|
You're right. However, it might take a bite out of its new meal. It might just start eating the downed opponent there, with the same result.
Actually I think it would be more likely they would not start eating the meal until it is safe to do so.
Maybe attempt to drag the body away if possible or defend the body (Downed PC) against the rest of the party.
|
|
You're right. However, it might take a bite out of its new meal. It might just start eating the downed opponent there, with the same result.Actually I think it would be more likely they would not start eating the meal until it is safe to do so.
Maybe attempt to drag the body away if possible or defend the body (Downed PC) against the rest of the party.
And if the rest of the party has already run away as in the example given where the poster thought the monster shouldn't eat him? (also, there's a good chance the creature was unable to leave the room if it's the encounter of which I'm thinking).
|
|
And if the rest of the party has already run away as in the example given where the poster thought the monster shouldn't eat him? (also, there's a good chance the creature was unable to leave the room if it's the encounter of which I'm thinking).
Well that is a bit different... you leave a downed ally with a monster, he/she is going to get eaten/turned killed. Though as a GM I usually hint as much before they run.
Most deaths I have seen actually fit that circumstance, though many times the group will initially attempt to try to get the downed ally out.
|
Don't get me wrong, I don't specifically look for ways to kill players outside of the tactics and options that are typical.
However, I'm not going to stop a mindless undead from using the rest of its full attack on a target. As a player in this situation, I would ask why the creature wasn't attacking me still.
|
My answer here is never*. I don't care if you're fresh off the vegetable truck or level 19, it's a jerk GM move.
Now you'll notice there's an asterisk. That's because (as I have experienced), there are times it is not a jerk GM move, and in those times I WOULD consider it.
Case in point. At the end of a certain scenario with a ghoul I once had all members of the party paralyzed or unconscious except one. I could either hit the low save party member and TPK everybody, or munch on a downed player (one that in particular had caused the encounter to go awry). I chose to much on the downed character to save the other four people playing. That's about the only occasion I've hit so far where I've felt a need to attack a downed PC.
|
|
1. Tactics as written call for it. I've only seen this in a few scenarios.
2. Uncontrolled creatures motivated by hunger. Zombie needs you in his belly!
3. Swallowed Whole. That Remorhaz isn't going to puke you up once you stop squirming.
I completely agree with one and three. Two to me (while possibly more realistic), still adds to the "kind of a jerk move" territory.
|
|
I chose to much on the downed character to save the other four people playing. That's about the only occasion I've hit so far where I've felt a need to attack a downed PC.
So the ghoul looked at the party, looked at the one party member that was still a threat, then looked down and groaned "you, this is all your fault, so I'm going to kill you and hope that other guy doesn't finish me off."
Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't feel that great about "surviving" that way. The thrill of winning doesn't mean as much to me without the fear of defeat.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If your PC hit an Aspis Consortium fighter during a fight, she dropped to the ground, and as your PC was working on her buddies, she pulled out a potion of dragon breath while lying on the ground, sat up a little and drank it, how easy would you think it should be for you to notice that?
|
|
My answer here is never*. I don't care if you're fresh off the vegetable truck or level 19, it's a jerk GM move.
Now you'll notice there's an asterisk. That's because (as I have experienced), there are times it is not a jerk GM move, and in those times I WOULD consider it.
Case in point. At the end of a certain scenario with a ghoul I once had all members of the party paralyzed or unconscious except one. I could either hit the low save party member and TPK everybody, or munch on a downed player (one that in particular had caused the encounter to go awry). I chose to much on the downed character to save the other four people playing. That's about the only occasion I've hit so far where I've felt a need to attack a downed PC.
I'm also not really a fan of GMs targeting a character unless there's a justifiable reason, via listed tactics or logic. Otherwise it's always a die roll.
|
|
Joesi: Would any of you think it's reasonable to allow a character to feign death WHILE doing an action such as drinking a potion? It would use the skill slight of hand or something I'd say, and maybe a bluff as well?
When in doubt, let the player pick between any options they can reasonably justify. That way their death is on their hands, not yours. It makes them feel worse about it.. mauahahahahaahhahaahha.
|
|
I chose to much on the downed character to save the other four people playing. That's about the only occasion I've hit so far where I've felt a need to attack a downed PC.
I don't think this is kosher at all. The GM is supposed to be an impartial arbitrator. In this case you chose to lay down summary judgment on a PC, in a way which really breaks verisimilitude, instead of doing the thing that made sense--TPKing the party--and letting them decide if it was a funny story or all that one dude's fault.
I could have easily killed him with a coup de grace. Instead, the sorcerer whispered in the held barbarian's ear, "You aren't worth bloodying my dagger", slapped him across the face for 1D3 non-lethal, and sauntered slowly away to safety.
This, I like. The PC's actions weren't necessarily intelligent, but they weren't inappropriate, either. Plus, this makes for a good story.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I chose to much on the downed character to save the other four people playing. That's about the only occasion I've hit so far where I've felt a need to attack a downed PC.So the ghoul looked at the party, looked at the one party member that was still a threat, then looked down and groaned "you, this is all your fault, so I'm going to kill you and hope that other guy doesn't finish me off."
Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't feel that great about "surviving" that way. The thrill of winning doesn't mean as much to me without the fear of defeat.
To each their own. There are a lot of people who DO want to survive, regardless of the reasons why. My job is to make a game day fun, not realistic.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Would any of you think it's reasonable to allow a character to feign death WHILE doing an action such as drinking a potion? It would use the skill slight of hand or something I'd say, and maybe a bluff as well?
Given that drinking a potion provokes an attack of opportunity, I'd think it would need to be a pretty good bluff ...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I chose to much on the downed character to save the other four people playing. That's about the only occasion I've hit so far where I've felt a need to attack a downed PC.I don't think this is kosher at all. The GM is supposed to be an impartial arbitrator. In this case you chose to lay down summary judgment on a PC, in a way which really breaks verisimilitude, instead of doing the thing that made sense--TPKing the party--and letting them decide if it was a funny story or all that one dude's fault.
It's easy to make all sorts of judgements like these, but you weren't there. The players had fun and were glad there wasn't a TPK. They were all new at the time, and frankly, I'd give up one veteran player's verisimilitude to make sure that a group of five other newbies enjoyed themselves.
That's the key I think people forget (and I hear it all the time from veteran GMs), it's about playing to your table. If your table would rather have the cakewalk, I'll make it a cakewalk, if you want me to grind you down to a pulp, I'll grind you all down to a pulp. To be frank though, I probably saved two to three players coming back that day by killing one player, and for that I am not going to apologize.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When creatures are fighting to the death I play them as such. If I have a priest get charged by a fighter type that got past the wall of defense and get held by hold person. I will coup de graz because that fighter will break through and kill him eventually. As a DM I warn the party as I am casting that spell what the PC will do. But this guy is fighting for his life. Sparing that PC because it is a "Dick GM move". is silly. If you want me to softball the adventure and sign the chronicle and move on do not play at my table. If you want to earn it and win as a team I will give you that experience.
|
|
The way I see it, if you are going to kill a PC, make it heroic. Killing them when they are down without giving them a chance to eek out a way to survive is not heroic.
Having the enemy picking up or dragging the body away while the rest of the group tries to save him is more heroic (as one example, depending on situation could bring up other options).
If they fail it leads to a good story of the group trying all they can to save them, if they succeed they leave the table with a great story on how they saved a fellow PC while he was on his last legs.
I am all about trying as hard as I can when I can of making that death Memorable if there is going to be a death or may be one.
I can't always make a death heroic, but this definitely falls into a situation a GM has that control.
|
- If something dropped you to negative, and you've been healed, consider playing possum until your allies move the creature away from you.
Which got me thinking... Would any of you think it's reasonable to allow a character to feign death WHILE doing an action such as drinking a potion? It would use the skill slight of hand or something I'd say, and maybe a bluff as well?
Obviously it would be a risky, but also quite useful tactic. Assuming the enemies were fighting things still, I would presume that they'd get a -5 penalty to perceive anything.
I always allow this, first they make their bluff check vs the enemy's sense motive. If they succeed, it will move on to the next threat. Then they can either do a stealth or sleight of hand check (with a +5 if the enemy is distracted) vs perception. If they succeed here as well then all is good. If they get caught you better believe it is coming back to put them in their place(if they aren't in active combat).
|
I will add one more #3 to the above: Mindless creatures or animal intelligence. If their only instinct is to kill prey to feed, I would see such a creature attacking downed players. Like an Ooze, undead or such. But even then, only if there were no other apparent threats.
Oozes and insect swarms are something I almost always have continue attacking the nearest warm body, even after they fall down. I view them as motivated entirely by food and unable to distinguish between conscious and unconscious food sources.
|
|
Oozes and insect swarms are something I almost always have continue attacking the nearest warm body, even after they fall down. I view them as motivated entirely by food and unable to distinguish between conscious and unconscious food sources.
So when they actually kill a character, you have them continue on the dead body?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
They were all new at the time, and frankly, I'd give up one veteran player's verisimilitude to make sure that a group of five other newbies enjoyed themselves.I realize you were describing a TPK versus one person, but outside of that the sacrifice of long term customers on the hopes of retaining new ones is something I'll never understand. I've said this before, but basic marketing says it's far cheaper to retain an existing customer than to create new ones. If I know a DM has a habit of killing off vets, who have committed resources to PFS instead newbs who have committed nothing, I'll make sure to avoid that GM. As a GM, you're risking the ire of a a committed player so you might scrounge up one or two. And when you kill them off for the next crop of newbs, you're back at square one.
If I have discretion on who to kill, it's not going to be the person with 2 years into their character over the first time player using a pre-gen, unless said player was actually in favor of that outcome.
When in doubt, I'll just avoid newbs since I've seen so many GM's on here express this philosophy.
NN, the basic difference is that the experienced player made a mistake to get where he was, while the newbies probably didn't know any better. If the experienced player were described as wholly without fault, I would agree with you, but from the sound of things, he led the party into a TPK situation. It's only fitting that he be the character to pay the price then.
More importantly, though, the poster was talking about sacrificing a player's versimilitude, not their character. That means that he's OK with making it unbelievable for an experienced player if it means helping the newbies out. Nobody is going to quit PFS because their character *wasn't* couped, but newbies may not come back if they do not feel that they have enough say over their outcomes.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
So, you cherry-picked a quote from a larger post, took it out of context and then chose to be offended about it?
That aside, there is no reason that PFS shouldn't do both. Veterans are, of course, important. So are newbies. If you don't think newbies are important, your game day is slowly going to crumble. I only started playing RPGs in November, and I'm pretty well hooked. I've GMmed tables for a lot of very experienced players, and have been able to let my local VO manage to squeeze in a few games of play time here and there. Had my first couple of games been in ultra-hard mode out of some sort of misguided nod to the veteran players, I doubt I'd be involved.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I didn't take it out of context. The context is they guy is putting the enjoyment of a newbs over that of veterans. That's what I'm talking about. I'm commenting on something in the context of what it was conveying. Nor was "offended by it." I disagree with it. Please don't try to make this inflammatory.
Had my first couple of games been in ultra-hard mode out of some sort of misguided nod to the veteran players, I doubt I'd be involved.And this is a nonsequitor. The alternative to ranking vets as higher on the priority list is not "ultra-hard mode" for newbs. Slinky took the life a vet instead of one of the other newbs at the table. He rationalizes that by claiming the vet was somehow to blame for the incident. None of the other newbs made a bad decision? But he could have taken the life of one of the other newbs and still let the majority of them live along with that of the vet. Maybe the vet agreed it was the right thing to do. I don't know, but that doesn't change the underlying fact that vets, on average, are way more economically valuable than a first time player. Vets show up consistently. Do you know if/when that newb is coming back? If surviving your first scenario was all it took to make a life long customer, I'd think PFS would be triple the size it is now.
More to the point, there is an assumption on many people's part that can't be proved to be correct. The assumption is that newbies dying is always worse than vets dying. There is an assumption that this trade-off always leads to a better net result. I haven't seen any proof that such a result is true. I've seen plenty of anecdotes that end with, "But those newbs sure had a good time." If it came at the discretionary expense of a vet, you have an uphill climb proving you're better off in the long run.
Look, the bottom line is that PFS *needs* new players. New players are good for both veteran players and the campaign as a whole. New players become GMs and other veteran players. Each brings something unique to the table. Occasionally, low level scenarios need to accommodate new players, either through difficulty adjustment or extra time spent explaining the rules. This is how humans operate, and it's not a zero sum game - everybody benefits in the long run.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Netopalis, if the cost of getting new people loses veterans you are at a zero sum gain. If you alert new people they need to learn to survive and earn their characters you will not have to softball adventures to them.
Who has said that anybody quit PFS over any of this? It was said that a single GM decision made a single scenario less believable for a single veteran. That is *hardly* something that will cause a reasonable person to stop playing. We're not seeing an exodus of experienced players.
As for telling people that they have to "earn" their characters, if this is a campaign where the right to play must be earned, then I'll be looking for a competitor. We are an inclusive campaign by design, and that should be supported.
|
|
I didn't take it out of context. The context is they guy is putting the enjoyment of a newbs over that of veterans. That's what I'm talking about. I'm commenting on something in the context of what it was conveying. Nor was "offended by it." I disagree with it. Please don't try to make this inflammatory.
Yes...yes I am putting the enjoyment of a table of five new players over the enjoyment of a single veteran, and I'm not going to apologize for it.
I successfully ran (and grew) a region for two years, I think the results speak for themselves.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
This is how humans operate, and it's not a zero sum game - everybody benefits in the long run.?????
If you, as a GM, are making a discretionary decision about whose fun is more important and then killing/afflicting characters as a result, I would call that a zero sum game. This is not the "do I fudge dice" discussion. This is the who-do-I-stick-with-the-bad-news tangent.
The Guide tells us to go a bit easier on newbies. Also, in the situation that he stated, the experienced player caused a lot of the trouble. This is also an extremely rare situation - I don't think I've ever seen it come up at any of my tables.
|
|
Minnesota grew from like 2 tables every other week and a stable of like 20 players and 4 GMs in Feb 2011 to over 300 players and approximately 10 to 20 tables weekly when he resigned as VC in October 2012. So I think he gets it and knows what he's doing and talking about.
And that is 100% him?
The trouble I see in my local area is that people are in cliques and say they welcome new people. But quickly turn on them and start petty fights. I would go as far to say it starts at the VC. If I email people and create trouble, then it is harder for play a game as they start a witch hunt for the "tattle tale". So I just deal with it.
|
|
Depends on the situation, but remember, you can also be annoying if you are too merciful.
Example--Crited by a Shadow. Loosing 12 of 14 strength. Rest of the party is slightly further away and not an immediate threat. I have spells so I am still conceivably a threat. It is in the character of the monster to finish me off. I and all players at the table are experienced players. GM doesn't, having it take a full move to go after the other characters.
I spend the rest of the adventure being tied to the back of the donkey being called 'Donkey Boy'.
I have never played the character again because it was a cheap non-death.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Depends on the situation, but remember, you can also be annoying if you are too merciful.
Example--Crited by a Shadow. Loosing 12 of 14 strength. Rest of the party is slightly further away and not an immediate threat. I have spells so I am still conceivably a threat. It is in the character of the monster to finish me off. I and all players at the table are experienced players. GM doesn't, having it take a full move to go after the other characters.
I spend the rest of the adventure being tied to the back of the donkey being called 'Donkey Boy'.
I have never played the character again because it was a cheap non-death.
Having just looked at the monster (and knowing nothing of it before I posted in this thread), I don't feel that the monster's psychology necessarily required it to finish you off. It saps the life force from victims - you didn't have as much life force as the others who were coming by, and you would slowly regain them...so it could feast again in a day or so. Isn't that a much greater torment?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, killing a newbie is much worse for the following reasons.
More experienced characters have the resources to come back from the dead. Newbs don't. At higher levels coming back from the dead is a 12 minute break and some pocket change. At third level not so much.
Its kind of impossible for a newb to avoid death because there's so many things that can get you dead. Grognards should know better.
Grognards have lots of fun experiences at the table to weigh against the bad experience of biting the bullet. If someone only has one experience at the table and they die, then pathfinder is "That game where you spend an hour making a character and then die horribly"
Last, and most importantly, is the affect on the players ability to play. If you kill one of nosigs' characters he just reaches into the pile of dead bards and pulls out another one for the next slot. If you kill a newbies character you're killing their only character: the player then cannot level up with their friends in the weekly game or go to the game they scheduled for later in the con.
|
|
Example--Crited by a Shadow. Loosing 12 of 14 strength.That sounds more like a greater shadow! I hope.
1d6 strength damage - so 12 is a scare possibility. Greater shadows would do more like 16 which I have a vague recollection of a paladin's axebeak mount taking during an anti-tiny creature adventure.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Yes, killing a newbie is much worse for the following reasons...If you choose to kill me after I've been coming for weeks and given financial support to the store vs some guy who just showed up from out of town because his buddy dragged him down or some guy's girlfriend who is clearly bored by the whole affair, that's two people you won't see at your table again.
the player then cannot level up with their friends in the weekly game or go to the game they scheduled for later in the con.If you kill anyone's character, then they can't level up with their friends. Anyone can build a new character for that game later on or play a pre-gen.
The entire philosophy is based on an unproven premise that but for you killing that newbie, he/she would never come back. It falsely assumes that there is no negative consequence to the action. That veteran player feels nothing and is not adversely affected. If any GM were to pull that stunt with me, then I'll be happy to let them hope that newbie comes back...because I won't.
On what do you base the idea that newbies will continue to come back after dying? On what do you base the idea that most veterans feel as you? With all due respect, you haven't even earned your first GM star - I don't think you're really qualified to make the sweeping generalizations that you are making.