To Kill or Not to Kill

[Malk]

My view is best summed up by a post on another thread on this topic, from a while back:

"Heroes who can't fail unless it suits the story aren't heroes, they're hand puppets."

Every Char is a hand puppet, its just how you choose to manipulate them that makes a difference. Further more, within the context of the story they most certainly can die...they are very vulnerable, and that gets roleplayed. It is only in the Metagame that we know they wont die.

Further more, death is not nearly the only point of failure, and I am in no means reluctant to face my pc's with the results of failure..so long as they dont die...that ends the story.

 

[LGodamus]

So let me say also that yes i can kill reckless players like henry's who attacked the umberhulk...but (and i hope this dosnt sound snobby) my players usualy play very in char and would never run and attack something that looked like it could kill them just for the bragging rites. If they did...they'd die


Henry i think you've been perfectly civil

I just wonder what makes you think that couldnt be in character?
There are plenty of people in real life that put themselves in situations where death is just as real a possibility, for even less a reason than bragging rights..
People are stupid , so are some characters...IRL stupid people often die stupid deaths...in my game stupid PCs do as well...

 

[Elemental]

Every Char is a hand puppet, its just how you choose to manipulate them that makes a difference. Further more, within the context of the story they most certainly can die...they are very vulnerable, and that gets roleplayed. It is only in the Metagame that we know they wont die.

Further more, death is not nearly the only point of failure, and I am in no means reluctant to face my pc's with the results of failure..so long as they dont die...that ends the story.

Not necessarily. Work it into the story. If the PC is getting raised, have an interlude in the afterlife where they meet a dead ancestor or agent of their god. If not, play out the reactions to their death, the effects that it has on the other characters, the funeral. Try and give it a meaning in the context of the campaign, such as "Well, there's no doubt the minions of the Overlord are bad news now.", "His death buys us some time, let's not waste it." or failing all else, "Whoah, this place is more dangerous than we thought."

This is my point of view: Sometimes you get a cheap death. For me, that's the karmic payment for that adrenaline rush that comes from "If this dice roll goes wrong, that's it, I'm down." and the ecstacy when your characters triumph against the odds, on the last dice roll. That's lost if I cannot die, except at a time the GM has designated as being 'dramatic' enough. That veers dangerously close to railroading. When I run games, I'll help the PC's out of game. I'll give them in-game reasons to know that a fight might require specialised tactics, or is just out of their league. When rules are ambiguous, I'll use the interpratation that favours the PC's. But I won't fudge. If something is no serious threat to the PC's, it doesn't have dice rolled for it.

 

[Malk]

Wich is why i am a big, huge proponent of letting everyone at the table know whats going on. If someone had a problem with that style of play i would see what i could do to help them out. But everyone in our group enjoyed our games and no one complained of railroading. Also I dont think every death ends the story just the "pointless" ones.

 

[Berandor]

Phew... the end of the thread. Hi, there

KahunaBurger:
I tend to give players good idea of which encounters they will be "winning" and which they will be surviving...

Do your players still roll dice in combat? Dice are a factor of chance, and chance doesn't seem to be too important when I already know the outcome of it. I don't mean that harshly, by the way.

Steveroo:
As you said, they (generally) become attached to PCs who "survive numerous deadly encounters over the course of several adventures." See? Survival is important. Playing the PCs (which requires survival - again - generally) is important. Furthermore, SUCCESS at adventuring is also (generally) important.

But what is success without the chance of failure? No real success. And if survival is important, it's equally important that survival is at stake. Because otherwise, why would survival be special or something to strive for in any way? It's just a given.

You can already see where I am coming from, but let me elaborate. I play D&D and role-playing games because I like the role-playing and the game part. I love imagining a character different from myself and react to situations as this character would. In fact, my fellow gamers have put me deeply into the storyteller/method actor camp. I hunger for narrative consistency.
But I deeply enjoy testing this consistency in the harsh winds of fate. Die-rolling is always a game of chance, no matter how good or bad your chances are. I like that with a +15 on my Diplomacy roll, I can still roll a 1 and give a meagre performance. That even a lowly orc might just get a swing at my character and drop it - and that in fact my character can get a swing at the BBEG and drop him. Adapting the narrative to the die results - that's the challenge of a good DM, and a good group of players. And that's what I enjoy, or else I'd be off writing shared-world novels instead of gaming.

So to me death must be possible if my character takes a seemingly deadly risk. Without the off-chance of dying, living is not difficult. In fact, I am strange in a way that I give the DM absolute narrative freedom - unless he rolls dice (or tells us to roll them). Then they dice take over, and the DM and the players must make the best of their fickle favors. If the DM describes a combat without rolling, I'm fine with whatever result he decides upon, but if he rolls for damage, I don't want the roll to be adapted to my current hit points so that I don't die.

Together with the fact that I like heroics, and grand scenes, that means I go through a lot of characters. As our group is on level 8, this is my sixth character, but not all of them died. Two died (one rather ignominously), and a third could have been resurrected, but I was unhappy with the character (playing a druid isn't something I'll try again). One left because the story demanded it, and the fifth character got put away because the whole group was restructured, and the remaining characters hated my wizard to the bone, while he was on friendly terms with those who left - so he left with them.

Does that mean I don't get attached to my characters? In a way, yes. As I don't play that long with them, I naturally couldn't temper my attraction to them in the flames of yearlong campaigning. That doesn't mean I don't like them, or know them. In fact, I pine for several of those who went before my current archer, and I will likely pine for him, as well, when his time comes.
But in the end, the character is just a means to an end. The end: Fun for the whole group. The means: an imaginary character, with full-fledged background story, preferences and habits, strengths and weaknesses. Something fun to get into, and something memorable to portray. But at the end of the day, the character is just a sheet of paper, filled with numbers. Everything that makes the character really fun or memorable comes from myself, and if needed, I can fill a new sheet of paper with numbers, and pour something of myself onto it. Perhaps something different, perhaps something very much alike.

So the point of my ramblings is:
When a character of mine dies, and there's not really the need for resurrection, then I roll up a new one. I don't like being resurrected unless there's an immediate incentive or reason for it. I already made up a good character, so I'll likely be able to do it again, explore new venues of the game, and role-play along new roads.
After all, I'm a role-playing gamer, and that's what we do.

Isn't it?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Do your players still roll dice in combat? Dice are a factor of chance, and chance doesn't seem to be too important when I already know the outcome of it. I don't mean that harshly, by the way.

honestly if you don't mean it harshly... well, there's no nice way to end that sentance so, I'll leave it. I'll say it once because this thread is obviously going round in circles and I don't think everyone with this play style should have to answer the same question multiple times...

There are more ways to fail than to die, and mere survival is not my idea of winning.

there are many ways to live and still fail. If you are trying to rescue an innocent, THEY can die and you have failed even if you don't take a single hit. If you are hunting down a bounty, they can escape and you have failed, regardless of your life. You can be captured and fail. You can be banished and fail. You can retreat in humiliating defeat from the castle you hoped to capture and you have failed.

The question is silly. Failure does not always mean death and success is not measured only by life. At least not in any game I'll spend my time on. The need to ask the question at all indicates that you play a game I would be bored to tears in. Luckily there are plenty of folks to play with you and plenty to play with me.

I know this has been covered already, and if I had time I'd quote them but lunch is over. But how did you read the whole thread and still try to say that with a straight face? easpecially:

Without the off-chance of dying, living is not difficult.

where did that darned eye rolling emoticon go to, anyway?

Kahuna Burger

 

[LGodamus]

Berandor, well spoken. I believe you may have just eliminated a reason for me to post on this thread further...you spoke my mind for me.

 

[Berandor]

honestly if you don't mean it harshly... well, there's no nice way to end that sentance so, I'll leave it. I'll say it once because this thread is obviously going round in circles and I don't think everyone with this play style should have to answer the same question multiple times...

There are more ways to fail than to die, and mere survival is not my idea of winning.

You know, I actually wrote that I didn't mean it harshly, because I don't. I am simply posing a direct question. I didn't put an emoticon at the end of the sentence because I didn't mean it tongue-in-cheek, either. I'd just like to know whether you roll dice during predetermined combat encounters, and if so, what degree of control do the dice have on the already determined outcome, and if the degree of control is not that much or even nothing, why do you still roll?
I am really trying to understand.

And a nice way to end the sentence could have been:
"... then try to phrase it differently."
"... then we have different understandings of harsh."
"... then perhaps I misread your statement."
"... how about a smile, dumbass?"
"... you suck more at the English language than Arnie does."
Or something. I don't know.

Edit: Sorry, I somehow missed a big part of your answer. See, I misunderstood you saying you'd tell them whether they'd "win" an encounter that if they're trying to save a prisoner, then they'd succeed in saving the prisoner, because that, to me, would be the description of winning that encounter.
Obviously, you only tell your players whether they'd be likely to die in a combat, not whether they're likely to succeed with additional goals they might have during an encounter. That is a genuine misunderstanding.
And it was nearly another one, before I edited this post

LGodamus: Thanks

 

[Berandor]

Edited out. Had harsh feelings regarding insinuations and perceived sloppiness of answer. Will try a different way.

The question is silly. Failure does not always mean death and success is not measured only by life. At least not in any game I'll spend my time on. The need to ask the question at all indicates that you play a game I would be bored to tears in. Luckily there are plenty of folks to play with you and plenty to play with me.

Let's see: The last combat I DM'ed was about a group of abducted children in the clutches of a witch, and the players had to watch out the kids didn't get hurt.
The last combat I played in was about getting into a storage room and retrieving our gear before being able to hit back. The combat before was about securing a vital item and handing it over to an associate before superior odds overcame us (and took our gear).

But as I wrote pre-edit:
Now, the only focus on death and combat in my post is derived from the thread's focus on it. Sorry for posting on topic.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Ah, this topic comes up every now and then.

To express my opinion, I will present an except from an email I recently sent to a prospective player in my campaign (It gives my point of view on several other subjects as well - ignore them if you want to, allow them to derail the thread if you don't):

...

Style: There's a lot of talk on the boards right now about "Grim, Gritty, realistic" or "high-magic, cinematic, fantastic" style games. People are arguing back and forth and there seem to be some strong feelings on the subject. I don't personally worry too much about it. I try to be fair and make sure that people's characters are all useful and not being overshadowed or underpowered via the magic item distribution. However, keeping your character alive is the players' responsibility. I don't like to fudge dice rolls (and my lack of a poker face makes it tremendously obvious when I do). That said, I won't deliberatly send you up against anything I don't think you can beat. On the other hand, I won't actually stop you from going after things you probably can't handle (players are unpredictable beasts). I run an open-ended game - PCs can go anywhere they want and do whatever they want, even ignoring adventure hooks if they like. I try to make actions have reasonable consequences - ignore the ogre tribe threatening the town, and next time you visit the town might be destroyed, or somebody else might have handled the situation. Likewise, it's good to be on your best behavior in cities - the guards don't give PCs special lenience.