When do you attack downed characters?

[Netopalis]

My local lodge has a pretty good retention rate, in my opinion. We've seen a lot of players stick around after their first game and we generally tend to grow in size after conventions.

The trouble with comparing GMming to marketing is the fact that, in marketing, you are expending your profits on the same resource from recipient to recipient. You are not expending the same resource to newbies and to veteran players. In the example above, the poster said that he was sacrificing a veteran player's versimilitude [a less valuable commodity] for the character retention of 4 other players [a more valuable commodity]. In the end, marketing and PFS player retention are related fields, but PFS GMming is not governed by the same principles as retail commerce.

You also have to realize that you have a much, much different worldview than most players that I have experienced. You have a very rules-heavy, objectivist approach to the game that you have repeatedly argued for. This is not the same set of values that most players have. Most players could care less about these questions - they just want to get together and have some fun playing a game.

[CRobledo]

N N 959 wrote:

Here's a generalization I'll stand behind: the social experience a newb has at a table has far more impact on their willingness to come back than the life or death of their character. I'll bet dollars to donuts that far more newbs are turned off because of how the GM or other players treated them rather than whether their character lived or died.

I will probably back you up on that statement. However, I would be interested in knowing the stats behind how many new players who have their first character die in their first 1-3 sessions come back again. Do you think more come back, or more leave?

From experience (I was not the GM who killed him), I only know of one local player (and we are in a big area) whose character died in the first scenario and came back for more.

[Kerney]

Dhjika wrote:

CRobledo wrote:

Kerney wrote:

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.

Yes, I got the max crit. Thing is, it was fair and square. Arguably I also acted unwisely. Still, I was annoyed that the GM did not finish me, so much so I'm not sure whether I'd play with that GM again (he moved away, so it never came up).

But being nicknamed 'donkey boy' is just as effective as in killing the mojo of a character, which can be a worse.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Finlanderboy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

No, not 100% Ryan. But he fostered an atmosphere of friendly inclusiveness where anyone could come play and anyone could GM if they wanted to. What this did allow, is for guys like myself, Jon Dehning, Sven, Jon Lamkin, Dave Cook, Mike Cucciarella(sp?), Ryan Blomquist (current VC), and others to pick up the mantle of coordinating a game day, GM'ing a few tables, inviting their friends and home group into our community.

So yeah, I take some responsibility for assisting in the Minneapolis community growing. Its probably why Ryan asked me to be a V-L, because of my willingness to help, coordinate, GM, and generally be useful to him as V-C.

But the point is, he's been around the block, and been extremely successful in fostering community growth. As such, with proof of his methods working, I'm not sure what your complaint actually is.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

N N 959 wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

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.

I don't want to be a jerk here, but sounds like a fairly narcissistic attitude to me. One of entitlement rather than inclusiveness.

I'd rather have a bunch of new folks learning to play the game with inclusiveness, than two learning to play the game with a sense of entitlement.

Just saying.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

N N 959 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

On what do you base the idea that newbies will continue to come back after dying?

What is the turn ratio of newbs? How many of them turn into veteran players?

For all of us here, it's impossible to know whether a death in our first game would have prevented us from continuing. I'm going to guess that 95% of those on these forums would have kept playing.

Quote:

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.

The only generalizations I've made are with regards to basic marketing and customer retention. Go pick up any Marketing 101 text book.

I don't need stars to understand human nature. People play games because of the circumstances under which they get to play them, not because of the outcome of the very first time they play. Newbs come back because their friends or loved ones play. They come back because they aren't really newbs but long time RPG'ers and have been looking for a community. They come back because they were born to play RPG's and are just now finding out about it.

Here's a generalization I'll stand behind: the social experience a newb has at a table has far more impact on their willingness to come back than the life or death of their character. I'll bet dollars to donuts that far more newbs are turned off because of how the GM or other players treated them rather than whether their character lived or died.

Frankly, your suppositions are without merit, because they are being made with out on-the-ground experience.

You know how you would react. But you have no idea what those of us coordinating things on the ground are experiencing.

You can continue to make sweeping generalizations full of hyperbole and incorrect assumptions. You can continue to say and believe what you want.

But that doesn't make it correct.

I'll go with the word of someone who's experienced all these things, made their mistakes, had their successes and failures, and learned from them, over someone who hasn't GM'd even 10 scenarios.

[TetsujinOni]

The thing I think NN959 is missing there is HOW the GM or other players treated them in the course of life or death for their PC.

But dead PC in first game is NOT the gateway experience to OrgPlay you're looking for.

[N N 959]

Quote:

No, not 100% Ryan. But he fostered an atmosphere of friendly inclusiveness where anyone could come play and anyone could GM if they wanted to.

1. By your own admission, the success of the region has nothing to do with the policy of killing vets over newbs. In fact, you've affirmed what I've said, the growth of the game on a local level has more to do with the social environment in which the game is played than the outcome of any individual game.

2. You're trying to turn this into something personal and in doing so, you reveal your lack of objectivity and inability and unwillingness to discuss the topic on the merits of the logic and the veracity of the observations.

Instead, you're concerned with defending your friend who you think has been maligned. He has not. This isn't about Mr. Slanky and it never was. It's about an attitude that reduces the people at the table to a commodity in which we deem newbs more valuable then vets. What's more, that even if we accept that such a thing is a valid way to approach the game, the trade-off is based on flawed logic and a failure to grasp a basic marketing principle as simple as customer loyalty.

[N N 959]

TetsujinOni wrote:

The thing I think NN959 is missing there is HOW the GM or other players treated them in the course of life or death for their PC.

On the contrary, I was including that very thing when I talk about the social experience players have when they die.

Quote:

But dead PC in first game is NOT the gateway experience to OrgPlay you're looking for

And I'll wager that if PFS were to issue a statement that when given a choice, the DM should always harm the veteran player over a first time player, this board will be ghost town in three years. I would definitely quit PFS that same day.

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

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.

I don't want to be a jerk here, but sounds like a fairly narcissistic attitude to me. One of entitlement rather than inclusiveness.

I'd rather have a bunch of new folks learning to play the game with inclusiveness, than two learning to play the game with a sense of entitlement.

Just saying.

This is a thinly veiled personal attack. I've flagged it as such.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

N N 959 wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

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.

I don't want to be a jerk here, but sounds like a fairly narcissistic attitude to me. One of entitlement rather than inclusiveness.

I'd rather have a bunch of new folks learning to play the game with inclusiveness, than two learning to play the game with a sense of entitlement.

Just saying.

This is a thinly veiled personal attack. I've flagged it as such.

On the contrary. No personal attack was made. Just an observation.

[Netopalis]

Might I add a further caveat to say here that, given the fact that you have 4 characters, none of which are over level 5, you really have no right to say what a veteran player should expect? Why? Because you are still a newbie, you are not a veteran. All this self-insertion where you say that somebody ought to attack a newbie instead of you really misses the point, for you are a newbie.

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

My local lodge has a pretty good retention rate, in my opinion. We've seen a lot of players stick around after their first game and we generally tend to grow in size after conventions.

Unfortunately, analysis requires actual numbers.

Quote:

The trouble with comparing GMming to marketing is the fact that, in marketing, you are expending your profits on the same resource from recipient to recipient. You are not expending the same resource to newbies and to veteran players.

Uh no. In marketing, you expend more money to attract people who are not your customer. Attracting new customers cost more money than keeping existing ones happy. Basic marketing.

Quote:

In the example above, the poster said that he was sacrificing a veteran player's versimilitude [a less valuable commodity] for the character retention of 4 other players [a more valuable commodity].

And that's the fallacy. We have no idea if those four players will come back or continue to enjoy the game. We have no idea if he had chosen to kill one of the other newbs if they would have chosen to leave. We have no idea how killing the vet will affect that vets continued enjoyment of the game. Even if we found out that in this one case, it was the right call, that doesn't prove it's the right policy. As I've stated, this isn't about this one decision, is a discussion about a philosophy.

Quote:

In the end, marketing and PFS player retention are related fields, but PFS GMming is not governed by the same principles as retail commerce.

Paizo is a retail company. The gaming industry is predominantly a retail business. We're discussing the economic impact of valuing newbs vs vets when it comes time to decide who to kill.

Quote:

you also have to realize that you have a much, much different worldview than most players that I have experienced. You have a very rules-heavy, objectivist approach to the game that you have repeatedly argued for. This is not the same set of values that most players have.

So I'm going to issue you a warning. Here and again below, your method is to target me as an individual and attempt (incorrectly I might add) to label me as specific type of person. You then assert that I am different from the community as an effort to discredit me in the eyes of the reader. Ignoring that you're wrong about who I am, a person's personal views on how they play the game are irrelevant to the merits of their statements. Engaging in this type of discussion is, once again, an ad hominem and I'm pretty sure against forum policy.

Quote:

Most players could care less about these questions - they just want to get together and have some fun playing a game.

Then I should think that a community ethos on who to kill and why would be of great importance to them.

[Netopalis]

I've tried to reason with you and understand your points, but you keep ignoring my real arguments in favor of mindless rhetoric. I have nothing further to say other than that your invectives and warnings will earn you little respect and few friends in PFS.

[N N 959]

CRobledo wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Here's a generalization I'll stand behind: the social experience a newb has at a table has far more impact on their willingness to come back than the life or death of their character. I'll bet dollars to donuts that far more newbs are turned off because of how the GM or other players treated them rather than whether their character lived or died.

I will probably back you up on that statement. However, I would be interested in knowing the stats behind how many new players who have their first character die in their first 1-3 sessions come back again. Do you think more come back, or more leave?

Let's step back and revisit the focus of the discussion:

If a DM is going to make a discretionary call on who to kill, should newbs be valued over vets?

(as an aside, I would always roll this, all things being equal or nearly so).

If we are looking at the long term economic and community impact, what we want to know is who is more valuable? Given that, the crucial question is whether any given newb is likely to turn into a loyal customer given they survive. If a newbie would have continued to play for one or two more sessions and then quit or finished the weekend at the Con and then quits, then killing him/her fairly and without bias has no impact on his/her retention.

So now you've got to prove that killing the newbie (justly and fairly) was the only reason the player quit who would have otherwise committed to the game. Something that can't be proven by any of us, if it all.

We know some percentage of first time players don't return, regardless of what happens to them in the adventure. It's bad science to assume that those who died didn't return because they died. It's bad policy to start killing vets vs newbs based on bad science. The real danger is that we incorrectly assume character death is the culprit when the problem can be addressed by something as simple as setting expectations. It's naive to think every vet is indifferent to death for some random player they've never seen before.

Quote:

I only know of one local player (and we are in a big area) whose character died in the first scenario and came back for more.

I've seen two (1 survivor) TPK's recently. One in FS-1. The GM was merciless. He flat out told me he felt it was within his right to kill newbs who made bad decisions, "How else are they going to learn" was his rationale. He made all his rolls in secret and went completely off script in FS-1. One player in that group who died, a woman with two kids, is now a GM. She made another character, and kept on trucking.

What turns me off is not death, but a gaming community that lacks integrity. I'm not afraid to die because of my decisions and the luck of the dice. But I won't play a game where the GM is consistently sacrificing my enjoyment for someone who is sitting down for the first time. That's not what RPG's are about nor is that what Paizo is about.

[Finlanderboy]

I have a person that frequently DMs at my local area. He is very creative and puns all the time. But he tells everyone on difficult mods that they are all gonna die. He reitterates this many many many times and asks players, how prepared they are to die, will you run if the party can not win, and a variety of questions like that. I honestly appreciate this. He plays the game as it is written, but does not pull punches for anyone. This kind of banter prepares players for the challenges ahead and the possibilitiy of death.

Protecting a newbie's character from the game is silly. Preparing a newbie for the game is what you should do. Not all GMs will softball games, and if you make them think no matter what the will get by and that death is not part of the game you are doing a disservice to the game.

Netopalis all I see from you is fallitical arguements. If you can not trick him to agree does not mean ignoring illogial statments you can not back suggests you are correct either. You style of DMign does not prove your stores growth. There are countless other factors, and the more the store grows, the less you matter(no to insult you but at that point each person coming take a bit of your influence).

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

I've tried to reason with you and understand your points, but you keep ignoring my real arguments in favor of mindless rhetoric. I have nothing further to say other than that your invectives and warnings will earn you little respect and few friends in PFS.

There is no invective in any of my posts. That accusation is baseless.

In every single discussion, you've tried to make assertions about who I am as a person and make that a basis for why I'm wrong. You've harped on this rules-focus theme consistently. Recently you've tried to discredit me by saying I don't have stars behind my name. A clear indication of attacking the person and not the statements.

Please do avoid my posts in the future.

Thank you.

[nosig]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

...snipping unrelated stuff to what I want to talk about...

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.

what the heck did I do to get my 'toons killed off here? Each and every one of my "children" are very special to me! (well, except maybe Jane... she's kind of hard to take some times). I try extreamly hard not to loose a PC, and I know I'll jinx myself for saying this, but I've not had a PC death in PFS. Some close calls - (two breath of lifes in one scenario), but no deaths. (knock wood).

So I don't have a "pile of dead bards" ... in fact I only have 2 bard PCs (I started a 2nd when the first hit 10th level).

Just felt the need to set the record strait.

[Jane "The Knife"]

I heard that!
.
"hard to take some times"! Pah!

just because you keep dumping judge credits on me!

[Dragnmoon]

nosig wrote:

what the heck did I do to get my 'toons killed off here?

You deserve a PC death just for calling them 'toons'! ;)

[nosig]

Dragnmoon wrote:

nosig wrote:

what the heck did I do to get my 'toons killed off here?

You deserve a PC death just for calling them 'toons'! ;)

It's better than "clones" which is a term I've heard other people use...

[BigNorseWolf]

nosig wrote:

what the heck did I do to get my 'toons killed off here?

Nothing, I just know that you have a lot of them.

Quote:

So I don't have a "pile of dead bards" ... in fact I only have 2 bard PCs (I started a 2nd when the first hit 10th level).

Its a line from the gamers. The player that made a fighter switched over and made a bard. The DM hasn't figured this out, and keeps attacking that players character anyway.. repeatedly killing them. After the first session, he shows up to the second session with 50 copies of the bard

Killing one of your characters is "aww my character died, there goes my perfect record" or "breath of life, STAT!". Killing off a newbs character is "awww my character died" AND " there go my plans for the weekend"

[Netopalis]

Finlanderboy wrote:

I have a person that frequently DMs at my local area. He is very creative and puns all the time. But he tells everyone on difficult mods that they are all gonna die. He reitterates this many many many times and asks players, how prepared they are to die, will you run if the party can not win, and a variety of questions like that. I honestly appreciate this. He plays the game as it is written, but does not pull punches for anyone. This kind of banter prepares players for the challenges ahead and the possibilitiy of death.

Protecting a newbie's character from the game is silly. Preparing a newbie for the game is what you should do. Not all GMs will softball games, and if you make them think no matter what the will get by and that death is not part of the game you are doing a disservice to the game.

Netopalis all I see from you is fallitical arguements. If you can not trick him to agree does not mean ignoring illogial statments you can not back suggests you are correct either. You style of DMign does not prove your stores growth. There are countless other factors, and the more the store grows, the less you matter(no to insult you but at that point each person coming take a bit of your influence).

Level 1.0 isn't the time to be preparing players for their next tier, it's the time to be helping them learn the tier that they start out in. It's pointless to try to explain movement, flanking, casting, etc. when their characters are dying every other scenario. They simply don't learn anything from all the dying, and they get discouraged as a result.

As for my arguments, they are in no way fallacious. I do not have exact numbers, no. He also does not have exact numbers. Neither of us can prove anything with evidence other than anecdotal evidence. However, anecdotal evidence comes from experience, and myself and the others who have argued against him have much more experience than he does. Therefore, the weight of evidence is on our side.

More importantly, it is entirely illogical to apply the principles of marketing to PFS retention for the reasons that I have previously stated. We are not advertising in the same way. Advertising mainly focuses on spending money and getting a greater amount of money in return. This doesn't apply in PFS. We spend effort on every table, and we get returns in new players. This is not the same currency that we spent. We also have our customers (new players) for a longer, more personal experience than an advertiser does with a billboard.

Maybe you two would be great with having your character die repeatedly until solid play is pounded into your head, but most people aren't in my experience. I wouldn't have been, and I know a lot of others who probably wouldn't have been either. Until you've GMmed a table that has gotten really, really somber at the threat of a TPK, you have no right to speak out and tell experienced GMs that they shouldn't try to mitigate the loss to newbies.

[Finlanderboy]

Wow,that is very ignorant to say. You have no idea how much experience I have DMing. You can see I have a star next to my name and that is it. I have seen tables TPK. I have seen a GM make an announcement WEEKS before hand he would kill a new players character and did so(actually he made the claim about 2 and succeeded on both). I went out of my way to try and oet him to come back. Me and the other DM I spoke about above going up to him and speaking with him. This is a game you can win at and lose at. If you play this as a game you can only win at why are there rules wirtten about death? So you only kill veterans that have played before at YOUR judgement.

Again if you want to softball all your begginers so they never leanr and grow in the game have at, but you are a disservice to them when they play with someone that runs it as written and does not softball it.

Just to highlight you are making illogical and make bad arguments. You just assumed our experiences without knowing and tried to descredit our arguements off said assumption.

[Netopalis]

I was referring to NN, who it doesn't appear has been around that long and who is making grand, sweeping statements about how we should all be GMming. I try to run my games so that they *feel* close, but have a slim chance of death before level 4-5. If you and he want to run differently, that's fine - but accept that others have a different style, and may react poorly to yours.

[Finlanderboy]

Netopalis wrote:

Maybe you two would be great with having your character die repeatedly until solid play is pounded into your head, but most people aren't in my experience. I wouldn't have been, and I know a lot of others who probably wouldn't have been either. Until you've GMmed a table that has gotten really, really somber at the threat of a TPK, you have no right to speak out and tell experienced GMs that they shouldn't try to mitigate the loss to newbies.

Well I am sorry but anyone can look up and see you included me as well. So you are incorrect when you meant only NN. NN may as well have a great deal of D&D experience as well. He may come froma strong Living Greyhawk environment. He also has the right to express his feelings on GMs even if he is brand spanking new. I have read from him that he does not want the game to be softballed towards him or others at his table. He understands if you spare one person and they live it makes the adventure easier for EVERYONE since this is a team game. Ask any other DM about character death and the liklihood of survival after the first one.

[Netopalis]

My post was focused on the points that NN was making, not on you, although I disagree for reasons that I have previously stated. These are fundamental questions, though, and I would hope that, if nothing else, you would consider the posts of experienced GMs when discussing this question.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Andrew Christian wrote:

If I’m asked to advise on when to do it, I tell people when I would do it:

1) If the tactics call for it in the scenario.
2) If the PC’s continuously become threats because their allies are healing them, they stand back up and continue to do damage to the enemy. So after the 2nd time or so of that same character standing up, the enemy may just decide to ensure they won’t be getting back up again.

I don't play in PFS (nearest Venture Captain is 75+ miles from me), but even in my home games I agree with this.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Netopalis wrote:

Might I add a further caveat to say here that, given the fact that you have 4 characters, none of which are over level 5, you really have no right to say what a veteran player should expect? Why? Because you are still a newbie, you are not a veteran. All this self-insertion where you say that somebody ought to attack a newbie instead of you really misses the point, for you are a newbie.

So, the fact that I have 0 characters in PFS, does that make me... what a non-player? Sorry, but I don't see how the # or level of a person's PFS characters has any bearing on them being a newbie or a veteran. Someone could play in the maximum allowed PFS games and PL a character to 20 (or whatever PFS caps at) and they still wouldn't be a veteran player compared to someone that's been playing Dungeons and Dragons for 20+ years.

While I do know this is a PFS discussion area, I still felt the above needed saying, regardless of whether I play PFS myself or not.

[Netopalis]

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

Might I add a further caveat to say here that, given the fact that you have 4 characters, none of which are over level 5, you really have no right to say what a veteran player should expect? Why? Because you are still a newbie, you are not a veteran. All this self-insertion where you say that somebody ought to attack a newbie instead of you really misses the point, for you are a newbie.

So, the fact that I have 0 characters in PFS, does that make me... what a non-player? Sorry, but I don't see how the # or level of a person's PFS characters has any bearing on them being a newbie or a veteran. Someone could play in the maximum allowed PFS games and PL a character to 20 (or whatever PFS caps at) and they still wouldn't be a veteran player compared to someone that's been playing Dungeons and Dragons for 20+ years.

While I do know this is a PFS discussion area, I still felt the above needed saying, regardless of whether I play PFS myself or not.

This discussion relates to how new players approach an organized play setting. This is very different than home games, because in home games, you presumably have an extant relationship with your players. In contrast, PFS GMs are expected to accept every player that walks through the door. This often means that we have a limited opportunity to make a good impression, and experience in dealing with the public is very important.

[The Beard]

I have to say that I see no problem with killing blows being delivered if circumstances call for it. Greater threats should normally be addressed first (unless otherwise noted by the assigned tactics). That said, situations that appear unwinnable to the NPCs (again depending on what their tactics are) may result in a decision to kill downed player characters. An example was given earlier in this thread of individuals being continually returned to active status by healers. Now for intelligent NPCS, this can lead to one of two outcomes. A.) Kill them to stop them from getting back up. B.) Drop the healer(s) and resume attacking the rest of the party. Unintelligent NPCs aren't going to be capable of thinking this through sufficiently. They'll just attack whatever hit them last or happens to be handy, tactics willing.

I personally would not hold it against any GM that landed a killing stroke on one of my characters, already downed or otherwise. Killing fresh characters in the hands of new players might not be the wisest decision based simply on wanting to let them get a taste for the game, but sometimes you can't help it. In summation I do not believe people should hold it against their DM if their character is CdGed under the appropriate circumstances. Furthermore, successful defeat of the entire party to me, as a player and occasional DM, seems an appropriate time to kill all of them off. There are no longer any threats to stop the NPCs, intelligent and non, from finishing it. That is of course assuming their tactics don't include something about leaving them alive. Same deal for if survivors retreat from battle. If they do return, they'll probably return to find the allies they left behind dead.

[nosig]

Some time back, I was sittig in on a game with strangers (this happens to me often, I like to travel around some). In the scenario, some of the PCs get dumped into water and have to fight a monster with several attacks. As luck would have it, my PC ends up in the water with another players PC, and the strangest thing happened...
.
The other PC is a bard, and mine is sort of a meat shield. The monster moves to attack the bard and swings once (due to moving, only one attack). I move next to the monster, and swing. The bard withdraws to behind my PC. I figured the monster would swing 3 times on me but instead it swims around my PC (giving me an AOO) to attack the bard again. I swing, the bard withdraws behind me and again the monster swims around me (my guy gets another AOO) to go after the bard with one attack. The Bard player rolls her eyes and we repeat this several times. Looked crazy to me, but I didn't know what the monsters tactics were so (shrug). What do I know, maybe the judge is playing the monster crazy to give us a better chance.

After the game as we are heading out the door, I told the bard that I was sorry my guy didn't hit harder and drop the monster sooner, as she had to suffer the extra attacks. She said something that put it into an entirely different light... "yeah, he's upset with me, I killed him a while back, so he's been going after my PCs sense then. And if he'd dropped me in the water, I'd have drowned before someone could fish me out. Thanks for blocking for me." With this she shrugged and headed out.

Wow - I'm glad that I don't normally play there. We were playing at Sub-tier 3-4 I think, so a dead PC would likely have been perm dead...

[The Beard]

I can only assume the creature's tactics did not include lines about chasing someone in circles, subsequently nerfing its own ability to inflict damage by repeatedly giving up opportunities for full attack actions. Oh, and taking AoOs? Even an unintelligent creature is probably going to go OW, THAT HURT and not do it again. Not someone I would want to play under.

If he had scored a kill under the circumstances that bard's player could probably have taken it up with a venture lieutenant or captain in your area. Like I said, unless those were its tactics then that was some impressive abuse.

[Dhjika]

Dhjika wrote:

I am about to start GMing games in Pathfinder Society

My question is, when do you attack unconscious player characters?

So Race for the Runecarved Key is over (Tier 1-2). Thanks all for the advice, it turned out I needed it Friday night. No character deaths but lots of unconsciousness, and a lot of fear, and at one point the party left two fallen (and stabilized) folks in a darkness with the surviving baddie.

Your suggestions and comments helped me with my decision.

[Chris Mortika]

TetsujinOni wrote:

But dead PC in first game is NOT the gateway experience to OrgPlay you're looking for.

Maybe not?

But I was at Gen Con when PFS started, and there were groups of players proud that they had played in all four scenarios, and had been killed in each one!

[BigNorseWolf]

Chris Mortika wrote:

TetsujinOni wrote:

But dead PC in first game is NOT the gateway experience to OrgPlay you're looking for.

Maybe not?

But I was at Gen Con when PFS started, and there were groups of players proud that they had played in all four scenarios, and had been killed in each one!

They need to stop handing out red shirts as part of pathfinder initiation...

[Mergy]

I killed a downed character on Thursday night. He had been reduced to 0 by an attack of opportunity, and decided to attack as his last action, dropping him to -1. He happened to drop in the middle of his allies, and the BBEG decided that the grouping of all five of them together was a perfect time for an area of effect spell.

I don't think I was in the wrong here, but I would be interested in hearing some discussion on it.

[Finlanderboy]

Adam if he was able to target a few other PC and the downed guy was just an extra bonus then I would kudos you for doing it. At 0 he could have move out of the way. He chose to be heroic and died a heroes death.

If you dropped an area of effect spell just on him, well that would mena you obviously want that character to die.

[The Beard]

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

I killed a downed character on Thursday night. He had been reduced to 0 by an attack of opportunity, and decided to attack as his last action, dropping him to -1. He happened to drop in the middle of his allies, and the BBEG decided that the grouping of all five of them together was a perfect time for an area of effect spell.

I don't think I was in the wrong here, but I would be interested in hearing some discussion on it.

I don't believe I would fault you whatsoever for that. They're all clustered together, they're all hostile targets, and you've got an NPC whose spell list includes an AoE. That is literally the single best time you could possibly deliver. It's just making proper use of what you've been given to work with. It was his decision to take an action that dropped him there instead of getting out of dodge while he still had the opportunity to do so. Generally speaking, it's best to assume any offensive caster you come across is capable of handing out some form of area of effect, line, or cone spell(s). So again I say not your fault. You just did what you were supposed to.

[Avatar-1]

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

I killed a downed character on Thursday night. He had been reduced to 0 by an attack of opportunity, and decided to attack as his last action, dropping him to -1. He happened to drop in the middle of his allies, and the BBEG decided that the grouping of all five of them together was a perfect time for an area of effect spell.

I don't think I was in the wrong here, but I would be interested in hearing some discussion on it.

You've heard my comments earlier in the thread about how I feel about it, but this is another great example.

The bad guy would absolutely want to do that. As a GM, I have to play it fair, so the AoE spell is the best option. Having said that, if I go with the AoE, this player loses his character. Is there another course of action he might take that can be equally devastating without hitting the guy on the ground? A failed mission/a surrender might have consequences for the whole party, but better for that player than death.

This might be alleviated if he's at a level where getting raised is costly but easy.

Adding in the consequences that the last action was an attack, dropped by an AoO, in the middle of his allies, I can't say I'd be too upset at you knowing that if I was the player, I had a lot of control before I dropped, in (what sounds like) such a vulnerable position.

How nasty was the bad guy's attacks, why did he take the AoO? Questions like that come into account when you make the final decision.

[Sabre]

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

I killed a downed character on Thursday night. He had been reduced to 0 by an attack of opportunity, and decided to attack as his last action, dropping him to -1. He happened to drop in the middle of his allies, and the BBEG decided that the grouping of all five of them together was a perfect time for an area of effect spell.

I don't think I was in the wrong here, but I would be interested in hearing some discussion on it.

A character among his allies attacked rather than run when @ 0 -- while fighting a spell caster. In other words, the player chose to pass out among his allies, knowing that there was an AoE risk. Either he (wrongly) thought he'd get a heal before AoE happened, or that AoE wouldn't occur.

He chose poorly or guessed wrong. It happens.

Not knowing the tier, BBEG caster, or group composition being faced: I'd have dropped the AoE as well, especially if in-scenario tactics allow for the AoE or if the PCs had shattered scenario tactics such that they weren't viable. I'm guessing it was a solid "hurt them all before they kill me" move -- only thing I can think of that might have had me do differently is if I could have Dominated a fighter -- but there's a risk they'll save from that.

[Erai]

Whenever possible I refrain from killing PCs- sure, combat encounters should be exiting and should at least "feel" dangerous, but in any in-game situation, I really only care about how much enjoyment the players might get out of it. And getting killed usually isn't much fun (unless, of course, it makes for a great story afterwards ;-) )

But this is not a "law" for everybody, I know several DM's who have a reputation for lethality- and when I play at their tables, I fully expect (and fear for) them to be harsh on PCs, and if they finish off a downed character... oh well, them's the breaks.

So I suppose it all depends on context: if players know that they are in for a serious challenge, then let it be one. But if they are expecting an evening of light-hearted fun, a "deliberate" character death would be too much of a downer for my taste.

[N N 959]

Erai wrote:

I know several DM's who have a reputation for lethality- and when I play at their tables, I fully expect (and fear for) them to be harsh on PCs...

How do you feel about playing at their tables compared to other DM's who are less prone to killing PC's? Is the game more enjoyable or less? Do the characters feel more legitimate or less? How do the other players respond to that style? Are these DM's sought out for their games or generally avoided?

[Erai]

N N 959 wrote:

Erai wrote:

I know several DM's who have a reputation for lethality- and when I play at their tables, I fully expect (and fear for) them to be harsh on PCs...

How do you feel about playing at their tables compared to other DM's who are less prone to killing PC's? Is the game more enjoyable or less? Do the characters feel more legitimate or less? How do the other players respond to that style? Are these DM's sought out for their games or generally avoided?

They are actually pretty popular, as far as I can assess. But then, so are some of the "soft" GMs I know- and by the same players too- but for different reasons, of course (although they share the common trait of being experienced and very solid GMs)

I suppose it boils down to expectations, really- if a "soft" GM were to severely punish silly actions during his game, I might (possibly) be as dejected as if a "tough" GM were to clearly pull his/her punches (and hey, there is something heroic about surviving, say, Creighton Broadhurst. Feels like a proper accomplishment, there should be T-shirts for that, really ;-) )

[Finlanderboy]

N N 959 wrote:

Erai wrote:

I know several DM's who have a reputation for lethality- and when I play at their tables, I fully expect (and fear for) them to be harsh on PCs...

How do you feel about playing at their tables compared to other DM's who are less prone to killing PC's? Is the game more enjoyable or less? Do the characters feel more legitimate or less? How do the other players respond to that style? Are these DM's sought out for their games or generally avoided?

If the DM is honest these are my favorite types. The sad part is they ussualy are the most dishonest. =(

[TwilightKnight]

N N 959 wrote:

How do you feel about playing at their tables compared to other DM's who are less prone to killing PC's?

It depends on the manner of the death. If a killer GM uses smart tactics, takes advantage of player mistakes, and the "little things" like environment, etc., then they are typically well received.

If, OTOH, they always rule against the players, deviate from tactics, and plays enemies well above their intelligence, then those are "bad" killer GMs.

Kyle Baird has killed one of my PCs four times, including once requiring a resurrection not just a raise. And I loved every single time. His reputation is largely "hollywood." He just knows the rules very well and is a good tactician. Most killer GMs fall into that category.

[N N 959]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Kyle Baird has killed one of my PCs four times, including once requiring a resurrection not just a raise. And I loved every single time. His reputation is largely "hollywood." He just knows the rules very well and is a good tactician. Most killer GMs fall into that category.

How do you afford getting raised four times? Saved money before hand? Team chipped in? Sold gear?

[TwilightKnight]

N N 959 wrote:

How do you afford getting raised four times? Saved money before hand? Team chipped in? Sold gear?

Twice with prestige, twice with gold (one including some party gold). Keep in mind these all happened when the level loss associated with being raised was hand-waived. Doing it now would cost quite a bit more.

[Netopalis]

N N 959 wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Kyle Baird has killed one of my PCs four times, including once requiring a resurrection not just a raise. And I loved every single time. His reputation is largely "hollywood." He just knows the rules very well and is a good tactician. Most killer GMs fall into that category.

How do you afford getting raised four times? Saved money before hand? Team chipped in? Sold gear?

By level 12, a character could have up to 66 PP, which is worth 4 raises. At high tiers, every player receives enough cash to pay for a Raise Dead, too. Also, table assists happen often, especially where only one PC died.

[Silbeg]

Here's how I see it... generally speaking, I won't attack a character when he is down. This goes for me PFS games, home games (and even my Champions home games). There are a few reasons for it. I'll try and illustrate with examples...

1) Unintelligent monsters (aka Zombies):
Zombies just move forward in the most direct route (ignoring the risk reach AOOs, etc). When they drop someone, I figure that their "life sense" "sees" a stronger life force in a conscious opponent, so they move forward to the next standing target. They'll only finish a downed target if there are no other targets in the area.

2) Animal intelligence:
These critters will move up to attack, flanking if it is in their nature (all pack animals would do this), and being wary of reach weapons. They'll use some tactics, but if they are differentiating between targets it is because they would be more likely to pick "soft" targets than "hard". This is how animals work in the real world... pick on the weak. However, they won't stop to feed (perform a CDG, etc) if there are other threats out there. If the beast has separation from the rest of the party, and has downed a party member, it might try dragging the downed PC off to a safe place so that it can finish it off... in this case, it might even perform a CDG for its own safety (doggie shake, etc).

3) Intelligent creatures.
Again, tactics is key. Most intelligent creatures will be able to easily assess the situation, and I would be surprised if many would take the time to CDG an opponent when there are several others still standing (and probably threatening). In fact, given that PFS bad guys are almost always heavily outnumbered, they would likely only risk a CDG action if no other opportunity presented itself... AND they didn't have a cure potion to gulp, AND they didn't have a ranged weapon or spell they could use. To me, this is just good tactics. If a healer keeps bringing targets back, then I'd use the AOOs (provoked when the PC tried to pick up his weapon, or stand up, etc) to drop him again. Then, the intelligent BBEG would go after the healer.

In all three cases, I don't feel like I would be hard-balling. Player death can still happen. Example: Big Bad Fighter is going toe-to-toe with an ogre, and is at 3 hp... Ogre hits for 20, fighter has CON 16. Dead fighter. This can easily happen with LARGE attacks, but can just as easily happen in area of effect attacks/spells. I don't think any bad guy would purposely leave a downed opponent out of the AOE, just like no PC would do that to a downed bad guy (unless they are trying to take the BBEG alive).

If it were to happen in a game, I would definitely apologize to the player, and would try to explain why it happened. I haven't seen too many players that wouldn't "get it", but I am sure they are out there (especially in younger players, but I am sure more than a few "experienced" players would be upset). I know I would be sad about losing a character... it almost happened on Sunday (so glad I decided to attack on the defensive).

Oh, and on that one... personally, when dealing with iterative (or multi-attacks), if there are possible multiple targets, I'd roll them separately. First attack drops a target, then the second attack can go towards a second target. Or, at least designate "first attack is red die, second is green", so that if the first attack drops a player, I can then move on to target #2. Again, I see this a good tactics, and what I would do as a player, as well as a GM. But, to the GM that was doing the attacks, please do not take this as a criticism... I would have accepted the attacks, and burned the PP to get my raise... just not how I would have done it.