To Kill or Not to Kill (PCs): That is the Question...

[Lord Mhoram]

My D&D play is a little different from most.

I play solo, the wife GMs. Or Vice Versa.

The world is built to that one specific character, subplots and story elements hinge on that one character. So that character can never die. Doesn't mean that this character cannot fail.

But in my case, while overcoming challenges, and winning fights are fun (and a necessary part of the game) the most important moments are when I feel exactly what the character feels, exploring the character's personality and emotional reactions to what has happened.

A tiefling paladin was in a situation where he had to kill some kobold children. The way this adventure was set up they were tied to supernatural evil that would never let them go. And he couldn't risk them growing up evil, and didn't have the resources to hold them .. so he killed them (it fit the adventure). Months later he is still having emotional repercussions over that act. His demonic nature gnawing at him telling him it was good, and his ideals saying that it wasn't evil, but necessary - and he is still unsure what to think.

That is what I love in gaming.

Another thing is that we both love long games - years to decades long. More time to develop and understand the character.


In a group - we play HERO system, usually Champions, where death is difficult to achieve mechanically, and if someone dies it is perfectly in genre for them to come back a little later (how many times has Jean Gray come back?)

 

[Daztur]

I really dislike the adversarial style of D&D which some posters advocate here. I much prefer an interesting story with interesting characters. I do not want to play an expendable red shirt, I want to play one of the protagonists of the story. If one of the characters die it should be for a memorable reason, not because the dungeon master threw an unkillable monster or unbeatable trap at the party (or inescapable monster I suppose).

I like that style of game as well but I do not feel that D&D is the best game for capturing that style of play. Basically D&D rules (with a few exceptions) don't follow story-logic. If you want to impose story-logic on a D&D game that ends requiring either a much more active DM or much more passive players than I like. If I'm going to play an RPG that has events that follow story-logic I'm going to play a game that has that baked into the rules. I'm not saying that having the sort of game that you're describing can't be awesome in D&D, it's just that it puts all of the burden of having things like "characters should only die for a memorable reason" and a dozen other things squarely on the shoulder of the DM.

I think also you have a bit of a misperception here about the "threw an unkillable monster or unbeatable trap" at the party. This line of thinking seems to assume that the DM knows what the party is going to do. For example in the game I'm going to be running the hexmap includes an elf fort with elves what really wouldn't like the PCs trespassing. If the PCs show up there anyway they're pretty much doomed, but I'm not throwing anything at them. The PCs will be told about the elves and if they go knocking on their door anyway they're going to be enslaved at best. What's important to note is that the PCs should have plenty of opportunities to avoid the unkillable monster or the auto-kill trap in the first place. If they blunder into them anyway despite the warnings that's not adversarial DMing that's neutral DMing.

 

[korjik]

I have a finely tuned Awesome Meter.

If the death will be more awesome than nearly dying: death it is.

If the near-death experience is more awesome than the death: maimed cruelty it is.

I don't let dogma stand in the way of my fun.

I have to agree wholeheartedly.

As a DM, my perfect fight ends with the PCs victorious, less than a surge of hit points between them, and no deaths.

Why?

Cause forcing one of my players to spend play time making a new character, and forcing myself to spend play time adjusting my campaign is a waste of play time. Play time that is all too frequently spent on nieces instead of characters now.

So yeah, if the fight was really good, but it is not a climactic fight, I will fudge to keep someone alive.

Oddly enough, that dosent mean that I dont kill off characters. I got all of my 3.5e group once each. One of them still gets mentioned every now and then (the Ranger fell to her death when the white dragon that had snatched her got flamestriked, by the cleric, played by her IRL husband).

The moral of the story is that we are all trying to have fun. What that means is very different to different people. My players want to be heroes and slaughter bad guys. They arent that interested as to whether they are only a step from the grim reaper. Your mileage may vary, and that is a good thing.

 

[Dordledum]

Play time that is all too frequently spent on nieces instead of characters now.

This sounds inappropriate, do tell!

Can't rember anyone of our group having to do with anyone's niece.

 

[Chalice]

I do not kill characters.

I do not keep characters alive.

Adventuring is a contact sport. Injury and death may result from participation.

Yes!

The safety net approach to roleplaying would detract from the experience so much, I'd rather just go and do something else altogether, thanks anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the most important thing (the only one that matters really) is that the DM and the players are on the same line.

You can have a highly lethal game when you "win" an adventure by staying alive, and optionally also by actually stopping the BBEG's plot. Call it "videogamey" because you die, make another PC, die, make another PC and so on. Don't get sentimentally attach to your characters, and focus on adventures and tactics.

You can have a no-death game when you "win" if you help create great stories and memorable plot twists. Like your favourite TV series, you don't want any of the major character to unexpectedly die in the middle of a season and never come back. Focus on the long-term story, character development, relationship, and see battles as a tool to shape the story of the PCs and the world.

There is a problem only when the DM provides a very different game compared to what some of the players expect, so the best thing to do is the DM asking the player what they want or telling them what she wants, and hopefully all agree on one setup. As a DM, I am willing to run a game either way, or something in between, and as a player I can adapt, but I need to know before we start!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I go for let the dice fall where they may.

 

[haakon1]

I do not kill characters.

I do not keep characters alive.

Adventuring is a contact sport. Injury and death may result from participation.

I've given you too many XP, but nice.

 

[haakon1]

What's important to note is that the PCs should have plenty of opportunities to avoid the unkillable monster or the auto-kill trap in the first place. If they blunder into them anyway despite the warnings that's not adversarial DMing that's neutral DMing.

Or as the line in "Predator" goes, "If it bleeds, we can kill it."

I've seen the dice do crazy things. I've seen a 4th level character summon a demon lord by defiling his altar (despite knowing the risk) and then proceed to get initiative, get a natural 20 crit, get missed by the demon lord, and keep getting missed and crit'ing back FOUR TIMES IN A ROW until I had the demon lord decide he'd better gate back out. (This was around 1986, in Oriental Adventures AD&D.)

My point is "unkillable" is really just "statistical highly improbable to be overcome", not "automatic unfair death".

If your character gets killed in D&D, most likely some combination of bad luck, poor planning by the PC, or poor tactics by the PC (such as not running away!) has caused it. Saying the DM "caused it" might have an element of truth, but it probably has a large element of whining.

As Gygax said, if you don't like it, go play Candyland.

Your character takes a risk every time he wakes up in the morning, drinks a mug of mead, or pisses on Demogorgon's altar while uttering his foes accursed name!

 

[haakon1]

As a DM, my perfect fight ends with the PCs victorious, less than a surge of hit points between them, and no deaths.

I play in a campaign with a DM who feels the same, and sometimes forces the results that way. I find it boring when I can see through the veil and realize fudging is happening.

For me as DM, MY perfect fight ends with the players saying, "That was awesome!"

Generally, that involves the players firing on all cylinders, playing their characters well (using their stats and abilities) and doing clever outside the box "Combat as War" stuff midfight, where the PC's were in character, and probably a moment where it seemed like they were all going to die, and then a moment where something great happened and they realized victory was insight.

But I've seen games where a TPK or near TPK can also lead to "That was awesome!"

forcing one of my players to spend play time making a new character, and forcing myself to spend play time adjusting my campaign is a waste of play time.

Yes, but . . . if there's not even the perception of danger, it takes the spice out of the game. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

My players want to be heroes and slaughter bad guys.

Mine also want to "win". Knowing everyone gets a trophy for participation might diminish the satisfaction from a "win".

My guess is in practice, we do just about the same thing . . . I just not comfortable with saying I will "prevent" deaths . . . I'm more comfortable saying I will not seek them and I will give extra chances to avoid them (like a second roll in a situation that means death if they fail, after the first roll has actually failed -- I've called it a "save versus DM" the two times in 30 years I've done it, since that used to be on the back of the AD&D DM's screen -- meaning Save versus Death Magic).