PDA

View Full Version : When the DM can kill a character



Chris77
2017-04-20, 02:22 AM
Hi fellow roleplayers,

I have been on and off a DM for about 7-8 years running Tuesday evening D&D (3.5) roleplaying games here in the Netherlands with chips and diet coke. : )

A question that ponders my mind and that I find difficult to answer is when is it, on average, acceptable for the DM kill a character? I am wondering what the general thought and your experiences are about this.

The type of campaign I am currently running is an 'island campaign' where the players hop from island to island for a while because they are hunted by the government and falsely made outlaws. On average I typically have like 1/3rd roleplaying, 1/3rd quests, 1/3rd combat. It's not high powered magic, just average. I don't like to make it extremely difficult or easy for them, yet they do have to use their roleplaying and skills to get out of some situations. They are now at the last island and the difficulty to escape goes up, meaning they have to puzzle a little more. This is because they have been around for a while together and have character level 15-17.

What happened is that the players they have been attracting so much attention because they were acting quite conspicuous, that the government sends the inquisition to kill them. The government has to, else their secret plot that nobles can hunt political criminals on a disclosed area of islands will come into public and that would be a mass scandal. The government has millions to spend to prevent 'international leaks', so the assassins sent for the PCs are extremely trained and well equipped, aka 'assassin's creed' (never played it, but I do like the concept). The players had a reasonable amount of of hints and storyline finding out about the assasins and they even have been around so that the players could see them. They even fought one and it took 2-3 cooperating players to get one down. It was clear that they were very dangerous and highly intelligent so they set up traps.

What happens is that one PC Crusader (tome of battle) sees an assassin outside the governors mansion where almost everyone else is standing on the mansions roof about 400-500 foot away doing other things (looking at rioting native island civilians and searching for assassins).

The PC charges outside the gate, running farther away from the party and charges the assassin. Next round, the whole team of 6 assassins that were hidden outside jump on the PC, chopping him to pieces.

Afterwards the PC talks with me privately because he is angry and considers stopping playing after 90 D&D sessions.
1) He was playing his character, an army commander with INT8 who was depressive and impulsive. He should not be punished for this.
2) The d20 rulebooks say encounters should always be balanced. A group of assassins that is too strong for a few PCs is too much.
3) the assasins did too much damage, 20-40 damage per hit and their leader 50-60. Not possible with the rules (though the crusader can also do hits which do 100 damage).
4) the player did not have the feeling that he could do something because he went down in 1 round so he felt frustrated and powerless. At least he should have chopped off 1 asssassin. I told him I agreed with this point.


My rebuttal was,

1) The players think they can headlong charge into anything knowing the DM won't kill you.
2) They do not interest themselves much in the storyline, which used to be different at the beginning. I do have encounters that are too powerful for the party sometimes, but this is always storyline wise and never a mandatory fight. They have opportunities to research or learn information or talk out of them. Dungeon encounters (non-storyline wise) tend to be reasonably balanced in my campaign, but storyline encounters can be easy, moderate or very difficult. For example the players should be careful not to just attack a group of assassins that entered the island by boat.
3) this player doesn't even know the D&D rules well. Other players are often telling him how he calculates his bonuses after multiple years playing.

I decided not to kill the player because he was roleplaying well and made him clear that I was not out personally to kill his character. I made him unconscious and abducted him for interrogation, after all the assassins will try to kill everyone and not just oneplayer.

Am I being too nice and let people walk over me?
Or should I balance the encounters more?

Kind regards,

Chris

chainer1216
2017-04-20, 02:55 AM
The short answer is "when they expect it.", "When they deserve it." and, "when its awesome."

The longer answer is that it entirely depends on the type of game it is and what everyone's individual expectations of the game are. Communication at the start of a campaign is key.

People can and will grow very attached to their characters, i've seen a person cry when they willing had a character die. If a person thinks you're going to fudge things to let them live, and you don't, they're going to be upset.

RazorChain
2017-04-20, 02:55 AM
Depends really, if you never kill a character and the character's get away with stupid things all the time then someone will be butthurt when a characters die.

A) A 17th level character in D&D is almost a god among men and the players feel they are playing a god among men. So with their rose colored glasses they feel like they can charge into situations and get away with it.

B) Charging into a situation without assessing it and believing you can just kill the crap out of it is what I call a DM assisted suicide. If the bad guys set up a trap or an ambush with 6 guys and one character decides to run in guns blazing then I don't feel obliged to change things, BUT what I feel obliged to is to give the character a good death if I can.

hymer
2017-04-20, 03:03 AM
Afterwards the PC talks with me privately because he is angry and considers stopping playing after 90 D&D sessions.
1) He was playing his character, an army commander with INT8 who was depressive and impulsive. He should not be punished for this.
As you pointed out, this is no reason for him to survive. If you play a suicidal character and he commits suicide, he dies.


2) The d20 rulebooks say encounters should always be balanced. A group of assassins that is too strong for a few PCs is too much.
They say nothing of the sort. In fact, 3.5 DMG proposes having something like 10% of encounters being deliberately flight-worthy, IIRC.


4) the player did not have the feeling that he could do something because he went down in 1 round so he felt frustrated and powerless. At least he should have chopped off 1 asssassin. I told him I agreed with this point.
I would have used a phrase like 'I see what you mean', but I certainly wouldn't have agreed.
Your job at that point in the conversation was to console a friend in emotional turmoil. He was in no condition to think straight, and having the real discussion on what would be right or wrong to do right then would have been very difficult.


2) They do not interest themselves much in the storyline, which used to be different at the beginning. I do have encounters that are too powerful for the party sometimes, but this is always storyline wise and never a mandatory fight. They have opportunities to research or learn information or talk out of them. Dungeon encounters (non-storyline wise) tend to be reasonably balanced in my campaign, but storyline encounters can be easy, moderate or very difficult. For example the players should be careful not to just attack a group of assassins that entered the island by boat.
As much as I agree that your players ought to pay more attention, well... They didn't. A little talk about that is in order, but this seemed the wrong time to point it out. In the end, if your campaign story is too elaborate for the players' attention spans, the fault could be said to be yours as much as the players'.


I decided not to kill the player because he was roleplaying well and made him clear that I was not out personally to kill his character. I made him unconscious and abducted him for interrogation, after all the assassins will try to kill everyone and not just oneplayer.

Am I being too nice and let people walk over me?
Or should I balance the encounters more?
This does seem like letting anyone who throws a fit get out of 'dying', encouraging more fits in the future (and it particularly galls me that the player threatened to rage-quit). I would have stalled for time, and tried to calm the guy down, and then have the real conversation after the anger and disappointment had dropped off somewhat (possibly another day). Which is easy for me to say now, of course.
Anyway, the decision has been made and you will have to live with it. But a general conversation with the players may be in order, about expectations of encounters and the complexity of story-lines.

hifidelity2
2017-04-20, 03:07 AM
Personally I don’t like killing PC’s and it has been some years since I last killed one (Actually I did kill 2 a few months ago (a GURPS game and they were resurrected as “un-living” - note in the world they are playing in this is different to undead)

However so long as I give them enough hints and fell that they have understood them (we all know PCs can be totally blind to hints ) then the gloves can come off – in your case I think you did, they know the assassins where hard and knew more were coming

While 6 was too much for 1 PC but probably not for the whole party esp if they were able to plan and set up a killing ground and KNEW that there were probably more assassins. While the guy is playing an INT8 Char that does not mean he should be totally stupid – assuming he was involved in the setting of the traps etc he would have the “wisdom” to tell his mates – “Look assassins over there - lets execute plan Alpha” – so in this instance it was the Player that was being stupid and not the PC and if players are being stupid then I will let them die

I would probably have left him as dead with the assassins taking the body away to do unspeakable things to him – the party then might have the chance to rescue the body and resurrect him (they are high enough level).

Thaneus
2017-04-20, 03:15 AM
Hey Chris,

i certainly agree to your arguments about player being "safe" because of the thought the DM will never kill them.
But it is certainly frustrating to just feel like "ok, I am a crusader, I can take some beating and should not be hit every-time because of my armor."

In normal DnD settings, es far as I play/played them, character level 17 is near legendary hero league and the highly trained assassins which hunt those are some of mortals fines assassins with the leader at level ~18 and the lieutenants at level 15 (max 2-3) and the rest of the promising guys 10-13.
The guys would not be any more then one lieutenant and 5 of the promising guys, which should be a very hard fight for the crusader alone, sure, but not just plain out kill him except his gear is measy (like no crit immune for sneak attack killing).
A statted out "mook" assassin has 5 levels rogue, 5 level assassin, so they don't have hide in plain sight but still ridicules high move silent and hide checks in the mid 30s (base about 28). They sneak attack is at +6d6 with a bit of geraing (dont forget NPC wealth is less then PC wealth for the level) it can be flat about 1d6 (shortsword) +1 +7d6+10(craven e.g.) for about mid 39dmg per attack.
No non adventuring assasin would do twf so they have 2 attacks (+6/+1) each and a to hit of about +7 for dex and +2 from flanking and +1 from the +1 shortsword thats +16/+11 for the attacks.
The crusader guy should have been immune to crits (which drops the damage to ~5), and an AC of about 35 which leads to 25% chance for the mooks to hit.

So yeah, your player in a sense was right since you overpowered the assassins way to much.
Or in your world not 99% of the NPCs are level 1-3 at max, but about some of the npc are epic then the and a lot are in the 10s levels then he should have known better.

Katrina
2017-04-20, 03:17 AM
You face a question of Tone. The Tone of your games is one of those things that the books can't really tell you. It is completely up to you and what you think your players will enjoy. Tone can range from "You only die if you agree" (meaning that effectively a character only dies when his narrative or story ends or dictates) to "Oh, you were stabbed to death by sneaky goblins in your sleep" (a game that punishes the slightest mistake and requires player paranoia to survive.). I've played in many different games under many different GMs and run quite a few at this point as well.

Tone is one of those things it is best to establish near the beginning of the game, but it seems that you guys have been playing for a while. I find that my group is comfortable with a more heroic tone. That is a character will not be slain for failing a single roll. If they fail to spot the goblins before they sneak up on them, the goblins will get sneak attack, but likely won't be using Coup de Grace rules. Dying in combat is a real threat, but only in the event that you went down and the party was unwilling or unable to get you back up. No monster will stop in the middle of the fight to swing at a downed opponent. Save or Die abilities are rare, as is Ability Damage and Energy Drain. Ability Drain is unheard of. Criticals happen, and generally I will fudge damage numbers to keep PCs from being one shotted by criticals (much to the amusement of my resident munchkin).

That being said, one thing that will get a character slain is stupid decisions. This Crusader knew of an assassination attempt on him and his group, saw one of the assassins, assumed there was only one, and charged out alone. I don't remember my 3.5 well enough to know if Spot is a Class Skill for him, but I don't think he was particularly good at spotting rogues. The number two rule that even an intelligence 8 warrior should know is never rush a prepared rogue. (Prepared Wizards are number one.) Also, despite his penchant for being impulsive and reckless, he is also an Army Commander which implies that he should have some tactical competency. Giving the enemy an advantage is simply suicide. As for Encounters being balanced, can't say I have enough to address that. The Damage on the assassins sounds about right if they were all flanking and getting Sneak attack like they should have been. His feeling of powerlessness comes from the fact that he blundered into a trap and fell for it hook, line and sinker. He let himself be put in a terrible tactical situation and what does it say in the Scoundrel's handbook? "Fighting fair is for chumps?"

I would have simply said that sometimes you have to take your lumps. I would have painted the Crusader's death as being a result of his hubris given his level, and moved on. That being said, your approach of having him be knocked unconscious, questioned and then executed if the rest of his party fails to save him is an elegant solution. It is a very valid tactic. Even give him some ability to set the difficulty of his friends' rescue attempt. Have him make Will Saves versus a DC during the torture. For each failed will save, he gives up one vital piece of information about his friends' capabilities that the assassins will now be able to plan for.

You seem to have a good handle on things so far, and while the challenge was a death trap for one PC, it wasn't designed with the idea of only one PC getting involved. "Never split the party" as they say.

RazorChain
2017-04-20, 03:43 AM
Oh let's not forget he broke rule number one in the survival handbook

DON'T SPLIT THE PARTY!!!! AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SPLIT ALONE FROM THE PARTY!!!

Such an important rule that it had to be underlined, bolded and colored

hymer
2017-04-20, 04:13 AM
@ RazorChain: I agree. That one bears repeating.

Darth Ultron
2017-04-20, 07:28 AM
When can a DM kill a character: all the time/any time. There should always be a chance of character death: it is part of the game. You kind of what the default at 50%, with the players actions able to push that down to like 25%. For example, one thing few Players do is have a character retreat...but they should as the character would then live. Oddly too many players feel.

Playing a RPG in ''invincible'' mode is just plain boring for most people, but it gets kind of pointless to play when it's like ''20 arrows all miss you''. Why even waste the time to roll?






Afterwards the PC talks with me privately because he is angry and considers stopping playing after 90 D&D sessions.
1) He was playing his character, an army commander with INT8 who was depressive and impulsive. He should not be punished for this.
2) The d20 rulebooks say encounters should always be balanced. A group of assassins that is too strong for a few PCs is too much.
3) the assasins did too much damage, 20-40 damage per hit and their leader 50-60. Not possible with the rules (though the crusader can also do hits which do 100 damage).
4) the player did not have the feeling that he could do something because he went down in 1 round so he felt frustrated and powerless. At least he should have chopped off 1 asssassin. I told him I agreed with this point.



By point:

1)By this logic nothing bad would ever happen to any character ever. If a character does X, there is a chance of Y happening and in many cases a chance of z. If your game makes sense, it has to be this way. To say ''a player can play their character with no consequences '' is just insane. So like if the character was ''a greedy thief'' the guards would never attack him as it is ''playing the character to steal''?

But. Any ''playing a character'' can go at least two ways...not just ''the one way the player wants''. How does dumb and impulsive only equal ''charge!''. Even a really, really dumb army commander understand the concepts of ''back up'' and ''don't fight unless you have a numbers advantage''. And even really dumb folks know ''don't fight in the middle of a street in broad daylight''. And even ''if you see one assassin, there might be at least one more hiding nearby'' is common sense.

And for the last year or so, how many times has this character charged in to battle like this? 100? 0? If it is the characters personality he should do it often, and this should not be the ''first time he leaped before he looked''. If it was, then he was ''not'' playing his character...unless he is saying his character went suddenly insane.

Also note INT 8 is average intelligence. And does the character have a good wisdom score?

2)True. But by the ''rulebook'' logic the player should know to only have encounters with the full party. The rules default for four characters, so never have less then that.

But really this is a pointless point, even more so past 10th level or so in D&D. A good DM can build anything that is ''by the rulebook level appropriate'' but can still kill a whole group of characters. And on top of that good tactics by the DM can make even a ''low'' encounter deadly.

And even if an encounter is ''perfect'', one low roll or two from a player can kill a character....and that is perfectly rules legal.

3)Too much damage? No such thing. Again, after 10th level or so everyone can do tons of damage. There are plenty of ways to have a character do more damage.

4)In the sense of drama and cinematic views it's better to have the character do something....but unless as DM your willing to take control, it won't often just happen naturally. It is very rules legal for a character to die on round one of combat before they get to act. Though this goes back to the common sense of ''don't fight alone'' and ''don't underestimate foes'' and other such pearls of wisdom.


All that being said......having one assassin in the street as bait with six others ''super hidden'' nearby, might not have been the best move. Even if all six were there, they did not have to rush forward all ''video game like''. Again, if your going for the dramatic feel they would have done something like: formed a ring around the leader and the character and the leader would have been all like ''haha, I alone will slay you and clam the bounty and reward!''

You also could of had the leader fight go on for like two rounds and then say ''other assassins jump up from hiding(and will attack in another two rounds)'' and give the character a chance to pull an escape...and not just ''dogpile attack!''.

And for full discloser, I'm a Killer DM that kills off characters all the time....but even I give the character at least two chances to avoid the ultimate doom. Though it is really amazing how many players just ignore that and charge right in and get their character kill and are like ''what happened?"

And for a final note you might want to simply avoid such things in the future. Like if a player is playing a ''my character will attack anything in one round if they see it'', you might want to ''magically'' just not have that character encounter anything that will trigger them.

icefractal
2017-04-20, 01:04 PM
I do wonder what level the assassins were. Different people use different scales, of course, but IMO, if people who are "highly trained, but still agents working for a normal empire" are 15th+ level, then it sort of takes the point out of even being high level.

Of course, with the right tactics, even 10th or lower level people can be a threat to 15-17th level ones, particularly in favorable circumstances. So if that's the case, no issue - 10th level is still a big deal, but a large and powerful empire could plausibly have some people of that caliber on tap.

Yora
2017-04-20, 01:07 PM
GMs don't kill characters. Player's taking risks too great for them kill characters.

At least that's how it should be. Whether to risk faicing a threat or not should be the players' choice, not something predetermined by the adventure.

ComaVision
2017-04-20, 01:16 PM
GMs don't kill characters. Player's taking risks too great for them kill characters.

At least that's how it should be. Whether to risk faicing a threat or not should be the players' choice, not something predetermined by the adventure.

This. The player got their character killed, it doesn't sound like you (as DM) did anything unreasonable.

Well, almost nothing unreasonable, you let his character live when you shouldn't have.

dps
2017-04-20, 01:44 PM
1) He was playing his character, an army commander with INT8 who was depressive and impulsive. He should not be punished for this.

He wants to play an impulsive character (8 INT isn't really low, and I'm not sure what depressive has to do with this particular situation), fine. But there should still be potentially negative consequences to impulsive actions, up to and including character death. Otherwise, allowing a character to be "impulsive" just gives the player an excuse to be careless without worrying about it.



2) The d20 rulebooks say encounters should always be balanced. A group of assassins that is too strong for a few PCs is too much.

No evidence that the assassins were too strong for a few PCs, just that they were too strong for this one PC on his own--which was his fault.



3) the assasins did too much damage, 20-40 damage per hit and their leader 50-60. Not possible with the rules (though the crusader can also do hits which do 100 damage).
4) the player did not have the feeling that he could do something because he went down in 1 round so he felt frustrated and powerless. At least he should have chopped off 1 asssassin. I told him I agreed with this point.

There was something he could have done--not charge in alone in the first place. He chose otherwise.



I decided not to kill the player because he was roleplaying well and made him clear that I was not out personally to kill his character. I made him unconscious and abducted him for interrogation, after all the assassins will try to kill everyone and not just oneplayer.

Am I being too nice and let people walk over me?

Yes.

Guran
2017-04-20, 02:25 PM
I always tell my players the following: I am not out to kill you. I'm not out to save you either.
If one of my players decides to charge into an assassin that has been built up as a credible threat - neglecting the possibility that it might not be alone while the pc most certainly is, the result would be the same. I do not believe you did anything wrong. If players can throw themselves into any situation with the knowledge that the DM will pull their behind out of the fire, the game simply loses all the excitement.

Most of the character demises at my table happened because either the player chose for his character to die (noble sacrifice) or similar situations as the example in the opening post. And I once had someone casting lightning spells when swimming in a lake.

NOhara24
2017-04-20, 02:50 PM
Hi fellow roleplayers,

2) The d20 rulebooks say encounters should always be balanced. A group of assassins that is too strong for a few PCs is too much.
3) the assasins did too much damage, 20-40 damage per hit and their leader 50-60. Not possible with the rules (though the crusader can also do hits which do 100 damage).
4) the player did not have the feeling that he could do something because he went down in 1 round so he felt frustrated and powerless. At least he should have chopped off 1 asssassin. I told him I agreed with this point.


Am I being too nice and let people walk over me?
Or should I balance the encounters more?

Kind regards,

Chris

2) I'd like to read where it says encountered should always be balanced. There's a thread floating around right now with a table in it that says 5% of encounters with a full party should be overwhelming. Not even including any player stupid enough to wander off on their own.

3) I'm sorry, is the player trying to tell the DM how strong his foes should be? He's out of his gourd right there. He's got no way of knowing what kind of gear they had, or what level they were, or what feats they had. This guy is on thin ice, IMO.

4) And now he's complaining because he ran off on his own and got stomped? Because he didn't get the cinematic death that his player deserved directly due to his own poor decision making?

I don't care how well he was "roleplaying", it's been said before in this thread. If you're playing a suicidal character that commits suicide, and then get upset when you die, that's on you. If you decided that your character is impulsive and depressive and then feels the repercussions because of it, again, that's on you. (And a new level of stupid is requied to be surprised at that notion, IMO.)

You are being too nice. You've already agreed to make him "unconscious", so you can't go back on your word, but I would tell your players (and him too) that this was poor decision making for anyone who want s to keep their character alive in the long run and next time, you won't pull any punches.

Pex
2017-04-20, 03:13 PM
For me I find it hard to put into words when it's appropriate, but I'll know it when I see it. What is easier for me to define is when it's not appropriate.

It's not appropriate for a DM to do it on purpose to punish the player for some slight out of game or outsmarting the DM in game. It's not appropriate to do it to teach the players a lesson, to show they are mere peons in the gameworld and to fear the DM's ultimate power. It's not appropriate to do it for the lulz.

Honest Tiefling
2017-04-20, 03:30 PM
A GM should only kill a character when it serves the interest of everyone at the table having fun, GM included.

If there is a convention at the beginning of the game NOT to kill characters because people wish to relax (or RP a character for more then five minutes), then they should abide by this. If the campaign is advertised as a meat-grinder hack-a-thon, being merciful is a really bad idea.

I don't think d20 actually says that all encounters MUST be balanced, just how to do it. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of modules have unbeatable fights or chase sequences with over powered enemies.

It does seem like this player had different expectations of the game, and that character death would never happen. Is this typical of your games, with you at the helm or not? Either way, I would sit him down and go over expectations of the game. Try to be clear and indicate that you will communicate such more clearly.

Now, do you want to run the type of game where characters can't die for stupid actions? If not, try to reach a compromise. One idea would be that he was questioned, but doesn't know what he revealed and broke out of his prison but couldn't get all of his stuff back. The character isn't dead or impaired (except for the gear, which can be regained), but it is a set back. Then make it clear that this time it was due to a lack of understanding, but next time his character will suffer the consequences of his actions.

I think it would be bad for conflict resolution to point out that by arguing that he was role playing his character, he's indicating that he believes idiots charging into battle should be more successful then tacticians, because the idiots can't die.

veti
2017-04-20, 03:45 PM
I don't think you did anything wrong, and that includes "letting the player talk you into letting him off". It's your decision, and so long as you can work with it, it's all good.

To the main question: by and large, I would say it's fine to kill a character when the player does something stupid. The catch is that "stupid" is a pretty wide judgment call, and certainly allows room for the player to talk you round to the position that "come to think of it, that wasn't all that stupid". But the player does need to have an argument, not just whine.

In retrospect, what you could have done differently:

Did you 'hint' to the player beforehand that charging in single-handed might not be the soundest tactical move? Remind him that last time, it took several PCs to take down one of these guys?
If you were feeling particularly lenient, you could even have mentioned the word "ambush" and pointed out the several sources of cover nearby that could have been concealing reinforcements.

BayardSPSR
2017-04-20, 03:55 PM
1) The players think they can headlong charge into anything knowing the DM won't kill you.

What we have here is failure to communicate.

If the players think this and the GM thinks this too, everything is fine. Likewise for the inverse. If the players and the GM aren't on the same page, you're going to have problems.

Fortunately, this problem can be prevented by talking about character death risks at the start of the game (or at any point in any session, as long as it happens before players' characters end up in mortal danger).

If you haven't had The Talk, and the game's been going for many sessions, and the players have routinely engaged in combat with no (or minimal) risk to the lives of their characters, they're justified in expecting that engaging in combat is a safe thing for them to do. If you (as the GM) want to change those expectations, the way you do it is telling them explicitly, not jumping them with a band of assassins while they're alone.

Unfortunately, D&D is a bit weird when it comes to character death, because it combines hard rules to define when characters must die with an expectation of balanced combat that shouldn't actually get them there.

I can't fault you for falling into this trap; it's a trap that the game itself set for you.

D+1
2017-04-20, 06:11 PM
1) He was playing his character, an army commander with INT8 who was depressive and impulsive. He should not be punished for this.The choice to play a depressed and impulsive character was his. He, the player, gets to deal with the consequences of that.

2) The d20 rulebooks say encounters should always be balanced. A group of assassins that is too strong for a few PCs is too much.No. They don't. At least not 3.0/3.5:
10% Easy (EL lower than the party)
20% Easy if handled properly
50% Challenging (EL eqals the party)
15% Very Difficult (EL 1 to 4 higher than the party)
5% Overpowering (EL 5+ higher than the party)

And EL is NOT an infallible mathematical formula. It's a TOOL. A useful one, but still JUST a tool for a DM to use to better gauge the degree of difficulty an encounter might present to the party. The reliability of that EL can be blown out of the water by better-than-normal equipment, fewer/more PC's, difficult terrain, low resources, clever play, poor play, and simply having lucky/cold dice, to name but a few possibilities


3) the assasins did too much damage, 20-40 damage per hit and their leader 50-60. Not possible with the rules (though the crusader can also do hits which do 100 damage).Players don't make the rules. DM's are under no obligation to have the ENTIRE REST OF THE CAMPAIGN WORLD function under the same limitations as the players. DM thinks up a new monster? AHA!, says that player - you can't use it because it's not IN THE RULES. DM wants opponents to simply do more damage than normal. CAN'T DO THAT!, says that player - you have to PROVE to ME that any opponent I face follows well-established rules that are known to me beforehand. I would find it difficult to actually not laugh in that players face. I mean REALLY laugh...


4) the player did not have the feeling that he could do something because he went down in 1 round so he felt frustrated and powerless. At least he should have chopped off 1 asssassin. I told him I agreed with this point.When players decide to have their PC take on powerful opponents single-handed, no backup from the party and without actually scouting the area to see if the OPPONENT has backup, well I would sympathize, but would shed not one tear. Even if a player, even if the entire party "does everything right," they may find themselves in circumstances that they CANNOT handle. They need to acknowledge this and learn to live with the consequences of it when that day inevitably arises.

MY rebuttal would be, "Play smarter. And you SERIOUSLY need to disabuse yourself of this notion that ANY player character is a special snowflake who is immune to death by the very design of the game system. Even if that WERE true - know that at least as of now it is not and never will be in MY campaigns."

Thrudd
2017-04-20, 07:04 PM
GMs don't kill characters. Player's taking risks too great for them kill characters.

At least that's how it should be. Whether to risk faicing a threat or not should be the players' choice, not something predetermined by the adventure.

Right. The right time for a character to die in D&D 3.5 is when they reach -10 HP, or some other game rule states that they are dead. GM's shouldn't be killing characters, the dice do. Characters die sometimes because of the rules of the game, when they run out of hit points or take too many wounds. The results of the dice dictate this, not the GM. It is assumed the GM is playing by the rules, not cheating by lying about the results of rolls or constantly fudging and altering the enemies' abilities. What enemies show up and how tough they are is something the GM can decide, they can completely make up anything with any powers or abilities they want. No player can tell them they are wrong about anything they put into the game - however there is a point where the GM can be perceived to be stacking the game against the players in an unfair way, such that they really have no way to succeed, and if that is true, that is inappropriate.

Mr Beer
2017-04-20, 10:47 PM
Wait, so impulsively rushing into fights with heavily armed people can backfire? Crazy stuff, such bad GM-ing.

My take on this is that you need to set clear expectations with your players, so they understand that PCs can die through bad luck and also from making poor decisions, which include but are not limited to: provoking powerful or influential entities, running recklessly into combat, failing to run away when outgunned and attempting dangerous feats of daring.

If you haven't communicated this, then bringing the PC back to life is a reasonable idea. Otherwise I'd let it stand, as the player's objectives are not correct.

If I think a player is doing something suicidal with his character and I don't think they realise it, I might issue a gentle clarification, like saying 'Are you sure you spit on the King's shoes? I did mention there are 50 heavily armed guards in here, right?'. If they want to carry on after that, it's up to them.

ATHATH
2017-04-20, 11:04 PM
Recommendation for the future: If a player is about to do something really stupid that will almost definitely get their character killed, ask them, "Are you sure?" This should set off alarm bells in your players' heads and at least make them reconsider their action(s).

Also, INT 8 doesn't mean that you're impulsive; that should be WIS.

Earthwalker
2017-04-21, 03:15 AM
GMs don't kill characters. Player's taking risks too great for them kill characters.

At least that's how it should be. Whether to risk faicing a threat or not should be the players' choice, not something predetermined by the adventure.


This. The player got their character killed, it doesn't sound like you (as DM) did anything unreasonable.

Well, almost nothing unreasonable, you let his character live when you shouldn't have.

I am sure that the player may have taken into account the risk and decided that I can take a single assassin, or at least hold him up till the rest of the group get involved.

Yeah its a risk but if it goes wrong and I bug out and get back to the group.

The player charged knowing there was one Assassin stood in the open. I think that's quiet reasonable. If the assassin is in the open I don't assume well I should always account for the 6 hidden assassins that are always near by.

The previous time an assassin (singular) was encountered in the campaign it didn't have 6 hidden friends that also attacked.

Now I don't know the full situation maybe the players did know this was a 6 to one fight going in, but from how it is posted it looked like a 1 on 1 fight.

I am only saying this as a reply to the people saying the player killed himself, he choose to charge in and attack 6 people on his own, he didn't. He choose to attack a single foe that turned into 6. (Personally I too would feel slightly cheated by this)

Shackel
2017-04-21, 03:26 AM
I'd say it's fine for a DM to kill a character any time the rules would justify it in combat. It might not be fun, but it's certainly within reason.

However, in this case, even if his points were not perfect, I think six very high level assassins coming out and instantly ganking his character with little to no chance of reprisal, all of which optimized enough to easily slice a tanky ToB user to pieces definitely falls into the realm of "unfun." The "dude, really" kind of unfun.

"All six wizards target you in particular with DC30 save or dies" kind of unfun. Is it fair by the definition of the rules for every enemy in the encounter to focus you and you alone? Absolutely. Is it fun? Probably not unless it's just that kind of game.

Frankly there just being six high level assassins chilling is strange. Why were they all coincidentally in that area unless it was a trap set for the players anyway?

It doesn't matter what would've happened, someone would have passed the line first and gotten erased if they were all able to move in and attack with the damage and accuracy necessary to take out a Crusader. Having help in this case wouldn't have done anything but slow the group down and give these powerful assassins more time to just circle around them. By all means, it sounds like even if the party was there they would've been set up to fail from the word go.

Katrina
2017-04-21, 04:16 AM
Players don't make the rules. DM's are under no obligation to have the ENTIRE REST OF THE CAMPAIGN WORLD function under the same limitations as the players. DM thinks up a new monster? AHA!, says that player - you can't use it because it's not IN THE RULES. DM wants opponents to simply do more damage than normal. CAN'T DO THAT!, says that player - you have to PROVE to ME that any opponent I face follows well-established rules that are known to me beforehand. I would find it difficult to actually not laugh in that players face. I mean REALLY laugh...


I do disagree with this point, simply because I also feel this is one the big problems I have with 5E. In 3.0 and its children, the system encourages "Transparency". The feeling that the enemy is actually using the same rules you do. That allows a player to look at someone and go "That guy is really good and hiding and shifty. He's wearing a lot of daggers but no other weapons, and my Sense Motive to get an idea of how skilled he is said he has a BAB lower than mine. That implies he is a rogue type, probably near my level. If I can get past his cheap tricks, I should be able to take him." Note, that requires observation, skill use and forethought, which this player didn't show. But, I feel it is important that the players be able to judge their threat like that. The system has tools for a reason. Now, that's just my opinion, so take it as the two cents it is.

Darth Ultron
2017-04-21, 06:23 AM
I do disagree with this point, simply because I also feel this is one the big problems I have with 5E. In 3.0 and its children, the system encourages "Transparency".

Well there is no doubt that the idea of ''transparency'' and ''the DM is a player'' came out and suddenly everyone followed this idea at about the start of D&D 3.0, but it's not in the rules. In a vague sense D&D 3X removed the old idea of ''special DM rules'' and the more aggressive players jumped on that to say the DM is a lowly player and must follow the rules and be bullied by the players and fact and rule checked every second of the game. But that is not ''in'' the rules.

And it's really one of the worst things to happen to gamers....but luckily it seems to be a fad.

Eisenheim
2017-04-21, 07:12 AM
It seems to me like what you've run into is some technology that's missing from D&D, but you might find some inspiration in other games.

Your player complained not just about dying, but about dying without a chance to do anything. That is, he felt like he had no control over the narrative that led to his death. I don't know, but suspect, that he would have been far less unhappy with a death that felt heroic, taking several enemies with him but eventually falling to superior numbers in an ambush.

The issue then become that neither of you have the narrative control to make that happen. The player loses narrative control when he fails his rolls, yours is exercised more in before-the-fact building than in the moment of combat, where the dice dominate.

I'd recommend taking a look at something like fate, which has mechanics (concession) specifically for situations where the players want some narrative control but can't get it by winning. Even if you don't want to bring narrativist mechanics into your D&D, the idea of character death as negotiation between GM and players rather than the will of the dice and the pre-built encounter is the best way to avoid hard feelings like this.

Slipperychicken
2017-04-21, 08:54 AM
GM shouldn't say "I'm going to kill them today". Instead, he should let the game rules and situation decide whether the PCs live or die, win or lose. Maybe make an allowance if he accidentally did something really unfair, but that's about it.

If you don't want to have PCs die, then don't play a game where that's decided by RNG. It's as simple as that.

Eisenheim
2017-04-21, 09:06 AM
Slipperychicken, what I'm saying is that I think the crusader player didn't want his character death to come down to an RNG, and since rpgs are a collaborative experience, that can be worth talking about regardless of what system you're using.

D+1
2017-04-21, 10:14 AM
I do disagree with this point, simply because I also feel this is one the big problems I have with 5E. In 3.0 and its children, the system encourages "Transparency". The feeling that the enemy is actually using the same rules you do. That allows a player to look at someone and go "That guy is really good and hiding and shifty. He's wearing a lot of daggers but no other weapons, and my Sense Motive to get an idea of how skilled he is said he has a BAB lower than mine. That implies he is a rogue type, probably near my level. If I can get past his cheap tricks, I should be able to take him." Note, that requires observation, skill use and forethought, which this player didn't show. But, I feel it is important that the players be able to judge their threat like that. The system has tools for a reason. Now, that's just my opinion, so take it as the two cents it is.
Fair enough.

What I'd counter with is that even with greater "transparency" DM's are still allowed to create things the rules have not pre-defined. New monsters. New abilities. New spells. Bonuses or penalties not already listed. THE UNKNOWN. Save versus a spell - okay, but WHAT spell it is does not need to be revealed, nor what its effects are until the PC actually feels them [noting that 3E has specific mechanics to make the determination of such information as a spell is being cast). Players don't get a copy of a character sheet for an enemy NPC or monster. Players roll dice adding all the bonuses their PC can muster - and the DM tells them whether the result is good enough to hit/damage/affect the opponent. Players don't get a list of reasons WHY they might fail even if the DM simply tells them flat-out what difficulty they will need to roll against (and again, the DM does not need to tell them that number ahead of time, nor explain why the number might be high or low).

If a DM wants to run 3rd edition under the added burden of inventing nothing new or modifying the rules to fit the game rather than constraining the ongoing game to fit ONLY the published rules, and being forced to explain ALL new rules and rulings to the players as if maintaining ANY mystery or question of the unknown is "unfair" then that's okay and I wish anyone who does success and enjoyment. Certainly many PLAYERS would have their DM's believe that complete transparency is required because obviously that's an incredible advantage for them, but I'd argue that wasn't how the system was meant to be run.

HidesHisEyes
2017-04-21, 01:29 PM
I think it sucks for a player character's life or death to hinge on a single decision, even worse to hinge on a single die roll. D&D is a game of attrition; I think that's really important. So if they've been worn down by fighting and other challenges and they maybe pushed on when they had a chance to rest, and they've performed badly over the course of a whole adventure, and they go down fighting, then they've essentially lost the game. It's sad but it has to be a possibility or the game isn't really a game at all. If they die all of a sudden because they turned left instead of right, or because they rolled a 1 on a saving throw against some insta-death trap, that belongs to a style of gameplay that D&D isn't really about anymore, and it feels really unfair and arbitrary.

That's just the way I run the game, and as you can tell it's very much based on the idea that it IS a game, so it should obey game logic rather than real life logic.

icefractal
2017-04-21, 02:40 PM
In a vague sense D&D 3X removed the old idea of ''special DM rules'' and the more aggressive players jumped on that to say the DM is a lowly player and must follow the rules and be bullied by the players and fact and rule checked every second of the game. But that is not ''in'' the rules.

And it's really one of the worst things to happen to gamers....but luckily it seems to be a fad.I can't imagine why more people aren't signing up to be "lowly players" in a DM-is-god type of campaign. It sounds so appealing! :smalltongue:

The Extinguisher
2017-04-21, 02:47 PM
Your player is for sure not having fun with it, so it was probably a bad idea to kill him there. That he wants to quit after playing for so long is a big sign that something very upsetting for him happened here.

As others have said, it's all about expectation and tone. Has this player been able to run off and fight things by himself before? If you've encouraged it in his character before, punishing him for it now feels very bad. Is this the first character death you've had so far? If your players are used to succeeding for so long, it can be shocking to fail so miserably like that. There's nothing wrong with a game where your players win all the time as long as everyone is having fun. Or maybe it was just this particular death that seemed off to the player. He could feel like you baited him with the one visible assassin just to ambush and kill his character.

At the end of the day, you're playing a game and trying to have fun. If one of your players is having so little fun they want to quit, it's worth looking into why.

Velaryon
2017-04-21, 09:54 PM
As a general rule, I more or less agree with Darth Ultron's initial post (there's a first time for everything). Actions in the game have consequences, because if they don't then you're not playing a game, you're playing Happy Fun Magical Story Time. As long as the player was given enough information to make an informed choice, then the reasonable consequences that flow from their choice are fair game, up to and including character death.

That said, it will vary from table to table how much character death is accepted, and that's something you should try to feel out before it comes up. I'd say there's more lenience in D&D, especially at high levels, because there exist ways to bring a dead character back to life for exactly this reason.


To the main question: by and large, I would say it's fine to kill a character when the player does something stupid. The catch is that "stupid" is a pretty wide judgment call, and certainly allows room for the player to talk you round to the position that "come to think of it, that wasn't all that stupid". But the player does need to have an argument, not just whine.

In retrospect, what you could have done differently:

Did you 'hint' to the player beforehand that charging in single-handed might not be the soundest tactical move? Remind him that last time, it took several PCs to take down one of these guys?
If you were feeling particularly lenient, you could even have mentioned the word "ambush" and pointed out the several sources of cover nearby that could have been concealing reinforcements.


I pretty much agree with this. When the player does something stupid, they should not be protected from the consequences of that action. The problem is that what looks stupid to the DM does not always look that way from an outside perspective. In this instance, it sounds like the Crusader charged straight at the opponent, heedless of any possible danger and with no attempt to bring his party mates into the fight with him, and then cried foul when he blundered into a bad tactical situation and suffered the logical consequences of that blunder.

That said, I have some questions: Did you give the Crusader a spot check to notice the other assassins lurking? Did you describe the scenery, including the cover that the other assassins were hiding behind? Did he have any chance at all to take a different action? Basically, did he have any way of knowing what he was getting into?

GrayDeath
2017-04-22, 02:46 PM
Velaryon asks a few good questions. And the point of Tone made earlier is good as well.

let me add my own: Did you give the Character a roll to determine that this was a bad Idea? Spot/Listen/simple Wisdom?
Is his Wisdom as low as his Intelligence?

He IS supposed to be a Warleader, so he should know about the generel abilities of Assassins, even if the player did not remember them, the Character would.


Now I agree, if the Player does not rescind his decisions after a little questioning, they deserve what their character got.

But inGame Knowledge exists.

D+1
2017-04-22, 10:01 PM
Did you give the Character a roll to determine that this was a bad Idea? Spot/Listen/simple Wisdom?
Is his Wisdom as low as his Intelligence?
Yeah... This one chafes a lot for me. Players should not rely on dice rolls to provide information that can be obtained just by ASKING the DM some questions outright. If the DM wants the answers to those questions to be randomly revealed or not then the DM can respond with a call for applicable dice rolls. If you want information, ASK. Let the DM decide if the answers need to be chiseled out of him or given freely. Similarly, the DM should not need to rely on players asking for dice rolls before providing information - especially when that information will help keep the game from spiraling off in undesired directions. If you want/need players to know something tell them. If you want/need players to seek information from you that they aren't asking for then give hints. If they still don't get it give more and stronger hints, and then eventually let them field consequences. This is not a difficult process and I'd suggest it is, in fact, Roleplaying Games 101.

Players waiting for a DM to tell them to roll spot/listen/wisdom checks so that the DM feels permitted to finally shovel information at them only if the check succeeds are doing it wrong...
IMO

Oh, and players (or DM's) who feel it a requirement to make stupid player decisions because a characters int/wis is low are only going to mark those PC's as first in line for removal from the herd. Here endeth the lesson from Uncle Chuck D.

Thrudd
2017-04-23, 12:23 AM
Yeah... This one chafes a lot for me. Players should not rely on dice rolls to provide information that can be obtained just by ASKING the DM some questions outright. If the DM wants the answers to those questions to be randomly revealed or not then the DM can respond with a call for applicable dice rolls. If you want information, ASK. Let the DM decide if the answers need to be chiseled out of him or given freely. Similarly, the DM should not need to rely on players asking for dice rolls before providing information - especially when that information will help keep the game from spiraling off in undesired directions. If you want/need players to know something tell them. If you want/need players to seek information from you that they aren't asking for then give hints. If they still don't get it give more and stronger hints, and then eventually let them field consequences. This is not a difficult process and I'd suggest it is, in fact, Roleplaying Games 101.

Players waiting for a DM to tell them to roll spot/listen/wisdom checks so that the DM feels permitted to finally shovel information at them only if the check succeeds are doing it wrong...
IMO

Oh, and players (or DM's) who feel it a requirement to make stupid player decisions because a characters int/wis is low are only going to mark those PC's as first in line for removal from the herd. Here endeth the lesson from Uncle Chuck D.

Right on. I think it is a categorical mistake to think that the game mechanics would allow any playable character that was literally too stupid to survive. A low stat doesn't mean your character must be played like they have no sense of self-preservation or self-awareness, just like low strength doesn't mean your character is paralyzed, and low con doesn't mean you have a wasting disease. Also 8 is not really all that low, but people treat it like it is the absolute bottom of the barrel, borderline disabled intellect. Ability scores go all the way down to 3. And even that is still smart enough to be a functioning character, otherwise it wouldn't be a score a playable PC was allowed to have.

Chris77
2017-04-24, 02:32 AM
Wow, thank you all for your very elaborate answers. That gives me some stuff to think about.

Storyline wise a team of 7 assassins came by ship to the island and were standing with all of them on the docks. The PCs were there too and could see and study them. At this point the assassins were looking for criminals but they had no idea at all that the PCs were the ones they were looking for, though they were looking for 'familiar faces'. One PC even went up to talk to a female assassin.

The challenge for the PCs was if they would choose to battle the assassins instead of trying to find escape off the island which is possible, is to isolate a few assassins at a time perhaps and fight them or talk their way out. They killed 1 before this way. There are multiple options for a victory. They could also try to persude some pirates on the island or the deputy mayor to help them, as long as they roleplay it well. Attacking all the assassins at a time with only the party itself will result in maybe 2 or 3 PC casualties and a fair chance for a party wipeout.

The assassins were 3x level 12, 2x level 15 and 1x level 16. Since they are a top elite from the government, their equiment is very good since the government invested a few million gold coins in their trainings so their ECL may be 2 levels higher or so. They are to guard the islands safety if things get out of hand (for example if somewhere out of nowhere a interplanar portal would appear on the islands the inquisition would be called immedeately to fix the 'dirty work'). Also they have to make sure the PCs, the convicted criminals, who are not really criminals but are part of a secret international political noble event to hunt them, should be killed.

The PCs wanted to escape from the island so they contacted the deputy mayor who could arrange a boat for them to sail out of the barrier (the island group is magically sealed by the government). The mayor wanted to PCs to retrieve an old nostalgic clock for them which the mage guild confiscated in trade for the ship. The PCs agreed to this and went to the mage guild.

Now they retrieved the clock which was held within a stasis field, wall of force and dimensional anchor spell in the mage guild and started to play with it a few miles away on the beach. It suddenly generated a total blackness sphere of annihilation that destroyed a few houses and trees on the island. One of the PCs knew this effect because he earlier found the instruction manual in the mayors house but did not share this with the other PCs but he did return in time to the party to get the sphere disappear. Scared, the PCs decided to return the clock to the mage guild after it accidentally killed off their 16th level helper NPC good priest who has been travelling with them for 60 sessions.

The assassins were alarmed. There were more instances in the past on which the PCs have been behaving very conspicious so they decided to set up a trap by stirring up some population at the mayors house who were angry because some of their plantations were burned down. The revolt of 150 native island villagers at the gate was a ruse caused by the assassins to divide the party. The assassins placed some illusionary copies of them on the mayors roof, which distracted 3-4 of the PCs so the party divided. The assasins have a focus on one target as much as possible strategy. Most party members went to the roof of the mayors house to look for assassins, 2 other PCs walked to the back gate.

They could have known the strength of the assasins because 2 in game sessions ago, earlier on the PCs were suddenly capturing a boat from the island by taking all the crew hostage and forcing them to set sail off the island. They disguised as drunk native people and went into a boat. The assasins learned this fact later on since the coast guards alarmed them, went after them on the water, slowly hovering and chasing the boat on some disk of force (ie. 30x10 ft surf board) which allow 8 assassins to stand on. One party dwarf saw the assassins from the boat, lifted his jetpack and soared to the assassins, trying to fly right into them. He succeeded in bumping 1 assasin down, but their leader, a judge in magical full plate mail did not give way and with 6 of them they hacked the dwarf to pieces. Another PC mage went by himself flying to the assasins group on the disk, but got assaulted by fireballs so he had to give up too though he was still alive.

Now for the discussion, I feel because the player made his way all up to level 17, he has the impression he cannot die anymore and ofcourse the player grows attached to his character and he also wants to finish the campaign.

Personally this is an aspect which I don't like too much of D&D, that there is so much difference in 'power level' between PCs when they advance multiple levels. In other RPG games like GURPS or Vampire, ofcourse there is certainly difference in power level but not so tremendously much that a high level character can wipe out an army. I can use 'random level 15 NPC encounters' of the DMG to match up the ECL challenge but it's not too satisfying.

Perhaps because I tend to be more storyline oriented than average another ruleset would better suit me.

In my world not 98% of my NPCs are level 2. You will find a bit higher levels because the hit points go up so fast and the game gets so debalancing. For example I have in a regular army you can just encounter on the road: militia/ soldier (level 2-3), veteran soldier (level 4-5), expert soldier (level 6-7) as average military units and not just 'level 2 soldiers'. Light cavalry would be level 4-5 and heavy cavalry level 6-7, on average, which is just a way of seeing it. This is next to the higher level army sergeants, camptains etc that are in an average army.

Maybe I have created too much storyline/ NPCs in the previous 90 sessions or so. A good lesson for me is to limit it down. Due to that the PCs may on an evening in which everyone is tired from daily work anyways, just not distinct important facts from side issues. They expect storyline progress, but do not ask much questions to the NPCs. For example when 2 influential NPCs mentioned the assasins were a powerful and most feared unit of the inquisition and should be feared, 2 of the PCs just replied 'yeah yeah, right.....'.

Also the crusader player does not know the basic D&D rules, so for example he does not know how to calculate his + to hit bonus without asking another player for help with his character sheet after multiple years playing.

I could certainly have given the crusader a more honorable death. From his perspective, it looked like a good action to charge. I think it is time to have a talk around the table also as some of you mention for some 'expectations management' (sounds too much as work already :). I have the last word as the DM, but the tone determines the music. We usually have fun playing until such a thing like this comes up that suddenly gets to the point of a player wishing to quit the game.

The punishment for dying in my campaign currently is dropping 1 level (and losing the character and all items, background information etc of course).

Kind regs,

Chris

oxybe
2017-04-24, 03:22 AM
Part of the problem is player skill & knowledge vs character skill & knowledge.

Your TTRPG character is assumed to have some level of autonomy. The same way you don't describe how they go take a dump or sleep under the bed covers instead of sleeping under the bed itself, it's something one can assume the character knows and does.

In this way the character is likely far better versed in the minute workings of the game world then the player: They're the ones who grew up in this world, this town, this country. Kevin the player might not know the proper salutations to give to the nobility, but his character probably does.

The same when it comes to assessing certain situations in game. Should we always fall on the player's skill when it comes to determining if Gronthnar the Bulging would know better then to do something that the gm knows will get themselves killed, or should we treat such an action with guidance based off the narrative the player's been portraying so far or through the active called use of (or secret rolling of) the character's skills?

We don't trust a player's ability to swing a sword IRL to be the determinating factor of if their character is capable of hitting their enemy, so should we let the character live and die 100% by the player's ability to gauge danger based off a GM's description (which can very well be flawed or missing a detail the player or character may find important).

hymer
2017-04-24, 04:31 AM
@ Chris: Best of luck!

Eisenheim
2017-04-24, 06:38 AM
The punishment for dying in my campaign currently is dropping 1 level (and losing the character and all items, background information etc of course).

Chris

This is why the player was upset. Character death is equivalent to being booted from the game entirely with a penalty like that. I would suggest getting rid of the idea of a penalty altogether. That makes a collaborative activity into a game of winners and losers, and I don't see how anyone's fun is enhanced.

Deliverance
2017-04-24, 06:58 AM
Best of luck, but after your latest explanations of the previous campaign history I can't shake the feeling that the INT 8 army leader isn't the only suicidal member of the party.


We are convicted criminals on the run from a powerful government, carriers of a deadly secret that the government will do anything in its power to suppress. Escape is our only hope at this time.

A boat! Onwards!

Dwarf: There's a bunch of people following our boat, but I've got a jetpack. I'll fly over and deal with them, just keep sailing. Eight people on a magical surfboard, what could possibly go wrong?

Dwarf gets chopped up.

Mage: I never liked that dwarf anyhow. Now, let me show you true ultimate power!

Mage flies to the pursuers and gets beaten off by a fireball barrage.

Party: These things happen. Whew, finally an island where we can plot out next steps. Perhaps exchange this boat for a sturdy ship and get the heck out of here.

Party observes the landing of magical surfboard pursuers, goes to investigate these tough customers who already chopped up their dwarf and surface-fried their mage. Investigates and discovers they are pursuing dangerous criminals, guess who. And the pursuers have certainly shown they are no pushovers, being powerful in their own right. The party is being hunted, that's for sure - the government is really out to get them. So the party is even more determined to get off the island as soon as possible and hopefully without attracting attention. Keeping a low profile is definitely the order of the day!

Party: Why, you want us to steal an old clock in return for passage, mayor, because you are a nostalgic old soppy and the local mage's guild confiscated your heirloom because those bullies hate your fair rule? Consider it done.

Party member #3: Remember, we need to keep a low profile.
Party member #4: Yeah. Swift and silent. They'll never see us coming.
Party member #2: Hey, I just thought of a brilliant plan.

Party member #1 decides to hang out in the mayor's house, reading every old instruction manual he comes across or perhaps casing the place for a heist. You never know with adventurers.

Meanwhile, the rest of the party discovers that the clock is kept not only under lock, bar and key, but stasis field, wall of force and dimensional anchor spell as well. No problem, they are highlevel so they get it.

Party member #2: This is obviously magical, and it must certainly be valuable since the mages protected it so well. Why should we return it as we promised when we could engage in a bit of magical experimentation?
Party member #3: What if it is a weapon we can turn on our pursuers?
Party member #4: What if it can be used for ill in the wrong hands? What if it can transport us all to safety?
Party member #3: Actually, think of it as doing a community service. We aren't stealing it, after all. Only.. examining it.
Party member #4: But what if it is dangerous? What if it makes baby Jesus cry?
NPC Priest: That would be bad.
Party member #2: Blablabla. What could possibly go wrong? *Activates the device*

Twiddling with the clock they manage to level the neighbourhood and killing off their NPC priest, who's been following them like a faithful puppy for ages.

Party member #2, scraping off some of the priest's remains from his boots: It was his own fault for wearing a red shirt. He should have known better.

Following that disaster the party unites.

Party member #2, #3, and #4: It totally wasn't our fault. It was a design flaw. These things should come with instruction manuals!
Party member #1: It did, and if you'd just held off playing with toys until we'd looted the mayor's house I could have told you all about it.
Party member #2: Anyhow, no harm done. I never liked that priest anyway. Let's proceed with the plan.

Later...

While split from the rest of the party who are scoping out a group of the pursuers, a party member spots one of the pursuers, apparently alone and flushed out in the open in broad daylight with no support. He's a master warrior as well as a superb tactician. He may not be a mage, and he may not own a jetpack, but controlling the battlefield is what he does. What he lives for. There's no battlefield tactic that is unknown to him. Small unit or large army, he knows all there is to know. The party depends on his knowledge when planning ambushes or executing battlefield tactics. He knows when it is time to scout and maintain cover, to either set up a proper ambush or to maintain a chance of getting off the island without a fight against possibly superior forces, and when it is time to...

CHARGE!

-----

Noo, this is probably not how it happened, but from your description it could have been one of those comedy campaigns where death is played for a laugh and the problem was that your caped crusader wasn't in on the joke.

Either way, it definitely sounds as a case of different expectations concerning character mortality and tone of campaign, something that is very important to establish up front -- and to be open to changing during the campaign if the players and DM don't find the chosen approach fun.

GungHo
2017-04-24, 09:14 AM
I don't normally run meat grinder campaigns unless I'm asked to do so (e.g. war campaigns where your dead guy is replaced by a FNG almost as soon as you're down). However, if someone, after disabling all safeties, opens the door to a reactor to see what fusion looks like, he's toast and so is everyone else, because I can abide the Three Stooges but I can't abide Leeroy Jenkins.

sleepy hedgehog
2017-04-24, 11:18 AM
As a GM I don't have an issue killing a character.
However, I try to always let the PC's get an action or two in before they die. So they have some control, or at least the feeling of control.
The worst character deaths are, "You lost initiative and died in the 0th round of combat".

It's like in Magic the Gathering.
People will complain if you cast 3 spells that combo and instantly win the game.
But if you use a card that's been in play for a while, a card from your hand, and it will cause you to win the game on your next turn; people don't mind as much.
Because even if they don't have an answer, it feels like they had a chance to deal with the problem.

Trebloc
2017-04-24, 11:42 AM
So a level 17 PC died because they did something stupid and then threw a fit? Seriously? They made it to level 17 without a single PC dying in the group? At level 17, they should be more accustomed to "death happens", just like at low levels, stuff like poison and ability damage were annoying.

You shouldn't pull your punches, unless you are playing the "Happy go fun time loot hour!", where the players roll dice and always win and get shiny new loot, then fist bump each other and more shiny new loot appears. PC death happens. It could be a bad die roll from the PC, a good die roll from the GM, a good plan gone wrong, a bad plan overall...etc. Sounds like your player is playing an idiot crusader, which is fine. What should have happened is that when the rest of his party resurrected his idiot behind, that he'd actually learn from the experience. Actually, how did he not learn his lesson long ago, like when he charged head first into a kobold den on his own, or the orc tribe on his own, or the giant keep on his own, or the dragon's lair on his own...etc. It's really taken him 17 levels to realizing charging an enemy on his own is a bad idea?

I actually had something somewhat similar happen once. The PCs were high level, and the sorcerer liked to trot way out front all the time. There was an ambush set up, and a few high level rogues hopped out and flanked the heck out of said sorcerer, and pin-cushioned him deep into the negatives while his party members watched, too far back to help him. That was the last time he wanted to act as the Ambush Finder.

GrayDeath
2017-04-24, 02:32 PM
Best of luck, but after your latest explanations of the previous campaign history I can't shake the feeling that the INT 8 army leader isn't the only suicidal member of the party.


We are convicted criminals on the run from a powerful government, carriers of a deadly secret that the government will do anything in its power to suppress. Escape is our only hope at this time.

A boat! Onwards!

Dwarf: There's a bunch of people following our boat, but I've got a jetpack. I'll fly over and deal with them, just keep sailing. Eight people on a magical surfboard, what could possibly go wrong?

Dwarf gets chopped up.

Mage: I never liked that dwarf anyhow. Now, let me show you true ultimate power!

Mage flies to the pursuers and gets beaten off by a fireball barrage.

Party: These things happen. Whew, finally an island where we can plot out next steps. Perhaps exchange this boat for a sturdy ship and get the heck out of here.

Party observes the landing of magical surfboard pursuers, goes to investigate these tough customers who already chopped up their dwarf and surface-fried their mage. Investigates and discovers they are pursuing dangerous criminals, guess who. And the pursuers have certainly shown they are no pushovers, being powerful in their own right. The party is being hunted, that's for sure - the government is really out to get them. So the party is even more determined to get off the island as soon as possible and hopefully without attracting attention. Keeping a low profile is definitely the order of the day!

Party: Why, you want us to steal an old clock in return for passage, mayor, because you are a nostalgic old soppy and the local mage's guild confiscated your heirloom because those bullies hate your fair rule? Consider it done.

Party member #3: Remember, we need to keep a low profile.
Party member #4: Yeah. Swift and silent. They'll never see us coming.
Party member #2: Hey, I just thought of a brilliant plan.

Party member #1 member decides to hang out in the mayor's house, reading every old instruction manual he comes across or perhaps casing the place for a heist. You never know with adventurers.

Meanwhile, the rest of the party discovers that the clock is kept not only under lock, bar and key, but stasis field, wall of force and dimensional anchor spell as well. No problem, they are highlevel so they get it.

Party member #2: This is obviously magical, and it must certainly be valuable since the mages protected it so well. Why should we return it as we promised when we could engage in a bit of magical experimentation?
Party member #3: What if it is a weapon we can turn on our pursuers?
Party member #4: What if it can be used for ill in the wrong hands? What if it can transport us all to safety?
Party member #3: Actually, think of it as doing a community service. We aren't stealing it, after all. Only.. examining it.
Party member #4: But what if it is dangerous? What if it makes baby Jesus cry?
NPC Priest: That would be bad.
Party member #2: Blablabla. What could possibly go wrong? *Activates the device*

Twiddling with the clock they manage to level the neighbourhood and killing off their NPC priest, who's been following them like a faithful puppy for ages.

Party member #2, scraping off some of the priest's remains from his boots: It was his own fault for wearing a red shirt. He should have known better.

Following that disaster the party unites.

Party member #2, #3, and #4: It totally wasn't our fault. It was a design flaw. These things should come with instruction manuals!
Party member #1: It did, and if you'd just held off playing with toys until we'd looted the mayor's house I could have told you all about it.
Party member #2: Anyhow, no harm done. I never liked that priest anyway. Let's proceed with the plan.

Later...

While split from the rest of the party who are scoping out a group of the pursuers, a party member spots one of the pursuers, apparently alone and flushed out in the open in broad daylight with no support. He's a master warrior as well as a superb tactician. He may not be a mage, and he may not own a jetpack, but controlling the battlefield is what he does. What he lives for. There's no battlefield tactic that is unknown to him. Small unit or large army, he knows all there is to know. The party depends on his knowledge when planning ambushes or executing battlefield tactics. He knows when it is time to scout and maintain cover, to either set up a proper ambush or to maintain a chance of getting off the island without a fight against possibly superior forces, and when it is time to...

CHARGE!

-----

Noo, this is probably not how it happened, but from your description it could have been one of those comedy campaigns where death is played for a laugh and the problem was that your caped crusader wasn't in on the joke.

Either way, it definitely sounds as a case of different expectations concerning character mortality and tone of campaign, something that is very important to establish up front -- and to be open to changing during the campaign if the players and DM don't find the chosen approach fun.

How do you know 2 of my players, huh? HUH?

Do I actually know you too? Are you spying on me?


Made my evening.

Cluedrew
2017-04-24, 04:02 PM
I think the question is actually irrelevant here. I would say the player killed the character.

I could elaborate on why, but just look at all the other posts that talk about natural consequences.

SirBellias
2017-04-24, 10:06 PM
In my games, I make it clear that people can and will (probably) die, encounters that I anticipate to be combat encounters will be dangerous at least, and that there are multiple ways around most situations. So if this happened in my game, they had it coming. Then again, I do have a major wound mechanic, so that characters basically get two deaths out of each character, and it lets them usually have enough time to get to a point where death is unlikely, which helps with the issues with this strategy.

That being said, I do see where the player is coming from, depending on what they are used to and expecting from the game. As long as they know what sort of game you are running, I would have had them die. If they didn't some more communication about themes and grit may be in order. After that, all brakes are off.

Nightcanon
2017-04-25, 01:07 AM
+1 for the argument that in this scenario the DM didn't kill the character, the character killed himself. If I'm being hunted by a squad of the government's top assassins, then encountering one of them wandering round in the open is a trap until proven otherwise. If having Int of 8 is ruled as being too dumb to realise this, then by 17th level I have found a way to raise my Int to avoid this. Unless there are specific restrictions in the campaign, dying at 17th level generally means taking a break until an ally next refreshes his or her spells, not game over, anyway.
Incidentally, while historically 'assassins' were indeed sneaky types, and in real life those who perform similar roles tend to have a similar focus on stealth, in a fantasy world there's really no reason why a government's top 'assassin' should be a rogue/assassin class base rather than a scry-and-die wizard. Getting hit by a bunch of sneak attack dice because you were dumb enough to get yourself surrounded is actually pretty tame.

Chris77
2017-05-01, 10:03 AM
Thank you, guys.

Deliverance, that story is about 80% accurate, well done. The only change is the way they captured the ship and never managed to escape to another island, but had to stay on the island where they first encountered the assassins. The way the players played with the magical clock and decided to return it is great.

Anyways, I let my player character read all this and he feels understood now, also about the importance of the assassins, I had to mention that to you ; )

Kind regs,

Chris

Deliverance
2017-05-02, 04:22 AM
Thanks for the update, Chris. Good to hear that you've worked it out with your player.

Just remember, if a player does something suicidal and you can't find some way to gently warn him off that doesn't seem out of place, or you can but he doesn't take it, then while he probably has to die if it isn't a situation where capturing would be a reasonable alternative, it is almost always better to have him go out with style.

Even if it means fudging rolls or taking narrative control at the end, if you can pull it off in a fulfilling way. (If you can't, don't even try.)

Even when a player death is pretty much pointless, you are all creating a story together and style matters. :xykon:

thamolas
2017-05-02, 10:49 AM
The short answer is "when they expect it.", "When they deserve it." and, "when its awesome."

The longer answer is that it entirely depends on the type of game it is and what everyone's individual expectations of the game are. Communication at the start of a campaign is key.

People can and will grow very attached to their characters, i've seen a person cry when they willing had a character die. If a person thinks you're going to fudge things to let them live, and you don't, they're going to be upset.

^^This.

I tell players from the start that my games run on cause and effect and player actions have consequences. Carelessness has consequences.

If the characters know they are (or might be) hunted by powerful assassins and one decides to charge in alone (in the real world, this would usually be a death sentence), then he deserves the consequences of his actions. If the assassins decide to take him prisoner to use as bait to lure in the rest of the party, that could be an acceptable consequence. But death is equally acceptable.

If, in real life, if I discovered that a mafia/SIS/whatever hitman was following me and I decided to charge at him, I would reasonably expect to be shot, at the very least. I would never do that in real life, and a character should (almost) never do that in a game.

If your game feels nerfed, fudgy, and unrealistic, you throw most of the drama and tension into the rubbish bin. It's the consequences of a character's actions and the sense of danger that makes this type of game fun.

It sucks to have a character die. It sucks more to play a game where you always come out on top, no matter what stupid nonsense you do.

D+1
2017-05-02, 12:12 PM
It sucks to have a character die. It sucks more to play a game where you always come out on top, no matter what stupid nonsense you do.
There was an episode of Twilight Zone titled, "A Nice Place to Visit":

After robbing a pawn shop, Henry "Rocky" Valentine is shot by a police officer as he tries to flee. He wakes up to find himself seemingly unharmed by the encounter, as a genial elderly man named Pip greets him. Pip explains that he has been instructed to guide Rocky and give him whatever he desires. Rocky becomes suspicious, thinking that Pip is trying to swindle him, but Pip proves to have detailed information on Rocky's tastes and hobbies. Rocky demands that Pip hand over his wallet; Pip says that he does not carry one, but gives Rocky $700 directly from his pocket and says that he can provide as much money as Rocky wants.

Thinking that Pip is trying to entice him to commit a crime, Rocky holds him at gunpoint as the two travel to a luxurious apartment. Pip explains that the apartment and everything in it are free, and Rocky starts to relax. However, his suspicions rise again when a meal is brought in, and he demands that Pip taste it first to prove that it is not poisoned. When Pip demurs, Rocky shoots him in the head, only for the bullets to bounce off harmlessly. Rocky realizes that he is dead, and he believes that he is in Heaven and Pip is his guardian angel.

Rocky visits a casino, winning every bet he makes as beautiful girls gather around him, and enjoys being able to pick on a policeman after Pip shrinks him. Later, Rocky asks Pip if he can see some of his old friends who have also died, but Pip says that this world is for Rocky alone. Except for the two men, no one in it is real. When Rocky wonders what good deeds he could have done to gain entrance to Heaven, Pip takes him to visit the Hall of Records. Rocky looks through his own file and discovers that it only contains a list of his sins, but decides not to worry about it since God apparently has no problem with his being in Heaven.

One month later, Rocky has become thoroughly bored with having his whims instantly satisfied. He calls up Pip and asks for a challenge in which he might run the risk of losing. Pip offers to set up a bank robbery, but Rocky abandons the idea, saying that a pre-planned outcome would take the fun out of the crime. He tells Pip that he is tired of Heaven and wants to go to "the other place," to which Pip retorts, "Heaven? Whatever gave you the idea you were in Heaven, Mr. Valentine? This is the other place!" Horrified, Rocky tries in vain to open the apartment door and escape his "paradise" as Pip laughs malevolently at his torment.
Usually, however, I just quote Mr. Spock from Star Trek:
"After a time, you may find that 'having' is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as 'wanting'. It is not logical, but it is often true."

ArendK
2017-05-03, 11:02 AM
The short answer is "when they expect it.", "When they deserve it." and, "when its awesome."

The longer answer is that it entirely depends on the type of game it is and what everyone's individual expectations of the game are. Communication at the start of a campaign is key.

People can and will grow very attached to their characters, i've seen a person cry when they willing had a character die. If a person thinks you're going to fudge things to let them live, and you don't, they're going to be upset.

Yep. I get irked at arbitrary deaths solely for DM satisfaction (you "beat" me? You control the world slapnuts!. I don't mind it as part of a story (I prefer being consulted on it if it's me that's part of the dying plan, but I can roll with it). And I really don't mind getting killed in combat by a challenging foe.

I've had GM's ask me to tone down/ask if they could kill my character because it was being played too effectively that other players weren't having fun. I saw his point (I'd been feeling the same way during that campaign because I'd always have the answer to whatever problem came up). My request was to kill me within the game, agreeing to use tactics that isolated me in combat not obviously to the other players where specific foes that could get through me could believably beat me.

Next session, sure enough, I died a heroic death trying to protect the party from an advanced spider-eater bird of doom. The party was in shock and awe, but easily took the thing down when they swarmed it as a party.

It's no Sturm Brightblade, but I'll take it.