PDA

View Full Version : I feel like George R.R. Martin (is this a good thing?)



Anderlith
2011-09-26, 10:27 PM
So whenever I run a game I always kill at least one character in the first session. I usually kill more as the game goes on as well. Let me be clear, I do not want to kill them, they just end up dead.

In one adventure I pitted them against a handful of Tiny Vipers that we nesting in a shallow, slow moving 2ft deep stream (No chance of drowning or being swept away). They had a warforged & they were all non magical classes, so it wasn't like they had bad Con scores. Also, the snakes were not going to be coming out of the water & the characters could have moved just a bit up stream to avoid the snakes. I killed two.

Another adventure I have them fight some undead with bows that were in a small earthen fort with only a wooden wall & a spike pit ditch. The whole thing was maybe 60ft across. I killed three.

My last adventure, I have them as a group of new slaves for an evil elven master, before the game really starts I have arranged for the elf to die & the players to be armed & to have an escape tunnel nearby. Five of the seven go into the escape tunnel while two of them run around the mansion trying to steal from the bedroom of the deceased elf while the guards are running about. The guards see them trying to break in & kill the wizard, & the cleric runs off & down the escape tunnel. Only one died, but I made it stupid easy to escape because the guards were not even supposed to be fought.

Am I making thing to challenging or are my players just dumb? I have never used obscure material from sourcebooks. I have never used a cheesy spell. & I have never gone over the recommended CR/ ECL of a monster/encounter. For the most part I have never used much outside of goblins (& I mean goblins not goblinoids so it's not like I have bugbears beating them down), undead, & playable races to kill them.

kaomera
2011-09-26, 10:44 PM
So whenever I run a game I always kill at least one character in the first session. I usually kill more as the game goes on as well. Let me be clear, I do not want to kill them, they just end up dead.
You're just a natural at this. Be proud of your talent. GMs who constantly kill off characters and still have players coming back are the best GMs.

kenjigoku
2011-09-26, 10:46 PM
Read your own sig. Your a tactician, apparently your players are not. You will win by sheer better at what you are doing than they are :)

Steward
2011-09-26, 10:48 PM
I think people will accept character deaths if they're sufficiently cool/dramatic/awesome or a logical progression of events without any (open) cheating on your part. You seem to be doing a good job; from what you've described, there aren't any of the "rocks fall everybody dies" or "my DMPC is here to curbstomp you for that thing you said to me outside of the game twelve years ago" types of PC deaths that frustrate gamers. There's nothing wrong with PC deaths as long as everybody's still having fun and no one feels as if they've been singled out for metagame reasons.

Mustard
2011-09-27, 02:55 AM
George R. R. Martin, eh? So your characters all have a given name, nickname, title, alternate title, secondary alternate ("we're making fun of you behind your back with this") title or nickname; lengthy discussion takes place for characters not yet named, or by using a nickname/title that has not yet been introduced; everyone is morally flawed in at least some manner; the world is gritty and grim; the campaign setting and story are full of epic political intrigue, fierce battles, betrayal, information warfare; there's a rich history revealed a bit at time; and it is nearly impossible to get oneself to set a book down?

Sounds good to me :)

As for your GMing lethality, it depends how much it bothers the players. It sounds like it bothers you more. Have you talked to them about it? I'd assume that losing a character on session 1 is soon for most people, though. I don't know the details, but it sounds like they are reckless. I've been reckless with my characters before as a player (I say that as though it's rare) -- it's easy to get caught up in the moment.

For example, with the escaped slaves situation: give them a warning that it's not a good idea to go looting the house while guards are searching for them. Then, if they continue, warn them that they hear shuffling feet, and doors being kicked open, and people shouting "you go left, we'll go right." In other words, obvious signs the PCs are close to being found by unfavorable company. If they haven't tried to hide or flee by then, too bad.

Other things, which is essentially to coddle them (not always a bad thing), are: give more healing in loot, maybe provide some scrolls (or wands with very few charges) with resurrection magic. Perhaps an NPC that comes along to help a little. Or who has been maimed and has barely escaped some sort of death trap, and can provide information as a warning.

(EDIT: spelling, clarification)

gkathellar
2011-09-27, 06:39 AM
You're just a natural at this. Be proud of your talent. GMs who constantly kill off characters and still have players coming back are the best GMs.

This. Take pride.

NOhara24
2011-09-27, 06:59 AM
Am I making thing to challenging or are my players just dumb? I have never used obscure material from sourcebooks. I have never used a cheesy spell. & I have never gone over the recommended CR/ ECL of a monster/encounter. For the most part I have never used much outside of goblins (& I mean goblins not goblinoids so it's not like I have bugbears beating them down), undead, & playable races to kill them.

One, your players are coming back despite the high probability of death. This is a good thing, as others have said.

BUT...if you don't like how much your players are dying, whether it's interfering with your storytelling, or if you want the party to be more close knit, consider this:

In the campaign you mentioned, none of your players were utilizing a magical class. This only means healing by way of (sometimes very expensive) items. Also, this likely points to your players being comparatively low-op,(just an assumption by me, likely not true at all.) as most people I know who tend to optimize have played a magic user at least a couple times.

Again, it seems the collective playground sees no reason to change your style. You're not "rocks fall"-ing them, you're not using cheesy spells, nor DMPCs or anything else stupid. You're probably just a better player than your players are (If that makes sense.) It's entirely up to you. If you want your players to stop dying so much, you'll either have to educate them, or lighten up on them by having enemies play to their strengths.

Lapak
2011-09-27, 11:41 AM
If you're concerned about this, it's possible you're not providing your PCs with vivid enough descriptions for them to understand the tactical picture. A subtle shift in tone can make a big difference here. Examples:

The water-snake encounter - they could have evaded them easily, but did they know it? When I hear 'snake in the water', I assume it could easily pursue me out of the water. Playing up their aquatic nature could cause the player to realize that they can be escaped. Describing them as 'snake-like', mentioning that they swirl around near the bottom rather than striking from the surface of the water, and similar descriptions could serve this purpose without telling them 'hey, you know they can't leave the water, right?'

The Undead-with-bows encounter, deliver the tactical knowledge that the characters have through description without making a big deal of it. Something like:
"It's clear to you [point at warrior-type] that someone has set up a killing field for the skeletons; it's too carefully set up to be the work of mindless undead."

The escaping-slaves bit, that was all them. :smallsmile:

Gamgee
2011-09-27, 11:53 AM
I have some of the most tenacious players ever who will survive anything, or make my life hell as they die. This was for a supremely deadly campaign.
It got to the point where even stacking the modifers on them and coming at them 4 to 1 odds they would easily best anything I sent after them. In a 2 year campaign only 3 times did I ever trounce them completely. And they weren't on their best those days.

They really lived up to the title Mandalorian. Even Jedi were being taken down like mooks. Nothing could stop these guys. No amount of tactical planning or even one sided planning or both could stop them. So awesome to you if you can keep them coming back when they die. I know my player threw a fit for almost dieing.

BRC
2011-09-27, 12:03 PM
Hrmm, this thread gives me an idea.

The next time a PC would die due to something simple, like running out of hitpoints in a battle, I'm going to say "Alright, listen, I'm going to let your character live for the time being. If your PC still alive at the end of this adventure, they will succumb to injuries or have a heart attack or something.

You have until then to find a suitably dramatic death for your character. Make it count".

From that point on, we are on the lookout for dramatic situations. Rampaging hordes that need somebody to hold them off, powerful foes who need to be finished off via a suicide charge, a deadly trap that needs to be shut down, ect

Once such a situation is found, the character dies.

Gamgee
2011-09-27, 12:14 PM
Hrmm, this thread gives me an idea.

The next time a PC would die due to something simple, like running out of hitpoints in a battle, I'm going to say "Alright, listen, I'm going to let your character live for the time being. If your PC still alive at the end of this adventure, they will succumb to injuries or have a heart attack or something.

You have until then to find a suitably dramatic death for your character. Make it count".

From that point on, we are on the lookout for dramatic situations. Rampaging hordes that need somebody to hold them off, powerful foes who need to be finished off via a suicide charge, a deadly trap that needs to be shut down, ect

Once such a situation is found, the character dies.
The Mandalorians at the end after 2 years of play time died. The whole party did, the enemies were overwhelming. I think over 350 Sith Troopers 100 War Droids, Gigantic Mutated Sith Wurm that swallowed one of them whole and he fought his way out of the inside, and finally the Sith Lord himself. Two died on the bridge as they blew open the windows and airlock sealing and sucked the Sithlord out into space killing him in seconds. Unfortunately the blast was close enough to send the elevator they're on crashing into the ground killing them.

The remaining two Mandalorians fight their way to the core of the ship, hack through the defenses and make a suicidal charge into a radiation field. They overload the Rakata Super Ship's core and set it to implode killing them and the entire Sith Fleet which was moments from capturing the capital and calling victory over the Mandalorians (who had just captured Coruscant 5 sessions ago). One of the players was even Mandalore himself, "Mission Complete" as they passed away from the super radiation from the core. There is no word for hero in Mandalorian, they did what they were born to do. Que Credits.

I think that's the only session where I got an emotional rise out of them. Hard to see their characters go after all of that. They didn't even get that mad, it was too epic to be mad to have died with such honor.

Anderlith
2011-09-27, 12:49 PM
The Mandalorians at the end after 2 years of play time died. The whole party did, the enemies were overwhelming. I think over 350 Sith Troopers 100 War Droids, Gigantic Mutated Sith Wurm that swallowed one of them whole and he fought his way out of the inside, and finally the Sith Lord himself. Two died on the bridge as they blew open the windows and airlock sealing and sucked the Sithlord out into space killing him in seconds. Unfortunately the blast was close enough to send the elevator they're on crashing into the ground killing them.

The remaining two Mandalorians fight their way to the core of the ship, hack through the defenses and make a suicidal charge into a radiation field. They overload the Rakata Super Ship's core and set it to implode killing them and the entire Sith Fleet which was moments from capturing the capital and calling victory over the Mandalorians (who had just captured Coruscant 5 sessions ago). One of the players was even Mandalore himself, "Mission Complete" as they passed away from the super radiation from the core. There is no word for hero in Mandalorian, they did what they were born to do. Que Credits.

I think that's the only session where I got an emotional rise out of them. Hard to see their characters go after all of that. They didn't even get that mad, it was too epic to be mad to have died with such honor.

This reminds me when I took out a Star Destroyer with a single Computer Use check.

Tengu_temp
2011-09-27, 01:43 PM
GMs who constantly kill off characters and still have players coming back are the best GMs.

Wrong. There's nothing of instrinctive value in being a lethal DM. Some players like the adrenaline and grit it brings to the table, others don't like how it cheapens the value of PC life and prevents them from forming deeper bonds with their characters or focusing on the story.

The big question to the OP is, which category do your players belong to? If they don't mind dying so often, then just keep doing as you do. If they find it frustrating, though, go easier on them. Someone suggested providing clearer descriptions of the situations, and I second that. Also, there is one very easy way of stopping players from doing stupid things, and it's asking them "are you sure?". Most people will at least rethink their actions if you say "are you sure you want to loot the dead guy's place while his guards are running around?".

Anderlith
2011-09-27, 02:59 PM
Wrong. There's nothing of instrinctive value in being a lethal DM. Some players like the adrenaline and grit it brings to the table, others don't like how it cheapens the value of PC life and prevents them from forming deeper bonds with their characters or focusing on the story.

The big question to the OP is, which category do your players belong to? If they don't mind dying so often, then just keep doing as you do. If they find it frustrating, though, go easier on them. Someone suggested providing clearer descriptions of the situations, and I second that. Also, there is one very easy way of stopping players from doing stupid things, and it's asking them "are you sure?". Most people will at least rethink their actions if you say "are you sure you want to loot the dead guy's place while his guards are running around?".

Well see maybe that's my problem. They see "Are you sure?" as a challenge not a warning. I do describe my environments & I am willing to go into much deeper detail if they seems fuzzy

Tengu_temp
2011-09-27, 03:10 PM
Am I making thing to challenging or are my players just dumb?
Okay, I'm pretty sure by this point that the answer to this is "they're just dumb".

Nero24200
2011-09-27, 03:16 PM
Wrong. There's nothing of instrinctive value in being a lethal DM. Some players like the adrenaline and grit it brings to the table, others don't like how it cheapens the value of PC life and prevents them from forming deeper bonds with their characters or focusing on the story.


I don't think that was the point. If you're able to make the game so fun that PC death's aren't enough to ruin it then you must be a good DM.

And there are problems with too much character attachment. I personally need the threat of death in the game - Without it I can't see the game as something other that "make believe for adults". So if I do something particularly risky IG and there's a realistic chance my character could die as a result I don't want the DM to hold back simply he's worried I might not "form deeper bonds with my PC's".

Anderlith
2011-09-27, 03:56 PM
I don't think that was the point. If you're able to make the game so fun that PC death's aren't enough to ruin it then you must be a good DM.

And there are problems with too much character attachment. I personally need the threat of death in the game - Without it I can't see the game as something other that "make believe for adults". So if I do something particularly risky IG and there's a realistic chance my character could die as a result I don't want the DM to hold back simply he's worried I might not "form deeper bonds with my PC's".

I support this. The reasons I have deep bonds with any of my characters are because they survived life & death situations on their own moxie, luck, & ability scores, not because a GM was lenient. My favorite GM has killed several of my characters. I like the challenge, I feel like I accomplished something. If I'm not under threat of death when I do dumb things, then I'm just not going to play. I don't optimize for the same reason.

Tiki Snakes
2011-09-27, 04:01 PM
You're mostly running 3.5 I take it?
Do they, as it seems from your description, usually play non-magical character types? It may not be relevant admittedly, but it might explain a thing or two...

Tengu_temp
2011-09-27, 04:23 PM
I don't think that was the point. If you're able to make the game so fun that PC death's aren't enough to ruin it then you must be a good DM.

Between the way the original phrase was stated and the fact that we're on GitP, I think that was the point after all, even if the point you are making is correct. Though many people would prefer to just have the fun things in their game and not stuff that ruins it for them.


And there are problems with too much character attachment. I personally need the threat of death in the game - Without it I can't see the game as something other that "make believe for adults". So if I do something particularly risky IG and there's a realistic chance my character could die as a result I don't want the DM to hold back simply he's worried I might not "form deeper bonds with my PC's".

Eh, not to sidetrack too much, but personally I've never personally seen a single instance of random PC death enhancing the game in any way for anyone, and I've both run and seen as a player a lot of instances where the party feels challenged, under pressure and on the edge even though the DM didn't even consider killing anyone. But hey, different approaches.

kaomera
2011-09-27, 06:03 PM
Wrong. There's nothing of instrinctive value in being a lethal DM. Some players like the adrenaline and grit it brings to the table, others don't like how it cheapens the value of PC life and prevents them from forming deeper bonds with their characters or focusing on the story.
OK, I'll admit to responding in a very general way, and to putting more emphasis on being positive and supportive than really digging deeply into the issue. However, I have to disagree with the overall conclusions you're drawing (although it could just be a matter of differing play experiences).

While it's true that there's no intrinsic value to simply killing off characters, given the examples above I feel that what's happening is simply appropriate consequences being handed out in response to the PCs actions in the game world. I assume "appropriate" given the assumed system and the general playstyle that comes with it - there are certainly other circumstances where PC death is not appropriate. But in those circumstances I'd expect the players to simply quit the game, hence the qualification in my original reply.

Personally I find that GMs who won't apply appropriate consequences crush any interest or emotional investment I might otherwise have in the game or character. Certainly it's awesome when the system supports serious, meaningful consequences beyond just "you're dead", but especially in D&D there's a real tendency for PCs to become (or even just to seem) invulnerable, and I feel that's what really devalues a character.

Anderlith
2011-09-27, 07:09 PM
Eh, not to sidetrack too much, but personally I've never personally seen a single instance of random PC death enhancing the game in any way for anyone, and I've both run and seen as a player a lot of instances where the party feels challenged, under pressure and on the edge even though the DM didn't even consider killing anyone. But hey, different approaches.

The best roleplay I ever had was when my friend's character died through a random encounter. See me (Human Paladin [Pelor]) a friend (Elven Archer) & the one that died (Half-Orc Barbarian) had set up an Adventurer's Guild called the Seraphan after we had gotten some fame & gold & third level. In a gaming group that usually had up to 10+ players that dropped in & out, we three were the solid core. We were the defacto leaders. We had gamed for two years every week as these characters. We had started at level one. When the Half-Orc Throkk had died, we had the funeral (he didn't want to be resurrected) in a small town that we had made our start in, we met his father & mother, & we burned him on a pyre at twilight after I wrapped him in a burial shroud of our Guild's flag & standard. The whole night we didn't fight anything, we didn't roll a die. We did almost cry...

But after his funeral the elf quit adventuring & retired. Me? I soldiered with the leftover guildmates to finish our quest, but in the very next battle I fell dead. The reason was simple, I didn't have my companions.

It was kind of a storybook ending to the campaign. We never finished our quest but those that remained had no stakes in it so we stopped playing.

Anderlith
2011-09-27, 07:11 PM
You're mostly running 3.5 I take it?
Do they, as it seems from your description, usually play non-magical character types? It may not be relevant admittedly, but it might explain a thing or two...

3.5 yes, but here recently I've ran Pathfinder. They run the whole gambit, wizards & fighters & healers & skill monkeys. I play with at least 5 so nothing usually gets left behind. Though we do not force people to play roles. Heck the first time I played D&D we didn't have a healer until midway into level 3

Thyrian
2011-09-27, 10:15 PM
If you're feeling guilty about the campaign lethality but don't want to lose the lethality you could try thinking of a dangerous scenario and NOT bothering to think of a way out of it. This makes you more willing to listen to the PC's ideas if you haven't actually thought of a decent solution yourself! But it does mean if the trap kills them and you don't have a decent reason for why that type of trap exists there you're going to feel even more guilty :(

theMycon
2011-09-27, 10:51 PM
Wouldn't it be more like George RR Martin to constantly be coming up with reasonable*, but out-of-character-for-everyone-involved reasons why a main character survives? I might've just been "spoiled" by the Suikoden games, but the way the Stark family was acting, I'm amazed anyone but Jon survived the first 200 pages.

*(Okay, a dwarf, with no hint of training, killing two mounted, armored knights in battle and coming away without serious wounds kinda stretches possibility. But aside from this, the characters' ridiculously thick plot armor is usually phrased in a semi-logical way).