Makes You Wonder

[Pex]

Silly me. Played a character with living parents. Oh look, the DM had them killed by the BBEG. How original. Should have played an orphan. I was going to be one soon anyway.

:smallsigh:

[JNAProductions]

Silly me. Played a character with living parents. Oh look, the DM had them killed by the BBEG. How original. Should have played an orphan. I was going to be one soon anyway.

:smallsigh:

Need to vent with more details?

And, without having said details, general but useful advice: Talk to the DM about expectations.
If you don't like having characters made into orphans, let them know. If they do it anyway, then that should tell you something important.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Silly me. Played a character with living parents. Oh look, the DM had them killed by the BBEG. How original. Should have played an orphan. I was going to be one soon anyway.

:smallsigh:

That sucks :smallfrown: Nothing like having family members turned into fertilizer for BBEG drama. JNA probably phrased a better response than I could, and I agree with what was written.

Just out of curiosity, is this a pick up group or a game with friends? Also as JNA mentioned, vent away with details if you want!

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Silly me. Played a character with living parents. Oh look, the DM had them killed by the BBEG. How original. Should have played an orphan. I was going to be one soon anyway.

:smallsigh:

Uno reverse card the BBEG and tell them that by the laws of your character's family, they are now your parent. Call them mommy/daddy and ask for your birthday gifts and other weird stuff.

Hello, my name is ____ you killed my parents, you are now my parent, prepare for awkward family dinners.

[clash]

Without knowing the details I consider efforts of integrating the characters backstory into the plot to be good dming. Creates lots of personal plot hooks for your character. Are they driven by vengeance? Is their true goal to find the means to resurrect their parents? It makes them part of the world rather than seen like visitors in it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Silly me. Played a character with living parents. Oh look, the DM had them killed by the BBEG. How original. Should have played an orphan. I was going to be one soon anyway.

:smallsigh:

Yeah, that sucks.

I have an explicit contract with my players that named backstory characters coded as "friendly" won't get killed, kidnapped, or otherwise harmed off-screen without OOC and IC giving the player a chance to intervene. Ones coded as "hostile" (rivals, enemies, etc) don't necessarily have that protection (but usually just wouldn't show up). And if I'm going to "reinterpret" their relationship (enemy repents, friend turns foe), there will either be consultation or foreshadowing/sign-posting. I'm not going to pull the "your lover was really the BBEG all along!" trick without careful and explicit negotiation to get permission to pull the trap card, even if I don't reveal all the details.

I mean...good backstories have clearly-marked plot eyebolts (places to attach plot hooks). But killing off/kidnapping family members to get the hero mad at the villain...just doesn't work in TTRPGs nearly as well as it does in "fixed" fiction like movies and books.

[Rynjin]

Without knowing the details I consider efforts of integrating the characters backstory into the plot to be good dming. Creates lots of personal plot hooks for your character. Are they driven by vengeance? Is their true goal to find the means to resurrect their parents? It makes them part of the world rather than seen like visitors in it.

Killing a PC's parents isn't "integrating them into the plot", it's the opposite. At least when done so summarily near the start of the campaign.

[clash]

Killing a PC's parents isn't "integrating them into the plot", it's the opposite. At least when done so summarily near the start of the campaign.

Without the details all I know is the effort that was put in on the dms part to integrate the characters backstory. Most dms I have played with barely read the backstory and it almost never comes up in play. It was likely not handled well and I would have probably discussed it with the player first or put them in a situation where he could save his parents.

[JonBeowulf]

Maybe the DM needs a few more campaigns under their belt to get better at building drama. Killing the parents is easy, obvious, and often pointless. Killing one parent leaves the other one available for numerous story hooks.

[KorvinStarmast]

Silly me. Played a character with living parents. Oh look, the DM had them killed by the BBEG. How original. Should have played an orphan. I was going to be one soon anyway.

:smallsigh: You have been around this game for a long time.
I don't get the whinging. Really, I don't.
Roll with it and have fun.

When someone gives you lemons, make C4. :smallcool:

[JNAProductions]

You have been around this game for a long time.
I don't get the whinging. Really, I don't.
Roll with it and have fun.

When someone gives you lemons, make C4. :smallcool:

If they're not having fun, why pretend otherwise?

I do think that it's best to discuss the issue(s) with the DM and try to find a compromise and/or solution, but Pex has preferences and wants. They aren't any lesser than their DM's preferences and wants.

[Gurgeh]

I do think that it's best to discuss the issue(s) with the DM and try to find a compromise and/or solution, but Pex has preferences and wants. They aren't any lesser than their DM's preferences and wants.
This. If you're going to call "rocks fall, character you care about dies" on me then at least make it my PC so I can roll a new one better calibrated to your storytelling sensibilities.

[Mastikator]

"Nice try DM but those were my decoy parents!"

[Amnestic]

Dedicate your character to getting adopted by the next NPC you come across. Repeat as necessary.

See how many parents you can get through before the campaign ends.

[Unoriginal]

Without the details all I know is the effort that was put in on the dms part to integrate the characters backstory.

No, it wasn't.

As pointed out earlier, killing [person in PC backstory] is at best removing the backstory from the plot and at worst crossing that part of the backstory to replace it with "actually, the BBEG killed someone you care about".



I do think that it's best to discuss the issue(s) with the DM and try to find a compromise and/or solution, but Pex has preferences and wants. They aren't any lesser than their DM's preferences and wants.

And if the preferences and wants of both aren't compatible, then it is best to stop playing together (at least for that campaign).



Now I'm not saying that anyone the PC likes or know should be invulnerable. But that kind of moment shouldn't be wasted on a character-backstory-redefining background event the PC has no involvement with.

[GloatingSwine]

Without the details all I know is the effort that was put in on the dms part to integrate the characters backstory.

Given how much of an obvious cliche it is, we all know the effort that was put in. Bugger all.

Seriously, killing off a PC's family/friends/other mentioned backstory characters is even lazier than "you all meet at a table in a tavern", at least the latter has the excuse that you all have to start somewhere.

[Batcathat]

Without knowing the details I consider efforts of integrating the characters backstory into the plot to be good dming. Creates lots of personal plot hooks for your character. Are they driven by vengeance? Is their true goal to find the means to resurrect their parents? It makes them part of the world rather than seen like visitors in it.

In principle I agree with this, but as has already been pointed out: having the Big Bad kill a character's loved ones is by far the least original way of integrating the backstory. Like any other cliché, it can be used well, but unless it's strictly necessary it's probably better to avoid it and find some more inventive way of using the backstory.

[JackPhoenix]

Maybe the DM needs a few more campaigns under their belt to get better at building drama. Killing the parents is easy, obvious, and often pointless. Killing one parent leaves the other one available for numerous story hooks.

Like being killed later by a different villain!

[Monster Manuel]

No, it wasn't.

As pointed out earlier, killing [person in PC backstory] is at best removing the backstory from the plot and at worst crossing that part of the backstory to replace it with "actually, the BBEG killed someone you care about".


Agreed. The issue here is that this is not interacting with the backstory as much as it is redefining the backstory. Maybe the player did not have any interest in playing out an angsty "I must avenge my parents" plotline (and, reading between the lines, I get the impression that's the case for Pex in the OP). There were ways to involve the parents in the plot in a way that respected the way the player wanted to play their character. Just killing them off doesn't respect that, it erases it.

I'd be annoyed, too.

*edit* Another thought that occurs to me after I posted; I see far more players with no backstory at all, or at best a very brief one. When a player takes the time to work out a detailed backstory, with interesting plot hooks, having the DM arbitrarily wipe out key elements of that backstory disincentivizes the player from putting in that effort in the future. Done well (i.e. with respect to the story the player wants to be telling), tying the plot into their backstory can really draw them into the game. Done poorly, it has the opposite effect.

[Pex]

No context other than DM fiat. Party has been a pain in the butt to the BBEG, so killing the parents is his revenge. It's so cliche. I've lost count how many of my PCs and other players' PCs have lost family members.

[lall]

Just choose deities for parents.

[Devils_Advocate]

You have been around this game for a long time.
I don't get the whinging. Really, I don't.
Roll with it and have fun.

When someone gives you lemons, make C4. :smallcool:
Yes, why not make derailing the campaign as much as possible your new mission?

Those who have been around the game for a long time know that players do stuff like that. So an experienced Dungeon Master shouldn't whinge about it, and should instead roll with it and have fun, right?

[clash]

No context other than DM fiat. Party has been a pain in the butt to the BBEG, so killing the parents is his revenge. It's so cliche. I've lost count how many of my PCs and other players' PCs have lost family members.

Oh that's a complete waste. If he's going to kill your parents or should be at an epic turning point in the campaign where you're forced to struggle between the decision of the greater good or personal stakes. Or do you try to save both and risk losing it all? That sort of thing. Killing them off screen with fiat just seems pointless.

[Unoriginal]

It also shows the BBEG is a short-sighted fool.

If they had the means to just kill the parents off-screen, why not kidnap them and use them as a mean to pressure the PC?

[Pex]

It was more clever than that. Doppelgangers were involved. It's only a question of whether the doppelgangers were his parents meeting at home a month ago, gameworld time, the ones he sees now upon being captured to trick him, or both. How or why is not the point but that it was done at all. I didn't mind the party gets captured by the BBEG and thrown into the slave dungeon scenario, just that his parents were there also captured, allegedly, and then later killed. I'm playing it off they're the doppelgangers, out of character they're the real ones, but it doesn't really matter. Parents are dead either way.

Sure, it's possible the DM can plausible deniability have the real parents be alive and well all along meeting them later in the campaign, but it's besides the point. Stuff like this is why PCs are orphans with no siblings. Try to have a home life, the DM will ruin it with Campaign Plot. PC backstories appearing in the game is fine. This is not how to do it.

[Composer99]

I vaguely think someone else posted... on this site? - about some pithy terminology that applied to backstory, but which handled this kind of thing.

Essentially, the terminology was used to tell a DM/GM what parts of a player character's backstory are, by your intent, off-limits to threaten (as it were), and what parts are fair game (or even are encouraged to be "targets"). Any amount of backstory, of course, can be integrated into a campaign in a way that doesn't threaten the person or place or thing involved.

If the DM/GM goes ahead and specifically threatens the stuff that's supposed to be off-limits, that's a sign that maybe you have a DM/GM who's being a bit of a jerk. (Obviously, world-ending threats will by definition threaten even the out-of-bounds stuff, but only insofar as they threaten everything, so there isn't the sting of specific targeting that applies when, say, your player character's family is killed "because Plot".)

[KorvinStarmast]

. So an experienced Dungeon Master shouldn't whinge about it, and should instead roll with it and have fun, right? Your words, not mine.

[JonBeowulf]

TBH I don't get the whole "kill the parents" thing. In all my years as DM (longer than some of you have been breathing), I've done it once... as a spur-of-the-moment "hey, this might be cool" thing and it ended up being the high point of the adventure for the player. It's not verboten, but should only be done when it feels right for the story that the players are in and not the story the DM wants to tell. The story that is developing at the table is what matters.

As a player, I'm with Pex. I'd be annoyed and pretty much just be going through the motions for the rest of the campaign. At least until I felt their deaths added something significant to the story... if that ever happens. Even if I trusted the GM, I have a limited tolerance for this kind of thing. BBEGs above tier one should be better than this kind of stuff.

You wanna hurt me? Show me the repercussions of going against you. Raze the village we were using as a safe place. Draw us into three consecutive Deadly Encounters. Destroy something the group cares about. Do something creative, not the boring Disney trope.

[Witty Username]

Why is it the BBEG always killing the parents. Just once I wouldn't mind a BBEG coming to an abrupt end because they picked a fight with a mom they shouldn't have.

[Batcathat]

Why is it the BBEG always killing the parents. Just once I wouldn't mind a BBEG coming to an abrupt end because they picked a fight with a mom they shouldn't have.

Harry Potter's backstory is pretty close to that, I think, though obviously the abrupt end wasn't exactly permanent.

Other than that, I want to say Spider-Man's aunt May defeated one of his villains at some point, though I might be getting it mixed up with Mary-Jane doing it?

[Witty Username]

Harry Potter's backstory is pretty close to that, I think, though obviously the abrupt end wasn't exactly permanent.

Other than that, I want to say Spider-Man's aunt May defeated one of his villains at some point, though I might be getting it mixed up with Mary-Jane doing it?

Hm, you right. I was personally imagining the mom from Erased (Anime, full name, the town where only I don't exist) but that kinda works. You would have to ask Pex if his issue would have been smoothed over if they also found the BBEG dead on the floor next to his dead parents.

For Spiderman, I know that has come up for MJ, but I will assume Aunt May did it just because that is much funnier.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Harry Potter's backstory is pretty close to that, I think, though obviously the abrupt end wasn't exactly permanent.

Other than that, I want to say Spider-Man's aunt May defeated one of his villains at some point, though I might be getting it mixed up with Mary-Jane doing it?

Harry's mom died and Voldemort had to chill out for a while. Not really the same thing. Feel like voldy won that exchange (also she wasn't the actual target).

Aunt May fed Chameleon, disguised as Peter, some (I think it was ) almonds cookies. Peter hates these cookies but Chameleon didn't know that and pretended to love them. She knew it wasn't Peter and made the Chameleon think she fed him arsenic. She could have killed him rather easily. .

Alfred is known for hiding guns all over Wayne Manor and using them when needed. Even says to Batman that Batman won't find them all. I think Alfred took out a villain or two with them at one point. Also, Alfred kicked the hell out of Superman once (plot armor aside that was a win for Alfred I guess).

[Batcathat]

Harry's mom died and Voldemort had to chill out for a while. Not really the same thing. Feel like voldy won that exchange (also she wasn't the actual target).

Fair enough, though it was technically a Big Bad coming to an abrupt end trying to kill someone's mom.


Aunt May fed Chameleon, disguised as Peter, some (I think it was ) almonds cookies.

Oh yeah, that might've been what I was thinking about. Didn't Chameleon also get beaten up by MJ with a baseball bat? When you start regularly getting defeated by the supporting cast, it might be time to leave the villain game. Though I suppose "can look like other people" isn't really much of a combat power.

[Malimar]

As a DM: Why would you make PCs' parents sacrifices for cheap drama, when you could make them the villains? For, like, expensive drama!

I'm running a game where the PCs are all students at an international academy for the best and brightest (ie, mostly children of nobles). Every PC has two alive parents. Some of the parents have been the villains of their own little arcs already (one parent paid a bully to start bullying the PCs' NPC girlfriends*, for petty reasons). Other parents have been variously helpful or antihelpful.

*NPCs the party likes getting bullied = session with the most player buy-in of any session so far, a revelation I have come to call "Every NPC Should Be Miles O'Brien All The Time".

[Witty Username]

Oh yeah, that might've been what I was thinking about. Didn't Chameleon also get beaten up by MJ with a baseball bat? When you start regularly getting defeated by the supporting cast, it might be time to leave the villain game. Though I suppose "can look like other people" isn't really much of a combat power.

As I recall, Mysterio is kinda in the same boat. His powers (well tech, that counts in DC online) are illusions and mundane mind manipulation but is otherwise a normal person. But it goes both ways for him, he has shown up as a threat to a bunch of different Marvel characters because he is about as dangerous to everyone.

I am reminded of a breakdown I was going to put together for categories of Superman villains. But that is drifting into another sketch.

[Blatant Beast]

Yes, why not make derailing the campaign as much as possible your new mission?

Unless one is running a Choo-Choo Train Campaign, Players make choices. If a player wants to go Anakin Skywalker and destroy everything they believed in before, due to an unexpectant event bumming them out...I am game for that as a DM.

My DM mantra to players is: "Surprise me, Be Bold, or Be Calculating, just do not be boring"

Roleplaying Games typically have some improvisational elements baked in. If certain topics are a trigger point that should be brought up in Session Zero, ideally.

[Mastikator]

As a DM: Why would you make PCs' parents sacrifices for cheap drama, when you could make them the villains? For, like, expensive drama!

I'm running a game where the PCs are all students at an international academy for the best and brightest (ie, mostly children of nobles). Every PC has two alive parents. Some of the parents have been the villains of their own little arcs already (one parent paid a bully to start bullying the PCs' NPC girlfriends*, for petty reasons). Other parents have been variously helpful or antihelpful.

*NPCs the party likes getting bullied = session with the most player buy-in of any session so far, a revelation I have come to call "Every NPC Should Be Miles O'Brien All The Time".

Honestly I think the best option (if you're at all going that route) is to kidnap the parents and put a deadline on their lives. That way if the players succeed then they get to have their family/friends back as a little treat.
It also gives more options to the players: delay the BBEG by freeing people.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

As a DM: Why would you make PCs' parents sacrifices for cheap drama, when you could make them the villains? For, like, expensive drama!

I'm running a game where the PCs are all students at an international academy for the best and brightest (ie, mostly children of nobles). Every PC has two alive parents. Some of the parents have been the villains of their own little arcs already (one parent paid a bully to start bullying the PCs' NPC girlfriends*, for petty reasons). Other parents have been variously helpful or antihelpful.

*NPCs the party likes getting bullied = session with the most player buy-in of any session so far, a revelation I have come to call "Every NPC Should Be Miles O'Brien All The Time".

Antagonist/villains who love their children with their whole heart and want what's best for them are some of the best villains

Especially if said antagonist are lawful/chaotic good.

Ugh, there's my mother again, she always interferes with my battles cause she wants me to get "a real job". She was an adventurer back in her day! She should understand but noooo.

Kill stealing from afar and yelling "love you sweetie, if y'all want cookies they're fresh from the oven in this bag of (cookie) holding!"

[KorvinStarmast]

Evil folk do evil stuff.

If one is up against a seriously evil antagonist, and is messing up his/her/its designs and schemes, that evil person will do whatever they deem necessary to stop that. There are a lot of different ways that an evil antagonist will act, and if you look at what a mob or gang boss (not the PG rated versions, the RL stuff that is just horrific) will do to reassert their control/dominance, kidnapping or taking out (or dismembering) the dear ones of upstarts/opponents is to the evil mind a rational way to handle this obstacle to their plans. Granted, sometimes it work and sometimes it just pisses of that obstacle. When life gives you lemons, get out the C4 can be interpreted as "OK, {censored} the gloves are off now" from the PC perspective. A variety of TV shows and movies follow that sort of theme. (Gladiator being but one example).
Blatant Beast offers an interesting perspective on that.
Or, you can do what Pex did and go to the internet and complain about it.

It really depends on the tone of the campaign. Session zero is helpful in establishing that tone, for sure.

[Pex]

As a DM: Why would you make PCs' parents sacrifices for cheap drama, when you could make them the villains? For, like, expensive drama!

I'm running a game where the PCs are all students at an international academy for the best and brightest (ie, mostly children of nobles). Every PC has two alive parents. Some of the parents have been the villains of their own little arcs already (one parent paid a bully to start bullying the PCs' NPC girlfriends*, for petty reasons). Other parents have been variously helpful or antihelpful.

*NPCs the party likes getting bullied = session with the most player buy-in of any session so far, a revelation I have come to call "Every NPC Should Be Miles O'Brien All The Time".

Happened to me in a 3E game a long time ago. Playing a cleric, found evidence father committed treason. My intention was to always play a cleric, but technically this qualified me into Church Inquisitor Prestige Class so I took it. At the time I wasn't bothered by ruin the backstory family for sake of plot, but this was where it started.

[Snowbluff]

You don't have parents because your DM is killing them. I don't have parents because I'm lazy. We are not the same. :smalltongue:


*NPCs the party likes getting bullied = session with the most player buy-in of any session so far, a revelation I have come to call "Every NPC Should Be Miles O'Brien All The Time".

O'brien must suffer though. :smalltongue:

[GloatingSwine]

Harry Potter's backstory is pretty close to that, I think, though obviously the abrupt end wasn't exactly permanent.


Yeah, but Harry Potter is cliche as balls.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Yeah, but Harry Potter is cliche as balls.

He's got Luke Skywalkers origin but with that Anakin edgelordness sprinkled in.

[JackPhoenix]

Why is it the BBEG always killing the parents. Just once I wouldn't mind a BBEG coming to an abrupt end because they picked a fight with a mom they shouldn't have.

In an one-shot, my tiefling cleric used Planar Ally to summon (by DM's decision) his mother (some sort of uber-succubus. It was an one shot, the background wasn't that important) when preparing for a boss fight. She managed to embarass him in front of the group, flirted with the party wizard (who offered to be my cleric's new dad), then turned invisible and snuck away when she saw the boss we were fighting, only appearing after the battle to kidnap the wizard. 10/10, would summon again.

[Schwann145]

As a general idea directed at no one in particular...

If you're so concerned about Backstory NPCs that you insist they be off limits, then you shouldn't be playing D&D, you should be writing fanfiction.

As an additional aside: if you insist something is cliche and therefore bad, then please list some totally original, never-been-written, story/plot hooks to share with the group. I'll be looking forward to reading them but I won't be holding my breath. :smalltongue:

[Blatant Beast]

In an one-shot, my tiefling cleric used Planar Ally to summon (by DM's decision) his mother (some sort of uber-succubus. It was an one shot, the background wasn't that important) when preparing for a boss fight. She managed to embarass him in front of the group, flirted with the party wizard (who offered to be my cleric's new dad), then turned invisible and snuck away when she saw the boss we were fighting, only appearing after the battle to kidnap the wizard. 10/10, would summon again.

Were you controlling the Succubus Parent, or was the DM?

If this event had taken place in a traditional Long Running game, would it have felt differently, to you?

It sounds cool as hell, to me. 😈

[JackPhoenix]

Were you controlling the Succubus Parent, or was the DM?

If this event had taken place in a traditional Long Running game, would it have felt differently, to you?

It sounds cool as hell, to me. 😈

The DM. It was a one-shot about high-level heroes (and villains) allying to stop a greater threat. I had an evil cleric of Asmodeus, and used Planar Ally to ask my boss to send some help, and the contacted entity (i.e. DM) picks who or what to send. Someone (may have been me) joked about calling the tiefling's parents, and the DM ran with that. It ended up a waste of slot (I was hoping for some extra firepower for the fight, obviously), but everyone had a laugh, and it's been definitely more memorable than getting just some random combat-focused devil.
I assume in a long-running campaign, the background would be better explored, so it wouldn't be so random, and of course there would be more ways to use that ability, because it wouldn't be just a series of battles ending with a boss fight.

[Unoriginal]

As a general idea directed at no one in particular...

If you're so concerned about Backstory NPCs that you insist they be off limits, then you shouldn't be playing D&D, you should be writing fanfiction.

As an additional aside: if you insist something is cliche and therefore bad, then please list some totally original, never-been-written, story/plot hooks to share with the group. I'll be looking forward to reading them but I won't be holding my breath. :smalltongue:

Nothing is original.

Or rather, originality is putting old things in new ways.

[Pex]

Sometimes a player would like a nice little downtime activity of homelife that has nothing to do with anything of the main campaign. It's a chance to be wholesome or silly to experience the big tough hero being so humble and ordinary. Soldier or fireman, football player or CEO, when a four-year old hands you the receiver of a toy telephone, you answer it. You're not wanting to see the four-year old's head mounted on a stake.

[lall]

Cup half full, easier to bring them back with a body part. But as a responsible parent, you would have already stashed hair clippings all about.

[Chronos]

Y'know, for most of my characters, their parents haven't even been relevant at all, and several of them, I couldn't even have told you whether they were alive or not. Some of them never even knew their parents. I can only think of three where they were mentioned: My current dwarf paladin was orphaned as an infant, but he would regard the clergy of the temple where he was raised as his parents (though said clergy were never actually named). Before that, I had a ranger who was the scion of a wealthy family, where it was tradition that each generation would go and make their mark on the world in some way, so his parents were at least implied, and at least one of them still alive, but he never had much contact with them. And before that, way back in 3rd edition days, I had a warlock who knew that his mother had a brief fling with a powerful supernatural entity, and that that was the source of his powers, but he mistakenly believed that his father was a fey, when he was actually... some other sort of baddie that I would have let the DM determine, if it had gone long enough to come up. He never met his father, but wrote frequently to his mother.

[Witty Username]

For parents it depends for me,
I have done some edgelords in my time, some burned down home towns and whatnot. I prefer moderation now.
My current preference has tended towards character writing of advanced age (although it hasn't caught up strongly to my current games), which tends to not use parents due to the inevitable march of time.

How this shakes out for current games:
Game 1 (current) - demon cultist bard, family is one brother by statement. Family ties are otherwise indistinct, the character is unhelpfully short sighted and hedonistic so family connections are not a strong prority for him
Game 2 (recently returned to hiatus as the DM finished his existing plans)- first character has parents in my notes but not really relevant, left the game as they were a changling wizard that lost interest in violent conflict. Second character is a crochety old man, human necromancer, family ties are long dead. I may add some notes to flesh out home town residents, that is something of an ongoing process.
Game 3 (was put on hiatus about a year or two ago, will resume when Game 1 falls into Torpor) - Fear me, I am the DM ploting the death of PCs families. While not quite, one character has a proper family, one (well, two but one is more motivated) is founding a Mythos Cult that has gotten to significant size and so is a good mine for NPCs anyway. And a couple more that I am working on player assistance for

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're so concerned about Backstory NPCs that you insist they be off limits, then you shouldn't be playing D&D, you should be writing fanfiction. Have to add a +1 to this. But again, Session Zero.

10/10, would summon again. Sounds like a blast!

Sometimes a player would like a nice little downtime activity of homelife that has nothing to do with anything of the main campaign. It's a chance to be wholesome or silly to experience the big tough hero being so humble and ordinary. Soldier or fireman, football player or CEO, when a four-year old hands you the receiver of a toy telephone, you answer it. You're not wanting to see the four-year old's head mounted on a stake. Session Zero. It's there for a reason.

[Blatant Beast]

Sometimes a player would like a nice little downtime activity of homelife that has nothing to do with anything of the main campaign. It's a chance to be wholesome or silly to experience the big tough hero being so humble and ordinary. Soldier or fireman, football player or CEO, when a four-year old hands you the receiver of a toy telephone, you answer it. You're not wanting to see the four-year old's head mounted on a stake.

I understand how you feel. Of course Bruce Wayne would have preferred his parents not have been murdered, as well.

Acting wise, could you not channel your feelings into the portrayal of the PC?

Your DM likely was not acting out of malice, but trying to give you an opportunity to shine, (misguided as it may have been).

[solidork]

Acting wise, could you not channel your feelings into the portrayal of the PC?

Being annoyed with the GM doesn't seem like it would translate easily to a compelling portrayal of grief. If you're not interested in exploring that, it's not going to be satisfying for anyone. Most games also don't give you the space to take this kind of thing seriously even if you wanted to.

[rel]

There's always the 'PC hates their family, and ran away to be an adventurer' background. For added insurance you can make them unremarkable commoners and have them live somewhere boring on the other side of the setting.

For example when I played Tomb of Annihilation, my wizards parents were alive and well. They owned a small bookshop, and lived somewhere in Amn (over a thousand miles from where the campaign happens on another continent).
They *shockingly* never made an appearance in the game.

[Witty Username]

If you're so concerned about Backstory NPCs that you insist they be off limits, then you shouldn't be playing D&D, you should be writing fanfiction.


I think the counter argument here is if the DM is just going to set everything in my backstory on fire, I can just write my backstory as my home town was set on fire and save my DM time and energy.

I personaly like fast and loose, character death is not a thing I fear, provided the table and I had fun on the Rollercoaster. Backstory elements is kinda the same way, old motivations and goals should give way to new ones.
But that isn't really the norm, people get attached and invested into their characters, and too much stress on what the player likes about the character breaks the fun.

Like say, if to sell how dangerous a BBEG was, you decided he would cut off a PCs hand. You can do that, but is is somewhat customary to give the PC a saving throw or the bad guy to make an attack roll. And the player was wanting a badass with a greatsword, and now they can't use two-handed weapons anymore, how much do they still want to play that character?

NPCs in backstorys can be somewhat viewed the same way, some people are comfortable with pivot from healthy relationship to dead wife revenge quest, others are much less interested in that second one.

[Jerrykhor]

Sometimes giving the DM some 'knives' in your backstory is cool, especially if you trust your DM to spice things up. The old school thinking is to assume the DM is always out to get you, thats why adventurers are usually murderhobos, emphasis on the hobo part because if you dont have a home, the DM can't destroy it. If you dont have relatives or friends, the DM can't kill them.

I had a character whose backstory is to find her long lost brother. After half the campaign i finally found him, only manage to spend 5 min with him before he was kidnapped by some unknown magical force again.

[Amnestic]

I had a character whose backstory is to find her long lost brother. After half the campaign i finally found him, only manage to spend 5 min with him before he was kidnapped by some unknown magical force again.

Should've had him be rescued and re-kidnapped constantly, say every session or three. It quickly turns tragedy into comedy.

[Unoriginal]

I understand how you feel. Of course Bruce Wayne would have preferred his parents not have been murdered, as well.

Bruce Wayne would have preferred his parents had not been murdered, but them getting murdered is part of the backstory the hypothetical "Bruce Wayne's player" would have written for their PC as justification for becoming a bat-themed hero.

It's very different if the player writes that they have two alive parents and became a bat-themed hero without that motivation, then the DM decides that Joe Chill shows up at Wayne Manor to kill the elderly couple anyway.



Acting wise, could you not channel your feelings into the portrayal of the PC?


Out-of-character problems cannot be solved in-character

[GloatingSwine]

Your DM likely was not acting out of malice, but trying to give you an opportunity to shine, (misguided as it may have been).

Do you want murderhobos? This is how you get murderhobos.

If the only thing the player can predict about things they care about in the world is that the sword of damocles hangs above them at all times no matter what, they'll stop caring about things in the world.

[Batcathat]

While I still think that the Big Bad killing a hero's loved ones is deeply uninspired and usually boring, I don't really understand the idea (that at least some people seem to be in favor of, unless I misunderstand) that NPCs like that should be off limits unless otherwise noted.

[Malimar]

While I still think that the Big Bad killing a hero's loved ones is deeply uninspired and usually boring, I don't really understand the idea (that at least some people seem to be in favor of, unless I misunderstand) that NPCs like that should be off limits unless otherwise noted.
NPCs absolutely shouldn't be off-limits. My best recent session in terms of player engagement was one where NPCs (whom the players like) suffered.

You can inflict all sorts of terrible stuff to NPCs that it's not cool to do to PCs. E.g. my PCs are students at a school, so inflicting annoying bullying on them is cruel and unusual and potentially triggering of real-life trauma, but inflicting bullying on their NPC girlfriends (which the PCs then get to be Big Damn Heroes about)? Kosher.

Killing beloved NPCs is, yes, a drastic, uncreative, and cliche step. But imagine your PC gets word from home that your parents are being extorted or threatened -- at least as effective a motivator of PC action and investment. Or one I planned but never got the opportunity to use: PC's father that PC has a strained relationship with is diagnosed with a fatal genetic illness (potentially heritable).

It all boils down to a principle I've come to call "Every NPC Is Miles O'Brien", where any time engagement is flagging you throw an "O'Brien Must Suffer" episode at them. (Named after the writers' habit from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine of writing an "O'Brien Must Suffer" episode at least once a season, because Miles O'Brien was the most likeable everyman in a cast full of alien lizard spies and cops made of goo and goofy capitalist aliens and whatnot.)

[Blatant Beast]

Do you want murderhobos? This is how you get murderhobos.

If the only thing the player can predict about things they care about in the world is that the sword of damocles hangs above them at all times no matter what, they'll stop caring about things in the world.

That depends upon how the player decides to respond, does it not?

A person could decide to instigate a campaign of terror and revenge against the perpetrators.

Another person, might devote themselves finding a way to return their loved ones from the grave, and ensure their safety.

Yet, another person might devote themselves to spreading a gospel of peace, love, and nonviolence so others do not share in their pain.

Bambi’s mother dies, in a film intended for children. Fans of Firefly/Serenity, might hate how Wash died, but damn it made a memorable and emotional moment and made it clear that the stakes were high.

How is a DM supposed to know that one’s fictional parents, (whom one apparently one visits in between Adventures), is an element that a player only wants positive game interactions with, and something that can not be used in the classic trope of the villain goes after Superman’s family and friends, if no conversation has been had?

Seems a clear case, of lack of communication.

I warn players of PCs with the Find Familiar spell, that I have never played with before, that their Familiar will be considered fair game in combat if it makes sense.

[MonochromeTiger]

That depends upon how the player decides to respond, does it not?

A person could decide to instigate a campaign of terror and revenge against the perpetrators.

Another person, might devote themselves finding a way to return their loved ones from the grave, and ensure their safety.

Yet, another person might devote themselves to spreading a gospel of peace, love, and nonviolence so others do not share in their pain.

Bambi’s mother dies, in a film intended for children. Fans of Firefly/Serenity, might hate how Wash died, but damn it made a memorable and emotional moment and made it clear that the stakes were high.

How is a DM supposed to know that one’s fictional parents, (whom one apparently one visits in between Adventures), is an element that a player only wants positive game interactions with, and something that can not be used in the classic trope of the villain goes after Superman’s family and friends, if no conversation has been had?

Seems a clear case, of lack of communication.

I warn players of PCs with the Find Familiar spell, that I have never played with before, that their Familiar will be considered fair game in combat if it makes sense.

Communication is absolutely vital for things like this but so are the how and why of what's being done. A player who isn't informed ahead of time their background characters may be at risk could feel slighted and, because of how big of a cliche it is and how many people find some of those annoying, an opportunity to opt out should be available. "The BBEG killed your parents in revenge" isn't going to resonate with people who are just tired of seeing the same trope driven into the ground, which is part of why so many people just go "well my character is an orphan with no close friends before the party" because what's the point if they're just going to lose that backstory family anyway.

The event also has to make sense and have some actual weight behind it for it to be anything more than forced drama. If a player puts a family history in their background and the family only ever shows up just to be found dead in some off screen revenge that's not going to have any emotional weight other than annoyance that you tossed the backstory in the trash for a late stage edgy protagonist motivation. If the characters aren't built up then their loss means nothing and the DM is just putting all the work on the player to grieve or rage in character over something that is completely irrelevant out of character.

Adding to that the BBEG needs an actual reason to know where all your loved ones are for this kind of thing, and an actual reason to even know who they are or if you even care about them. If it just goes from "you beat their lieutenant" to "they teleport halfway around the world to the hidden sanctum of totally-invisible-land to slaughter your parents who have been living there under a false name just in time for you to find out where they are and visit them" that's not a good story element it's just the BBEG reading the script and acting on information they shouldn't have.

For any of this to be relevant at all you need player buy in. For player buy in you need to actually make sure they're open to the idea and that it's done in a way they'll accept. If the player actually wants engagement then there's a decent chance all you're accomplishing by killing off their family offscreen is saying "engagement is too difficult, I'm managing too many characters as is and your backstory ones didn't make the cut for continued effort." If the player is just tired of the cliches and tropes then all you're doing is kicking a dead horse and hoping they go along with it. If they don't even care about their backstory then you're just doing it for your own sake because you're the only one that will even bother to care about the results.

On the other hand keeping them alive and making them relevant takes effort. It means actually trying to portray extra characters and do things with them when they likely aren't a part of the actual adventure. Despite the work involved if you do it well you've got more emotional elements in the game than if it was just straightforward action and tension, some room for characters to wind down and relax to break up the constant deadly fighting and a sense that there's something to go back to when the big threat is dealt with. Taking that away by killing the characters off is the easy way out, it's cheap drama that reduces potential characters to just being a motive to hate someone the players and characters should already have plenty of reason to hate. It closes more doors than it opens and the way it does so can easily go past making players invested and loop around to "alright none of that mattered why should I care then?"

I say all this having seen it done well and badly in different instances. In a best case scenario killing off a character's family ends in them swearing vengeance or going on some journey to regain what they lost; in one case I saw it even resulted in the character (and their player) becoming much more focused on saving the BBEG because they were another family member under the influence of a sentient artifact and forced to kill their own family by it. Worst case scenario you just get a player upset that they put in any effort just to have it thrown out, completely uncaring to your "dramatic moment", or just frustrated that you couldn't think of anything more interesting. The middleground ranges from just accepting your attempt at drama and moving on to trying to turn it around on you because they aren't playing for the drama.

[Batcathat]

Communication is absolutely vital for things like this but so are the how and why of what's being done. A player who isn't informed ahead of time their background characters may be at risk could feel slighted and, because of how big of a cliche it is and how many people find some of those annoying, an opportunity to opt out should be available. "The BBEG killed your parents in revenge" isn't going to resonate with people who are just tired of seeing the same trope driven into the ground, which is part of why so many people just go "well my character is an orphan with no close friends before the party" because what's the point if they're just going to lose that backstory family anyway.

If I may play devil's advocate a little... why would using this particular worn-out cliché come with an opportunity to opt out? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind the option to stop GMs from using ideas that (in my opinion) has been done to death, but that seems unlikely to work in practice.

[Rynjin]

If I may play devil's advocate a little... why would using this particular worn-out cliché come with an opportunity to opt out? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind the option to stop GMs from using ideas that (in my opinion) has been done to death, but that seems unlikely to work in practice.

Anything involving fundamentally changing a character's story/backstory SHOULD be opt-in/opt-out. If the character's story is "I am an adventurer with two alive parents who always sense money home and goes to visit them regularly" and the GM says "Nuh-uh you're an adventurer with two dead parents, now be sad and angsty" that's never going to go over well.

[MonochromeTiger]

If I may play devil's advocate a little... why would using this particular worn-out cliché come with an opportunity to opt out? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind the option to stop GMs from using ideas that (in my opinion) has been done to death, but that seems unlikely to work in practice.

Why shouldn't it? It's little more than the DM trying to get a specific response from players and using it has a decent chance of backfiring. If that can be defrayed with something as simple as the DM saying "are you aware this can happen and open to the possibility if I deem it appropriate" it spares everyone from an annoying experience and the DM from wasting effort only to receive whatever non-response or backlash the players have for an unwelcome and overdone trick.

I'm not saying the DM needs to double check for permission before touching anything the players included in their backstory, but the players are as much a part of deciding the story of the game as the DM is. If they made a backstory and were hoping to get something from it and the DM arbitrarily decides they want something completely different without even clearing it that's going to end in conflict. Avoiding that conflict takes almost nothing, a simple discussion at the start of the game, session zero, clarifying what everyone is comfortable and interested in having in the game and in their characters' own stories should the DM choose to elaborate on them. That session zero talk isn't just for the big things like disclosing phobias or personal experiences that need to be avoided, it's also for making clear what will just leave people annoyed or disappointed so it doesn't cause problems or lead to time being wasted planning something just for the player it's aimed at losing engagement.

[Batcathat]

Anything involving fundamentally changing a character's story/backstory SHOULD be opt-in/opt-out. If the character's story is "I am an adventurer with two alive parents who always sense money home and goes to visit them regularly" and the GM says "Nuh-uh you're an adventurer with two dead parents, now be sad and angsty" that's never going to go over well.

That is certainly one way of looking at it, but it's not the only one. Personally, I think that one of the interesting aspects of playing a game is that some things are not going to go the way I imagine them going, whether for the better or for the worse.

And again, I agree that most versions of the Big Bad killing the hero's parents are probably boring cliches that should be avoided for that reason, but if the GM had some cool creative idea for it, I wouldn't mind them doing it, whether they're a big part of my character's life or just names in a backstory.

That said, since it's clear everyone doesn't agree I admit it probably would be a good idea to discuss if backstory NPCs are fair game ahead of time. Though I would prefer to only discuss it in general terms, if the GM asked me "Hey, is it cool if I kill your parents next session?" I would probably be annoyed at having it spoiled for me.

[Rynjin]

That is certainly one way of looking at it, but it's not the only one. Personally, I think that one of the interesting aspects of playing a game is that some things are not going to go the way I imagine them going, whether for the better or for the worse.

This mindset fundamentally defeats the purpose of any expectation-setting exercise at all. I would be just as annoyed if the GM pitched a campaign around a small fishing village and our heroes' local adventures and then swapped 5 minutes in to a plot where we're captured by slavers and sent to another continent.

It just smacks of a simple lack of respect. If a player writes something in their backstory, you must presume it is there for a REASON. Overwriting that or making it irrelevant at the first opportunity is simply arrogance. "My plot is better/more important than anything you can think of".

[Schwann145]

Anything involving fundamentally changing a character's story/backstory SHOULD be opt-in/opt-out. If the character's story is "I am an adventurer with two alive parents who always sense money home and goes to visit them regularly" and the GM says "Nuh-uh you're an adventurer with two dead parents, now be sad and angsty" that's never going to go over well.

If you're going around making powerful enemies of evil, and not keeping your identity secret, then it sounds like you get what you paid for.


"My plot is better/more important than anything you can think of".

This goes both ways, though. Players need to be open to the concept that the DM is the narrator and not everything they create for the world will be safe simply because they want it to.
That makes for very boring storytelling!

If the players want narrative control, the DM seat always needs more butts filling it.

[Batcathat]

It just smacks of a simple lack of respect. If a player writes something in their backstory, you must presume it is there for a REASON. Overwriting that or making it irrelevant at the first opportunity is simply arrogance. "My plot is better/more important than anything you can think of".

That basically sounds the like player equivalent of a railroading GM. If a person, whether player or GM, wants to be in complete control of what happens, they should write a story, not play a game with other people.

And yes, of course a GM can handle something like that poorly, but that's true of basically anything.

[Blatant Beast]

The event also has to make sense and have some actual weight behind it for it to be anything more than forced drama. If a player puts a family history in their background and the family only ever shows up just to be found dead in some off screen revenge that's not going to have any emotional weight other than annoyance that you tossed the backstory in the trash for a late stage edgy protagonist motivation. If the characters aren't built up then their loss means nothing and the DM is just putting all the work on the player to grieve or rage in character over something that is completely irrelevant out of character.


I agree with this, (and most of your post). I want to point out that stating the DM likely acted without malice is not endorsing their decisions or actions.

The DM in question made a hamfisted play, and instead of increasing player engagement, the DM, (likely unintentionally), instead increased player dissatisfaction. It sounds like, the BBEG might have only targeted Pex’s family, (I hope that is not the case), which if true, is a really egregious case of not thinking the consequences and appearance through, on the part of the DM in question.

The film noir trope of someone, seriously wounded and in the process of dying, bring a note, or a warning: “Xyklon is coming for your parents!”, and then Dying is a classic.

It serves to build tension, spark player actions and plans, and of course let’s the players make decisions that shape the outcome, instead of finding a plot hammer fait accompli waiting for a PC.

[Rynjin]

If you're going around making powerful enemies of evil, and not keeping your identity secret, then it sounds like you get what you paid for.

If you're pulling tired plot points from the 1960s to create artificial drama nobody wanted or asked for in your story, I dunno what to tell ya.

I really don't get why there is so much attachment to this idea. It's played out. Done. Stomped into the dirt. Beaten with a dead horse until both have been resurrected and killed again so many times neither remembers they were ever a horse at all.

"Lol the bad guy killed your parents, be sad" is too lpazy and trite to be shocking, or dramatic, or sad, it's just tiresome.


This goes both ways, though. Players need to be open to the concept that the DM is the narrator and not everything they create for the world will be safe simply because they want it to.
That makes for very boring storytelling!

If you're concerned about boring storytelling, try to tell an interesting story, not whatever crusty ass one you pulled from old Spider-man comics.

[Pex]

I agree with this, (and most of your post). I want to point out that stating the DM likely acted without malice is not endorsing their decisions or actions.

The DM in question made a hamfisted play, and instead of increasing player engagement, the DM, (likely unintentionally), instead increased player dissatisfaction. It sounds like, the BBEG might have only targeted Pex’s family, (I hope that is not the case), which if true, is a really egregious case of not thinking the consequences and appearance through, on the part of the DM in question.

The film noir trope of someone, seriously wounded and in the process of dying, bring a note, or a warning: “Xyklon is coming for your parents!”, and then Dying is a classic.

It serves to build tension, spark player actions and plans, and of course let’s the players make decisions that shape the outcome, instead of finding a plot hammer fait accompli waiting for a PC.

As far as I know my PC is the only one to have had a family to be messed with. While not a novice player he is a novice DM. This was not a game breaker for me, just a personal eye roll it happened to me again. Not specifically parents, any family member or otherwise close NPC I care about. I've had family wiped out, baby child kidnapped, best friend killed, girlfriend kidnapped, father is treasonous. You'd think I would learn by now all my PCs need to be orphans with no siblings. I get it that backstories coming into play is generally considered a cool thing to help engage players into the game, but why does it almost always have to be someone I care about is killed?

[Schwann145]

If you're pulling tired plot points from the 1960s to create artificial drama nobody wanted or asked for in your story, I dunno what to tell ya.

I really don't get why there is so much attachment to this idea. It's played out. Done. Stomped into the dirt. Beaten with a dead horse until both have been resurrected and killed again so many times neither remembers they were ever a horse at all.

"Lol the bad guy killed your parents, be sad" is too lpazy and trite to be shocking, or dramatic, or sad, it's just tiresome.



If you're concerned about boring storytelling, try to tell an interesting story, not whatever crusty ass one you pulled from old Spider-man comics.

As already alluded to, every story has already been told before.
What should villains who want to hurt you be doing that isn't going to qualify as, "trite," "lazy," "tiresome," "cliche," "stereotypical," or any number of other disparaging terms you can think of?

Any answer you give can just as easily be treated with the, "omg, so unoriginal, stop beating the dead horse already!" answer.

[Rynjin]

As already alluded to, every story has already been told before.
What should villains who want to hurt you be doing that isn't going to qualify as, "trite," "lazy," "tiresome," "cliche," "stereotypical," or any number of other disparaging terms you can think of?

Any answer you give can just as easily be treated with the, "omg, so unoriginal, stop beating the dead horse already!" answer.

Sure you COULD do that, but that would miss the point.

Nothing else I could throw out could ever come close to matching the sheer cultural weight of the "dead parents" cliche. Because it's been a millstone around this game's neck for decades.

It is the quintessential bad DM move, and it left such a cultural mark on the game's landscape that the orphaned murderhobo has become an even bigger mocked cliche.

Bad DMs murdering PC parents for no purpose other than shock value has actively made RPGs worse.

And more to the point, killing a loved one outright is simply an uninteresting plot point, and IS so cliche because it forces a binary narrative state. The player either accepts the death and moves on, or swears revenge. There are really only two possible plots that can come from this. This is very basic storytelling: killing a character ENDS stories, not begins them. And that is why it should be done as a narrative PAYOFF not a narrative KICKOFF unless you're trying to tell a very specific story.

And if you're trying to use it to kickoff a specific story...in a collaborative storytelling medium you need buy-in from the other people engaging in the narrative.

Literally anything else you can do invites other plot points, even if they are equally cliche. Kidnapping the parents, mind controlling the parents, having the parents get tangentially sucked into a plot of the bad guy, leaving the parents completely uninvolved form the plot but needing aid against something else...these are things the player can actively participate in.

Killing the parents is a lazy plot point because it signals that you as a storyteller are simply not interested in those characters and wish not to put in the effort to actually tell a story with them. Because their story ends at death.

[Amnestic]

Why doesn't the BBEG simply seduce the PC's parents into a polyamorous throuple and recruit them to his side? Can the PC fight against their own parents? And how will they deal with having a new, third, parent?

[Batcathat]

Why doesn't the BBEG simply seduce the PC's parents into a polyamorous throuple and recruit them to his side? Can the PC fight against their own parents? And how will they deal with having a new, third, parent?

That awkward feeling when you have to have Sunday dinner with the guy who pillaged your home village, killed your best friend and has your love interest locked up in a tower.

[Mastikator]

Why doesn't the BBEG simply seduce the PC's parents into a polyamorous throuple and recruit them to his side? Can the PC fight against their own parents? And how will they deal with having a new, third, parent?

BBEG will create the most awkward thanksgiving in all of history.

[tokek]

Silly me. Played a character with living parents. Oh look, the DM had them killed by the BBEG. How original. Should have played an orphan. I was going to be one soon anyway.

:smallsigh:

Such a waste of possible character hooks.

This is why I have adopted my new "My mom is my warlock patron" approach. Typically using a previous character who retired because high level D&D is sorta silly.

Its actually fun trying to weave these different campaigns together in backstory.

[Pex]

Currently playing in another campaign. My character has parents and an older brother. They have made appearances. So far the only ominous thing has been my character overhearing his father talking to someone that sounded suspiciously related to Campaign Plot. I'm ok with that so far. There's some intrigue here as part of a Noble family. Having left home city family is now not on camera anywhere in what we're doing. Part of me is concerned I will learn Mother or Brother is killed as punishment to Father because of my actions being a member of the party doing what we're supposed to be doing saving the world, even if reluctantly by some members. Pure paranoia on my part. No indication whatsoever the DM will/would do this or even thinking of this. It's only past experience with other DMs that this is a likely outcome because of course it would happen. Time will tell if self-fulfilled prophecy comes to fruition.

[Witty Username]

You can inflict all sorts of terrible stuff to NPCs that it's not cool to do to PCs. E.g. my PCs are students at a school, so inflicting annoying bullying on them is cruel and unusual and potentially triggering of real-life trauma, but inflicting bullying on their NPC girlfriends (which the PCs then get to be Big Damn Heroes about)? Kosher.


I have been exposed to this idea a bit, but I have never quite understood it. Now I previously mentioned I may be a bit odd, but I see the harm inflicted on PCs to be more about implementation rather than yes-no's. I have seen PCs lose limbs, get kidnapped, die in all manner of ways, and all sorts of dreadful things. And both the table, and the player the dreadful things happened to had a lot of fun.

Take for example one of the more common things warned against, kidnapping a single PC. Many recommend to avoid this, for good reasons, but I have had this happen a few times in games, and well, it worked out to be real fun. The one that is freshest on the brain, we had a party rogue get paralyzed, kidnapped and had been spirited into our next dungeon to raid. It went great, we had a tense run through a dungeon with uncertain stakes and consequences for our actions. Did the rogue get mad, well a little, they were kidnapped because the party left them unattended for several hours while they were paralyzed, hence the kidnapping. But other than that, they got to play another character for the couple sessions of dungeon crawl (an emo bard NPC that the DM intended to be a one off gag, but ended up getting an extended stay as a short term PC. It went great.

NPCs are not sacrosanct, but neither are PCs.

Heck a thought problem I was thinking of, going after family is a natural consequence of BBEG behavior. What if the PC is the 'Family'?
Say your PC has parents in their backstory and traits, those parents also have connections to other people, good and bad.
If one of those connections is a Big Bad, then the PC is a potential target.

would having a PC killed off or attacked in this manner be similarly cheap drama, or fair game? What are the mechanics in play that make this different than an NPC in a similar situation?

[Unoriginal]

I have been exposed to this idea a bit, but I have never quite understood it. Now I previously mentioned I may be a bit odd, but I see the harm inflicted on PCs to be more about implementation rather than yes-no's. I have seen PCs lose limbs, get kidnapped, die in all manner of ways, and all sorts of dreadful things. And both the table, and the player the dreadful things happened to had a lot of fun.

Take for example one of the more common things warned against, kidnapping a single PC. Many recommend to avoid this, for good reasons, but I have had this happen a few times in games, and well, it worked out to be real fun. The one that is freshest on the brain, we had a party rogue get paralyzed, kidnapped and had been spirited into our next dungeon to raid. It went great, we had a tense run through a dungeon with uncertain stakes and consequences for our actions. Did the rogue get mad, well a little, they were kidnapped because the party left them unattended for several hours while they were paralyzed, hence the kidnapping. But other than that, they got to play another character for the couple sessions of dungeon crawl (an emo bard NPC that the DM intended to be a one off gag, but ended up getting an extended stay as a short term PC. It went great.

NPCs are not sacrosanct, but neither are PCs.

Heck a thought problem I was thinking of, going after family is a natural consequence of BBEG behavior. What if the PC is the 'Family'?
Say your PC has parents in their backstory and traits, those parents also have connections to other people, good and bad.
If one of those connections is a Big Bad, then the PC is a potential target.

would having a PC killed off or attacked in this manner be similarly cheap drama, or fair game? What are the mechanics in play that make this different than an NPC in a similar situation?

There is a big difference between "happens on-screen and the PCs can try doing something about it" and "happens off-screen and PCs just have to handle the consequences".

A NPC being killed off-screen can be a good dramatic moment or a cringe-inducing one. It's normal that *sometime* people the PCs care about suffer or are in need of rescue.

The PC of an active, still-playing player being killed off-screen, without the player's direct approval, is oxen manure.

[Blatant Beast]

As far as I know my PC is the only one to have had a family to be messed with. While not a novice player he is a novice DM.

That makes sense. I have certainly made the same blunder myself, and thankfully like yourself, Pex, my friends were tolerant of my missteps.

Positive DM intrusions, have very poor modeling in Modules and products.
Clearly, your fictional family, had some emotional appeal to you and this thread would be so different, if instead of murder, you found a care package of your favorite foods from your parents delivered to your Inn room.

[Pex]

Just learned, out of character, another PC's father may be in this slave prison the party is currently in as 'guests'. Don't know yet if he is another prisoner or staff. As for me I'm earning fame fighting in the Pit. Paladin of Glory; it's what I do. The party was glorified railroaded into the scenario. For an odd reason this doesn't bother me this time, though I'm pretty sure I'm not getting my stuff back. However, that's a different topic. Just pointing out I've moved on from this.

[Unoriginal]

As for me I'm earning fame fighting in the Pit. Paladin of Glory; it's what I do.

So like, your PC is being forced to kill other slaves/prisoners?

[Pex]

So like, your PC is being forced to kill other slaves/prisoners?

No, fighting monsters so far, though I think I did kill one staff to start off. First day I only had a weapon. Second day I was allowed some armor as well. As a paladin not having my divine focus limited the spells I could use, but it was cool for the first time ever I cast Magic Weapon. Never thought I would want to cast that spell.

The DM didn't originally intend for me to be fighting in the Pit, but I was defiant in capture (and sure, I'll accept stupid too), so I was punished. The rest of the party was given servant tasks. I think having to fight in the Pit is what makes me less bothered by the scenario. As a Paladin of Glory it fits his mojo more than just being a servant or doing labor. The gladiator arena is not just for barbarians.

[Unoriginal]

No, fighting monsters so far, though I think I did kill one staff to start off. First day I only had a weapon. Second day I was allowed some armor as well. As a paladin not having my divine focus limited the spells I could use, but it was cool for the first time ever I cast Magic Weapon. Never thought I would want to cast that spell.

The DM didn't originally intend for me to be fighting in the Pit, but I was defiant in capture (and sure, I'll accept stupid too), so I was punished. The rest of the party was given servant tasks. I think having to fight in the Pit is what makes me less bothered by the scenario. As a Paladin of Glory it fits his mojo more than just being a servant or doing labor. The gladiator arena is not just for barbarians.

Sounds pretty awesome.

Your DM seems to have a railroading problem, but at least you managed to turn a bad hand into a royal flush.

Plus gladiatorial arenas tend to have a lot of beings who know how to fight, with at lesst some of them having problems with the status quo. Plenty of opportunities and angles to work on, if one wishes.