Hey all, been DM'ing for awhile now and have had many instances of players getting their arses handed to them by my monsters. Reflecting back though, I seldom kill them. I reasoned it out as "well the monsters are less threatened by the non-moving PC they just knocked down as opposed to the other one brandishing spells/magic at them". Was wondering if anyone else does this, or am I being too nice to my PCs?
Depends on the monster. A gang of wolves? Nope. An assassin sent out by the evil overlord? Sure.
For cunning enemies I often use hit-and-run tactics where they try to take one of the characters out of the game (permanently) and then leg it. But it depends on what the goal of the villain is.
EDIT: And in a world where a downed character is just a minor spell/channel/whatever away from being up and at full offense, the "they are less of a threat" is a truth with modification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is something that varies by group. There is no real right or wrong answer. If you decide to up the ante I think you should warn the group though.
Going to the logic of the monsters, if they see a cleric they should kill the downed PC from a logical point of view. No need to risk the PC getting up later and stabbing him in the back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is a common occurrence, players will probably start feeling less and less attached to their characters since they're likely not long for this world anyway.
So keep that in mind. I personally dislike high lethality games for this reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is a common occurrence, players will probably start feeling less and less attached to their characters since they're likely not long for this world anyway.
So keep that in mind. I personally dislike high lethality games for this reason.
This always makes me feel more and more frightened for my characters and I act far less recklessly.
For example, with certain GMs, I would never dream of trading full attacks with, say, a Troll. Even if the Cleric is right next to me.
That's a pretty big leap from "killing players after they get knocked out shouldn't be a common occurrence" to "player characters should never, ever die."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a GM's point of view, it's never okay to kill a player character for the reasons Petty Alchemy mentioned.
There are basically two scenarios where the characters get killed.
1. The rule of large numbers (or luck if you prefer) doesn't favor the character(s) and the challenge suddenly becomes too great through no fault of your own.
2. You set the encounter difficulty too high to begin with.In either case you should either fudge rolls, or if that's not possible/deesirable you should do a deus ex machina.
Both methods must be used carefully. You must assure that the players can't detect you messing with the dice rolls and a deus ex machina must never entirely remove the threat. Simply give the party (or even just the one in trouble) a few rounds to recover. Environmental hazards are probably the most acceptable for this. Or throw in a third party, or whatever you think fits.
This all assumes you know your players, their characters and can think on your feet / have extra material prepared for such occasions.
If you have new/inexperienced players you should just lower the difficulty until you are confident in your knowledge of what they can handle.
Yeah, sorry, nut I disagree with just about everything here.
I roll in the open, and tend to target the healers/casters first.
If the pcs go down, so be it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing wrong with your playstyle Matthias. Keep rolling the way you enjoy.
...and the way the players enjoy :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a GM's point of view, it's never okay to kill a player character for the reasons Petty Alchemy mentioned.
There are basically two scenarios where the characters get killed.
1. The rule of large numbers (or luck if you prefer) doesn't favor the character(s) and the challenge suddenly becomes too great through no fault of your own.
2. You set the encounter difficulty too high to begin with.In either case you should either fudge rolls, or if that's not possible/desirable you should do a deus ex machina.
Both methods must be used carefully. You must assure that the players can't detect you messing with the dice rolls and a deus ex machina must never entirely remove the threat. Simply give the party (or even just the one in trouble) a few rounds to recover. Environmental hazards are probably the most acceptable for this. Or throw in a third party, or whatever you think fits.
This all assumes you know your players, their characters and can think on your feet / have extra material prepared for such occasions.
If you have new/inexperienced players you should just lower the difficulty until you are confident in your knowledge of what they can handle.
I would not present that as a universal truth. Many people do not like this style of play. I am one of them. As long as I die fairly I am ok with it. There are even people that think GM's should never fudge, especially to save them.
Those scenarios are not the only ways to die. Sometimes players make bad decisions or at least not the best decision.
|
If this is a common occurrence, players will probably start feeling less and less attached to their characters since they're likely not long for this world anyway.
On the other hand they can get more attached to their characters exactly BECAUSE they have to work so hard to keep them around. It also creates a bond between the party members if they save each other's lives/survive terrible situations together.
There are times when a death is unavoidable, with that said im of the belief that if your fightin an above average intellect villian/s than yes there are times when they would target a downed player... Imo it helps keep the pcs less cocky whens theres a for sure death chance in play.. For me it no funs when i know the dm will fudge to keep from killing people and thats why i dont personally do it. I mean realistically it would take me about 30mins to write up a new character, so i dont think the "to much time/effort" excuse is valid at all. my 2 cents
I rarely am not the player. This is why. I fudge both ways. I play with the rules lawyers min/max players that if things are going to easy then will up it some. I do roll hidden from the players. I will make them feel like they are getting a fight but I do not go after killing them either. I just want them to have interesting fights. If they just roll through everything (Color Spray takes down whole encounter) then the game is over quickly and not much fun was had. Doesn't mean that I never have let an encounter be done on the players surprise round. It just means that there will be one or two good fights per session.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I killed a downed player last session. He was seperated from the party and knocked out by a phase spider that then finished him. No fudging.
The player felt it was a fair death, rerolled and moved on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's pros and cons to the argument. I don't like to see PCs get killed just from sheer bad luck, but sacrificial heroics and bad decisions are fair game. D&D is a game where death need not be permanent anyway, as long as there are some survivors.
The game is no fun if it is too easy and the players have no fear of their PCs dying. It's also no fun if they have to bring a stack of pre-generated character sheets with them to ensure they have a character at the end.
Ultimately, play it as you and your players like it.
I never have let an encounter be done on the players surprise round. It just means that there will be one or two good fights per session.
This is off-topic, but it points out why SoD's can be bad spells to use. Robbgobb I am not knocking your playstyle, but illustrating a point here so I can bookmark it.
I never have let an encounter be done on the players surprise round. It just means that there will be one or two good fights per session.This is off-topic, but it points out why SoD's can be bad spells to use. Robbgobb I am not knocking your playstyle, but illustrating a point here so I can bookmark it.
No worries, wraithstrike. It is why I play and don't direct. I never said a big fight ensues after surprise round but generally will make it difficult for surprise round to take everyone out (good guys or bad) unless the players have planned something out. If the players sit and had ability to set up good ambush then I roleplay it out. Have to say that I have been with more than one party that travels in 30 feet group which makes certain spells really good against them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see your point, but I still disagree. You are assuming players have less fun if they die, or that the GM should need permission to kill them. It may just be your wording though.
If you mean "if you know your players really hate death and it would suck for them if they died.....", then yeah you have a point, but at the same time not all GM's and players are good matches. Any group that is unable to accept character death well is not one that I could really game for. We would both be unhappy. It is not that I am out to kill players, but I would be bored knowing for certain what was going to happen for the most part.
If you mean "most GM's should fudge to keep people alive" then I disagree a lot more. Yeah nobody likes to die, but I have never seen it be taken really badly or kill a session either. People are resilient, at least the ones I have met so they often fix mistakes if there were any and we game on.
It seems you are a narrative GM/player, and that is cool. Most of us are somewhere between the story must be told, and the dice must have their way. Personally if I overrule the dice it is for the group, not just one person.
As an example, if I know the BBEG is around the corner maybe that nat 20 I rolled against a PC becomes a nat one, or at least not a crit. I would not want to send the party into a boss fight without everyone present. If player X runs up on the melee based bad guy, and tries to do an acrobatics check to get inside his defenses*, without waiting for the rest of the party, knowing somehow that it is a bad idea, then the dice gods decide his fate.
*A more reckless example is scouting ahead, finding the bad guys, and instead of returning to the party you announce your presence, and begin to talk smack, even though you are outnumbered 4 to 1. 1 of these 4 is a relatively high level cleric. The other 3 are creatures that have kicked your butt before. <---Real story, SMDH.
PS:I have no idea how much leeway you are trying to say the players should get, and that may be the crux of the disagreement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Death is part of the game. I tend to answer this question of whether I would go for the kill on a downed player at the start just like I prepare an escape or not for their adversary. The tacts of enemies will change and yes sometimes it will be taking the coup de gras. Is it a monster looking for food . . . when was the last time you saw a lion abandon the wounded buffalo to go kill the rest of the heard. No the down the creature and drag it off to eat at their leisure. They will defend themselves and keep others away from their prize. Assassins are jerks they will always make sure you are never getting up again. Always.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I killed a downed player last session. He was seperated from the party and knocked out by a phase spider that then finished him. No fudging.
The player felt it was a fair death, rerolled and moved on.
Exactly. Because this is what adult, mature players do.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing a PC from the story without the player's advance consent is akin to taking a good book away from someone without any chance of ever finishing it.
A GAME is not A BOOK.
If people want to read a book people should g do just that. But as long as we're are playing a game with story elements that rely on a random mechanic like dice we expect the unexpected and unfortunate to happen.
If I were playing a character who was trading blows with an Ogre barbaran at higher levels and it downed my character and then walked away before killing my character? That action would pull me right out of the game. I dont care if I'd been playing that PC for two or three years straight with multiple story threads focused on my character. His story ENDS THERE. Messily. At the hands of a superior foe.
And a creative DM and/or player will find away to tie things in to possibly pickup whatever story threads there were with a different character especially if the "story" was rich.
I get it if it was agreed from be beginning if the players and GM decide to run a low/no lethality game. That's totally a valid play style and if you enjoy it by all means go for it. But to molly coddle characters, and by extension, players in a game where yes the focus can be on story but the majority of the rules focus on bringing harm to other beings through sharp pointy objects or arcane white hot heat death?
I'm not a bloodthirsty GM. I dont set out to kill my characters. In fact if I feel that a particular session may wind up to be kinda lethal? I warn my players in advance right before the session starts. I setup certain buffers at the outset of my game as well. Characters start with their CON score + HD in hit points. I use an action point mechanic that allows re-rolls and other benefits. If a player is going to die the group can decide that each person can sacrifice an action point to make whatever killed that character less lethal than it was. So a character that was brought to negative CON can be brought to zero HP instead.
But outside of those perimeters? The dice fall where they may. If a PC is fighting someone and they are downed? Unless there is a more pressing issue, like say another high damage dealing PC that IMMEDIATELY needs to be dealt with? That PC is gonna get put down. The PC's do it enough some times when it isn't even necessary and they know a lot of times not to expect any quarter either. I've been playing with the same group for about 3 years now and amongst 5 players they've lost a total of 3 PCs. If not for the action point system that allows the group to "save" a PC? at LEAST twice that. BUt they've all taken those deaths in stride. I make sure that there's some sort of epilogue to the dead PC in the story so that it's not just a piece of paper that is going to be replaced by another piece of paper. But then we move on.
I see your point, but I still disagree. You are assuming players have less fun if they die, or that the GM should need permission to kill them. It may just be your wording though.
If you mean "if you know your players really hate death and it would suck for them if they died.....", then yeah you have a point, but at the same time not all GM's and players are good matches. Any group that is unable to accept character death well is not one that I could really game for. We would both be unhappy. It is not that I am out to kill players, but I would be bored knowing for certain what was going to happen for the most part.
If you mean "most GM's should fudge to keep people alive" then I disagree a lot more. Yeah nobody likes to die, but I have never seen it be taken really badly or kill a session either. People are resilient, at least the ones I have met so they often fix mistakes if there were any and we game on.
Agreed, some players are OK with PC death. It happens, they might pout for a moment, then move on and roll another character. Certain players, however, just get mad and maybe a little bit hysterical when their characters die. I know I do. I put a piece of my heart and soul into each of my creations. I know why, too: too many funerals growing up. If death happens a lot in real life, and you are playing a game to escape from real life, why play in a game where you are going to die?
Perhaps those who don't like PC death have had similar issues?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were playing a character who was trading blows with an Ogre barbaran at higher levels and it downed my character and then walked away before killing my character? That action would pull me right out of the game. I dont care if I'd been playing that PC for two or three years straight with multiple story threads focused on my character. His story ENDS THERE. Messily. At the hands of a superior foe.
Depends on if the ogre knows he didn't kill the character. If his greatclub sends the guy flying into the wall to collapse in an unmoving heap, he might think the job is already done. I don't tell players the status of downed characters without a Heal check except for very obvious deaths. If the ogre has other targets to kill, he won't waste time on a corpse.
|
|
I see my advice was not to everyone's liking.
For those interested, please allow me to clarify a few points.I opt not to include the usual "In my opinion, just my 2 cents, etc." phrases since they should be treated as given on these boards.
Obviously everyone plays differently and some GMs and players prefer a gamist or simulationist approach. More power to them, I say.
I operate under the assumption that:
- players spent a long time nursing their characters into living, breathing parts of the game world
- there is an organic story, which is not the GM's story, but the PCs'Removing a PC from the story without the player's advance consent is akin to taking a good book away from someone without any chance of ever finishing it.
Yes, the player may make some unexpected bad decisions. But rendering them unable to participate (unconscious) for a short time should be penalty enough.
Yes, the rules provide ways to bring a dead character back. If it adds to the story and you expect the player to be fine with it, go ahead. If it would mean taking that character out of play for the rest of the session then you've just ruined someone's fun. That is unless you allow them to participate in another way (like play a henchman).
I'm confused...if they can't die then why even have combat or traps or puzzles? Why not sit back, drink a beer and tell them a story about these adventurers that lived long lives, accomplished much and then died of old age?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I coup-de-grased a PC last week in the midle of a battle.
why?
because they NPCs were a team, figher and his witch wife along with henchmen. The NPCs had intel about the party and knew who delt the damage and who did the healing.
so when the witch was able to misfortune then slumber the main damage dealer the husband took the opportunity to make sure he didnt get up.
having said that it is a rare thing for me to use such heavy tactics, I actually forgot coup de grace rules and thought it would be easier for him to survive but when he died I didn't take it back i just worked around it. outside forces paid half of the resurrection costs and the witch got away creating a reoccurring NPC that the players are very motivated to take revenge on.
the DM should not be working TOO hard to kill the Players and should actively try to avoid griefing. but death should be a real and present danger for every character and death by bad tactics, unlucky dice or the occasional smarter than average NPCs should be just a part of the game.
besides, in PF recovering from death takes a resurrection and two restorations, not overly difficult to come by but painful enough to keep players on their toes.
@ShinHakkaider: Hmm, your post was only two lines when I started writing. It seems to me like you've given ample resources for your players to make up for bad rolls and such. I don't see how characters could ever die under such rules.
Was it because they ran out of action points or did they decide to just let it go?
In the first case it's simply just that I'd go one step further and not tie it to a game mechanic. A small but fundamental difference.
In the second case it would seem like the player was ready to end their character's story there. It's fine in both our views.
As for the example case with the Ogre barbarian, that would definitely be jarring for sure. The GM would simply have to do better than that.
But die they have.
Action Points are still limited resources (5 per level) and STILL dont guarantee success. They have a set amount over the course of a level and they dont stack. Meaning that they dont carry over from one level to another. Also, a re-roll mechanic only works if the player is able to reach the target number that they need to.
The buffers that I put in place are exactly that. They are not guarantees of survival. There are no kid gloves in my games and most of the time I'm rolling in the open. Ask my players about the time that during the course of one huge combat encounter I rolled 8 20's, another player rolled 5, two other players rolled 4 and 3 respectively and our one player rolled no 20's. We dont confirm crits in our game and we use the Pazio Crit and Fumble decks . This happened ONCE exactly. No loaded die. just pure amazing, crazy ass luck. and NO ONE died that day. People were dropped below 0, but no character deaths. There are encounters that the PC's are able to deal with with low risk and there are encounters that are deadly and press and challenge my players and their PC's. They know that PC death is a strong possibility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, it depends on the mindset of the enemies.
Animal : A single animal will usually take down a PC, then try to drag it off while taking swipes at the still up PCs if they're hurting it. This usually does some damage to the downed PC, and might kill them, but it's what animals do.
Animals : Multiple animals, like a wolf pack, work pretty well at cutting someone out of the herd and dragging them off. They'll cut one out from the others, set two or three on that one while the rest keep the other PCs busy, and then drag that one off for dinner. That's just how animals roll. I remember one character who went from 80hp to -8 from getting drug off by hyenas. The person on guard failed his perception roll (rolled 4 ones in a row). This was the 'I do not have darkvision or lowlight vision but I will take the 2AM to 4AM watch on a moonless night' situation. The PC in question got his throat grabbed while he was asleep (standard location for animals to bite), and two others grabbed an arm and a leg and drug him off. PC finally made his perception roll (rolled a 20 oddly enough) to notice the hyena victim was gone, and his bedroll was all messed up and blood covered.
Bandits : Bandits don't bother with downed opponents, they don't care one way or the other usually (they may even land on the side of patching up their victims if they're not evil), and just loot and leave.
Enemy Soldiers : Enemy soldiers, unless they're evil, tend to leave the dead on the ground, and if they ain't dead, they don't kill them unless they have orders to. Afterall, they might be on the other end next time.
Assassins/Evil Characters/Psychopaths : These guys tend to cut a downed opponent again, just to make sure, or they use poison to ensure death after falling down. They don't want to deal with someone bringing them back up.
BBBs : Big Bad*ss Badguys, they come in two flavors, the egomaniacs, who don't stoop to killing downed people (they have flunkies for that), and those who are ruthlessly efficient and order every downed opponent to be stabbed twice just to make sure. These are the types who make the cleric the high priority target, sacrificing a few minions to take that healer out ASAP.
I see your point, but I still disagree. You are assuming players have less fun if they die, or that the GM should need permission to kill them. It may just be your wording though.
If you mean "if you know your players really hate death and it would suck for them if they died.....", then yeah you have a point, but at the same time not all GM's and players are good matches. Any group that is unable to accept character death well is not one that I could really game for. We would both be unhappy. It is not that I am out to kill players, but I would be bored knowing for certain what was going to happen for the most part.
If you mean "most GM's should fudge to keep people alive" then I disagree a lot more. Yeah nobody likes to die, but I have never seen it be taken really badly or kill a session either. People are resilient, at least the ones I have met so they often fix mistakes if there were any and we game on.
It seems you are a narrative GM/player, and that is cool. Most of us are somewhere between the story must be told, and the dice must have their way. Personally if I overrule the dice it is for the group, not just one person.
As an example, if I know the BBEG is around the corner maybe that nat 20 I rolled against a PC becomes a nat one, or at least not a crit. I would not want to send the party into a boss fight without everyone present. If player X runs up on the melee based bad guy, and tries to do an acrobatics check to get inside his defenses*, without waiting for the rest of the party, knowing somehow that it is a bad idea, then the dice gods decide his fate.
*A more reckless example is scouting ahead, finding the bad guys, and instead of returning to the party you announce your presence, and begin to talk smack, even though you are outnumbered 4 to 1. 1 of these 4 is a relatively high level cleric. The other 3 are creatures that have kicked your butt before. <---Real story, SMDH.
PS:I have no idea how much leeway you are trying to say the players should get, and that may be the...
I think it is more that normally running modules so I try to make sure the module isn't done in 1 and 1/2 hours (had this happen recently) so it makes for a short session. I just like to make sure there is some challenge whether it is teamwork for making a good plan to get through something or not letting every combat last 2 rounds max because of rolls.
As to killing players, it does come down to the what the group is. Is the group one that can accept such defeats or will they dislike losing their character? Can they afford to get the character brought back to life. I know in campaigns that it can help relieve them of some of their money.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a GM's point of view, it's never okay to kill a player character for the reasons Petty Alchemy mentioned.
There are basically two scenarios where the characters get killed.
1. The rule of large numbers (or luck if you prefer) doesn't favor the character(s) and the challenge suddenly becomes too great through no fault of your own.
2. You set the encounter difficulty too high to begin with.In either case you should either fudge rolls, or if that's not possible/desirable you should do a deus ex machina.
Both methods must be used carefully. You must assure that the players can't detect you messing with the dice rolls and a deus ex machina must never entirely remove the threat. Simply give the party (or even just the one in trouble) a few rounds to recover. Environmental hazards are probably the most acceptable for this. Or throw in a third party, or whatever you think fits.
This all assumes you know your players, their characters and can think on your feet / have extra material prepared for such occasions.
If you have new/inexperienced players you should just lower the difficulty until you are confident in your knowledge of what they can handle.
I would hate to play with this GM.
Essentially, I can't lose at combat, so any really good or really bad decisions I make are meaningless. Combat's been reduced to an exercise in rolling dice.
I'd probably ask the GM if we could skip to the inevitable "You Win" screen and move on to RP encounters where my actions might actually mean something.
-Death should result from poor luck in fair fights, or stupidity. Remember the old 1st leve orc warrior crits with falcion battles? I saw my only TPK ever. Imagine...6 orcs with falcions attacks a party of 4 in 3.5 2 crit on their first atack round....
-A statistcal mess, yes, but no party member really made a mistake, running screaming orcs are trying to kill us doesn't work when you're the only PC class people in your town...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially, I can't lose at combat, so any really good or really bad decisions I make are meaningless. Combat's been reduced to an exercise in rolling dice.
I'd probably ask the GM if we could skip to the inevitable "You Win" screen and move on to RP encounters where my actions might actually mean something.
You could still be knocked unconscious and fail to save the princess or stop the ritual from completing.
Character death is not the only way to lose at combat. But I agree, you shouldn't play with a DM that doesn't match your style.
Essentially, I can't lose at combat, so any really good or really bad decisions I make are meaningless. Combat's been reduced to an exercise in rolling dice.
Ah, but there's a wholeworld of difference between 'you cannot lose' and 'you should win or lose based on your tactics and decisions'.
I admit to fudging the dice when I realize that a situation I created to be solvable by the party is, in fact, too much for them to handle; not by their tactics, but due to myself mis-estimating the encounter. No need to make the PCs pay for my fault.
I admit to fudging the dice when my rolls start getting ridiculously lucky. Granted, there is an element of luck to all combats, but there is nothing exciting or memorable in doing the right things, only to lose your character to a set of lucky rolls on the GM's part.
That having been said, being stupid in my games is lethal. I have zero qualms about TPK'ing (in this case, actually one-rounding) a group that pisses off their possible support, tells their plans to the enemy spy, and then waltzes into a large conflict unprepared.
I have a couple of hands-off rules:
1: I do not kill a PC if the player could not show (we are all adults with real lives, jobs and families which all demand attention). Because that is a "That GM" move in my book. If the player controls his character, it is always 50+% more effective than in any other person's hands.
2: I do not kill a PC if _I_ am the one that screwed up and got the character in that situation. Much the same reason I do not have people killed in their sleep, even if it is the simplest thing in the world to do in PF. (Yes, GMs do mistakes, and we should own them)
3: When the player is very invested in the character, or the character is very likable and helps drive the story, I tend to hold back. Because I know what I would do in the same case. Or rather, what I DID.
I started one camp as an obese gnome illusionist. He was not a powerful character, but he was fun. Lasted from lv1-7, then I had to go away for a while to attend 2 months of study abroad. I come back, my gnome had turned evil, made himself part of a golem and been thoroughly killed off. No way to return.
I made an elven monk. Still for the lulz. Through some 3PP material and some sorcery I dunno if I could replicate, I made him pretty bad-ass. For a monk. Lasts lv9-12. Gotta leave again, come back, my monk is dead, and his body was lost.
I made a paladin. Bear in mind, this was 3.0, and the paladin was not amazing. But again, with 3PP stuff he became pretty darn cool. Did some serious 100+ damage smites, and in concert with the cleric and some pretty amazing buffs, he kept his damage high. Had a flying mount and was pretty powerful. Lv13-17 or so. Then I leave again, and rather than being KILLED this time, my character had left the continent and joined some manner of colonization project with his church. Completely abandoning his quest, his allies and his oaths.
I raged.
Enter stage left: Tiefling Rogue1/Diviner6/Assassin1/Arcane Trickster10. Tanked Str/Wis/Cha, to max int/dex/con. Stepped on the toes of both the mage and the bladesinger, but whatever. I was intent on breaking the game. Crafted EVERY magical item personally (four or so feats to kit up for OP murder-time and invincibility). With some tweaky metamagic feats and invisibility, I sneak attacked with twinned/empowered spells for a ridiculous amount of damage, and always had a defense against anything you could throw against me. I made it a habit of one-shotting everything by targeting weaknesses, and through a combination of spells and magical items (epic and otherwise) reaching stealth scores well over 100, meaning nothing could detect me until I had launched my sure-kills.
Played him until lv27 or so, when the GM circumvented my defenses with the mother of all GM fiats: "he is a god, and uses divine magic that overrule mortal magic, so you die and your soul is instantly destroyed".
Game ended after that. And that is pretty much why I do not kill people lightly. It changes the focus from story to beating the game. Breeds power-gaming and distance from characters.
This is probably one of the more controversial aspects of role playing games.
I have a reputation of being a GM who is willing to kill player characters. I have killed them. But it's a rare thing. I am not one of those GMs who say "I only kill a PC if the player does really stupid things".
There are situations where killing a PC is not only required to retain verisimilitude, but can actually greatly increase the dramatic content of the game. I've had players deliberately play their characters to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Those are generally moments that the group remembers fondly for years.
It is my opinion that the risk of permanent character death is one of the things that makes tabletop RPGs a more compelling and fulfilling game experience when compared to other types of games, especially video games. The existence of actual risk of losing a character, for many players anyway, greatly enhances the appreciation of their character's accomplishments.
In fact, I go to great lengths to make my players feel that they "beat the odds" and survived when most players would have failed and died. It has been my experience that the only way to convince players that they beat the odds and survived is for them to be absolutely convinced that they were at serious risk of character death. And the best way to convince them of that is to not hold back when a character really should die.
The only time I hold back is if I am running a game for children, or if I have a true newbie player that I feel needs to be brought up to speed for how our group games.
One of my favorite campaign sessions ever was one that ended in a TPK.
My views are probably colored by the fact that in the majority of campaigns I play in, ressurection/reincarnation are legends. No one the PCs know or have met has ever been ressed. There might be rumors that certain people have been, but nothing verifiable.
We do try very hard to NOT kill a character of someone who isn't present that night. Usually it's because whatever other player that's filling in has the distraction of running his own character AND the no-show's as well as not being as familiar with all the things that character can do. It has, however, happened. (Three consecutive blown saves against poison can do that).
I mostly agree with what's been said about deciding ahead of time about how animals/bandits/soldiers/cultists will behave. I would modify the animal behavior based on WHY the animal is fighting. They'll behave differently if they're fighting to obtain food, or fighting because they're cornered, or fighting because they think their young are threatened, or fighting because they're magically compelled to (such as summoned).
The behavior of humaniods should also be modified based on things like the prevalence of divine healing (in the present campaign, there is none, save for some relics of an earlier time), the mission objective (if they're some sort of organization), the rules of engagement (if they're some sort of lawful or neutral group), etc.
Someone mentioned the breaking of versimillitude. Here's one of the things that does that for me. PCs vs bandits. The bandit chief goes down, bandits begin to withdraw (a fighting withdrawal, not panic). One bandit stops to make a coup on a downed PC. This seperates him from his withdrawing compatriots, leaving him within charge range of two remaining PCs. Basically, he signed his own death warrant to get that coup in. Sure, maybe if his mission had been "kill the PCs at any cost", but when you're just in it for the loot or because the bandit chief is your hero ? (cult of personality)
I'll stop now. [/grognard]
EDIT:grognards can't spell
I think there are times when its appropriate to kill pcs but ultimately it comes down to the fact that if the dm " wins" the game is over. The few times iv dmed i have ony had an npc go out of their way to kill a pc once ( outside of normal combat deaths) generally bad . In this case it. Was to show the effects of lycanthropy on a little girl on a pc the player had expressed interest in changing.
However i played with a dm that always had monsters go out of their way to kill pcs having one player make a new char 4 sessions in a row isnt really fun.
Dont fudge, if death happens it happens and as long as monsters act logically based on their type pc death should be fine.
I usually tip toe around this one. I save the down n out times for when the party or a single member have made it a point to call out said BBEG. Then at that point, they go from nuissance to threat, and are dealt with accordingly, within the pre-determind level of power said BBEG wields. This is the only way to keep immersion in my mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will kill PCs that act like complete idiots though.
"What's that? Your barbarian charge 100 feet ahead, into the group of trolls? Well, the rest of the party has to spend a round to catch up to you... so, with five trolls, that is 15 attacks for you as they gang up on you." *rolls lots of dice* "That comes to a total of 114 hp. You see Derpwad the Unthinking charge ahead into a living mincer of teeth and claws, and get turned into a barbarian smoothie."
LOL the above goes without saying.
If this is a common occurrence, players will probably start feeling less and less attached to their characters since they're likely not long for this world anyway.
So keep that in mind. I personally dislike high lethality games for this reason.
Funny, I feel more attached to my character in high lethality games. It makes me feel like I can't just take crazy risks with no fear of the consequences.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Hey all, been DM'ing for awhile now and have had many instances of players getting their arses handed to them by my monsters. Reflecting back though, I seldom kill them. I reasoned it out as "well the monsters are less threatened by the non-moving PC they just knocked down as opposed to the other one brandishing spells/magic at them". Was wondering if anyone else does this, or am I being too nice to my PCs?
Yeah, I see nothing wrong with this. If the enemy is very intelligent you may decide that it's in their character to deal the killing blow, and there's nothing wrong with that. Especially at higher levels, where resurrection spells are available. Through levels 1-4 or so, though, I generally try to go with the way you do it, because rolling up new characters can really upset players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just follow the rules...if you are meant to die then you are meant to die.
I had some PCs fighting a mummy in a room full of junk. In the description it says that if any of the junk takes like 5 damage the whole room collapses for 3d6 damage Ref for half. Well one of them was already down from fighting the mummy in melee and the mummy got lucky with a crit, and the friendly caster decided to cast Flame Sphere. As it rolled into a space with debris the room collapsed killing the mummy and the incapacitated player.
Sure he was like "damn...didn't see that coming" but he couldn't argue because he was the one that started the vote to go back and check that room they skipped earlier instead of leaving the dungeon.
GMs don't kill PCs...Democracy kills PCs.