CK Protection Plan

[Troll Root]

Why are CK's protecting their players?! True, you're not to be out just to see how fast you can obliterate a party. Or maybe you are. But many I have come across are so coddling and nurturing that the characters could never get a head cold, because they are so well protected.

[kreider204]

I offer my CK protection plan at a very reasonable monthly rate. It's an offer they can't refuse ...

[Arduin]

Why are CK's protecting their players?! True, you're not to be out just to see how fast you can obliterate a party. Or maybe you are. But many I have come across are so coddling and nurturing that the characters could never get a head cold, because they are so well protected.

"New school" video game mentality.

[Go0gleplex]

Now you know why they bring brownies and beer. It's called CK bribery.

[cuchulainkevin]

It mostly depends on the group. If it's new guys, yeah, I'll pull some punches while they learn the ropes. On the otherhand, I've never understood the whole "adverserial dm/ck" thing. It's like some people think it's cool to produce some impossible killing game.

Where's the fun in that?

There's got to be some middle ground between the 3-4e leveled encounter land and Tomb of Horrors/Hostel territory.

[serleran]

Coddle? No.

Test? Yes.

It is too easy as the game master to make the "life" of the player characters unbearable. What is hard to do is to be fair yet challenging.

[MormonYoYoMan]

IF the players or PCs can REALLY entertain me, they have frequently escaped certain doom. ("Certain Doom" is Victor's second cousin twice removed.) Despite a short fuse on a keg of gunpowder, when Waaaugh (a cavalier duck) swung from a chandelier, hurled himself through the air, and attempted to slice the fuse, all while shouting his battle cry of "QUAAAAAAAACK!!!!" -- we were laughing so hard that we HAD to permit him to succeed. Though he did break his leg, and his waddle was never the same again.

[JediOre]

We play the game for enjoyment. If some of my players don't enjoy character death, then we have a slow ease into it such a concept. Of course treasures aren't as cool in such adventures. . . .

[Relaxo]

IF the players or PCs can REALLY entertain me, they have frequently escaped certain doom. ("Certain Doom" is Victor's second cousin twice removed.) ...{snip} we were laughing so hard that we HAD to permit him to succeed.{snip}

The more you post, MYYM, the more I like you!


I think I was maybe guilty of this type of DMing after a while, in one group at least. We had some characters run so long, and we all loved them so much, it was just too hard to let them go. When we took turns DMing, we'd trade and some characters became NPCs and some lived on in other campaigns as NPCs... but also, by the end of high school, we were playing the characters smarter, That's honestly true.

I did have one player complain that I kept trying to kill off his bard though, he got miffed that I used a monster from some supplement called something like a "Liannan Shee" (I think I'm spelling it wrong) and basically it's an undead fey bard hunter. He was like, "I get this bard up to 8th level, he's finally cool and you're like, oh, here's the bard-killing monster out to get you!" he had a hissy fit, it was so worth it. I'm actually laughing out loud (not exaggerating) right now reminiscing.

but to answer your question, I think it's just different now. People are soft and can't handle any perceived failure of any kind, and don't see it as fun if your character gets killed. I guess DCC is the cure for that.

[CKDad]

Hm. We just had a PC die this weekend (to a trap, no less.) And I had a TPK about 18 months ago.

But I don't intentionally set out to kill them. The TPK was a combination of bad decisions and bad luck, to a point where fudging things wasn't going to cut it. (Even then, I gave them a chance for at least some to escape, but it didn't quite work out. Gave them an entertaining end, though.)

If someone's group is having fun with the way they play though, that's their call. I do think the realistic chance of character death ups the stakes for the players; and it means that once in a while, someone's going to be making up a new PC.

It can also help shape the story. The PCs had done a great service for a long-forgotten deity, and prayed for aid. (CK rolls percentiles: a 96!) The godling can't help them directly, but gives them some hints about a way to restore the character, and now they're off to seek the White Order, and to pursue the lore of the Runes...

[moriarty777]

Enjoyment and story are always the most important considerations and I run the game based on this criteria: With high risk comes high reward. I encourage player's who risk their characters to do heroic actions in potentially hazardous situations (beyond the 'norm'). Such moments only improve the nature of the story but even when these attempts fail to succeed, they still add another 'complication' to a situation. Both are good -- even if said complication might be fatal for the character.

That said, character stupidity never ends well and sometimes, the luck of the die works against the players. I have killed my share of heroes which include those of my wife. In the end, it's *how* it's done which matters.

M

[Lord Dynel]

I think the CK/GM/DM sometimes has a story to tell...well, they always have a story to tell. But I mean a big story. And they want to tell it. It's their enjoyment in the game (akin to players playing being their enjoyment). It might be a devious dungeon, filled with puzzles and traps. Or it could be awesome monsters that the CK wants to finally pit against the heroes. Or it could be the continuing adventures of the intrepid party of unlikely antagonists. Whatever the reason, I think sometimes the CK keeps the party alive, or takes it a little easy on them, to keep his enjoyment high as well.

Sometimes, however, this can lead to a sense of immortality within the group. It did with mine. The players mistook me wanting to make the game a campaign, a story for us all to enjoy, for me afraid to kill a player. The first dumb move they made, two players and an animal companion bit the dust. They changed their outlook real quick.

[ArgoForg]

I think a lot of time I tend to lean more toward letting characters snatch victory (even a small one) from the jaws of defeat, if possible. That doesn't mean that they always come out unscathed, or even that they always win, but I like to make it so that if the characters don't do something fundamentally stupid or get in way too far over their heads (so that one bad die roll dooms them), there's a fairly reasonable chance they'll survive... what's the fun otherwise?

Does that mean individual characters can't die/be disabled/poisoned/petrified/have their various bits spread over a four-state radius? Nah. Some of my best memories are of climactic or heroic character deaths. I don't buy the whole "no child left behind" mindset that people have made prevalent with 3.5/PF/4E. It takes fifteen minutes to make a new character, and all the work falls on me to integrate it-- so it's not like if your character dies, you're out of the game indefinitely working up feats and skills and a three-sheet character portfolio from scratch.

But that's me. I'm sure other CK's have other takes.

[MormonYoYoMan]

Instead of "no child left behind," I prefer "no trace of a child left behind." Much neater.

[MormonYoYoMan]

IF the players or PCs can REALLY entertain me, they have frequently escaped certain doom. ("Certain Doom" is Victor's second cousin twice removed.) ...{snip} we were laughing so hard that we HAD to permit him to succeed.{snip}

The more you post, MYYM, the more I like you!

Thanks! You really make a guy feel at home. I've always felt that too many games just didn't have enough Silly Factor (SF) to them. You should see what I do with Scrabble!

[mabon5127]

I think the CK/GM/DM sometimes has a story to tell...well, they always have a story to tell. But I mean a big story. And they want to tell it. It's their enjoyment in the game (akin to players playing being their enjoyment). It might be a devious dungeon, filled with puzzles and traps. Or it could be awesome monsters that the CK wants to finally pit against the heroes. Or it could be the continuing adventures of the intrepid party of unlikely antagonists. Whatever the reason, I think sometimes the CK keeps the party alive, or takes it a little easy on them, to keep his enjoyment high as well.

Sometimes, however, this can lead to a sense of immortality within the group. It did with mine. The players mistook me wanting to make the game a campaign, a story for us all to enjoy, for me afraid to kill a player. The first dumb move they made, two players and an animal companion bit the dust. They changed their outlook real quick.

I enjoy keeping the characters alive and have often softened a roll to let one live. I often cheer right with the players when they succeed by the skin of their teeth or appear thoroughly disgusted as they defeat my finest villain while inside enjoying their success.

That's not to say that there have not been character deaths. The Player often chooses the time and place of their own demise. They want to die heroically or simply do something they know to be suicidal or at best stupid dangerous for role-playing reasons.

Killing in my opinion is one of the least imaginative ways of scaring, punishing, or testing players and their characters.

Morgan

[Breakdaddy]

I know several guys (including Troll Root) who don't have this problem

That dude has killed off at least two of my PCs in previous games!

[dumoktheartist]

The role of the DM/CK/GM IMO is that of adversary. It's your job to make the game challenging or else it isn't fun.
As a player of over 25 years, I occasionally find "Killer" DM's to be a blast, especially if they take great Glee in trying to kill you without using "DM's Fiat" but rather because of your own stupidity.

[CKDad]

Killing in my opinion is one of the least imaginative ways of scaring, punishing, or testing players and their characters.

Morgan

Damn straight! That's what the Rust Monster is for.

[redwullf]

Why are CK's protecting their players?! True, you're not to be out just to see how fast you can obliterate a party. Or maybe you are. But many I have come across are so coddling and nurturing that the characters could never get a head cold, because they are so well protected.

My Rule 0 is "Have fun." Everyone that gathers around my table each Friday is there to have a good time. Part of the enjoyment is watching their characters grow and develop from simple commoners and apprentices into great heroes.

To support this element, in the spirit of fun, I do go to lengths to ensure most encounters are balanced (or achievable), but I try to keep them at the threshold of "challenging" most of the time. On occasion, bad decisions and/or bad die rolls will lead to a PCs death, but this is not common. Usually, when a PC dies in my game, the player knows what they could have done to prevent it.

At any rate, I don't subscribe to the PC Killer method of game mastering. I don't even subscribe to the "impartial referee" method. I'm there to ensure my players are having a good time, and help guide them to that goal. Though I'm there to challenge them and help spin the story, I *am* on their side, not against them and not indiffierent.

End of the day, what does it matter? What's the difference between "coddling" your players or executing their PCs left and right? There are no real "rules" about how a game should be run, in this perspective. All that matters is if everyone is having a good time. If not, what's the point of playing?

[mabon5127]

Why are CK's protecting their players?! True, you're not to be out just to see how fast you can obliterate a party. Or maybe you are. But many I have come across are so coddling and nurturing that the characters could never get a head cold, because they are so well protected.

My Rule 0 is "Have fun." Everyone that gathers around my table each Friday is there to have a good time. Part of the enjoyment is watching their characters grow and develop from simple commoners and apprentices into great heroes.

To support this element, in the spirit of fun, I do go to lengths to ensure most encounters are balanced (or achievable), but I try to keep them at the threshold of "challenging" most of the time. On occasion, bad decisions and/or bad die rolls will lead to a PCs death, but this is not common. Usually, when a PC dies in my game, the player knows what they could have done to prevent it.

At any rate, I don't subscribe to the PC Killer method of game mastering. I don't even subscribe to the "impartial referee" method. I'm there to ensure my players are having a good time, and help guide them to that goal. Though I'm there to challenge them and help spin the story, I *am* on their side, not against them and not indiffierent.

End of the day, what does it matter? What's the difference between "coddling" your players or executing their PCs left and right? There are no real "rules" about how a game should be run, in this perspective. All that matters is if everyone is having a good time. If not, what's the point of playing?

You expressed this far better than I have or could. Well said.

Morgan

[Arduin]

Usually, when a PC dies in my game, the player knows what they could have done to prevent it.

I think this is the most important part of your post. I player, usually, shouldn't feel like his character died at "random". But, from some player preventable incident.