Confessions of a Killer DM

[MerricB]

Make them write at least 2 pages worth of character history. They will actively try to keep them alive. At least that's what I've found.

It's interesting, because that solution is the opposite of how I develop my own characters. I prefer to start with about two lines of concept, and then, in the play of the game, develop them further.

I've had several characters that I've played for two or three years in such a manner with great histories of what happened before they became adventurers - but because I developed them in campaign rather than apart from the campaign, they were better integrated into the game.

I know that doesn't work for everyone, but I think the contrast is interesting.

Cheers!

 

[Mystery Man]

It's interesting, because that solution is the opposite of how I develop my own characters. I prefer to start with about two lines of concept, and then, in the play of the game, develop them further.

The last campaign I ran they all started with pregenerated characters and mostly a basic knowledge of 3E. I had two friends who were wanting to actually play and two that had to be dragged in kicking and screaming. They're now hooked and love the game so that's not a problem. One of the things they used to do was never run away or use any strategy at all and just go in head first with weapons drawn etc. Very frustrating. It finally took a TPK and a new campaign. I had them write up a history of where they were born, significant happenings in their lives, why they were out adventuring up until the reason they were all in the little town I started my campaign in. The difference in their playing styles is night and day. Now they're making history rather than being history. They're careful, the give a damn about the world and who's in it, and the have a vested interest in what happens to it. Everyone is much happier with the game and I'm a much less frustrated DM. I'm not saying it will work for everyone but it definitly worked for me.

 

[Thanee]

I think it's actually quite difficult to envision the dangers of combat in a roleplaying game.

When I watched the movie "Lake Placid" (some b-movie about a giant crocodile), I got reminded of what is missing in RPG combat.

At the end of the movie, they are fighting the huge (HUGE) crocodile. The fight was mostly retreating from the beast and every now and then getting careful swings/shots/whatever in.

In D&D, you stand next to your opponent and exchange blows until one falls down.

In reality one would be constantly moving around when fighting some nasty critter, especially some BIG nasty critter.

Also the power behind the blows of such huge creatures is not even remotely reflected in the rules. Like Sauron in the Lord of the Rings movie, or the cave troll... one swing and you see bodies flying through the air.

All this is very hard to envision. The D&D combat is tactical and while it's working pretty good, it fails to address such points very well.

Also, there is no fear as - obviously - the players are not in danger at any time. Sure, sometimes you "fear" for your beloved character, but that's not the same as the real thing. This is also really hard to get across.

Pictures and good descriptions help a little, but I suppose it isn't really possible to get that deeply into character, that you actually feel the situation and control your character on that foundation. There is (and should be) still some distance between the player and the character. And that distance is the "problem" here.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

(Incoming lots of biased opinions: )

I think this is one of the hardest parts of running D&D games and somthing I see often:

Killing PCs always kind of sucks, one way or another, and is generally somthing you want to avoid. On the other hand, if there is not threat of loosing, there is no real sense of victory and challenge.

This is one of the most difficult balancing acts a DM will face in my opinion. While the occasional trivial encounter can be fun, you need encounters where the PCs feel somthing important hangs in the balance, thier lives or somthing else important to them. With no sense of the possiblity of real loss of defeat there is less enjoyment of the win. If I didn't feel like I earned my victory through skill it just doesn't mean as much to me.

On the other hand, part of this issue is the PCs faults as well. I think too many players think combat is the point of D&D and get set upon the idea that any encounter the DM puts in front of you the group is able to overcome it, thats why it's there, right? In my opinion though, it is the story that is the point of the D&D game and combat is just a part of that. As is things like negotiating your way through an encounter, fleeing encounters or sneaking around them. Somtimes the PCs need to be reminded of this. We frustrate my DM all the time in one game for avoiding things he clearly wants us to do ("We can't go down there! It's infested with demons, lets leave and keep going to the city we are heading for.") and fight when we know we aren't supposed to ("I tell the huge, fiendish shadow dragon to kiss my ass and draw my sword" we were level 6 or so at the time ). We do these things though because we are acting on what our characters would think of doing and try our best to avoid the metagame line of thought. We knew perfectly well we were supposed to go kill the demons and not fight the dragon out of character, in character though, neither made a lot of sense at the time. I think it is somtimes important to remind characters that the game is about a story, not just slaughtering things, and to avoid thinking in metagame terms. At the same time a DM need to be sure to reward PCs when they do things like run away from encounters they should run away from or find non-combat solutions to problems. I don't think enough DMs do this creating a "Well, if we don't kill it we won't get any XP" attitude in thier players.

Ok, I think I've lost my point and started rambling so gonna stop now. Hope someone makes sense of that post

 

[MerricB]

Ok, I think I've lost my point and started rambling so gonna stop now. Hope someone makes sense of that post

Heh. You make some good points in your post.

On the other hand, if there is not the threat of losing, there is no real sense of victory and challenge.

Indeed. Of course, dying doesn't have to be the only penalty - but often it's about the only one that the players will care about.

One interesting thing to think about is this: In a campaign with a high mortality rate, if a character survives for a significant amount of time, it will be greatly prized by its player.

Having a 5th level Wizard in a campaign where the next best character is 2nd level is akin to being a god! (No, my campaign doesn't run that way. )

Cheers!

 

[HeavyG]

Indeed. Of course, dying doesn't have to be the only penalty - but often it's about the only one that the players will care about.

Balancing the need for consequences for failure (you don't want your players to feel their PCs are invincible) with the need to keep characters alive in a harsh environment so you can keep telling their stories (you don't want your players to become afraid of heroics) is hard.

It's what the debate about easier or harder resurrection boils to, really.

I've found that if you want your PCs to brave meaningful dangers, you need to either :
- Keep them alive via DM fiat
- Allow for easy resurrection
or
- Accept that they'll be making new characters all the time and that you better not make the stories too personal

Let's face it, it's a dice-based game, no player is going to roll high all the time, so depending on your players to play smart is not going to let them survive to 20th level by itself. (This goes for most RPGs, I feel.)

Solution number 3 is unacceptable if you want to involve the player's characters in your story in a deep and meaningful (long term) way.

The problem with the first two solutions is that it makes the players cocky, if they know about them.

The only solution, I feel, is to give the PCs script immunity (possibly with agreed upon caveats), but to make penalties for failure very meaningful.

In my Exalted game, I use this. It's a game where there is no resurrection and the storyline I have planned spans 20 years and mostly involves the PCs backgrounds. Losing a PC would not be a game breaker, but it would be very very boring, especially if it happened randomly.

So what I do is, if the dice indicate that a PC dies, the blow will knock him unconscious instead, but the character will suffer a permanent disability instead. Like, say, losing an arm. Or maybe the pretty boy skirt-chaser swordsman will suffer a disfiguring scar (i.e. a fate worse than death ).

So far, it seems to work.

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

Indeed. Of course, dying doesn't have to be the only penalty - but often it's about the only one that the players will care about.

I think it should be important but too many players , that I play with at least, don't put terribly high a value on thier characters lives. So character death isn't as important as it should be. Too many see character death as just a chance to change characters. Maybe players need to be charged $20 per character or somthing.

As far as accidental death, I woder if there is a mechanical solution. It would be tricky to cut the difference between avoiding accidental death and removing risk from the game. I think it could be done though.

 

[d4]

Let's face it, it's a dice-based game, no player is going to roll high all the time, so depending on your players to play smart is not going to let them survive to 20th level by itself. (This goes for most RPGs, I feel.)

one of the things i think is missing from D&D is that there is no mitigation for bad luck.

i think d20 Modern gets it right with the inclusion of action points.

you are right; if you simply rely on smart play and the randomness of the dice, the players aren't going to survive to 20th level. however, with a little bit of luck they can. i like systems where that luck is institutionalized and given a game mechanic. that's better IMO than simply "fudging" dice rolls or rules.

i was quite happy to see action points in Unearthed Arcana and the upcoming Eberron setting -- i think they are exactly what D&D needs.

The problem with the first two solutions is that it makes the players cocky, if they know about them.

that's meta-game thinking, IMO. i have no problem telling players that i'm not going to kill their PCs (unless they do something horribly stupid and force my hand), but while i expect them (the players) to know that, their characters do not, and i expect them to be role-played appropriately.

The only solution, I feel, is to give the PCs script immunity (possibly with agreed upon caveats), but to make penalties for failure very meaningful.

like i said above, action points or a similar mechanism can work as script immunity without the GM fiat angle that many players dislike. it can help keep PCs alive in rough situations without them feeling like the GM is "taking it easy on them."

 

[MerricB]

one of the things i think is missing from D&D is that there is no mitigation for bad luck.

To some extent Hit Points and the ability to resurrect characters mitigate the bad luck aspect - and 3.5E has also toned down the "bad luck" aspect by having fewer spells be of the "save or die" variety, which is really where Bad Luck is at its worst in D&D.

I do like action points, though. I may well add them to my ongoing Greyhawk campaign - we've been using them in a Swashbuckling minigame, and I quite like them.

Cheers!

 

[Altalazar]

There are a million ways to face defeat without actually dying.

Not to say that death shouldn't be a possibility - especially if something really dumb is done - but a DM certainly can go VERY hard on the players without killing them. In a way, just killing them is going easy - and it just can end the campaign. That ends everyones' fun.