PDA

View Full Version : So I killed a PC for the first time



ArmoredSandwich
2014-01-21, 08:14 AM
Earlier that day, before we started playing. I asked if people would mind if one of the party would die. Obviously this would not be in a random encounter. It would involve an epic battle and some sacrifice for a npc or pc. Right. This is what happened. Note, the previous session ended with the party making camp.

The party of level 6 adventurers were travelling through the desert and decided to make camp the night. None of them decided to use the wand of cure light wounds (1d8 + 1) or the left over heal spells for the night. Instead, they decided to put the paladins animal companion, a goat, on watch for the first 7 hours.

Deep into the night they hear the goat scream in agony and pain. The sorcerer, who has 10 hp left of his total 18, wins initiative, gets out of his sleeping bag and runs outside the tent. He sees the goat grappling with a tumbing mound (From Sandstorm, similar to tumbling weed. An intelligent carnivorous plant that sucks the victims blood for con damage) and another one at about 20 feet closing in. He chuckles and says `Ohh, just tumbling weeds with some thorns.. Fire damage should do the trick!`. But his round is over and the other tumbling weeds slams into him bringing him down to zero hp. He feels the thorns of the plant piercing his skin ...

Now the paladin, which took his time to grab his shield and put on his helmet, comes outside and starts smashing into the tumbling weed that is grappling the sorcerer. The bard slashes away with his whip while the beguiler is unable to charm any of the plants. The sorcerer tries to escape the grapple with his last standard action...

The next turn the tumbling mound does 1d4 con damage. I roll a three and the sorcerer dies.

Done. Five minutes into this sessions. None of the items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=315559) helped. Luckily he enjoys making character.

We play with lego figures instead of minifigures, and his figure was quickly replaced by a corpse which completed the whole mess:

http://oi41.tinypic.com/1zwkuj6.jpg

His loot was also divided within the next 5 minutes

The sorcerer often dropped to zero HP or even into the negatives. Besides that, the party often employ stupid tactics. So it was fair, right?

Razgriez
2014-01-21, 08:34 AM
You are a horrible person! Clearly your group is unfamiliar and/or new to this, and you should help them out rather than try to murder them!!!


<_<

>_>


*hands you your official "Lord of evil/Certified DM" membership card*

Welcome to the club/big leagues good sir. The bar is to your right as you walk in.:smallwink:

But I must ask, Why did the Paladin have a goat?:smallconfused:

BeerMug Paladin
2014-01-21, 08:35 AM
Totally fair. Surprising the whole party didn't die, though.

Rhynn
2014-01-21, 08:38 AM
Obviously this would not be in a random encounter.

Why not?

So far, running B4 The Lost City, 2 PCs (with 3 players) and 1 henchman were killed by fire beetles (the first fight!), and after that, multiple henchmen have been crippled and another henchman has been killed (all by set room encounters, not random encounters, admittedly). None of the players have minded, and they've definitely gotten calibrated to the lethality of the system (ACKS) and the module(s)...


None of them decided to use the wand of cure light wounds (1d8 + 1) or the left over heal spells for the night. Instead, they decided to put the paladins animal companion, a goat, on watch for the first 7 hours.

Well, it sounds like if they all were to get killed, it'd be their own fault...


The sorcerer often dropped to zero HP or even into the negatives. Besides that, the party often employ stupid tactics. So it was fair, right?

Why wouldn't it be? They party acted like inexperienced morons, basically. The encounter was nothing special - it's just that they were exceedingly incautious and unwise.

Generally, though, getting PCs killed teaches players to be more cautious and use better tactics.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-21, 08:38 AM
*hands you your official "Lord of evil/Certified DM" membership card*

Welcome to the club/big leagues good sir. The bar is to your right as you walk in.:smallwink:

But I must ask, Why did the Paladin have a goat?:smallconfused:
Ditto. :smallbiggrin:

Sometimes? This totally happens.

geeky_monkey
2014-01-21, 08:51 AM
The party didn't bother healing up and left their campsite guarded by a goat? And then the badly wounded squishy magic-user let the enemy get into melee range with him?

They should be thankful there wasn't a TPK.

You did nothing wrong and they have nothing to complain about, except maybe the dice going against them.

You simply played with the least paranoid group of players ever - when I DM I usually get given a list of fortifications and traps and magical defences that the PC have set up, descriptions of thewhere the sentries are concealed. Regardless of whether they in a field or staying in the house of the High Priest of Pelar, located in the middle of the peaceful and well defended capital of the Lawful Good nation they are working for!

ArmoredSandwich
2014-01-21, 09:04 AM
Awesome that you guys agree so thoroughly!

I definitely hope the party will use their brains a bit better in the future! I guess it was an unplanned lesson for all of us :) (and a miracle that it did not happen earlier)

Thanks for the warm welcome CarpeGuitarrem!

Rhynn
2014-01-21, 09:19 AM
The party didn't bother healing up and left their campsite guarded by a goat?

Everyone knows you're supposed to use watch-geese. The fools, the foolish fools!

CombatOwl
2014-01-21, 09:33 AM
Wow. Just... Woe. Leaving the goat as a guard?

ArmoredSandwich
2014-01-21, 09:41 AM
Okay, the goat is a bit more than just a goat. It has the stats of a warhorse and has the celestial template.

But it is always hungry and occupied with eating everything it can get its teeth in.

The beast is quite stubborn and stupid, which actually matches with the paladins behavior perfectly.

CombatOwl
2014-01-21, 09:49 AM
Okay, the goat is a bit more than just a goat. It has the stats of a warhorse and has the celestial template.

But it is always hungry and occupied with eating everything it can get its teeth in.

The beast is quite stubborn and stupid, which actually matches with the paladins behavior perfectly.

Its still a goat, poor guard. Riding dogs can do that, but a goat?

skyth
2014-01-21, 09:52 AM
Well, both times I've killed a PC lately (Same player both times), they've admitted it was due to player stupidity.

The first one, I was running the party through B5 (Horror on the hill) though using 3.5 rules. 4th level or so party. The player of the Barbarian/Cleric gets bored and decides he wants to go off through the dungeon. In doing so, he wakes up all the hobgoblins in the dungeon and a huge fight breaks out. Player is killed by a critical from the Hobgoblin King. Granted, this was the final battle of the campaign pretty much so worked out :)

The second one, the party was investigating an area where there were Sauhaugin attacks where the Sauhaugin had a map and were obviously getting help. They party tracks the source to a cave in a cliff facing the ocean. The PC playing a ranger decides that he should scout ahead so he gets on a rowboat and goes in with a torch to scout. Two Sauhaugin come out of the water and clamber onto the boat. They eventually push him into the water where he swims deeper into the complex (He was towards the entrance still). By the time the rest of the party find him, he's been chopped to ribbons by the Sauhaugin from the entrance and the ones deeper in the complex. Once I explained what he did, he realized he was stupid :)

Another group of mid-high levels in 3.0 were exploring a large cave with holes in the floor. Out of the holes came a couple huge venomous snakes. The party mage used a forcecage to protect the party, but left the Halfling PC outside of the area. The snakes finished off the PC, swallowed him, then went away. I didn't really have much choice at that moment.

Airk
2014-01-21, 10:57 AM
And then the badly wounded squishy magic-user let the enemy get into melee range with him?

Yeah, it sure was stupid of him to leave the tent and see what was going on. :P By the sound of it, he somehow ran out of actions at that point, so it doesn't exactly sound like he had a lot of options for NOT letting the enemy get into melee range. We're not talking about a dungeon corridor where he could hole up behind the melees or something.

Not saying anyone did anything wrong here, but blaming the guy who basically didn't get to take any actions during the fight seems like adding insult to injury to me.

geeky_monkey
2014-01-21, 11:26 AM
True, I guess it all depends how you read "runs outside the tent".

Based on how shambolically the party had done everything else I took that to mean 'blindly charged his full movement towards the sound he'd heard'!

Gamgee
2014-01-21, 11:46 AM
Never play in one of my 40k campaigns. Your going to die a lot. A death per session is almost a guarantee. Though it's starting to slow down, they're really getting into that paranoid fear induced state needed to roleplay in the crap sack universe of 40k.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRf8ro1q6kI

And this is a group of Deathwatch Space Marines! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obj-aHG-Ix4 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJU5kUj6Puo & this of course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPjCfk2XFsk

I can say though that when one of them lives long enough to become a veteran they are truly elite and nigh unstoppable.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-21, 12:39 PM
PC death can help remind players that combat is serious and they need to be smart to survive. I'd only start worrying if it happens like 5 times a session, and even then some groups enjoy meatgrinders.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-21, 12:50 PM
{{scrubbed}}

hymer
2014-01-21, 12:57 PM
The paladin is so cool for having a goat as a mount. I bet he's a dwarf too, wielding a warhammer. Totally badass. (If my assumptions aren't true, I don't want to know about it.)

Edit: @ CombatOwl: I'm sure they carry the goat so it can sleep during the day. I'm sure it's fine.

(Un)Inspired
2014-01-21, 03:58 PM
{{scrubbed}}

the OOD
2014-01-21, 04:01 PM
Ok, so the campaign I am currently running was unanimously named Cluster****:the Game by the players. looking back at it, we have have actually had relatively few deaths, but plenty of close calls* the tension and threat of knowing that you could die keeps everyone more engaged, weather or not the all make it out. some things (my custom warp phenomena chart:smalleek:) have my players terrified beyond any rational level and you know what, it's good, because there in a *little* bit of fear whenever the caster blinks that keeps things exciting.:smallbiggrin:

*spoilered for cohesion and abuse of parentheses
i.e.the damaged robot crawling to a shuttle as the ship was going down over a medieval planet(while the rest of the party(save the one in the fighter trying to get back on board) was fighting the(possessed) captain, shooting up the bridge).
2.5 other crises emitted for sake of brevity.

don't worry, one death is good, it helps maintain a touch of peril.

Scootaloo
2014-01-21, 08:09 PM
Why not?

So far, running B4 The Lost City, 2 PCs (with 3 players) and 1 henchman were killed by fire beetles (the first fight!), and after that, multiple henchmen have been crippled and another henchman has been killed (all by set room encounters, not random encounters, admittedly). None of the players have minded, and they've definitely gotten calibrated to the lethality of the system (ACKS) and the module(s)...

I was running The Sunless Citadel. the party's kender Warlock (...just go with it, I have a soft spot for the little freaks) decided to rush ahead, using spider climb to get down the cliff face.

well, waiting for him were a trio of dire rats that had been attracted by the rest of the party clanking and comping as they climbed the rope down into the ravine... Well, the kender gets jumped becuase HEY MEAT, and starts flipping Eldritch blasts everywhere.

Instead of you know, scurrying back up the way he cam using spider climb.

so, first ten minuttes of the game, kender dies, chewed to death by giant rats. i decided to fudge it and let the cleric heal him. Still caught the filth fever though.

Another_Poet
2014-01-21, 08:11 PM
Fair, except I'm confused:


The next turn the tumbling mound does 1d4 con damage. I roll a three and the sorcerer dies.

How? :smallconfused:

If he was at 0 hp, this would have brought him to, I guess, -6 hp?

Mr Beer
2014-01-21, 09:02 PM
First you avoid it, then you accept it, then you start to like it...

The Grue
2014-01-21, 10:10 PM
On a side note, I love the idea of using Lego figures as minis.

Gnome Alone
2014-01-21, 10:14 PM
On a side note, I love the idea of using Lego figures as minis.

Me too. I wonder what was used to represent the celestial wargoat.

andresrhoodie
2014-01-21, 10:15 PM
Earlier that day, before we started playing. I asked if people would mind if one of the party would die. Obviously this would not be in a random encounter. It would involve an epic battle and some sacrifice for a npc or pc. Right. This is what happened. Note, the previous session ended with the party making camp.

The party of level 6 adventurers were travelling through the desert and decided to make camp the night. None of them decided to use the wand of cure light wounds (1d8 + 1) or the left over heal spells for the night. Instead, they decided to put the paladins animal companion, a goat, on watch for the first 7 hours.

Deep into the night they hear the goat scream in agony and pain. The sorcerer, who has 10 hp left of his total 18, wins initiative, gets out of his sleeping bag and runs outside the tent. He sees the goat grappling with a tumbing mound (From Sandstorm, similar to tumbling weed. An intelligent carnivorous plant that sucks the victims blood for con damage) and another one at about 20 feet closing in. He chuckles and says `Ohh, just tumbling weeds with some thorns.. Fire damage should do the trick!`. But his round is over and the other tumbling weeds slams into him bringing him down to zero hp. He feels the thorns of the plant piercing his skin ...

Now the paladin, which took his time to grab his shield and put on his helmet, comes outside and starts smashing into the tumbling weed that is grappling the sorcerer. The bard slashes away with his whip while the beguiler is unable to charm any of the plants. The sorcerer tries to escape the grapple with his last standard action...

The next turn the tumbling mound does 1d4 con damage. I roll a three and the sorcerer dies.

Done. Five minutes into this sessions. None of the items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=315559) helped. Luckily he enjoys making character.

We play with lego figures instead of minifigures, and his figure was quickly replaced by a corpse which completed the whole mess:

http://oi41.tinypic.com/1zwkuj6.jpg

His loot was also divided within the next 5 minutes

The sorcerer often dropped to zero HP or even into the negatives. Besides that, the party often employ stupid tactics. So it was fair, right?

sounds fine, the players acted dumb and died. Lesson learned hopefully

Requiem_Jeer
2014-01-21, 10:54 PM
Welcome to the Big Leagues.

Players die, it happens, they played pretty badly anyway. If the guy didn't get too upset, it's nothing to be losing sleep over.

Broken Crown
2014-01-21, 10:54 PM
If he was at 0 hp, this would have brought him to, I guess, -6 hp?
If he had an even-numbered score, losing 3 points would reduce his CON bonus by 2 points, so, -12 hp.


I wonder what was used to represent the celestial war goat.
I assumed it was the panda.

Agreed that LEGO is great for customizable miniatures, and other battle mat props. I wish I still had mine.

Also, nicely done, and welcome to the club, ArmoredSandwich!

Kaun
2014-01-21, 11:10 PM
Time to add your first stamp to the kill tally on your DM shield. Then you just sit back and bask in the sweet sweet sounds of the lamentations of their women. :smallamused:

Mr Beer
2014-01-21, 11:11 PM
Time to and your first stamp to the kill tally on your DM shield. Then you judt sit back and bask in the sweet sweet sounds of the lamentations of their women. :smallamused:

Oh wow, player kill decals on the DM shield, friggin' awesome idea! Must do this...

AMFV
2014-01-21, 11:15 PM
P.S. You haven't GM'd until you move beyond killing characters and into killing players. :xykon:

No... Killing is simple, easy, you break them, shatter their spirits, their hopes their dreams, make them wish that they had never decided to play, but you keep them with enough of a feeble strand of hope that they come back week after week as your spirit grows fat on the feast of their sorrows.

Astral Avenger
2014-01-21, 11:15 PM
well, it doesn't look like anyone has linked to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11373907&postcount=8), despite it being mandatory for this type of thread...

SassyQuatch
2014-01-22, 04:02 AM
Time to add your first stamp to the kill tally on your DM shield. Then you just sit back and bask in the sweet sweet sounds of the lamentations of their women. :smallamused:
Work your way up to DM ace and beyond!

Maybe custom decals for mages, rogues, fighters.

Hmm, I'd use those myself but at the moment my players are going on to level 3 in a campaign with machineguns. We're down to a death every two or three sessions, but I'd have to wait a couple more levels until things start to balance out more (ie. not dying on pretty much any crit).

Rhynn
2014-01-22, 04:42 AM
kender Warlock

Haw!

Speaking of kender, I pulled a relatively nasty one in a D&D 3.5 Dragonlance game once...

The party was climbing up a spiral stair with open sides, up a shaft. A group of draconians was on watch up above, and attacked them by dropping into the shaft and gliding down next to them. This put the party in a really bad spot tactically - they were all engaged in melee, including the White Robe wizard... not too bad, they had some levels under their belts, and these were IIRC baaz. But the baaz attacking the wizard decided to bull-rush him since he looked scrawny enough it could succeed: so they go hurtling over the side off the stair, and the draconian breaks free from the wizard and spreads its wings to glide back to the stairs a few dozen feet down. The wizard keeps falling for some few dozen feet and ... splat.

I almost felt bad. Almost.

Gamgee
2014-01-22, 05:08 AM
well, it doesn't look like anyone has linked to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11373907&postcount=8), despite it being mandatory for this type of thread...

Hahahahah perfect. :smallbiggrin:

Also I enjoy the lego figures for minis idea as well. I'll have to look into procuring some.

ArmoredSandwich
2014-01-22, 05:34 AM
The only thing that is rather sad is that I have dozens of plots interwoven into the main campaign. Now that one guy is gone, it is going to get tough to bring some of those to the surface.

On the other hand, I have dozen of plot lines. So I should be okay as long as not too many of them die.

Do you guys think my players are always playing so stupid because I play such a story driven campaign? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor)

Also, for those who are wondering about the paladin and his goat. The paladin does not like his character very much so we agreed that I would not hold back the plans to have him fall. He shall then create another character while the paladin will become very evil indeed! The paladin was already working on the entry requirements for the blackguard anyway :)

Thrudd
2014-01-22, 06:07 AM
The only thing that is rather sad is that I have dozens of plots interwoven into the main campaign. Now that one guy is gone, it is going to get tough to bring some of those to the surface.

On the other hand, I have dozen of plot lines. So I should be okay as long as not too many of them die.

Do you guys think my players are always playing so stupid because I play such a story driven campaign? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor)

Also, for those who are wondering about the paladin and his goat. The paladin does not like his character very much so we agreed that I would not hold back the plans to have him fall. He shall then create another character while the paladin will become very evil indeed! The paladin was already working on the entry requirements for the blackguard anyway :)

How do you mean "one guy is gone"? The player is leaving the game since his character died? That's too bad. Or do you mean you had planned stories that centered on his character. Them's the breaks. In general, I don't like to run D&D that way, since character death is a thing that happens. If you think your have spoiled your players with plot armor in the past, maybe this will be their wake up call. Also for you, not to rely too heavily on the presence of one character or specific actions of the characters for your adventures.

PS: You didn't kill the character. A monster killed the character, and a random monster at that. You just rolled the dice.

Stuebi
2014-01-22, 06:57 AM
It allways amazes me in such threads, people congratulating the DM for his "first kill". :smallconfused: It allways baffled me how a lot of people seem outirght eager to kill PC's, I find that attitude not very productive to say the least. Granted, a lot of the stuff was probably not meant to be taken seriously.

That aside, in the Wizard's defense, I probably would have made the same mistake, considering the nature of the Enemy. I mean it looks like a Tumbleweed, I'd never expect that thing to "smash" 10 hp out of me. :smallbiggrin:

But as you said, the Player likes to create Characters, so no harm done.

Brookshw
2014-01-22, 07:30 AM
You're good. It was a fair encounter. Sometimes the dice gods giveth, sometimes they taketh, and sometimes people simply make bad decisions. Congrats on earning your DM stripes and club membership, someone get this man a jacket! :smallbiggrin:

Spore
2014-01-22, 07:48 AM
Read with me:

"His death is tragic and all, but seriously you had it coming with a goat for guard duty"

nedz
2014-01-22, 08:24 AM
IRL Goats are often staked out as bait to attract predators, e.g. Tigers, so they sort of asked for this. Have they started setting a proper watch yet ? If not more deaths are likely.

Rhynn
2014-01-22, 09:39 AM
It allways amazes me in such threads, people congratulating the DM for his "first kill". :smallconfused: It allways baffled me how a lot of people seem outirght eager to kill PC's, I find that attitude not very productive to say the least. Granted, a lot of the stuff was probably not meant to be taken seriously.

Yes, they're having a laugh.

Also, some of us do feel like there's a general trend of ridiculous aversion and coddling of PCs, and that a good game of D&D involves a bunch of deaths. If a dungeon doesn't claim several lives, how is it exciting to finally overcome it?

As the players get better and the PCs get stronger, deaths become less frequent and less permanent, but the danger of death is a necessary spice to the game.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-22, 10:02 AM
The only thing that is rather sad is that I have dozens of plots interwoven into the main campaign. Now that one guy is gone, it is going to get tough to bring some of those to the surface.

To be honest, you might be surprised. In particular, I find that every plot thread has two edges: the absence of the character can often have as much consequence as their presence. The plotline advances in a different way, and has different consequences for the story.

I'd suggest taking some time to brainstorm "now that the sorcerer died, how can these plots go wrong?"

danzibr
2014-01-22, 10:08 AM
P.S. You haven't GM'd until you move beyond killing characters and into killing players. :xykon:

Now finish the job. Kill the player.
Ha... nice.

I'm also curious about the Pally's goat.

EDIT: Oh, I didn't see page 2. nvm

skyth
2014-01-22, 02:08 PM
Also, some of us do feel like there's a general trend of ridiculous aversion and coddling of PCs, and that a good game of D&D involves a bunch of deaths. If a dungeon doesn't claim several lives, how is it exciting to finally overcome it?

As the players get better and the PCs get stronger, deaths become less frequent and less permanent, but the danger of death is a necessary spice to the game.

It really sounds like an accusation of 'wrongbadfun' for the people that play differently.

Airk
2014-01-22, 02:13 PM
It really sounds like an accusation of 'wrongbadfun' for the people that play differently.

I tend to agree, but then I usually go on to tell the people who are being accused of 'doing it wrong' that they wouldn't have these problems if they'd stop trying to play that kind of game in D&D, so I was thinking I shouldn't throw the first stone. :P

Rhynn
2014-01-22, 02:30 PM
It really sounds like an accusation of 'wrongbadfun' for the people that play differently.

Doing it for the wrong reasons may, indeed, be wrongbadfun, in the sense that the group has less fun than they might, or a different quality of fun than they might enjoy best; doing it consciously is quite different, but many people don't.

Also, are people seriously such crybabies now that a statement like

some of us do feel [...] that a good game of D&D involves a bunch of deaths.
is somehow interpreted as an attack on them? Really?

ElenionAncalima
2014-01-22, 03:02 PM
I don't like it when DMs go out of there way to kill PCs, but it doesn't sound like thats what you did.

PC deaths happen...and its sounds like your player isn't upset, so no harm done. Now he has a story to tell...about the time he died because he let a goat act as camp guard.

veti
2014-01-22, 04:21 PM
It really sounds like an accusation of 'wrongbadfun' for the people that play differently.

Look back at the original post. ArmoredSandwich is worried by the fact that a PC died. Even though the player isn't particularly upset.

The only plausible reason for "worrying" in that case - i.e. the whole reason this thread is here at all - is: ArmoredSandwich is afraid s/he did something wrong. There's an assumption, running right through the thread from the very beginning, that there is a "right" way to play the game, and this sort of death is a transgression against it.

In that context, I think it's fair enough for others to say "This is our 'right' way".

Kaww
2014-01-22, 05:03 PM
Earlier that day, before we started playing. I asked if people would mind if one of the party would die. Obviously this would not be in a random encounter. It would involve an epic battle and some sacrifice for a npc or pc.

Welcome to the club. It was a big deal the first time I did it. Since then I've had several TPKs, all of which were self inflicted. I've also been a part of an intra party TPK, got to love those. xD

Tvtyrant
2014-01-22, 05:10 PM
"hope my boyfriend don't mind it!~"

No? Okay, I will go to the corner now.

Irish Musician
2014-01-22, 05:20 PM
They left a GOAT as their watchman.....I'd have sent in a dragon just to show them how dumb they were being!! :smallwink::smalltongue:

Or Maybe a T-Rex..........

"What happened to the goat?!!"

*Goat leg slams down in the middle of them*

Mr Beer
2014-01-22, 05:26 PM
It allways amazes me in such threads, people congratulating the DM for his "first kill". :smallconfused: It allways baffled me how a lot of people seem outirght eager to kill PC's, I find that attitude not very productive to say the least. Granted, a lot of the stuff was probably not meant to be taken seriously.

I was joking, as I'm sure others were.

That said, I can't deny that I get a bit of a chuckle out of PCs having bad things happen to them as a direct result of doing something moronic. Like for example not healing themselves and failing to post any guard other than a goat before all going to sleep deep within a dangerous wilderness.

The new campaign I'm currently running is up to 9 sessions without a PC death BTW, so it's not like I just mow them down for sport. There's a decent chance of at least one PC death coming up but that's intra party in nature.

ShadowFireLance
2014-01-22, 05:30 PM
....This thread appeared not a year ago.

Why. Brain, Why must you think of the Matrix.

Rosstin
2014-01-22, 05:36 PM
I think I would have been more merciful, but I wasn't there, so who knows.

CombatOwl
2014-01-22, 06:39 PM
Never play in one of my 40k campaigns. Your going to die a lot. A death per session is almost a guarantee. Though it's starting to slow down, they're really getting into that paranoid fear induced state needed to roleplay in the crap sack universe of 40k.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRf8ro1q6kI

And this is a group of Deathwatch Space Marines! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obj-aHG-Ix4 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJU5kUj6Puo & this of course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPjCfk2XFsk

I can say though that when one of them lives long enough to become a veteran they are truly elite and nigh unstoppable.

1 death per session is pretty standard for Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch, isn't it?

Razgriez
2014-01-22, 06:48 PM
It allways amazes me in such threads, people congratulating the DM for his "first kill". :smallconfused: It allways baffled me how a lot of people seem outirght eager to kill PC's, I find that attitude not very productive to say the least. Granted, a lot of the stuff was probably not meant to be taken seriously.

That aside, in the Wizard's defense, I probably would have made the same mistake, considering the nature of the Enemy. I mean it looks like a Tumbleweed, I'd never expect that thing to "smash" 10 hp out of me. :smallbiggrin:

But as you said, the Player likes to create Characters, so no harm done.


Yes, they're having a laugh.

Also, some of us do feel like there's a general trend of ridiculous aversion and coddling of PCs, and that a good game of D&D involves a bunch of deaths. If a dungeon doesn't claim several lives, how is it exciting to finally overcome it?

As the players get better and the PCs get stronger, deaths become less frequent and less permanent, but the danger of death is a necessary spice to the game.

Rhynn sums it up nicely. Why is it, that we as DnD gamers, uphold Tomb of Horrors, a mod designed so the DM will be describing each and every death the party suffers, with an Honest-as-Heironeous smile on their faces while they do so, only to turn around and demand that DM's hold their players hands no matter how many mistakes they make.

I congratulate DM's for their "First death" because it's my way as a player, and (admittedly novice) DM myself to say "No worries, you did everything right, in a game that goes quite into detail in saying "You can die, and let us count the ways as to how".

Its hard for me to agree with the view, that players will demand no "Gandalf" DMPCs, or "Mcguffin Delivery service" DMPCs because they feel it's too much Deus Ex Machina, too much rail roading.But those same players then expect their characters to be treated with plot armor in a form of Pro-player Rail roading and that now the DM is supposed to fudge dice rolls in the players favor, for the law to overlook their actions no matter how much they are disturbing the peace, or outright destroying it. That now suddenly, no matter how evil my villain is, they should suddenly respect the codes of chivalry (or at least spend 5 rounds doing nothing but gloating and minor actions) for a "fair" fight when the PC's are at a disadvantage?

EDIT: I am going to clarify this, since it has been brought to my attention that the post was originally written somewhat poorly on my part. I am not trying to advocate that people who disagree with me are somehow "wimps
or Not real DnD gamers for wanting a more relaxing game. It is not meant in those ways, or as offense towards them for advocating their view. If it seemed like I was, I sincerely offer an apology for that. My point I'm trying to make here is not that people here in this particular thread have made statements have made the argument, but I have indeed seen it in previous threads discussing DM's "scoring their first PC kill".

Nor was it my intent to imply that I'm for a "Killer DM" style of game play. My point was to state, that I don't understand a concept of viewpoint that I've seen elsewhere on the forums here, and also that I'm not a particular big fan of particular playstyles. If that is your preferred method, than hey cool, that's fine, that's what you like. Me? I just prefer my own playstyle. It's not right or wrong, it's an opinion. Again I apologize for that.

I also appreciate that several people have chimed in since, latter in the thread, and have given me a differing view point on my Tomb of Horrors comment. Thank you

CombatOwl
2014-01-22, 07:00 PM
Rhynn sums it up nicely. Why is it, that we as DnD gamers, uphold Tomb of Horrors, a mod designed so the DM will be describing each and every death the party suffers, with an Honest-as-Heironeous smile on their faces while they do so, only to turn around and demand that DM's hold their players hands no matter how many mistakes they make.

I congratulate DM's for their "First death" because it's my way as a player, and (admittedly novice) DM myself to say "No worries, you did everything right, in a game that goes quite into detail in saying "You can die, and let us count the ways as to how".

Its hard for me to agree with the view, that players will demand no "Gandalf" DMPCs, or "Mcguffin Delivery service" DMPCs because they feel it's too much Deus Ex Machina, too much rail roading.But those same players then expect their characters to be treated with plot armor in a form of Pro-player Rail roading and that now the DM is supposed to fudge dice rolls in the players favor, for the law to overlook their actions no matter how much they are disturbing the peace, or outright destroying it. That now suddenly, no matter how evil my villain is, they should suddenly respect the codes of chivalry (or at least spend 5 rounds doing nothing but gloating and minor actions) for a "fair" fight when the PC's are at a disadvantage?

I agree entirely. It's friggin' D&D, of course you're supposed to be brutal to the players. What's the point otherwise? If it was about the story or something, you'd be using a better system. D&D is about stupid monsters, crazy fights, and insane optimization challenges.

Razgriez
2014-01-22, 08:50 PM
I agree entirely. It's friggin' D&D, of course you're supposed to be brutal to the players. What's the point otherwise? If it was about the story or something, you'd be using a better system. D&D is about stupid monsters, crazy fights, and insane optimization challenges.
You're taking me out of context. I am not doubting the importance of story. nor am I outright advocating "Kill'em all just for laughs". What I am advocating that DM's shouldn't have to be outright afraid to the point that their first response is "OMG, I just killed a Player character for the first time ever, is that ok?!" PC's dying from time to time, is something that can, and should be permissible within reason (Including bad choices on their part. the dice working against them, etc etc) happen.

I am advocating that DM's shouldn't have to hold their players hands through every single encounter or action they take. In short, Players should acknowledge there are consequences to some actions much like in real life. Refusing to do so, hurts the game as a whole, story, combat, etc.

Threadnaught
2014-01-22, 08:53 PM
You made a mistake, you killed the Sorcerer at -2HP when he should've been Dying. If their allies could save them, they should've been allowed to if they managed to get it off before it's next attack. Sorcerer had at least one round left before they died.

Though based on the story and the posts after, I doubt they would've managed to stop the Sorcerer from dying before combat had ended. Plus you're only human, you're allowed to make mistakes, you're the DM you get to decide whether it's really a mistake at all.


I wanna join the club. All I got is my players knowingly running up against a Demilich at level 7. :(

Airk
2014-01-23, 12:22 AM
Rhynn sums it up nicely. Why is it, that we as DnD gamers, uphold Tomb of Horrors, a mod designed so the DM will be describing each and every death the party suffers, with an Honest-as-Heironeous smile on their faces while they do so, only to turn around and demand that DM's hold their players hands no matter how many mistakes they make.

Well, I for one, don't. Tomb of Horros is a ghastly, juvenile train wreck of a module. "Haha! Now you're NAKED! Hee heee! Best trap ever!" Ugh. I didn't even think it was cool when I was 13.


I congratulate DM's for their "First death" because it's my way as a player, and (admittedly novice) DM myself to say "No worries, you did everything right, in a game that goes quite into detail in saying "You can die, and let us count the ways as to how".

There seems to be a lot more than just reassurance in this thread.



Its hard for me to agree with the view, that players will demand no "Gandalf" DMPCs, or "Mcguffin Delivery service" DMPCs because they feel it's too much Deus Ex Machina, too much rail roading.But those same players then expect their characters to be treated with plot armor in a form of Pro-player Rail roading and that now the DM is supposed to fudge dice rolls in the players favor, for the law to overlook their actions no matter how much they are disturbing the peace, or outright destroying it. That now suddenly, no matter how evil my villain is, they should suddenly respect the codes of chivalry (or at least spend 5 rounds doing nothing but gloating and minor actions) for a "fair" fight when the PC's are at a disadvantage?

For this strawman, you get a diploma.

Stuebi
2014-01-23, 12:57 AM
I should qualify my statement, im _not_ saying Death shouldnt be present. The situation described by the op can be summed up like a lot of people in this thread did.

"You put up a Goat as a Watchman, what did you expect?"

The shortest description for my view of PC-deaths in PnP would be that "Death should be a Consequence, not a goal.". But from what i've read by some people, there are DM's that actively try to off their party, and see them like an opponent instead of, you know, your gaming partner.

I'd seriously get some doubts when my DM displayed joy at the prospect of horribly murdering every Character I put on the table. That goes into the same category for me as Players who actively try to derail the DM's campaign, murder his NPC's for the lulz or other nasty things.

In short, as long as you're not murdering a PC out of spite, for sport or giggles, but instead because it was the appropriate consequence (Which is true in this scenario) you have nothing to worry about.

The above is of course my personal viewpoint, im not dictating anyone should play like this. The whole "Murder them gruesomly!"-attitude I got from this thread here and there just rubbed me the wrong way.

ArmoredSandwich
2014-01-23, 04:24 AM
I still have a follow up question for both sides of the discussion.

For those of you who never experience PC death, how do you keep the players from acting stupid and suicidal? What is negative reinforcement for such behavior?

For those of you who 'never' see a PC live for more than a couple of sessions, how do you keep relating to the character? I guess its a completely different game if your characters are regarded as expendable. Would you even write a backstory?

Kaun
2014-01-23, 04:36 AM
Any long time GM's know you don't have to try and kill your playersPC's, they will generally try to kill themselves two or three times a session.



It's a full time job keeping most PC's of the resurrection table.



EDIT: I meant kill your PC's of course... i would never..ehh.."want" to kill my players. :smalleek:

Rhynn
2014-01-23, 05:12 AM
Rhynn sums it up nicely. Why is it, that we as DnD gamers, uphold Tomb of Horrors, a mod designed so the DM will be describing each and every death the party suffers, with an Honest-as-Heironeous smile on their faces while they do so, only to turn around and demand that DM's hold their players hands no matter how many mistakes they make.

I don't think there's any kind of consensus among D&D players, or even OSR D&D players, that the Tomb of Horrors is some kind of pinnacle of adventure design. It's famous because it's deadly, and that's it; it's something like all those Call of Cthulhu memes (mostly propagated by people who've obviously never played it), or movies like Cannibal Holocaust - it's famous for being exceptional, rather than being good. (I've never run it or given it a thorough read-through, so I can't say whether I think it's good or not.)


I congratulate DM's for their "First death" because it's my way as a player, and (admittedly novice) DM myself to say "No worries, you did everything right, in a game that goes quite into detail in saying "You can die, and let us count the ways as to how".

Yeah, pretty much this, though. "Congrats for killing your first PC!" is a humorous way to try to get a newer GM to see that there's nothing wrong with it, it's part of the game, and things go on.


I am advocating that DM's shouldn't have to hold their players hands through every single encounter or action they take. In short, Players should acknowledge there are consequences to some actions much like in real life. Refusing to do so, hurts the game as a whole, story, combat, etc.

Also agree with this. The game is more fun when there's the potential of lethality involved.


I agree entirely. It's friggin' D&D, of course you're supposed to be brutal to the players. What's the point otherwise? If it was about the story or something, you'd be using a better system. D&D is about stupid monsters, crazy fights, and insane optimization challenges.

Hah. No. With some reservations, I'd agree with this re: D&D 3.X and 4E, but older D&D is in large part about emergent stories, with generally none of the rest. (Well, stupid monsters, sure, in the sense that what the heck if a rust monster anyway?)


For those of you who 'never' see a PC live for more than a couple of sessions, how do you keep relating to the character? I guess its a completely different game if your characters are regarded as expendable. Would you even write a backstory?

You don't relate to your character at the beginning, and backstories are sort of irrelevant.

The 1-session 1st level whatevers are a dime a dozen, totally expendable and interchangeable.

But by the time you're hitting 3rd level, you're getting pretty survivable, and have done some things. By 5th level, you're probably pretty attached to the character, and can rattle of a list of cool things they've done. By 9th level, your character should be a little legend.

I don't expect backstories at the start and don't encourage them; it's too much front-loaded work for a PC who might die from a bad dieroll in the first fight. However, I absolutely do encourage, and get involved in, creating stories and context for PCs during play. That way, their development goes in both directions: forward and back. It can even extend to developing the as-yet undetailed societies or lands the PCs come from.

Backstories can be useful and fun, but I'm much more interested in the stories created during play. The most story- and character-driven game I've run started out with none of the PCs having more than a single-sentence backstory (not written down anywhere) based on the die rolls that produced them, and it's been awesome; the first few sessions saw one fight, and endless interaction with NPCs and the setting.

Delta
2014-01-23, 05:57 AM
For those of you who never experience PC death, how do you keep the players from acting stupid and suicidal? What is negative reinforcement for such behavior?

By having reasonable players that know playing their characters like that wouldn't be fun. I think the problem you imagine only comes up when the game is competitive, if there's an "us against him!" mindset in the group, and I think most groups where character death is limited don't have that to a high degree.

And additionaly, plot armor has its limits. I will always try and not kill of characters if it can be avoided in most of my groups because that's kind of the "group contract", we like playing long campaigns with the same characters without having to worry about them dying all the time.

At the same time, everyone knows that death isn't completely impossible. If you ever say "I jump off that cliff there!" and take no precautions against the 100 yard fall, you will die. If you draw your sword and go for the King while he's surrounded by a dozen elite bodyguards, they will cut you down.

In the last 10 years or so of GMing, I had exactly one situation like that pop up and that was with a player who had severe problems estimating the consequences of his actions, I took him to the side and explained what he was about to do to him and that was that. It's really not a big problem.

geeky_monkey
2014-01-23, 06:04 AM
For those of you who never experience PC death, how do you keep the players from acting stupid and suicidal? What is negative reinforcement for such behavior?



The negative reinforcement is the character dies.

The players then have to expend in-game resources resurrecting them or real-life time creating a new one.

They don't get any loot, XP or advance the story if they die - that should be penalty enough.

Brookshw
2014-01-23, 06:37 AM
(Well, stupid monsters, sure, in the sense that what the heck if a rust monster anyway?)



I'll just leave this (http://io9.com/the-surprising-inspiration-for-dungeons-dragons-weir-1488869413?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)here

CombatOwl
2014-01-23, 06:47 AM
I should qualify my statement, im _not_ saying Death shouldnt be present. The situation described by the op can be summed up like a lot of people in this thread did.

"You put up a Goat as a Watchman, what did you expect?"

The shortest description for my view of PC-deaths in PnP would be that "Death should be a Consequence, not a goal.". But from what i've read by some people, there are DM's that actively try to off their party, and see them like an opponent instead of, you know, your gaming partner.

Someone's got to run the opposition, and it's not fun if the opposition isn't competent. For every encounter, sometimes you're the murder-hobo... and sometimes you're just someone else's XP. It's the cycle of loot.


I'd seriously get some doubts when my DM displayed joy at the prospect of horribly murdering every Character I put on the table. That goes into the same category for me as Players who actively try to derail the DM's campaign, murder his NPC's for the lulz or other nasty things.

In short, as long as you're not murdering a PC out of spite, for sport or giggles, but instead because it was the appropriate consequence (Which is true in this scenario) you have nothing to worry about.

I don't think anyone is talking about just outright killing players, but there's something to be said for winning a level appropriate encounter.

Razgriez
2014-01-23, 06:50 AM
Well, I for one, don't. Tomb of Horros is a ghastly, juvenile train wreck of a module. "Haha! Now you're NAKED! Hee heee! Best trap ever!" Ugh. I didn't even think it was cool when I was 13. That's fine, if you don't like it, that's your call, and I respect that. I'm simply pointing out that Tomb of Horrors is looked at and praised by others for being extremely challenging, for the fact that basically every trap is designed completely harm players in some big way, that it's a Mod designed with the idea of "how can we kill the PCs, and how many times?"

Should every mod or campaign be like that? No. Every DnD game should be different. What I want, and what you want, may be entirely different. When I play a game of DnD, I look for one that's fair, but challenging, with a good story. For combat, I expect a mix of battles in the parties favor, a few where an antagonist shows up and proves why they are such a threat, and the majority relatively in the middle.

I also expect NPCs to act true to how their personalities and alignments are. I expect heroes and guards to come after me when I'm harming innocents, and I expect the villain to try and kill me when I'm attempting to foil his plans.


Its hard for me to agree with the view, that players will demand no "Gandalf" DMPCs, or "Mcguffin Delivery service" DMPCs because they feel it's too much Deus Ex Machina, too much rail roading.But those same players then expect their characters to be treated with plot armor in a form of Pro-player Rail roading and that now the DM is supposed to fudge dice rolls in the players favor, for the law to overlook their actions no matter how much they are disturbing the peace, or outright destroying it. That now suddenly, no matter how evil my villain is, they should suddenly respect the codes of chivalry (or at least spend 5 rounds doing nothing but gloating and minor actions) for a "fair" fight when the PC's are at a disadvantage?


For this strawman, you get a diploma.
Is it now? How many times have there been this kind of thread? How often have we seen some of the exact same ideas play out? I am merely providing my opinion on others opinions I have observed, as well as the view that if I've built up a villain as someone who "is a competent villain, would kill you without a second thought" they would not suddenly grab the idiot ball or display amounts of chivalry they didn't have before unless they were specifically built as a warrior who believes in honor duels or so.

Is it really a strawman argument to point out that some people demand Positive Railroading in the players favor even after they post either in the same threads or else where they don't want other forms of Railroading, and that I personally disagree with that train of thought? Is it a strawman for me to say "Hey, the game's making it clear your characters can die, so if you die as a result of your actions or the dice, then well, sorry, but tough luck" .

I'm not saying "Well if the DM drops 6d6 Blue Lightningbolts from the sky and a Tarrasque on your single digit level party that's fair". That's clearly not fair. But in my view, neither is the expectation from players that their characters should be immune to dying unless the DM get's expressed permission from them to do so. A DM I might point out, has to design various characters and creature encounters, with about half of them ending up dead at the end of almost every session.

ArmoredSandwich
2014-01-23, 07:05 AM
The negative reinforcement is the character dies.

The players then have to expend in-game resources resurrecting them or real-life time creating a new one.

They don't get any loot, XP or advance the story if they die - that should be penalty enough.

Oi, but I'm talking about what kind of negative reinforcement can be used in the games where PCs are explicitly NOT being murdered.

Razgriez
2014-01-23, 07:09 AM
Oi, but I'm talking about what kind of negative reinforcement can be used in the games where PCs are explicitly NOT being murdered.

get them captured/put in jail/sent to an unfamiliar plane of existence. Those could work. Put them at a clear disadvantage for a while.

ArmoredSandwich
2014-01-23, 07:43 AM
get them captured/put in jail/sent to an unfamiliar plane of existence. Those could work. Put them at a clear disadvantage for a while.

Wow, that sounds a lot more crappier than just getting killed! Not to mention, harder to implement.

Razgriez
2014-01-23, 07:56 AM
Wow, that sounds a lot more crappier than just getting killed! Not to mention, harder to implement.

What about having an antagonist take vital items from the party I.E. Yuffie stealing the party's materia in FF7, or in DnD terms, stealing the party's magic items/spell books)?

Rhynn
2014-01-23, 08:11 AM
Wow, that sounds a lot more crappier than just getting killed! Not to mention, harder to implement.

Why are they crappy? They sound like positives to me - something interesting happens!

Basically, if there's no death or other mechanical losses (losing skills, abilities, powers, etc. - things on your character sheet), there's no real disincentives to any behavior. "Roleplay" losses, like being imprisoned, losing allies, etc., are all just more story to roleplay around. In a story-based, no-deaths game, it's very hard to disincentivise behavior... and you shouldn't! In fact, many story-driven RPGs mechanically incentivise failures! (See Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard.)

ArmoredSandwich
2014-01-23, 08:26 AM
Why are they crappy? They sound like positives to me - something interesting happens!

Basically, if there's no death or other mechanical losses (losing skills, abilities, powers, etc. - things on your character sheet), there's no real disincentives to any behavior. "Roleplay" losses, like being imprisoned, losing allies, etc., are all just more story to roleplay around. In a story-based, no-deaths game, it's very hard to disincentivise behavior... and you shouldn't! In fact, many story-driven RPGs mechanically incentivise failures! (See Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard.)

Because it is rather hard to implement such a 'punishment' immediately. For example, in the encounter with the tumbling mound. How could the plants ever have stolen items, imprisoned the party or send them to another plane? That's no way to directly tell the players, through game mechanics, that they should think a bit better about how they are handling things.

Besides, I have the whole story set up. With villains that would act differently (rather than play nice), and events that I and the party have been working towards.

Randomness is not necessarily interesting, especially considering we have put so much effort into setting up the story arcs etc.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-01-23, 08:34 AM
PC death can help remind players that combat is serious and they need to be smart to survive. I'd only start worrying if it happens like 5 times a session, and even then some groups enjoy meatgrinders.
Or you're playing Paranoia, where (thanks to the 6 clones) kill rates in excess of 500% are expected, and it's unusual for at least one player to not need to roll up a completely new character part way through, just to allow the adventure to continue with them involved.


Welcome to the Big Leagues.

Players die, it happens, they played pretty badly anyway. If the guy didn't get too upset, it's nothing to be losing sleep over.
I'd hope the players don't die - their characters on the other hand...

My personal feeling on the matter is that, as a DM, you're carrying a lot of the responsibility for everyone to have fun (but by no means all of it), and so should give the players something fun, challenging for their level, scary and if they get it wrong, their characters will be in trouble and need to get the heck out of there, now.

If the dice determine that a PC dies, you've no campaign critical reason to fudge it (for instance, "You collapsed and everything went dark. Four days later, when you wake up, the rest of the party have brought you back to your headquarters, and done their best to heal you up. But you've got an image in your head, an image of something that you need to do, something you should have done three adventures ago but completely missed out on by insisting on looting the other tomb and keeping the otherwise completely useless ceremonial dagger because you think that it looks pretty..."), and the party can't resurrect them, then so be it.

No character shields, no plot armour, not for the PCs, and not for the villains either.

Just pushing out Tomb of Horrors ++, and murdering the PCs despite their best efforts, no thanks.

Stuebi
2014-01-23, 08:44 AM
Is it now? How many times have there been this kind of thread? How often have we seen some of the exact same ideas play out? I am merely providing my opinion on others opinions I have observed, as well as the view that if I've built up a villain as someone who "is a competent villain, would kill you without a second thought" they would not suddenly grab the idiot ball or display amounts of chivalry they didn't have before unless they were specifically built as a warrior who believes in honor duels or so.

Is it really a strawman argument to point out that some people demand Positive Railroading in the players favor even after they post either in the same threads or else where they don't want other forms of Railroading, and that I personally disagree with that train of thought? Is it a strawman for me to say "Hey, the game's making it clear your characters can die, so if you die as a result of your actions or the dice, then well, sorry, but tough luck" .

I'm not saying "Well if the DM drops 6d6 Blue Lightningbolts from the sky and a Tarrasque on your single digit level party that's fair". That's clearly not fair. But in my view, neither is the expectation from players that their characters should be immune to dying unless the DM get's expressed permission from them to do so. A DM I might point out, has to design various characters and creature encounters, with about half of them ending up dead at the end of almost every session.

Yes, in this case it was a strawman. And one that comes up in every Discussion like this for both sides.

Everytime the whole PC-Death-Debate shows up you have at least one person of each side bringing up the "Extreme"-Strawman, even tough the view wasnt expressed by anyone ( Or at least, noone that does not argue based on "Everyone should play how I play and if he does not, hes wrong).

I forgot how many times I just wanted to point out that death shouldnt be arbitary or unfair, without having someone jump on me 3 Posts later calling me out for "Wanting a piss-easy campaign without danger or consequence.".

On the other hand, a DM can barely talk about PC-Death without someone accusing him of being a crazed maniac, murdering PC's for giggles, even tough he _never_ expressed such desires.

My initial post as aimed at some people who seemed a bit overzealous in their effort and enjoyment of killing a PC, and I wanted to express that im a tad weirded out by that attitude. It didnt take much time until the first people popped up, immeadeatly talking to me as if I suggested that Death should NEVER EVER OCCUR IN ANY CAMPAIGN EVER.



Its hard for me to agree with the view, that players will demand no "Gandalf" DMPCs, or "Mcguffin Delivery service" DMPCs because they feel it's too much Deus Ex Machina, too much rail roading.But those same players then expect their characters to be treated with plot armor in a form of Pro-player Rail roading and that now the DM is supposed to fudge dice rolls in the players favor, for the law to overlook their actions no matter how much they are disturbing the peace, or outright destroying it. That now suddenly, no matter how evil my villain is, they should suddenly respect the codes of chivalry (or at least spend 5 rounds doing nothing but gloating and minor actions) for a "fair" fight when the PC's are at a disadvantage?

Adding this quote for extra emphasis on what I mean. Where did anyone suggest that? Did you really get the impression that someone argued for a "Faiwy Pwincess campaign with no danger of anything!"? No, the thing that caused some worry was the fact that people came pretty close to talk about this like the OP just shot a deer and was presenting the kill to his local Hunting-Community.

This is in no way meant as an attack or anything. But I think Airk was quite right, its pretty much a prime example for a Strawman. And it gets wearily annoying arguing around those.

Razgriez
2014-01-23, 09:47 AM
Rhynn and Storm of Snow put it better or more simply at my points overall.

The point of challenging your players, or throwing a wrench into their progress is not to outright shut them down. It's to give them something to overcome. Sure in the short term it's going to suck for them. But think of it in the long term. If I'm DM'ing, and I have the villain break the hero's sword, I'm doing it with the short term goal of challenging him, but the long term goal of wanting him to go after the villains. If he responds well, I'm going to reward him, by replacing his broken sword with a BETTER (and possibly reforged version of the old) sword.

If a player dies in combat (Maybe I rolled a ton of damage, maybe they rolled a 1 on a "Save or die" effect, whatever) I'm not doing it out of absolute malice. I'm doing it because that's how combat goes!. Bad things happen, and sometimes it ain't in your favor. Work with it, and turn it into a plot point. "You've managed to repel the villains forces, but at a cost. They have shown they are serious about stopping you, what will you do now?"

@Stuebi: I respectfully disagree. I was trying to point out and explain my views, while showing you that I'm not a gung-ho "kill'em all" guy. Yes, I understand there are people to the extreme who are for that, I am not one of them. But I do however disagree equally, or perhaps more so with the "Plot armor/asking the player for permission to kill their character" view. A view I've seen in the past, if not in this particular thread, but I have seen in others. That's my opinion. You are free to disagree with it, you are free to provide your own counter opinion on it, something I completely encourage you to do. I simply ask that if you're going to disagree with me, you actually give me counter points to my view, and not just simply mark it as a "strawman" fallacy.

Likewise, you seem to imply that I'm trying to make you out as some kind of "wimp". I'm not, at least, that was not my intent. I apologize if it came off that way. But if that's the case, then why are you trying to make me out then as a supporter of the "killer DM" playstyle? You say you're tired of people presuming things, and yet declared that because some us seemed a bit happy about Armored having killed a player that now we're openly encouraging him to be a killer DM. And yet as Rhynn and my self have pointed out, our (highly snarky) comments are designed not to encourage that but to say: "hey, relax dude, it happens, it's a game and you can turn this into an awesome plot point"

Or short way of putting it: Have you considered the idea we're both of similar views, of being somewhere in the middle overall on this issue, just that perhaps one side/extreme of the argument annoys us just a little bit more than the other?

Airk
2014-01-23, 09:56 AM
Rhynn and Storm of Snow put it better or more simply at my points overall.

No, in my opinion, they made different points which are better than the one you were trying to make, which was mostly just you attacking something no one has said. If you want to rail against some 'generic opinion' that "most D&D players have" do it to generic D&D players. :P

Razgriez
2014-01-23, 10:33 AM
No, in my opinion, they made different points which are better than the one you were trying to make, which was mostly just you attacking something no one has said. If you want to rail against some 'generic opinion' that "most D&D players have" do it to generic D&D players. :P

And yet, people took my words and turned it into "Kill players at will just for fun!"

pot, meet kettle, kettle, meet pot. Making a strawman argument to call another's argument a strawman. I'd just wish you'd actually provide a better reason/counter point. If I'm pointing out that a idea has been made before in prior discussions/debates and that I disagree with that idea, a response that is easily summed up as simply saying "Your wrong, your wrong, your wrong, strawman, your wrong, your wrong", is not a sufficient answer. Why am I wrong? What exactly is wrong with me pointing out that I'm not a fan of a particular view point and giving reasons why?

Again, my opinion on the matter at large, in a nut shell is this: I am NOT for the "killer DM" style. I acknowledge there are people who prefer an easy going campaign, I know there are people who want a really serious, hard core challenge, where everything is trying to kill you. I am somewhere in the middle on this. I expect to be challenged, with a risk of failure involved that may affect my character negatively in some way, because I don't want the DM to hold my hand through every challenge. But I also don't expect the DM to make every encounter to be nearly impossible to defeat except every once in a while for dramatic purposes. I want to be driven, not bored to complete the campaign, but I don't want to be burned out either.

Airk
2014-01-23, 01:59 PM
And yet, people took my words and turned it into "Kill players at will just for fun!"

That's nice. I didn't do that either. Either stop discussing with 'people' or expect this sort of thing.



pot, meet kettle, kettle, meet pot. Making a strawman argument to call another's argument a strawman.

No, sorry, MY argument is sound. It only becomes a problem when -you- start ascribing things 'people' said to me. Which is exactly what you are trying to argue that I am doing? No, it doesn't work. I am talking to -you-. I don't care what "people" say, and you can't hide behind that.



I'd just wish you'd actually provide a better reason/counter point.

I can't, because my whole point is pretty much "Stop acting like someone is attacking you in this thread." I have no horse in this race. No one was attacking your point of view until you showed up and made a bunch of broad, near ad hominem stuff and kicked the hornet's nest.


If I'm pointing out that a idea has been made before in prior discussions/debates and that I disagree with that idea, a response that is easily summed up as simply saying "Your wrong, your wrong, your wrong, strawman, your wrong, your wrong", is not a sufficient answer. Why am I wrong? What exactly is wrong with me pointing out that I'm not a fan of a particular view point and giving reasons why?

You basically showed up in a relatively civil thread on this sort of topic to throw around a bunch of super broad, unfounded near insults and now you're trying to act like you're the victim. You painted a target on yourself by attacking a vague group of people with some baffling "but players expect plot armor" whine and now you're annoyed that YOU are being taken out of context?

veti
2014-01-23, 04:15 PM
Well, I for one, don't. Tomb of Horros is a ghastly, juvenile train wreck of a module. "Haha! Now you're NAKED! Hee heee! Best trap ever!" Ugh. I didn't even think it was cool when I was 13.

I agree, Tomb of Horrors is horrific. The clue is in the name, really.

I think it's a module that effectively makes two points, and it makes them really well:
One: No-one forced you to come here. Sure, you heard about this tomb, but trekking out here to see what you could loot from it was your idea.
Two: People, especially demi-liches, design things to resist being raided. Not every trap has a handy reset button just a couple of skill rolls away. Not every trick has a simple answer that allows you to walk right past. Your enemy doesn't want you to get through this.

Even the first edition of ToH carried big warning labels and the strong recommendation that it should be played with pregenerated high-level characters - i.e. a throwaway party in a one-off session. A DM who would allow real characters down there, without really serious warning, is a sadistic git.

Icewraith
2014-01-23, 08:32 PM
Any long time GM's know you don't have to try and kill your players, they will generally try to kill themselves two or three times a session.



It's a full time job keeping most PC's of the resurrection table.

THIS. SO MUCH THIS.

Sometimes the dice continue to roll badly. Most of the time, though, the player starts off doing something fairly boneheaded and then blows the rolls he needs to try and get out of his own mess.

If you're worried about killing PCs, use this as a questionnaire-

1. Do you insist on collecting expired PC character sheets and memorializing them in some vaguely humiliating way- i.e. displaying them on walls as trophies, impaled on spikes, or distributing the sheets at the feet of your chair before you begin play?

2. How many backup characters do you insist your players make before a campaign? A. 0, B. 1, C. 2, D. 3, E. 4, or F. 5+?

3. How many permanent pc deaths does your group experience per session, on average? .1 or lower, .25, .5, 1, or 5+?

How to score:

If you answered yes to question one, give yourself three billion points.

If you answered A or B to question 2, give yourself that many points.
If you answered C, D, E, or F to question 2 but you regularly run tournament modules for the challenge and with the cognizance of the players, give yourself ten points. If you answered C, D, E, or F and you run tournament modules for players who invest heavily in their character backgrounds, give yourself fifteen points. If you regularly laugh when their characters die and answered D, E, or F, give yourself three billion points.

For question three, multiply your answer by five and add it to the scores from questions one and two to obtain your final score.

Score Results:

Less than one- you're either a pushover DM OR you run well-balanced encounters and your PCs only die when they do something really stupid.

One to two- You're probably fine and you run well-balanced encounters and your PCs only die when they do something really stupid.

Two to three - Express some concern.

Three to eleven - Do you run lots of tournaments? That IS a style of play, after all. Worry if you don't run tournaments.

Eleven to thirteen - You might need to tone things down unless your players don't mind. You might be a killer DM.

15+ You're probably a killer DM, although your favored system can influence this somewhat.

25+ Wow. That's a lot of dead PCs. I'd worry about this unless your group is happy. Actually I'd still worry about this- are you running Warhammer or something? Seriously, wow.

30+ Consider seeking professional help.

Threadnaught
2014-01-23, 09:41 PM
On the subject of ToH, the 3e version is suggested as part of the Kyuss/Worm that Walks questline. While the adventurers are clearing out the tomb, the BBEG is following them and knows what's in the statue's mouth.

Setting Kyuss on your players is a rather mean thing to do. Then again, any of the Elder Evils qualify as, something mean to set on the players, I'd give the crown to Pandorym and Kyuss though.


Would it be crude to run all 9 at once?
I'm thinking, once the players are done Character building, their 1st level PCs are dropped into Eberron and all nine Apocalypses begin, each campaign only starts at an appropriate level to the PCs. You want to save the world again? Well, here you are. You want to be Evil and destroy/rule the world? Deal with these first. :smallamused:

Not only does it turn the world into even more of a death world and give the PCs a time limit at the later stages, but it also runs them through Tomb of Horrors. Clearly the only way you could be a more evil DM is if you also sent the PCs into the Temple of Elemental Evil as part of a quest to defeat a custom Elder Evil. His name be Acererak.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-23, 09:55 PM
Would it be crude to run all 9 at once?
I'm thinking, once the players are done Character building, their 1st level PCs are dropped into Eberron and all nine Apocalypses begin, each campaign only starts at an appropriate level to the PCs. You want to save the world again? Well, here you are. You want to be Evil and destroy/rule the world? Deal with these first. :smallamused:

Not only does it turn the world into even more of a death world and give the PCs a time limit at the later stages, but it also runs them through Tomb of Horrors. Clearly the only way you could be a more evil DM is if you also sent the PCs into the Temple of Elemental Evil as part of a quest to defeat a custom Elder Evil. His name be Acererak.

That actually sounds pretty epic. Any character who not only survives from level 1 to level 20, but saves the world 9 times in a row and makes it through both ToH and Temple of Elemental Evil while doing it (assuming the GM isn't a pushover, of course) deserves some kind of medal.

Stuebi
2014-01-24, 12:50 AM
That's nice. I didn't do that either. Either stop discussing with 'people' or expect this sort of thing.



No, sorry, MY argument is sound. It only becomes a problem when -you- start ascribing things 'people' said to me. Which is exactly what you are trying to argue that I am doing? No, it doesn't work. I am talking to -you-. I don't care what "people" say, and you can't hide behind that.



I can't, because my whole point is pretty much "Stop acting like someone is attacking you in this thread." I have no horse in this race. No one was attacking your point of view until you showed up and made a bunch of broad, near ad hominem stuff and kicked the hornet's nest.



You basically showed up in a relatively civil thread on this sort of topic to throw around a bunch of super broad, unfounded near insults and now you're trying to act like you're the victim. You painted a target on yourself by attacking a vague group of people with some baffling "but players expect plot armor" whine and now you're annoyed that YOU are being taken out of context?

Im gonna be a bit of a lazy bum and scrap another response I was typing, since Airk summed it up allready. :smallbiggrin: I think the point was amde quite clearly anyway.

I've never actually seen Tomb of Horrors, but I'm sure if the party _knows_ that they are making characters for a Murderparty, its allright. But like other people suggested, I would advise against making people prepare elaborate Characters if there's a chance that said characters will get smeared over the walls 10 minutes into the System.

AMFV
2014-01-24, 12:58 AM
Im gonna be a bit of a lazy bum and scrap another response I was typing, since Airk summed it up allready. :smallbiggrin: I think the point was amde quite clearly anyway.

I've never actually seen Tomb of Horrors, but I'm sure if the party _knows_ that they are making characters for a Murderparty, its allright. But like other people suggested, I would advise against making people prepare elaborate Characters if there's a chance that said characters will get smeared over the walls 10 minutes into the System.

Unless they enjoy that. Not all people that enjoy having a high death count don't enjoy complex characters. It's not necessarily at-odds. In fact I've played in games where I was very involved in characters that passed away and died, and I never minded, as long as there wasn't some kind of undue effort made to have that happen. In games as in life, sometimes people die.

Stuebi
2014-01-24, 07:11 AM
In games as in life, sometimes people die.

I did not argue otherwise, as long as the Players are aware on what they're into, and are fine with it, there is no reason not to play something like that.

Gamgee
2014-01-24, 07:22 AM
Oh I want to make it clear, I do like a high body count. However I do make things fair. The group has been playing this high body count game for a year and a half now and loving it. Why? It's still possible to win and overcome things. When they do level up to the next rank they feel like kings of the universe because of what they had to go through to get there.

So yes I do stack the odds against them, but as a GM I could just have infinite army spawn and kill them. Where's the fun in that? I like to see them frantically trying to think up solutions just as much as I can enjoy them dying. Some of the best games ever are when they won against all odds.

Then sometimes I do ease up on them from time to time since as human beings they do need some time to relax. It also keeps them on their toes too because they're expecting things to be harder than they really are, and when things go smooth they think somewhere in the universe a kitten has died.

Then when they least expect it into the deep end again. Hahaha. Good stuff. :smallbiggrin:

Edit
Also I am fully capable of a more traditional monty haul style where its crazy loot, loose 4th wall breaking jokes, and tons of references to pop culture.

I can also do epic storyline games where you might not want them dying off all the time except at key story points for dramatic purposes.

It just happens right now what we're all enjoying is the killer GM style.

AMFV
2014-01-24, 07:27 AM
I did not argue otherwise, as long as the Players are aware on what they're into, and are fine with it, there is no reason not to play something like that.

I wasn't disputing that or suggesting that you were implying it was a bad style of play. What I was disputing was the allegation that a high mortality rate is naturally exclusive to having developed characters and an involvement with said characters.

Thrudd
2014-01-24, 07:44 AM
I think the big picture is that a DM needs to decide, with the players, what sort of game they want to run. Whatever style you and the players think is fun is correct.
If you want a story driven game that you plan out beforehand like a movie or novel, you can do that. Make sure the players know that and are willing to play along in their dramatic roles. Also, D&D is probably not the ideal system for this sort of thing (but lots of people play it that way regardless). Plot armor isn't a problem, because everyone is mature enough to play along with the story and act out their parts appropriately.
If you want a game where the players' actions have real consequences for their characters, you and the players also need to decide this before hand. This means your planning will revolve more around building the setting and designing adventures which the players will explore, the "sandbox", rather than crafting a story. This style generally allows for more freedom in the players' character choices, can handle players and characters coming and going from session to session, and has a built in method for rewarding smart playing and punishing silly behavior.
Both ways are good ways to play, you just need to choose the one you and the players want.

AMFV
2014-01-24, 08:48 AM
I think the big picture is that a DM needs to decide, with the players, what sort of game they want to run. Whatever style you and the players think is fun is correct.
If you want a story driven game that you plan out beforehand like a movie or novel, you can do that. Make sure the players know that and are willing to play along in their dramatic roles. Also, D&D is probably not the ideal system for this sort of thing (but lots of people play it that way regardless). Plot armor isn't a problem, because everyone is mature enough to play along with the story and act out their parts appropriately.
If you want a game where the players' actions have real consequences for their characters, you and the players also need to decide this before hand. This means your planning will revolve more around building the setting and designing adventures which the players will explore, the "sandbox", rather than crafting a story. This style generally allows for more freedom in the players' character choices, can handle players and characters coming and going from session to session, and has a built in method for rewarding smart playing and punishing silly behavior.
Both ways are good ways to play, you just need to choose the one you and the players want.



I agree with some of that, but it's not a binary switch between "Sandbox" and "Novel", that's far too narrow a characterization, if we're looking at just plot armor some novels are famous for completely neglecting that, and some sandboxes are incredibly forgiving. PC death and how it's treated can be almost independent of most other game concerns, and it concerns me that we're looking at PC death as only being okay in one specific sort of game.

SavageWombat
2014-01-24, 06:28 PM
I had a great deal of fun killing off my wife's character.

Actually, the shock was for the other player's - we'd arranged the scene in advance. See, I had a plan for a plot NPC later in the story that she decided she really wanted to play herself. But we couldn't have her not play until the NPC showed up two levels in - so she made another character that we could then deliberately have the villainous henchman kill off for drama.

Obviously I don't kill enough PCs, from the looks on the players' faces.

Thrudd
2014-01-24, 07:26 PM
I agree with some of that, but it's not a binary switch between "Sandbox" and "Novel", that's far too narrow a characterization, if we're looking at just plot armor some novels are famous for completely neglecting that, and some sandboxes are incredibly forgiving. PC death and how it's treated can be almost independent of most other game concerns, and it concerns me that we're looking at PC death as only being okay in one specific sort of game.

True, character death is not exclusive to one type of game. But it does help for the players to know what kind of game they are playing. If the players are heavily invested in the characters' story and have spent a great amount of real time writing their stories and planning their future, they aren't expecting to play a game where a random wandering monster could kill them with a lucky roll of the dice. In a game where every encounter is potentially deadly (whether the encounters are planned or random), the players should not be asked to write background stories or spend time pre-planning character development.
If you aren't playing a game where a character could potentially be killed in any altercation, then there is some degree of "plot armor" and the players know it. They know that you won't let their characters die except at dramatically appropriate times, like during a big climactic fight. If you discuss with them before hand that their characters could potentially die in the big upcoming fight, or even ask them if it is ok for one of them to die for dramatic purposes, then you are playing a story game. It is "plot armor" in reverse, you have pre-planned their deaths and they have agreed to participate in the drama.

AMFV
2014-01-25, 02:32 AM
True, character death is not exclusive to one type of game. But it does help for the players to know what kind of game they are playing. If the players are heavily invested in the characters' story and have spent a great amount of real time writing their stories and planning their future, they aren't expecting to play a game where a random wandering monster could kill them with a lucky roll of the dice. In a game where every encounter is potentially deadly (whether the encounters are planned or random), the players should not be asked to write background stories or spend time pre-planning character development.

This is where I disagree, you can have a game where there is investment and background stories but combats can turn out to be fatal fairly easily. I suspect that there would be some decrease in investment but it would probably be minor. Writing backstories or extensiveness of character development isn't directly proportional or related really in any real sense to the level of lethality in a game.



If you aren't playing a game where a character could potentially be killed in any altercation, then there is some degree of "plot armor" and the players know it. They know that you won't let their characters die except at dramatically appropriate times, like during a big climactic fight. If you discuss with them before hand that their characters could potentially die in the big upcoming fight, or even ask them if it is ok for one of them to die for dramatic purposes, then you are playing a story game. It is "plot armor" in reverse, you have pre-planned their deaths and they have agreed to participate in the drama.

This is where I agree, the players should know about what sort of game is being played, and the level of lethality, but I disagree strongly with the notion that "Anyone Can Die" is prohibitive of the development of character stories, or with the idea that in a game with character stories all deaths need to be preplanned. This isn't a novel, and some of the character development comes from the introduction of the unforeseen, having a character die could have very interesting results on the rest of the game.

Thrudd
2014-01-25, 03:55 AM
This is where I disagree, you can have a game where there is investment and background stories but combats can turn out to be fatal fairly easily. I suspect that there would be some decrease in investment but it would probably be minor. Writing backstories or extensiveness of character development isn't directly proportional or related really in any real sense to the level of lethality in a game.



This is where I agree, the players should know about what sort of game is being played, and the level of lethality, but I disagree strongly with the notion that "Anyone Can Die" is prohibitive of the development of character stories, or with the idea that in a game with character stories all deaths need to be preplanned. This isn't a novel, and some of the character development comes from the introduction of the unforeseen, having a character die could have very interesting results on the rest of the game.

Completely. Characters dying can make for great stories. In "anyone can die" games, the story and the characters develop over time, if they survive and experience lots of adventures. The story isn't so much planned as it naturally emerges through the players' choices and the unforeseen results of the dice.
In a game where the characters are developed before they even start the first adventure, it would be a waste to have them die on the first day to a goblin with a lucky roll. The pre-game investment in the character does not need to be proportional to the lethality of the game, but it probably should be. Why should I encourage players to write more background than "thief who wants to get rich" or "paladin determined to destroy evil", if the character might die in the first fight? Of course, some players have no problem coming up with detailed character backgrounds and even enjoy it and will do it regardless of what sort of game it is. As long as you warn them that there is no guarantee of survival and the dice rolls will not be fudged in their favor, there shouldn't be any hard feelings.

TechnoWarforged
2014-01-27, 02:59 PM
Oblitrary Link/Call back:


This encounter was not planned
Not my intention
Players left guard post unmanned
who's on watch they did not mention
It's not what, they should do
sleeping with no armor on
I roll their listen, all less than "2"
Cast "blacklight", now their fire's gone

I killed a PC and I liked it
The way his character sheet ignited
I killed a PC and I liked it
Hope W O T C don't mind it
It felt chaotic good
It felt chaotic bad
it don't mean they're gonna TPK
I killed a PC and I liked it
I liked it

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11373907

Come on OP, You know you'd liked it.