Not Wanting to Kill Characters

[Olaf the Stout]

My players are all really enjoying playing their current characters. 2 in particular have concepts and/or storylines going on that I feel would be really interesting and fun to see how they play out. This puts me in a bit of a dilemma.

On the one hand I like to challenge my players and keep them feeling like their characters could meet their death in the next combat if they're not too careful. I like to play the bad guys to their full potential, not just dumb fools for the PC's to level up on. While this may sound like I am a bit of a killer GM I have killed surprisingly few PC's. I have knocked many into the land of negative hit points but very, very few have actually been killed.

On the other hand I really want to see where these character stories and concepts go. I feel like if I kill a PC or 2 it might make the game less fun for myself and my players as we won't get to see how things might have played out.

It is very strange. I think that this is due to the "Storyteller GM" in me meeting the "Play By the Rules and the Luck of the Dice GM".

Has anyone else been through a similar situation/ had similar feelings? This is not so much about me asking what should I do but more just me interested in seeing if others have had been in this situation. I think that if a kill or not kill situation comes up in the game I will just deal with it as I see best at the time so it's not worth worrying about it too much for now.

Olaf the Stout

 

[the Jester]

Frankly, from the way you describe your record of knocking them out but rarely killing them, I think you're in a fine position.

I'm usually interested in where just about every pc is going with their 'story', but I also bear in mind that new pcs are likely to have 'stories' just as interesting!

In other words, I kill pcs left and right, especially at low- and very high- levels.

Edit: One thing that I did in order to have my cake and eat it too was throw in a rod of resurrection (this was back in 2e; now iirc it's a staff of life). This was great! It let me take the gloves off without just smearing the party across the landscape. Well, permanently, anyway. And when the rod later turned out to be the centerpiece of a plot to restore the evil antichrist figure of the campaign's main religion to life, the pcs had an awful sense of responsibility about it (after all, they were the ones who used the rod on the corpse!).

 

[ValhallaGH]

I had that same problem with a game I'm running right now. Then the players took it out of my hand when two of them decided that it was appropriate to kill half the party.

While long term stories are interesting and fun, it is a convention of the better fictional literature that not all of those stories get completed. Just look at Boromir. It's apparent that you'll do what you deem best, as you should, so I shall simply wish you the best of luck with it.

 

[Lord Foul]

I am the same way. Just a couple of sessions ago I killed one of the characters in my group and felt just as bad as the group. Then last session the same thing almost happened. I don't pull any punches so whatever happens happens. Most of the PC's survival has been due to my poor DM dice. The session I had a character death was the one where I decided to buy a new set for DMing. The new set worked out well. Not that I want character death but I want the fear of character death so that the game is mor memerable.

Foul out.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Consider eliminating critical hits

You might want to consider eliminating critical hits. The DMG pointed out that the random nature of critical hits hurts the PCs more than the NPCs since the PCs are “on stage” for more time than any monster or NPC.

Now I've always been the kind of GM who lets the dice fall where they may and even roll the dice in front of the players. However, in 3e critical hits are much more dangerous and can take a PC down faster than in previous editions. So I've been thinking about it….

Also remember that most opponents won't fight to the death unless cornered. If you decide to keep critical hits, consider having your opponents flee after the first critical hit. For example, whenever a mook receives a critical hit, they flee. Once more than half of the mooks have died and/or fled, the remaining flee. When all the mooks flee then their commanders will flee also. This also sets up recurring villains.

Non-lethal damage. Perhaps the opponents would rather capture the PCs and sell them into slavery than kill them? Or ransom them back to the noble families, temples, etc. for big bucks. Consider the motivation of the opponents. Are they driven to riches or bloodlust? Or maybe they're just hungry. In the last example, they might want to save the PC for a snack later. By knocking out the PCs you at least give them a chance to escape later on. Much better than just dying in combat. Even if they're sold into slavery and stripped of all their belongings there is still a chance of escape so long as they don't lose hope. And what a story! They could stage a slave revolt, bribe the guards, et cetera et cetera.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Twice.

I had a GM who was storyteller first, GM second. Resulted in a lot of NPC's that were way, way, WAY more interesting than we were. In the whole duration of the campaign, one PC died, the GM's Significant Other's paladin. after that, it became D&D for kids. Blah.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

If a PC dies,

That's Ok.

I suppose.

But, it's more fun to leave them alive.

Ever seen a cat with a Mouse?

Once he kills it, the fun is over.

You need to keep them alive to trully make them suffer.

Ok, Undead will work too.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Twice.

I had a GM who was storyteller first, GM second. Resulted in a lot of NPC's that were way, way, WAY more interesting than we were. In the whole duration of the campaign, one PC died, the GM's Significant Other's paladin. after that, it became D&D for kids. Blah.

See, for me I have more fun seeing the PC's doing all of the cool, interesting things. The NPC's are just there to play the supporting role. Sure, they might have important bits a couple of times in the story but it is more fun for both me and the players if the PC's are the most important characters in the story.

IMO anyways.

Olaf the Stout

 

[shilsen]

I use an action pt system where PCs can use up an action pt to turn a killing blow/effect into one that renders them stabilized at -9 hp. I'm very good at challenging the PCs a lot with weaker enemies, and without that rule, in 34 sessions I would have had 16 deaths. That would be an especially big problem for the game for two reasons - resurrection magic is effectively not available and the campaign is heavily based on PC choice, so removing PCs would be a serious problem.

Despite the non-existence of death in the game, combat tends to be a fairly tense affair. Partly it's because the PCs know and have experienced various repercussions of defeat besides death. PCs have been kidnapped, have lost valuable items, have failed to stop NPCs from achieving various problematic ends, etc. Besides that, there's the pure ego angle, since players hate to have their PCs beaten whether they survive or not.

So my experience tells me that it's easy to remove death from the game and still retain tension and serious repercussions for combat and for PC choice.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

You might want to consider eliminating critical hits. The DMG pointed out that the random nature of critical hits hurts the PCs more than the NPCs since the PCs are “on stage” for more time than any monster or NPC.

Now I've always been the kind of GM who lets the dice fall where they may and even roll the dice in front of the players. However, in 3e critical hits are much more dangerous and can take a PC down faster than in previous editions. So I've been thinking about it….

Also remember that most opponents won't fight to the death unless cornered. If you decide to keep critical hits, consider having your opponents flee after the first critical hit. For example, whenever a mook receives a critical hit, they flee. Once more than half of the mooks have died and/or fled, the remaining flee. When all the mooks flee then their commanders will flee also. This also sets up recurring villains.

Non-lethal damage. Perhaps the opponents would rather capture the PCs and sell them into slavery than kill them? Or ransom them back to the noble families, temples, etc. for big bucks. Consider the motivation of the opponents. Are they driven to riches or bloodlust? Or maybe they're just hungry. In the last example, they might want to save the PC for a snack later. By knocking out the PCs you at least give them a chance to escape later on. Much better than just dying in combat. Even if they're sold into slavery and stripped of all their belongings there is still a chance of escape so long as they don't lose hope. And what a story! They could stage a slave revolt, bribe the guards, et cetera et cetera.

I have considered giving critical hits a miss at one point. One player in my group doesn't let the bad guys/monsters have critical (but the PC's still can). I don't like that idea personally though. If the PC's can critical than their opponents should be able to as well. Having said that the PC's have action points but their opponents don't.

The reason why I kept them in is because I, and the majority of the players, like them. There is a certain good feeling that you get when you confirm the critical hit that just isn't the same as hitting someone twice in a row. Plus the "Play by the Luck of the Dice" side of me also likes the randomness that they add to an encounter. A fight that is a cakewalk for the PC's can become a little bit more threatening with a couple of good rolls or a critical can turn the odds for the PC's when all hope seems to have been lost. I think it makes for more exciting fights. Whether that is actually the case or not is debatable. It can certainly take away from the game if a PC is taken out by an (un)lucky hit/shot in an otherwise insignificant battle. Overall I think it is a matter of personal choice and personally I think the pros outweigh the cons.

Olaf the Stout