How tough should a DM be?

[Kichwas]

I'm starting up a new DnD 3.5 game. Character creation this Wednesday.

I've told them I plan to pull no punches, and that they should thus expect casualties and a lot of challenges.

I and some of my players are used to the super's format, where PCs are virtually guaranteed to never die, and almost always win -so this will be a significant change.

But how tough is fair, and how tough is too much?

So far I've taken a page from my last DnD DM, and told them to prep three PCs. If you just run this game by the rules, and play your NPCs as people who care about their own sucess, it seems quite possible for a player to lose a character or more in a single session - as a regular occurance. When I played in that last game, any mistake made on the PCs end could easily prove fatal. I grew to expect this level of challenge, and found that while it was ultra harsh, it was also dead fair.

How do others feel on this? Should a DM ever pull punches, give them slack, or whatever? Should a DM actively gun for the PCs when playing the role of hostile NPCs? Should a DM build challenges that are too big to handle, because in the given location they make sense?

How tough should a DM be?

 

[Rashak Mani]

I think you can be pretty tough without actually becoming a butcher I think. It might be fun for your players to get a bit away from the heroic always win usual fare.

I have an adventure where I openly roll dice... it makes players very nervous. I told them I would do it so that they know that I am not pulling punches. (Not absolutely true... you can always play around the numbers and make some attacks miss or hit). They certainly seemed more cautious about what they were doing after that. Thou they were none to happy about a evil unicorn getting two criticals right away once... but it was all open and incredibly damaging.

I would do this style to all campaigns thou... high mortality can ruin games as much as pulling punches too much.

One issue thou is that you have to be much more careful about Challenge Ratings and balanced encounters. If you throw a too tough encounter and you dont fudge things you can kill them without really giving them a honest chance.

 

[Emiricol]

Openly rolling dice increases the lethality a lot. In recent years, I've gone exclusively to open rolls, at least for combat.

In my campaigns, I make about half of the encounters CR = party average level. I make a few less challenging, I make most of the rest (say, 1/5th) CR = party level +1.

Once per adventure, I aggressively try to kill one PC (either at random, or just make it tough enough one is likely to die). Usually the party comes up with something creative, or gets just plain lucky, and everyone survives. I've killed very few PCs this way, but all the players know it is a real possibility that *this next encounter* is the death encounter, so they treat every encounter like it will be deadly.

Well, except Sunday's game. I have a player who seems outright determined to get himself killed. Next weekend we'll see if he does hehe.

 

[NekoAli]

I would question the wisdom of telling your players to expect casualties. After all, it's not the DM's job to try and kill their players off. And certainly it would be easy enough to do (Okay, you're first level characters gather around the table at the tavern. Outside, you hear a rampaging Beholder heading your way.) I try to play tough but fair games. I don't try to kill players, but I won't coddle them either. If that first level party hears a story about the Beholder in the nearby mountains and decide to go looking for it... well, they've only got themselves to blame, right? As far as running encounters and combats go, I always try to keep in mind the nature of the creature. Some will try to avoid a fight whenever possible, and others will attack with a bezerk fury, never letting up even if it means their own deaths. My advice is to keep things open, keep them fair, don't try to kill your players, but don't let them get away with doing something dumb or deadly just because they're heros.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I and some of my players are used to the super's format, where PCs are virtually guaranteed to never die, and almost always win -so this will be a significant change.

It's hard for some players to come down from that. I first few games of 3E resembled Wuxia films a lot as we had been playing Feng Shui for so log previous. We were describing jumping about and sliding across floors etc.

Flashy heroics in D&D tend to get you killed. It was a hard lesson.

But how tough is fair, and how tough is too much?

I've always found that rolling in the open and "letting the dice fall where they may" is the most eminently "fair" way of doing things. I'm not certian it's the most fun way of doing things though...

How do others feel on this? Should a DM ever pull punches, give them slack, or whatever?

My answer to both of these questions is a qualified "yes". The qualification is "if they deserve it". and by "they" I mean either the players or the characters.

If the characters have got a really good plan together, give them some die bonuses, if the characters have behaved honorably in the past and are fighting an honorable foe, be certain they are treated honorably etc.

If the players are entertaining you and things are rolling nicely, don't screw it up cause you are a "no punches pulled" DM.

If a player just had his dog put down, don't kill his animal companon in game (for awhile).

etc. Ad infinitum.

Should a DM actively gun for the PCs when playing the role of hostile NPCs?

Yes.

Should a DM build challenges that are too big to handle, because in the given location they make sense?

Yes. Personally I think a consistant game world allows the players to make informed choices. guess what? The king of the Land shouldn;t be CR1 just becasue the players are first level (IMO)

How tough should a DM be?

Tough, but fair.

Plus Fun.

 

[Emiricol]

If every combat eats up 20% of their resources (spells, HP, etc), where's the challenge? I believe most players appreciate knowing that some encounters can be deadly unless they do it right (rather than "unless they screw up"), and that some will be pretty easy, but not always knowing which are which.

Anyway a CR = Party Level +3 encounter is usually enough to kill a party member if they just charge in, so that's usually my "death encounter".

On the other side, common mistakes to avoid (imho) include sending enemies that can only be hurt by weapons the party doesn't possess, enemies with save-or-die attacks, I usually avoid enemies that can permanently maim a PC (permanent ability drain for example), and anything that can kill the fighter with only a couple hits or would not have a problem mentally dominating the cleric


EDIT: Also, barring total stupidity, a TPK is to be avoided Sometimes things just don't go right, the party gets bad rolls, or (ahem) the DM overestimates his party's capabilities. In those cases, have some ways to spare the party that aren't too obvious. Having the monster attack different PCs instead of just one is a good way to reduce how lethal that monster is, for example, and the players won't automatically spot that you are having mercy on them. Personally, I dislike killing PCs - I'm just used to my party being able to fend off the BBG. Your party may need some adjustment time, and if so keep the ECL at party level until they figure out that yes, dire tigers HURT you

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

How about I add a player perspective to this?

I don't enjoy high-mortality games at all. My greatest pleasure is roleplaying - not hack-n-slash, and (I'm biased) I automatically place any game/DM with a high mortality rate right into hack-n-slash. There are many people who enjoy that sort of thing, though. I'm just not one of them. Frankly, I personally wouldn't even join a game where the DM told me to prep 3 PCs - there's nothing so disappointing as spending alot of time working out character background, appearance, personality, and then haveing to make a new one the first game session. But, putting that rant aside...

What level are you going for? In most DnD worlds, "death is only a 10 minute break in the action" as I have heard it put, simply because of all the Raise Dead/Resurrection/True Res spells out there... unless, of course, you are low-level (or in a low-magic world).

Also, I do not believe that "dead fair" (as you put it) games need to be high-mortality. One of my past DMs ran without a DM screen - open rolls, the whole bit - and because he gauged the encounters to the PC's level, we really did not have a high mortality rate at all. My current DM (who happens to be my SO, which means I know that I am correct on this, as I see him work on the game, and he bounces ideas off of me) takes alot of time gauging encounters to our PC's abilities. With 3rd edition, this is much easier than previous editions, because of the CR and EL system.

In both games that I mention above, PCs did die - and in each we did encounter NPCs/situations that we just simply were not meant to fight (and in one case did, which resulted in a few PC's deaths), as well as battles with NPCs that we were meant to fight - and lose, but not necissarily die. Story-line battles.

If you want to run an in-your-face, realistic game, then do so by all means - warn your players that you do not pull your punches. If you think that a certain situation calls for a higher CR encounter than the PCs can handle, I don't see any reason not to place it there - but give the PCs an out, another way to deal with the encounter, or simply a way to avoid it. And just perhaps, let them know before they go on a quest with such an encounter along the way that they "think this may be a bit too much for (their} abilities". One of the DMs I had used to make us roll an intellegence test whenever we were about to do something stupid - then give out PCs a prompt just like the one above. If we still wanted to go ahead and do it, that was fine - but we had been warned. This way, you can still have your 'realistic' game, but allow the PCs to keep the characters they've worked so hard on at the same time.

 

[UrathDM]

Comments from a failed DM

Take these with a grain of salt, because I am currently not DM-ing for any group.

Failed DM Credentials
--------------------------------------------
Group 1: Tabletop gaming, 12 years campaign play, no PC has survived to rise higher than 9th level. 8 or so campaigns ultimately ended in TPKs. 1st and 2nd Edition, homebrew world. Style:"What happens, happens. Raise Dead, Resurrection, and such are *very* hard to get -- prepare to sell your souls for 1 use. The villains *will* try to kill you if you get in their way. There *are* places you should avoid until you are higher level; the trails if dead heroes should tip you off."

Group 2: Tabletop gaming, 2 years off-and-on play. 2 Campaigns, 1 ended in TPK and the other "suspended indefinitely". 2nd and 3rd edition, homebrew and "canned modules". Style:"What happens, happens. Raise Dead, Resurrection, and such are *very* hard to get -- prepare to sell your souls for 1 use. The villains *will* try to kill you if you get in their way. There *are* places you should avoid until you are higher level; the trails if dead heroes should tip you off."

Group 3: On-line gaming, 2 years campaign play. 20% of the "story line" accomplished, suspended due to "burn out". 2nd Edition in Cerilia (BirthRight). Style:"What happens, happens. Raise Dead, Resurrection, and such are *very* hard to get -- prepare to sell your souls for 1 use. The villains *will* try to kill you if you get in their way. There *are* places you should avoid until you are higher level; the trails if dead heroes should tip you off."

Comments
----------------------------------------------
Being a "chips fall where they may" DM is incredibly frustrating for the players.

Eventually, chance will favor the bad guys. If chance favors the heroes, the game goes on; if it goes the other way, the campaign could well be over. I long-since started pulling punches (despite my stated 'what happens, happens' philosophy); and even that did not help (see next comment).

In a hard campaign world, the PCs sometimes refuse to leave anyone behind. In that case, a tough encounter that might have killed one PC becomes a TPK.

Even if you *tell* the players that your world has areas that are too tough for them, Players often have a hard time shaking the notion that "[the DM] won't throw anything at us that we can't handle." I lost a party to a TPK for just that reason on the SAME NIGHT I made a point of telling them not to think that way.

"Supers" style has other effects. I abandoned my last campaign with Group 1 because they decided that "D&D should be like comic books... easy on the thinking and full of action." In context, this meant "no puzzles or plot twists.. don't make us think about WHAT to do, just HOW to do it."

Conclusion
---------------------------------------
My point is this... don't dictate the style. Ask your players what style of game they wish to play. If the style they want is not the style you are comfortable running, save your campaign for a group that *does* want that style.

Disclaimer
---------------------------------------
Sometimes even asking is not enough; my last campaign with Group 1, I polled them on style, challenge types, mix of dungeon/wilderness encounters, and more. I got answers. I implemented them. I pulled the plug after about 6 sessions, because the answers I got did not match what the way they were playing, and we were all frustrated. Sometimes, you can't win.

On the other hand, Group 3 members often ask when I am going to DM again. It really does come down to meshing your style with that of the group.

 

[Buttercup]

If I were told to prep three characters for a game because of the expected lethality of the campaign, I certainly wouldn't get very attached to any of them. I don't have nearly enough free time to waste it on fleshing out a character the DM is just going to slaughter. And since I like to care about my characters, I don't think I'd have much fun. YMMV, naturally.

 

[Kichwas]

The second time I ever played DnD was a day or two after getting my copy of the basic set. It was 1982 and I had an elf, and I got on my horse and headed out to module B2.

He died on the way to the dungeon in either a rockslide or from a single orc arrow - can't remember which.

I made a new character and resumed playing later on.

In DnD, if you play fair- you can lose a character at any random moment. Given that the d20 have more influence than any of the modifiers put on it, DnD character die almost as easily as Paranoia characters...

So I've told my players to focus on a DiP style. That is, develop in play. Have a bare sketch when you show up with the character, and develop the depth of personality as the game goes and you see just who this individual is.

I've told them that no matter how much work they put into a character, I refuse to feel guilt over them losing it if the game goes that way. If they expect me to feel that guilt, they need to stay to my Mutants and Masterminds game only...

I feel it's unfair to play DnD, and then not give them what the game seems to be about - challenges and adventures.

When asked by one player exactly how tough I planned to be... I responded that "I'm just going to open the book, read the rules, and apply them. "
And that;
"I'm working under the assumption that DnD characters don't last anyway,
unless a DM cheats in their favor. I want to try and run this one with the
kid gloves off."
Then finally with;
"I don't want low roleplay hack and slash, but I will absolutely not
be -gentle- in the risks I present, and I don't want anyone feeling like the
work they put into a character entitles them to keep that character when it
should be dead."


I'm not talking about player vs. DM here; I'm talking about fairly presenting a world and fairly using the rules presented. Doing just that in DnD will make for a tough game - the rules of DnD are just that harsh. But even still there is a lot of wiggle room via the kinds of challenges and the nature of the world you present. For me, that's where the question can still lie.