Wow. 10 votes, and they all say "Kill PCs". Don't be afraid to kill PCs, but also don't be afraid to let them come back. If they don't have anyone with resurrection magic, give them magic items that can do that (spell scrolls or other consumables).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I rather enjoy knocking my players unconscious. They tend to always have the upper hand on my mobs. So when I get the chance they go down and either get healed or start making death rolls.
I prefer them making death rolls though as it's up to them rolling the dice instead of me just killing them when they are down. It brings a little urgency to the other players and forces then to change their tactics. Everyone has new characters ready just in case things go bad for them. Hehe.
I'd say the goal is to create a campaign where the PCs live or die based on their own actions, rather than the whim of the DM. So both "Kill PCs" and "Don't kill PCs" aren't really getting at the right answer here.
If you create a campaign where no matter what the PCs do, they know the DM isn't going to kill them, that's potentially unfun - players can go off and do LOLRANDOM things, crazy nonsense plans, they realize they can just do whatever and they don't face any consequences. They stop having to solve problems or think about what they're doing, and it's not fun.
But if you just kill the PCs all the time, that's ALSO not fun. If the players follow the clues you put forth, but then don't say "I check for traps" and so rocks fall, they die, that's dumb. Or if the DM just sometimes throws an encounter at them that's way too hard and after they TPK and think about what they could have done differently and come up with "lol, nothing, bad luck I guess", that's no fun.
In either case, once the players believe that their success/failure isn't up to them but up to whether the DM wants them to succeed or fail, that's a bad path.
You instead want to set up a situation where the players know that whether they live or not is up to them (and their dice rolls) - that the DM would follow through and let them die if that happened, but wouldn't deliberately kill them either, and would pretty much set up the world and let them do their thing.
There are many ways to avoid death in 5E. Should you reduce to 0 HP and incapacitate a character? Sure. If they die after that, either you wanted to kill them or no-one in the group took any reasonable action to prevent the characters death. If you one shot Crit or Instant Death kill a player, you probably didn't gauge the Encounter Difficulty very well.
I disagree with that last statement. Bad luck happens. Sometimes a character dies due to a crit.
I was in a party of 6 or 7, 4th level characters in the jungle in ToA and we were attacked by a pair of giant crocs while getting out of our canoes. My character was a 4th level rogue, 12 con, and 25 out of 27 hit points. The croc does 3d10+5 on a bite, a crit does 6d10+5 ... I lost initiative, the croc crit and hit for 51 damage ... this was within 1 point of instantly killing my 4th level character. Crits and bad luck can happen any time and it isn't the DMs fault for using level appropriate opponents.
My character survived, the party got my character back up and we didn't have much trouble with the crocs in the end but it was an example of what can happen even at level 4.
At level 1, it is much worse. A single hit from an orc can take a character below zero hit points and a crit can instantly kill them. Are orcs inappropriate opponents for level 1 characters? Even one orc? One orc is below easy for a party of six first level characters, two orcs is easy ... and yet if they get initiative and the dice go badly you could end up with two characters down or instantly killed in the first round. (This isn't a comment about encounters so much as ... try to get your characters out of level 1 as soon as makes sense narratively :) ) The extra hit points tend to greatly help reduce the chance of bad luck on one dice roll instantly killing characters).
The stat blocks list average damage, again...if you don't want flukey rolls killing your players, don't. If you let a high damage mob hit an injured PC with low AC, that's on you, not bad luck. As you said yourself, pawn the attack off on another PC, maybe one that's at full health with a high AC.
I've had level 1 PCs fight a Dire Wolf and a pack of regular wolves it was leading. It would have instakilled 4 out of 6 of the group on a hit. Guess what, it didn't hit those PCs, regular wolves did. No-one was any the wiser for my NPC mob's target selection. I would think this is standard tactic, bait and switch. If you just go, the Giant's going to throw a rock at the PC that just took a massive hit, you aren't very bright.
If you don't want to harm the PC's and are too afraid to kill them. you shouldn't have used Dire Wolves and orcs to begin with. Once you put them in play...use them properly. In an opening sequence for one campaign I had 1 warg riding goblin boss. with a few goblins in the bushes. Using pack tactics, hide and seek and all that good stuff. The Players had a caravan with a few additional "bodyguards" to aid them and spread the damage out a bit. That is all. Firbolg was low hp, bleeding went invisible, the warg has advantage on scent perception, even with disadvantage on attack it knocked the firbolg out. His team mates managed to hunt down the goblins and came back just in time to chase off the boss. Otherwise the Firbolg would've been dead in his first session. Did i need to kill the firbolg for story reasons? no. Does that matter? no. Would he potentially have died because it was an ambush and the world is a dangerous place and not a kindergarten? yes.
Modern DM's have become so weak in so many ways :S
For me, it's telling a story that has a point to be resolved WAY into the future. One that hopefully is fun for the players. One that doesn't see a character permanently dead in the first adventure due to crappy rolls. They may still die but, I would probably allow a way for them to be saved if they wanted or allow them to bring in a different character if that was more interesting to them.
If you want to play: "It's what the dice would do" Wangrod DM Defense, go ahead.
For me, it's telling a story that has a point to be resolved WAY into the future. One that hopefully is fun for the players. One that doesn't see a character permanently dead in the first adventure due to crappy rolls. They may still die but, I would probably allow a way for them to be saved if they wanted or allow them to bring in a different character if that was more interesting to them.
If you want to play: "It's what the dice would do" Wangrod DM Defense, go ahead.
Then you can also play a storytelling ruleset without using dice at all...
I think the OP isn't asking the right question here, and you really need to roll back and clarify what kind of game you're running. This really comes back to the 'have a session 0' type thing, but if you and your players are wanting to have a game where the emphasis is tactics and strategy, it makes sense that you'd want to be on the same page on how lethal your world is going to be. In the more 'war-game' situation where I know everyone had a backup character I'd have no problem deciding that a player is likely to be killed in an attack, and making that roll (though I'd feel bad if I misjudged the difficulty of the encounter and make it too hard).
If you are in a game where it is more focused on character development and role play, then perhaps discuss with your players how they would feel about the possibility of their characters dying at all. That's more the type of game I'm currently running, and personally I'd really hate to lay down the law that one of the characters meets an untimely demise for the sake of 'realism'. But that's our group.. we have fun building a narrative, and when they've done something reckless, or bad fortune strikes, I try to come up with non-lethal consequences instead. And it goes both ways.. my players have respected my leniency on this fact, yet they behave in a way which I feel is appropriately 'risk adverse' to how their characters would behave.
Ultimately, I don't believe that letting realism get in the way of the story is particularity fun.. and sometimes just having fun can make for a better story than worrying about the realism.
For me, it's telling a story that has a point to be resolved WAY into the future. One that hopefully is fun for the players. One that doesn't see a character permanently dead in the first adventure due to crappy rolls. They may still die but, I would probably allow a way for them to be saved if they wanted or allow them to bring in a different character if that was more interesting to them.
If you want to play: "It's what the dice would do" Wangrod DM Defense, go ahead.
Then you can also play a storytelling ruleset without using dice at all...
I could but, the real point that seems to be lost on most of you is that there should be balance between sandbox freedom, dice roll out comes and storylines.
People go offscript all the time, if I have a fleshed out NPC that is a major part of the story, I let them players know. If they want to kill the obvious quest giver NPC, because...LOLRANDOM, they have been warned. That's not the same as DM(dice as some of you would put it) vs Players. The assumption generally in the favor of the player groups success to navigate from encounter to encounter and storyline to storyline.
I think the OP isn't asking the right question here, and you really need to roll back and clarify what kind of game you're running. This really comes back to the 'have a session 0' type thing, but if you and your players are wanting to have a game where the emphasis is tactics and strategy, it makes sense that you'd want to be on the same page on how lethal your world is going to be. In the more 'war-game' situation where I know everyone had a backup character I'd have no problem deciding that a player is likely to be killed in an attack, and making that roll (though I'd feel bad if I misjudged the difficulty of the encounter and make it too hard).
If you are in a game where it is more focused on character development and role play, then perhaps discuss with your players how they would feel about the possibility of their characters dying at all. That's more the type of game I'm currently running, and personally I'd really hate to lay down the law that one of the characters meets an untimely demise for the sake of 'realism'. But that's our group.. we have fun building a narrative, and when they've done something reckless, or bad fortune strikes, I try to come up with non-lethal consequences instead. And it goes both ways.. my players have respected my leniency on this fact, yet they behave in a way which I feel is appropriately 'risk adverse' to how their characters would behave.
Ultimately, I don't believe that letting realism get in the way of the story is particularity fun.. and sometimes just having fun can make for a better story than worrying about the realism.
Way better put than my feeble attempts.
So, to be clear, the games I play in and DM are the second type listed above. Not power-gaming, war-gaming, hack and slash or backup character scenarios. Not that they can't be fun but, because preference.
For me, it's telling a story that has a point to be resolved WAY into the future. One that hopefully is fun for the players. One that doesn't see a character permanently dead in the first adventure due to crappy rolls. They may still die but, I would probably allow a way for them to be saved if they wanted or allow them to bring in a different character if that was more interesting to them.
If you want to play: "It's what the dice would do" Wangrod DM Defense, go ahead.
None of what you said has anything to do with creating plausible and "realistic" situations where the players and PC's are responsible for their own information gathering and decisions made by that. You can still have a lengthy story with foreshadowing and hooks that aren't resolved till 40+ sessions in the future. It isn't a wangrod defense to let the situations play out as designed. If you don't want that... then don't add elements to the original design. You don't want players to die? then don't use creatures that are not within their range and use little kittens instead of Dire Wolves. As soon as you as DM decide to use certain enemy types and situations, because that would plausible fit with the resources of the bad guy...You as DM either suck at designing proper encounters. Once you put the design in front of the players use those friggin' resources instead of handholding the players through it. Only minor adjustments have to be made on the fly. From what i gather some DM's need to re-do everything on the fly because "my PC's might die wahwahwah" like a little kid. It has nothing to do with running a story sandbox or whatever. Using occasional means, like a deity offering the PC something and sending them back to resume, is ok. Doing it all the god damn time removes all sense of adventure, challenge and meaning.
In short... People in general have grown weak and pathetic in the last 30 or so years. Attachments issues. Not being able to see the larger picture. Always wanting relatively easy solutions. Why not just hand it over on a silver platter and write a book for them instead or start an improv theater group with no combat at all. I get more and more the impression that a lot of people just aren't playing the right game for what they want out of a table top game.
In short... People in general have grown weak and pathetic in the last 30 or so years. Attachments issues. Not being able to see the larger picture. Always wanting relatively easy solutions. Why not just hand it over on a silver platter and write a book for them instead or start an improv theater group with no combat at all. I get more and more the impression that a lot of people just aren't playing the right game for what they want out of a table top game.
A suggestion, invest more into resolving your anger issues and less into realistic D&D.
I read this a few times, and I really don't understand what you're advocating for, Giblix. If you view the role of the DM as the adjudicator of the dice rolls then that's fine for a very rigid type of game, as far as I can tell? Personally, I feel that type of game is best left to playing something like Baldars Gate II where the game engine is perfectly happy to say that one of my characters has died. And then I would reload the previous save, because... that's not fun for me.
Stating that a 'low lethal' game should use kittens instead of dire wolves is reductive, however and I vehemently disagree with you. In the previous example where a druid snuck into an enemy camp and wanted to release some dire wolves on the goblin camp, that sounds like a lot of fun to me! I mean.. sure it was brazen (and foolish), but if the wolves were tame, why were they in a cage? They used a really fun spell 'Speak with Animals' to have an interaction I bet everyone at the table enjoyed.. it sounds like a good session to me.
I'm not critiquing the DM that came up with that scenario at all, but why punish players for coming up with exciting plot and wanting to use their abilities? Lets say the druid did let the wolves out, which instantly turned on the 'off-smelling' disguised goblin? Play out the combat, for sure. They'd get taken down to zero in one round, for sure. But why would you be so binary on killing the player? How about the goblin shaman stabilize the character, and they keep them in the camp as a hostage?
I have not been playing this game for more than a couple years now, but my friends and I enjoy this style of game. To say we're playing a 'weak' version of what you were playing 30 years ago just seems kind of.. ridiculous.
Ok, back on topic and sorry for any personal attacks.
All the ideas I have about running the game in favor of the PCs are not just my way of looking at how to run D&D. There's this guy that some people might have heard of, his name is Matt Colville, he has some videos that many people can relate to and it just so happens he discusses in the video below, every element I have posted here and more. I came to many conclusions on my own but, learned several new things after watching his take on it all.
There are many ways to avoid death in 5E. Should you reduce to 0 HP and incapacitate a character? Sure. If they die after that, either you wanted to kill them or no-one in the group took any reasonable action to prevent the characters death. If you one shot Crit or Instant Death kill a player, you probably didn't gauge the Encounter Difficulty very well.
I disagree with that last statement. Bad luck happens. Sometimes a character dies due to a crit.
I was in a party of 6 or 7, 4th level characters in the jungle in ToA and we were attacked by a pair of giant crocs while getting out of our canoes. My character was a 4th level rogue, 12 con, and 25 out of 27 hit points. The croc does 3d10+5 on a bite, a crit does 6d10+5 ... I lost initiative, the croc crit and hit for 51 damage ... this was within 1 point of instantly killing my 4th level character. Crits and bad luck can happen any time and it isn't the DMs fault for using level appropriate opponents.
My character survived, the party got my character back up and we didn't have much trouble with the crocs in the end but it was an example of what can happen even at level 4.
At level 1, it is much worse. A single hit from an orc can take a character below zero hit points and a crit can instantly kill them. Are orcs inappropriate opponents for level 1 characters? Even one orc? One orc is below easy for a party of six first level characters, two orcs is easy ... and yet if they get initiative and the dice go badly you could end up with two characters down or instantly killed in the first round. (This isn't a comment about encounters so much as ... try to get your characters out of level 1 as soon as makes sense narratively :) ) The extra hit points tend to greatly help reduce the chance of bad luck on one dice roll instantly killing characters).
The stat blocks list average damage, again...if you don't want flukey rolls killing your players, don't. If you let a high damage mob hit an injured PC with low AC, that's on you, not bad luck. As you said yourself, pawn the attack off on another PC, maybe one that's at full health with a high AC.
I've had level 1 PCs fight a Dire Wolf and a pack of regular wolves it was leading. It would have instakilled 4 out of 6 of the group on a hit. Guess what, it didn't hit those PCs, regular wolves did. No-one was any the wiser for my NPC mob's target selection. I would think this is standard tactic, bait and switch. If you just go, the Giant's going to throw a rock at the PC that just took a massive hit, you aren't very bright.
This is called plot armor. Characters can't die. The DM manipulates the situation so that it is exciting and fun and the characters survive. This works fine until it doesn't.
I have played with several folks who love playing chaotic characters with low wisdom, who take risks, who step where they aren't supposed to, say what they shouldn't, trigger risky situations for themselves and the party. They love playing this way and playing this type of character.
The problem? It can wear thin for the other players at the table after a while. The character does not suffer appropriate consequences for their actions, somehow they always survive. When they are at low hit points because they ran in when they should not, the creatures attack someone else since the DM doesn't want to kill the character. However, the character learns that they can take risks and survive, so they take bigger risks. The character (not the player since they are role playing based on the character experiences) takes actions that should have more and more dire consequences putting the rest of the party at risk. Situations develop in which a TPK should be inevitable but the plot armor is then extended to the entire party. The campaign collapses from the unrealistic behaviours of the characters created by a DMing style that encourages risk taking because the DM doesn't impose suitable and reasonable consequences for unreasonable actions.
No a DM doesn't set out to kill characters. It isn't the point. However, the risk is one of the constraints on player and character actions that is factored in to how the character develops within the campaign. Plot armor will kill a campaign over time as much as a TPK will (and I am speaking from personal experience).
As a result, I prefer a balanced approach where "unreasonable" actions usually have character consequences that can become a part of the character development so that the character learns that there are risks worth taking and ones that aren't ... so that when the player says "that is what my character would do" it is based on how the character has been played and their cumulative experiences in the campaign.
P.S. My rogue was much more cautious around the waters of Chult after the near death crocodile experience :) ... it became a factor in their character development.
Sure. Use Plot Armor. Sure. Use Diversive Tactics. Sure. Help them survive. In the end though, if there is no death, there is no risk versus reward. And i don't mean getting knocked down and getting back up again. And I don't mean quickly using Revive either. The consequences that happen after a character is truly killed and lays there on the ground while the rest of the party is helpless to do anything or is so busy in combat they can't or they don't have the diamonds or whatever. When this happens, consequences kick in. Things become real very quickly to the players (hell, I still remember the first time it happened to me in LMoP when we shouldn't have been fighting the young green dragon). Having the players decide if they are going to take their comrade into a large town and talk to the clerics or if they are going to carry on and find a new companion. It can be a tough choice and the dead player shouldn't get a vote in it.
This is one area where I think Matt Mercer brings something special to the game. His resurrections after player deaths are nail biting experiences where the dice do play the strings of the fates. Having the other players offer something to the ritual and if they are able to bring something powerful and meaningful it reduces the final roll DC. With three of them paying attention to their fellow character, the roleplay is typically very high powered and inspirational. On the first death, he would have to roll a 1 for the person not to be resurrected. But consequences matter, and each time the player falls the DC goes up a notch. Sure, this shouldn't be used willy nilly or if you don't have a group of strong roleplayers, but if you do and death is meaningful at your table the stakes are never higher and the palpable feeling of the power of resurrection truly shines.
To me it all boils down to risk versus reward. Are you willing to risk that killing a player leads to a better story with stronger motivations and more meaningful conversations? Then killing players is for your table. I believe that adversity sparks heroism and that the threat of dying needs to be real to the player behind the PC. I also believe that there are tables that there is too much grief from real life to have the players delve into situations that would lead to increased stress in real life where the players behind the PCs are not in a place where they can manage the additional burden and might place them in danger. I also believe in wrapping children's games in plot armor. But for me, as a player and a DM, I know where my choice lies and sometimes the dice decide fate in a manner unexpected and it is up to me to decide how I handle that experience and grow from it.
Sure. Use Plot Armor. Sure. Use Diversive Tactics. Sure. Help them survive. In the end though, if there is no death, there is no risk versus reward. .
I agree with this in principle, but for a light, casual “soda & pretzels” type of game, something like the tragedy of character death might not be what the table wants. That’s what session 0 is for, so that everyone can get on the same page as to what type of game they are playing.
For my group, everyone knows that dying is a possibility. Hell, the first adventure I ran with them was Phandelver, and with first level characters, they all died in the first goblin ambush. Next session we added new characters, and as DM I had the new adventurers pick up where the others had died. Just said that they made it that far, etc. No one had any issues with at all. In fact, we incorporated the deaths of the previous party into the new one at periodic times during the adventure.
I do agree with the session 0 comments; expectations should be discussed, etc. But, from my experience, most players (if not all I have played with) know that there is always a possibility of a character dying. That is part of the fun, the risk. I personally don't go out of my way to kill characters, but certain encounters and situations need to have the element of danger to make it more fun.
Sure. Use Plot Armor. Sure. Use Diversive Tactics. Sure. Help them survive. In the end though, if there is no death, there is no risk versus reward. .
I agree with this in principle, but for a light, casual “soda & pretzels” type of game, something like the tragedy of character death might not be what the table wants. That’s what session 0 is for, so that everyone can get on the same page as to what type of game they are playing.
This.
I feel like most of you are ignoring what I've actually said and tried to turn it into something else. Yes I use plot armor, like average NPC damage, target switching, no Coupe de Grace tactics(not normally anyway) and every once in a while a freebie get out of death card when a PC really didn't know the potential lethality of a situation.
I do not protect them against intentional stupidity, recklessness or those cases where they really want to test their mettle in a situation(punching above their weight class).
That is not the same as "No risk no reward" as it applies to PC death. I don't personally see permanent death of a PC as a useful game mechanic and most players don't care for it either but, if you disagree and want that gritty realism(and constant character creating) during your sessions, that is a reasonable play type as well.
It's pretty obvious that none of you still arguing against my opinions actually watched the video I posted. I hate to lay it out this way but, the guy makes a living in RPG world building so, I kinda feel his outlook carries some weight at the very least. Not only because his ideals and mine align but, because he could look at all your comments and suggestions here and find validity and match them to like minded players with a certain game type preference.
and that's why i left the discussion prior because no one bothered to read what i said and started saying bullshit like anger management, "rigid" games and making shit assumptions. once people pull their heads out of their arses and actually listen would be nice for a change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wow. 10 votes, and they all say "Kill PCs". Don't be afraid to kill PCs, but also don't be afraid to let them come back. If they don't have anyone with resurrection magic, give them magic items that can do that (spell scrolls or other consumables).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I rather enjoy knocking my players unconscious. They tend to always have the upper hand on my mobs. So when I get the chance they go down and either get healed or start making death rolls.
I prefer them making death rolls though as it's up to them rolling the dice instead of me just killing them when they are down. It brings a little urgency to the other players and forces then to change their tactics. Everyone has new characters ready just in case things go bad for them. Hehe.
I'd think about it differently.
I'd say the goal is to create a campaign where the PCs live or die based on their own actions, rather than the whim of the DM. So both "Kill PCs" and "Don't kill PCs" aren't really getting at the right answer here.
If you create a campaign where no matter what the PCs do, they know the DM isn't going to kill them, that's potentially unfun - players can go off and do LOLRANDOM things, crazy nonsense plans, they realize they can just do whatever and they don't face any consequences. They stop having to solve problems or think about what they're doing, and it's not fun.
But if you just kill the PCs all the time, that's ALSO not fun. If the players follow the clues you put forth, but then don't say "I check for traps" and so rocks fall, they die, that's dumb. Or if the DM just sometimes throws an encounter at them that's way too hard and after they TPK and think about what they could have done differently and come up with "lol, nothing, bad luck I guess", that's no fun.
In either case, once the players believe that their success/failure isn't up to them but up to whether the DM wants them to succeed or fail, that's a bad path.
You instead want to set up a situation where the players know that whether they live or not is up to them (and their dice rolls) - that the DM would follow through and let them die if that happened, but wouldn't deliberately kill them either, and would pretty much set up the world and let them do their thing.
The stat blocks list average damage, again...if you don't want flukey rolls killing your players, don't. If you let a high damage mob hit an injured PC with low AC, that's on you, not bad luck. As you said yourself, pawn the attack off on another PC, maybe one that's at full health with a high AC.
I've had level 1 PCs fight a Dire Wolf and a pack of regular wolves it was leading. It would have instakilled 4 out of 6 of the group on a hit. Guess what, it didn't hit those PCs, regular wolves did. No-one was any the wiser for my NPC mob's target selection. I would think this is standard tactic, bait and switch. If you just go, the Giant's going to throw a rock at the PC that just took a massive hit, you aren't very bright.
If you don't want to harm the PC's and are too afraid to kill them. you shouldn't have used Dire Wolves and orcs to begin with. Once you put them in play...use them properly. In an opening sequence for one campaign I had 1 warg riding goblin boss. with a few goblins in the bushes. Using pack tactics, hide and seek and all that good stuff. The Players had a caravan with a few additional "bodyguards" to aid them and spread the damage out a bit. That is all. Firbolg was low hp, bleeding went invisible, the warg has advantage on scent perception, even with disadvantage on attack it knocked the firbolg out. His team mates managed to hunt down the goblins and came back just in time to chase off the boss. Otherwise the Firbolg would've been dead in his first session. Did i need to kill the firbolg for story reasons? no. Does that matter? no. Would he potentially have died because it was an ambush and the world is a dangerous place and not a kindergarten? yes.
Modern DM's have become so weak in so many ways :S
See, there is this thing called: It's a game.
For me, it's telling a story that has a point to be resolved WAY into the future. One that hopefully is fun for the players. One that doesn't see a character permanently dead in the first adventure due to crappy rolls. They may still die but, I would probably allow a way for them to be saved if they wanted or allow them to bring in a different character if that was more interesting to them.
If you want to play: "It's what the dice would do" Wangrod DM Defense, go ahead.
Then you can also play a storytelling ruleset without using dice at all...
I think the OP isn't asking the right question here, and you really need to roll back and clarify what kind of game you're running. This really comes back to the 'have a session 0' type thing, but if you and your players are wanting to have a game where the emphasis is tactics and strategy, it makes sense that you'd want to be on the same page on how lethal your world is going to be. In the more 'war-game' situation where I know everyone had a backup character I'd have no problem deciding that a player is likely to be killed in an attack, and making that roll (though I'd feel bad if I misjudged the difficulty of the encounter and make it too hard).
If you are in a game where it is more focused on character development and role play, then perhaps discuss with your players how they would feel about the possibility of their characters dying at all. That's more the type of game I'm currently running, and personally I'd really hate to lay down the law that one of the characters meets an untimely demise for the sake of 'realism'. But that's our group.. we have fun building a narrative, and when they've done something reckless, or bad fortune strikes, I try to come up with non-lethal consequences instead. And it goes both ways.. my players have respected my leniency on this fact, yet they behave in a way which I feel is appropriately 'risk adverse' to how their characters would behave.
Ultimately, I don't believe that letting realism get in the way of the story is particularity fun.. and sometimes just having fun can make for a better story than worrying about the realism.
I could but, the real point that seems to be lost on most of you is that there should be balance between sandbox freedom, dice roll out comes and storylines.
People go offscript all the time, if I have a fleshed out NPC that is a major part of the story, I let them players know. If they want to kill the obvious quest giver NPC, because...LOLRANDOM, they have been warned. That's not the same as DM(dice as some of you would put it) vs Players. The assumption generally in the favor of the player groups success to navigate from encounter to encounter and storyline to storyline.
Way better put than my feeble attempts.
So, to be clear, the games I play in and DM are the second type listed above. Not power-gaming, war-gaming, hack and slash or backup character scenarios. Not that they can't be fun but, because preference.
None of what you said has anything to do with creating plausible and "realistic" situations where the players and PC's are responsible for their own information gathering and decisions made by that. You can still have a lengthy story with foreshadowing and hooks that aren't resolved till 40+ sessions in the future. It isn't a wangrod defense to let the situations play out as designed. If you don't want that... then don't add elements to the original design. You don't want players to die? then don't use creatures that are not within their range and use little kittens instead of Dire Wolves. As soon as you as DM decide to use certain enemy types and situations, because that would plausible fit with the resources of the bad guy...You as DM either suck at designing proper encounters. Once you put the design in front of the players use those friggin' resources instead of handholding the players through it. Only minor adjustments have to be made on the fly. From what i gather some DM's need to re-do everything on the fly because "my PC's might die wahwahwah" like a little kid. It has nothing to do with running a story sandbox or whatever. Using occasional means, like a deity offering the PC something and sending them back to resume, is ok. Doing it all the god damn time removes all sense of adventure, challenge and meaning.
In short... People in general have grown weak and pathetic in the last 30 or so years. Attachments issues. Not being able to see the larger picture. Always wanting relatively easy solutions. Why not just hand it over on a silver platter and write a book for them instead or start an improv theater group with no combat at all. I get more and more the impression that a lot of people just aren't playing the right game for what they want out of a table top game.
A suggestion, invest more into resolving your anger issues and less into realistic D&D.
I read this a few times, and I really don't understand what you're advocating for, Giblix. If you view the role of the DM as the adjudicator of the dice rolls then that's fine for a very rigid type of game, as far as I can tell? Personally, I feel that type of game is best left to playing something like Baldars Gate II where the game engine is perfectly happy to say that one of my characters has died. And then I would reload the previous save, because... that's not fun for me.
Stating that a 'low lethal' game should use kittens instead of dire wolves is reductive, however and I vehemently disagree with you. In the previous example where a druid snuck into an enemy camp and wanted to release some dire wolves on the goblin camp, that sounds like a lot of fun to me! I mean.. sure it was brazen (and foolish), but if the wolves were tame, why were they in a cage? They used a really fun spell 'Speak with Animals' to have an interaction I bet everyone at the table enjoyed.. it sounds like a good session to me.
I'm not critiquing the DM that came up with that scenario at all, but why punish players for coming up with exciting plot and wanting to use their abilities? Lets say the druid did let the wolves out, which instantly turned on the 'off-smelling' disguised goblin? Play out the combat, for sure. They'd get taken down to zero in one round, for sure. But why would you be so binary on killing the player? How about the goblin shaman stabilize the character, and they keep them in the camp as a hostage?
I have not been playing this game for more than a couple years now, but my friends and I enjoy this style of game. To say we're playing a 'weak' version of what you were playing 30 years ago just seems kind of.. ridiculous.
EDIT: fixing a couple typos.
Ok, back on topic and sorry for any personal attacks.
All the ideas I have about running the game in favor of the PCs are not just my way of looking at how to run D&D. There's this guy that some people might have heard of, his name is Matt Colville, he has some videos that many people can relate to and it just so happens he discusses in the video below, every element I have posted here and more. I came to many conclusions on my own but, learned several new things after watching his take on it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZdS8lP-Sdo
This is called plot armor. Characters can't die. The DM manipulates the situation so that it is exciting and fun and the characters survive. This works fine until it doesn't.
I have played with several folks who love playing chaotic characters with low wisdom, who take risks, who step where they aren't supposed to, say what they shouldn't, trigger risky situations for themselves and the party. They love playing this way and playing this type of character.
The problem? It can wear thin for the other players at the table after a while. The character does not suffer appropriate consequences for their actions, somehow they always survive. When they are at low hit points because they ran in when they should not, the creatures attack someone else since the DM doesn't want to kill the character. However, the character learns that they can take risks and survive, so they take bigger risks. The character (not the player since they are role playing based on the character experiences) takes actions that should have more and more dire consequences putting the rest of the party at risk. Situations develop in which a TPK should be inevitable but the plot armor is then extended to the entire party. The campaign collapses from the unrealistic behaviours of the characters created by a DMing style that encourages risk taking because the DM doesn't impose suitable and reasonable consequences for unreasonable actions.
No a DM doesn't set out to kill characters. It isn't the point. However, the risk is one of the constraints on player and character actions that is factored in to how the character develops within the campaign. Plot armor will kill a campaign over time as much as a TPK will (and I am speaking from personal experience).
As a result, I prefer a balanced approach where "unreasonable" actions usually have character consequences that can become a part of the character development so that the character learns that there are risks worth taking and ones that aren't ... so that when the player says "that is what my character would do" it is based on how the character has been played and their cumulative experiences in the campaign.
P.S. My rogue was much more cautious around the waters of Chult after the near death crocodile experience :) ... it became a factor in their character development.
Sure. Use Plot Armor. Sure. Use Diversive Tactics. Sure. Help them survive. In the end though, if there is no death, there is no risk versus reward. And i don't mean getting knocked down and getting back up again. And I don't mean quickly using Revive either. The consequences that happen after a character is truly killed and lays there on the ground while the rest of the party is helpless to do anything or is so busy in combat they can't or they don't have the diamonds or whatever. When this happens, consequences kick in. Things become real very quickly to the players (hell, I still remember the first time it happened to me in LMoP when we shouldn't have been fighting the young green dragon). Having the players decide if they are going to take their comrade into a large town and talk to the clerics or if they are going to carry on and find a new companion. It can be a tough choice and the dead player shouldn't get a vote in it.
This is one area where I think Matt Mercer brings something special to the game. His resurrections after player deaths are nail biting experiences where the dice do play the strings of the fates. Having the other players offer something to the ritual and if they are able to bring something powerful and meaningful it reduces the final roll DC. With three of them paying attention to their fellow character, the roleplay is typically very high powered and inspirational. On the first death, he would have to roll a 1 for the person not to be resurrected. But consequences matter, and each time the player falls the DC goes up a notch. Sure, this shouldn't be used willy nilly or if you don't have a group of strong roleplayers, but if you do and death is meaningful at your table the stakes are never higher and the palpable feeling of the power of resurrection truly shines.
To me it all boils down to risk versus reward. Are you willing to risk that killing a player leads to a better story with stronger motivations and more meaningful conversations? Then killing players is for your table. I believe that adversity sparks heroism and that the threat of dying needs to be real to the player behind the PC. I also believe that there are tables that there is too much grief from real life to have the players delve into situations that would lead to increased stress in real life where the players behind the PCs are not in a place where they can manage the additional burden and might place them in danger. I also believe in wrapping children's games in plot armor. But for me, as a player and a DM, I know where my choice lies and sometimes the dice decide fate in a manner unexpected and it is up to me to decide how I handle that experience and grow from it.
I agree with this in principle, but for a light, casual “soda & pretzels” type of game, something like the tragedy of character death might not be what the table wants. That’s what session 0 is for, so that everyone can get on the same page as to what type of game they are playing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
For my group, everyone knows that dying is a possibility. Hell, the first adventure I ran with them was Phandelver, and with first level characters, they all died in the first goblin ambush. Next session we added new characters, and as DM I had the new adventurers pick up where the others had died. Just said that they made it that far, etc. No one had any issues with at all. In fact, we incorporated the deaths of the previous party into the new one at periodic times during the adventure.
I do agree with the session 0 comments; expectations should be discussed, etc. But, from my experience, most players (if not all I have played with) know that there is always a possibility of a character dying. That is part of the fun, the risk. I personally don't go out of my way to kill characters, but certain encounters and situations need to have the element of danger to make it more fun.
This.
I feel like most of you are ignoring what I've actually said and tried to turn it into something else. Yes I use plot armor, like average NPC damage, target switching, no Coupe de Grace tactics(not normally anyway) and every once in a while a freebie get out of death card when a PC really didn't know the potential lethality of a situation.
I do not protect them against intentional stupidity, recklessness or those cases where they really want to test their mettle in a situation(punching above their weight class).
That is not the same as "No risk no reward" as it applies to PC death. I don't personally see permanent death of a PC as a useful game mechanic and most players don't care for it either but, if you disagree and want that gritty realism(and constant character creating) during your sessions, that is a reasonable play type as well.
It's pretty obvious that none of you still arguing against my opinions actually watched the video I posted. I hate to lay it out this way but, the guy makes a living in RPG world building so, I kinda feel his outlook carries some weight at the very least. Not only because his ideals and mine align but, because he could look at all your comments and suggestions here and find validity and match them to like minded players with a certain game type preference.
and that's why i left the discussion prior because no one bothered to read what i said and started saying bullshit like anger management, "rigid" games and making shit assumptions. once people pull their heads out of their arses and actually listen would be nice for a change.