|
I know this is entirely a situational question. Thankfully we have no "aggro" system in the pathfinder role playing game, so as GMs we decide who and what our monsters chew on.
So is it bad form to have a monster chew (nom nom nom) on a PC when he is down unconscious with -hp?
What do you think?
thanks
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I know this is entirely a situational question. Thankfully we have no "aggro" system in the pathfinder role playing game, so as GMs we decide who and what our monsters chew on.
So is it bad form to have a monster chew (nom nom nom) on a PC when he is down unconscious with -hp?
What do you think?
thanks
Depends on the situation.
If the rest of the party is still fighting, then who in the world is going to sit there and eat a downed PC while 3-5 other PCs wail on him? The only way I can see this making sense is if maybe some evil cleric wants to kill the fallen PC to raise as a zombie, or if the baddy has a serious revenge issue and wants that particular person dead, even if they have to die themselves to ensure it.
If, however, one PC drops and the rest flee, then sure, chew away.
Depends on what the expectations of the group of people playing want. If everyone knows this game will be brutal and death is likely then yup it sure is.
If you are playing a more heavy character involvement in the affairs of the city/ county/ kingdom/ world where character death is supposed to be plot important (VS BBEG for instance) and importing a new character and the ramifications of character death would disrupt the game in some fashion probably not.
|
In general it's considered bad form. Even if a PC is the only threatened and the creature has extra attacks, I have seen no GMs willing to finish the full attack and kill the character. It would be very bad form to start causing too many PC deaths. And as stated, if other PCs are moving the monster should go for them if it can; monsters fight to win, not out of spite.
|
I would also say that if a monster has been only fighting one PC, and he drops, while the other PCs have been engaged with other monsters or traps and the original monster isn't being harried then he would probably either drag the down PC a bit away from the action to eat him or just rip a bit of him off and take off with a quick meal of leg or something.
Usually in a group of predators if one has downed something they want to drag it away and get the choice bits for themselves before the rest of the predators in the group close in and start in on the meal.
Unless the attacker had a good reason to hit the guy while he was down, NO.
|
It's situational, very dependant on what your fighting.
If your fighting, say, oozes and the one that dropped you has no one else beating on it, then yes. It has no concept of teamwork or anything else other than food. I would probably say the same about certain undead, such as ghouls and ghasts, if no one is attacking the one that dropped you, it's just as likely to start eating or run with your body as keep fighting.
|
|
my previous post was more for animal intelligence type encounters....more intelligent creatures may respond differently, especially if they downed a dude, he got healed and re-joined the fight and the predator downs him again. The Predator may decide to rip out a throat to prevent him from re-rising again.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Is there an obvious healer in the party? Then it makes sense to make sure that fallen characters stay down.
I ran into this situation this past weekend. A bunch of goblin archers against the party. One of the PCs (a cleric trying to negotiate passage) went down early. The goblins were firing at the still-conscious PCs, leaving the dying cleric to herself, until another PC ran up to her. A couple of goblins then decided that the unconscious PC was a legitimate target again, as her allies were willing to take damage to get her on her feet.
So is it bad form to have a monster chew (nom nom nom) on a PC when he is down unconscious with -hp?
What do you think?
thanks
- A less intelligent monster that tends to eat it victims right away.
- An intelligent monster that knows it is going to die and wants to take one of the PCs out with it.
- An intelligent monster that threatened to kill the PC unless the others stopped attacking, and they didn't stop attacking.
- That particular PC did a lot of damage to the monster and it is enraged at that PC.
It's situational, very dependant on what your fighting.
If your fighting, say, oozes and the one that dropped you has no one else beating on it, then yes. It has no concept of teamwork or anything else other than food. I would probably say the same about certain undead, such as ghouls and ghasts, if no one is attacking the one that dropped you, it's just as likely to start eating or run with your body as keep fighting.
I agree with this. It depends on what the players are fighting. I try to play up the intelligence and tactics of whatever it is the PC's are up against accordingly, and often times I'll even warn the PC's ahead of time if I know something can go disastrously bad, and the PC's might have some kind of off-hand in-game knowledge(heard rumors, read about it, etc).
Usually, I just have the monster "knock out" a PC(into negative HP, but still alive) just to remove them from the battle. Only when the threats(PC's) are all dispatched, then the baddies might return to deal the finishing blow to a character. Unless the bad guy has a particular reputation for dealing out swift death, like an evil army general making examples out of failed soldiers. There are even some feats in 3.5 that granted Intimidation bonuses to successful coup de graces, I can't recall the feat names though.
As with everyone else - it depends on the situation.
For our group:
Unintelligent creatures and the like often do feed on downed PCs.
It is extremely rare for average intelligence mooks or opponents in 'normal'/standard encounters to attack downed PCs. For us, it's lame to be killed that way in what we consider to be a 'standard' combat.
However, those opponents we consider "bosses" will attack (and kill) PCs when they're down as we consider those to be 'dangerous' encounters. (That type of attack emphasizes the villainy of said boss opponents.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen no GMs willing to finish the full attack and kill the character.
I've seen several who would do it. I don't have a problem with it.
IMHO: Throw an encounter at your PCs involving some enemy clerics or healers that bring people dropped to the negatives back up. If your PCs are willing to finish off downed opponents so they stop getting back up to beat on them, then you can't feel all that bad about doing the same tactically smart thing to them.
There's only so much mercy you can show before it starts distorting the game. If your players *know* you won't ever finish a downed enemy (even when it's free, such as in the middle of a full attack that can only go at the downed PC), they'll take a lot more stupid risks. Conversely, if they know a downed PC is less like safe and more like helpless, they'll come to treat those PCs as being in the dire peril they actually are.
For me, when I DM, it's similar to what others are saying.
It depends on what the creatures motivation is for fighting the party. Animals, mindless creatures just looking for food, creatures that simply glory in destruction will continue to feast/make a mess of dropped foes.
If the downed pc has enraged the creature somehow, or if the creature is berserk for some other reason he may continue wailing on a dropped target.
But a creature that perceives the rest of the party as an active threat will most likely turn its attention.
On the flip side, sometime a pc is safer at negative hit points. Being healed back up to single digits, but prone and with reach of a foe... can get you killed quick.
My philosphy is this... Does the monster know the difference between dying and dead?
In the 6 seconds of that combat round... would it change it's action?
For example, if the monster gets 2 claws and a bite on character 1, and claw #2 drops him to -1.... Does the monster know enough to STOP the bite on the still twitching body that just fell over?
Personally, I would keep the attacks as I said I was going to do it when his turn came up. The NEXT round, I wouldn't waste an attack to take him from -6 to -12 and dead... Especially if there is more targets that are active threats.... But within that first round. to stop in mid attack and walk away is possibly more meta-gamey then finishing off a wounded pc...
For me, it usually comes down to why the PC is down and bleeding.
Is it because he missed his save by one, and my dice lucked into rolling max damage on a 10 dice fireball? Is it because he just took the poisoned dagger from an assassin aimed for the princess?
I probably won't kick that player while they're down.
Is it because they charged headlong into a mob of orcs with no plan? Is it because they thought setting off a keg of dynamite in a mine was a good idea?
/kick
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In my local gaming group, we've adopted the term "shark", as a verb, to indicate which enemies might kill downed characters. Hungry dogs will shark. Your personal arch-nemesis might shark.
I think that it's important for the players to understand the threat level of most of their opponents. And sharking is an inportant aspect of that threat level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends entirely on the encounter I think. In general, either the bad guy hates your PC so much he/she/it wants to coup de grace them or they leave them alone. Most of the times as a player, you know who wants to really destroy you, so it shouldn't surprise your PCs when they try.
However sometimes other factors come into play. One recent time I can recall having monsters keep attacking a character was in my Kingmaker game when ghouls attacked the party, and chased down the gnome druid who was scouting, paralyzing him about 40' from the main party. He was still within sight, but the main group was fighting quite a few ghouls at the time. One of the ghouls stopped and starting gnawing on the paralyzed gnome, continuing to do damage and eventually even dropped him negative, but kept chewing. I had him do a set amount of damage every round, so he had probably 10 rounds before he died, but the descriptions of the ghoul ripping off sheets of leg muscle, cracking bones, etc freaked the players out so much they raced to stop it.
So my suggestion would be that if you arent going to go the coup de grace route, allow your players a few rounds to stop them before they kill the downed character. I think thats more than fair to your party.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider it top form, as long as it makes sense in the game world. If kicking the PC when he's down is what the monster/NPC would be expected to do, then I would consider it poor form not to.
If the battle looks like it might be a total party kill and there is not anyone to heal me up and I get attacked but that leaves another character to still attack and not end with a tpk I would be happy even if it means I die if the adventure suceeds still I would have died a heros death. If then the bbeg can be defeated. Anyway I sort of like building characters. Even my unconcious body may be consumed during the fight but will help us win.
Finishing a downed opponent while other fighting is going on is a waste of time.
Sure, unless you expect someone to pop the downed opponent right back up within a few seconds via healing magic. Which adventuring parties nearly always do, in practice.
Now, maybe a bear doesn't know that, but an orc or anything smarter should.
I mean, if you just barely down a troll with your let's say second of four attacks and there was no other target, would you stop taking attacks, or would you keep beating on the troll? That's different because the troll has regeneration? Effectively, so do most PCs.
My philosphy is this... Does the monster know the difference between dying and dead?
In the 6 seconds of that combat round... would it change it's action?
For example, if the monster gets 2 claws and a bite on character 1, and claw #2 drops him to -1.... Does the monster know enough to STOP the bite on the still twitching body that just fell over?
Personally, I would keep the attacks as I said I was going to do it when his turn came up. The NEXT round, I wouldn't waste an attack to take him from -6 to -12 and dead... Especially if there is more targets that are active threats.... But within that first round. to stop in mid attack and walk away is possibly more meta-gamey then finishing off a wounded pc...
What phantom1592 said.
|
I'd say that for the most part, enemies would concentrate on the party members that were still actively engaged, why waste an attack on someone who's already down when it might fell another enemy as well. That being said, if the PC that just dropped was really dishing it out to the bad guys before he dropped, it might be in their best interest to ignore the more ineffectual guys for a moment just to make sure that the guy who was tearing into them a second ago STAYS down.
So the answer, as always, is situational.
|
|
I consider it top form, as long as it makes sense in the game world. If kicking the PC when he's down is what the monster/NPC would be expected to do, then I would consider it poor form not to.
Thank you all for your posts.
I was curious to find out what most GMs would do with their Villains Monsters, once they dropped a PC into unconsciousness and negative HP.
I wanted to see if there was an “unwritten rule” that people GMs tended to follow.
For myself, like many of the other posters, there are many situational factors.
As a GM, I think I have done a good job if my players are on the edge of their seats, excited about the fight, and not sure of the outcome so the party is hanging onto the “cliff edge” by fingernails, and they barely scrape by and hopefully winning the fight. I do like my monsters to pound bite maul and otherwise chew a PC into the unconscious range of negative hit points. I like my Player's Characters to have a hard won victory…a couple of badly wounded PCs helps add to the drama.
However I do not like to kill my PCs out right, so I will often have a villain turn to another foe once a PC has collapsed into unconscious territory.
Like what others have said, to everything there are exceptions and there are lots of factors that are situational.
For example, Mindless creatures, like oozes, insects, and animals, perhaps Ghouls and mindless undead, I think would be more likely to finish off their round of attacks, and would most likely continue to attack a downed foe and probably kill him.
I would usually have humanoids move onto another foe once they have dropped one.
In a final fight where they are facing the final enemy, I would probably take the gloves of and have him finish his foes off.
So I guess it all depends. If as the campaign starts, its laid out that its going to be deadly, and the villains and monsters will do their best to finish you off, and all of your players are ok with this, then I think it can work.
If player has done something truly stupid with their character, and has ignored my or the other players verbal warnings, then I let the consequences fall where they may, and if that kills the PC so be it.
I do think GMs who kill their player’s characters on a regular meaningless basis, will soon find themselves playing by themselves without players.
So Lvl 12 procrastinator, I think I have a different opinion from you.
Again thank you all for your posts and thoughts.
It's not like death is the handicap it was in the olden days.
|
|
It depends on the group more than the situation.
But in many groups, mine included, it's okay.
As DM, I'm not so much interested in "the situation" but the actual NPC monster. If I have decided that monster "A" is more likely to finish a -HP PC then he will -- but when the PC initially drops I'll either give the other PCs a Sense Motive to see if monster "A" is gonna go for the coup de grace on its turn in initiative or I just flat out tell the Players that the look on monster "A's" face makes you think he's a gonna kill dat dere fallen PC on his next turn.
Often, though, I'll have decided that the NPCs are more interested in dropping a PC to -HP then moving on to the next PC without finalizing the kill.
But yeah, demons and other Chaotic Stupid monsters, an AntiPally vs a Pally (and other like personalities), and some other specific NPCs are gonna go after specific PCs until beyond dropping.
So is it bad form to have a monster chew (nom nom nom) on a PC when he is down unconscious with -hp?
I think it's bad form in all but the strangest circumstances. Perhaps when you know it won't kill the character, or in a very high level group where resurrection is simply a monetary penalty.
I think it all depends on the GM, I mean in most games I run, my humanoid monsters at least, if they have at least average intelligence make sure what they hit stays down, if the players do it, then why not the Hobgoblins? But as for animals? No I wouldn't have it keep attacking the downed PC unless there was absolutely no other threat to it in the immediate vicinity.
|
Not bad form. Of course, depends on the situation. If the monster is unintelligent or mindless, it is safe to assume that if in not any immediate danger, it will snack on the character, even if it means killing him/her. If it is in danger, well it will continue fighting with other, conscious characters.
If it is intelligent and aware of curative magic, i am certain it will try to finish off the fallen character if it is not immediately threatened by anyone.
If a player complains, i will simply say: You knew the risks, you attacked, there are consenquences...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Lvl 12 procrastinator, I think I have a different opinion from you.
That's the beauty of this game, that it can be played differently by different groups and still be fun for everyone.
As DM, I respond to the desires of my group. My group doesn't like it when the game gets too "meta." They call me out on it, and they call each other out on it. So if I were to spare a PC just because he/she is a PC, that would be too meta. It would break their immersion in the game world.
I'm sure your group is different than mine. I don't believe either group is better or more right than any other. That's a great thing about this game.
Do your players stop and dispatch every last monsters that falls to the floor? Especially in situations where there are still 3 highly dangerous creature in the immediate area?
If the answer is yes... I say they're fair game. :P
What would your players do?
Most of my player groups make sure that anyone or anything they fight is "finished off". They take the occasional prisoner and they show mercy occasionally, but in general they're out to kill once a fight has started. So why should their opponents be any different?
I know this is entirely a situational question. Thankfully we have no "aggro" system in the pathfinder role playing game, so as GMs we decide who and what our monsters chew on.
So is it bad form to have a monster chew (nom nom nom) on a PC when he is down unconscious with -hp?
What do you think?
thanks
Monsters? Well, I'd say it depends on the monster. Most large monsters would probably attempt to run off with the recently wounded meal. Once the PC is a limp noodle, the monster can happily just haul him off as part of his load, and since most big monsters have big strength scores and high speeds, they probably just earned themselves a meal.
As for sentient or humanoid NPCs, you betcha! Coup de grace is a valid tactic; especially when one channel energy later and your enemies could be back on their feat. Kobolds couping with their little longspears for 3d6 damage, or dropping Alchemist fire on a downed character to put the pressure on his allies to douse him before he burns to absolute death. Likewise, minions are dangerous because if their boss downs you and moves on to the next guy, they can come over and stick a fork in you.
EDIT: Heck, sentient NPCs often don't even need to use a coup de grace. If they have multiple attacks and can target a foe and a downed foe at the same time, dump your worst attack into the downed foe to finish him. A barbarian's poor attack is probably still going to deal 2d6+6 damage or so, which means more than likely it would kill anyone below 0 Hp.
EDIT 2: Then again, I totally believe going out and risking your life as a heroic adventurer should probably include risking your life. When I look at a monster, I see what it can and probably would do. For example.
The shark isn't very strong for its CR, but it is a very dangerous encounter if you're in the water. See, in dark waters, a shark is at the advantage. Its keen scent means it can notice you at distances neither of you can see. It's initiative modifier is +5. It also has a +8 Combat Maneuver Bonus. Pretty good. Now, imagine you're swimming along, and suddenly here comes a surprise attack-charge out of now where. BAM, grabs your party's wizard without so much as an attack of opportunity (since the party was flat-footed). Shark wins or gets a decent initiative on round 1, and grapple-moves down into the water at a speed of 30 ft. The shark is moving faster than party can swim, and unless that wizard can break the grapple, he's probably shark food, if he doesn't drown first.
The dire shark is like that only worse. It has the swallow whole ability built in, making it excellent at this tactic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is entirely a situational question. Thankfully we have no "aggro" system in the pathfinder role playing game, so as GMs we decide who and what our monsters chew on.
So is it bad form to have a monster chew (nom nom nom) on a PC when he is down unconscious with -hp?
What do you think?
thanks
I dont think it is bad form or good form. It depends on what the group is used to. If you GM in such a way that you always allow the group to win I think "switching gears" without warning is bad form, but if you always play with lethal tactics then nothing it wrong with it.
Unless you're operating under some implausibly modern rules of engagement where you can't beat on the medic this is an opportunity to identify the medic and put him down.
Most adventurers may have a heavy duty healer, but most of a monster's encounters don't. There's no reason to assume there's a cleric until one reveals himself. Once one does the smart thing to do would be to focus as much fire as possible on him.
Adepts are an NPC class which can heal. They also wear armor, carry simple weapons, and don't suck enormously in a fight at lower levels. Seeing as adepts are NPC classes like warriors and experts, there's a pretty good chance even groups of NPCs have a healer/support member in their group, even if it is cleric-lite.
PCs are likewise very well served spotting these guys and taking them out once they realize they're there. Them adepts are a mix of different kinds of magic, you see. A group of NPC orcs (3 warriors + 1 adept) can be pretty dangerous. The adept casts bless and suddenly all of them are attacking at +1. The adept casts cure light wounds on the orcs and add some more rounds or keep them from being staggered. Since they also have access to spells via scrolls and wands, they can really be a pain for PCs.
|
|
So Lvl 12 procrastinator, I think I have a different opinion from you.That's the beauty of this game, that it can be played differently by different groups and still be fun for everyone.
As DM, I respond to the desires of my group. My group doesn't like it when the game gets too "meta." They call me out on it, and they call each other out on it. So if I were to spare a PC just because he/she is a PC, that would be too meta. It would break their immersion in the game world.
I'm sure your group is different than mine. I don't believe either group is better or more right than any other. That's a great thing about this game.
Again thank you all for sharing your opinions, this has been an interesting thread to read.
Lvl 12 Procrastinator, I quite agree, there are many ways to play the game, and you don't really have a "right" or "wrong " way to play it, but i think the litmus test is wether you the GM and your players are having fun or not.
I think people often forget this little bit of text
"The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Mastershave a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
Page 9 Pathfinder rule book.
We are supposed to make this game our own, and if that means, you are running a game where it is understood that if your character goes down, somebody is going to make sure he isn't getting back up, which is fine, or if there is a "gentleman's agreement" where the GM will generally have his monsters find someone else to chew on PC once he goes down, that is fine too.
so thank you all for sharing your thoughts, I am finding this thread a good read.
|
|
Yes, it is bad form. Sadly it happens a lot.
It actually happened to me during a PFS event at Paizocon, run by someone from Paizo.
I had a character stuck down a pit with a swarm eating me. I went negative and the swarm kept eating me. Another player came over to try and draw the swarm off me, but the Gm decided that it would rather continue eating me. The group tried several things to try and get the swarm off me, but the Gm just wanted to kill someone (as far as I can tell). So, after the group spent/wasted ALL their remaining healing trying to keep me from dying, eventually the swarm killed my character. I think we totaled that it did something like 40 damage to me between the healing and the damage over many rounds before I finally died. (Mind you, we were all only lvl 2.)This left me with about an hour left in the scenario with NOTHING to do at all. My brother (the one desperately trying to get the swarm off me) and I were so mad at the GM we could barely look at him. After the scenario, since everyone else lived or merely went unconscious, we were all told that we could use these characters again. Except for me, of course, because I died. Honestly, I expected a lot more from an official Paizo GM. It would have been very simple to have the swarm go after another target, leaving me unconscious. The scenario was quite enjoyable (and very challenging) up until this choice by the GM.
GMs should NOT try to kill someone. GMs should make the game fun.
I had a character stuck down a pit with a swarm eating me. I went negative and the swarm kept eating me. Another player came over to try and draw the swarm off me, but the Gm decided that it would rather continue eating me.
While losing a character sucks, this sounds reasonable to me. I don't know what the swarm was made of, but I am imagining a swarm of insects. It wouldn't make sense for them to give up and move away from a nice meal that they had just gotten. A GM deciding to have them move away from you just to try and not kill you wouldn't have made any sense at all (since a swarm does damage just by being where it is). For me, that would have broken the verisimilitude of the game to a point I no longer feared death.
Your right, a GM shouldn't be trying to kill the players, but at the same time a GM shouldn't be taking steps to make sure they don't die if the situation is such that they should die.
It would be more fair to say that it wasn't fair to put a swarm in a pit at a level where the PCs were not equipped to deal with a swarm and be mad at the designer for this. But even then, most low level characters SHOULD have a way to deal with a swarm (splash damage, area effect spells, torches, etc.).
The group tried several things to try and get the swarm off me
This may be semantics, but you can't get a swarm off someone (well, not normally, I suppose Gust of Wind might do it), your options are to move the character out of the swarm or to kill/disperse the swarm. That is just the swarm mechanics.
My brother (the one desperately trying to get the swarm off me) and I were so mad at the GM we could barely look at him.
You and your brother needed to walk away from the table. Not because you were right and he was wrong, or even the opposite, but because you were taking a game so seriously that you got this mad.
It's one thing to suffer through a game that is kind of boring in hopes the next will be more fun, but if you are doing anything that is hobby and you are getting mad at someone it is no longer worth your time to play with or near that person... walk away. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, it isn't worth that kind of anger.
Honestly, I expected a lot more from an official Paizo GM. It would have been very simple to have the swarm go after another target, leaving me unconscious.
I think expectations is really what it boils down to. You don't find it fun to play in a situation where if your character would reasonably killed that it actually happen (there is nothing wrong with that, if that is how you like your games), others find they really want to know that characters can die when it makes sense for them to die and it is that thrill that is fun for them... without it the game seems flat. (Personally, either is fine with me, no strong opinion).
The problem only really comes in when there isn't communication at the table as to which is going to happen. I have players in my game that if I were to have that same situation and the swarm didn't kill them would start finding excuses to play another game as that one just wouldn't be fun. But I have also played with people who would want the swarm to move on (it wants a TPK or nothing?). Again, neither is right or wrong.
So... if you have a strong opinion either way, make sure you are talking to your GM or players if you are the GM about expectations so no one is surprised... especially if you can get so mad about your character that you don't want to look at someone.
The scenario was quite enjoyable (and very challenging) up until this choice by the GM.
Awesome! Hopefully you can take this experience and make sure that you learn and have characters who have the ability to deal with swarms (they CAN be really tough, but have a sort of glass jaw if you can deal with them). If you can do that, you come out of this a better player.
GMs should NOT try to kill someone. GMs should make the game fun.
I can't agree that a GM should be trying not to kill people. I can get on board that they shouldn't try to kill people. I think they need to be fairly agnostic about killing a character... it can happen, but it isn't their goal.
It really comes down to whether or not you can have fun if a character dies. If that will ruin your night then you need to make sure the GM knows you can't have fun if a character dies... if they don't enjoy running a game that way, then I guess you guys break out a board game or something. But it is on you to tell them that you can't deal well with character death, it shouldn't be a default assumption.
But you ARE right that it is the GMs job to make sure the game is fun... but the default game assumes you can die.
Somewhat of a side tangent... I do think the GM should actively try to avoid a TPK. If a TPK is eminent then something has already gone horribly wrong... really bad series of die rolls, bad adventure/encounter design, etc., etc. But if the whole story is gone then fun is often gone for everyone.
Sean Mahoney
Yes, it is bad form. Sadly it happens a lot.
It actually happened to me during a PFS event at Paizocon, run by someone from Paizo.
I had a character stuck down a pit with a swarm eating me. I went negative and the swarm kept eating me. Another player came over to try and draw the swarm off me, but the Gm decided that it would rather continue eating me. The group tried several things to try and get the swarm off me, but the Gm just wanted to kill someone (as far as I can tell). So, after the group spent/wasted ALL their remaining healing trying to keep me from dying, eventually the swarm killed my character. I think we totaled that it did something like 40 damage to me between the healing and the damage over many rounds before I finally died. (Mind you, we were all only lvl 2.)This left me with about an hour left in the scenario with NOTHING to do at all. My brother (the one desperately trying to get the swarm off me) and I were so mad at the GM we could barely look at him. After the scenario, since everyone else lived or merely went unconscious, we were all told that we could use these characters again. Except for me, of course, because I died. Honestly, I expected a lot more from an official Paizo GM. It would have been very simple to have the swarm go after another target, leaving me unconscious. The scenario was quite enjoyable (and very challenging) up until this choice by the GM.
GMs should NOT try to kill someone. GMs should make the game fun.
Maybe he saw it as running the monster realistically. I am not a PFS GM, but how much effort is the GM(any GM PFS or not) supposed to put into saving a player?
PS:I know that question will vary by poster, but seeing other people's opinions won't hurt anything.
Yes, it is bad form. Sadly it happens a lot.
It actually happened to me during a PFS event at Paizocon, run by someone from Paizo.
I had a character stuck down a pit with a swarm eating me. I went negative and the swarm kept eating me. Another player came over to try and draw the swarm off me, but the Gm decided that it would rather continue eating me. The group tried several things to try and get the swarm off me, but the Gm just wanted to kill someone (as far as I can tell). So, after the group spent/wasted ALL their remaining healing trying to keep me from dying, eventually the swarm killed my character. I think we totaled that it did something like 40 damage to me between the healing and the damage over many rounds before I finally died. (Mind you, we were all only lvl 2.)This left me with about an hour left in the scenario with NOTHING to do at all. My brother (the one desperately trying to get the swarm off me) and I were so mad at the GM we could barely look at him. After the scenario, since everyone else lived or merely went unconscious, we were all told that we could use these characters again. Except for me, of course, because I died. Honestly, I expected a lot more from an official Paizo GM. It would have been very simple to have the swarm go after another target, leaving me unconscious. The scenario was quite enjoyable (and very challenging) up until this choice by the GM.
GMs should NOT try to kill someone. GMs should make the game fun.
Wow. Y'know, the thrill and risk of death, and the challenge that brings. When did games suddenly have to have to be no-lose for people to think they're good games. It's like that new Mario game where if you suck bad enough, Luigi comes into the game and clears the stage for you.
If you didn't want your character to have a chance of dying, why are you roleplaying an adventurer who goes out and risks his life, as opposed to an NPC expert crafting swords in town?
EDIT: Your story doesn't even sound like the GM was out to get you, but like you're blaming the GM because your character died. Man, my players have been through much, much worse, and they keep begging for more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is bad form. Sadly it happens a lot.
It actually happened to me during a PFS event at Paizocon, run by someone from Paizo.
I had a character stuck down a pit with a swarm eating me. I went negative and the swarm kept eating me. Another player came over to try and draw the swarm off me, but the Gm decided that it would rather continue eating me. The group tried several things to try and get the swarm off me, but the Gm just wanted to kill someone (as far as I can tell). So, after the group spent/wasted ALL their remaining healing trying to keep me from dying, eventually the swarm killed my character. I think we totaled that it did something like 40 damage to me between the healing and the damage over many rounds before I finally died. (Mind you, we were all only lvl 2.)This left me with about an hour left in the scenario with NOTHING to do at all. My brother (the one desperately trying to get the swarm off me) and I were so mad at the GM we could barely look at him. After the scenario, since everyone else lived or merely went unconscious, we were all told that we could use these characters again. Except for me, of course, because I died. Honestly, I expected a lot more from an official Paizo GM. It would have been very simple to have the swarm go after another target, leaving me unconscious. The scenario was quite enjoyable (and very challenging) up until this choice by the GM.
GMs should NOT try to kill someone. GMs should make the game fun.
Wow. Y'know, the thrill and risk of death, and the challenge that brings. When did games suddenly have to have to be no-lose for people to think they're good games. It's like that new Mario game where if you suck bad enough, Luigi comes into the game and clears the stage for you.
If you didn't want your character to have a chance of dying, why are you roleplaying an adventurer who goes out and risks his life, as opposed to an NPC expert crafting swords in town?
I agree with you, and does the game really clear the stage for you? I would feel really embarrassed if that happened to me.
I agree with you, and...Yes, it is bad form. Sadly it happens a lot.
It actually happened to me during a PFS event at Paizocon, run by someone from Paizo.
I had a character stuck down a pit with a swarm eating me. I went negative and the swarm kept eating me. Another player came over to try and draw the swarm off me, but the Gm decided that it would rather continue eating me. The group tried several things to try and get the swarm off me, but the Gm just wanted to kill someone (as far as I can tell). So, after the group spent/wasted ALL their remaining healing trying to keep me from dying, eventually the swarm killed my character. I think we totaled that it did something like 40 damage to me between the healing and the damage over many rounds before I finally died. (Mind you, we were all only lvl 2.)This left me with about an hour left in the scenario with NOTHING to do at all. My brother (the one desperately trying to get the swarm off me) and I were so mad at the GM we could barely look at him. After the scenario, since everyone else lived or merely went unconscious, we were all told that we could use these characters again. Except for me, of course, because I died. Honestly, I expected a lot more from an official Paizo GM. It would have been very simple to have the swarm go after another target, leaving me unconscious. The scenario was quite enjoyable (and very challenging) up until this choice by the GM.
GMs should NOT try to kill someone. GMs should make the game fun.
Wow. Y'know, the thrill and risk of death, and the challenge that brings. When did games suddenly have to have to be no-lose for people to think they're good games. It's like that new Mario game where if you suck bad enough, Luigi comes into the game and clears the stage for you.
If you didn't want your character to have a chance of dying, why are you roleplaying an adventurer who goes out and risks his life, as opposed to an NPC expert crafting swords in town?
A Super Guide Block is a special green Exclamation Mark Block that appears in New Super Mario Bros. Wii. It will appear when the player has lost eight lives consecutively in the same level. If Mario hits the block, the Super Guide mode will be activated, Luigi will appear, and the computer within the game controls him to clear the stage in place of the player. If the player presses One button on Wii Remote, the player may choose to deactivate the Super Guide mode and take control of Luigi. However, if the level is beaten, it won't count as an actual win. Items collected do not count as well.
EDIT: Yeah, it's pretty sad... >.>
<speechless>
<speechless>
I know right? Man, where are people's honor or sense of pride? Heck, I beat Donkey Kong / Donkey Kong Jr. when I was a little kid. I failed tons of times, but then I finally got good enough to beat it. I didn't throw the controller down and pitch some hissy-fit because I lost. I guess my parents just taught me to have more character than that.
These were games I was playing when I was like 2-7. There are some good games these days, but a lot of them are weaksauce. Man, if you had a game that had the disgusting difficulty of Dino Riki today, people would moan and groan like the game designer had come to their house and stabbed their mother.