing it, just someone who wants rules to run the game more than themselves, for whatever reasons they offer.
Personally, I am OK with PC death, when it makes some form of sense. Have my level 4 party determine an Adult Dragon is in the cave and they explore it anyway? Might be rerolling characters shortly. Same party running into 5 plain old Bandits and dice gods having a fit, dealing PC's 4's and 5's while NPC's roll 18-20 every time. Couple rolls in, the NPC's will start missing in my game, because RNG is not going to kill the campaign for me and my players. Not on a trivial encounter at least.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
No one is arguing agaist this. I would suggest that most here are actually in agreeance with you regarding the adherance to a social contract that the table agrees upon. In the niche case where a table agrees that PC death doesn't happen or whatever gameply nuances they decide on that they want in their game is the specific set of rules for that individual table. I would also suggest that PC death is on the table by default until a group specifically removes it. Just like Long Rests resetting all HP is a general rule, a table can choose to ignore or alter that as they see fit.
Then why not just lead with what you are attempting to say? That's reasonable and well thought out advice. Also much more palatable.
Yes, each table will have to decide on the nuances that are allowed or taboo at their table. Again, no one is arguing this. What I'm pushing back against is the villification of a DM, any DM, that allows, not forces, an imaginary PC to die during a game of make-believe that involves elves and dragons. No one is suggesting that anyone be made to do anything they aren't comfortable with.
Generally, PC death is a thing, until a table decides to remove it. It's not bad DMing, these things can happen unintentionally. I would suggest that it can be a powerful and emotionally charged event in the game and shouldn't be handled flippantly and without some forethought. It can be very memorable when handled appropriately, but also disastrously damaging if handled with too coarse of an approach.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Well I did. You just did not understand it. Below is my first post in this topic.
I was answering a question you asked in which you said the answer is No as in an absolute every table PC death is ok. I responded with it depends on the players who are playing the game. Seems pretty clear to me.
The only piece of this I have question with is: If it's trivial or maybe really meant to be filler or background noise, why not just narrate the outcome instead? If the encounter is meant to not be a threat, maybe don't let the dice get involved and ask how the players want to handle the situation and what the intended outcome is and just narrate that and move on.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Well, the idea of simply narrating an encounter doesn't appeal to me much from a player perspective, honestly. "You encounter a group of Bandits, who come out onto the road and demand you surrender your goods. What do you do?" Players decide: "We attack!" "Ok, you attack and kill them."
There are dozens of reasons to have a trivial type encounter, from looking to drain a few resources from the group, to giving them a chance to test some new abilities, to simply having SOME direct involvement with the story. This is a situation that can/will arise early in the campaign, I'd guess level 6 and under mostly, where a few crap dice rolls can be a HUGE factor in combat. Post 6, it tends to take a longer string of bad rolling to start putting the encounter into TPK territory. Again it's all personal taste, I just don't have any interest in being part of a campaign, on either side, where the DM isn't in control and that's what a fudged die roll s, the DM taking control. If you prefer to never "cheat" any rolls to either preserve the campaign or enhance the risk of a fight, then it's your call. I simply want to ensure the campaign is interesting, dynamic and enjoyable. Killing the party an hour in doesn't fit any of those criteria.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
For those tables where PC death isn’t OK, how does this manifest in game? Do you just avoid combat entirely, or make it easy to the point of there being no threat at all? Do you start fudging dice like crazy in the PCs favor if the monsters start winning? Do the PCs have plot armor that protects them from any sticky situation?
Personally I would never play or DM a game like that. No thanks!