to kill or not to kill

[Stilgar2300]

So i recently started a new campaign and things were going OK. The party got the first quest (deal with some kobolds)but things got a little weird after that. Everyone except the ranger wanted to shop a bit in town and the ranger left to go deal with the Kobolds. Fine. He should be able to deal with 3 them by himself. Turns out he rolls crappy, and I roll really well. i hit him for 5 with one and the Other crits. I decide at the last minuet that the koblold hits him with the flat of his sword to cause non lethal damage. But should i have killed him? the Player was clearly about to die because of something he did. I just felt like a bully killing him during the first session. What would you have done?

[Skreeeeeeeeee]

Players need to learn one way or another that splitting from the party, and other poor decisions, will have their own consequences. If you baby him now, he'll only keep doing it. Have him learn early that his choices can kill him, it's best to do so before he gets attached to his character. Then he'll think twice about doing something like that in the future.

[Turin the Mad]

Grease the ranger.

[Alric Rahl]

Should have captured the ranger with the Kobolds. then he would have had to sit there and wait for the rest of the party to rescue him. This would of taught him the same kind of lesson as killing his character. The lesson being that Instead of sitting there all night waiting for the party to rescue him, in the future he will just have to sit there for 15-20 min while the party shops, a much better trade off. He will still learn his lesson but he doesnt have to deal with the harsh reality of losing his first character.

I realize this is probably over but its something to do in the future, just have the enemies capture the PC instead of Killing.

[Ryzoken]

Smoke him and make ranger stew.

Choices are meaningless without repercussions. Without risk, there can be no reward.

Bonus points if the rest of the party come across the ranger's stuff in a pile at the trigger point of a kobold trap. Also include the merrily bubbling stew pot in one chamber description and maybe the ranger's partial remains (that which can't be eaten) in the refuse pit.

If the party hurries to the ranger's rescue, they might find the corpse intact, opening resurrection options beyond true res/reincarnate.

[Turin the Mad]

Unless the kobolds have a pressing reason not to, they're going to kill him. Dead rangers tell no tales...

[Stilgar2300]

Alric Rahl wrote:

Should have captured the ranger with the Kobolds. then he would have had to sit there and wait for the rest of the party to rescue him. This would of taught him the same kind of lesson as killing his character. The lesson being that Instead of sitting there all night waiting for the party to rescue him, in the future he will just have to sit there for 15-20 min while the party shops, a much better trade off. He will still learn his lesson but he doesnt have to deal with the harsh reality of losing his first character.

I realize this is probably over but its something to do in the future, just have the enemies capture the PC instead of Killing.

I did have them capture him. Basically held him ransom for 100 gold. The party paid, then took all his gold to recoup their losses.

[Alric Rahl]

boom! there is his consequence right there. the next time he gets captured like that it will cost more and he knows it and wealth is the second most important thing to a player, pretty sure he isnt going to make that mistake again.

[Adagna]

I think everyone deserves a free-be. He just happened to use his up in the first adventure. I think you did the right thing.

[Nox Aeterna]

If i was playing , i would say you made the right choice OP.

What is really important is that , while you can ask certain questions in the forums , the answer lies at your table , more than on the thread.

There are players that will deal well with the loss of a PC , that want to word to be grim and for their PCs to have a real chance of losing and dying , to feel that it goes to the ultimate consequences...

Others dont , they just want to enjoy the adventure and while they like the challenge , they would get really annoyed if they lost their PCs.

Assuming you know your players , then you probably made the right choice.

[DM Livgin]

Pathfinder as a mechanical system and as a social game is built on the assumption of the 4 man group.

Mechanically, going solo is high risk because a lucky turn of the dice can overwhelm a single PC. A single crit, trap, or failed save will disable the poor sucker and there will be no allies to pull his bacon out of the fire.

Socially, the bottleneck in any game is the GM's attention. When a player splits and does his own thing, the rest of the group is sitting around waiting and not getting to play. So ideally the group always sticks together, so no one gets sidelined.

I recommend having this conversation with your players out of the game. Acknowledge that it can be really cool and fun to do a solo mini quest, but it does monopolize game time from the other players, and that it is far more dangerous to go alone.

[Saldiven]

I'm assuming these are pretty inexperienced players?

If so, having the kobold capture him with the intent of either eating him later or trading the captive to some other evil humanoids as either tribute or for some sort of favor. This could serve as a set up for further adventures, and simultaneously let the party know how unwise it is to go it alone.

If this was an experienced player, yeah, he needs to face a more painful lesson on the ramifications of making stupid decisions.

[Stilgar2300]

Saldiven wrote:

I'm assuming these are pretty inexperienced players?

If so, having the kobold capture him with the intent of either eating him later or trading the captive to some other evil humanoids as either tribute or for some sort of favor. This could serve as a set up for further adventures, and simultaneously let the party know how unwise it is to go it alone.

If this was an experienced player, yeah, he needs to face a more painful lesson on the ramifications of making stupid decisions.

everyone (including the ranger) but two of the players are fairly inexperienced. The two that aren't I've been playing with for years so I'm semi reliant on them to police the new people.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Did everyone have fun?

If they did, then you're doing it right.

If not, try being a little more cutthroat next time.

[Mike J]

It really comes down to the kind of game you want to have. This particular example makes it easier than the often-seen "My players worked together and did everything right, but luck was against them. Do I TPK or fudge rolls?"

In this case, they split the party (dumb-dumb-dumb, dumb-dumb). So, consequences or not? There is no "right" answer. But whatever you decide, it will set the tone for the rest of the game and mold your players' choices.

I prefer a consequences-based game. I've played in a game with very few consequences and it was not my idea of fun - others in the game loved it. So, I'd kill the ranger and have the kobolds string up his body in front of their lair as a trophy/warning to others. Maybe put his head on a pike. Kobolds in my games are little bastards that way.

[Claxon]

In terms of the story, the kobolds probably would have killed him. Possibly eating him, can't remember if that's their shtick or not.

In terms of running a fun game, having the kobolds capture him and having the party rescue him is probably the best way for it go have gone down.

[Ciaran Barnes]

It was foolish for the ranger to head out on his own, especially since he would have had help it he waited until the shopping was done. They could have left the next morning. The consequence you choose was a good one.

As an aside to this, I think I would be good for the game as a whole if there were more situations where splitting the party was a possibility, depending on lots of things. If it makes the game feel more realistic or cinematic (player immersion), that is a good thing. If it allows the party to achieve two goals at once, that is a good thing. If it causes half of the players to sit and do nothing for longer than they are comfortable, that is a bad thing. If it causes the GM too much rewriting, that is a bad thing.

[Jack of Dust]

Blood for the blood god!

Seriously though unless the ranger was a new player, I would have the kobolds kill him. Funnily enough, it would actually serve as a teachable moment for the new players too.

The way you handled it was just fine too. I would make some allowances for new players but the experienced player should know better and should not be above consequence.

[Corathonv2]

I wouldn't have pulled the punch. OTOH, the kobolds might stop his bleeding and take him prisoner if they thought that they could gain from that in some way (ransom perhaps).

[Stilgar2300]

An update.
at last night's session the player in question actually pulled me aside and said what he did wasn't cool and the other players apparently talked to him and told him I pulled punches so i didn't kill him. He said he won't go off on his own again and thanked me for not killing him but he said if he does something stupid again he expects me to kill him.

[Claxon]

Stilgar2300 wrote:

An update.

at last night's session the player in question actually pulled me aside and said what he did wasn't cool and the other players apparently talked to him and told him I pulled punches so i didn't kill him. He said he won't go off on his own again and thanked me for not killing him but he said if he does something stupid again he expects me to kill him.

Seems like it worked out well and that the problem will take care of itself. Glad to hear it worked out for you.

[Saldiven]

All's well that ends well.

Hopefully, the player learned his lesson :D

[Opuk0]

Would there have been consequences if the player sticked to waiting on the others to finish shopping?

If feel like we're making the assumption that the ranger was selfish for not waiting on the other, but maybe the ranger had a legitimate reason for not wanting to wait.

It's all well and good to be prepare via shopping, but I feel like maybe players shouldn't feel like the plot will always wait for them to finish grocery shopping.

[Stilgar2300]

Opuk0 wrote:

Would there have been consequences if the player sticked to waiting on the others to finish shopping?

If feel like we're making the assumption that the ranger was selfish for not waiting on the other, but maybe the ranger had a legitimate reason for not wanting to wait.

It's all well and good to be prepare via shopping, but I feel like maybe players shouldn't feel like the plot will always wait for them to finish grocery shopping.

there would have been no consequences if the player had stuck around. It was literally 15 minutes into the session when they found out about the kobolds.

[Guru-Meditation]

Stilgar2300 wrote:

An update.

at last night's session the player in question actually pulled me aside and said what he did wasn't cool and the other players apparently talked to him and told him I pulled punches so i didn't kill him. He said he won't go off on his own again and thanked me for not killing him but he said if he does something stupid again he expects me to kill him.

It is always nice to hear when in a party all have common sense.