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

[Argyle King]

Nod. Isn't that kind of the point of D&D? I know two roleplayers from college who went on to be philosophy professors . . . philosophizing about "Theory of Mind" (can you understand another POV? what is understanding? etc.) and role playing aren't exactly antithetical pursuits.

I feel that's true. Now, generally speaking, I will say that I do tend to build characters that I have something in common with because it is easier to make decisions based on things I know. However, I've also (as already said elsewhere) played characters who had to little to nothing in common with me or my way of thinking.

As the out-game-entity known as DM, I also have some preferences. There are some game styles and systems which I prefer over others. However, when I'm playing the part of something which exists inside the game world, I put myself in the mind of that piece. What does that piece see? ...hear? ...smell? What experiences has that piece had? How has it been impacted by nature and/or nurture? It's the same process that we -as humans- do every day when we make decisions. I do not have any of the in-game pieces make choices or take actions which are based upon knowledge that those pieces would not have.

Sometimes the natural course of the game and the actions of the players lead to failure. Failure need not always mean death, but sometimes it does mean death (or serious injury.) I give the players enough knowledge and enough power so as to be competent enough to make their own decisions.

 

[Argyle King]

Or, logically, that you don't realize you're not actually doing it.

Listen, I'm not saying it's wrong to not be completely impartial. No one is. But saying you're a completely impartial DM, and that any dangers that befall characters in your game are of their own making (as if often done, not saying you're doing it) would seem to be absolving yourself of any responsibility for things that happen in the campaign.

It's just as logical to believe I am. If your position is that you cannot think with another's mind, then -by your own logic and position- you have no way of knowing my mind and what I can or cannot do within it without your view being tainted by your own biases.

As for responsibility, my responsibility -in my view- is to provide a way for the players to have fun. My responsibility is not -again, in my view- to unfairly favor a particular character or characters (which I view as in-game pieces) by using powers that I have as out-of-game entity. That holds true just as much for the PCs as it does for the pieces of the world I play the part of.

On that note, I'll also add that there have been times when I've had other people play the part of NPCs. Not all of my friends are tabletop gamers, but some of them still hang out when the others are playing. It's not unheard of for me to ask one of those who are not actively involved in the game to play the part of a NPC for a little while.

Some of the most fun I've had has been when I've let go of the wheel and allowed the campaign to drive itself.

 

[haakon1]

I'll also add that there have been times when I've had other people play the part of NPCs. . . . It's not unheard of for me to ask one of those who are not actively involved in the game to play the part of a NPC for a little while.

Nod. I sometimes ask gamer friends who are not in the game involved (I have a email and a live campaign) what they'd do if they were X NPC.

Mostly, that's about building up how the NPC would go about whatever they are plotting. Sometimes it's about how the NPC would deal with a complex situation or if they'd plan for a certain contingency/think of a certain angle.

That also works if you have a community of DM's to ask, like ENworld itself, or on the Paizo messageboards (I'm starting to run the Shackled City Adventure Path, and there's tons of sharing of good ideas/bouncing ideas off each other there).

Of course, sometimes I also list out all the possible ways to react, and just randomly determine . . .

Which reminds of the Futurama with Gygax:

Gygax: I'm (rolls percentile dice) . . . PLEASED . . . to meet you.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

As DM, I let the dice fall where they may. But I don't kill PCs -- their success (and life) or failure (and death) is all on their shoulders. They get the credit, or take them blame.

 

[Umbran]

As DM, I let the dice fall where they may. But I don't kill PCs -- their success (and life) or failure (and death) is all on their shoulders. They get the credit, or take them blame.

To give the absurd form of the argument:

If the GM puts Tiamat on the first level of the dungeon and allows 1st level characters to walk into it without warning, their death pretty much is on the GM's shoulders.

Now, maybe you personally are so fantastically good that you never over-challenge without telegraphing it. But as a generalization, GMs cannot (and should not) outright disavow culpability. The GM is part of the process, and some of the responsibility can thus fall on them.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's just as logical to believe I am.

Indeed. All I meant was that you can't know for certain which it is.

 

[Fifth Element]

As DM, I let the dice fall where they may. But I don't kill PCs -- their success (and life) or failure (and death) is all on their shoulders. They get the credit, or take them blame.

This is a good example of what I was talking about. DMs generally cannot absolve themselves of all blame if something goes badly in the campaign. They have far too much influence on the game world for that.

DMing is a responsibility as well as a joy. Own it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To give the absurd form of the argument:

If the GM puts Tiamat on the first level of the dungeon and allows 1st level characters to walk into it without warning, their death pretty much is on the GM's shoulders.

Now, maybe you personally are so fantastically good that you never over-challenge without telegraphing it. But as a generalization, GMs cannot (and should not) outright disavow culpability. The GM is part of the process, and some of the responsibility can thus fall on them.

For me as a player, i consider it the gm's responsibility to put in some threats that are potentially very lethal without there always being clues before hand. Tiamat is a bit much. But i having a genuine threat behind the door sometimes definitely keeps the game fun for me. If my character dies, i don't blame the gm...that is part of how I expect him to run the game.

 

[Umbran]

DMs generally cannot absolve themselves of all blame if something goes badly in the campaign.

As previously noted, I agree with you.

However, one usual counter to this is simple - why do you say that event X (where X amy be character death, a TPK, loss of magic items, or what have you) is something "going badly"? It is what it is. That's the story that came out of it. How dare you judge my group's game!?!

The counter to the counter is - it is "going badly" if the players have much of their fun torched. Character death can be, in the right circumstances, a fine and dramatic thing. In other circumstances, it can be a real drag for the player and the party.

 

[Fifth Element]

As previously noted, I agree with you.

However, one usual counter to this is simple - why do you say that event X (where X amy be character death, a TPK, loss of magic items, or what have you) is something "going badly"? It is what it is. That's the story that came out of it. How dare you judge my group's game!?!

The counter to the counter is - it is "going badly" if the players have much of their fun torched. Character death can be, in the right circumstances, a fine and dramatic thing. In other circumstances, it can be a real drag for the player and the party.

This is basically it. I should have been more specific. By going badly, I mean the players not enjoying the game experience. Character death is not, by the definition of going badly I'm using, necessarily going badly.

Some TPKs are awesome. Others ruin the fun. And that's not all on the players.