This (I feel) is one of the biggest struggles as a DM.
Where do you draw the line of "That was a great battle and was the perfect level of challenge."
I always seem to be one way or the other when running scenarios. Either it feels like the party got through the fight with reasonably minimal stress, or a few rounds in i have to rip the enemy back a little bit for fear of demolishing the party.
How do you prevent/deal with this?
I use correct cr for my parties. And i do realize people feel differently about the balance of how much challenge.
But when is it ok in your campaign to just kill off party members?
Or are you like me in that you're afraid to kill off a party member for the effects it will have on the story?
I want to know from players and DMs where do you feel the line is for deaths/challenge?
When do you walk away from a fight feeling accomplished, like you overcame odds?
I dont want to kill party members, sometimes it happens but that is never my goal. My goal is to make the character THINK they are going to die, and then pull through. Now this is for important fights ofcourse, not every encounter needs to stretch them to their limits.
I think CR is just a tool like everything else for a dm. In the end you know your party and what they can do. The same set of monsters will be a very different challenge for different parties of the same level.
Obviously when aiming to bring them to the edge, sometimes unless I fudge dice which I dont like doing, I will kill a party member. It is inevitable as there are dice (random aspects) in this game. But one way I circumvent that is with things like hero points. I really like these inventions. If your players have a resource they can spend to save them when the dice dont go their way, (particulary the spend 2 to save them from death) then I can operate with less fear of actually killing a character (though they ofourse may still die) without reducing the challenge.
At least in my group, if a character would have been killed but for the expendature of hero points, it actually ups the tension, they know they got away by the skin of their teeth, and they still feel challenge. BUT they arent actually dead, and the story isnt actually derailed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM Answer: In my opinion, I never kill off PCs. They kill themselves off.
I don't put characters in unwinnable situations. They choose to go off at level 1 and try to take out a tribe of ogres, despite the evidence that such an action will end poorly.
I also don't try to make characters die by random bad luck, like failing a jump skill check and having the poor PC plummet to his doom. Which means I avoid creating situations that would rely on that mechanic. Not to say a bottomless crevasse isn't found in my games, but there's going to be another way to get across. If you don't bother to look for that other way and want to jump, I can't stop you.
Player Answer: The best gaming memories are from hard-fought battles where I knew we were really challenged. I love it when a nail-biting roll has to be made by the GM, and he rolls it in the open. This applies to wargames as well as RPGs. Even if I did something to get myself into a mess, knowing the GM isn't pulling punches (nor is he dosing up with steroids to hit me harder!) is key. Sadly, that is probably the least useful answer you'll get, since it depends on hitting that balance correctly.
Let me give you an example: The PCs were exploring a cave, and encountered a tentamort (a blind, squid-like creature). None of the PCs had seen one before, so when I described it as squid-like, the sorcerer decided that must mean it has eyes. She cast color spray, to no effect. Well, not true. The PC who was grappled by the thing was stunned. This set up a very memorable fight, since player of the grappled thief got to roll for the duration of her stunned condition. The creature was no match for the full party, but blasting an ally meant things got hairy. I can't remember if I fudged some rolls to ensure the thief wasn't killed, but I likely would have, since her stunned condition wasn't her fault. Not that I let her know she wasn't going to die. A few HP per round of grapping damage to a low level PC is scary without being deadly.
The only time a character died in my game was because the party screwed it up. They left him in a concealing fog while under Held Person with two enemies near him. The other players didn't try to suck up AoOs to get to him or even try to distract the enemies near him. So I killed the character. Directly after the fight there was an in-game bit of magic where the players' bosses gave them a big "What is wrong with you guys speech", rezzed the dead guy, and spread the penalty across the party.
I pull punches and I make lesser tactical choices in my fights. Enemies might have their hit point max dropped mid fight or their damage reduced or their to-hit bonus shift around a bit. However, I keep it interesting.
I see my job as DM to be that of suspense. I roll in the open and my players know it. I force them to consider tactics by ensuring they know I will hurt them if they are dumb. I will leave unconscious players alone most of the time, but if others don't show a desire to help out... well... monsters get hungry and not helping party members is dumb.
First of all, having some fights be cakewalks is not a bad thing. i like to throw an easy encounter out every now and then so my players can appreaciate who awesome their characters are becomming.
Second, not every encounter is supposed to the CR appropiate. If you look at module design, you will see encounters that are easy(APL-1), and some that are very hard(APL+3). By design, the encounters are supposed to give you varied results.
If the player is in a dire situation because of their own stupid mistakes, I will not pull any punches. The barbarian who though it was a great idea to charge the dragon without the support of his party gets no sympathy from me.
Now, if the player didn't really do anything wrong, but they has an unfortunate series of event, I will likely pull punches.
Here are some lessons I have learn about players deaths.
- Suspense. The closer to death a player comes, the more challenged they feel. One of the most memorable fights was when the barbarian decide to stay in melee with 4 hp left and do a full attack against a monster. The important part was that he knew if he failed to down the monster, I was going to kill him without remorse. I even gave him fair warning that this was a bad idea(the monster was still over half health). He actually managed a crit and killed the monster. What made it epic was that he knew I would have killed him without a second thought if he had failed.
- Realism. I try to make my enemies act as realistic as possible. An animal isn't going to Coup de Grace an unconscious enemy when there are other threats around. A villinous henchmen would. A good realistic death can actually serve as a plot device. The players learn they are dealing with some bad, bad guys and the players learn that you will kill them if the situation warrants.
- Second chances beyond death. Death doesn't have to be the end of a character. Even if they cannot afford raise dead, the character can still come back. Maybe they get a favor from a church to be called in later(future plot hook). Reincarnate has to be one of my favorite ways of bringing characters back. Early on in one campaign, the players befriended some druids, so they had access to cheap reincarnates. Nothing like the hyperoptimized half-orc barbarian coming back as a halfling. After that, even once the players had access to raise dead, they agonized over whether to accept a cheap reincarnate or pay extra for raise dead.
Great question. I have a lot of trouble with this one myself. At higher levels, it seems like things can go so terribly wrong, or so outrageously right, that it is difficult to get the corrrect amount of drama. The party I run for killed of the dragon big bad guy really easily through a combination of dumb luck and clever use of resources, but had a lot of trouble with the frost giants that were wandering around the valley.
Truth be told, I am overly reluctant to kill of the players, because I don't like getting killed as a player. My DMing suffers as a result.
The best games I have aver played as a player have been run by my borther, who will inevitably leave you in abject terror of your character's imminent death. The only down side of this is that, I die a lot in his games. I AM really involved in the danger of it, and spend a lot of time worrying about my character when I play, which is exciting.
Recently, it caught up with him, and our party got wiped out. He had his villains accept the surrender of the remaining players, and now we're locked up. I expect that when next we play, we will have an exciting time trying to escape. It is possible to make even TPK pretty exciting, so I would recommend that you try to put the fear into your players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do the players want? Some players just want to kill things and don't like a challenge. Some players like the perception of a challenge, but don't really want a real risk of loss. Some players like the thrill of true risk. I tend to lump A&B together, and push them with a little C, but you also have to read your table and give the people what they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I roll my dice open and give my pc's hero points. Adventuring is a dangerous business and people die, intellegent opponents are also played intellegently. If your in a fight to the death people die.
Hero Points help I think.
I've had GMs run me and my party mates through hella-hard encounters, only to post about them on the forums later to have rude people tell me that the GM was coddling us.
One example being my sorcerer, Hama. She made it through ten levels of play on less than 30 hit points, and NO ONE believed I managed it on my own merits. It was easier to believe I had a soft GM (which is not only insulting, it is so far from the truth as to be laughable).
I am a firm believer that there should be consequences for actions or inactions.
In addition to fudging dice, with intelligent bad guys you have the option of changing tactics.
If a fight's too easy and in danger of turning into an uninteresting rout, one of the bad guys can shout out a good idea that his desperate buddies go along with.
If a bad guy's stomping your group, let him get overconfident and waste a round or two with his boot on a PC's neck, threatening or gloating while they fight minions. If you sell that successfully, the actual threat goes down (suboptimal tactics) but the perceived threat goes up ("aaaah, this guy's mean and scary").
Of course, certain types of bad guys in certain situations are going to be tough, smart, highly effective and playing for keeps. Those are the ones that produce sweaty palms and edge-of-seat posture, and that's great. Just try to give some indication ahead of time when it's going to happen, so the players know they need their A game...
|
One little "trick" I use as a GM:
Every once in a while, I will gun after a particular character. I will include a monster or NPC or situation that is there specifically to take out that one PC. A creature that would just murder that PC if it was a one-on-one fight. Usually the creature is part of a posse or group so it's not terribly obvious at first that he's there to specifically counter that one character.
Of course, it's never a one-on-one fight. The PC has his or her buddies as backup, and so the bad-guys' plan of attack is almost 100% doomed, but I usually get enough good hits in to put the fear of Orcus into the party.
As a counterpoint, I also make sure every once in a while to include a creature or creatures whose weaknesses coincide with a particular PC's strengths as well. You've got to mix it up.
Wolfsnap - That's a favorite of mine. Often my "good idea" that one of the bad guys spontaneously gets is "kill the caster" or "dogpile the archer", something like that.
I don't want it to feel like the enemy is a hive-mind with perfect coordination, but so far I've managed to avoid that outcome while still getting the group reasonably freaked out. :)
There is no "right answer" to this question. Every player group is different. Even within player groups every campaign is different.
My goal is to provide meaningful challenges to the players. It has been my observation after years of running campaigns that some players thrive on the real possibility of PC death, while other players hate the idea with a passion. When a situation comes up where it looks like a PC is likely to perish in a fight, I do try to work the encounter so that the player who can't accept their PC's death is at lesser risk than the players who thrive on it.
I have also learned that as players see other players deal with PC death and actually make it memorable for the whole party, that level of concern over their own PC's death lessens considerably.
On occasion I have worked privately with experienced players who want to start a new character anyway to deliberately engineer an encounter so that their PC has a pretty good chance of dying. This gives us the chance to role play the situation in such a way that character death is presented as a growth opportunity for the play group.
Dotting for great advice... Also, my answer.
When I play, I generally enjoy a very real threat of character death. It makes for great story potential if you can't get a rez. Party goes on a vengance quest, character sibling or old ally (new character) arrives to pick up where the old character fell off (and possibly vengance seeking), important quest gets passed to another character, etc etc. I personally feel cheated in combat if after several sessions my character hasn't dropped to 10% or less of HP. In all honesty I absolutely love a good, well earned character death. It's a more satisfying end for me than campaigns that just peter out and end because the DM doesn't like the story he came up with anymore, and we switch GMs, never picking that game up again... Thankfully I have left that group so hopefully my next one actually have a campaign that goes for longer than 5 or 6 sessions.
When I DM, I am a firm believer in kid gloves until level 5. Enemies never crit (though a nat 20 is still an auto hit), generally a lot of low-hp low-ac creatures so that PC death is due to stupidity rather than real challenge (like charging into a group of some 10 creatures by yourself), stuff like that. Once you hit 5th though, kid gloves come off. I start using challenging creatures, full HP for their hit dice for one or two creatures in the combat, so on and so forth. Players should have group tactics and individual character strengths and weaknesses worked out. I prefer not to kill characters, but for the exceedingly brainless (such as the samurai charging the formation of ogres lead by a troll, alone, on horseback) I hold no such reservations.
Basically I DM like I like to play. Challenging games where the threat of death is very, very real. Otherwise, how is a character supposed to feel heoric? Do you really feel all that when you can walk through a session without worrying of death, while at the same time slaughtering creatures by the hundreds in a single swing? This was the problem with my previous group, the DM coddled the rest of the group because two players had immense problems with character death (one being so attatched to a character in a different campaign that my GF and I weren't a part of, that if it died, she'd quit Pen and Paper roleplaying FOREVARRRR!!!, so I suspect that had an impact on the DM's treatment of the party, doesnt help that besides my gf and I, the group lives together in a single apartment). There was no CHALLENGE. The only challenge to the game was the puzzles he set up, and even then those were relatively easy. It felt like I could take a level 1, non-combat character with NPC levels, and destroy a group of 30 goblins in a single swing of my mighty stick!
I feel that some one needs to die at some point in order to create the feeling of danger past the lower levels. This doesn't mean I try to kill someone, it usually just happens. The guy that dies usually gets revived, and so the story isn't derailed.
Hero points as mentioned above, are awesome.
My biggest problem is my players do not seem to realize that stabilizing is difficult if you go more than a little under. It can quickly become a real threat and so a lot of my players end up dying by just bleeding out.
In one game I made death a big deal by making the material components for revival spells rare and costly ( I think diamond dust is the only one, but I was just covering my bases). The PC's usually did not want to pay triple the cost to revive someone and remove negative levels and so what often happened was the party took a side trip to try and locate a diamond mine, or an evil guy who may have some that they can kill and take.
Making reincarnate the only way to revive someone adds to the tension as well since you never know who you are going to get and how it is going to affect role-play.
As a player i feel that the risk of dying, makes for a more intresting game.
That being said to many player deaths, can also have a negative impact on the suspense of the game. For example we are three fourths through council of thieves, and due to a combination of unlucky dice rolls, non optimised characters and a gm that dosn't pull punches we are on i think 16 players deaths. Which actually is kinda detrimental to the thrill of the game. Since we aren't afraid some of us might die, we are sure that someone is going to die and we just make plans to get them back in the action as fast as possible.
For example we are three fourths through council of thieves, and due to a combination of unlucky dice rolls, non optimised characters and a gm that dosn't pull punches we are on i think 16 players deaths.
Wow, that seems a bit too much and as you have stated you guys are starting to lose the feel of danger not because it isn't there, but because the impact has been watered down. Its a difficult if not impossible median, to balance not enough player death, with too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, if you don't have demises amongst your player's characters, then you're playing something other than d&d. Save those type of feel good sessions for group therapy or the like. I Dispatched 86, that's right, Eighty-Six PCs in my 2006-07 Age of Worms campaign, see the thread in Campaign Journals if you're curious.
To the original poster, just apply the natural consequences and make it tough on them when merited. If they're unlucky or foolish, they need to learn the hard way. If you want NO risk of demise or serious consequences, for your PCs, in the game, then consider opting for the Candyland board game instead. That doesn't have any risk of PC demise either.
For example we are three fourths through council of thieves, and due to a combination of unlucky dice rolls, non optimised characters and a gm that dosn't pull punches we are on i think 16 players deaths.Wow, that seems a bit too much and as you have stated you guys are starting to lose the feel of danger not because it isn't there, but because the impact has been watered down. Its a difficult if not impossible median, to balance not enough player death, with too much.
It is a bit much but alot of them were to SOD spells. And we just suck at making those saving throws. I mean a monster hitting us with two phantasmal killers in a row is kinda nasty, but what are the odds of both players failing both of their saves against it.
Most of my fights I use are at PCs' CR rating, and they usually have a good chance of coming through alive save. Especially because my players are very good at party tactics, and often rip through something I even intended to be hard.
I'm not the kind of person who routinely throws stuff that's obvious way past their "CR" and expects them to die.
The majority of fights I run, seldom do PCs die. But a lot of times they come close. They use up a lot of resources to win. They say the fight was fun. So I figure I did it right.
I don't have to fudge anything to help them live. At most, I might have a monster target someone else rather than coup de grace an unconscious character (though usually, because that also makes sense for them to do).
That said, I do design some fights with the intent of making things especially difficult. Boss fights or key areas being protected by the bad guys, I up the ante. I make the players aware the ante is upped.
And if they play in a way that one of the PCs gets offed -- the PC gets offed. I don't fudge. Since it's relatively unusual in my games, there's no reason to be "merciful" -- usually it's a situation where a lot is on the line and the players accept that PC death may be one of the consequences.
OK, time to play the grognard card...
I played original D&D and every version up to and including 4e.
When I first started playing killing off characters seemed to be far more prevalent than it is today. Expecially wizards. Getting a wizard past level four to level five was back then deemed to be a REAL accomplishment. Plus now you got FIREBALL and so you were actually a real wizard....
In the campaigns I played in characters died left and right. My second ever created character died at level 3.
But somehow my own characters had a very low mortality rate. In fact I think I've only had two or three characters in 30 years actually die in combat. And one of those is an ambiguous end that the GM has left open in case another campaign opens up in that world.
I think my low mortality rate is, perhaps paradoxically, because I learned how to play in a high mortality environment. My characters act like they could die, so they tend not to do things that expose them to early demises.
Most of my characters are not afraid to take the better part of valor and live to fight another day.
OK, time to play the grognard card...
I played original D&D and every version up to and including 4e.
When I first started playing killing off characters seemed to be far more prevalent than it is today. Expecially wizards. Getting a wizard past level four to level five was back then deemed to be a REAL accomplishment. Plus now you got FIREBALL and so you were actually a real wizard....
In the campaigns I played in characters died left and right. My second ever created character died at level 3.
That makes me wonder if the game just have gotten less lethal or people who play now just have a different mindset regarding player death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That makes me wonder if the game just have gotten less lethal or people who play now just have a different mindset regarding player death.OK, time to play the grognard card...
I played original D&D and every version up to and including 4e.
When I first started playing killing off characters seemed to be far more prevalent than it is today. Expecially wizards. Getting a wizard past level four to level five was back then deemed to be a REAL accomplishment. Plus now you got FIREBALL and so you were actually a real wizard....
In the campaigns I played in characters died left and right. My second ever created character died at level 3.
Well, consider the following from early versions of D&D:
1. Wizards had a d4 hit die and gained no con bonus if their con was less than 16. It was not uncommon to have a wizard with ONE hit point. My first character was a wizard with ONE hit point.
2. Characters did not die at -10 or -con hit points. Characters died at ZERO hit points. That meant my wizard could have literally been killed by a rat bite. To reach level 2 my wizard had to literally take ZERO DAMAGE at level 1. The entire party was dedicated to keeping the wizard as far from combat as possible.
3. There were many literal "save or die" spells. Not the figurative ones of today. A high enough enemy spellcaster could kill you with a glance.
4. Traps used to be a big, big deal. And most traps were lethal, not inconveniences. Fireball traps were a favorite back then.
5. Certain spells used to attract psionic enemies by rule. If your spellcaster used those spells and did not have psionics themselves, they could be killed without being able to defend themselves.
Just a few examples of the lethality of the old game...
My first level one hit point wizard is still "alive" today... He's a thirteenth level wizard that I've converted to the new rules each time a new version has come out. Although I converted him to Pathfinder, not 4e this time.
That makes me wonder if the game just have gotten less lethal or people who play now just have a different mindset regarding player death.OK, time to play the grognard card...
I played original D&D and every version up to and including 4e.
When I first started playing killing off characters seemed to be far more prevalent than it is today. Expecially wizards. Getting a wizard past level four to level five was back then deemed to be a REAL accomplishment. Plus now you got FIREBALL and so you were actually a real wizard....
In the campaigns I played in characters died left and right. My second ever created character died at level 3.
Well, consider the following from early versions of D&D:
1. Wizards had a d4 hit die and gained no con bonus if their con was less than 16. It was not uncommon to have a wizard with ONE hit point. My first character was a wizard with ONE hit point.
2. Characters did not die at -10 or -con hit points. Characters died at ZERO hit points. That meant my wizard could have literally been killed by a rat bite. To reach level 2 my wizard had to literally take ZERO DAMAGE at level 1. The entire party was dedicated to keeping the wizard as far from combat as possible.
3. There were many literal "save or die" spells. Not the figurative ones of today. A high enough enemy spellcaster could kill you with a glance.
4. Traps used to be a big, big deal. And most traps were lethal, not inconveniences. Fireball traps were a favorite back then.
5. Certain spells used to attract psionic enemies by rule. If your spellcaster used those spells and did not have psionics themselves, they could be killed without being able to defend themselves.
Just a few examples of the lethality of the old game...
My first level one hit point wizard is still "alive" today... He's a thirteenth level wizard that I've converted to the new rules each time a new version has come out. Although I converted him to Pathfinder, not 4e this...
Fireball actually being really freaking dangerous is somthing i both remember and miss from the few second edition games we played before shifting to third.
But what i gathered from your post, is that you dont think that the playing mentality have changed much, and the game just were so much more lethal in the earlier editions?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what i gathered from your post, is that you dont think that the playing mentality have changed much, and the game just were so much more lethal in the earlier editions?
I can't really speak to the "mentality" of an entire community of gamers. Although I'm sure others could. I can only relate my own experiences in the game and state my opinion.
I believe the early versions of the game were not just more lethal than modern versions, I believe they were FAR MORE lethal by rule. It was actually a struggle to keep your characters alive in ANY low level combat, especially wizards who could be killed with a single lucky arrow. (OK, "wizards" were called "magic-users" back then...)
My own experience with the "mentality" of the gaming groups I play with is that the GMs I play with today (including me to be honest) are far less willing to kill off a PC than they were when I played back in college. That could simply be that my gaming groups have tended to be my age throughout my gaming career, and we've simply mellowed with age. For all I know college campuses are still littered with the virtual corpses of wizards from one end to another. They certainly were back in the 70s...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you coddle me, I will destroy your game. As players, everyone in my group will mess up the game for dm's who take pity. My good characters will soon become over confident and cocky, and eventually become evil stains upon society. Even the goodliest man who gets too much powerful will eventually sway towards power.
I suppose it depends on your player base as well. Everyone in our group is also a DM and well versed in the rules. As such, we work efficiently and in unison. First round hastes and mass spells are always going to happen. If our dm takes it easy on us and pulls punches even for 1 round its very likely they just through the fight. CR is a bad system, its gauged around the ideal that you will have certain archetypes filled and PCS will be prepared to fight those types of threats. A couple werewolfs showing up at Level 2 when PCS have no silver weapons= a bunch of dead PCS. Same fight with silver weapons=a difficult fight probably resulting in 2 dead werewolfs.
If you gave them the tools to get the job done, then don't pull any punches. If they didn't pay attention along the way, or didn't come prepared, kill away and feel no remorse. Building and getting attached to a new PC is almost as fun as playing one your already attached too.
Hmmm.
I kill off pcs, I've done it, will do it again. It isn't my purpose, but the world I run is a bit harsh.
There are mooks, there are monsters, there are dangerous enemies, there are bosses. Mooks are pretty awful, and will surrender if things go bad. They are the bread and butter, the base of the sandwich.
Monsters, I like to ensure they have some weaknesses, are an appropriate cr with one sometimes a bit higher than normal (4-5 over), if I think the players can take them. If monsters are really nasty, and the players make mistakes or don't work together well, the monsters can kill them and eat their bones. It happens, it should happen. I don't coddle much. Monsters can be a threat, a bit of fun and not much of a challenge, they are a dangerous hammer that can crush players. Real nasty predator monsters often don't flee, and some have regen.
Dangerous enemies are where I start to think more tactically. These are other adventurers, high up enemies, things I use because they will be hard, they have their specialty. If the players are their counter or find the counter, these can be easy, but they will really try to kill the players, and are difficult to get rid of. If players are too cocky or go trying to fight the power straight up, a lot of these come out of the wood-work. They represent the fine dagger. They can get in, hurt the players, but they might bounce off armour, good defences or a solid counter or plan. These are usually not fanatical, but intelligent.
Bosses. I find these guys usually die pretty easily. The players come down on them hard, and take them very seriously. They are the objective, the foe. Without protection, they fall with some effort, I don't like bosses that can do everything and have no weaknesses (ahem pathfinder, ahem).
I wouldn't worry about killing players too much. A dead pc can often be brought back, or the player can try a new character. It helps them realise there is a real threat and challenge behind the game, and know that death is on the line.
If you coddle me, I will destroy your game. As players, everyone in my group will mess up the game for dm's who take pity. My good characters will soon become over confident and cocky, and eventually become evil stains upon society. Even the goodliest man who gets too much powerful will eventually sway towards power.
I suppose it depends on your player base as well. Everyone in our group is also a DM and well versed in the rules. As such, we work efficiently and in unison. First round hastes and mass spells are always going to happen. If our dm takes it easy on us and pulls punches even for 1 round its very likely they just through the fight. CR is a bad system, its gauged around the ideal that you will have certain archetypes filled and PCS will be prepared to fight those types of threats. A couple werewolfs showing up at Level 2 when PCS have no silver weapons= a bunch of dead PCS. Same fight with silver weapons=a difficult fight probably resulting in 2 dead werewolfs.
If you gave them the tools to get the job done, then don't pull any punches. If they didn't pay attention along the way, or didn't come prepared, kill away and feel no remorse. Building and getting attached to a new PC is almost as fun as playing one your already attached too.
Very wise. Yes, when players get too powerful and think too highly of themselves, they stop doing good and start being giant ogre-di*ks to anyone they can.
CR is quite the bad system. A heavy melee party will stomp many crs even a fair bit above them, but flounder in other areas, especially investigation. Spellcasters may own them, but not if they win the initiative (how many charges from barbs can a spellcaster take?). A party of rogues and ninja laugh at traps, and can move really quiet. I don' like archetype parties anymore.
But what i gathered from your post, is that you dont think that the playing mentality have changed much, and the game just were so much more lethal in the earlier editions?I can't really speak to the "mentality" of an entire community of gamers. Although I'm sure others could. I can only relate my own experiences in the game and state my opinion.
I believe the early versions of the game were not just more lethal than modern versions, I believe they were FAR MORE lethal by rule. It was actually a struggle to keep your characters alive in ANY low level combat, especially wizards who could be killed with a single lucky arrow. (OK, "wizards" were called "magic-users" back then...)
My own experience with the "mentality" of the gaming groups I play with is that the GMs I play with today (including me to be honest) are far less willing to kill off a PC than they were when I played back in college. That could simply be that my gaming groups have tended to be my age throughout my gaming career, and we've simply mellowed with age. For all I know college campuses are still littered with the virtual corpses of wizards from one end to another. They certainly were back in the 70s...
I run it old school. Combat can be visceral, nasty, the world unforgiving and hazardous.
I've had characters dragged into watery depths by marine beholders, smashed into mountains and great trees by giants, traps explode characters or sever their limbs, orc shatter fighter's arms and bay for more blood, umber hulks leap atop bards and crush them, players and npcs slowly cooked by proximity to lava, one character botched a climb and went straight into the lava drink, one prone wizard got footy-kicked in the head by a troll, knife-ups in a street leaving all dead or near dying, bolts in the chest, pikes through the guts and back, characters impaled from attacks of opportunity, poison suddenly or slowly killing characters taking away their live in a grisly scene, curses taking away their very humanity turning them into monsters (and the character heroically opted for suicide via falchion to prevent his good character turning).
But when they win, they know they have won and earned it!
One character was stealthing around in a wet cave, found some baby insects, helpless. He sampled one, realised they were the most tasty thing he had ever eaten (I add taste checks and nutrition checks to new foods). Devoured the young.
The giant mantis' found out, coming across the scene. They tore the character to pieces while he was trying to flee. The dice said he died.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That makes me wonder if the game just have gotten less lethal or people who play now just have a different mindset regarding player death.
Yes. Correct answer (IMO, though I've been playing for a long time) is both are true.
Don't really want to dredge up the past again (especially when Admantine Dragon has already explained it well), but I can tell you how I currently like to play the game. Now, my attitude in games is also colored by my experiences with many other role-playing games, my study of history, and my experiences in the military.
That being said, I like and appreciate the risk of death to my characters, but I prefer that actual character deaths be very rare so long as you don't screw something up (and by that, I mean not just bad die rolls, but rather mistakes in tactics/strategy and plan). You screw something up, you'll likely wind up dead-- but you might get lucky and/or your friends may save you. I also believe in playing smart, and playing characters who recognize that they are mortal and could die, and who are therefore correspondingly careful team-players who do their best to increase their chances of success and minimize their chances of dying on any venture (just like real-live Soldiers usually do). I've found that cautious and intelligent play allows the risk of character death to be quite real in any given game, yet characters actually dying hardly ever happens. This includes the thought that one engages in combat and the exercise of violence only when it's really necessary. You do a whole lot of fighting for kicks and grins and got killed doing it? Sucks to be you... shouldn't have kept playing at death like that.
I also spend a lot of time developing the personality, background, etc. of my characters and actually playing them as people in the game world. I really hate investing a lot of time in playing a character, only to have him/her get whacked in an encounter through no fault of my own (other than maybe some bad dice luck)-- if that happens to me more than once in a great while in a gaming group (in RPGs that IMO aren't meant to be high-lethality/s*** happens games), I'm going to find another group to play with-- or I'll presume they want to play "Pathfinder" like it's really "Paranoia" or "Call of Cthulhu" (two of the archetypal "really lethal, die at the drop of a hat, not necessarily your fault" games where character death is supposed to be common for a good story reason-- and where veteran players usually don't waste time building characters that they'll be overly attached to), and start building and playing characters accordingly. Now-- if my character dies because I ****ed up, that's a different matter (so is my character dying, per prior planning between the GM and myself-- sometimes that's a good role-playing thing too, as others have mentioned). It's also worth noting: in your favorite fantasy fiction, usually the heroes are feeling the risk of dying quite a bit (at least in most good author's stories), but how often do the main characters actually die? I prefer my games to more like those stories... I'm not usually playing the game so that my characters can re-enact "Custer's Last Stand" in the role of the 7th Cavalry troopers with Custer (though sometimes it's interesting to have your characters in a similar role to Benteen and Reno-- bonus points if you know who Benteen and Reno were).
In my favorite way to play most role-playing games (something drawn from my experiences with Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and other more modern or future RPGs), combat itself is frequently very easy for the PCs-- when it happens. The games are usually very challenging, the risk of death is potentially great-- but the biggest part of the challenge is in the planning, preparation, set-up, and often the non-combat part of executing every plan and venture. Combat is avoided as much as reasonably possible because it's f'ing deadly and guns will kill you. If you have to fight, you always try to pick fights on ground of your choosing, at a time of your choosing, and in such a way that the enemy never sees it coming until it's too late. In games like this, if you did all the planning, preparation and set-up for any venture correctly-- you may get by without having to fight at all (presuming the mission didn't require exterminating someone) and if/when you do fight, with a little luck the firefight itself is fairly easy because you splatter the enemy with egregiously over-killing firepower so fast they're mostly dead before they have a chance to return fire. Without a little luck and/or doing the best planning and preparation you can with bad situations, combats are messy and seriously deadly and you may well lose someone on your team. Screw something up in the planning and preparation-- and one or more characters will die. Really screw it up-- and you're in TPK territory. Shock and awe, anyone? In the military, we usually don't plan combat operations with the idea that we're willing to give the enemy a fighting chance-- that's not the way we do things, and that's not the way most of my characters do things if they have the opportunity/ability to crush their enemies without giving them a chance at a "fair fight".
Such games can still be extremely challenging-- but they move a lot of the challenge and risk away from moment of combat itself to other portions of the game, where you're hoping everything comes together as planned, and (knowing that no plan survives contact with the enemy intact) hoping that all your contingency plans will be enough when stuff starts going wrong. Though I'm not presently running a game (gotta keep up with my college classes right now), when I do run, I follow the same philosophies observed on above. Of course, when I'm a player I get to play in the game the GM is running. Fortunately at the present time, most of my fellow players are pretty good in the groups I'm in, and none of the GMs are inclined to killing PCs unless you screw up (the feeling, if not the actuality, of risk is still there though-- we've had a few PCs go down in combat, but have so far always been able to get to them before they bled out).
Many many years ago, when I started playing D&D-- games were much more lethal (as best as I can recall), and it's true that I wasn't as adverse to losing PCs as I usually am now. Then again-- as I recall, the whole idea of really getting into your character's personality, developing really detailed backgrounds, and all that stuff that we know and love now, wasn't as well-developed or as commonly seen back then either. Things have changed-- in this area, IMO, for the better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I guess I'm just a "Coddler" as it seems by most of these posts.
Not that I don't like a thrilling fight, or a tough situation to go through, I just think there is a false idea of the possibility of death == excitement.
I started looking at it with my group back in the 80's (but we really didn't play a lot of D&D, and really never in a game with any sort of "cleric" type classes/ healing) But I noticed with the "fear of death" they just wouldn't do "Heroic" things...
They wouldn't follow the McGuffins, nor would they try interesting action.
OH, the princess was taken by a bunch of orcs... that's nice, we're low enough level and that's enough of a threat that we don't need that kind of heat.
What, the princess is across that moat, with the one falling apart bridge? well, sucks for her.
That wasn't very good for the game.... it got pretty bland, TBH.
Then I started thinking about it... If I pick up the "silver Shard trilogy" I'm probably going to figure out that Drizzt survives the Dark elf trilogy too, and did that make that series any less thrilling at the time? No.
If I get into a series after the first (Die Hard) and get into it by watching the second one, and then watching the first one second, does that make the first one any less intense? Not at all.
Lastly, as a mature gamer (been gaming for over 25 years), I can differentiate what I know, and what my character knows...
Add to that the fact that family, work, and other adult obligations make it so my gaming time is pretty few and far between, if I have a character that I've literally spent hours working on, leveling, interacting, building in character relationships, working up contacts and people known, by 5th level I've got over 50 hours of my life wrapped up in that character... 50 hours that I could have been doing many different and more productive things with... you bet I'm going to be a touch salty if he dies... it may "just be a game" but my time isn't just fooling around time anymore, and it's got value of it's own.
Now, am I saying that that time is also spent with friends and in a social setting? Yes, I realize that. and I'm not saying the character is the only part of the game, but in a world where most of the electronic gaming character death isn't even a concern (what with auto rez, one-up's and that's because they realize that the games where you couldn't "save" your progress (IE your "time spent" on that game) then those just aren't concerns in any modern "electronic games" that are currently far more popular than table top rpg's as a whole.
So, I do think that there is a false dichotomy being created by many of the "just kill the characters" line of thought.
But I'm also coming from the angle of creating a story based around Heroes... not a bunch of "normals" trying to slug through a world that resists every movement of them... if I wanted that I wouldn't even RP, I'd just go into work for Overtime (Get some money out of the deal).
But that's my 2 copper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two quick things.
I think Finn K said it "better" (in a better tone, and still managed to convey what I agree with, as in I will kill someone if they are being stupid, a player set off a thermal detonator in his hand in a game of mine... I didn't even calculate damage, he was barely highly irradiated water vapor with no Int after that) than I did.
And
secondly, in my second to last sentence I really didn't mean to suggest so much "blame" or further the dichotomy, by making it so antagonistic.
Let me amend; So, I do think that there is a false dichotomy being created by many of the "just kill the characters" and "let's all be friends" lines of thought.
My bad.
I realized the 5th time that I watched Aliens and was still sitting on the edge of the seat despite knowing exactly what happens and to whom, Character death wasn't important. The story that leads to those situations were what make dramatic tension. And yes, the characters, if not the players need to believe.
As a side note, I don't think an adventure killing off 80 some PC's is being very realistic at all... If I joined an adventuring crew, who said I was number 81 (or even 7 for that matter) to join their group of 5 in the last month... I think I'd bow out and look for a different group of folks to hang out with. (and that's coming from an infantryman, FYI).
-Woof.
|
Player death can ruin a campaign. There needs to be risk, but it must be monitored. Also, there are battles where one player going down is more than likely going to end in a TPK. That is a tough balance to hit.
Characters die in my campaigns. That is inevitable, but it is not so common that players are turned off by it. If you go through pc's like cotton candy, the players have less vested interests in their character and the campaign world.
This is why in the AP's there are only a few "epic" fights. It puts risk in there, at key moments, but allows enough between time to build characters up too.
Remember also, once they can afford raise dead, death becomes less of an issue.
Cheers
Wrath has a point. If your next question is how much death is too much death I will say that depends on your group. I don't mind it as a player as long as I had a fair chance. To me that means the monster is not +6 above the party APL when we are only level 5. Now if I am level 17 I will take on a CR 23 challenge, and hope to live.
|
|
That makes me wonder if the game just have gotten less lethal or people who play now just have a different mindset regarding player death.
Both 1e and 2e were much more lethal. Many things have changed as the game evolved. 3e was the beginning of the lethality dropping.
I just played some 1e with my son. I had a 2nd level Paladin and several hirelings. We bumped into 8 zombies and got our asses kicked. It was not good at all. We ended up having to run. Only took down two zombies and two of the hirelings died.
Now, part of this is no cleric. In Pathfinder a Cleric has channel energy to heal and the Paladin has more going for him than one lay on hands a day for 4 points.
Today we were playing Carrion Crown. The group was not getting any random encouters and almost arrived at their destination. One of them (the Paladin) wanted an encounter. I let another player role percentage dice to find out which one it would be. Quickwood... That is tough. The paladin almost died in the surprise round. Three of the characters panicked. If it was no for the cleric and the channels the group would have been done at least three of them would have died and maybe more as they recovered from their panic.
They did well dealing with the encounter. And it was the channel energy that saved the day and a few other spells.
|
|
I think Finn K said it "better"
Thank you for the kind words-- much appreciated.
As a side note, I don't think an adventure killing off 80 some PC's is being very realistic at all... If I joined an adventuring crew, who said I was number 81 (or even 7 for that matter) to join their group of 5 in the last month... I think I'd bow out and look for a different group of folks to hang out with. (and that's coming from an infantryman, FYI).-Woof.
Heh. You and me both-- and I also used to be an infantryman, along with 4 other MOS's I held during my career. Although-- can you imagine being one of the replacements going into the 8th Air Force in WW2, circa 1943 (flying the B-17s and B-24s on bombing raids over Germany), hearing about the horrendous losses the bomber crews were taking at the time, and "oh by the way, you're on the board for tomorrow's mission"?
I picture a character (for whatever reason you're still joining the game, and your character, in-game, isn't being given a choice) joining that "high casualty group" having a similar reaction to new guys joining those bomber crews.
See, I guess I'm just a "Coddler" as it seems by most of these posts.
Not that I don't like a thrilling fight, or a tough situation to go through, I just think there is a false idea of the possibility of death == excitement.
I started looking at it with my group back in the 80's (but we really didn't play a lot of D&D, and really never in a game with any sort of "cleric" type classes/ healing) But I noticed with the "fear of death" they just wouldn't do "Heroic" things...
They wouldn't follow the McGuffins, nor would they try interesting action.
OH, the princess was taken by a bunch of orcs... that's nice, we're low enough level and that's enough of a threat that we don't need that kind of heat.
What, the princess is across that moat, with the one falling apart bridge? well, sucks for her.
That wasn't very good for the game.... it got pretty bland, TBH.
Then I started thinking about it... If I pick up the "silver Shard trilogy" I'm probably going to figure out that Drizzt survives the Dark elf trilogy too, and did that make that series any less thrilling at the time? No.
If I get into a series after the first (Die Hard) and get into it by watching the second one, and then watching the first one second, does that make the first one any less intense? Not at all.
Lastly, as a mature gamer (been gaming for over 25 years), I can differentiate what I know, and what my character knows...
Add to that the fact that family, work, and other adult obligations make it so my gaming time is pretty few and far between, if I have a character that I've literally spent hours working on, leveling, interacting, building in character relationships, working up contacts and people known, by 5th level I've got over 50 hours of my life wrapped up in that character... 50 hours that I could have been doing many different and more productive things with... you bet I'm going to be a touch salty if he dies... it may "just be a game" but my time isn't just fooling around time anymore, and it's got value of it's...
Your 5th level character deserves a good death, the death of a warrior adventurer before he gets old!
I think Finn K said it "better"Thank you for the kind words-- much appreciated.
As a side note, I don't think an adventure killing off 80 some PC's is being very realistic at all... If I joined an adventuring crew, who said I was number 81 (or even 7 for that matter) to join their group of 5 in the last month... I think I'd bow out and look for a different group of folks to hang out with. (and that's coming from an infantryman, FYI).-Woof.
Heh. You and me both-- and I also used to be an infantryman, along with 4 other MOS's I held during my career. Although-- can you imagine being one of the replacements going into the 8th Air Force in WW2, circa 1943 (flying the B-17s and B-24s on bombing raids over Germany), hearing about the horrendous losses the bomber crews were taking at the time, and "oh by the way, you're on the board for tomorrow's mission"?
I picture a character (for whatever reason you're still joining the game, and your character, in-game, isn't being given a choice) joining that "high casualty group" having a similar reaction to new guys joining those bomber crews.
Mmmm, yeah I remember one hard campaign. The party had pretty much died except my character on this dungeon crawl. He staggered out victorious, but his friends had died. He grieved, he got drunk, he tried to pick up his sanity.
Along came a new party, wanting to go back in, pushed into it by the dm. Character had been in the area so they wanted him to come along. He refused. As a player I could not think of anything the character could want less. Dm tried to put on the pressure, I stuck to my guns and explained it.
In the party goes, they all died. DM has an npc save the day. My character joined the next group which were tackling different problems. If you make a game too tough as a dm, people will give up, or go in the sensible directions you don't want them to go, away from deathtrap dungeon. Ha ha.
Either that or you get the Dorkness Rising guys who won't give up till they beat the killer dungeon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've TPKd groups at times, I've killed individual PCs at times, and I've fudged to save lives at times. It all varies. At any rate I'm certainly not affected by the potential affect on the story of a dead PC. It can lead to cool new directions.
Some deaths are simply unavoidable. When the PC is one round away from death by constitution poison and should, in all probability make his save and then roll a natural one you really can't convince them "Oh, actually that was enough to save."
When the PCs charge into an obvious big battle low on spells and hit points, unprepared for common abilities like flight and unwilling to flee, sometimes you just have to say "Well, this time you died" and hope the players learned something and can approach this with renewed enthusiasm/desire for vengeance and a better plan.
When a player is in high spirits after a series of good rolls and minor monsters killed, and the enemy rolls critical, and just high enough to confirm with enough damage to kill her character with the strike... Well maybe at a time like that you pretend it had one less bonus to hit, that the critical didn't confirm, and that her character was simply knocked unconscious instead of dying. (I think it's kind of in bad taste to kill a PC just because of a crit, especially when the player is happy because it's the first time in a while that she's been rolling well.
Basically the above three were all examples of PC death/saving that I've done. All from Jade Regent.
Or a character has some great wins, some easy wins, is well made and keeps fighting a giant snake, doesn't use his clerical healing when he can, and then dies from grapple damage before anyone can save him.
Or a character insists on taking as much loot as they can carry, going up to heavy, and then is slowly killed by ogre-kin scout skirmishers, because they just can't move fast enough, but don't want to leave the loot.
I do fudge and let the pcs live sometimes. It is a question of can I easily do it, should I?
Funniest example of this, player journeys off alone, picks fight with powerful random monster, gets caned, is saved before he dies by an npc. Player calls it out as an obvious fudge and saving his char, he is critical. Dm says, well we can just go back and there is no help for your character? You will die. Player shuts up and gets saved.
The Hero Point system is a nice way to skirt otherwise inevitable player deaths. Spend 2 to survive something terrible.
We have always ran with a houserule "Deity Call" mechanic as well. When the player is dealt a lethal blow, he is offered the chance to roll d100. If the result is equal to or less than the character level, their deity (or a representative of their deity) intervenes on their behalf, entirely based on the whim of the GM. This works in a setting like Forgotten Realms, as the Powers are all very hands-on. I'm not sure if it would jive in Golarion (I've not played in that setting yet, though I plan to remedy it in the near future) as I was told the Gods are a lot less involved in mortal affairs.
As a general rule, I try my hardest not to kill my players. If the situation is beyond their control, I may fudge a roll or two to keep them breathing. Basically, I will pull punches if I feel I've under/overestimated something. As has no doubt been stated several times prior to this post, if the player is slain due to their own incompetence, the gloves come off. I feel exceptionally justified in these circumstances, actually, because I tend to give the player the benefit of the doubt and ask the blatant THIS IS A BAD IDEA question: "Are you sure that's what you're doing?"
I have asked that question before and have the player still keep plan A. Oh well, there is only so much a GM can do.