As a player and DM I agree, but players are smart, well at least mine are, and it is hard to fool them on a consistent basis. If you never off anyone things start to look real suspicious after a while.In my experience while the players want their PCs to live, they want it to be done fairly.
Being a hero comes from the risk that the heroes take. If there's no risk then there are no heroics.
-James
I agree. There is only one character that has not been killed yet in my current campaign. He is due sooner or later. He just happens to escape somehow.
I am not trying to kill him. The reason I say he is due is because he gets to death's door and someone crits the monster or some other miracle(not by hand) takes place.
PS:I tell my players they are not automatically heroes. They are only given the opportunity to become heroes. Whether or not they succeed depends on them.
I would guess your group is more of a narrative group, and there is nothing wrong with that, but those of us that enjoy the threat of death hate all the inconveniences you do, but we realize that our characters would have to deal with them if their world was real. We also don't base entire plots around PC's. A PC might have a subplot based around him, but his death will never mean the game can't go on. Personally if I know I can't die it takes all the fun away. No point in playing if I know the results ahead of time. I don't even guarantee victory against BBEG's. So if you play in my campaign for six months and think "He has to let us win this fight", and start doing silly things the party may lose.
I don't think you are having bad/wrong fun though. I was just pointing out why some of us play the way we do.
Actually we are a pretty even mix between narative and 'gamist'. Certainly no one is having wrongbadfun here, it's a matter of preference.
As for PC's and plots, often I dont base a plot on a PC but rather the pc sticks himself in the middle of it. For instance, one campaign was based around a series of political intrigue, and everyone was involved, but one player actually got into the politics, sought out office, and thus became crucial to the plot (I almost always try to embrace and reward players for getting their characters personally involved in plotlines). That character actually died in an unfortunate encounter. And it definately hurt the plot line I was preparing, I adapted but I will always wonder what could have been in terms of the story.
As for threat of death, I do believe the threat needs to be there, and I do all I can to instill in my players the fear of, well... me. Usually what I do to counter this is things like the Hero point system where a player can be taken down with a way to save themselves from actual death. My goal is always to bring the players to the edge of death (for hard encounters that is) but for them to pull through. I like a system like hero points that offers something of a saftey net if i miss my mark by a bit.
Also a little acting on my part can help with that. It has actually been 5 years since I've actually killed a player, yet I have often got concerns from players that my encounters are a bit on the dangerous side. For me that's right about where things should be. But again, its all about preferences.
I tend to kind of try to play to the audience. I act disappointed when the PCs aren't ripped to pieces. I shake my fist at them when they hammer by bad guys with a crit or good tactic. I act shocked when they come up with a good idea seemingly from out of the blue. It makes it more fun for them.
This:
I'm like Jess Door: I wince and apologize when the dice get prejudiced against the players. My players seem to love reading my expressions, trying to gauge just how bad the situation is before I announce the results.and this:
I don't want the PCs to die. I'm pulling for them. And I hate when MY characters die, so there's a lot of empathy. But...I'll still do it. I'd have felt terrible if the poor ranger had died due to the nasty giant centipede munching on him...but he'd still have been dead. And at second level, dead is pretty permanent. My players know that this is a harsh world - and they know better than to assume that if a fight turns against them, I won't have the enemies take full advantage of that fact if they don't recognize this and get out.Sure reads like an attack. And it's totally off base. Yesterday she dropped a PC to -3 hp in a pretty nasty drawnout fight, and last week she had a worg slavering over my tripped and very low HP character. If it hadn't already been heavily damaged itself and the rest of the party wailing away on it, I have no doubt she would have attacked me again going for the kill.
Feeling bad about killing PCs doesn't mean you play patty cake with them.
Actually, this sounds somewhat similar to my attitude. I too don't want the PCs to die and feel bad if they do. Nevertheless, I do let it happen and yes, it can be permanent.
I don't, however, appologize for dealing heavy damage - indeed I sometimes even try to look at least somewhat gleeful (can be hard when it looks like a death or even a campaign-ending TPK is coming!) to underscore the fact that I won't hold back.
quality stuffI dont think every encounter should be so difficult as to cause a possible death. I do think the DM should play his monsters well enough that they can take out a party member for making bad decisions, and coddling should be very limited. I only agree with the OP to a certain extent. I do enjoy a game like SCAP every once in a while, but it can wear on some people, so I would not have every fight be made into a boss level fight.
As a side note I have thought above making magic that revives people less predictable. Maybe while trying to call Boris the Brave's soul back an evil slips through instead. I heard about it a while back, but never implemented it. The higher level magic you use the better chance of you getting the right soul/spirit to come through. I would probably drop the monetary feat or greatly reduce it if I did use the altered version though. Paying that much money for a failure might not go over too well.
Certainly, tampering with predictability is one way to go and your thoughts on costs are probably reasonable if there is a large chance of failure. As I said, I do impose various restrictions on revivification magics. Monetary costs, however, aren't the way I restrict them. Priests of good religions don't charge for resurrection at all. Either they want to help or they don't - it depends on what the character/group has done and plans to do and not on money they have available. The PCs do, however, have to provide the material components for the spell, so it is not free. They are also expected to make a donation to the temple, but the donation can be of any size the characters choose.
|
Are you even reading my posts or have you lumped everyone into one 'all against me' group? I'm not arguing against PC death. If you go back and read the thread you'll see that we are totally on the same page there.
The last two posts I directed at you were addressing this comment:
Every encounter should move story. If it isn't moving story, why are you fighting in the first place? So every encounter that has risk is part of the story.
Despite the tone, I will attempt to explain again.
If an encounter almost kills (or kills) a main character in a story, it becomes part of the story regardless of what you intended the encounter to be.
My point was that Gandalf was killed by a random encounter of sorts. Had he lived, it would have been a completely different story.
The story isn't static. Any time you as a DM put your characters put their lives in mortal danger, there should be a reason.
Heroes die all the time. Doesn't make the way they lived prior to dying less heroic. And in many stories a hero is killed by something small that exploited a weakness, an Achilles heel if you will...
Sometimes your 5th level Wizard practically solos BBEG, then on the way home is taken out by a pit trap. Doesn't mean he wasn't heroic, just means the bards can only sing about his past exploits.
I also have to say that the Balrog would probably not be a random encounter, considering it was the whole reason that Moria was depopulated.
I thought it was because Thorin ate too many beans in an enclosed space. Maybe I should reread those books.
Are you saying I misunderstood "drums in the dark?"
;)
|
|
It's a novel. Every part of Lord of the Rings is specifically scripted to fulfill the authors desired outcome. The fact that it appears random to you, the reader, doesn't change that fact.
I am not being clear. There is no random encounter.
Even when you roll the dice, it is giving you a list of things that could happen in the place you decided to play. If one of those things kills someone, that is part of the story in the setting you created in the story you and the players are collectively writing.
Tolkien decided to put his party of adventurers in a deep dark cave so they would fight that monster he thought up.
In a game, you put the players in a place, you introduce a conflict and we all see what happens next.
Each encounter is a part of the story, where things can effect where the story goes. Someone may die, someone may find a cool item that they use to survive something else later. Every encounter is part of the process, be it written in the adventure path or "random".
If you have Tony Danza attack your party, that is a random encounter. If you figure out which level appropriate beast attacks your party based on a chart designed for the area you have chosen to play, you are just adding variables to the collective story you are all playing.
The DM knows secrets, but even the DM doesn't know how it will actually unfold. Who will live, who will die, who will step up in what situation to pull off...whatever.
Gandalf dying was a plot device, in the same way the shark eating Samuel L. Jackson mid speech was a plot device. But as DM, you aren't writing. Your supervising.
...he would be a ("Who's the") Boss ("?") villain, right?
[Ducks and runs.]
"If we think of J. Edgar Hoover, J. Edgar Hoover will appear and destroy us."
Wolfthulhu (Pathfinder Charter Superscriber; GameMastery Superscriber), 5 hours, 39 minutes ago
'Sure reads like an attack. And it's totally off base.'
We are talking about DMs killing PCs and the angles all shared. Despite extended narrative, thats what the post related too right? However I felt some in these chats rooms have to relax a little, most seem a bit too serious. This isnt ego debating and although suttle, theres a lot of it here. So much so a poor Pathfinder staff member stepped in to sort it a few pages back!
I just thought Id throw something in that would make people smile to imagine experiencing. Jess sounds so sweet, theres no point in attacking her and hoped she shared a chuckle in the contrast of such extremes. But if your a serious one and that little smile didnt wedge free, then just trust in the PS note stating its not in any way meant to be an attack? Cause its my posting, and its not.
No need to justify her DMing either. Although you didn’t die, which is what happens with DMs who don’t want to kill you.
The underlying point to is, despite the laugh, was really that players enjoy a challenge and people may see DM niceness as a potentially malleable weakness or as non threatening, cause the DM will always be nice and try not to kill you. If you believe a DM is seriously out to kick your ass, maybe even a little mean, and you kick his, you feel an additional rush cause you know hes not mucking around. Truth is its making out you have an ego involved in the challenge too ( not in an over bearing game controlling way) and then allowing your ego to get beaten adds to the players rush. If they get beaten silly in a fight, especially if soon to the game or DMs introduction, it keeps them on their toes, attentive and determined the rest of the game.
Truth is I am a Jess like DM. I used to feel real bad when I had slain a PC. But i find it easier to instead come down harder at first, a real fight to survive and with a fallen PC (which will happen, nice style or not) to mentally refer too, who died brutally from a minor slip up (maybe not forgetting the chips!..lol). Becomes an example to refer to for all that didnt die and I that dont want to kill, that this is a serious world and if they dont wish to die, they need to be careful. Then its a shared death and others gulp a little, then focus even more cause they dont want to die. so for me a death has benifits, its not all bad. As for the departed. I believe its human nature for most players to step up to a challenge as equally as they enjoy stepping up to a fight, so make it appear twice the challenge and see twice the reward in their eyes when they win!
Sure, thats what I say to them too. Actually every fights like that for us. If its a walk over for the party, Ill throw in some more orcs say, if its not and they get by, "Ooooh you were lucky!"...lol...Keeps them thinking they JUST made it and adds to the fun! I like that angle too.
Yeah, Tri, I must say that although I agree with almost everything I have seen you post in the last 24 hours, I still feel you're bringing out the nerdrage on people. Will you work with me in my attempt to tone the forums down a notch?I'm a recovering troll. It's still fun to needle some people some time. (seekerofshadowlight, LillithsThrall, others you can probably name.) I try to catch myself when I get too abrasive, but I have a habit of arguing from a position of unshakable confidence. I'm right, I know it, and I'll prove it. Which makes it hard to admit it when I'm wrong. So I try to channel my responses into the Middle Way. Rarely is an Extreme the true and correct choice. You have to find the balance between two sides. But that is very hard when you believe deeply in an Extreme.
So I make no promises save 'I can only try'.
Man it was hard to not say 'only Tri'. :)
That was one of the more mature things I've seen someone post on here. Glad to see it.
Heading back to the main point of the thread, I think that the threat of death is a vital part of the campaign as a whole in terms of atmosphere. What I normally do, because I don't like to kill characters willy-nilly, is to give them a permanent injury whenever they hit deep hp negatives. I also make the players make their own magic items as well. Occasionally they'll find something, but as a rule if they're not crafting it themselves they're finding someone to craft it for them and that always comes with a cost (One player lost their shadow, another 10 years of their life span, one lost an eye for an exceptionally powerful item)... I like to stress the aspect or mortality in my games.
nathan blackmer (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber), 4 minutes ago
'Heading back to the main point of the thread, I think that the threat of death is a vital part of the campaign as a whole in terms of atmosphere. What I normally do, because I don't like to kill characters willy-nilly, is to give them a permanent injury whenever they hit deep hp negatives.'
Thats a REALLy good idea! Although the concept of healing seems to fix just about anything, maybe a rejuv will be their way out of say a limp caused in such a manner, which reduses their base speed by 5 ft till the spell is cast. Then its a painful reminder to retard and remind them for a bit. Plus its not forgotten plus and a challenge to rid!
Im impressed. thats probably why in hebrew your name means "gift from the gods". Thanks!
nathan blackmer (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber), 4 minutes ago
'Heading back to the main point of the thread, I think that the threat of death is a vital part of the campaign as a whole in terms of atmosphere. What I normally do, because I don't like to kill characters willy-nilly, is to give them a permanent injury whenever they hit deep hp negatives.'Thats a REALLy good idea! Although the concept of healing seems to fix just about anything, maybe a rejuv will be their way out of say a limp caused in such a manner, which reduses their base speed by 5 ft till the spell is cast. Then its a painful reminder to retard and remind them for a bit. Plus its not forgotten plus and a challenge to rid!
Im impressed. thats probably why in hebrew your name means "gift from the gods". Thanks!
I play with the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks. So my players are always getting broken hands, missing eyes, stab wounds, etc. I like that it definitely adds a sense of lethality to their combat. My wife's psychic warrior has had a broken hand from a nasty fight against a slaughter wight and also been blinded by a slash across the eyes.
I like story driven campaigns.
I also like random encounters.
I would allow a random encounter to kill a PC.
At some point, we're introducing random elements so that the world feels more "real". I could get hit by a truck every time I cross the street in front of my house, that would be pretty random.
It's not for everyone, but I wouldn't say that allowing a PC death from a random encounter is the wrong way to play the game. Some of us see merit in it.
|
|
I think it more of a jusgement call on a case by case scenario. In one of my games I had a player who get rushing ahead of everyone else. See a monster an throw himself into the fray. Without planning any strategy or aiting to hav an buff spells cast on the character. Eventually after giving the player three chances top alter his behavior his character ended up getting killed. He ignored my advice and the players advice. After hsving it happen two more times he ended up learning his leasson that charging ahead even when you make a Barbarian with a lot of hit points does not make your character invincible.
Sometimes I do fudge the dic rolls. Another game one of the PC was taken out by a monster with a few good rolls. Technicalluy he should have died yet it was one room away from the last big enclunter of the module. Telling the player hischaracter was dead was not only have been a mood killer it would have just sucked for that player. Not to mention problamtic to bring in a new character. Still he almost died and needed to be healed up and was able to contribute to the final encounter.
Killing off characters has to be done carefully. Too often and soon you no longer have players. And it's no fun imo killing off a character and having your character killed off. Espcially if its a non-heroic death.
|
True. And I don't think that the Dragonlance saga would have been more interesting if Raistlin was killed by a random hobgoblin in the first 100 pages of the story, for instance.
Bloody Hell, I do.
As soon as I heard the description of his gooooooorgeous golden skin and hourglass-shaped pupils, I thought 'DM's pet; I bet the whole story revolves around him, and all the other PCs are doomed to be spectators.'.
I hadn't heard the term 'Mary-Sue' back then, but if I had, that would have been a prime candidate.
Kudos to the opening post.
Why is it that we always have to preface everything with an "in my opinion" or "to each his own" caveat in order just to have a discussion anymore?
As long as no one is being personally attacked it is fair game. Our ideas SHOULD be attacked and scrutinized. Our ideas are thoughts, not appendages.
On that point, I often have seen people defend nerfed/fudged gaming by arguing that it creates more "fun" specific to their group when no one dies. That is faulty. That thinking looks only to the game in a short term sense. As kids, it is fun to "win" at Sorry or Monopoly because Dad lets us. It is also enjoyable to eat cheese pizza or to watch cartoons with linear plots. But growth demands expansion of all things. It requires complexity and, fundamentally, truth. This can be a short term pain that yields a more fulfilling long term growth. And as it relates to gaming, holding back in order to create the "fun" by not killing anyone's character actually robs the person of growth and a greater long term fun.
One more thing, the argument that "as long as the players don't know" schtick is nonsense. Are your players children? Give them credit. If no one has died, then the players DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.
One final point. It is fair to say that this game should NOT be adversarial. As the GM, you are not suppose to be their enemy, particularly if you are going to raise the game by really allowing the game to be played with no fudging to save characters. It should be done clinically when it happens, with a little empathy of course but without aggression, bias or pity.
|
As soon as I heard the description of his gooooooorgeous golden skin and hourglass-shaped pupils, I thought 'DM's pet; I bet the whole story revolves around him, and all the other PCs are doomed to be spectators.'.
Just going by Chronicles, he disappeared near the end of the second book, and only turned up again for the very end. He became more of a Deux Ex Machina than a Mary Sue.
Kudos to the opening post.
Why is it that we always have to preface everything with an "in my opinion" or "to each his own" caveat in order just to have a discussion anymore?
As long as no one is being personally attacked it is fair game. Our ideas SHOULD be attacked and scrutinized. Our ideas are thoughts, not appendages.
I think it's what we call "civility" or "politeness"... One of those things that helps people living together without everyone hitting his neighbour in the face... Same things as saying "hello, how are you ?" to said neighbour even if you couldn't care less of how his problems...
On that point, I often have seen people defend nerfed/fudged gaming by arguing that it creates more "fun" specific to their group when no one dies. That is faulty. That thinking looks only to the game in a short term sense. As kids, it is fun to "win" at Sorry or Monopoly because Dad lets us. It is also enjoyable to eat cheese pizza or to watch cartoons with linear plots. But growth demands expansion of all things. It requires complexity and, fundamentally, truth. This can be a short term pain that yields a more fulfilling long term growth. And as it relates to gaming, holding back in order to create the "fun" by not killing anyone's character actually robs the person of growth and a greater long term fun.
One more thing, the argument that "as long as the players don't know" schtick is nonsense. Are your players children? Give them credit. If no one has died, then the players DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.
One final point. It is fair to say that this game should NOT be adversarial. As the GM, you are not suppose to be their enemy, particularly if you are going to raise the game by really allowing the game to be played with no fudging to save characters. It should be done clinically when it happens, with a little empathy of course but without aggression, bias or pity.
So, you've made your argument as why you make your assumption a universal rules in the first part... So I won't reply that it's what you think it should be, not as everybody sees it...
I will only says that sometimes people likes to play like children, and that rpg is a game, something you do to evade reality a little bit... Yeah sometimes it's fun to play seriously in a dark and gritty game, I tend to make my world a bit like that, but sometimes it's just as fun to play in a "shielded" environment.For me I don't say that players shouldn't die at all, I say that sometimes, due to circumstances, I allow them to live by under playing the ennemies or even fudging a little bit...
It's really a circumstancial things for me...
Oh, and for me the DM should not be an impartial arbiter, he should be a gardian of the fun, using everything at his disposal to maintain the fun of the group... Rules 0 is one of these things...
Kudos to the opening post.
Why is it that we always have to preface everything with an "in my opinion" or "to each his own" caveat in order just to have a discussion anymore?
I do believe it is to distinguish between FACT IE Wizards get spells, fighters are good with swords, and opinions. Such as...
On that point, I often have seen people defend nerfed/fudged gaming by arguing that it creates more "fun" specific to their group when no one dies. That is faulty. That thinking looks only to the game in a short term sense. As kids, it is fun to "win" at Sorry or Monopoly because Dad lets us. It is also enjoyable to eat cheese pizza or to watch cartoons with linear plots. But growth demands expansion of all things. It requires complexity and, fundamentally, truth. This can be a short term pain that yields a more fulfilling long term growth. And as it relates to gaming, holding back in order to create the "fun" by not killing anyone's character actually robs the person of growth and a greater long term fun.
I am glad you have determined the universal truth of what is fun to any and all people. Good for you, get that into a paper so you can get your nobel prize. See here is where 'in my opinion' would be useful. You are using words like 'demands' and 'requires' thus applying a connotation of fact on your opinions. Some people consider that bad form or even rude.
One more thing, the argument that "as long as the players don't know" schtick is nonsense. Are your players children? Give them credit. If no one has died, then the players DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.
You underestimate the ability of a good dm to work with his party. And remember that death is not required to instill fear, knocking a player unconcious and nearly killing them can often accomplish them. That and when deaths do happen, even if infrequent they stick around in players minds. So even if their last death was actually a few years ago, it hands around for quite some time.
Just going by Chronicles, he disappeared near the end of the second book, and only turned up again for the very end. He became more of a Deux Ex Machina than a Mary Sue.
True enough.
When I was reading Dragonlance for the first time at the age of 12 or so, I thought it was awesome that it read like it was someone writing up their D&D campaign. I'm pretty sure that same quality would make me find it just about unreadable now.
(In related news, if you saw Goonies as a kid and thought it was awesome, you probably should avoid ever seeing it again as an adult.)
Just going by Chronicles, he disappeared near the end of the second book, and only turned up again for the very end. He became more of a Deux Ex Machina than a Mary Sue.True enough.
When I was reading Dragonlance for the first time at the age of 12 or so, I thought it was awesome that it read like it was someone writing up their D&D campaign. I'm pretty sure that same quality would make me find it just about unreadable now.
(In related news, if you saw Goonies as a kid and thought it was awesome, you probably should avoid ever seeing it again as an adult.)
I have. I still think it is awesome.
I tend to try to get the PCS to like one hit point left. It can be rather fun when you about to get knocked out. One more round without the heal spell the ranger would have been killed by the giant owlbear still makes it seem like the players are having a lot of fun at that point.
I'm inclined to agree with the OP. I don't care for GMs who go out of their way to see every PC dead but I love the threat of death in a game. The threat of death and the triumph over it is what makes the game fun for me.
I'm one of those guys who spends hours developing my character and I don't ever want him to die. I'm also not a fan of raise dead or resurrection. I've never been fond of the idea that death can be resolved as simply as putting another coin into the arcade game and those three spells are often house-ruled out of the campaigns I play in.
Anyway, some of my best rpg experiences have involved character death, even in random encounters that weren't remotely heroic.
If I'm playing my character right (in my opinion) and my character dies in combat, random or otherwise, his death will leave a hole in the party that's difficult to fill. Not tactically, but emotionally. And that only encourages a better roleplaying experience for everyone at the table.
It can be frustrating. I once had my PC get killed in the first half-hour of an extra long session. I ended up having to run a NPC for about three weeks before I was ready to bring my PC back to the table (in that case he got resurrected) but my DM was actually able to turn the death and subsequent resurrection into one of the best side story plots I've ever seen. Ultimately, it brought the PCs closer together and was one of the highlights of the entire campaign, even though the PC ended up getting permanently killed again a year later (real time).
So sure, a PC death can be inconvenient and frustrating but the potential for a great experience as a result of that death is too great to be dismissed, in my opinion.
I totally agree that players should realize that death is a possibility if you take risks. And if you don't take risks, why aren't you playing checkers instead of a role-playing game? Hey, death is part of the game, and anyone that's played for any significant length of time must realize that... some of us get to realize it more than others.
I also agree that a meaningful death can be more fun than a pointless one. But that's not to say that a pointless death can't be just as memorable, and in some cases even more fun. As I was reading this post, I realized something: all my best long-term memories of D&D and Pathfinder have come from a character's death (or curse, or maiming, or other effect that takes you out of the game). It's weird that I never realized it before, but I don't remember the triumphs and treasures nearly as well as I remember the deaths:
--the thief that was blasted to pieces by a lich's lightning bolts
--the fighter that was melted into goo by green slime
--the paladin who was turned to ash by a red dragon; his god refused to allow him to be raised and "flushed" the ashes... ewww!
--the bard that was knifed and thrown down a flight of stairs by a burly halfling
--a dwarf fighter/thief that was pulped by an elephant-shaped steamroller trap in the Tomb of Horrors
-- my high-level wizard that had both his arms broken and was then dropped from a mile height by a surly efreet
--a fighter/magic-user that was possessed by a ghost - Magic Jar I think - and forced to flee the party until he hid underwater and drowned in the sea. The ghost had forgotten that living beings needed to breath air, apparently...
--and my personal favorite, an elf ranger who was mauled to death by a giant skunk!
There are dozens more, but you get the point. I just thought it was really interesting to discover that the most memorable moments in all my years of gaming -- for me anyway -- are not the triumphs, but the tragedies! I would go so far as to say that you can't really have a good story without a tragedy in there somewhere.
Funny thing is that some editions of D&D describe Slay Living as inducing a heart attack.Fort save vs death.
But then, how much damage does a heart attack do?
I don't know about Slay Living, but Finger of Death was described as stopping the target's heart.