A GM's Conundrum: To Kill or Not to Kill?

[snex]

Snorter wrote:

ShinHakkaider wrote:

I'm also assuming that the PC's are playing by the same rules and tend to make sure that anything that they fight is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

I think that in almost 30 years of gaming that I've had more players ask of an NPC or a monster "is he dead?" as opposed to "is he still moving?"

It would be interesting to know;

a) how many of those players, who admit they would throw their toys out of their pram, if their downed PC took damage, think nothing of stabbing a downed NPC, and

b) how many of the GMs, who advocate never utilizing creatures to their full potential, would step in and tell a player that they aren't allowed to perform the last attacks in a full-attack routine, "because that's not what your character would do. You think he's dead, you have to leave them alone...".

c) if the two were placed at the same table, how long before a table was flipped?

In our group, if an NPC goes down in the middle of a set of iterative attacks, we generally don't waste time taking the remaining attacks. If we are standing next to a dying creature and can't take any other actions, we will coup de grace them (and the same thing happens to us). We will also include dying creatures in AOE spells, and expect our dying bodies to be subject to the same.

Some exceptions to the iterative attacks thing are:

- You are the only visible PC. You will keep getting pounded until somebody else shows up or they know you are dead.
- They are an undead with Life Sense. They know you are alive and want you to not be.
- They know ahead of time your propensity for healing.

[JohnF]

Snorter wrote:

a) how many of those players, who admit they would throw their toys out of their pram, if their downed PC took damage, think nothing of stabbing a downed NPC

Irrelevant.

It's a very rare NPC that is seen for more than a single encounter - they are mostly cookie-cutter speed-bumps along the storyline, and can be freely interchanged, recreated, replicated, or whatever as the plot requires.

A (good) PC has more than 30 seconds put into developing it. If you are running a "pile of dead bards" kind of campaign, then by all means kill of any PC without a second thought. But if you want your players to run well-rounded characters with interesting backstories and genuine personalities, give a little more consideration before you toss one into the trash. That's particularly true if replacement characters have to start all the way back at level one.

[Snorter]

JohnF wrote:

It's a very rare NPC that is seen for more than a single encounter - they are mostly cookie-cutter speed-bumps along the storyline, and can be freely interchanged, recreated, replicated, or whatever as the plot requires.

To the PCs, they may be.

But the NPC doesn't know he's an NPC.

In his own mind, he's the protagonist, in his own epic bardworthy tale.
And as such, he should have the same sense of self-preservation as any PC.
And the same sense of righteous indignation, that someone would dare to cross him, as any PC.
And the same incentive to go full whack-a-mole on his enemies, as any PC.

If a group's PCs routinely finish off their full-attack routines, on prone enemies, and/or go round the battlefield, giving everybody a poke in the throat 'just to be sure', then they have no grounds for complaints if the NPCs do exactly the same.
They certainly can't argue that it breaks verisimilitude, or that it's unrealistic, or unfair, for NPCs to do the exact same things they do.

[wraithstrike]

JohnF wrote:

That's particularly true if replacement characters have to start all the way back at level one.

If a GM is doing this then he probably does not care about the players anyway.

[Snorter]

Yeah, starting all new PCs at level one does seem rather 'Gygaxian', doesn't it? And not in the good way.
It wouldn't suit an extended storyline style of an Adventure Path.
It's more suited to a sandboxy, 'You decide where you go, what you do, how fast you do it.' approach.

[Weirdo]

My group almost never strikes an unconscious opponent when there are still conscious opponents standing, even if we waste an iterative. We also don't Coup de Grace if there's a standing opponent. Until we see a healer revive a downed opponent, we assume they're a non-issue. We don't make an effort to attack nonlethally or exclude downed foes from AoE, but we're not averse to taking prisoners. Not all groups like a ruthless game. If you're not playing a ruthless game, the PCs haven't been particularly stupid, and a particular PC death will decrease player enjoyment it's a smart move to spare the PC. "Unrealistic" and even "unfair between PC and NPC" comes second to "is it fun?"

theoposite wrote:

While I don't disagree (or agree) with this interpretation, I am just supremely curious at how many of those particular people would immediately abandon that logical argument if that same bite/claw/claw monster could drop an opponent with the first two hits then take a 5 foot step then take that last attack against another foe.

Any decent fighter will take the presence of a second opponent into account when attacking, and if the second opponent is within easy reach (within a 5-foot step) will use a combination of attacks on the first opponent that allows them to turn the attack on the second opponent should the latter suddenly become a bigger threat. This is why it should be possible to switch targets in the middle of a full attack. However, if there is only one nearby target, an attacker is much more likely to commit themselves to a combination of attacks that is harder to interrupt. I think a creature with two claws and a bite is very likely, when faced with a single opponent within reach, to deliver these attacks close enough together that it won't pull back when the opponent drops. That said, I also think it's a close call and once you've decided you're willing to kill the PC realism could argue either way.

[Vicon]

The most obvious answer to me would be make the final attack and finish him off. Unless the creature is after prisoners or ransom, the attack is to take people out of the equation and finishing the job does that.

However, if you need a different option I'd say go karmically... did the creature always try to take captives or lower the body count? If so -- give them a pass, even if only once. If they always finished the job or were itching to fight... live by the sword, then die by it.

[Elbe-el]

This thread has been long enough that I didn't read all of it, so if I got ninja'd, so be it.

I take two factors into account, primarily: What the monster intends to do, and the sequence of events that led character to that situation in the first place.

Has the character been well-played? Has it been played "in character", has the character been thoughtfully played? Does the player really seem to be trying, and enjoying the character? If so, and in spite of all that, is the character simply the victim of an exceptionally bad run of the dice? One or more of those things being the case (especially that last one...we all know the Gaming Gods are often fickle, and sometimes capricious), then, yes. The monster will probably take that last attack, but it will miss. I make all the attack rolls for my monsters behind the screen, so this is easy to do.

Cheating? By strictest definition, absolutely. But my players having fun is far more important to me than a hard and fast adherence to the rules, and killing a well-thought out, well-played character just because you can is no mark of a good DM.

[Odraude]

John-Andre wrote:

The Rot Grub wrote:

This question specifically concerns a monster/NPC using the Full Attack action. Here's the scenario:

You're running a monster that has 3 attacks -- two claws and a bite -- and it's standing within 5 feet of a PC. It carries out the Full Attack action. You adjudicate its attacks, and the first 2 knock the PC down into negative HP. There are no other PCs nearby to attack: do you carry out the third attack, which has a reasonable chance of killing the PC?

I have my own thoughts on this but want to hear what other people think.

Absolutely not. That is quite unfair, and is a good way to lose players. If a GM did that to me, I would have to inflict physical violence upon them... as I have done in the past.

Yes, I have problems with anger management. Deal with it.

Yeeeaaah... if I had someone inflict physical violence over their imaginary character dying to some imaginary creature in a game of make-believe, that'd probably be the last we see of them. And yes, I've had a player punch me in the face for killing his character and it ended with him powerbombed through my DnD table and a night at the hospital.

I miss that table too :(

[TOZ]

Odraude wrote:

And yes, I've had a player punch me in the face for killing his character and it ended with him powerbombed through my DnD table and a night at the hospital.

I miss that table too :(

Totally worth it.

[Pax Veritas]

When an NPC takes down a PC, he or she still has several more to go... that's usually what NPCs are thinking, "threat neutralized, where's the next attack coming from." Thus, I do stop the many attacks typically, giving time to looking around and refocus or launch an attack at another PC.

There have been times, many times actually, where I inadvertantly rolled all attacks and summed up the damage and man-o-man it was very close to killing characters, and in the process surprising the player.

[JohnF]

wraithstrike wrote:

JohnF wrote:

That's particularly true if replacement characters have to start all the way back at level one.

If a GM is doing this then he probably does not care about the players anyway.

Are we limiting the discussion to home games only, or are PFS scenarios also being considered? Characters there start at level one. And while the tactics of the opponents are sometimes explicitly spelled out in the scenario, there are a lot more times where the GM is free to choose.

[Snorter]

JohnF wrote:

Are we limiting the discussion to home games only, or are PFS scenarios also being considered? Characters there start at level one.

They do, but they'll be working their way back up, via scenarios set at Tier 1-2, which is where they belong.

Not the same as a GM expecting new 1st-level PCs to jump into his 'escape the pits of Hell' campaign.