Just watched a video over at the SpoonyExperiment (Link is here if you want to see it). To summarize it, it's basically a story that goes like this:
Spoony joins the RPGa and DMs a D&D game for them with a pre-set module approved by the RPGa.
Spoony manages to attract 5 newcomers and gets his brother Miles to sit in as well.
3 of the 6 run broken-as-shit specialty clerics (from what Spoony says in the video, they all just happened to find the specialty clerics interesting and happened to pick the same goddess), the other 3 run a mage, a thief and a fighter respectively.
One encounter during an "escort a prisoner" section has the party making camp so that three first level wizards can jump out of the bushes, call out a challenge and charge the party.
Notes for those who don't know: In "Ye Olde Schoole" D&D, 1st level mages have 1-4 health and all were supposed to have Magic Missile (which does 1d4+1 damage) as their one and only spell. Even at level 1, most clerics, fighters and thieves tend to have enough health that even if the mages focused all on one, they MIGHT bring one of them down. The only one who was truly at risk was the PC mage.
So, Spoony changes the spell loadout. He gives one Sleep (which is an AoE), one Charm Person (one target and the target gets an extra saving throw if they're asked to do something they don't want to), and one Ray of Enfeeblement (saps 1d6 or 1d4 strength, which can even the odds against melee opponents).
IMO, Spoony gave them a much smarter loadout than 3 fucking Magic Missiles and each spell has far better utility considering first level mages blow their one spell and are pretty much useless afterwards. All in all, the mages are far more competent with this loadout as opposed to their original spell selection.
The result?
Four of the PCs end up slumbering (two die due to one of the wizards beating the shit out of them), one ends up charmed (and subsequently knocked out); and the last one, the fighter, ended up enfeebled and struggling, but managing, to kill all three wizards.
Afterward the game wraps up, the RPGa sponsor takes Spoony aside and basically tells him that he can't DM for RPGa anymore because "player characters aren't supposed to die". Mind you, he only tells Spoony this "no death" rule AFTER the fact. This ended up getting Spoony booted from the RPGa.
The reasoning behind the rule? Most of the players don't get to game much, and some get really attached to their characters, so you shouldn't kill their characters.
Let that sink in.
SOME get attached to their characters. So you shouldn't kill ANY player characters.
Now, I could see having the "no death" thing as a rule for first-timers or for really low-level campaigns. Levels 1 to 3, most characters in D&D are pretty fucking squishy, rarely have anything even remotely special and it's so easy for a few bad rolls to end an entire campaign before the first day is through.
First time players are there to get a feel for the game, so having some kid-gloves might be beneficial.
And some of the commenters say that the "No Death" thing isn't important in high level campaigns.
But bottom line, Spoony wanted to give the players a challenge, and the RPGA guy wanted all the players to live through the campaign, but didn't explain himself beforehand or well enough afterwards.
Thus my questions:
Do you think it's right to bar death from an RPG simply to make sure no one who's especially attached to their character feels bad?
Should the DM always fudge it so that the players never die?
Or was/is the RPGa wrong for barring death from a game that has death as one of many things a player has to risk?
And, would you play a game if death was or wasn't a risk?
Spoony joins the RPGa and DMs a D&D game for them with a pre-set module approved by the RPGa.
Spoony manages to attract 5 newcomers and gets his brother Miles to sit in as well.
3 of the 6 run broken-as-shit specialty clerics (from what Spoony says in the video, they all just happened to find the specialty clerics interesting and happened to pick the same goddess), the other 3 run a mage, a thief and a fighter respectively.
One encounter during an "escort a prisoner" section has the party making camp so that three first level wizards can jump out of the bushes, call out a challenge and charge the party.
Notes for those who don't know: In "Ye Olde Schoole" D&D, 1st level mages have 1-4 health and all were supposed to have Magic Missile (which does 1d4+1 damage) as their one and only spell. Even at level 1, most clerics, fighters and thieves tend to have enough health that even if the mages focused all on one, they MIGHT bring one of them down. The only one who was truly at risk was the PC mage.
So, Spoony changes the spell loadout. He gives one Sleep (which is an AoE), one Charm Person (one target and the target gets an extra saving throw if they're asked to do something they don't want to), and one Ray of Enfeeblement (saps 1d6 or 1d4 strength, which can even the odds against melee opponents).
IMO, Spoony gave them a much smarter loadout than 3 fucking Magic Missiles and each spell has far better utility considering first level mages blow their one spell and are pretty much useless afterwards. All in all, the mages are far more competent with this loadout as opposed to their original spell selection.
The result?
Four of the PCs end up slumbering (two die due to one of the wizards beating the shit out of them), one ends up charmed (and subsequently knocked out); and the last one, the fighter, ended up enfeebled and struggling, but managing, to kill all three wizards.
Afterward the game wraps up, the RPGa sponsor takes Spoony aside and basically tells him that he can't DM for RPGa anymore because "player characters aren't supposed to die". Mind you, he only tells Spoony this "no death" rule AFTER the fact. This ended up getting Spoony booted from the RPGa.
The reasoning behind the rule? Most of the players don't get to game much, and some get really attached to their characters, so you shouldn't kill their characters.
Let that sink in.
SOME get attached to their characters. So you shouldn't kill ANY player characters.
Now, I could see having the "no death" thing as a rule for first-timers or for really low-level campaigns. Levels 1 to 3, most characters in D&D are pretty fucking squishy, rarely have anything even remotely special and it's so easy for a few bad rolls to end an entire campaign before the first day is through.
First time players are there to get a feel for the game, so having some kid-gloves might be beneficial.
And some of the commenters say that the "No Death" thing isn't important in high level campaigns.
But bottom line, Spoony wanted to give the players a challenge, and the RPGA guy wanted all the players to live through the campaign, but didn't explain himself beforehand or well enough afterwards.
Thus my questions:
Do you think it's right to bar death from an RPG simply to make sure no one who's especially attached to their character feels bad?
Should the DM always fudge it so that the players never die?
Or was/is the RPGa wrong for barring death from a game that has death as one of many things a player has to risk?
And, would you play a game if death was or wasn't a risk?