PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How to handle murdering PCs



Test Pattern
2018-11-26, 01:17 AM
I have a problem where I can't bring myself to murder my PCs if the dice should have caused their deaths.

To a certain degree, it feels more like a punishment for me because what it just means is having to really lower the quality of the world down.

A killed character means replacing them with a fresh less developed character. And the very nature of them showing up in the party is disruptive and kinda immersion breaking to an extent.

The better the roleplayers the players are, the more it punishes them for getting invested in each other and the world.
Got backstory stuff or connections with the players? Gone. Now suddenly some other jerk is either gonna take over like nothing has happened OR just gonna awkwardly sidle in to what was before a private quest to save the world.

But at the same time without the risk of death there is no tension. How do I handle this?

Erloas
2018-11-26, 01:33 AM
I think the context of the death has a lot to do with how it should be handled. If they're doing something stupid, then you should probably let their actions have their consequences. If they're doing something dangerous but valient, such as holding off something well outside their abilities to save others, it is probably a fitting end. If some random encounter rolls really good on a critical? Well maybe that is a point where you fudge the numbers just enough that they're down but not dead.

Of course if you're at the levels where resurrection is an option, just make sure they've got the ability to.

Mystral
2018-11-26, 02:17 AM
I have a problem where I can't bring myself to murder my PCs if the dice should have caused their deaths.

To a certain degree, it feels more like a punishment for me because what it just means is having to really lower the quality of the world down.

A killed character means replacing them with a fresh less developed character. And the very nature of them showing up in the party is disruptive and kinda immersion breaking to an extent.

The better the roleplayers the players are, the more it punishes them for getting invested in each other and the world.
Got backstory stuff or connections with the players? Gone. Now suddenly some other jerk is either gonna take over like nothing has happened OR just gonna awkwardly sidle in to what was before a private quest to save the world.

But at the same time without the risk of death there is no tension. How do I handle this?

In general, there are a couple of things you can do.

The first thing is to talk with your players. Explain to them that you don't like killing their characters and the reasons for that. Also explain that you still want some tension in the game, and that the players are responsible for their part of providing it. Instead of acting cautious out of fear for their characters, they should act cautious because it is good roleplaying.

The other thing you can do is create tension by different means. Sure, the player characters will generally survive, but that doesn't mean that they always succeed. They might get captured, they might be delayed enough that the villain gains the artifact he's searching for, they might lose friends and allies and they might even be threatened to lose the entire campaign, causing them to stake their lives on a final attempt of thwarting the enemy. And in that final attempt, you can kill them because if they lose, its the end of the campaign anyway.

And in any case, death should still be a possibility for egregiously stupid behaviour. Just make stuff less lethal. Think of introducing death saving throws like in later D&D editions, have instant death effects bring the player characters to -8 instead of killing them outright, something like that.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-11-26, 02:18 AM
Play an RPG where death isn't part of the stakes on the table.

tensai_oni
2018-11-26, 04:56 AM
If you don't feel comfortable killing player characters, don't kill player characters. What you said about punishing roleplayers and lowering the quality of the world all rings very true. Therefore, if you decide that all combat related knockouts that PCs suffer from are nonlethal - that's both your right to do so, and not a bad thing. Nothing wrong with that.

I played many games where player character death was never really on the table: it was a possibility when players do something exceptionally stupid or reckless despite knowing the lethal risk involved, or if it was an earlier agreed upon dramatically appropriate scene, but never due to a bad roll of dice. And guess what? These games didn't feel any cheaper for it.


But at the same time without the risk of death there is no tension. How do I handle this?

That statement is untrue. It's only true if opposing factions (players vs enemies) in an encounter have no goal other than annihilation of the other side. Not being killed and killing the other side is a very basic motivation in a fight so you should start introducing more advanced ones. Protecting an NPC, grabbing a macguffin before the enemies do, stealing treasure. The sky's the limit. Also, if a TPK happens, just have the players be knocked out and taken prisoner, forcing them to gather their bearings and free themselves later. Defeat no longer becomes the end of a campaign, but a start of a new and interesting scenario.

Test Pattern
2018-11-26, 05:58 AM
That statement is untrue. It's only true if opposing factions (players vs enemies) in an encounter have no goal other than annihilation of the other side. Not being killed and killing the other side is a very basic motivation in a fight so you should start introducing more advanced ones. Protecting an NPC, grabbing a macguffin before the enemies do, stealing treasure. The sky's the limit. Also, if a TPK happens, just have the players be knocked out and taken prisoner, forcing them to gather their bearings and free themselves later. Defeat no longer becomes the end of a campaign, but a start of a new and interesting scenario.

Yeah I will say I have done that before. And it works fine. I guess I was self conciouss about it.

Torpin
2018-11-26, 11:47 AM
I have a problem where I can't bring myself to murder my PCs if the dice should have caused their deaths.

To a certain degree, it feels more like a punishment for me because what it just means is having to really lower the quality of the world down.

A killed character means replacing them with a fresh less developed character. And the very nature of them showing up in the party is disruptive and kinda immersion breaking to an extent.

The better the roleplayers the players are, the more it punishes them for getting invested in each other and the world.
Got backstory stuff or connections with the players? Gone. Now suddenly some other jerk is either gonna take over like nothing has happened OR just gonna awkwardly sidle in to what was before a private quest to save the world.

But at the same time without the risk of death there is no tension. How do I handle this?
let players die, death isnt the end. they can be ressurected, or become a ghost and haunt the party for letting them die. Sometimes characters get a string of bad luck and just die. Thats part of the game. Besides there are far worse things than death you could subject a PC to

noob
2018-11-26, 12:49 PM
let players die, death isnt the end. they can be ressurected, or become a ghost and haunt the party for letting them die. Sometimes characters get a string of bad luck and just die. Thats part of the game. Besides there are far worse things than death you could subject a PC to

When a player die it can not come back.
When a player character die it is temporary.
So this is why good gms kills characters rather than players.

LordEntrails
2018-11-26, 02:27 PM
I think your first problem is you thinking when a character dies because of a GMs die roll it is "murder". Murder has very specific connotations and such. A character dying because they engaged in combat and the DM rolled lucky dice is not murder, it is a "fact of life", the fantasy life the character is playing.

If you do not want death to be a possible consequence of a characters actions, then play an RPG that does not have death as a consequence.

Or accept that character death is a possible consequence of the game.

DMThac0
2018-11-26, 02:50 PM
I have a converse problem at my table: I have 2 players who have told me, in no uncertain terms, that they don't mind if their characters were to die.

I heard this and I felt really down for a time, for a rather interesting reason: I felt like I was failing as a DM if my players didn't care about the loss of their character. Death isn't a real threat, my players have only been truly tested a few times, and they are rather creative and resourceful. They know that I have no problem with letting a character's death happen. Yet here I have two of them going "meh, if it happens that sucks, but I'll just roll up something new". It caused me to think a lot.

My answer eventually showed itself as: make the story matter to them, both in character and as a person. I had to talk to both of my players, on multiple occasions, to figure out why they felt that way and what I could do to change it. This insight works for you as well, if you don't want death to be a threat. By tailoring the world, the stories, and the quests in such a way that it touches on their heart strings, morals, beliefs, and personality, then they'll be come invested beyond the HP total in front of them. Look at their back stories, look at their personal views, and look at common drama tropes, stick them into your game and have fun learning how to manipulate the stories to impact your players on a deeper level.

---

You are lucky if your players are invested in their characters to the point that the death of one would be difficult for them to handle.
You are lucky if your players have taken the time to immerse themselves into their characters and your world.
You are not wrong to sympathize/empathize with them over the potential loss of a character.

If you do not want to kill the characters, don't, it's your game, do as you will. Remember though, if the players want death to be a real threat, let it, they're the ones who are playing, you'll have to adjust some of your expectations to meet theirs.

Resileaf
2018-11-26, 03:52 PM
When a player die it can not come back.
When a player character die it is temporary.
So this is why good gms kills characters rather than players.

If you die in the game, you die in real life!!!

Quertus
2018-11-26, 04:35 PM
So, I'm a war gamer. I enjoy war games. And the idea that you're doing something wrong if a playing piece dies in a war game is among the silliest thoughts you can have.

RPG combat is boring by comparison. So I don't play RPGs for the "in-depth", "thrilling" combat. No, I play RPGs for the role-playing.

Does it "hurt the roleplayed" to have their character killed? Well, it's more of a loss than it is for the war gamer, sure - a loss of investment in character and history and connection to the world. But it's also painful for the roleplayers to not have their characters die - it breaks verisimilitude, it creates an incoherent world. There us point in having a character who makes sense in a world that doesn't.

IMO - biased as it is - the value of continuity to a roleplayer is merely impetus for the roleplayers to create characters who will survive. If you want a character who can attack at range, you build a character who can attack range. If you want a character who is curious, you roleplay your character as curious. If you want a character who can maintain continuity, you build and roleplay a character to those desires.

Darth Ultron
2018-11-26, 07:47 PM
First off, I'd recommend a non combat RPG. There is just about zero character death if there is no combat.



Now, really, character death is not that disruptive. Sure, no one wants it to happen...but if you keep the possibility of it happening for real, I find it very much enhances the game.

And right off, I will say character death is not for every player: some simply can not handle it. After even as little as one character death with will become detached and careless: "whoops my character died again for the 11th time this hour, but I don't care!". Though I also recommend you don't play with such a player.

Otherwise character death does enhance the game. Players can learn to be much more careful and play the game in a much more smart fashion. It really cuts down on the casual players that like to goof off and not pay attention. It really cuts down on the players that want to do nothing but combat. It really puts a stop to crazy player greed. And maybe most of all it greatly encourages player cooperation and gets them to work together as a group.

And it's not so disruptive to have a character ''suddenly" join the group. After all, the group should meet people just about all the time.

A player might ''loose" all the old stuff from a dead character, but they can get plenty of new stuff from a new character. For example Dron the Fighter took the job the save the even princess and has some story to the character. Two games later Dron dies fighting a dragon. So the player makes a new character: an elven fighter, sent along with the group to help save the princess...or maybe some other plot. And if you have really good role players, they can build off of anything.

Anonymouswizard
2018-11-26, 11:20 PM
Play an RPG where death isn't part of the stakes on the table.

This is the long and the short of it. There are games like Scum & Villainy, where character death is technically possible but difficult, there are games like Fate where there are consequences for falling in combat bit death isn't recommended, there are games like Eclipse Phase where permanent death is very hard, and there are even games where death isn't even allowed by the rules (I don't really own any of them as they're not my thing).

One of my favourite bits about Savage Worlds is that it has an optional rule for cases like this, called Heroes Never Die. It outright stops PCs from being killed unless it's dramatically appropriate (say saving some hobbits from a bunch of orcs), but as a consequence notes that villains will normally get away to be thwarted by the heroes in a later serial gaming session.

As a general rule, if the PCs can't die there must still be tension. What happens if the PCs all fall in the battle against the vampires? What if Rob Redblade is the last one standing and he flees?

Torpin
2018-11-26, 11:25 PM
When a player die it can not come back.
When a player character die it is temporary.
So this is why good gms kills characters rather than players.

whoopsie daisies

tensai_oni
2018-11-27, 12:20 AM
Otherwise character death does enhance the game. Players can learn to be much more careful and play the game in a much more smart fashion. It really cuts down on the casual players that like to goof off and not pay attention. It really cuts down on the players that want to do nothing but combat. It really puts a stop to crazy player greed. And maybe most of all it greatly encourages player cooperation and gets them to work together as a group.

Okay, let me ask you: what's wrong with casual players who goof off? What's wrong with players who don't want to be careful or play smart, either due to inexperience or because they want something else from a game than a tactical challenge (roleplaying for example)? Do these people deserve to be "cut down" and lose their characters or just not play at all?

From your posts it looks like you have a specific type of a player you really appreciate (a tactical and team-oriented player) but look down on players who do not fit that mold and think they are potential problems that must be taught a lesson or removed from the game. You really should drop this attitude because you come off as extremely self righteous.

RazorChain
2018-11-27, 01:21 AM
Okay, let me ask you: what's wrong with casual players who goof off? What's wrong with players who don't want to be careful or play smart, either due to inexperience or because they want something else from a game than a tactical challenge (roleplaying for example)? Do these people deserve to be "cut down" and lose their characters or just not play at all?

From your posts it looks like you have a specific type of a player you really appreciate (a tactical and team-oriented player) but look down on players who do not fit that mold and think they are potential problems that must be taught a lesson or removed from the game. You really should drop this attitude because you come off as extremely self righteous.


Not to mention if you want to play heroes like Conan. Heroic fiction is not filled with protogonists dragging a 10' pole around or heroes being cautious to start with. Sometimes you play a stupid, naive or overconfident characters and then it handles about player-Gm trust that you can make sub-optimal choices in character.

Altheus
2018-11-27, 06:20 AM
I have a converse problem at my table: I have 2 players who have told me, in no uncertain terms, that they don't mind if their characters were to die.

I heard this and I felt really down for a time, for a rather interesting reason: I felt like I was failing as a DM if my players didn't care about the loss of their character. Death isn't a real threat, my players have only been truly tested a few times, and they are rather creative and resourceful. They know that I have no problem with letting a character's death happen. Yet here I have two of them going "meh, if it happens that sucks, but I'll just roll up something new"..

I think you have this backwards mate, it's not that the players don't care about their characters, they're just asking you to pull no punches and fudge no dice. That way every combat matters, every dice roll has something on the line. They care but they also want to feel that their characters fate is in their hands or nuffle's (god of dice) hands. This does make every combat meaningful and to be considered seriously. A single goblin with a few good rolls can take out a character.

I am a player like this and I like things to involve risk and consequences, rather than a tool for the gm to tell a story with.

Quertus
2018-11-27, 08:12 AM
When a player die it can not come back.
When a player character die it is temporary.
So this is why good gms kills characters rather than players.

You know, I've been trying to imagine the world in which the opposite was true - players are immortal, but PC death is permanent.


Okay, let me ask you: what's wrong with casual players who goof off? What's wrong with players who don't want to be careful or play smart, either due to inexperience or because they want something else from a game than a tactical challenge (roleplaying for example)? Do these people deserve to be "cut down" and lose their characters or just not play at all?

Maybe it's my war gamer background, coupled with a distinct dislike of those who aren't capable of being team players, but... yes?


Not to mention if you want to play heroes like Conan. Heroic fiction is not filled with protogonists dragging a 10' pole around or heroes being cautious to start with. Sometimes you play a stupid, naive or overconfident characters and then it handles about player-Gm trust that you can make sub-optimal choices in character.

Now, that's an interesting take. Even setting aside my general distrust for The Man (behind the GM screen), just how much of a conversation - a Session 0, if you will - do you think should be required for incompetent defenseless characters to survive?

Stelio Kontos
2018-11-27, 10:35 AM
There's a, er, slight difference between "stupid, naive, or overconfident" and "incompetent defenseless characters".

Put a little differently: am I required to build a character without flaws in order to allow it to survive?

Kaptin Keen
2018-11-27, 11:07 AM
I have a problem where I can't bring myself to murder my PCs if the dice should have caused their deaths.

You are under no obligation to kill your PCs. If you figure the game isn't improved by it - if no one's fun is enhanced - then don't.

RazorChain
2018-11-27, 02:39 PM
Now, that's an interesting take. Even setting aside my general distrust for The Man (behind the GM screen), just how much of a conversation - a Session 0, if you will - do you think should be required for incompetent defenseless characters to survive?

In lot of games the focus isn't combat. From my point of view roleplaying is about immersion and experience.....not experience points. You don't even have to overcome challenges or kill anything at all!. So playing a incompetent defenseless character is okey if the game you are playing allows for it.

If you show up with a incompetent defenseless character into a hardcore meatgrinding dungeon crawl then......you'd expect him to die horribly.

Player-GM trust is very important for good storytelling. It allows for in character desicions that are sub optimal and the players can trust that the GM won't kill them outright for it. Sure the GM will screw you over for making bad choices in character and add complications.

It's like some players just don't understand good storytelling.

Player "Yes we always kill the bad guy, else he comes back!".

GM: "If you always kill the bad guy even when he surrenders then you just have to face a new one you effing moron, else there is no game"

Player: "No I play optimally, my character never makes a suboptimal choice or succumbs to temptation, he is a paranoid, hermit that sleeps in his armor ALL THE TIME and never accepts a drink or food from anyone. In fact he has trained himself to never sleep! And never has had a romantic relationship in his life. In fact he has no friends either and if he has to ally with someone he'll never trust them. Did I mention that he goes everywhere with his zwei-hander, even to the duke's teaparty."

GM: "To make drama then you have to expose yourself to it."

Quertus
2018-11-27, 03:54 PM
There's a, er, slight difference between "stupid, naive, or overconfident" and "incompetent defenseless characters".

Put a little differently: am I required to build a character without flaws in order to allow it to survive?

So, my general theory of relativity gaming is, balance to the table, and the module. If the GM has expressed "you must be this tall to enter", and you bring someone too inept to reach that height, you shouldn't be surprised if you die. If you want to survive long, you need to bring someone tall enough in those dimensions.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is tactically inept. With the abilities of a Commoner, he likely wouldn't survive a low-level dungeon. Fortunately, he doesn't just have the abilities of a Commoner - he has the abilities of an epic level Wizard. Defensively, he thinks he's ready for 5d chess; in reality, while he has about 5-10 times the toolset he needs to dominate a Playground-approved game, I have him apply about twice what he needs, chosen at random from that set. When an encounter invariably finds a hole in his defenses, Quertus patches that hole... effectively by choosing as new handful at random. This makes him inept, yet roughly balanced for the tables I've played him at (actually a little weak). Quertus' biggest survival skill is knowing to travel with competent adventurers.

Armus, OTOH, in 3e would have involved my trying to weaken the Commoner class. He runs entirely on (items and) player skill. This made Armus balanced (actually a little on the strong side) for the tables I've played him at.

In short, IMO, if you want to play a character who has a reasonable chance to survive, you need to bring (build, play) a character who brings that chance to the table with them. If your overconfident 1st level character wants to bathe in lava, or your naive character wants to worship the Lady of Pain, what do you want to happen?

My contention is, the correct answer is to bring someone appropriate to what you want to happen. Sure, you can play someone suboptimal - within reason. Just as you can play someone optimal - within reason. See my ramble for just how broad I consider "within reason" to be.

DMThac0
2018-11-27, 04:03 PM
There is a difference between playing to your character and simply making poor choices because you are able to.

Take, for example, the unbalanced weight players tend to put in the +/- to their attributes. A +1 to an attribute is generally seen as "normal" where as a -1 to an attribute makes the character something close to worthless. You give a player a character with +1 to INT and they'll work through encounters, social situations, and complex puzzle/riddle situations the same as any average person. You take that same person and give them a -1 INT and they turn into a drooling pile of muscle that can only swing the pointy stick, insult or act like a 2 year old in front of people, and resolve any "thinking problem" with force. The difference in INT is big, but not so large as to go from the difference of a highschool education to having the mental capabilities of a survivor of massive head trauma.

Another way to look at it is this: If I look at my player and ask him 3 times "Do you really want to jump into that 20' deep pit with rusty spikes at the bottom to grab the golden necklace surrounded by dire rats?" and the player still says "Yea, I have 35 HP and a 15 AC, I'll be fine.", then you better believe I'll let the guy die. However, if you're playing a character that would gladly stand in front of a raging minotaur to save a child, I will not let you die. You probably won't win, but you won't die. There's a difference between playing to your character and playing to your character sheet.

tensai_oni
2018-11-27, 04:53 PM
Maybe it's my war gamer background, coupled with a distinct dislike of those who aren't capable of being team players, but... yes?

I hope you are only talking about how things are being run at your table, as opposed to being judgemental towards a large part of the playerbase just because it wants something else from the game than you do.

I also hope you are making this stance clear when you invite new people, so they can leave before wasting time if their playstyle doesn't mesh with yours. Though in case of really new new people (as in, newbies to roleplaying), I wonder how would they be able to survive anyway, since by definition newbies aren't good at roleplaying-related tactics and you apparently punish this kind of behaviour with deadly force.

RazorChain
2018-11-27, 05:57 PM
So, my general theory of relativity gaming is, balance to the table, and the module. If the GM has expressed "you must be this tall to enter", and you bring someone too inept to reach that height, you shouldn't be surprised if you die. If you want to survive long, you need to bring someone tall enough in those dimensions.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is tactically inept. With the abilities of a Commoner, he likely wouldn't survive a low-level dungeon. Fortunately, he doesn't just have the abilities of a Commoner - he has the abilities of an epic level Wizard. Defensively, he thinks he's ready for 5d chess; in reality, while he has about 5-10 times the toolset he needs to dominate a Playground-approved game, I have him apply about twice what he needs, chosen at random from that set. When an encounter invariably finds a hole in his defenses, Quertus patches that hole... effectively by choosing as new handful at random. This makes him inept, yet roughly balanced for the tables I've played him at (actually a little weak). Quertus' biggest survival skill is knowing to travel with competent adventurers.

Armus, OTOH, in 3e would have involved my trying to weaken the Commoner class. He runs entirely on (items and) player skill. This made Armus balanced (actually a little on the strong side) for the tables I've played him at.

In short, IMO, if you want to play a character who has a reasonable chance to survive, you need to bring (build, play) a character who brings that chance to the table with them. If your overconfident 1st level character wants to bathe in lava, or your naive character wants to worship the Lady of Pain, what do you want to happen?

My contention is, the correct answer is to bring someone appropriate to what you want to happen. Sure, you can play someone suboptimal - within reason. Just as you can play someone optimal - within reason. See my ramble for just how broad I consider "within reason" to be.

You are still thinking of the game in term of a combat obstacle course. Not all games are like that. I might be running a game about choices or drama.

For example.
Your best friend approaches you and asks for help. He killed someone and wants your help to make the body disappear.

Here you have 2 choices, yes or no. Even then if you say no you might go to the police and rat him out.

This is drama. If you say yes then you have to come up with a plan how to get rid of the body. You might argue with your friend wtf was he thinking. You might be taken for interrogation by the police. It might even escalate to a police chase and you trying to leave the country as you get exposed.

If you say no and rat your friend out, he might escape prison hellbent on destroying everything you love in a Cape Fear fashion where you try to defend your family from a deranged killer.

This is drama, what hole you have in your defenses or how tactical you are doesn't matter a lot

Darth Ultron
2018-11-27, 09:41 PM
Okay, let me ask you: what's wrong with casual players who goof off? What's wrong with players who don't want to be careful or play smart, either due to inexperience or because they want something else from a game than a tactical challenge (roleplaying for example)? Do these people deserve to be "cut down" and lose their characters or just not play at all?

From your posts it looks like you have a specific type of a player you really appreciate (a tactical and team-oriented player) but look down on players who do not fit that mold and think they are potential problems that must be taught a lesson or removed from the game. You really should drop this attitude because you come off as extremely self righteous.

There is nothing wrong with it at all. With any social activity, it's best to do it with people that agree with you. And this is even more true for a complex social activity like a RPG.

When I talk about a game, I'm of course, talking about a game I personally run; or has a GM just like me. If your a casual gamer that likes to just hang out and goof off, your not welcome in my game. And really, my list of ''not welcome" people is quite long. I do require a set, very high standard, for players...and really, for people I know in general.

But so what?

If you really love just hanging out and having a casual time goofing off....you are more then free to do so, any time and anywhere you want: except my house.


I hope you are only talking about how things are being run at your table, as opposed to being judgemental towards a large part of the playerbase just because it wants something else from the game than you do.

I also hope you are making this stance clear when you invite new people, so they can leave before wasting time if their playstyle doesn't mesh with yours. Though in case of really new new people (as in, newbies to roleplaying), I wonder how would they be able to survive anyway, since by definition newbies aren't good at roleplaying-related tactics and you apparently punish this kind of behaviour with deadly force.

I'm very honest and open myself. Read a post of mine...well, I'm even more direct in person. My style is pure sink or swim....pushing the baby birds out of the nest while a pack of wolves is on the ground. A crucible to forge new players.

Durandu Ran
2018-11-27, 10:35 PM
Have in an-game high level cleric sell an insurance plan where the PCs get charged a certain amount of gold on a regularly scheduled basis in exchange for a Raise Dead spell whenever they need it. Maybe even offer a premium plan, where they also scry on you and teleport in to raise the dead character right after combat finishes. Rates go up if they die more often.

RazorChain
2018-11-27, 11:19 PM
Have in an-game high level cleric sell an insurance plan where the PCs get charged a certain amount of gold on a regularly scheduled basis in exchange for a Raise Dead spell whenever they need it. Maybe even offer a premium plan, where they also scry on you and teleport in to raise the dead character right after combat finishes. Rates go up if they die more often.


Haha this is hilarous. I had this in my game as well where everyone who was anybody had an insurance. If you had a 25k to blow on insurance you were guaranteed to come back, they'll only need your name. I called the insurance company: Cheers and their slogans were; where everybody knows your name and why shead tears when you can have cheers. Run by the priests of Waukeen.

My players absolutely hated it. The bad guys never stayed dead.

Quertus
2018-11-27, 11:57 PM
I hope you are only talking about how things are being run at your table, as opposed to being judgemental towards a large part of the playerbase just because it wants something else from the game than you do.

I also hope you are making this stance clear when you invite new people, so they can leave before wasting time if their playstyle doesn't mesh with yours. Though in case of really new new people (as in, newbies to roleplaying), I wonder how would they be able to survive anyway, since by definition newbies aren't good at roleplaying-related tactics and you apparently punish this kind of behaviour with deadly force.

"If you want to bring a character who will bathe in lava without any protection, then you should expect that your character will die" seems kinda unnecessary to be said, IMO. Do you disagree?

Honestly, most recent players I've encountered (most players I've encountered recently?) seem all but allergic to a proper session 0. So I've not really had the opportunity to explain but by example lately.


Another way to look at it is this: If I look at my player and ask him 3 times "Do you really want to jump into that 20' deep pit with rusty spikes at the bottom to grab the golden necklace surrounded by dire rats?" and the player still says "Yea, I have 35 HP and a 15 AC, I'll be fine.", then you better believe I'll let the guy die. However, if you're playing a character that would gladly stand in front of a raging minotaur to save a child, I will not let you die. You probably won't win, but you won't die. There's a difference between playing to your character and playing to your character sheet.

That sounds to me like it removes agency from the player who wants their character to die from standing in front of the minotaur. And I've pulled shenanigans to survive almost that exact scenario, so saying that they won't win also removes agency from the player. Seems a lose/lose situation to me.

To the GM: let the dice fall where they may, let the players reap what they sow.

To the player: Bring a combination of statistics and personality that will have the result you desire.

This seems simpler to me than second-guessing the player and the dice to try to fabricate the story that you think that the player wants and deserves.

Why not let their actions dictate what they deserve?


You are still thinking of the game in term of a combat obstacle course.

Curiously, neither bathing in lava, nor worshipping the Lady of Pain, is a combat encounter.

However, as the thread is about "murdering the PCs", one could be excused for making such assumptions in the context of this thread. Happens I didn't, but still, it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Erloas
2018-11-28, 12:09 AM
That sounds to me like it removes agency from the player who wants their character to die from standing in front of the minotaur. And I've pulled shenanigans to survive almost that exact scenario, so saying that they won't win also removes agency from the player. Seems a lose/lose situation to me.
I could be wrong, but I think you're implying something different than what is meant. I think DMThac0 was not saying they would find a way for the character to win, but that if they tried and lost there would be something that keeps them from being dead-dead. They would still be mostly dead, they would ultimately survive somehow though.
I think the idea is also that the player doesn't want the character to die, but that the character is going to do everything they can to save the child.

Darth Ultron
2018-11-28, 12:24 AM
Honestly, most recent players I've encountered (most players I've encountered recently?) seem all but allergic to a proper session 0. So I've not really had the opportunity to explain but by example lately.


I find a lot more players just ignore a session 0. My game style is very clear...and yet players will say ''ok", and then like during the game they are all shocked when their character dies.

I find so many players used to the soft game. So when they have a 1st level halfling bard with a sling....they somehow think they can win any fight. Of course, in the other game, when their character encountered a tough foe....the DM would be like ''oh your sling attack of 3 HITS! And you hit it's special weak spot and do a bonus 100 damage!".

tensai_oni
2018-11-28, 12:33 AM
"If you want to bring a character who will bathe in lava without any protection, then you should expect that your character will die" seems kinda unnecessary to be said, IMO. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree, because I didn't say it. Nor did anyone else in the thread. Do you really equate trying to bathe in lava with trying to save a child from a minotaur, or being an inexperienced player who will make tactical errors due to lack of experience?

Also Ultron, remember to read the Rules of Posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=25&a=1).

Test Pattern
2018-11-28, 12:58 AM
Well I have had 0 issues with killing my players if they did something stupid (usually prefaced with "Are you sure you want to do that?").

I guess in general my PCs don't do stupid things.


So when they have a 1st level halfling bard with a sling....they somehow think they can win any fight.

You know this is bordering on patronizing. Because as a GM you control the level of difficulty ultimatly.

DMThac0
2018-11-28, 01:03 AM
I could be wrong, but I think you're implying something different than what is meant. I think DMThac0 was not saying they would find a way for the character to win, but that if they tried and lost there would be something that keeps them from being dead-dead. They would still be mostly dead, they would ultimately survive somehow though.
I think the idea is also that the player doesn't want the character to die, but that the character is going to do everything they can to save the child.

This. I purposely chose the word "probably" to indicate that there is a chance of success in the minotaur situation. As well that I wouldn't let the player die if that wasn't their intent. I believe there's something in the books that says a player can choose not to be resurrected if/when they are being brought back from the dead.

Ultimately I avoid, as much as possible, anything that removes agency from a player. I'd rather give them the option to change their course of action and warn against bad decisions. However, if a player simply justifies their poor actions based on antagonistic tendencies, the numbers on their character sheet, or just plain disregard to warnings, I'll have no issue watching them die.

RazorChain
2018-11-28, 01:27 AM
Curiously, neither bathing in lava, nor worshipping the Lady of Pain, is a combat encounter.

However, as the thread is about "murdering the PCs", one could be excused for making such assumptions in the context of this thread. Happens I didn't, but still, it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Sorry I should have been clearer, but I was continuing the discussion about incompetent defenseless characters and if you don't play cautiously then your character deserves to die because you played sub optimally. We can always call suicide a sub optimal choice, sticking a knife into your eye would be pretty sub optimal choice. But I agree that you need to tailor your character to your table. IF the game is about optimzing your character and tackling hard combat encounters then that's what the game is about, it's a valid playstyle. Altough it's just one of many.

RazorChain
2018-11-28, 01:36 AM
I find a lot more players just ignore a session 0. My game style is very clear...and yet players will say ''ok", and then like during the game they are all shocked when their character dies.

I find so many players used to the soft game. So when they have a 1st level halfling bard with a sling....they somehow think they can win any fight. Of course, in the other game, when their character encountered a tough foe....the DM would be like ''oh your sling attack of 3 HITS! And you hit it's special weak spot and do a bonus 100 damage!".

Seems like your game is just roll playing grindhouse. My friends and fellow players, who are hardcore method acting roleplayers, would just scoff at your type of game because a sling bullet fired by an expert can travel at a 100 mph and they would aim for the eye. That's one dead minotaur for you, halfling wins in 1 hit. That is a kinetic force akin to the stopping power of a .44 magnum.

Drascin
2018-11-28, 02:03 AM
You know, the OP rings very familiar. Can I tell an anecdote?

I started my career as a fairly lethal GM. Characters died fairly often and from alll sorts of things, from bad rolls to being pushed off a cliff.

At one point, though, during a campaign, I decided to bring back an NPC the players had liked. A noble they had helped once, was going to come in with his retinue and play the "suddenly an old friend comes in with reinforcements and helps the heroes turn things around" bit, which is always fun. And as I was planning it, something kind of struck me.

None of the player characters actually knew this man. Like the Ship of Theseus, all the pieces had been progressively replaced until there was nobody in the party that had actually had a connection to this NPC we all enjoyed a year prior. This made me think. How many other plots and characters had I quietly, thoughtlessly dropped in the past couple years due to the party members who were involved in them just dying a random death at the hands of Random Banshrae #5? How much character development and half-through character relationships that promised to be interesting were cut short because someone botched a save? It turned out to be a lot.

Thinking about this, the way my players had started to be more detached from plots and goofing off and such started to make sense.

So I started trying to play less lethal. And continued to do so, until today. And while I don't play with a bunch of thespians, the level of roleplaying has improved so significantly across all groups that I sure as hell am not going back!

Quertus
2018-11-28, 11:17 AM
(usually prefaced with "Are you sure you want to do that?").


Sorry I should have been clearer, but I was continuing the discussion about incompetent defenseless characters and if you don't play cautiously then your character deserves to die because you played sub optimally. We can always call suicide a sub optimal choice, sticking a knife into your eye would be pretty sub optimal choice. But I agree that you need to tailor your character to your table. IF the game is about optimzing your character and tackling hard combat encounters then that's what the game is about, it's a valid playstyle. Altough it's just one of many.

OK. So, IMO, the easiest way to approach this problem of PC death is to play war games until it sinks in that it's OK to kill stuff. Then structure your games accordingly. But, no, it's not the only way.

If you're playing a realistic game, and a "not Wonder Woman" PC decides to charge through No Man's Land, because they're clueless (or, to address my previous statement, clueless + defenseless; ie, lacking the defenses necessary survive), what are your options? Well, here's a few:

They die. This is the easiest, and "most realistic".

Ya roll tha dice. They probably die, and it's "fair", but it takes more time. And, if they don't die, it's epic.

You decide that the player wants their character learn a lesson, and you give them a non-fatal wound, to help their character growth.

Either narratively or by the dice, one of the PCs or NPCs sees what's happening, and grabs the idiot before they kill themselves. If "by the dice", then this might fail.

You realize that it's the player, not the character, who is clueless, and you ask, "are you sure?" before proceeding with one of the above plans.

Any big ones I've missed?

Because, ultimately, the problem of children sticking their fingers in the electrical outlet exists, whether in combat, or socially, or with mad science, or whatever. You can try to reengineer all modern technology so that electrical outlets are safe, provide certain safety measures (like outlet covers, or watching the child), or you can breed out inquisitiveness through Darwinian methods. These techniques have different costs, different side effects, and different levels of effectiveness.


So I started trying to play less lethal. And continued to do so, until today. And while I don't play with a bunch of thespians, the level of roleplaying has improved so significantly across all groups that I sure as hell am not going back!

I prefer to address this on the player end, making encounters less deadly by allowing the players to tailor their characters (build + personality) to survive.

However, care to give any tips on how to do this on the GM side?

Test Pattern
2018-11-28, 12:39 PM
OK. So, IMO, the easiest way to approach this problem of PC death is to play war games until it sinks in that it's OK to kill stuff. Then structure your games accordingly. But, no, it's not the only way.

Um...Is the reason you think that people dislike character loss is because they never played wargames before? A WAR game is a WAR game. A ROLEPLAYING game is a ROLEPLAYING game.

I play wargames. But thats like trying to make somebody like eating apples by making them eat lots of oranges.


If you're playing a realistic game

That as an adjective is never true. There is only 1 truly "Realistic" reality. And thats ours. It has all the rules, it has all the advanced simulations and everything that happens in it is truly influential and long lasting.

But any other game by its nature, and every other story is not more or less realistic because it all exists outside reality.
"Reality" has plenty of super "Unrealistic" things happen in it. But they still do.
Because even "Realistic" games just follow a random number generator, that will in no way be an accurate measure of reality.

Possibly "Simulationist" might be a better word for this sort of thing, where the idea is to simulate reality as close as possible.

But even then you control the outcomes by setting the stage, and no rules truly cover every situation so the GM fiat will be inevitable with any game with a GM.


Because, ultimately, the problem of children sticking their fingers in the electrical outlet exists, whether in combat, or socially, or with mad science, or whatever. You can try to reengineer all modern technology so that electrical outlets are safe, provide certain safety measures (like outlet covers, or watching the child), or you can breed out inquisitiveness through Darwinian methods. These techniques have different costs, different side effects, and different levels of effectiveness.

You also correlate the nature of "collective resposibility" vs "personal responsibility" with "What people like to play".

Quertus
2018-11-28, 03:40 PM
Um...Is the reason you think that people dislike character loss is because they never played wargames before? A WAR game is a WAR game. A ROLEPLAYING game is a ROLEPLAYING game.

I play wargames. But thats like trying to make somebody like eating apples by making them eat lots of oranges.

Lol. As the patron saint of that distinction, no, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if the OP (you) plays RPGs with a war gamer mindset, and treat RPGs as war games, their (your) problem will be solved.

They (you) might have other problems, but every solution has a cost.

In other words, to get to the useful bits, if you have no problem with killing things off in a war game, why do you have an issue in an RPG? Where do you rebel when I say "play it like a war game"? Focusing on that will help make the "correct" solution more obvious.

From what I've read and remember (darn senility), I'm guessing your answer would involve connections, continuity, and immersion (Punishment, obviously, gets solved through war gaming).

My question is, to what extent can you change the scenario to mitigate these? A party of Faceless / shapeshifters, who send telepathic reports back to a central agency, which replaces lost agents, could work. Resurrection, obviously, allows the roleplayers to maintain continuity.

What else can you do to mitigate these issues?


That as an adjective is never true. There is only 1 truly "Realistic" reality.

Possibly "Simulationist" might be a better word for this sort of thing, where the idea is to simulate reality as close as possible.

Eh, let's just say my quotes around "realistic" got eaten.


But even then you control the outcomes by setting the stage, and no rules truly cover every situation so the GM fiat will be inevitable with any game with a GM.

I'm going to preemptively disagree before a certain sith lord shows up. (Even if this has some value in the general case)


You also correlate the nature of "collective resposibility" vs "personal responsibility" with "What people like to play".

The word "also" implies that there's more...

So, let's make this simple. The group has purchased a module, and one player, now designated the "GM", has agreed to run it.

For the most part, the rules and difficulty of the module have been preset. If it's a WW1 trench warfare setting, and Joe Average soldier decides to charge alone through No Man's Land, or bathe in lava, this has logical consequence, which are probably covered by the rules.

Yes, my contention is that it's best if people run characters who can have the experiences that they want them to have without having to rewrite the rules. That, if you want to roleplay, build connections the world/plot, and have a character who lives, it's best to build a character who is likely to live.

If I want to play a character who will, say, drive a car, I might invest in resources to own a car. Or, I might play a thief who hotwires cars. Or, I might play someone who is a famously skilled driver, even if they're down on their luck, and don't currently own a car.

What I won't do is run Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, who does not own a car, cannot drive a car, generally adventures on world without car-appropriate roads, and wouldn't be put behind the wheel by any sane individual, and then be upset when I don't get what I wanted of having a character who drives.

Yes, I want to play Quertus. Sure, we'll pretend that I want to play "a driver" in this game. Those two are nearly incompatible. Whose responsibility is it to fix that, and how does that interact with the style of game people want?

RazorChain
2018-11-28, 09:55 PM
Um...Is the reason you think that people dislike character loss is because they never played wargames before? A WAR game is a WAR game. A ROLEPLAYING game is a ROLEPLAYING game.

I play wargames. But thats like trying to make somebody like eating apples by making them eat lots of oranges.

Roleplaying games contains many styles and different focuses. You can play a mission style game where the character background never comes into play unless through character portayal. Such a game can absolutely be a meatgrinder. I've played in such a game, it was a black ops campaign where the characters were protecting humanity from all kinds of unknown threats, it was uncommon that everybody survived the mission. The game didn't have a good narrative as mostly it just focused on the mission at hand and in the end there was only one character that survived all the missions.

Of course you get desensitized to character death when you play in such a game but ultimately this is a mindset that usually only follows THAT game and if you partake in another game with a epic story that focuses on your character doesn't mean that you don't care about that character.




That as an adjective is never true. There is only 1 truly "Realistic" reality. And thats ours. It has all the rules, it has all the advanced simulations and everything that happens in it is truly influential and long lasting.

But any other game by its nature, and every other story is not more or less realistic because it all exists outside reality.
"Reality" has plenty of super "Unrealistic" things happen in it. But they still do.
Because even "Realistic" games just follow a random number generator, that will in no way be an accurate measure of reality.

Possibly "Simulationist" might be a better word for this sort of thing, where the idea is to simulate reality as close as possible.

But even then you control the outcomes by setting the stage, and no rules truly cover every situation so the GM fiat will be inevitable with any game with a GM.


You have games that are closer to reality than others, I usually call it realistic expectations within the game. If you shoot an unarmored person in the back with a crossbow your expect that the person gets hurt, even dies. If the game portrays this then it adheres to your realistic expectations. Then you have a 20th lvl fighter that stands there naked and gets shot 20 times in the back with a crossbow and just laughs it off. That usually doesn't adhere to peoples realistic expectations.

This is what most players refer to as realistic, something that is close to their realistic expectations.

Test Pattern
2018-11-28, 10:06 PM
Roleplaying games contains many styles and different focuses.

Right, but its still fundementally a apples and oranges comparison.


You have games that are closer to reality than others, I usually call it realistic expectations within the game.

But those expectations are tampered by differences in opinion.

Darth Ultron
2018-11-28, 10:51 PM
You know this is bordering on patronizing. Because as a GM you control the level of difficulty ultimatly.

Right? But it's not like there is anything wrong with a tough or even unbeatable foe. The good player can understand they don't have to fight every single thing they encounter...and many fights might be too tough for them to just ''attack!".


Seems like your game is just roll playing grindhouse. My friends and fellow players, who are hardcore method acting roleplayers, would just scoff at your type of game because a sling bullet fired by an expert can travel at a 100 mph and they would aim for the eye. That's one dead minotaur for you, halfling wins in 1 hit. That is a kinetic force akin to the stopping power of a .44 magnum.

Well, a Role Playing grindhouse yes. The pure mechanics player won't last long in my game.

RazorChain
2018-11-29, 11:09 PM
Right, but its still fundementally a apples and oranges comparison.

Not really, if you put down a grid map and guide your character/piece through a dungeon with lots of tactical combat encounters is it a wargame/boardgame with roleplaying element or a roleplaying game with wargaming/boardgame element? What Quertus appears to be saying is that you should desensitizing new players to character loss.

I'm on the opposite opinion I want my players to care about their characters and by extension the world and the npcs.




But those expectations are tampered by differences in opinion.

Of course! You and I can be of different opinion what is realistic, though we'll probably agree on a lot of things but might differ on others.

Thundersteel
2018-11-30, 12:51 AM
I made a thread about this a while ago, but my general takes is: establish a narrative where the fail-result of an encounter isn't player death. Maybe failing means someone else dies, or they're publicly humiliated, or they have a near-death experience, or they lose something precious, etc. etc.

The idea that death needs to be on the table in order to have a sense of stakes is, in my experience, a fallacy. I'm playing a game of Masks right now - which has no rules for character death or physical injury whatsoever - and I have never felt higher tension in a game.

If you're playing D&D, I'd highly recommend reading some RPG's other than D&D to get perspective on how other systems handle thorny issues.

Knaight
2018-11-30, 01:43 AM
But at the same time without the risk of death there is no tension. How do I handle this?

Add tension that isn't risk of death. There are entire genres where death is basically never on the table that manage to have dramatic tension just fine, and RPGs can do this as well. There's a lot of good reasons to put death on the table (and a lot of different ways to do it to support these reasons), but a sense of obligation based in worrying there is no tension without it really isn't one of them. That's a problem with no shortage of solutions.

Quertus
2018-11-30, 08:22 AM
Quertus appears to be saying is that you should desensitizing new players to character loss.

I'm on the opposite opinion I want my players to care about their characters and by extension the world and the npcs.

Actually, I was recommending to desensitize the GM, not the players. The OP talks about how he feels he is punishing the players by killing their characters. This is a horrible attitude for a neutral rules arbitrary to take, and leads to all manner of fudging, railroading, etc.

Far better, IMO, for them to approach it with a war gamer mindset, and simply run the game fairly.

That having been said, as others have pointed out, there are other places to fix this problem - perhaps the most obvious being that tension does not require that PC death be on the table. (Which, admittedly, is easier in some systems than others. Resurrection arguably makes D&D such a system.)

Since I trusted others to cover that aspect, I figured I would lay out the path of the road less traveled.

The GM being a neutral rules arbiter, btw, is in no way incompatible with the players caring about their characters, and the world. Note, in point of fact, that I am a player who cares about their characters, and who wants a neutral rules arbiter of a GM who will present a world worth exploring and caring about.

In fact, I find that a world and NPCs aren't worth caring about once a GM's lack of neutrality has been established.

I had a GM who, halfway through the first session, I could accurately predict the plot, down to how many and which PCs would still be conscious (because death wasn't actually on the table, fudge fudge fudge) at the conclusion of the final confrontation with the BBEG, because that was what the GM would consider to make "the best story". Thus, his world and his stories held no value to me. The story I've just told, of how the GM caring about the wrong things impacts the game, however, does have value to me. As did my interactions with the other PCs. But the world and the GM's story was without value, except as a backdrop for those interactions.

That is what I am trying to impress upon the OP (and other readers): the knowledge of the consequences of their actions - knowledge that they might need in order to not ruin stories and NPCs that players might otherwise care about.

RazorChain
2018-12-02, 10:36 PM
Actually, I was recommending to desensitize the GM, not the players. The OP talks about how he feels he is punishing the players by killing their characters. This is a horrible attitude for a neutral rules arbitrary to take, and leads to all manner of fudging, railroading, etc.

Far better, IMO, for them to approach it with a war gamer mindset, and simply run the game fairly.

That having been said, as others have pointed out, there are other places to fix this problem - perhaps the most obvious being that tension does not require that PC death be on the table. (Which, admittedly, is easier in some systems than others. Resurrection arguably makes D&D such a system.)

Since I trusted others to cover that aspect, I figured I would lay out the path of the road less traveled.

In this case we can say that we have 3 types of GMs

The Benign Collaborative GM
The Neutral Arbiter GM
The Antagonistic GM

Not every GM is a Neutral Arbiter or even wants to be one. A lot of GMs care about both their players and their characters, sometimes within the context of the game. They know that TPK means that the game is over in most cases and if the game is character driven then a loss of a character can be hard blow to deal with.

So I don't think GM's want to be desinsitized against PC death. I think the trend today is The Benign Collaborative GM.



The GM being a neutral rules arbiter, btw, is in no way incompatible with the players caring about their characters, and the world. Note, in point of fact, that I am a player who cares about their characters, and who wants a neutral rules arbiter of a GM who will present a world worth exploring and caring about.

In fact, I find that a world and NPCs aren't worth caring about once a GM's lack of neutrality has been established.



I still fail to see how the world and NPC's aren't worth caring about if the GM's lack of neutrality has been established? What if you have The Antagonistic GM, who cut's you no slack and runs you through fiendish dungeons and always has the PC's at disadvantage. Where all the Koblolds are Tucker's Kobolds and all monsters are played with the malignant mind of a master strategist? Is that a world or NPC's you could care about?

Quertus
2018-12-02, 11:56 PM
So I don't think GM's want to be desinsitized against PC death. I think the trend today is The Benign Collaborative GM.

Sounds like a good reason why I'd trust people to cover one solution better than the others, does it not?


I still fail to see how the world and NPC's aren't worth caring about if the GM's lack of neutrality has been established? What if you have The Antagonistic GM, who cut's you no slack and runs you through fiendish dungeons and always has the PC's at disadvantage. Where all the Koblolds are Tucker's Kobolds and all monsters are played with the malignant mind of a master strategist? Is that a world or NPC's you could care about?

Sounds like the antagonistic GM's lack of neutrality has been established. Most players don't care about their characters playing pieces in a sadistic meat grinder. Although they may care about pulling an Old Man Henderson.

Similarly, I've seen firsthand - in numerous groups - the effects when the players realize that the GM is pulling their punches, and their victory is assured. They stop caring about the struggle, because they realize that there isn't one. They stop caring about the world, the NPCs, the story. They probably get to be jaded like me, and just view all that as the backdrop for the only "real" part of the game: interacting with the other PCs.

If the GM is not a neutral rules arbiter, they run the decided risk of their players losing the ability to have any cares to give.

Thrudd
2018-12-03, 03:44 PM
D&D, specifically, is a game where the system is designed with death as the stakes for PCs. You go on adventures, and gain levels if you are smart, skilled, lucky enough to survive the challenges. That's the premise. Not all games are this way. You can house-rule D&D so death isn't what happens, or you can play a game that is designed to provide different sorts of stakes or has more of a cinematic or story-telling focus than D&D. Of course, not all games are well designed or have any clear driving principle behind their design. If what you want is a character-driven story-telling experience, D&D is not a good game to play, out of the box/book.