Character Killing... sometimes necessary?

[diaglo]

Actually, I don't see this as a bad thing. Rather the opposite.

Realistically, you should be able to guesstimate some of those during combat. Something, which is nicely emulated by this.

i didn't say it was a bad thing. i agree with you. the key tho is making sure it is not metagamed into play.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I'd go with PirateCat's idea. I always rolled in the open, it adds to the suspense. For 'to hit' rolls as well as damage. Only rolls for checks etc. may be rolled away from sight. Every now and then, some really big bad guy rolls a couple of 20's in a row, a roll for a fireball damage turns up almost all sixes and fives, and if the PC's are too dumb to disengage when the tide is turning, sure, they'll die.

Stricly enforcing rules (I can't remember if it's official rules or simply homebrew, but they are pretty much standard in all my campaigns) of a permanent decrease in Con (-1) and a setback to the lowest amount of XP in the PREVIOUS level (i.e. the PC also loses a full level of XP), make sure that even though the party may have good access to resurrection type magic, death is a thing to be feared...

Resurrections are kind of a pain in Midnight. The planes are cut off so the souls of the dead kind of linger on in madness. The only way it seems to come back from the dead is via the clone spell, reincarnate, limited wish or wish (unless I missed any of the normal resurrection spells on the spell list). I guess that alone SHOULD scare the players... Midnight is a Magic Rare setting and you can't just run down to the local temple to be raised. Well, I guess you could but you wouldn't like the results.

 

[Psion]

Has anyone here ever killed off a character to reinforce the deadliness of a setting to the players?

Specifically TO reinforce the deadliness of the setting? No.

But I do let the dice fall where they may. I generally don't fudge; that's what action points are for.

I say generally, because I see my encounters as "threatening" or "nuissance." Threatening encounters are intended to ential risk to the characters, usually restrained to climactic encounters or encounters that the PCs knew the risk involved and should have avoided. Nuissance encounters where not intended by me to be threatening, just excuses for PCs to play around or other minor encounters, and if these turn out deadly, it's usually because I underestimated the deadliness of an encounter.

But yeah, letting the dice fall where they may, if you use many challenging encounters, you will off a PC every once in a while. This, I feel, keeps the players from being jaded by thinking that whatever you do in an encounter, you won't kill them. This creates more suspense in every combat due to the fact that they know I will not fudge the dice for them, so every combat becomes a threat situation. Which it should be.

 

[Thanee]

i didn't say it was a bad thing. i agree with you. the key tho is making sure it is not metagamed into play.

I don't see it as metagaming (as long is it is something that can be observed, otherwise it should be rolled secretly anyways).

Metagaming would be, if you knew the stats/qualities of the opponent already and would act accordingly. Guessing about them by observing the attack rolls, damage rolls and so on, is not metagaming in my books.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Henry]

I never have done it intentionally, although I frequently let the dice fall where they may. If the players cannot weight the odds enough to run, then their PC's will die spectacularly.

When I play I put in challenges of all sorts - low and High CR/EL. I also put in ways in some to win without killing the enemy. But I always try to make clear just what kind of encounter it is before they wander in. If they frequently wander into certain death without scouting ahead, then they will infrequently reap the whirlwind.

 

[drnuncheon]

It almost sounds like you're intending to choose a specific PC to die.

This is a bad idea. It's no fun, and the players will sniff it out in a moment, and it will ruin your game. If I were the player singled out, I would feel like I had been treated unfairly, and I'd be completely right!

The ideal situation would be, of course, when the death comes as a direct result of the PC's actions - where they can say, "holy...we screwed up big time." If it's not their fault, then it's not reinforcing the deadliness of the setting, it's reinforcing the deadliness of the DM's whim.

So the secret is to know what the opposition is capable of, to watch the PCs like a hawk for any screw-up, and then to employ the opposition's capabilities in an intelligent manner.

Are they the types that see evil and want to smash it? That's the best kind, because they're almost certain to rush in before finding out all the facts of a situation, and their lack of planning will get one of them killed, especially when they find out that the missing info could have saved their keisters.

J

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

i didn't say it was a bad thing. i agree with you. the key tho is making sure it is not metagamed into play.

IMC, I don't mind if they metagame it in play... In fact, I'd encourage them to!

My 2 cents:

I think - there is a difference between something that only misses on a 1/hits on a 2+ and something that needs 17+ to hit someone. I think the sucessful attacks would look different in each of the above cases. The second of them involving far more luck. I think the PCs would be able to tell the difference with a little observation...

IMO, letting the players see the dice and draw their own conclusions deals with this quite well. Also gives them something less subjective than my flowery descriptions.



Anyway, back on topic:

I'd let things take their course...

Plotting to kill a PC, before they've even started doing anything, seems a bit harsh! I guess it depends on how you think the players might react. For me, if I felt my DM had done that I'd get quite annoyed.. That's if it was just to make a point about the setting - rather than because I'd done something to deserve it.

Could you drop it into a prologue of some sort. Near/at the start of the campaign, hand the players pre-genned sheets. Spend an hour killing these in quite arbitary ways. Possibly make it part of an obvious vision or dream. Could be a good way to introduce a BBEG or Place 'O Certain Doom (tm).

 

[collin]

I am in total agreement with Inconsequenti-Al. Sounds like a Gary Gygax thing to do.

Deliberately plotting to kill off a character seems very harsh and cruel. In D&D, characters become so tied to the players and it becomes difficult for many people to not take things personal. Let the game play out. If it is truly dangerous, just warn them ahead of time things like this could very easily happen and if/when it does, it's nothing personal, just business.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Are they the types that see evil and want to smash it? That's the best kind, because they're almost certain to rush in before finding out all the facts of a situation, and their lack of planning will get one of them killed, especially when they find out that the missing info could have saved their keisters.

Actually this is the first time I think any of them have played in a setting like this where the forces of evil are in charge of pretty much everything and the PCs are on their own. If they treat it like our FR game then I'd imagine that someone will either die from violence or get turned in by some commoners to keep their village from being destroyed if they are found to be resistance fighters. Charging right in is pretty much the surest way to die in this setting.

 

[Buz]

I've killed PCs, never on purpose, but I do seem to be a bit careless when it comes to keeping them alive - I put that down to bad DMing on my part rather than anything else.
One of my old college DMs executed what he described as "executive death syndrome" - if he felt the story needed a kick, or we needed a strong warning, he chose the character he felt least fit the group, or which he liked the least, and found a way for that PC to die. It always worked to focus us, but once we knew what he was doing it took a good chunk of fun out of it for us.

Buz

ps - Henry - love the signature, especially as I am that bearded welshman frugal refers to!