I ask because, even though I asked before hand if they wanted me to play enemies like they were actually trying to kill PCs and not merely be just a challenge, and they said yes; in my first session playing in this manner, I cast shatter on a PC's prized tower shield(it had a lot of sentimental value to him) and managed to destroy it(wasn't magic), AND killed a PC later on in the same session.
let's just say corpses were mutilated post-battle due to various over the situations anger. all anger stayed in character but I'm still not sure exactly if they were happy after the session.
do you think a GM can go too far, even when they literally asked for it?
The PC that died however, was getting bored with their character, and so wasn't miffed when he died.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally choose to give a challenge when the battle is not really significant - just normal mobs/random encounters. I have still killed PCs this way due to their casual approach to tactics. Bosses and significant battles are a lot tougher and have a higher chance of killing PCs - but that is usually when they step up and actually plan their tactics etc!
I'd say ask them what they thought of it. If it was too hard or if they enjoyed it. There are spells that can fix the Tower Shield, so that can be the next quest if the are interested in fixing it.
Well I generally run on the side of the NPCs trying to kill the PCs. That is the way I like to run and my players seem to enjoy it.
Though I try not to destroy the PC's items...as that seems to upset certain players more than if you out right kill them.
But you should ask them what they thought about the session.
on the tower shield, the towershield wielder, was the only person still in the room with the wizard, who was alone and didn't have many other spells left, so the wizard cast it at the most intimidating thing he had. (the PC in question had 2 shields, 1 tower and 1 heavy)
Oh don't get me wrong I don't have a issue with item destruction. Just that I do know players who would. As a player I don't mind anything the GM does as long as it is fair...meaning level appropriate.
It really depends on the game. I have been GMing PFS lately and it has printed tactics. In home games I usually try to win the fights rather than kill individual characters. So no coup de grace unless there is some worry of healing magic, but wizards start combat by fireballing from invisibility.
As a DM I don't care about killing players, but I am hesitant about destroying hard to replace gear that is pivotal to the character concept; if a player is really attached to the character and didn't make complete and utter enemies of the other PCs in game, life is cheap to get back magically. "Dead" is ultimately an easily removed status ailment.
On the other hand, destruction of key items that are important to the build and aren't necessarily feasible to replace leaves the character alive but crippled. If a piece of gear is both incredibly hard to get AND its removal neuters the character, then I don't mess with it, at least not permanently.
For instance, rip up the Wizard's spell book that he spent a vast amount of time tracking down obscure spells for (disregarding "blah blah you should have a million back copies" as it is not always feasible in campaigns), or the swordmaster's prized Infinity +1 sword and he might as well be dead as opposed to the status condition "Dead."
He is lobotomized. He's paraplegic. He will never enjoy the same quality of life he had. It's arguably a fate worse than death... and it could just mean a reroll on his behalf as that is the closest thing to true death a PC can have.
In no way am I saying your tower shield breaking incident falls into the above, but that is my general stance on why I'm always careful about what I have my NPCs try to sunder if they are into that sort of thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing about playing heavy is that the villains' behaviour still needs to make sense.
The BBEG is fighting for his life. Does he spend a round to make a CDG against a fallen enemy? Not if other enemies are in his face. His decisions should be based on what gives his best chance of survival, not what gives the party the worst beating. If one character is neutralized, and others are still a threat, then he should be concentrating on neutralizing more enemies, not kicking characters that are already down.
Peet
|
I think it should also vary by NPC.
- Town guards are supposed to keep normal civilians in check, not to get slaughtered by murderhobos. If they look like they're outmatched they might surrender or retreat. However, if PCs kill one of them, expect "cop killer" style overwhelming revenge, where they bring totally disproportionate resources to bear against the PCs.
- Goblins are undisciplined and individually cowardly. They need groups in order to have the courage to face the PCs. But they do resent being smaller and weaker than the Hew-Mans. So if one PC is down, and the rest of the PCs are fighting the main mob of goblins, it wouldn't be out of character for a lone goblin to start gnawing at the downed PC's ear.
- Professional soldiers might have a professional code of ethics, where the main goal is to win fights without taking too many losses yourself. Part of that is a mutual understanding that the enemy is also just doing his job. Since he's honorable enough, you can try to get him to surrender, rather than having to destroy him utterly.
So long as the PCs seem honorable enough, they won't be using CdG style tactics, but rather try to gain a tactical position where they can demand the PCs surrender or retreat.
- Daemons are pure nihilistic evil. They care more about inflicting suffering than about self-preservation. They'll gladly pick tactically poor options if it gives them a chance to maximize the grief they cause. These things should cause revulsion in the players; these things need to die, they're so utterly nasty and unfair.
- The coldly rational lich lord is all about achieving victory. He's not trying to kill PCs just because he likes killing. If the PCs keep healing downed comrades, sure, he'll start finishing off downed PCs. But if the PCs focus more on fighting than healing, that's probably what the lich will do too; no need to waste time on unconscious PCs.
However, he's also not above instructing some sights to Ready actions to all simultaneously hit an unconscious PC, enough to finish him; and then see if he can use that PC as a hostage against the remaining PCs.
- A cavalier might be honor- and Order-bound to focus on actually threatening enemies, rather than helpless ones. Even if taking hostages might win him the battle sooner.
I ask because, even though I asked before hand if they wanted me to play enemies like they were actually trying to kill PCs and not merely be just a challenge, and they said yes; in my first session playing in this manner, I cast shatter on a PC's prized tower shield(it had a lot of sentimental value to him) and managed to destroy it(wasn't magic), AND killed a PC later on in the same session.
let's just say corpses were mutilated post-battle due to various over the situations anger. all anger stayed in character but I'm still not sure exactly if they were happy after the session.
do you think a GM can go too far, even when they literally asked for it?
The PC that died however, was getting bored with their character, and so wasn't miffed when he died.
That will depend on the group. Some players get mad if things don't go their way some get mad if the GM hold back during combat. There is no one true answer. You may have to push the envelope to see what happens. Sometimes you will have mix of different players so you will have to try to balance things out to keep everyone happy.
PS: Sometimes players don't know what they want. I was asked to dial it up to 9(with 10 being max difficulty) before. They were not happy about it when it happened.
Sometimes players don't know what they want. I was asked to dial it up to 9(with 10 being max difficulty) before. They were not happy about it when it happened.That's a good point, although it could just be a misunderstanding as to what dialing it up to 9 meant. I doubt I'd play in one that was dialed up to 9 and know I wouldn't ask for it, because to me 9 of 10 means your character is almost certain to die several times if the campaign goes all the way from 1 to 20, and there's a high likelihood the circumstances of at least one of those deaths will be such that you'll have to make a new character. All that even if you don't make a major tactical blunder.
Others, I'm sure (including both you and the players), have different views to whatever extent of what a 9 means, and that could have been the root of the misunderstanding.
I explained that I would be using very lethal tactics, but I would not fudge the dice against them.
I think that it was a case of "this sounds cooler than it is in play". They still won the the fights, but they came close to running away or dying during a few boss fights. I think they were used to having their way with the bad guys. I did not figure this out until I heard stories of how their previous GM handed wealth out like it was candy(artifacts at level 5, and things like that).
I try to come very close to killing the party once in a while to remind them that it is possible, that I will make them die if they slip up, but that I don't like killing players arbitrarily. I typically provide a way to avoid or prepare for such encounters. I also like to make Pathfinder deadlier, because it is inherently such a soft system. There is very little chance of players dying against a threat with CR equal to the APL. If the players are reminded that they can be killed by a sufficiently large group of goblins, they will think twice when faced with a dragon.
As harshly as you need to and that fits with why it's there, its current status/mentality/etc., and so on. Just keep it so it makes sense.
I think that it was a case of "this sounds cooler than it is in play". They still won the the fights, but they came close to running away or dying during a few boss fights. I think they were used to having their way with the bad guys. I did not figure this out until I heard stories of how their previous GM handed wealth out like it was candy(artifacts at level 5, and things like that).
Have to agree about that. Lots of players seem to like the idea of playing in a hard-core no-holds-barred campaign more than they like having their characters killed off by bad rolls/tactical errors.
As everyone else says, it depends. If a PC dies now and then, you're probably doing it right. If someone's losing a character every other session, or never at all, there might be a problem.
In two years of running my current Runelords campaign, of a group of 6-7 PCs, I've got a total of three* PC deaths, and two of those are recent. We're in book 5.
* Three deaths, and one utter-character-destruction-because-they-got-a-deck of many things.
the PC that died, definitely made bad tactical decision.
3/5 of the party was panicked, and he tried to solo the BBEG, who was pelting them with arrows from behind a trap. they were in cover for extra AC, and could probably have waited, but the BBEG liked melee more anyway, and he was quickly killed.
the wizard who shattered the shield had enough money on her to cover another tower shield (and I didn't fudge anything).
the wizard, also had barricaded herself in a room after hearing the party talking(in the immediate next room), and so it was the first and only thing she managed to do.