To Kill or Not to Kill?

[Immortal Sun]

I dunno, that looks suspiciously similar to:

I took him to mean "chase rules" as a seperate sub-system from existing mechanical bits. It seemed like he was implying that "chase rules" were some kind of change from the usual rules.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

To me, this isn't really about to kill or not kill. It's about what makes for an interesting story. And I think the OP did a great job spinning an interesting story out of an unexpected situation. What was basically a random encounter has resulted in the creation of an orc nemesis for the orc-hunting ranger. That's storytelling gold. The nemesis beat him in combat, took his sword, humiliated him, and killed an ally. That's much more interesting than killing the PC (and I say this as someone who thus far has killed two PCs in my level 8 campaign). I'd be looking for opportunities to play up that rivalry and have that orc make an even more vicious return visit. Hats off to the OP for quick thinking.

 

[Sadras]

Just responding to some of the posters.

I personally don't like this. We had a fight that went rather poorly for us, so I opted for tactical retreat. Others decided to be big heroes and stay... got promptly killed for their heroism, but woke up days later with a player missing an arm (no mechanical impact, as they made metal arm for him).

Besides the obvious that I'd rather kill a character than tear off one of my player's arms for a bad call, you mentioned the PCs were killed for heroism but then woke up days later. Was that the result of Raise Dead/Resurrection?
But I do get what you're saying overall, higher stakes required. That was my concern too.

edit: as for the OP example, maybe do not let the ranger just free kill bunch of orcs, might have made him overconfident in his capability to 1v1 the big bad guy, and overconfidence is slow and insidious killer

I should mention, it was the end of the session, and one of the players had already just left due to prior commitments, so I was wrapping up in a sense.
As a 5th level ranger and with the orcs (3) being bloodied I did not see this as a problem, besides I'm trying to get through swathes of material, and having to roll a bunch of stealth checks, initiative, attack and damage rolls against creatures that were under 10 hit points just would not be exciting for either the table or myself as DM.

I make the stakes clear at the outset of the conflict and, if the PCs lose, they lose (whatever that means in context).

How? I'm imagining you turn to the player saying, "Just for you to be aware, chasing down these orcs, alone, in an area your character is not familiar with (despite being a ranger), may result in the character's death."
Have I got that right?

@OP I don't know, I don't like how an NPC who ostensibly wasn't there just came out of nowhere and saved the PC. I'm not saying the PC should have died, but it seems more like you wanted to kill someone and couldn't make the math do it to the player, so you killed his friend instead.

You're right, I did not roll for the tressym's location, the only thing that had been established in play was that the animal companion had remained back at camp. I deemed it reasonable that it would anxiously be awaiting the ranger's return and perhaps be circling the encampment. Upon hearing the commotion (acute perception) it would rush out towards the disturbance.
I was indeed thinking of a reasonable cost to be paid for action failure and the survivability of the PC, whether it had to be someone's death, I don't know, it was what I came up with in the spur of the moment.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This confuses me. The "math" is used to determine uncertainty in the story. If you're choosing to ignore the math for the story, you shouldn't have used math to begin with or you're using math when you shouldn't.

Exactly. Too many times people use the math when they should be using the story. If you strictly used the math in the OP's scenario, the chase would continue, a bunch of ranged attacks could have been used against the chased PC, and the PC could have been killed. For no other reason that the math (and obviously as I think we can all get, I'm using "math" here as a synonym for game mechanics) would ask us to use the chase rules until the chase rules had reached a conclusion as per the chase rules. And the idea of having this allied being show up to run interference would not occur (unless of course the DM using the "math" rolled on some chart to affect chase rules and that chart just luckily came up with the result of some ally showing up to help out.)

By having the cat ally arrive and take the hit for the PC... the DM was not making themselves beholden to the math-- the numeric dice mechanics the "game" part of D&D offers up as a way of adjudicating results. I am a firm believer that improvisation on the part of the DM is almost always preferable to rolling dice on some chart to determine results, because the DM's improvised choice will more often be more applicable and satisfying that whatever randomly was generated by the dice.

Some people don't like that way of playing. For them, the dice are the end-all-and-be-all of playing any RPG. And you don't ever ignore or go against the almighty arbiter of the die. And that's fine. You play the way that makes you happy. But when someone asks "Hey, do you think what I did was the right call?" and that call was to let the narrative of the situation take control, rather than a randomly determined result from just using game mechanics... I will always tell that person to go with the improv.

Sometimes I think DMs don't give themselves enough credit. Their improv to try and make sense of a situation and produce more satisfying results for their table is better than they realize... and more often than not better than just doing what the dice tell them what to do. Dice have their place-- especially for repetitive situations where each roll is like only 5% of an entire exchange (like combat)-- but for big things that dramatically affect the story (like say not running a chase scene per game-given chase rules to an inevitable conclusion of 'catch or escape'), improvised decisions on the part of the DM I believe usually win out.

 

[iserith]

How? I'm imagining you turn to the player saying, "Just for you to be aware, chasing down these orcs, alone, in an area your character is not familiar with (despite being a ranger), may result in the character's death."
Have I got that right?

More or less, yeah. What you stand to gain, what you stand to lose.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Exactly. Too many times people use the math when they should be using the story. If you strictly used the math in the OP's scenario, the chase would continue, a bunch of ranged attacks could have been used against the chased PC, and the PC could have been killed. For no other reason that the math (and obviously as I think we can all get, I'm using "math" here as a synonym for game mechanics) would ask us to use the chase rules until the chase rules had reached a conclusion as per the chase rules. And the idea of having this allied being show up to run interference would not occur (unless of course the DM using the "math" rolled on some chart to affect chase rules and that chart just luckily came up with the result of some ally showing up to help out.)

By having the cat ally arrive and take the hit for the PC... the DM was not making themselves beholden to the math-- the numeric dice mechanics the "game" part of D&D offers up as a way of adjudicating results. I am a firm believer that improvisation on the part of the DM is almost always preferable to rolling dice on some chart to determine results, because the DM's improvised choice will more often be more applicable and satisfying that whatever randomly was generated by the dice.

Some people don't like that way of playing. For them, the dice are the end-all-and-be-all of playing any RPG. And you don't ever ignore or go against the almighty arbiter of the die. And that's fine. You play the way that makes you happy. But when someone asks "Hey, do you think what I did was the right call?" and that call was to let the narrative of the situation take control, rather than a randomly determined result from just using game mechanics... I will always tell that person to go with the improv.

Sometimes I think DMs don't give themselves enough credit. Their improv to try and make sense of a situation and produce more satisfying results for their table is better than they realize... and more often than not better than just doing what the dice tell them what to do. Dice have their place-- especially for repetitive situations where each roll is like only 5% of an entire exchange (like combat)-- but for big things that dramatically affect the story (like say not running a chase scene per game-given chase rules to an inevitable conclusion of 'catch or escape'), improvised decisions on the part of the DM I believe usually win out.

Again, confused. The math was used here to resolve the uncertainty in who would prevail in combat. The ranger lost, and the story reflects this with a chase narration followed by the tressym death. This narration is a direct result of the math loss.

Another DM may have determined the chase result was uncertain as well, which would have called for new math to determine how the chase story resolved, but that didn't happen here.

Regardless, I don't follow your argument: math was used to determine uncertainty in the story. What should be ignored?

 

[Satyrn]

I took him to mean "chase rules" as a seperate sub-system from existing mechanical bits. It seemed like he was implying that "chase rules" were some kind of change from the usual rules.

I can see how it looks like I implied that, but @iserith is right when he suggests that what you do meets my criteria of "some sort of chase rules."

I'd also be happy with the DM flipping a coin, saying "heads your caught, tails you're not" when I try to flee. Unless I was running from a sloth, because that would be embarrassing. What do you mean I only have a 50/50 chance of outrunning a sloth? It's a sloth!

Anyway, what I was really trying to imply is that I don't want the DM to decide how to end the chase based on what makes for an interesting story.

 

[Mort]

Anyway, what I was really trying to imply is that I don't want the DM to decide how to end the chase based on what makes for an interesting story.

But what if there are multiple options that make sense per the situation?

If one of those options is the more interesting/fun than the others (so makes a better story), isn't that generally a good way to go?

 

[Satyrn]

But what if there are multiple options that make sense per the situation?

If one of those options is the more interesting/fun than the others (so makes a better story), isn't that generally a good way to go?

If you're talking about which NPC shows up when it's determined the chase ends via Deus Ex Machina, and the DM has a choice between Autolycus, Salmoneus and Joxer, then sure. Pick the fun one.

But if the DM is just thinking "geeze, this chase isn't going how I want it to . . ." then has Autolycus show up to save me, that would be unsatisfying.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Regardless, I don't follow your argument: math was used to determine uncertainty in the story. What should be ignored?

Using chase rules for the entirety of the chase. Some people might've been inclined to do so. The fact that the OP didn't and instead made the personal improvised decision to let the tressym interfere I believe was the better choice. That's why I said he did the right thing.