Killing PCs

[Tekren]

Starting off, I'm not a fan of killing players, but i recognize that without risks no game is fun.

I have had players die from bad decisions. I felt sad that the character had died, but not really, as the character had been outsmarted by superior tactics.

ex: the monk going in alone vs. giants at level 7.

What concerns me is when I overestimate the capabilities of the party, or when there is just some seriously bad luck.

ex: An orc getting a critical hit with a greataxe at level one dealing 25 points of damage to the fighter.

I have no problems with killing stupid/unwise PCs, but I feel bad about killing unlucky PCs / designing an encounter that just assumes too much. Thoughts?

[LOTRfan]

Starting off, I'm not a fan of killing players, but i recognize that without risks no game is fun.

I have had players die from bad decisions. I felt sad that the character had died, but not really, as the character had been outsmarted by superior tactics.

ex: the monk going in alone vs. giants at level 7.

What concerns me is when I overestimate the capabilities of the party, or when there is just some seriously bad luck.

ex: An orc getting a critical hit with a greataxe at level one dealing 25 points of damage to the fighter.

I have no problems with killing stupid/unwise PCs, but I feel bad about killing unlucky PCs / designing an encounter that just assumes too much. Thoughts?

I agree. When it is pure chance, I may just knock 'em into the really low negatives instead of outright killing them, usually -5 to -7. I forget which weapon it was, but there is a core weapon that, when used by the orc in the Monster Manual, is an insta-kill on a critical hit for everything but high Con fighters and barbarians.

[Dumbledore lives]

Yeah, that's just the way level one is, one hit kills on crits are not uncommon at any of the low levels. This is where DM intervention can help, in that you can decide it only brought them down to -8 or -9, because sometimes a PC should not die to random crit from an orc.

I guess it depends on the type of game you're running, I know some prefer that type of play, but I personally will try not to kill due to bad luck, but am fairly merciless when a bad decision will kill the player, especially if I already said "are you sure".

[Zansumkai]

Well I think the orc example slowly weeds itself out as the levels go on, with the PCs becoming gradually less and less likely to have a single bout of bad luck kill them. I mean, this may just be me, but I don't get too heartbroken over a first or second level PC biting the dust, on either side of the screen.

On the other hand, a encounter that doesn't turn out the way you planed and is proving too much for them can still be salvageable on the fly. Work up a reason why the enemies might capture instead of kill the group, insert a little aid for the party, or failing that start dropping the hint that it's time to turn tail. With any luck, they'll get the message.

[Gamer Girl]

I love the random chance myself. And so do most of the people I game with. It's that random chance that makes the game fun. Too many games and activities are just to safe and boring. You know nothing bad will happen, and it makes everything so dull(On my nephews football team, both teams get the points when either team scores..so all games are ties and 'everybody wins')

Anything Can Happen

And it will....I've seen tons of random stuff happen.


Everyone in my group remembers Driftwood the fighter....who only needed five xp to level. So while the group rested, he started shaking trees looking for something to kill. And he found a stirge. He attempted to attack, rolling five 'ones' in a row. Meanwhile the strige got a 19 or 20 each time..needless to say a couple rounds later Driftwood was dead. Everyone was quite stunned.


The threat of death brings a lot to the game. My players have to be careful. I've seen way too many games where the DM lets the players be immortal, and that just spoils the fun.

[olelia]

Generally in those circumstances I simply say you drop to -9. Insta kill? No. Soon to be? Yes.

[DwarfFighter]

If you don't intend to kill PCs due to bad luck, then a simple house rule allows you to handle the situation: If a PC is killed then the player can chose to be KO'd instead.

However, defeat should have its consequences. A KO'd character is effectively out of the game for the rest of the encounter but wakes up at 1 hp, Con or in what-ever condition that is appropriate for the way he was KO'd. The only caveats is that the players must come up with an adequate reason for how the character could survive.

Of course, if the entire party is KO'd then their enemies may do with them as they please. At the very least the enemies will leave them and move on, perhaps rob them. Or the PCs could be taken prisoners and awaken in a dungeon. Or anything, really.

I've suggested the rule for my players, but I was voted down. They want it "hard-core" because then the encounters with "2d4 Orcs" involves a meaningful risk.

[Morghen]

I'm with GamerGirl.

1. Random death is necessary. "Oh, this is a random encounter? Cool, nobody's going to die even if we catch a crit."
2. IF the GM has over-estimated the PCs abilities (or under-estimated the strength of the bad guys), AND there is no avenue for escape, THEN the GM can tone down the encounter.

I play in a high-level game and the GM hasn't killed anybody in a LONG time. Why?

BECAUSE WE RUN AWAY. I feel like we're constantly running away, but it keeps us alive. Recognize your abilities and don't try to exceed them.

[Tengu_temp]

I generally play games where it's hard to die in combat if you're a PC - Mutants and Masterminds, DND 4e, and others. Now, getting knocked out is something that can happen quite easy if you're reckless and/or unlucky, but that's something else, and much better if you ask me - you're still out of combat and the party's chance of losing increases (and tension alongside it), but you're not penalized by losing your character for having bad luck.

Death of important characters, be they PCs or big NPCs, should be something that happens rarely, is very dramatic, and in most cases cannot be undone. I don't care that the PCs might grow overconfident or stop being careful - I play this game to tell interesting, gripping stories with my players. If your DM needs to constantly threaten the players with losing their characters to keep them interested, then he's not a very good storyteller.

[Ezeze]

I've been DMing consistently for about six years (and sporadically before that) and have killed exactly two PCs - one who was just stupid, the other asked for her character to die so she could bring in a new one.

I usually start off running encounters that are just a little beneath par and fluctuate the difficulty in a net upwards direction (of course you want some "oh my god we are going to die!" moments, but you also want some "damn, we're BAMFs!" moments) until I find an encounter that demands the PCs use all the resources at their disposal to survive. Then I hover a little below that point.

If in doubt, leave a way out.

For instance, I've buried a regiment of soldiers beneath rubble before the start of an encounter I wasn't sure of so they could dig their way out if the battle tilted too far in the NPC's favor.

I've also gone out of my way to establish that a Necromancer's minions are poorly stitched together and prone to falling apart so that I could make a few of them dissolve if the PCs are in too much danger.

If all the worst things that could happen do, you have one last resort. The GM's privilege - cheat.

[Frozen_Feet]

I have a very simple attitude towards this issue: when the dice show people are going to die, they die. In my group, almost everyone has gone through multiple characters as a result. I feel my games are improved for it - it makes the players think a bit of what they actually do in-game.

[Sarco_Phage]

It really depends on the game, honestly, and the players. Do the players expect serious attempts to be made on their lives on a regular basis? This is something you'd expect playing Dark Heresy or low-level DnD (although new players might expect things to be easier at early levels).

[soir8]

I think letting players die can be a very good thing. It gets rid of the problem of them thinking "the DM wouldn't have put it there if we're not able to kill it" if they know that anything they fight could kill them. In the campaign I'm running right now, the players spend their first 6 lvls trapped in a mega-dungeon by high lvl spellcasters who are preparing them for the job of saving the world, so they get rezd if they die, although its only happened to them once (right at the start, killed by a dire bat :D) and I'm hoping it'l get them used to seeing combat as a risk that might be better avoided.

[Lesingnon]

My take on the matter may be slightly different than most, since I ST on a play by post site that inevitably features quite a bit of characters coming and going as people find and leave the site. But I have one simple philosophy that I adhere to. I never try to kill a PC, but I don't go out of my way to save them either.

I find that (for White Wolf's Werewolf the Forsaken at least) a character's life is virtually never put in danger solely by a bad dice roll. Usually there are some bad/risky decisions leading up to it. And despite how much i hate to see a PC die, when they take those chances I won't protect them from their own choices.

Of course, the possibility of making an encounter too difficult for your PCs to have a reasonable chance of winning is always there. When that happens I tend to make poor tactical decisions with the NPCs, which can do wonders for evening out a fight without the need to tweak mechanics or dice rolls. Of course, every once and a while something happens that's just a really bad idea. I once had someone wander alone into Pure territory, actively seeking one of them out. When something like that happens...they're unlikely to make it out alive.

[Aquillion]

It really depends on the game, honestly, and the players. Do the players expect serious attempts to be made on their lives on a regular basis? This is something you'd expect playing Dark Heresy or low-level DnD (although new players might expect things to be easier at early levels).

This. Very much this.

It depends on your game, your group, and what your players want out of it.

Do they want a realistic simulation? Or a fantasy combat game? Or just the thrill of danger? Then random death is a good thing.

Do they want a long, detailed story about their character, which they already have planned out a bit in their head? Do they just want to sit around socializing through D&D? Do they just want a chance to play this character that they really really love as a concept? Then random death might not be such a good thing.

I disagree that the chance of death is necessary to tell a good story. Just as an example, in Nobilis, it's almost impossible to die -- you can be totally immortal at chargen for 6 points (out of 25), or in 3e you can even take complete immortality as an affliction, basically for free. It's not totally perfect -- you can still die if your Estate is destroyed or by sufficiently strong Miracles -- but it's not likely to happen. And even beyond that, Nobilis' health system makes it so losing all your health levels often won't kill you -- losing them all just means that you lose control of your character and the GM decides what happens from there.

Characters can face risk and tell interesting stories without the threat of death. I mean, most of us don't face the constant risk of death in our daily lives, but our lives are still interesting, right?

[Frozen_Feet]

Characters can face risk and tell interesting stories without the threat of death. I mean, most of us don't face the constant risk of death in our daily lives, but our lives are still interesting, right?

This is very true. However, I think the right way to go around implementing this is to not force PCs into lethal situations, instead of fudging said situations so that the players can't die.

In other words: make clear combat has risks, and only way to avert those risks completely is not to fight. This naturally requires the DM to give options besides fighting.

[Just_Ice]

It can be tempting to kill a character for making a bad decision or keeping them alive because of sheer bad luck. While these can be fine depending on your group and the mood, they can set troubling precedents. For instance, when you get to level 3 and they should be dead again due to bad luck, and you tell them that they died this time, won't they complain, "but I was fine last time!"

And then the worst grey area hits. If they're dead by like 4 hp you can have other characters preform a miraculous surgery or something. If it's more like dead by 50 hp (punching off a cliff can be a doozy), then what do you do? Can they even carry the character's little giblets?

Remember that for most players death isn't even really much of a penalty, and they'll just remake the same character with a different name. This is infuriating if your players are foolhardy on purpose.

Basically I recommend you play on the side of "not killing" and give the PCs opportunities to save their friends that have dropped below -10. You're the GM, what you say goes.

[dsmiles]

Characters die. It happens.

That being said, I try not to let it happen in random encounters. I try really hard not to let it happen in random encounters.

On the other hand, player stupidity can easily cause character death.

[Frozen_Feet]

I think the problem with random encounters is that people use them in a wrong way.

In my mind, random encounters are supposed to be as dramatic and as much part of the story as any planned fights, and I play them out like that. That's why I'm fine with them carrying the same (or more!) risks.

Many people don't do that. They use random encounters as filler, and think them insignificant because of that. That comes crashing against their face when it turns out they might be significant after all.

This loops back to my previous post. If you don't want characters to die, don't force them in lethal situations. Don't point a loaded gun at things you aren't prepared to shoot.

[Thunder Hammer]

Starting off, I'm not a fan of killing players, but i recognize that without risks no game is fun.

I have had players die from bad decisions. I felt sad that the character had died, but not really, as the character had been outsmarted by superior tactics.

ex: the monk going in alone vs. giants at level 7.

What concerns me is when I overestimate the capabilities of the party, or when there is just some seriously bad luck.

ex: An orc getting a critical hit with a greataxe at level one dealing 25 points of damage to the fighter.

I have no problems with killing stupid/unwise PCs, but I feel bad about killing unlucky PCs / designing an encounter that just assumes too much. Thoughts?

I agree, if the PC is just unlucky, let them live. (At least so long as it's logical. If the orc got a crit, and there's 10 more orcs and no more players... Well those orcs will probably eat the PC.) However, bad decisions/decisions made knowing there will be lethal consequences keeps the PC's in line.

As I say to my players,"I'd rather not kill your PC, but if you make bad decisions where there can be lethal consequences, I prefer to be realistic."

[awa]

a lot of people seem to be saying random death is good ill have to say i disagree.

I am in one game that has barely been staying alive because several pc deaths have changed the game from that band of people with a well though out reason for going on important missions to a random group of violent hobos with no direction, because all the party members who had a reason to be dealing with the plot died.

Sure you can run away unless you get ambushed by a grapple monster and you cant. (and before someone says you should just have teleported out of the grapple not every character can do that)

random deaths in my experience don't make the game more fun (except paranoia) they cause characters to not get attached to their pcs to see them not as a person but as a collection of numbers because they know that odds are bob will be dead in a couple of days when he rolls a one on his save but his identical twin bob 2 will be along to pick up the slack.

Of course their is the other way where the pcs just run when every they are faced with anything more threatening than a hogtied kobold because the difference between a player dying and a hard fight is just one die roll away particularly if save or dies are in play.


When i run games its usually a custom system and monsters don't have insta death powers. But when i run a normal dnd game i plan encounters to reduce that random chance so i don't give foes of low level parities great axes, i avoid beholders and Medusa and so on.

[oswulf]

I'm not above fudging the dice (as a DM) for the sake of the game. Actions should have consequences. They don't have to necessarily be the consequences the dice say.

But in recent memory I've killed two PC's. (technically one I just ALLOWED to happen).

In the first, a Paladin insisted on slaughtering innocent families just because he felt like it. I did not intervene when the other PC's took him down.

The second was when a Monk character, named Monk, insisted on pointlessly agitating a ridiculously powerful wizard. I essentially put out a display of power that made it clear that he was no match. He set out and tracked the wizard down again just for the sake of agitating him. I don't remember exactly what I did, but I'm pretty sure it involved a torn character sheet and the coining of the phrase "don't Monkify me".

[Sarco_Phage]

In the first, a Paladin insisted on slaughtering innocent families just because he felt like it. I did not intervene when the other PC's took him down.

I only have one face for this:

[Lurkmoar]

It depends on the players mostly. I try to keep things on the fair side, but I do let them know ahead of time what enemies will not be pulling punches. I don't go out and plan for the players to die, sometimes it just happens. I have changed because a kill shot to -8 a few times though. It's one thing for someone to get a lucky shot off in the game, but I'd rather not have a badass barbarian die from a fluke slingshot stone hurled by a kobold.

Off the top of my head, I've GMed three TPKs. However those happened because of player stupi shortsightedness. Don't drink liquid chlorine, don't cast Fireball as a melee spell and don't taunt the cosmic abomination.

[Frozen_Feet]

random deaths in my experience don't make the game more fun (except paranoia) they cause characters to not get attached to their pcs to see them not as a person but as a collection of numbers because they know that odds are bob will be dead in a couple of days when he rolls a one on his save but his identical twin bob 2 will be along to pick up the slack.

"Random deaths" exist in non-random encounters as well. In fact, in any system that uses dice, they're present in almost all combats.

Your concern is valid, but there's a simple solution: don't have every encounter be about combat. Give them time to get attached to their characters outside of any violent events. Give them choice to avert combat, and thus the chance of random death. Deny them, in some manner or another, the chance of playing "identical twin bob 2". Suddenly, they'll be more invested in not dying and playing their character as actual mortal beings.

[dsmiles]

As long as the group is having fun, does it really matter? No. Not at all.

[Frozen_Feet]

As long as the group is having fun, does it really matter? No. Not at all.

Depends on what kind of fun they're having, and what kind of fun they were after. Some things can be amusing for a few times, before the joke grows old. Some might feel tedious at first, but bring greater satisfaction at the end. As elements of a game often influence this, it often pays to think what elements are in play and why.

So yes, it does matter.

[dsmiles]

Depends on what kind of fun they're having, and what kind of fun they were after. Some things can be amusing for a few times, before the joke grows old. Some might feel tedious at first, but bring greater satisfaction at the end. As elements of a game often influence this, it often pays to think what elements are in play and why.

So yes, it does matter.

I really can't wrap my head around that. Different groups have fun in different ways. If my groups likes only death in plot-related encounters, and yours likes death in random encounters, so be it.

[awa]

The problem isnt random encounters but encounters where a pc dies when they had no reasonable way to defend them selves. such as a insta kill with a great axe or many of those monsters that have insta kill abilities. whats worst are monsters that a pc can't survive unless they meta game.

Personal i like to run very plot heavy games rather then random dungeons crawls that means anytime a player dies (particularly in systems that don't allow coming back to life) that is a huge disruption to the story and if you lose enough players it can cause the entire story to collapse.

[Frozen_Feet]

I really can't wrap my head around that. Different groups have fun in different ways.

Sure they have. But it's possible that a game falls short of expectations within a group, and then it pays to think of what's going wrong.

Think of it this way: people have different tastes in movies. Yet from every genre, some pieces are elevated above others of their kind. Some movies might appeal to an audience even if they belong to a genre they don't normally fancy, because they're just that good.

So while you might try to cover behind "everything is subjective", some things are less subjective than others in both filmmaking and RPGs. Even with most of the same elements, one work can be hailed as a masterpiece while other is crud. Take for example Star Wars and Inheritance Cycle. Or, for that matter, original Star Wars trilogy and the prequels.

If my groups likes only death in plot-related encounters, and yours likes death in random encounters, so be it.

"Plot-related versus random" is a false dichtomy. I use almost solely random encounters, but they're all "plot-related", in the sense that I play them out as significant directing forces of the game and story.

"Random encounter as filler" is an artifact, and indeed a really bad way of thinking about them if you're holding a plot-centric game while still using ostensibly the same rules for RE and plot encounters. So if you don't like PCs dying in them but don't want to scrap them alltogether, it pays to think how you're actually implementing them.