| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A trend I've noticed over the past few years is how soft games have gotten. By soft I mean that many players come in with the expectation that their characters aren't really going to die, no matter what inane or stupid things that they pull, because any "good GM" is going to pull strings to keep them up. If their characters do die, they see that as the fault of the GM and that it's "bad GMing" because after all, they were only roleplaying their character.
I've noticed a lot of GMs supporting this style of play (I'm officially saying right here that I'm not saying that this style of play is bad or wrong, only that it's a newish trend in games and one that I don't particularly enjoy, but that doesn't make it bad), and in the last game I participated in as a player, I noticed that when my character would get close to death, the GM would start fudging rolls and having monsters ignore me.
I literally had to actively *try* to get killed for it to happen. In reading message boards on the webz, I've seen this particular style of play has grown very much in popularity, to mirror how many video games are now crafted (where character death is discouraged).
I have had a couple negative experiences with players dying and freaking out at the table about it in the past couple years, mainly with 4e. I had a guy playing a paladin who instructed his party members to attack the creatures that were really good at hitting AC (they had low AC) and he was hitting a creature really good at hitting REFLEX (he had a low REF). The end result was a party-wipe due to bad tactics, to which he slammed his fists into the table and went into a tirade about bad DMs.
I had a guy playing a barbarian who raged and then sprinted a good 100 feet away from the party, kicking a door down, rushing blindly into a room swinging away and then as he was the only one in the room, the monsters in the room converged on him and killed him (the party was still far down the hall), to which he raged in real life about what a poor DM that was to have punished him for roleplaying his character.
Recently I had another barbarian player (3.5/PF) rage and go running off into the woods alone and away from the party, setting off traps and injuring himself and then ending up dead smack in the middle of a bandit camp, far away from support or healing, where he was hacked down as he was the only target at that point as the rest of the party was gathered across the map still (they have since bought a collar and leash for that character). He did not rage or go into a frothing rant about bad DMs, but he was annoyed that he was allowed to be attacked by so many bandits and had to spend the fight lying in a pool of his own blood, when he was simply "roleplaying his character".
So this brings me to the point of the thread, which is my opinion followed up by what do you think...
"Roleplaying my character" it seems has become synonomous with "I want to do stupid things and because my character is prone to stupid things, you should let me do them without being subject to death for my stupid actions".
I play my monsters as I feel they would operate tactically. Stupid things, dumb undead, animals,... they have no tactics. They either fight whatever is closest, or flee.
Smarter enemies are going to employ some tactics, and when a berzerking barbarian lands in their midst alone and outnumbered 9:1, it seems unlikely that they are just going to stroll away and ignore him so that he can use his beat stick on their skulls at leisure.
Granted if a berzerking half orc barbarian came sprinting into a kobold lair or a goblin lair and there were only a handful of them in the room, I'd allow an intimidate check to set them fleeing, but then none of the players above thought to do that anyway.
This is kind of similar to how certain min/max players get angry when they make a min/max character, and then their min traits are exploited, using the "bad DM" button to describe anyone who attacks where they are weakest as if their max traits should be the only things that matter in the game.
So then, how do you handle this scenario, both as a player or as a GM? Interested to see others' take.
I too, have noticed this trend. And it drives me a little crazy, especially as a DM.
I've tried discussing it but the general response has been along the lines of, "Well the game is just too hard." Since I have no other people to play with right now, I guess I'm just going to have to soften the punches a little bit. But I'm definitely not going to reward people for making stupid decisions and whenever I'm a player I try very hard to lead by example.
So far that's not working but one lives in hope.
|
That has definitely been the trend that I have noticed as well and I do not subscribe to it. As a GM I will give my players some leeway to do some stupid or bad things but they know after a few game sessions that they cannot get away with stuff like that very often as the have seen player deaths on more than one occasion.
As a player I fully expect and hope that the GM will not pull punches or fudge to many roll in my favor, I expect to die when I do stupid or inane actions, its actually a let down for me as a player when I know that the GM pulls strings unrealistically in my characters favor.
|
I think it all comes down to player expectations and whether the system suites those playing styles.
Pathfinder really is a game where death should be a constant risk. Being a combat heavy miniature based game it relies on keeping combat interesting and potentially dangerous.
If your players are looking for a game where there is low risk of death then I can recommend plenty of games that better fit that style of play (Daring Tales of Adventure, Duty & Honour etc.)
You can turn Pathfinder into a low risk game. 25 point buy, extra gold and keeping CR within 1 of the APL can do that. But in my opinion, that takes away from the tactical game where you really need to think about each action and communicate with the rest of your team to make sure you stay alive.
Have a chat with your players and see what their expectations really are and if you're playing the right game or the right style for them.
I must be a lucky GM, because none of the groups I run have this problem. Though, as you say, I have had conversations with them about other games they've played in, and it does seem to be a "trending" style of game. I'm not sure I'd immediately jump to the "it's because of video games" conclusion. It could just be that this new generation of PnP gamers is a softer group of people. If you jump out of gaming for a second I think you'd see that that is a true idea anywhere. I look at the disciplining of my generation and spanking your kids (even in public) was entirely acceptable. Now if you spank a kid in public for wrong behavior you're liable to get some kind of abuse claims launched against you. Perhaps our society in general is building a softer, weaker, less risky "build" of human. It's possible.
Anyway, as I said, I'm lucky, both in the category of my players realizing death is always imminent, and players that (perhaps because of that) don't do stupid things. Case in point: two sessions ago the group had the high perception Ranger do a perception (listen) check at every door in the dungeon they were in, before they opened it, so they could see if there were baddies behind it. Now that's caution!
As an interesting note: I have every player that is coming into a game of mine, whether it is newly starting, or they are adding into the group, fill out an online survey about their play-style, expectations, etc. It's a good idea, because it will let you know right away what the players are looking for, and whether or not your play-style will match with theirs. If anyone's interested I'd be happy to post a link to the surveys I use.
I've had a lot of party deaths with my friends and DM. Weird thing is that I've only died once and that was on purpose. However a couple sessions ago one encounter almost lead to a TPK. The people that lost characters did next to no complaining, our party just accepts that it's apart of the game.
I think it all comes down to player expectations and whether the system suites those playing styles.
Pathfinder really is a game where death should be a constant risk. Being a combat heavy miniature based game it relies on keeping combat interesting and potentially dangerous.
If your players are looking for a game where there is low risk of death then I can recommend plenty of games that better fit that style of play (Daring Tales of Adventure, Duty & Honour etc.)
You can turn Pathfinder into a low risk game. 25 point buy, extra gold and keeping CR within 1 of the APL can do that. But in my opinion, that takes away from the tactical game where you really need to think about each action and communicate with the rest of your team to make sure you stay alive.
Have a chat with your players and see what their expectations really are and if you're playing the right game or the right style for them.
Those are good points. This group has been with me for a couple years, we just finished out a 4e campaign (which is a system designed to not kill the characters). Most of the players are onboard and understand that this is a more dangerous game.
I pretty much have had several talks with the whole group about how characters die in 3.5/PF and that you have to be smart. The thing is, this situation has come up over the years several times (roleplaying a stat dumped character where the dumped stats are INT and WIS). Last night after the player said "but I am roleplaying my character" I said "that's true, your character isn't very smart, but he's a good fighter, and should have some semblence of tactics." Charging off by yourself into the bandit woods at their camp is a recipe for your destruction.
"But I'm roleplaying my character"
I've heard that many times. It's cool to roleplay your character, I love that! However... it should not be used as a wedge to make the GM feel bad about killing you because its part of the package that you will do stupid things. I also roll dice in the open and not use a screen, there is no fudging, so they know the dice fall where they may.
Overall its been a good start to a campaign, just want to see how others deal with players who want to do stupid things and expect to not be killed for it.
As an interesting note: I have every player that is coming into a game of mine, whether it is newly starting, or they are adding into the group, fill out an online survey about their play-style, expectations, etc. It's a good idea, because it will let you know right away what the players are looking for, and whether or not your play-style will match with theirs. If anyone's interested I'd be happy to post a link to the surveys I use.
I've also used surveys. The first thing that I mention is that my campaigns are not designed for min/maxing and that I prefer to keep that out of the game.
If players min/max anyway, it is known ahead of time that the monsters that come after them will be able to deal with the min/maxer.
This isn't a topic about min/maxing, so I'd like to not go down that rabbit hole, but it's a style that I don't really want present in the games that I run. My players are pretty cool about it.
I've always said that your group has to be cool with your GM style and vice versa. So that's a good point about the surveys.
Actually, I am considered kind of a softie by my players.
I don't like to kill characters. I don't believe in meaningless deaths, caused by a mere quirk on the dice. If the farmer you are pushing past reflexively lashes out with his pitchfork, rolls a crit, confirms, and the critical table shows 'instant death', I can and will fudge the result.
This having been said, when it comes to a dramatic fight, I will not pull my punches. An epic fight would be pretty non-epic if it didn't carry a considerable chance of death, or worse.
Plus, if any character dies to massive stupidity on the player's side (climbing down a chasm without securing himself, charging blindly into whatever with the group several minutes behind, drinking the contents of a random flask in a laboratory (don't laugh, I had all three of these)), the player has no one to blame but himself.
Yes, I allow for sub-optimal decisions due to roleplay. These things may make your situation tougher (maybe that little bit too tough), but calling 'do what I want beause it's kewl roleplay and my PC halo will keep me safe' is a surefire way to find out otherwise.
Things get to start problematic if you have a problem player, who claims his actions are 'just cool roleplay' when doing inane stuff that, if played realistically, would result in a TPK... especially if said player has made it clear that he has no problems with his char being killed - while the rest of the group were rather attached to their characters.
The players in the three campaigns I am running all know that they run the risk of death with their characters. They know this because I always start my campaigns with a disclaimer note that they are playing adventurers, i.e. that uncommon type of person who is willing to take uncommon risks of life and limb to gain great wealth, renown and power.
I am not a "killer DM" in that I do not try to kill the character's but I do like to make challenging encounters that not only test the character's abilities but also the player's abilities. The result is that the parties I DM for have developed into some pretty cautious folks who don't always start slinging spells and weapons every time a suspicious noise is heard or run head-long into danger without knowing the repercussions. Those that have done so have either been killed or survived by the skin of their teeth and learned a thing or two.
No one seems to mind. In my Castle Whiterock game (PCs are around 8th level) I have one player out of six on his fourth character, one on his third and two on their second.
I do not like to pull punches often but sometimes I do when the moment is dramatically appropriate. In one of my games, when the characters were third level they were escorting a trade caravan across an area known to be plagued by a notorious band of outlaws, instead of trying to fortify the defenses of the caravan (and utilizing some resources available to them such as a few caravan guards, etc.) they chose to attempt an ambush on the bandit camp. This was despite the fact that their information gathering had already told them that the bandit force was overwhelmingly large and numerous NPC advice from the caravan members that this was a bad idea. They ended up with four of them down and dying and the two remaining members surrounded and told to surrender. Luckily they did so and I chose not to have them killed, Instead they were stabilized and taken into slavery and had to live with the fact that they soon learned the caravan they were trying to protect had been slaughtered and plundered. If they had not surrendered then they would have been killed.
The party is now fifth level and everyone is still having a great time though one of the characters has died since then.
Wow, there is a whole lot of anger on this post. I am sorry you guys have had these experiences. Hopefully your players are investing themselves in their characters just as you are investing yourself in the game. So if they are killed it stinks. From your description it sounds like there may be missed expectations here.
I prefer a game that is group storytelling. And I am always willing to entertain character death (if it is fitting for the story.) If you have read Pillars of the Earth or A Song of Ice and Fire then you will be aware that character death can be fine in a well crafted story. However in most cases you main characters do not die from seemingly random events. Usually there is a choice that is made and the death is heroic or redemption.
Did you get the feeling that George Lucas was sick of Han Solo’s antics and so he had him captured by Boba Fett and then made into a painting for Jabba? Did you get the feeling that Boromir was just being a jerk trying to steal the ring from the other players so Tolken said, let’s see how my little EL5 party fairs against an CR10 Orc random encounter?!?
What I am getting at here is attitude. If you have an US vs THEM attitude with your players, if you are thinking or using words like “punish” to explain or justify your actions as a DM I would say it is time to take a break. Sounds like you are not having fun and why do you play a game that is not fun? (please do not bring my love hate relationship with CIV V into this..it is a low blow).
Nny
To be clear... "punish" is a term that the players have used to describe them being allowed to be killed, not a term that I use. I don't see it as "punishing" them when they run off by themselves and get themselves killed through their own actions.
"Punishing" would be a character running off by himself and me throwing new monsters at him that weren't originally there just to prove a point.
I also do not see it as "me vs them". I want to run a realistic game where the creatures behave in a realistic fashion. When I play a game of D&D (or whatever name you want to call it), I do not enjoy games where the players aren't going to die because they are the main cahracters in a story.
While I appreciate story telling games, and certainly any RPG can be that, it is not something that I am particularly interested in.
I've always said that your group has to be cool with your GM style and vice versa. So that's a good point about the surveys.
One of the questions on my survey specifically deals with campaign risk. So far I've never had anyone choose "zero deaths" as an option. I'm guessing if you polled your players they'd probably all say the same thing.
Which brings up the interesting dichotomy of players who know, perhaps deep down, but they still know, that death is part of the game; it is constantly out there looming over them. Yet these are the same players, as you say, that get upset when they die. The excuse "I was just roleplaying my character" seems a weak retort. You're rebuttal to such a claim could/should be "as was I the monsters/NPCs/etc." Is it possible the dimwitted rage happy barbarian would jump blindly into a den of poisonous vipers? Yes. It is also entirely likely that at that point he would die. I'm sure many a barbarian died pointlessly because his rage overcame his sense of reason.
I'm betting that if you sat down with these players, long after the character's death, and talked objectively about the game in a narrative form. Just telling the story, laying it out like it happened in the third person, they'd realize that death was the most likely outcome of their actions. Many times emotions get the better of people at the table, but after cooling down they realize: A. It's just a game, and B. they did something stupid and deserved to die.
In that regard I've found it entirely useful and beneficial to talk with players about the game outside of the gaming session. Even if you have to make a point of scheduling a get together that doesn't have anything to do with the game. Talking about "the game" outside of the actual gaming context provides an important view of "the game" as some thing separate from the player. It gives them perspective into the fact that their character is just a sheet of paper, and an idea.
|
Last session, we ended the night when my players decided to light the temple that they're supposed to be infiltrating on fire. I ended the session a few minutes early so I'd have time to figure out how everyone would react... still haven't totally figured out a way to run this without the party getting killed. Fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would use the survey idea if I had that many players to choose from. As it is, there are such a dearth of players in my area that I either take whoever wants to play or I don't play at all.
Fortunately, my group is made up of some good guys so I don't mind the limitations. I do wish, though, that they'd take their choices a little more seriously. Running right into a death trap might be what your character would do: Killing them for their lack of caution is what my NPCs would do. The same rule applies both ways.
My general response to the complaint is that if you don't want to die, create a character that's got a little more interest in survival and stay in character with that.
There's no anger there, though. Just frustration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get pretty tired of the "I'm just role playing my character" defense. You see it whenever some sorts of players don't want to face the consequences of their actions, although usually I see it when evil/chaotic characters try to justify their game-disruptive behavior.
In these cases, I guess the best rejoinder is to say "I can see that, if you decided that your character had a distinctive lack of self-preservation or a death wish."
Maybe add: "So I role-played my NPCs who are going to do their best to defeat a psychotic warrior who bursts into their midst swinging an axe. You see, they're not the kinds of people who have such a death wish. They want to live, so they did their best to kill your barbarian."
Players have done ... well, let's just say this is not a new trend. Remember the classics - years from now you'll be able to say "remember the guy who..."
Absolutely I don't think player stupidity is a new trend. But, then again, I'm kind of a misanthrope and have zero faith in humanity in general.
I do think, though, that newer players do use that "PC Halo" idea, and do tend to get more upset than the older generation of players would when their character dies.
So, player stupidity has definitely always been around. Players reacting over-emotionally to character death and blaming the GM may have also always been around, but, in my experience, that trend of overreacting and blaming the GM is definitely more prevalent now than it was in earlier gaming generations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the 'i'm just roleplaying my character' I usually reply with, great, you just roleplayed yourself into needing some diamonds and a highish level cleric.
I am a firm believe that encounters shouldn't be SET UP to kill players and that assuming reasonable tactics and normal luck, the players should succeed in the end. I generally dont 'pull punches' or fudge dice to protect my players, instead I take great pains to make sure the encounters are designed to take them to the edge without actually killing them. What this means is that sometimes characters do die, due to a run of bad luck, or a foolish choice. Thats part of the game. We still make fun of one of the players who was playing a swordsage in a high-ish level game.
We were inside a building when a big ole hydra attacked outside. He being crazy mobile teleported (some power that had teleport like effects) directly outside 'dont worry, i have a plan!', while the primary tank (my paladin) took 4 rounds to shuffle his fullplate laiden behind down the stairs and outside. Essentially, the swordsage faced a monster designed to face the whole party (6 players) alone for 3 rounds. (he didnt make it 3 rounds). He was eaten, my paladin and the rest of the party eventually avenged him, killing the hydra. But there werent really alot of sore feelings because he did something intensly foolish.
One thing you may want to consider, which is something i have used in my game, is the hero point system from the APG (or something similar). If players have hero points available they can prevent death but still be dropped to negative hit points. I find that using such a system, I can keep up the threat level (players are almost as nervous if all that is standing between them and gruesome death is hero points as they are if they would just outright die) without derailing the story with lots of character deaths.
Some people are just babies and wouldn't know a bad GM if it hit them in the face
My Gm sent 7 lv. 1 Orc Barbarians at our newly formed (6) lv. 1 party and all of the enemies are built using the same stats we were (18,16,15,14,13,12) and was surprised that +10 to hit and 1d12+ 12 was taking us down
at lv 2 he the enemies have 2 wands of ICE STORM and kills our party with that
he's gotten better BUT he still has no concept of worth so basic bandits all have magic weapons and wands of ice storm
I've been playing RPGs for a long time.
** spoiler omitted **I have many stories about players doing stupid things and being surprised when it hurts them. Some classics....
1) Jumping into a just opened trap door - without checking anything - didn't even look to see how deep it was. 60' down, as a 3rd level ranger.
2) In a burning building, with zero HP (staggered), with the other PCs on the other side of a large (burning)room and only monster dead. Open a door the rest of the party can't see and moving thru into the unexplored room beyond - even after the DM (me) pointed out that this was both a move and an action and he would fall to -1 HP for doing it.
3) Throwing your only weapon (a bastard sword) at a monster in a different room - and then wondering if you can get training with thrown bastard sword, 'cause you might want to do this again?
4) Casting Stinking Cloud centered on yourself - (and the party) 'cause your own magic wouldn't hurt you...Players have done ... well, let's just say this is not a new trend. Remember the classics - years from now you'll be able to say "remember the guy who..."
Thanks for sharing these stories. :)
To add to it: if a player continues to do stupid things enough that it becomes a trend...
For example, a party coordinating and working together against a monster, because not timing their hits led to it multiplying...and the one player not listening and just diving right in, ruining rounds of work?
If you've a trender, don't let them cause a TPK. Their actions should be limited to their own character's repeated death and subsequent losses. Take the trender aside in person, as well. If a chat doesn't work, and he can't be removed from the group, then you may need to resort to other options in game.
The storybooks of past campaigns are littered with tales of brave + stupid warriors charging off into battle in advance of their teammates and paying the ultimate price for it. The same can be said of intrepid + foolish rogues who go off by themselves in search of secret treasure or knowledge. Ditto for mage types who go it alone in the hopes of obtaining some new bit of magic.
Call it DnD Darwinism if you will.
But not every foolish escapade has to end up in death. Enemies can take prisoners, you know, or use magic to subvert the will of the foolish or misguided. If death is warranted then go for it, but if other means and motivations are called for, don't hesitate to use them. My 2 cp. Good luck!
The best argument I've seen for the deathless swing is similar to the argument for it in video games. That permadeath hurts the player's experience too much, and so what you see is an answer to marketing in the removal of penalties for raises, etc.
Perhaps some have taken this to mean death at all, which isn't true.
I'd also tie it into a growing mindset that demands an independent rule for most anything. While this can help gaming efficiency, it also tends to come with a mindset that I dislike: "a rule so the GM can't screw with me."
Since when a tabletop group game become me versus you?
And in a versus mindset, you lack two important elements: trust, and the trust that the game is intended to be fair.
When /those/ elements are missing, then death ingame becomes problematic.
Call it DnD Darwinism if you will.
Its honestly amazing how my party in Carrion Crown has fallen for classic Horror Tropes without realizing it until after someone has been mauled to death for walking off on their own, or some other thing that afterwards everyone is like, "Really? We all watch movies, why do we keep falling for this!"
In the old AD&D days a character dead was not that uncommon, the aventures for first edition were especially deadly.
I remember also, that the videogames were much more dificult, somebody remeber gradius 3, wizardry,supermario the lost levels, ninja gaiden?
From what I understand, the change has to do with marketing. I think we'll see a backswing, though. Not to the old degree, but some. Demon's Souls is one example--I think we'll see a few more.
Perhaps it will mirror in tabletop RPGs.
For example, a party coordinating and working together against a monster, because not timing their hits led to it multiplying...and the one player not listening and just diving right in, ruining rounds of work?
What about a party, doing a stealth infiltration into the den of a seriously superior enemy, with one single player who suddenly states "Bah, that's boring. WE ARE HERE, AND WE WILL KICK YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES! JUST COME GET SOME!"
*stunned silence at the table*
GM: 'Umm... you didn't just yell that, did you?'
Player 'You bet I did! Those goons are no match for my character - at least he thinks so, so I'm just roleplaying!'
Structure goes on full alert, party enacts some crazy escape plan, barely getting out with the GM clearly pulling punches left and right (still blowing a crapton of resources)...
Discussing the situation in OOC later, player stated "Well, I wouldn't mind if GM took off the kiddy gloves once in a while... Yes, what my char did was dumb and should likely have killed us all, so what? That's just the way the character is... and I play my character the way I think is right; if he dies, I'll just make another"
Ah, same player took it poorly when he found out that, some nights later, my (CN'ish) rogue had decided to... remove the liability the character was to the group. Accused me of out-of-character metagaming.
In the old AD&D days a character dead was not that uncommon, the aventures for first edition were especially deadly.
I remember also, that the videogames were much more dificult, somebody remeber gradius 3, wizardry,supermario the lost levels, ninja gaiden?
From what I understand, the change has to do with marketing. I think we'll see a backswing, though. Not to the old degree, but some. Demon's Souls is one example--I think we'll see a few more.
Perhaps it will mirror in tabletop RPGs.
Dark/Demon's Souls would be a great setting/theme for an RPG actually. You could actually run a game where character death was... largely meaningless. And still interesting!
But yes, you're correct. And there's a definite resurgence in difficult gaming... Who wants to play "I want to be the guy!" the RPG?
Who wants to play "I want to be the guy!" the RPG?
played and beat
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I am just role playing my character."
That is the weakest and oldest excuse. We are here to play a social game and when playing your character makes the game not fun for other players then you are doing something wrong. There is a social contract implicit in playing with a group and you are breaking that contract. Play nice or go home.
When a player pulls that excuse out I have only one response. If you want to play in my game then make a character that plays well with others.
As in other parts of life setting expectations helps a lot. Every game I run I let the players know my stance. From 1st to 3rd level I give them a lot of lee way because they are learning their characters, the campaign, and sometimes my style. I will let character's die for plain stupid actions but otherwise I will keep the kid gloves on. From 4th to 7th I am a little tougher. Less warning of dangers and such. From 8 and up I play it straight. You are tough enough to survive if you play carefully. Kick in the door and swing your sword will get you or the party killed.
Despite repeated warnings some players will still laugh at death. In a RTToEE game I had warned my players for months that the inner sanctum housed the toughest opponents, some who could one shot kill, and that they needed to adjust tactics accordingly. The game they ran into the toughest opponent I gave them a specific warning that someone could die today. One player said "I laugh at death." One destruction spell later and his character was dead because he insisted on going into the room alone. Suddenly, the players took the threat seriously.
Its funny because over two years that game had four previous deaths due to poor choices and bad luck. They knew I would let characters die but still laughed in the face of my warnings.
Who wants to play "I want to be the guy!" the RPG?played and beat
Wait, it exists?! I was being hypothetical. I dont want to play such an RPG, the actual game was bad enough!
I guess that'll teach me to doubt the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I manage 'expectations' at every campaign start by stating that the campaign is a consequences based. Insult the king and expect to spend time as the king's guest in the dungeon below the castle. Do something stupid that common sense tells you may get you killed and you most likely will die. Not every single monster they encounter will be EL appropiate for the party's level.
My DM screen's back (the side facing the players) has row on row of skull stickers, each one representing a dead character. Every time the players look my way, they are reminded that my game has consequences.
Now, I am not keeping a kill board as my players would tell others but it is a prop at the table to have players be mindful that actions and choices have consequences.
If a player states his character is doing something bozo that endangers the character or the party, I give a reminder about probable consequences and ask if they still want to do the action. If so, so be it. For example using the barbarian running into the wood in the original post...
Player - "I am moving to here and will attack anything I see" (moves fig 100 ft from party and into bandit camp.
Me - "You realize that you just advanced well ahead of the party and their ability to support you. They will need to so a full turn run action just to catch up. Are you sure that is what you want to do?"
Player - "It is what my barbarian would do, given his character"
Me - "The choice and the consequences are yours to make. Final answer?"
Player - "I am sticking with my action"
Me - "It was an audacious move, bold by its very nature. The bandits are unimpressed as 12 of them pour out of the tents in response to the cries of the lookout who heard and saw you charging through the woods. Your arrival in the midst of the camp has drawn quite a reception. I think they are going to hurt you more than you are going to hurt them. Now you know why there is no real old barbarians back home. They tend to die young doing stuff like this."
Player - "But, I don't get surprise?"
Me - "A full charge action precludes any sort of stealth. Plus you full on charged through trees, brush and brambles to get here in one move. There is nothing subtle about that. They heard you coming and they are ready"
Player - "But..But.."
Me - "Taking the beating like a proud, fierce barbarian you are. If you survive, maybe there is a lesson to be learned here."
I remind players that I don't stop they from roleplaying the character the way they want. Their actions and resultant consequences are all theirs. But consequences will come.
Though you gave a subtle warning, I find the lesson you gave that player to have been a bit heavy-handed, Moria. Then again, that's just my opinion, and I've actually had similar situations (however, the players manage to get out of one with cunning, and for that I am proud of them)
If there is no challenge or no risk of death, is there any fun? My best games as a player and a DM are when I am on the edge of my seat praying for the next roll to be a hit. The excitement of escaping death is by far the allure with this type of game. Death should be inevitable. It will be either at the hand of a monster or the dusty shelf of retirment.
Without this risk, I don't have the fulfillment of accomplishment. there should be at least one instance per game, that if a roll should go bad, it has major/dire consequences, maybe not outright death, but close enough to it, to make a player or myself sweat a little.
In designing some dragon fights, these are the parameters I am trying to insure with my play tests. For without them, I have discovered that the players don't fully get engaged to the task at hand. and when that happens, distractions become a major role in lack of satisfaction when sitting at the table.
It is the DMs responsibility to ensure fun is being had by all, and by all means, if the party does a stupid thing, a consequence should be expected, and if it fails to happen, I feel that your game has lost a valuable concept and may not be worth playing anymore.
Just my 2 cents.
Lots of good smart stuff
Cannot agree with you more. Current trend in players seems to be one of entitlement. They are entitled to be succesful, heroic adventurers no matter how stupid they play.
Glad my regular group is not like this, though we have had individuals pass through our game who were.
|
|
It is a current trend with people in general. We had a guy at our table that liked to wander off while on watch and would find out what I had planned for the group ahead of time. Usually it was just bad for him, but occasionally a wandering monster would get the drop on them. This same player decided that smoking pot in the bathroom at his job was okay even though there was a zero tolerance drug policy. He blamed me for letting his character die and his boss for firing him. I'm pretty sure he passes the blame on everything else in his life, but having watched a few games being run at the local gaming store I have come to realize that he is no longer in the minority.
I try to do my part though, I've brought back a perennial favorite of one of my older groups: the Wall of Shame. That's where we take character sheets from fallen characters and hang it on the wall with the monster killed him written in red marker. Little things like that and the mocking of fellow players really kept my old group sharp so it might help in these situations as well.
What about a party, doing a stealth infiltration into the den of a seriously superior enemy, with one single player who suddenly states "Bah, that's boring. WE ARE HERE, AND WE WILL KICK YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES! JUST COME GET SOME!"
*stunned silence at the table*
GM: 'Umm... you didn't just yell that, did you?'
Player 'You bet I did! Those goons are no match for my character - at least he thinks so, so I'm just roleplaying!'
Structure goes on full alert, party enacts some crazy escape plan, barely getting out with the GM clearly pulling punches left and right (still blowing a crapton of resources)...
You play with Leeroy Jenkins? *grin*
I, too, will ask players if they really just did some action. Every time I generally assume they will retract it, and most of the time I am surprised when they don't. I don't think I've ever asked them when I didn't expect something bad to come as a result of said action.
I like the extra complexity that Pathfinder and 3.5 bring to character generation. If anything, it makes the life of a character more significant to me and the death a less casual event, which makes me (as a player) more careful not to do something stupid.
We don't make new characters during the game when a character drops. The player will just take over an NPC and make a character after the game is done for the day. So the complexity of making a new character really has no impact on things in that sense.
But not every foolish escapade has to end up in death. Enemies can take prisoners, you know, or use magic to subvert the will of the foolish or misguided. If death is warranted then go for it, but if other means and motivations are called for, don't hesitate to use them. My 2 cp. Good luck!
This. You can have their foes enchant them, strip them naked and leave them for dead, or you can maim them. (anyone play a 1-handed PC before?) They'll learn...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like to kill characters. I don't believe in meaningless deaths, caused by a mere quirk on the dice. This having been said, when it comes to a dramatic fight, I will not pull my punches. An epic fight would be pretty non-epic if it didn't carry a considerable chance of death, or worse.Plus, if any character dies to massive stupidity on the player's side, the player has no one to blame but himself.
I don't have any players who are near-suicidal with regard to their characters, but at times there does seem to be a sense of entitlement: it's not "fair" to give them an encounter they can't handle. We use a kind of poorly defined "action points" variant that we call Flumph Points which in theory allow the PCs to negate incoming critical hits that would kill them, or get a second chance at a saving throw when a failure would Seriously Suck, and maybe even to accomplish some nifty cinematic maneuver that has no real chance of success. (In practice, the players tend to forget they have these points and just complain about how hard the encounter was.)
Despite complaints about certain encounters in Rise of the Runelords -- a certain quasit, then Xanesha, Kreeg ogres generally, etc. -- they have a track record of soundly thumping the enemy in relatively short order. One PC was killed by Nualia at Thistletop. Three others were murdered in their sleep by one of their own, who'd failed a save vs. a glyph of insanity and become a psychopath. That's about it for party kills.
They are a party of six 13th L characters, whose most recent battles were against a CR 13 glabrezu demon and (in a separate combat a few minutes later) a CR 14 NPC Thaumaturge/Fighter. Both combats were short and resulted in complete victory for the party, so when I looked ahead and saw their next major encounter would involve a CR 15 "Old" category dragon, I raised it to Ancient and added a few Fighter class levels, making it CR 19. After their initial brush with it -- designed only to let them know what they were going up against -- I started to get cries of "Killer DM!" and "the paladin can only hit that AC on a 17 or better, and the spellcasters need 16 or 17 to get by its SR!"
Hey, no one said 51,200xp and a staggering amount of treasure should be easy to get. Who says you have to fight the thing right now?
I like to break things down mathematically to keep a hard boundary on the difficulty of a combat encounter (and to be sure, one way to counteract min/maxing is to ensure that there are plenty of non combat encounters as well).
But looking at what actually KILLS characters, more often than not it is combat.
I have four levels of encounters.
Easy encounters - these are typically CR = party level or less. I find these encounters to generally be cake walks for the party barring lucky dice rolls (which can happen).
Moderate encounters - the majority of my encounters sit here. They are typically party level + 1 encounters. Again, the party for the most part can snap through these, but there are some hidden dangers that can test them if they aren't careful.
Challenging Encounters - I use these as mini-boss encounters. They sit around party level +2 or +3, and are very "swingy". They can go either way, and require the party to really work together to pull through.
Hard Encounters - Anything level 4 or 5 higher is a hard encounter, which means someone's probably going to die if they try to go toe-to-toe. These are rare encounters, often a random encounter or an epic boss fight, that requires super team work to get through successfully. Sometimes its best to run and fight another day.
I try to avoid going higher than that unless its to prove a point, or its part of the story to encounter a creature that can pwn their face sideways, and in those instances there is a wide open escape clause.
Mathematically I find that 40-60% hit ratio is a good sweet spot. Meaning if my party averages out to have a to-hit mod of +5, then appropriate AC would be around 13-17 or so. This gives me a good litmus test of difficulty using hard numbers. A creature with an AC of say 19 or 20 against a party with an average to-hit mod of +5 would be very difficult for them to deal with barring great positioning and some luck (which may be part of the challenge)
I don't enjoy throwing them to the jaws of death every encounter, and neither do they. Sometimes its important for them to see how awesome they are. However, cake walks get boring as well, so a good mix is needed.
Regardless, the battles described above were all "challenging" difficulty encounters that required some tactics and group effort, and players either made giant tactical blunders (my first example), or just did very stupid things (examples #2 and #3) and it cost the party by having them fall and having to deal with the enemy without one of their fighters.
|
|
Our party has a rogue in it, a rouge who has to mess with crap.
First day- he sets the school we were at on fire
Second day- Wakes up an army of skeletons that kidnap us, then casts darkness and gets the heck out of there while we get captured (We now call him puddles for that)
Third day- Tries to light the ship where everyone else is held captive on fire, AND tries to steal a treasure map (and succeeds) from the skeleton captain's quarters, makes a shoddy copy and bluffs that it was the original copy all along. That also surprisingly worked
He then didn't do anything else stupid for quite a while until...
Just last session, the group splits up over an argument of what way to go. I go to the left with the half orc and the water "goddess" (powerful outsider with an overinflated sense of self) the rest go up.
the group with the rogue end up in a empty room with only a throne in it.
The rogue sits on the throne...
-_-
We now have a saying. "If you see Braccus running away, it's a good idea to run too because he probably just did something he shouldn't have"
|
|
As a player I hate being "softballed" by a GM. Most of my characters are cautious, some to the point of paranoia, but occasionally I play a character that is a bit more of the button pushing/lever puller type and fully expect to have consequences for ill planned actions up to and including character death. It is then a party decision if we front the money to have that character brought back or not. I have also had numerous characters die to due to just sheer bad luck on a series of dice rolls, but again this is part of the game and some days the dice gods are just against you.
As a DM I let my players know that actions have consequences and that monsters/NPC's will be played appropriate to their intelligence. When a player does do something stupid that may/may not be deadly I always verify with the player if that is really what the character wants to do giving them the option to rescind.
As an interesting note: I have every player that is coming into a game of mine, whether it is newly starting, or they are adding into the group, fill out an online survey about their play-style, expectations, etc. It's a good idea, because it will let you know right away what the players are looking for, and whether or not your play-style will match with theirs. If anyone's interested I'd be happy to post a link to the surveys I use.
Yes please. I would love to gaze at the survey.