Moral Dilemma: Killing and Deaths in RPGs
MGibster
Legend
I find that my expectations regarding violence vary wildly from game to game. In D&D, Star Wars, Rifts, and many others I don't really concern myself with how many people my character or my PCs (if I'm running the game) kill. But there are a few games such as Call of Cthulhu (and it's variants), Mutant City Blues, and Alien where killing is kind of a big deal.
I plan on running a Deadlands campaign, Horror at Headstone Hill (I think), and I'd like to emphasize to the players to take care in who they kill. The entirety of the campaign takes place in one county in Wyoming, there are different factions in town, and just outright killing someone can sour the party's reputation which will be important at the end of the campaign.
I plan on running a Deadlands campaign, Horror at Headstone Hill (I think), and I'd like to emphasize to the players to take care in who they kill. The entirety of the campaign takes place in one county in Wyoming, there are different factions in town, and just outright killing someone can sour the party's reputation which will be important at the end of the campaign.
FATE was a breakout point for our group, 12-13 years ago. Mostly D&D before that; we tried Reign, Burning Wheel, and various others, and then tried Spirit of the Century (a pre-core pulp-era FATE game). It was the first time all four at the table were jazzed and the first time (ever) that all four wanted to ref. The system was flexible and inviting, and collaborative, and very forgiving for new refs/DMs.
That was a revelation for us.
This led the group to Diaspora, which was FATE doing Traveller. Lots of mechanisms for combat if you wanted that, but there's never a need for character (or NPC) death (they are "taken out" in a way determined by the victim). Again, very forgiving on refs, and kept us happy for years.
My 10-y-o made me FATE-based versions of the characters in Planet of the Apes as a Father's Day gift one year (helped by a patient mom). But the system intuitively spoke to him for translating what he'd seen on the screen to a RPG character.
That gaming group (2 of the originals, three new ones) still plays. Currently, I'm running a classic Traveller game for them -- we're in week 12 or so, and there has been one combat.
aramis erak
Legend
There are a number... some with recent editions
Twilight 2000
Alien (Colonial Marines mode is all about the kicking ass.)
Warhammer FRP has a lot of groups who fall into the "it's D&D, only Edgier" trope/trap... and rules which enable it.
Star Wars is often heavy on combat.
Traveller is also often heavy on combat - one of the three suggested modes is the mercenary band trying to make a living... (Heavily reinforced with CT Bk 4: Mercenary.
MegaTraveller ups the stakes... by being set during a civil war fought with weapons of mass destruction.
Mongoose Traveller supports the same modes.
2300, including the Mongoose Version, is set around a war with an enemy that only gets smart after being hurt... and hints strongly that mercenary actions are a good campaign option.
Most cyberpunk games are heavy on the ultraviolence... 10% of the story,75% of the playtime... but it is, if the Players aren't clueless, intentionally short and decisive.
Most Supers games are "rubberman physics" high combat...
Argyle King
Legend
I'll echo what others have said: try some non-D&D rpgs.
I'm of the opinion that D&D (especially contemporary D&D) is built in a way which incentivizes certain methods of problem-solving.
As the OP has an interest in approaching problems differently, other games may be a better fit.
I'm of the opinion that D&D (especially contemporary D&D) is built in a way which incentivizes certain methods of problem-solving.
As the OP has an interest in approaching problems differently, other games may be a better fit.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
(Didn't read every page of this thread, only first...gotta hit the sack, really tired!)
To the OP:
Don't hang up your dice.
Go find a Super Hero RPG System.
I'd suggest "SUPERS! Revised Edition" ( SUPERS! Quick Start - HAZARD Studio | SUPERS! Revised Edition | DriveThruRPG.com ). It handles "damage" in a more player-friendly way; it's basically up to the Player to decide how his PC takes damage for a lot of, if not most, situations. I even went a step further and just say "pick where you want damage to go". It's a very narrative-oriented system.
Short Version: You have 4 "Resistances" (Fortitude, Composure, Will and Reflexes). If you get a car thrown at you and you take 2 damage, you, as a Player, decide where those 2 points are allocated from your Resistances (or other powers, like Armour or something). The player can then describe how the damage occurs: "Ow! Steelwing brings up his steel wings in front of him just in time! The force of the car crashes into him, pushing him back and down onto one knee! ...I'll take 1 off Fortitude and 1 off my Flight: Wings if that's ok?" ...It could even be "Steelwing leaps to the side as the car barely misses his head by INCHES! Small pieces of glass dot the side of his face. He is shaken by the near death occurrence. ... I'll take 2 points off of Composure".
Also...death isn't a thing unless the Player, Players and/or GM want it to be.
If you want to play a fantasy game...no worries. Just use the system and rules then just add fantasy stuff, setting, equipment, and get to it. (and yes, I do have a "SUPERS! Fantasy" campaign supplement and setting in the works; it's surprisingly easy...like...no-brainer type easy; all I'm really needing to create is the setting and fluff...the rules for Powers fit for spells, magic, special abilities, etc, so there's no real "work" there at all; just creation!
).
So if I were you... look into SUPERS! or some other Super Hero RPG you are more familiar with and just use that for your game (fantasy, super hero, scifi, etc).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
(Didn't read every page of this thread, only first...gotta hit the sack, really tired!)
To the OP:
Don't hang up your dice.
Go find a Super Hero RPG System.
I'd suggest "SUPERS! Revised Edition" ( SUPERS! Quick Start - HAZARD Studio | SUPERS! Revised Edition | DriveThruRPG.com ). It handles "damage" in a more player-friendly way; it's basically up to the Player to decide how his PC takes damage for a lot of, if not most, situations. I even went a step further and just say "pick where you want damage to go". It's a very narrative-oriented system.
Short Version: You have 4 "Resistances" (Fortitude, Composure, Will and Reflexes). If you get a car thrown at you and you take 2 damage, you, as a Player, decide where those 2 points are allocated from your Resistances (or other powers, like Armour or something). The player can then describe how the damage occurs: "Ow! Steelwing brings up his steel wings in front of him just in time! The force of the car crashes into him, pushing him back and down onto one knee! ...I'll take 1 off Fortitude and 1 off my Flight: Wings if that's ok?" ...It could even be "Steelwing leaps to the side as the car barely misses his head by INCHES! Small pieces of glass dot the side of his face. He is shaken by the near death occurrence. ... I'll take 2 points off of Composure".
Also...death isn't a thing unless the Player, Players and/or GM want it to be.
If you want to play a fantasy game...no worries. Just use the system and rules then just add fantasy stuff, setting, equipment, and get to it. (and yes, I do have a "SUPERS! Fantasy" campaign supplement and setting in the works; it's surprisingly easy...like...no-brainer type easy; all I'm really needing to create is the setting and fluff...the rules for Powers fit for spells, magic, special abilities, etc, so there's no real "work" there at all; just creation!
).So if I were you... look into SUPERS! or some other Super Hero RPG you are more familiar with and just use that for your game (fantasy, super hero, scifi, etc).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Yora
Legend
What I like to do as GM is to always think that when a person is killed, someone, probably not that far away, is going to be really upset about it.
Doesn't mean they will chase after the party for revenge. Depending on the circumstances, there might be more of a suspicion about the PCs that they had something to do with the disapearance of some people. Or a town or camp might be in a general state of distrust not targeted at the party specifically. Doesn't have to be that the people particularly liked the ones who got killed, but their deaths might disrupt their own plans, or just the faxt that someone got killed in a place is an unwanted disturbance for others.
Not every time an NPC is killed do the players have to run into a situation that they can connect ditectly to the killing. Chances are high that the upset people are somewhere in the west and the party is travelling to the east.
But it should happen often enough that the players get a feeling that every time someone gets killed in their presence, there might be unpredictable consequences for them, regardless of how justified their actions seem.
Sometimes the unexpected consrquences might even turn out to be a good thing, to really make things feel unpredictable. This avoids the perception that the GM wants the players to stop killing at all without saying it. I would even say that in most cases, the immediate gains from getting into a deadly fight should be bigger than the problems resulting from it. Using lethal force against enemies should not be outright discouraged in most games. The goal is simply to make the players stop and think for a moment before they decide to kill. Killing should not be the default approach taken without thinking.
Another big thing is of course that enemy NPCs want to stay alive. They will continue to fight as long as they think they can still win the fight and come out of it alive. When it becomes clear that they won't be able to kill or drive all of the PCs as they will clearly die first, there is no point to continue fighting. They want to live, so they will try to flee. As GM, make that attempt genuine and don't hobble the fleeing NPCs so the players will be able to kill them before they get away. Have them run in different directions when possible.
Obviously it helps getting across that these are people and not game mechanic entities, and it might make the players reconsider where self-defense ends and murdering begins. But it also helps to get across that it's really difficult to make sure nobody will ever know what they did. People can stll learn of the deaths of NPCs and the party's connection through other means, but having survivors escape is probably the biggest one. And it only takes one who got away to expose everything. If the players decide to follow the tracks of an escaped survivor through the wilderness before he reaches his friends, that's great. It only raises further questions about how justified and sensible everything is that the players are doing.
I think a key to all of this is to set the expectations straight early. Springing it on the players after they already have a body count in the low hundreds won't go over well.
Doesn't mean they will chase after the party for revenge. Depending on the circumstances, there might be more of a suspicion about the PCs that they had something to do with the disapearance of some people. Or a town or camp might be in a general state of distrust not targeted at the party specifically. Doesn't have to be that the people particularly liked the ones who got killed, but their deaths might disrupt their own plans, or just the faxt that someone got killed in a place is an unwanted disturbance for others.
Not every time an NPC is killed do the players have to run into a situation that they can connect ditectly to the killing. Chances are high that the upset people are somewhere in the west and the party is travelling to the east.
But it should happen often enough that the players get a feeling that every time someone gets killed in their presence, there might be unpredictable consequences for them, regardless of how justified their actions seem.
Sometimes the unexpected consrquences might even turn out to be a good thing, to really make things feel unpredictable. This avoids the perception that the GM wants the players to stop killing at all without saying it. I would even say that in most cases, the immediate gains from getting into a deadly fight should be bigger than the problems resulting from it. Using lethal force against enemies should not be outright discouraged in most games. The goal is simply to make the players stop and think for a moment before they decide to kill. Killing should not be the default approach taken without thinking.
Another big thing is of course that enemy NPCs want to stay alive. They will continue to fight as long as they think they can still win the fight and come out of it alive. When it becomes clear that they won't be able to kill or drive all of the PCs as they will clearly die first, there is no point to continue fighting. They want to live, so they will try to flee. As GM, make that attempt genuine and don't hobble the fleeing NPCs so the players will be able to kill them before they get away. Have them run in different directions when possible.
Obviously it helps getting across that these are people and not game mechanic entities, and it might make the players reconsider where self-defense ends and murdering begins. But it also helps to get across that it's really difficult to make sure nobody will ever know what they did. People can stll learn of the deaths of NPCs and the party's connection through other means, but having survivors escape is probably the biggest one. And it only takes one who got away to expose everything. If the players decide to follow the tracks of an escaped survivor through the wilderness before he reaches his friends, that's great. It only raises further questions about how justified and sensible everything is that the players are doing.
I think a key to all of this is to set the expectations straight early. Springing it on the players after they already have a body count in the low hundreds won't go over well.
John R Davis
Hero
Had my PC die ( and eaten by cannibals) last week in a non-dnd game. First pc I had lost in a while. Really enjoyed it, and felt like some real peril for a change ( it's very very rare anyone dies in the 5th ed I have played).
Like all things depends on the people you play with!
Like all things depends on the people you play with!
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
The very best piece of tabletop roleplaying game advice I have ever seen was walk, don't run, into conflict. It basically means that we should take our time to understand the context of potential conflicts before rushing headlong into them. Basically let the narrative breathe a bit. In our games we might often go 3-4 sessions without a fight. The potential for violence is usually there, but a significant part of the tension is if there will be violence or not. We also make sure that we always consider the ramifications of violence, in the setting and on our characters. Sitting in that fallout for a bit is also part of not running into conflict all the time.
Here's the blog post I saw this in:
playpassionately.wordpress.com
Here's the blog post I saw this in:
Walk, Don’t Run To Conflict
Fictional conflict is often the centerpiece of game design and as such the texts advocate “getting to the conflicts.” I believe that historically texts have over emphasized this central point from …
playpassionately.wordpress.com
The very best piece of tabletop roleplaying game advice I have ever seen was walk, don't run, into conflict. It basically means that we should take our time to understand the context of potential conflicts before rushing headlong into them. Basically let the narrative breathe a bit. In our games we might often go 3-4 sessions without a fight. The potential for violence is usually there, but a significant part of the tension is if there will be violence or not. We also make sure that we always consider the ramifications of violence, in the setting and on our characters. Sitting in that fallout for a bit is also part of not running into conflict all the time.
Here's the blog post I saw this in:
Walk, Don’t Run To Conflict
Fictional conflict is often the centerpiece of game design and as such the texts advocate “getting to the conflicts.” I believe that historically texts have over emphasized this central point from …
Well that post concerns conflict in general, not combat in particular, and allowing space for non-conflict scenes. But you can still have lots of conflict without a fight.
I think it's good advice for GMs like me who tend to want to skip over non-conflict scenes and SKIP TO THE FUN (the conflict). Players need time to establish their characters in the world. Conan the Barbarian starts with two non-conflict scenes - the forging of the sword, and his father telling Conan about the Riddle of Steel. These help establish the world and set the scene for later conflicts.
