Thoughts on killing characters?

[WarKitty]

As a dm, when would you consider it appropriate to kill a character? I was thinking of this because of a situation in my last game. I was guest DM'ing and had given them a very difficult one-shot. The characters had some fairly powerful healing magic due to the absence of the normal leader (me). The monsters were aware of this.

Well, I had knocked a character unconscious. The most logical think for the monsters to do would be to deliver a coup de grace - the character in question was not particularly sturdy and would probably have died right away, but had some good AoE powers. At the same time, I'm reluctant to knock a player out of the game. I ended up ignoring him.

My question is, for you DM's, what's your opinion on killing characters outright mid-battle instead of just leaving them unconscious? I'm having a hard time justifying why my intelligent monsters don't kill unconscious characters when they know the PC's can heal.

[Giggling Ghast]

My question is, for you DM's, what's your opinion on killing characters outright mid-battle instead of just leaving them unconscious? I'm having a hard time justifying why my intelligent monsters don't kill unconscious characters when they know the PC's can heal.

In general, monsters prioritize threats, reasoning that they can always finish off/eat the party once they're all down. Conscious characters are a threat, unconscious characters are not.

But then, it's always a balancing act. One key thing to remember: if this was the first fight in an adventure and the heroes still have a whole dungeon to go through, you've basically crippled them. If it's the final fight of the night? Eh, they can get the dead guy raised for the next session.

You also have to ask yourself, what does each monster want to "accomplish" in a battle? If it's just looking for something to eat (ie. a mindless ooze) why not go after the unconscious character? Also, I think it's appropriate for a "villain" to coup de grace an unconscious character, especially in a boss battle.

I've got a boss battle coming up myself with an Orcus cultist where I'll probably kill one of the players if he or she is knocked unconscious, especially if it's the Raven Queen-worshipping cleric. I'll do this for three reasons:

1) I have a companion character waiting in the background to provide back-up if things go really bad.
2) I've knocked them out a few times, but none of them have died yet. The closest they've gotten is blowing one of their "dying" saves.
3) The guy is an Orcus cultist.

[Doug Lampert]

In general, monsters prioritize threats, reasoning that they can always finish off/eat the party once they're all down. Conscious characters are a threat, unconscious characters are not.

I tend to play that the monsters are reasonably intelligent (very few 4th ed monsters aren't), and that they know how their world works. And good healing powers are VERY VERY rare in their world, everyone but the PCs has almost no healing surges, everyone but the PCs is dead at 0 HP unless someone deliberately knocks them unconcious, and hardly anyone has powers to spend surges in combat. So unless the foe is visibly regenerating down == out as far as the monsters are concerned, and they go for the people still fighting.

They know how the world works, and in their world almost everyone is a monster. So they don't know about PCs and PC powers.

OTOH if a boss monster has seen two people get back up from down then on number three it's likely to say "****-it, heal from THIS sucker!" and coup-de-grace the down PC. Similarly, if a monster has a power that lets it make multiple attacks, and the PC is the only one in reach, then "well, I guess I'll just make sure this one stays dead" is a reasonable use for the extra attacks even if no one has healed from down yet.

I worry about killing PCs when I design the encounters, hardly ever while running one, while running an encounter I'm playing the monsters, and they want to win/live but they don't know what the PCs powers are. So they run when its sensible, and they finish someone off when that's sensible.

During the actual combat keeping characters alive is the players' problem. My problem is keeping the monsters alive (if I did my job right on adventure design, then I'll normally fail on my problem during the fight, but my players should be able to expect foes to behave sanely and to be able to try to deduce their powers/goals/and interests from what they do).

[WarKitty]

In general, monsters prioritize threats, reasoning that they can always finish off/eat the party once they're all down. Conscious characters are a threat, unconscious characters are not.

But then, it's always a balancing act. One key thing to remember: if this was the first fight in an adventure, the heroes still have a whole dungeon to go through, you've basically crippled them. If it's the final fight of the night? Eh, they can get the dead guy raised for the next session.

Yeah I think the issue here was the prioritization. You have intelligent enemies that are aware of the characters' ability to heal. You have a long-range controller down in a small-size battlefield where he can wreak havoc with his at-wills. I actually knocked that character down twice and another down once in that battle (to be fair, I put my level 3 party up against an equal number of level 3 elite monsters).

[Dimers]

My GM often wears a tee shirt that says, "GMs don't kill characters ... oh wait, yes we do."

The correct answer to your question is just to follow the arrangement you've made with the players. Most groups I've been in are fine with character death because it lends realism and excitement to the game, but there are exceptions. If you haven't explicitly made an agreement already, this is a fine opportunity to bring it up.

[WarKitty]

Perhaps a good follow-up question would be "if you do kill a character, what do you do with the player"? Particularly since we often spend several hours on a single combat (that last one was 2 1/2 hours long).

[Nyes the Dark]

The correct answer to your question is just to follow the arrangement you've made with the players. Most groups I've been in are fine with character death because it lends realism and excitement to the game, but there are exceptions. If you haven't explicitly made an agreement already, this is a fine opportunity to bring it up.

I'd say this is most important. If you were, say, DMing for a bunch of newbies, and you killed anyone unlucky enough to get KOed, that might be heavily raising the difficult level. If their experienced, it might be okay. It depends on the players.

[WarKitty]

I'd say this is most important. If you were, say, DMing for a bunch of newbies, and you killed anyone unlucky enough to get KOed, that might be heavily raising the difficult level. If their experienced, it might be okay. It depends on the players.

Yeah I'm not sure how well we'd be able to come to an agreement in our group. There's one that would really absolutely hate it and not want to play a different character, and two of us that feel the need to have it as a risk to keep things interesting.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Yeah I'm not sure how well we'd be able to come to an agreement in our group. There's one that would really absolutely hate it and not want to play a different character, and two of us that feel the need to have it as a risk to keep things interesting.

Do you run a perma-death campaign? Like there is no raise dead or equivalent? Then death is a very different situation when it is permant.

[WarKitty]

Do you run a perma-death campaign? Like there is no raise dead or equivalent? Then death is a very different situation when it is permant.

I don't think so, no. Though it's probably too expensive right now without DM fiat.

Although that wasn't even an issue in the game that I was running - it was explicitly a dream sequence type deal, so the characters couldn't really die. The main issue would have been having a player take time out to show up and then sit through an hour and a half of the battle with nothing to do.

[WarKitty]

Do you run a perma-death campaign? Like there is no raise dead or equivalent? Then death is a very different situation when it is permant.

I don't think so, no. Though it's probably too expensive right now without DM fiat.

Although that wasn't even an issue in the game that I was running - it was explicitly a dream sequence type deal, so the characters couldn't really die. The main issue would have been having a player take time out to show up and then sit through an hour and a half of the battle with nothing to do.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I think I'll repeat what others have said and play on the enemies attack style. Non-intelligent animal acting in defence? Take downs only till after the battle is done. Mindless looking for food? Go after the nearest food source (may or may not be concious). Intelligent enemies? Goes after immiadiate threat or coup-de-grace if they know the groups capabilities.

[tcrudisi]

It depends on the situation.

How smart are the enemies? Is it a boss battle? Will a character death add to the story?

There are other factors, of course. My players know that if the situation is right, I don't hold punches. I've killed more than a few characters. But - I also don't always go for the throat. Just because the Wizard is unconscious with 1 hp left before dying does not mean I will attack them with the only minion that's left even though the Wizard refused to magic missile him and the irony would be palpable.

There's so much to consider that it really has to be taken in each situation.

Sorry, I know that doesn't help much, but that's how I view it.

[Vknight]

You can kill them. My party has gotten by purely by luck in some scenarios.

A group of 3 Ghouls(-1to all defenses) vs a 4man party(with Daily powers and encounters)

The Ghouls could have killed. The Paladin, the Assassin, and the Hunter. But because of bad damage and the fact they were more concerned with knocking them down then going after someone else they didn't bother.

The thing is if a monster swarms its target and drops them then do just that.

[valadil]

My question is, for you DM's, what's your opinion on killing characters outright mid-battle instead of just leaving them unconscious? I'm having a hard time justifying why my intelligent monsters don't kill unconscious characters when they know the PC's can heal.

Do eeeet! If the monsters know the PCs can heal they're going to try to pick off the dying PCs. Period. End of discussion. If the PCs see that the monsters aren't actually trying to kill them, they'll lose interest in the fight. How interesting is the combat if you know the enemy is pulling his punches?

That said, you were guest DMing, which does make things a little different. I wouldn't guest DM without checking with the main DM if it was okay to kill PCs.

[WarKitty]

Do eeeet! If the monsters know the PCs can heal they're going to try to pick off the dying PCs. Period. End of discussion. If the PCs see that the monsters aren't actually trying to kill them, they'll lose interest in the fight. How interesting is the combat if you know the enemy is pulling his punches?

That said, you were guest DMing, which does make things a little different. I wouldn't guest DM without checking with the main DM if it was okay to kill PCs.

Killing PC's actually wouldn't have been a problem due to the way we do guest DM sessions. Basically, we have guest DM's when there's something going on and we're missing a significant portion of our (normally 7-person) group. The guest sessions are explicitly set off in such a way that they're not allowed to affect the real world - usually by being some sort of dream sequence type deal.

The issue I was having was that if I kill a PC, there's nothing for the player to do for the rest of the session. We were fairly early in the session, and I would hate to have a player sitting out for the next several hours. And character generation takes forever.

[valadil]

The issue I was having was that if I kill a PC, there's nothing for the player to do for the rest of the session. We were fairly early in the session, and I would hate to have a player sitting out for the next several hours. And character generation takes forever.

I understand the hesitation. I request backstory from my players. When someone puts a couple weeks into a 14 page backstory, I'm hesitant to kill that character that he's obviously invested a bit of time in.

The way I see it though is that your players are in the game for the experience of playing that character. If you put up safety nets everywhere, you're denying them the experience just as much. At least with a character death, it's something the player earned. He got there on his own. But if you keep the character alive, that has nothing to do with the PC. It happened because the GM said so and there's nothing the player can do about it. You've effectively removed the player's agency in the game.

[WarKitty]

I understand the hesitation. I request backstory from my players. When someone puts a couple weeks into a 14 page backstory, I'm hesitant to kill that character that he's obviously invested a bit of time in.

The way I see it though is that your players are in the game for the experience of playing that character. If you put up safety nets everywhere, you're denying them the experience just as much. At least with a character death, it's something the player earned. He got there on his own. But if you keep the character alive, that has nothing to do with the PC. It happened because the GM said so and there's nothing the player can do about it. You've effectively removed the player's agency in the game.

I'm not as concerned with the backstory and such as much as the fact that we play for *hours* at a time. It's not uncommon for us to have 8-hour sessions. In the case that came up, the character death would have been fairly early in the session.

I'd be happier killing a character if I had something for the player to do for the rest of the night. I'm ok with saying "sorry make a new character for next session." I'm not ok with saying "sorry your character died in the top level of the dungeon, why don't you just either sit and watch for the next 5 hours or go home."

[Coidzor]

If there are still enemies on the field that are a threat to one's life, it is generally rather unlikely that the most logical course of action would be to spend time killing someone bleeding out on the floor when one could work to avoid getting ganked.

That's the best rule of thumb I've found across all of the systems I've played and seen discussed online.

[Tegu8788]

Well, one way to avoid the bored player problem is to have them all bring a couple characters, on bring some premade ones. Monsters are evil, want power without work normally. If it is a dungeon or cave, someone has to build/dig/maintain it. Enter slaves. Kill a character, player finds a new one in the slave pens.

[Musco]

Well, as far as I see it, the question is wether it's ok to let a player be idle for hours at a time, not if it's ok to kill the character, so I'll focus on that.
First off, of course, it depends on your group. If sessions are known to be made long, and if the death was a consequence of bad choices (or even bad luck, it IS a factor, after all), I'd say it should be ok to let him stay dead.
If boredom is something that bothers you, you have an amalgam of choices, which you can cherry pick a component of use combined to fulfill your needs:
•As was pointed out, have players bring "backup" characters - not only to that session, but have them actually build 1-2 extra characters, and keep advancing their sheets at home to match their current level, so anytime they need a new character, be it for a stand-in or permanently, they have it ready in the spot;
•If guest-DM'ing is a dream sequence of sorts, you could even go as far as to have said characters (or one of them) be their "alter-egos" or anything like that;
•If you want to plan a particularly nasty adventure, and not pull any punches, you could make use of the "3 strikes and you're out" old rule from 3.5, and simply let them get back on their feet after the encounter. You could dock gold, items or even XP - from the whole group or individually - to "pay" for the "ressurrection", if you'd like to (since if there's actually no price on it, it might diminish your efforts to make a threatening scenario - although, truth be told, if they know "3rd time is the charm" and see their chars dropping twice, they will get their acts together from there onward);
•Have they help/run the baddies. If your players are fine with just hanging out with the crowd in a session, you could have the dead player take over all "Admin" stuff, like keeping track of initiative, effects, measuring cover, finding rules on the fly, building Tiles for the rooms, stuff like that (or out-of-game stuff, like refreshments, food, etc.); or simply have him run some, or even all, the bad guys. It also doubles nicely as a first experience in case they want to Guest-DM in the future, to get the hang of running multiple guys at once;
•Have them "haunt" a player. Make their spirit "linger on" until the player can be ressurrected (and by all mens, DO put in a way to do that, even if it's a one-shot magic altar with a pre-cast Raise Dead ritual ready to trigger for any event - make it a Skill Challenge, if you like). That not only lets them keep playing, giving advice and participating, but it's actually a nice role-playing moment for both characters (have him/her haunt that guy that never roleplays...).

[valadil]

I'm not as concerned with the backstory and such as much as the fact that we play for *hours* at a time. It's not uncommon for us to have 8-hour sessions. In the case that came up, the character death would have been fairly early in the session.

I'd be happier killing a character if I had something for the player to do for the rest of the night. I'm ok with saying "sorry make a new character for next session." I'm not ok with saying "sorry your character died in the top level of the dungeon, why don't you just either sit and watch for the next 5 hours or go home."

Oh yeah, that. For combats you can always give the fallen PC monsters to play with. If you have a combat heavy dungeon, this should keep the PC entertained for much of it. In an RP heavy game you can also give minor NPCs to the player. How well they take to the NPC depends on the player though and whether or not there are relevant NPCs to give them is really circumstantial.

-addendum-

This is actually a group preference thing. Some groups don't do death for this reason. Others don't see the point in playing a game that lacks consequences. You'll get a much better answer out of your players than out of forum goers who don't know your group.

I've actually wanted to see if this is a preference that can vary within players in the same group. I mean, obviously everyone has their own personal preference but usually you just suck it up and go with the general group consensus. But what I wanted to try doing was to ask the players to individually tell me if I wanted to fudge dice or not. Players who reject fudging have no safety net and can get killed before they act. But they can also hit a boss with a save-or-die on round 1. Players who prefer fudging won't be killed by angry dice, but the boss will always save against those nasty spells unless he's already close to death. Anyway, I wanted to see if you could treat people differently within the same group, provided they all know they chose their own treatment, or if they'd resent each other and the group would implode.

[Dimers]

Yeah I'm not sure how well we'd be able to come to an agreement in our group. There's one that would really absolutely hate it and not want to play a different character, and two of us that feel the need to have it as a risk to keep things interesting.

I realize the question has now morphed into whether it's okay to deprive someone of their night's entertainment, but I wanted to address this earlier point. As long as everyone's okay with it, the agreement about character death doesn't have to be quote-unquote "fair". Yes, one meaning of 'fair' is that everyone gets treated the same way, but another is everyone gets what they're looking for. You can have one character who doesn't risk death and two who do, and if everyone gets what they want, it's probably the best solution all around.

For players who object, you might need to explain that realism won't be hurt more than the game system and game world already hurt it. A TPK will still be a TPK. Almost anything less drastic than that, though, can be justified in play. The monster thought you were already dead, it was too concerned about the rest of the party, it thought it would finish you later, it's a person with a sense of nobility, it wanted to save you for slave labor / chattle / laying eggs in / et cetera.

[Nu]

I also think it depends largely on the monster in question. An ooze might engulf an unconscious body and start dissolving it on the spot, but I think even many unintelligent creatures will not immediately start ripping into an unconscious body. A spider or carrion crawler may try to drag its prey back to its lair, and I think even a pack wolf wouldn't start ripping into food when there are other heavily armed opponents nearby. Intelligent monsters will administer a coup de grace if they are particularly evil, but most of the time I prefer to play it as prioritizing the immediate threats rather than long-term threats.

[Whybird]

In my campaign, most intelligent enemies will try to take PCs alive rather than kill them: because most of the time, the PCs' enemies don't know what's going on, and they'd rather have living captives who they can interrogate than six corpses and no idea how many more fighters are about to come over the horizon.

Plus, killing people raises the stakes. Suppose an army of three hundred humans is sending people scouting ahead and your goblin camp of twelve catches one. They might not have been going through your camp before, but if you kill their scouts they sure as hell will be now. If you just capture their scouts, interrogate them, and send them back it'll give you enough notice to get your camp the hell out before the army come through. Granted, the PCs might not have an army of 300 following them, but enemies they come across don't know that for sure, and smart enemies won't want to run that risk.

[WarKitty]

In my campaign, most intelligent enemies will try to take PCs alive rather than kill them: because most of the time, the PCs' enemies don't know what's going on, and they'd rather have living captives who they can interrogate than six corpses and no idea how many more fighters are about to come over the horizon.

Plus, killing people raises the stakes. Suppose an army of three hundred humans is sending people scouting ahead and your goblin camp of twelve catches one. They might not have been going through your camp before, but if you kill their scouts they sure as hell will be now. If you just capture their scouts, interrogate them, and send them back it'll give you enough notice to get your camp the hell out before the army come through. Granted, the PCs might not have an army of 300 following them, but enemies they come across don't know that for sure, and smart enemies won't want to run that risk.

Yeah, I think this was the problem with the particular scenario. The enemies pretty much knew exactly what the situation was, including a rough idea of the PC's capabilities. They had also been told that their specific mission was to kill the PC's. I hadn't thought about the issue of a coup de grace before it came up, but it really did seem to be the best idea.