|
If it was Con damage and not Con drain then it wasn't handwaving.Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.He told me at the time it was reducing my Con. So he may have made a mistake and meant damaging it. As I said, he was new to PF at the time.
Either way, the story you came up with was way better than 'he died'.
I certainly get there are times things are fudged to keep the action going. I understand that I even would say that is a good thing. My objection to the idea of NEVER killing a downed player is that it takes a different story/game/option for failure off the table and suggests that those GM's that would down the players are taking a cheap shot. I just think that there are times when the opportunity presents itself and the NPC would behave that way that it makes sense to do and should be understood (seeing that the rules allow for it) to be something that may happen to a player.
I certainly get there are times things are fudged to keep the action going. I understand that I even would say that is a good thing. My objection to the idea of NEVER killing a downed player is that it takes a different story/game/option for failure off the table and suggests that those GM's that would down the players are taking a cheap shot. I just think that there are times when the opportunity presents itself and the NPC would behave that way that it makes sense to do and should be understood (seeing that the rules allow for it) to be something that may happen to a player.
Yes.
I keep saying cheap, I don't really mean cheap in a general sense. I don't mean to say it is wrong or unsporting, or that a GM should not do that. But I certainly can see that it would be read that way, so sorry if that was rubbing you the wrong way.
I just mean that for someone that is a key piece of a story (like a pc) it seems like an ignoble death. I think that there is a place for it, and there could even be times I may consider it. But as a 95% rule I choose not to.
Maybe it's just that I feel like I have enough ways to kill the players in, to me, better ways. I like a world that feels dangerous and I regularly push my pcs to the brink of death (with the occasional death). I get what people are saying, I wouldn't say that a GM is wrong to do it, I just prefer not to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, the story you came up with was way better than 'he died'.
If it was Con damage and not Con drain then it wasn't handwaving.Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.He told me at the time it was reducing my Con. So he may have made a mistake and meant damaging it. As I said, he was new to PF at the time.
Yes, but it shouldn't be me the player enforcing the rules. For things like that, it should, ideally, be me the player saying 'Hey, I know he just died, but, how about if we NPC him instead and make him like Raistlin?'. Or the GM offering that. Not me having to do that because the GM has decided he won't allow any PC deaths unless the person wants to die.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But as a GM, the role is to keep the story going.
Only if you are playing within that style that guarantees a player's first PC will be the one who finishes the story. A story can continue without a certain PC.
Personally, I don't want my characters to be given "plot armor".
I want the story to be told after it's over, not during it's creation.
When I say that they choose to move on to another threat that is a legitimate choice for that npc to make, really for a lot of reasons.
There is a difference between the NPC making a call, and you making your call then justifying their actions. Does that make sense?
Perhaps to you it is a semantics issue, but for me there is a fundamental issue here. Do you roleplay the NPCs or do you choose their actions and then justify them? I see the two as fundamentally different, even if their actions intersect.
I'm not saying to always CdG, but I am saying that this is an option and one that some npcs in some scenarios will look to do. If you are looking for ways to avoid it, I'm sure that you'll find them. But that's up there with having the NPC 'elect to switch targets' so as not to drop someone, when the NPC's goal is to drop them all. Again you can justify it, but if the real reason is being contrary to the NPC.. then you're not roleplaying them.
When I see you not separate you from the characters that you are representing this reinforces that belief in my eyes. Whether this is correct or not I cannot say, but does seem to be the case.
-James
It seems like your taking what I am saying and the. Blowing it a little out of proportion, or maybe interpreting it in a skewed way.
Choosing to not kill a player and choosing not to drop a player by a pc are very different in terms of gameplay and tone. So I don't think they are on the same level.
I think its also important to Consider that the things that you do at the head of the table are all as the GM, you cannot separate yourself entirely from the NPCs because you created them. It's just the way it is. If you were getting into the NPCs shoes for real your players ought to never survive. If they are a clever bad guy they won't ever be surprised, they will always have an escape, and will never lose. They are better funded and more capable than the pcs. These are the reasons I don't like the role-playing argument. You the GM design the game, you make the NPCs, you decide how the encounters go and you can change what happe a on the fly on a way the players cannot.
So when I say that I don't like to do it stylistically I mean just that. I have the great fortune to run the game and design what happens. I get to make choices for the NPCs based off of what MY interpretation is. You may take that exact same NPC and have them operate differently.
All this is for the same reason I don't make an GMPC more badass than the players to go with their party. I could do it, those characters probably exist, but it takes the spotlight off my pcs and puts it on my guy. It is a stylistic choice not to have my players constantly out shown by the NPCs. As far as the rules go I am allowed to do that, but I design my game and my NPCs so that i dont
seems to me you just need an understanding between dm and players really. I don't think there is a wrong answer to the question.
Personally I think being coup'd sucks, barring a rp reason. If I know an assassin is after me, and I am to dumb to prepare then I deserve it. But if I have gone down and a bad guy pops me one more time, well I can't get overly upset, since we do the same sometimes.
|
| 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.
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.
Agree with you, Nimt.
It's hard to build that theme that most of my players want, of 'blood-brothers, forged together via life-debts, in the flames of danger', if the adventure consists of skipping down the Marshmallow Road to Gumdrop Town.
But as a GM, the role is to keep the story going.Only if you are playing within that style that guarantees a player's first PC will be the one who finishes the story. A story can continue without a certain PC.
Personally, I don't want my characters to be given "plot armor".
I want the story to be told after it's over, not during it's creation.
Then if you were in one of my games, I wouldn't give your character plot armor. I would make sure that the plots surrounding your character could continue without your character being there.
Several people have mentioned the immersion factor and that little PC death equates to PCs making stupid decisions because of the mindset of "oh well, he's not going to kill me, so I can get away with anything." I disagree. The only players who do that at my table are the type who like to try to "win the game."
My characters all fear death. They see it every day. They get close to NPCs who die. They kill enemies. They come very close to death themselves sometimes. They also don't look at it as "well, I have 20 HP left and the bandit can only do a max of 16, even on a crit, so I'm going to stand in his way and take the damage since I know I won't die." I don't think like that either. I make them say "wow, pointy weapon, don't want to get hit with that. That'd hurt! Might even kill me!" I make them react like this regardless of how many PCs have died at their side. In a low PC death campaign, I appreciate others keeping this in mind as well.
EDIT: I realized that I may have sounded like I make my characters non-adventurers. No, that's not the case. They simply don't like getting hit because it does hurt, and they will avoid as much damage as possible while still outputting the hurt on the enemy. My characters have no sense of "HP"
Of course, the characters don't know that they are being protected, so it's really more a problem with players that can't roleplay the theme properly. :)
I was in a campaign once where the GM was so pro-player that my character eventually concluded that he was protected by the gods and could do pretty much anything he wanted with impunity. He started calling himself the "Messiah" and attempted to form a religion based on his "god" controlling the entire world for his benefit.
The GM was not pleased, but I think he learned a lesson.
Being pro player can be taken too far, just as "let the character die" can be taken too far. It's all about PC death being meaningful, IMO.
Being pro player can be taken too far, just as "let the character die" can be taken too far. It's all about PC death being meaningful, IMO.
Bam, nailed it. That's what matters.
Being pro player can be taken too far, just as "let the character die" can be taken too far. It's all about PC death being meaningful, IMO.Bam, nailed it. That's what matters.
6 PCs are in a dungeon. 5 are fighting 3 negative energy elementals, and getting hurt plenty.
6th PC heads off down the corridor, bored because he can't fight anything due to the tight constraints. He get's about 50 feet from the other PCs, and casts 'dancing lights' 50 feet ahead of him, in the center of a chamber he just found.
The four elementals in the room (with 100 ft movement, remember, being elementals) close in on him, two the first round (and attack), and two more get to him the second round.
By the time the other PCs can get back to him, he's failed his save enough times to be negative leveled for 6 levels (they were level 5).
A pretty pointless death. But, by the same token, should he have magically survived running off in a dungeon by himself and waking up more creatures to come attack him? Especially since the creatures did way more than enough to utterly kill him?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being pro player can be taken too far, just as "let the character die" can be taken too far. It's all about PC death being meaningful, IMO.
It's not about PC death being meaningful. If a DM caters to you on this regard then more power to you but at the end of the day it is a dice game. Not everyone gets to go out in a blaze of glory where their names are sung in songs for the rest of eternity. Those songs are usually sung by those that actually make it to the end of the campaign. Anything between start and finish is open season.
But the number one rule about game like these is that the rules can be altered. So therefore, no matter how you play the game, everyone is playing "by the rules" because the rules state that they themselves are not set in stone.
|
|
But the number one rule about game like these is that the rules can be altered. So therefore, no matter how you play the game, everyone is playing "by the rules" because the rules state that they themselves are not set in stone.
That truly only works if you play in the same group. If you play in multiple groups then you have to actually accept that while one group may prefer one style, another group may not.
Meaningful death is a playstyle that not every DM will give you. Now if you are open minded about it then great but don't expect every DM to agree with you.
|
|
A pretty pointless death. But, by the same token, should he have magically survived running off in a dungeon by himself and waking up more creatures to come attack him? Especially since the creatures did way more than enough to utterly kill him?
Actually, I find that death very meaningful. It means characters can get in over their heads.
Being pro player can be taken too far, just as "let the character die" can be taken too far. It's all about PC death being meaningful, IMO.Bam, nailed it. That's what matters.6 PCs are in a dungeon. 5 are fighting 3 negative energy elementals, and getting hurt plenty.
6th PC heads off down the corridor, bored because he can't fight anything due to the tight constraints. He get's about 50 feet from the other PCs, and casts 'dancing lights' 50 feet ahead of him, in the center of a chamber he just found.
The four elementals in the room (with 100 ft movement, remember, being elementals) close in on him, two the first round (and attack), and two more get to him the second round.
By the time the other PCs can get back to him, he's failed his save enough times to be negative leveled for 6 levels (they were level 5).
A pretty pointless death. But, by the same token, should he have magically survived running off in a dungeon by himself and waking up more creatures to come attack him? Especially since the creatures did way more than enough to utterly kill him?
That's a meaningful death. It is a lesson. I think that some folks here are missing what's. Being said here. Not to coddle players, not punish players, but to find the middle ground were death is possible, but recognizing that the players are heroes and that they are better than the average guy out there. Some may die falling in a pit and bleeding to death due to no healers and no climb check. But most should not be take. Out by some arbitrary encounter- at least in long term campaigns.
And someone said this is a dice game, which is like saying poker is a card game (it's not btw). This is a game where in dice are used. The core rule book even states cheating and fudging is okay- it's in the GM section. So while dice are a convinient way of determining a random number they are not infallible- most are egg shaped- so lets not rest our game on that.
But the number one rule about game like these is that the rules can be altered. So therefore, no matter how you play the game, everyone is playing "by the rules" because the rules state that they themselves are not set in stone.That truly only works if you play in the same group. If you play in multiple groups then you have to actually accept that while one group may prefer one style, another group may not.
Meaningful death is a playstyle that not every DM will give you. Now if you are open minded about it then great but don't expect every DM to agree with you.
Which is why I make sure the play style of whoever I play with suits me. If the group is known for having PC death every session, then I pass on that invite. Its all about finding the right group for your own playstyle. Just like if you are perfectly fine with PC death, don't try to break a game that avoids PC death. That's not cool. Just like its not cool to whine and cry when you PC dies in a game where the GM is known for not fudging dice.
Actually, I find that death very meaningful. It means characters can get in over their heads.
A pretty pointless death. But, by the same token, should he have magically survived running off in a dungeon by himself and waking up more creatures to come attack him? Especially since the creatures did way more than enough to utterly kill him?
More meaningful as an object lesson though, than from a plot standpoint. The above posters are, it seems, making a point that all deaths must be meaningful to the plot. This one wasn't. It was however, a very clear example of why running off by yourself in a dungeon is not a good idea.
The above posters are, it seems, making a point that all deaths must be meaningful to the plot.
Not every death, just the majority.
|
The above posters are, it seems, making a point that all deaths must be meaningful to the plot.Not every death, just the majority.
Why? This makes little sense to me. Why does it have to have a plot hook? People die...look at the wars in the middle east. Sometimes its just bad luck and you die. Did soldier number 4,329 have a major role in the story of this war? Sadly no. Its part of real life, its part of fiction, its part of video games...sometimes people just have bad luck and die.
The fact that you are a PC means that you do have a major role in the story.
Whatever, I have two groups that works well for me and my style. I need to stop reading this thread. I'm getting angry.
Oh, the fun I could have with the gods teaching that character humility...
That was the point Tri... I was deliberately attempting to provoke the GM to kill the character.
The entire party had fallen off a bridge or something like that. Instant death. Except by some miracle we "survived." I don't remember the rationale for how we survived, something about falling into a bed of reeds or something.
I was playing a wizard and when the cleric of the party said "blessed are we for the gods have spared us!" My character said something like "Blessed hell! We're frickin invulnerable!" This was about the fifth example of totally implausible character survival. He continued "Something up there doesn't just LIKE us, we're something really special! We must be the chosen ones!" Then he went to the nearest village and began proselytizing.
The GM decided to revisit his style and the campaign got a lot better after that.
|
|
The fact that you are a PC means that you do have a major role in the story.
Whatever, I have two groups that works well for me and my style. I need to stop reading this thread. I'm getting angry.
Nobody said anything about PC's not being able to have a major role in a story. The difference between Pathfinder/D&D and a novel is the fact that the characters in a novel already have their outcome predetermined while Pathfinder does not, unless your DM runs that type of game. You have hit points and you have death so the game does assume that you may die at anytime, along with the many many ways of death being inflicted on you.
|
|
Oh, the fun I could have with the gods teaching that character humility...That was the point Tri... I was deliberately attempting to provoke the GM to kill the character.
I did that with my 'you are unconscious' DM I mentioned earlier. Rolled an elven Cloistered Cleric with a 6 Con, to see how long he put up with her.
The GM decided to revisit his style and the campaign got a lot better after that.
Better for you. Maybe not for him. But that is the trouble with conflicting playstyles.
I died. I didn't realize it until after the game, because I'm so used to needing to be at -11 to die, but there it was, -5 < -3, so I was dead. I told the group, and the GM insisted on hand-waiving it away. I basically ended up retiring the character instead and making him a semi-npc who didn't go adventuring anymore (permanent lung condition due to the poison, needs daily medication, like Raistlin).
But it kind of bummed me out. I'd have rather been reincarnated, or ressurected, or anything but handwaved to be alive despite being dead. Really kind of sucked a lot of the fun out of the game.
If it was Con damage and not Con drain then it wasn't handwaving.
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
Con damage kills also.I know this because attacking ability scores is something I do, probably to much, as a GM.
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.
edit:clarity
|
The fact that you are a PC means that you do have a major role in the story.
In most of my games, I would say that this isn't true. All PCs are vital to the plot at some point during the campaign. But at any given moment, only some of the PCs are vital to the plot. (This is usually an indirect player choice, btw. Not every player wants that kind of importance to the game.)
I think of it more like characters in an ongoing TV series. You never know when an actor might get into a contract dispute, get a better part, get pregnant, or develop a drug habit and have to be written out of the show. As the GM, you should be willing to make allowances, but no one is indispensable.
Whatever, I have two groups that works well for me and my style. I need to stop reading this thread. I'm getting angry.
Don't get angry. If your players enjoy your games then you are doing it exactly right.
Oh, the fun I could have with the gods teaching that character humility...That was the point Tri... I was deliberately attempting to provoke the GM to kill the character.I did that with my 'you are unconscious' DM I mentioned earlier. Rolled an elven Cloistered Cleric with a 6 Con, to see how long he put up with her.
The GM decided to revisit his style and the campaign got a lot better after that.Better for you. Maybe not for him. But that is the trouble with conflicting playstyles.
Better for him too, since the player group was on the verge of just quitting the campaign. We had already told him we felt he was coddling the PCs and that he needed to ramp up the challenge. He was a new GM and was just learning how to do it.
Just as the GM can sometimes give the players a lesson in playing the game, players can do the same for the GM. It ended up being a very long-running and fun campaign. He just needed a little nudge to let him know that we wouldn't take our dice and go home if someone got killed. That's all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In most of my campaigns the PCs are only "vital to the plot" when they are high enough level to matter in the geopolitical landscape of the world. Until then there are subplots that are played out around them, but the real plot is driven by the true powers in the world. In that sense the PCs are like butterflies being blown around by strong winds.
For example, in my most recent campaign the player characters have a very specific goal in attempting to reconcile a bloody feud between two powerful families so that the nation can focus on a larger looming threat. The larger looming threat is going to happen regardless, but if the PCs can solve the feud issue, they will be in a much better place for surviving and thwarting the BBEG's ultimate plans.
If the PCs are successful, they will level up and be more powerful and will have more influence on the world. If they ever reach level 18-20, THEN they will be "vital to the plot".
Which is why I make sure the play style of whoever I play with suits me. If the group is known for having PC death every session, then I pass on that invite. Its all about finding the right group for your own playstyle. Just like if you are perfectly fine with PC death, don't try to break a game that avoids PC death. That's not cool. Just like its not cool to whine and cry when you PC dies in a game where the GM is known for not fudging dice.But the number one rule about game like these is that the rules can be altered. So therefore, no matter how you play the game, everyone is playing "by the rules" because the rules state that they themselves are not set in stone.That truly only works if you play in the same group. If you play in multiple groups then you have to actually accept that while one group may prefer one style, another group may not.
Meaningful death is a playstyle that not every DM will give you. Now if you are open minded about it then great but don't expect every DM to agree with you.
+1
In most of my campaigns the PCs are only "vital to the plot" when they are high enough level to matter in the geopolitical landscape of the world. Until then there are subplots that are played out around them, but the real plot is driven by the true powers in the world. In that sense the PCs are like butterflies being blown around by strong winds.
For example, in my most recent campaign the player characters have a very specific goal in attempting to reconcile a bloody feud between two powerful families so that the nation can focus on a larger looming threat. The larger looming threat is going to happen regardless, but if the PCs can solve the feud issue, they will be in a much better place for surviving and thwarting the BBEG's ultimate plans.
If the PCs are successful, they will level up and be more powerful and will have more influence on the world. If they ever reach level 18-20, THEN they will be "vital to the plot".
"Sometimes small hands are needed when larger hands are engaged elsewhere."
-Galadriel (Paraphrased roughly from poor memory)
Con damage kills also.I know this because attacking ability scores is something I do, probably to much, as a GM.I am aware, but mdt specifically said he was at 3 Con.
OK. I am going blind. I was sure that said -3. I was thinking "How did he get negative con?"
off-topic: With that aside "a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability."
Would that not include hp? If not then I have been doing it wrong.
PS: I will take it to another thread to avoid a hijack if another question comes from the next answer.
How do you guys feel about ambushes, sneak attacks, and counter builds that are pretty likely to take out a character.
I have a group of players in a campaign where an assassins guild is out to kill them, the assassins know a lot about the characters and I am planning to have the assassins ambush the party.
a soft ambush would have 4 assassins do a ranged sneak attack 1 on each member of the party.
but a more realistic ambush would have all 4 assassins focus on the greatest threat, which will likely kill him (or at least put him under 0)
which would you use?
|
|
How do you guys feel about ambushes, sneak attacks, and counter builds that are pretty likely to take out a character.
I have a group of players in a campaign where an assassins guild is out to kill them, the assassins know a lot about the characters and I am planning to have the assassins ambush the party.
a soft ambush would have 4 assassins do a ranged sneak attack 1 on each member of the party.
but a more realistic ambush would have all 4 assassins focus on the greatest threat, which will likely kill him (or at least put him under 0)
which would you use?
I guess it depends a tad on the character's and the story, but if the assassins guild is trained and armed correctly I would have them attack the 1 player.
Have the team play a combat without their star player.
Hero points are a good way to save players from a single bad break, but without making them feel invincible. In fact, a player character who has run out of hero points should know that he is pushing his luck.
I try to not metagame as a GM. How do the assassins know who is the most dangerous?
My players(when I had an active group) were always asking for perception checks so to save time I assumed they would be on the lookout for trouble in certain situations. Any situation where they would not expect an attack would be a situation where it would be bad to start a fight. That would get them a behind the screen perception roll.
If I am going to ambush the party I am going to use the most logical method possible in many cases, but I don't believe PC deaths have to be plot changing events either. For the most part, PC's in my games are not the heroes. They are only given the opportunity to become the heroes.
If I was to run an easier game, for newer people, I would most likely use less lethal tactics.
Ambushes and sneak attacks are absolutely fine Blue.
Counter builds are something I just don't do. My NPCs are built as if they have lives of their own, backstories of their own, motivations and desires of their own. I don't build NPCs specifically to address the strengths or weaknesses of the PCs. I consider that to be a form of the poor sort of metagaming. But that's just me. I've certainly had GMs build NPCs and entire encounters just to counter my character's or my party's abilities.
I just don't do it that way. I've never had a need to. There are many, many ways to skin cats, and the GM is the chief cat-skinner.