My character died am I wrong to be frustrated?

[MThurston]

Let me give some insight to my way of DMing.

Harn Master 3. Very Game of Thrones feel to the game.

Player 1: I yell the Duke to go **** himself.

Me: The Duke motions for his men to arrest Player 1.

Player 1: Are you guys going to help me?

Other players: Nope!

Player 1 is arrested and put in the stocks for a week. The party leaves him and comes back in a week.

He could have been put to death but I was nice.

I would never kill a character in D&D by hitting them while they are down.

Would piss everyone off at the table.

The only time I would do this is If it was a fight to the death in a challenge and only if the opponant was evil.

[terodil]

Don't let this guy be your DM. He does not get it.

Seriously?

*sigh*

[Unoriginal]

Let me give some insight to my way of DMing.

Harn Master 3. Very Game of Thrones feel to the game.

Player 1: I yell the Duke to go **** himself.

Me: The Duke motions for his men to arrest Player 1.

Player 1: Are you guys going to help me?

Other players: Nope!

Player 1 is arrested and put in the stocks for a week. The party leaves him and comes back in a week.

He could have been put to death but I was nice.

If you were actually going for a GoT feel, the character would have had to be put to death for insulting the duke, otherwise the duke would have lost all credibility as a ruler and arbiter of the legal system.

Arguably an heavy public punishment could have been substituted for death, but a week of stocks is almost trivial in comparison.

I would never kill a character in D&D by hitting them while they are down.

Would piss everyone off at the table.

The only time I would do this is If it was a fight to the death in a challenge and only if the opponant was evil.

... so you're literally saying that your bad guys will never kill the characters? Evil knights who had their allies killed and their plan foiled, demons, necromancers, giants in berserk rage, none of them will put an end to the characters if given a chance?

[MThurston]

If you were actually going for a GoT feel, the character would have had to be put to death for insulting the duke, otherwise the duke would have lost all credibility as a ruler and arbiter of the legal system.

Arguably an heavy public punishment could have been substituted for death, but a week of stocks is almost trivial in comparison.




... so you're literally saying that your bad guys will never kill the characters? Evil knights who had their allies killed and their plan foiled, demons, necromancers, giants in berserk rage, none of them will put an end to the characters if given a chance?

Did not say that. The end game is the end game.

This slaves group was not the end game. And if they are slavers they wouldn't kill people, they would make them slaves.

[MThurston]

If you were actually going for a GoT feel, the character would have had to be put to death for insulting the duke, otherwise the duke would have lost all credibility as a ruler and arbiter of the legal system.

Arguably an heavy public punishment could have been substituted for death, but a week of stocks is almost trivial in comparison.




... so you're literally saying that your bad guys will never kill the characters? Evil knights who had their allies killed and their plan foiled, demons, necromancers, giants in berserk rage, none of them will put an end to the characters if given a chance?

Dont like killing off people who play the game for the first time. If he would have done it again, then he would have been killed.

Being in the stocks getting rotten food thrown at you and beaten up by the guards, did it's job.

[Pelle]

I would never kill a character in D&D by hitting them while they are down.
[...]
The only time I would do this is If it was a fight to the death in a challenge and only if the opponant was evil.

Isn't this a little hypocritical? If it is well established that the Mad Duke burns anyone alive who insults him in person, the player makes an informed choice to risk that. I wouldn't have trouble with killing the character in such a situation. But this requires having players who also want a game with stakes and meaingful consequences. If the character gets away too easily, the game becomes boring to me, but it's ok that some people wants a more 'fun' game.

In the OP, the player isn't wrong to act suicidally according to the backstory, but it's a little stupid if the player didn't want to risk the characters' life. Complain about being put in an unfun no-win situation, not for being killed.

[MThurston]

Isn't this a little hypocritical? If it is well established that the Mad Duke burns anyone alive who insults him in person, the player makes an informed choice to risk that. I wouldn't have trouble with killing the character in such a situation. But this requires having players who also want a game with stakes and meaingful consequences. If the character gets away too easily, the game becomes boring to me, but it's ok that some people wants a more 'fun' game.

In the OP, the player isn't wrong to act suicidally according to the backstory, but it's a little stupid if the player didn't want to risk the characters' life. Complain about being put in an unfun no-win situation, not for being killed.

I'll even give more to my view. His character was put to 0 HPs and then rolled a 2 and then rolled a 1 for a death save. His character is dead.

I have no issue with this. He started the fight.

Having the bad guy attack him to make him dead is another thing. Silly.

[Keravath]

Plot hooks are an invitation to engage, not to fly off the handle. Again, engage within reason. If a player throws all reason out of the window because 'it says so on my character sheet', then that's the point where things have already gone wrong. An experienced and confident DM could and would have salvaged the situation but let's not forget it was the player first who 'had issues', the DM second, although I don't really see much point in playing the blame game here. Regrettable errors were made on all sides that lead to the implosion of a potentially great campaign.

Also, just for the sake of preventing unfortunate incidents in the future, it's a completely unwarranted assumption that slavers would never employ deadly force, especially when attacked.

@Galithar: I believe we are in agreement with only semantic issues slightly muddying the waters ('wrong', 'player vs. PC'). I agree with how that tasty crunchy leg was handled. Then again, having a fluffy wolf carry a treat around is slightly different from trying to axe a slaver in the face, right? ;)

A lot of your assumption about "reasonable" action depends on exactly what was known by the character at the time.

1) If the DM had told them that a fight was clearly unwinnable then the player might have reconsidered what was the best course of action. From what I can tell this didn't happen.

2) The situation as has been described in this thread: the party is brought to the cabin of the captain of the ship occupied by at least the captain, the slaver, some sort of support spell caster and maybe a minion or two. The party is apparently confronted with the fact that these are slavers and then they try to force the party to join ... (plot point doesn't make any sense to me but whatever ... the PCs had only booked passage on the ship).

3) One of the other PCs outright refuses to join and a caster (which are rare AND outlawed ... none of the PCs are casters) .. casts blindness on the party member. Presumably this is prelude to an attack? Maybe the PCs are killed and their bodies dumped overboard or enslaved?

4) Ok. You are in a tense stand off in the captains office on a slaver ship where your party has just been attacked. They appear to be trying to force you to join or at least do something you don't agree with. Do you just give up? Ok slap us in irons and turn us into slaves? One of the PCs has already said no to their proposal and been blinded. I don't know any D&D character who won't at least go down fighting.

5) Enter the OP of the thread. His character is a barbarian who hates slavery. The slaver has imprisoned dwarfs, from the sounds of it from the PCs tribe. My guess is that the DMs plot line was that the PCs were supposed to join the slavers, infiltrate and then free the slaves. The plot line may have been designed specifically for the barbarian PC. The problem is that with the actions taken by the NPCs in initiating combat when one of the other PCs said no ... it precipitated a combat that the DM didn't want in the first place.

6) Barbarian is faced with the following situation ... slaver has barbarian slaves (in a collar around his neck .. right there). Combat has already been initiated by the NPCs. It seems unlikely that the players can simply change their mind and say ... "ok we will be good little slavers hehe" ... the whole join and infiltrate plot line was blown when one of the other PCs said no and the DM tried to force it. What is the likely next action of the pirates? PC is likely to think that they will either continue combat, subdue the party and sell them as slaves, or kill them, take their stuff and dump the bodies overboard. In ANY of these scenarios ... I don't know a single D&D player who is not likely to attack. (It would take a huge leap and suspension of disbelief to get this plot back on track and away from combat after the DM escalated in an attempt to force the players into his plot line).

7) Barbarian attacks (not unreasonable given the PC background and the combat that has been forced by the DM actions with the NPCs)... combat ensues. Opponent is probably too tough though somehow everyone except the barbarian escapes.

8) DM is pissed off because the plot line he had decided was going to happen ... didn't ... and decides to take out that anger on the barbarian who attacked AFTER the DM initiated combat with the blindness spell. The NPC slaver captain focuses on the barbarian until they are dead ... DM doesn't even understand the rules on taking damage after hitting 0 hit points so he creates a pet ferret that adds insult to injury and deals the death blow. Bandit Captain's don't typically come with death ferrets. The pet action was just vindictive. Finishing off the PC in this circumstance (1st level, good slave possibility, no healing on the PC side) was also just vindictive and possibly out of character for the NPC especially after the pirates had initiated combat.

9) The comment out of game when the OP approached the DM about retconning it a bit and saying that the pirate was going to parade the head around town? Pure vindictiveness ... nothing else since it is completely out of character and a meaningless action. In fact, why would a covert pirate bring attention to himself by parading the head of a first level newb around town ... they aren't even famous.

Anyway ... my take ... the DM totally screwed up his planned story line and then blamed the player for the events that were precipitated by the NPC actions in the first place. He then took out his anger and irritation on the PC by having the NPC kill off the character. The DM basically broke the trust that needs to exist between the DM and the players ... the DM got personally hooked on his planned storyline and didn't just adjudicate the results of the interactions with between the NPCs and the PCs.

Personally, I wouldn't play at that DMs table assuming that my interpretation of the information in the thread is remotely correct.

[MThurston]

A lot of your assumption about "reasonable" action depends on exactly what was known by the character at the time.

1) If the DM had told them that a fight was clearly unwinnable then the player might have reconsidered what was the best course of action. From what I can tell this didn't happen.

2) The situation as has been described in this thread: the party is brought to the cabin of the captain of the ship occupied by at least the captain, the slaver, some sort of support spell caster and maybe a minion or two. The party is apparently confronted with the fact that these are slavers and then they try to force the party to join ... (plot point doesn't make any sense to me but whatever ... the PCs had only booked passage on the ship).

3) One of the other PCs outright refuses to join and a caster (which are rare AND outlawed ... none of the PCs are casters) .. casts blindness on the party member. Presumably this is prelude to an attack? Maybe the PCs are killed and their bodies dumped overboard or enslaved?

4) Ok. You are in a tense stand off in the captains office on a slaver ship where your party has just been attacked. They appear to be trying to force you to join or at least do something you don't agree with. Do you just give up? Ok slap us in irons and turn us into slaves? One of the PCs has already said no to their proposal and been blinded. I don't know any D&D character who won't at least go down fighting.

5) Enter the OP of the thread. His character is a barbarian who hates slavery. The slaver has imprisoned dwarfs, from the sounds of it from the PCs tribe. My guess is that the DMs plot line was that the PCs were supposed to join the slavers, infiltrate and then free the slaves. The plot line may have been designed specifically for the barbarian PC. The problem is that with the actions taken by the NPCs in initiating combat when one of the other PCs said no ... it precipitated a combat that the DM didn't want in the first place.

6) Barbarian is faced with the following situation ... slaver has barbarian slaves (in a collar around his neck .. right there). Combat has already been initiated by the NPCs. It seems unlikely that the players can simply change their mind and say ... "ok we will be good little slavers hehe" ... the whole join and infiltrate plot line was blown when one of the other PCs said no and the DM tried to force it. What is the likely next action of the pirates? PC is likely to think that they will either continue combat, subdue the party and sell them as slaves, or kill them, take their stuff and dump the bodies overboard. In ANY of these scenarios ... I don't know a single D&D player who is not likely to attack. (It would take a huge leap and suspension of disbelief to get this plot back on track and away from combat after the DM escalated in an attempt to force the players into his plot line).

7) Barbarian attacks (not unreasonable given the PC background and the combat that has been forced by the DM actions with the NPCs)... combat ensues. Opponent is probably too tough though somehow everyone except the barbarian escapes.

8) DM is pissed off because the plot line he had decided was going to happen ... didn't ... and decides to take out that anger on the barbarian who attacked AFTER the DM initiated combat with the blindness spell. The NPC slaver captain focuses on the barbarian until they are dead ... DM doesn't even understand the rules on taking damage after hitting 0 hit points so he creates a pet ferret that adds insult to injury and deals the death blow. Bandit Captain's don't typically come with death ferrets. The pet action was just vindictive. Finishing off the PC in this circumstance (1st level, good slave possibility, no healing on the PC side) was also just vindictive and possibly out of character for the NPC especially after the pirates had initiated combat.

9) The comment out of game when the OP approached the DM about retconning it a bit and saying that the pirate was going to parade the head around town? Pure vindictiveness ... nothing else since it is completely out of character and a meaningless action. In fact, why would a covert pirate bring attention to himself by parading the head of a first level newb around town ... they aren't even famous.

Anyway ... my take ... the DM totally screwed up his planned story line and then blamed the player for the events that were precipitated by the NPC actions in the first place. He then took out his anger and irritation on the PC by having the NPC kill off the character. The DM basically broke the trust that needs to exist between the DM and the players ... the DM got personally hooked on his planned storyline and didn't just adjudicate the results of the interactions with between the NPCs and the PCs.

Personally, I wouldn't play at that DMs table assuming that my interpretation of the information in the thread is remotely correct.

A DM knowingly killed a character.

I could care less why he did it.

I would never play at their table again.

[terodil]

A lot of your assumption about "reasonable" action depends on exactly what was known by the character at the time.

I agree with this and everything else you wrote after that (so I'm not sure why you quoted my post in its entirety). Your analysis is spot-on, though I personally still believe that there's more going on outside of what's happening at the table: even with everything you said, the vindictiveness apparent in some details (i.e. death-by-ferret, parading the head around town) cannot, imo, be sufficiently explained by what we currently know.

A DM knowingly killed a character. I could care less why he did it.

I had decided not to engage with you any further after you aborted any semblance of discussion we had in order to peddle petty insults instead, but nevertheless I am grateful for you to have poured your contentious view into such an extreme statement (assuming that by 'I could care less', you mean that you couldn't care less). A player who does not accept the possibility of his/her character dying under any circumstances, if only those bordering on inevitability borne from intentional or extremely reckless behaviour, would not be welcome at my table. In this, I guess, we agree.

[MThurston]

[QUOTE=terodil;23456416]I agree with this and everything else you wrote after that (so I'm not sure why you quoted my post in its entirety). Your analysis is spot-on, though I personally still believe that there's more going on outside of what's happening at the table: even with everything you said, the vindictiveness apparent in some details (i.e. death-by-ferret, parading the head around town) cannot, imo, be sufficiently explained by what we currently know.



I had decided not to engage with you any further after you aborted any semblance of discussion we had in order to peddle petty insults instead, but nevertheless I am grateful for you to have poured your contentious view into such an extreme statement (assuming that by 'I could care less', you mean that you couldn't care less). A player who does not accept the possibility of his/her character dying under any circumstances, if only those bordering on inevitability borne from intentional or extremely reckless behaviour, would not be welcome at my table. In this, I guess, we agree.[/QUOTEe]

I love debating elitest!

So you think it is perfectly acceptable for a DM to attack downed PCs every chance they get?

Or is there a gentlemen's agreement that one should refrain from such action?

It is a silly DM that would attack a PC this way. For some reason the DM was mad at this player and wanted to make a statement.

I wouldn't play with a DM that does this type of thing and the poster has every right to be upset with the DMs actions.

Telling me the PC brought it on himself isn't a good response. Telling me that you reap what you sow is also not a good responce.

The PC failing their Death Saves is one thing. Attacking a downed player while other targets are up is simply being a bad DM.

[CantigThimble]

As a DM I have killed a character who was down once. The party was in a fight with a large group of elven guards. The fighter went down and the guards shifted focus to the other PCs. The bard cast healing word and the fighter got back up, and proceeded to decapitate the captain of the guards before they brought him down again. When he went down the second time they didn't stop stabbing.

That honestly got me to reconsider my views on whether people actually should move focus away from downed enemies if magic is in play. Historically, a downed enemy was no longer a threat, even if he was still alive he was too badly injured to really be a threat. In D&D a downed enemy can be just as much of a danger to your life as he was before he went down in a moment's notice if there's a spellcaster anywhere within 30 feet. If healing magic is at all common, coup de grace-ing is just good tactics.

[Snowbluff]

I think the party helped him. It's just that the lead NPC focused on taking down the barbarian first - which is actually good tactics.

This is very bad tactics. Unless you're totally unconscious, HP damage doesn't matter. Barbarians are the most resilient to HP damage, ergo targeting them is a waste of time and you're better off killing the wizards, monks, sorcerers, and rogues of the party.

[terodil]

I love debating elitest!

Huh?

So you think it is perfectly acceptable for a DM to attack downed PCs every chance they get?

Your strawman is shedding all over the floor, has pigeons nesting in its hat and a fire starting at its feet.

Good day, sir/madam.

[GloatingSwine]

Plot hooks are an invitation to engage, not to fly off the handle. Again, engage within reason. If a player throws all reason out of the window because 'it says so on my character sheet', then that's the point where things have already gone wrong.

The player is playing a barbarian, a class so dedicated to throwing reason out the window and flying off the handle that it is their defining class feature, and you put a situation in front of them with a clear antagonist based on a firmly held goal in their backstory.

What do you think is going to be the outcome of that situation.

A good GM has sound expectations about what players are going to do in a given situation, and if you put this situation in front of players who have chosen this as part of their background, the only expectation is "a fight happens"..

[MThurston]

Huh?


Your strawman is shedding all over the floor, has pigeons nesting in its hat and a fire starting at its feet.

Good day, sir/madam.

No straw man. Just not going to play with a DM that gets mad and wants to end characters for it.

[MThurston]

The player is playing a barbarian, a class so dedicated to throwing reason out the window and flying off the handle that it is their defining class feature, and you put a situation in front of them with a clear antagonist based on a firmly held goal in their backstory.

What do you think is going to be the outcome of that situation.

A good GM has sound expectations about what players are going to do in a given situation, and if you put this situation in front of players who have chosen this as part of their background, the only expectation is "a fight happens"..

100% agree

[Unoriginal]

So you think it is perfectly acceptable for a DM to attack downed PCs every chance they get?

Or is there a gentlemen's agreement that one should refrain from such action?

The *DM* isn't attacking anyone. The NPCs are.

If you can't accept that some NPCs are terrible people or just want to make sure you're dead, then you're just playing in a world where everyone agreed to not be too naughty while fighting.

Some NPCs won't attack downed PCs. Others would.

What do you think is going to be the outcome of that situation.

What did the player thing would be the outcome of that situation?

[MaxWilson]

I would never kill a character in D&D by hitting them while they are down.

...The only time I would do this is If it was a fight to the death in a challenge and only if the opponant was evil.

Remark:

If killing is reserved for evil creatures at your table, there are interesting consequences. Either:

(1) the PCs are evil; or

(2) the players leave lots of unconscious-but-not-dead foes behind them, to potentially become grudging allies some day or recurring nemeses. In this variant there is more reason for PCs to eschew spells and ranged attacks, because only melee attacks can be nonlethal.

If your campaign is #2, that sounds interesting. I wouldn't want to run that kind of game every time but it has some interesting upsides.

[GloatingSwine]

What did the player thing would be the outcome of that situation?

It's fairly clear what the player thought. "We are being put in a position where we are intended to have a fight". Because that's what a player is going to think when presented with that situation.

And if the GM intends the players to have a fight it's reasonable that he expects them to survive it unless things go horribly sideways in the hands of RNGesus.

This GM is, it sounds, not particularly reasonable.


As for NPC coups de grace, it should be somewhat reserved. NPCs are not player characters, they shouldn't be played like player characters, they're there to be part of the players' story.

An NPC going for a coup de grace on a PC should be a rare and special event, something they'll only do if they have a really compelling reason to do it that has come from their interactions with that PC.

[ruy343]

As a DM I have killed a character who was down once. The party was in a fight with a large group of elven guards. The fighter went down and the guards shifted focus to the other PCs. The bard cast healing word and the fighter got back up, and proceeded to decapitate the captain of the guards before they brought him down again. When he went down the second time they didn't stop stabbing.

That honestly got me to reconsider my views on whether people actually should move focus away from downed enemies if magic is in play. Historically, a downed enemy was no longer a threat, even if he was still alive he was too badly injured to really be a threat. In D&D a downed enemy can be just as much of a danger to your life as he was before he went down in a moment's notice if there's a spellcaster anywhere within 30 feet. If healing magic is at all common, coup de grace-ing is just good tactics.

I feel that this comment provided a useful perspective that should be followed up on. I personally hadn't considered what the NPCs would think about the existence of the Healing Word spell, but now that I have, I would also think that some would aim to kill if it became evident that their opponents had access to such magic.

That may not be what happened in this case, but it made me reconsider how I approach my games...

[Cynthaer]

It's fairly clear what the player thought. "We are being put in a position where we are intended to have a fight". Because that's what a player is going to think when presented with that situation.

And if the GM intends the players to have a fight it's reasonable that he expects them to survive it unless things go horribly sideways in the hands of RNGesus.

This GM is, it sounds, not particularly reasonable.

As for NPC coups de grace, it should be somewhat reserved. NPCs are not player characters, they shouldn't be played like player characters, they're there to be part of the players' story.

An NPC going for a coup de grace on a PC should be a rare and special event, something they'll only do if they have a really compelling reason to do it that has come from their interactions with that PC.

One other thing I'd add is that even if you're running a 100% combat-as-war sort of campaign — a fact that you should make very clear to your players, by the way — playing enemies with optimal deadly tactics is wildly inappropriate for level 1 PCs, who are notorious for being very easy to kill even accidentally.

If you're going to play a game where enemies specifically try to kill the players and the DM shows no mercy, I can't imagine starting it at anything less than level 3. Saying that low-level characters should know they're weak and behave appropriately is reasonable up to a point, but level 1 characters are so disproportionately killable that it's just bad gameplay to go full force against them.

[MThurston]

A DM needs players. Taking away death savas to kill characters should be done sparingly.

The outcome of repeatedly doing the above will make players not want to play your game.

Role-playing is a pastime to have fun. Not to be worried that the DM is going to kill off your characters at any given time.

There is a game for this kind of DM and that game is Paranoia.

[mephnick]

Role-playing is a pastime to have fun.

Not to be worried that the DM is going to kill off your characters at any given time.

Some of us played at a time where that was considered part of the "fun".

I should probably delete my X-COM saves now that I know getting killed isn't fun.

[Cynthaer]

Some of us played at a time where that was considered part of the "fun".

I should probably delete my X-COM saves now that I know getting killed isn't fun.

I think that's a bit unfair; MThurston did say that there are games (like Paranoia) where that is part of the fun.

Anyway, it's come up around here before, but character death in early D&D editions (or XCOM) is simply very different from character death in 5e.

In early D&D (at least according to the fond reminiscences people write), it was expected that characters would die quickly and often. People talk about coming to the table with 20 character sheets pre-rolled and ready to go. Nobody bothered writing a detailed backstory or characterization in advance for such fragile game pieces; it was only after they had survived long enough to be worth noting that they would warrant such luxuries.

Modern D&D is built on the base assumption that you will create an actual character even at level 1, complete with personality, ideals, flaws, bonds, and background—and that this character will survive through the end of the campaign (even if they may change greatly along the way). That doesn't mean the game assumes death is impossible, but it does assume death is a very unusual and unexpected occurrence, and represents a major change for the story and the players.

Can you play 5e as a meat grinder? Sure, and there are a few modules that are notable for being extremely deadly. But that's an exception, and players correctly expect a more standard approach unless told otherwise.

EDIT: To put it another way, it's not a matter of early D&D being a different time so much as a different game. We could sit down and play some 1e or whatever right now, and burning through characters would be just as much fun as it was a few decades ago. Conversely, you could play 5e in the 80's and it still wouldn't support that kind of gameplay by default.

[Erloas]

I don't think PC death should be out of the question, but it shouldn't be a goal of the DM/NPCs unless it was decided up front in a session 0 sort of thing.

It would have been different if the weasel had been an active combatant up to that point and had a specific reason to, but this was clearly a "I wiffed the NPCs last attacks, what else can I do?" sort of thing.
Even in a grim-dark setting, killing one player well before the other party members are taken care of isn't a sound tactic, especially since the NPC/PCs should know that magic is very limited, so he isn't likely to get healed.
Making sure one character is completely dead and then letting the rest of the party escape is nothing but vindictive DMing.

[Finback]

Some of us played at a time where that was considered part of the "fun".

I should probably delete my X-COM saves now that I know getting killed isn't fun.

That... doesn't follow, logically. If you have saves, that implies you were afraid of a game-state where you lost, and you wanted to pick up where you were up to. D&D, where people can invest a lot of emotional energy into their players, doesn't have save states. X-Com DOES. Unless you're saying you play X-Com from the start every time, because losing is a valid option. If you ever lost a battle in X-Com, then reloaded, then you did the exact OPPOSITE of what you're espousing.

[Galithar]

That... doesn't follow, logically. If you have saves, that implies you were afraid of a game-state where you lost, and you wanted to pick up where you were up to. D&D, where people can invest a lot of emotional energy into their players, doesn't have save states. X-Com DOES. Unless you're saying you play X-Com from the start every time, because losing is a valid option. If you ever lost a battle in X-Com, then reloaded, then you did the exact OPPOSITE of what you're espousing.

Xcom is often played Iron Man mode. Which operates like D&D. You can walk away and load the game up later, aka come back for next week's session, but all decisions are final (constant overwriting auto save)

[MaxWilson]

That... doesn't follow, logically. If you have saves, that implies you were afraid of a game-state where you lost, and you wanted to pick up where you were up to.

Or just that you don't have the time to play through the whole game in one sitting, or that you want to guard against computer accidents.

I mean, people save regularly when they're writing a paper, but it's not because they're afraid of "losing".

D&D, where people can invest a lot of emotional energy into their players, doesn't have save states.

It can if you want it to. There are various techniques to implement it so that it doesn't encourage save scumming or break immersion. E.g. charge a karma point and have the players wake up in cold sweat--it's yesterday, and that TPK was "just" a prophetic dream. Among other things, it gives DMs a chance to see how hard it is to TPK the party accidentally (quite hard--at Deadly x3 to x4 PCs have about a 50/50 chance to win even without doing anything clever, and even at x5 to x6 they still win sometimes, and of course if they use strong spells and tactics they should win almost all of the time).

But yeah, most D&D games don't have save states.

X-Com DOES. Unless you're saying you play X-Com from the start every time, because losing is a valid option. If you ever lost a battle in X-Com, then reloaded, then you did the exact OPPOSITE of what you're espousing.

I don't play Iron Man XCOM myself but some people do. Maybe Mephnick is one of them.

[Snowbluff]

Even in a grim-dark setting, killing one player well before the other party members are taken care of isn't a sound tactic, especially since the NPC/PCs should know that magic is very limited, so he isn't likely to get healed.
Making sure one character is completely dead and then letting the rest of the party escape is nothing but vindictive DMing.

Yeah it's bad tactics. An unconscious person doesn't get actions. The still conscious enemy does. If they do heal him, healing is so bad in this game that it's usually only another hit to KO the guy again.