What good are insta-kill spells and monsters ?

[silentspace]

I'm in with the "story not reality" crowd. I'm not interested in an extra layer of grittiness and realism if its main effect is to hamper the telling of a good story.* I'm not trying to simulate reality, I'm trying to simulate an engaging fantasy. As a result I dislike instakills both against and from the PCs. (I also agree with DocM that too much arbitrary "realistic" death leads to less player investment in their characters and less engaging characters as a result.)

I think it comes down to a gamer preference. Those who consider rpgs more of games, where you want to compete and win will want as much "realistic" death and nastyness as they can get. Those who are farther on the interactive storytelling side usually don't, it can be a barrier to a 'good' campaign. Personally, I don't find "don't die" to be a compelling challange, and thus don't worry that lower leathality will somehow fail to challange me. But I play a different game than some other RPers, even if all the books are the same.

*I once had a weird idea of making a film that would be a set of several short shorts. Each would set up a classic movie situation (from multiple genres) then resolve it suddenly through the application of "realistic events". The ending short would tie together the shorts (possibly through a cleanup crew that gets involved after all of them) while one of the characters talks about a movie he wants to write. When some plot point is challenged with "well why don't they do X?" he responds "cause then there's be no story." End film. The film would either be called "cause then there's be no story" or "15 premature climaxes." This serves no purpose except to mention that this old idea always resurfaces when there is a disagreement on this board involving the conflict between realistic 'challange' and mutually engaging story.

Kahuna Burger

The problem is when you start to ask "At what point is a death cinematic enough?" What if you don't die in a surprise round, but die on round 1? On round 2? When is it cinematic enough? And what if your opponent isn't the BBEG, but a trap? Or one of the BBEG's underlings? What if it was entirely possible to kill the underlings easily, but because the PCs took certain actions instead of others they are in a situation where the underlings are a tough challenge?

When is a PC death cinematic enough to become acceptable?

There's no getting around the fact that at its core, the game is about combat. Gaining levels are about attacking better (BAB), taking more damage (HP), and surviving longer (Saves). In other words, the game is designed around combat, and the abilities of different characters to survive it. In the 3/3.5 editions there have been some skills added to allow for different types of encounters (diplomacy, intimidation), but these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Of course, the game is open-ended enough that people are free to play it however they like, so you can make of this what you will.

 

[Grazzt]

games that avoid "accidental" deaths bore the p*ss outta me.

even well prepared tactics can fall prey to just plain accidents or weather or acts of God (where Gods do take an active role in the game world)....

i like the fact that insta-kill monsters and spells exist in the game.

Yeah- what diaglo said. Fear of the unknown is a great thing. Keeps players/characters on their toes.

The old 1e "motto" works here: "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day." You can never be 100% prepared for every possible situation or encounter. Bad things happen. When they do, its time to exit stage right, regroup, and try again another day.

 

[MarauderX]

Anyone besides daiglo remember OD&D? Where if a goblin sneezed on you, you had to Save vs. Dragon Breath or die from something really nasty? It sucked when that happened, and there was no such thing as getting 'raised from the dead' at 1st level unless you wanted to start a career as a zombie.

I don't think insta-death stuff is particularly exciting, and don't really like to do it in my game, but sometimes... I like to throw the insta-death stuff at them when they least expect it. A basilisk shows up on the scene when they are weak and trashes them. That's a better example than some flying, invisible lich lord casting disintegrate on people - which I have experienced as a player, at 5th level. And people tend to leave those non-fun games after a while... like me (sorry tony!).

Eventually everyone misses a save. Get used to it. How prepared you were going in doesn't matter so much sometimes as how prepared you are to get back in the game by rerolling another PC.

 

[Piratecat]

This sort of thing leaves me as a really frustrated player.

IMO, Instakill can be OK if the suspense is built up... thrown in as a random hazard I find it's a bit much.

Or that a dragons breath is much the same. Frankly if a dragon turned up 'by suprise from nowhere' and fragged my character in a single hit then I'd be pretty hacked off as well.

If I'm 'doing something I shouldn't' or being stupid (failing to scout, not paying attention, etc) or in some way 'deserve' it then fair enough otherwise... I don't enjoy that sort of thing.

This is exactly how I feel as well. As a player, I'm happy to get killed - but I don't want it to come capriciously out of nowhere.

 

[diaglo]

Why are people upset about this? Because it's not 'cinematic' enough?

Is the objection to all traps and ambushes? Maybe the objectors could play a gladiator game, where all combat occurs in an arena...

they want their characters lives and deaths to have "meaning".

some of us want our characters to be us for those few brief hours. people die..sh*t happens...it makes the game more believeable.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Who gets to define "capriciously?"

edit: This is Merak arguing for the hell of it now. Ain't nobody going to change anybody's mind about what they like.

 

[Tom]

Remember back when pretty much all poison was save or die? Insta-death has been majorly toned down from previous editions.

I remember when a pair of bodaks killed 2 characters before they were taken down. They went to check the bodies of their fellows (who I had described as "suddenly falling down motionless") and were horrified to find out that they were dead.

They took it in stride, though, and in-character. They got the 2 raised, and went to a friendly wizard tower and spent the next 2 weeks of game-time studying everything they could find in the library about the abilities of various undead. They did NOT want a nasty surprise like that again.

They did not bemoan the fact that I sprung nasty monsters on them without warning them ahead of time, they instead felt that their characters had done inadequate research and preparation. This is not a mistake they made again, in fact, Death Ward (now always prepared as a matter of course) saved their life more than once after this encounter.

I don't think that was the point, springing nasty monsters on them without warning. The point was killing characters with insta-kill spells by monsters that shouldn't have the ability.

If you are going to give a monster a special ability it doesn't ordinarily have, you also need to provide a clue that something is a miss. For instance, let's say the insta-kill spell by the golem was powered by an amulett (I don't think the golem was a mage). Then let the players roll a spot for the amulett. At least when they die, they would know why, if they can spot the amulett.

The question was asked by someone else "if the PC know a monsters capabilities isn't that metagaming". I would say not unless the PCs are allowed to open the monster manual during the game. The characters would have some knowledge on all the monsters from rumors, legends, etc. Maybe not complete knowledge, but they would know for instance that a golem is mindless and can't cast spells.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Clues aren't much of a solution...because who's to say the PCs will FIND them? Or even if they do, interpret it correctly?

Death happens...yeah, its no fun, but what's the point of HP and Saves for PCs if they don't run the risk of failing things? The risk of adventuring IS death.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Well, that's a movie I'd love to see

That said, I don't like to railroad my players. While I set the tone of the campaign and give them tons of plot hooks, it's their choosing what to do.
And when they die, they die. Or else I could just email them the complete story of every session.

I think that the constant connection of non leathal behavior and railroading is just a demonstration that we aren't connecting on this. I don't railroad by any stretch of the imagination (some of my players seemed to want more forced direction from me) and yet I rarely kill off characters. When I talk about story, don't forget that most players have a story for their characters as well, and I try to acomadate that within reason. But I really don't see that high leathality helps the players "own" the game and that a lack of it at all correlates with "emailing them the complete story of each session." I don't see it to such an extent that I know the conversation is hopeless. Not in an insulting "there's no point in trying to make you understand" sort of way, I honestly don't have a problem with people who play a different way (though those who declare their's right tend to bug me ) but more in a "I've banged my head against this wall before, and I don't think the wall would move this time either" way.

In response to the thread starting session, talk around your gaming group about the issue. It may be that others feel the same way, and you could make a shift to a play style that you would find more fullfilling, or it may be that your play style is in the minority there and you need to either shift your expectations or shift groups. If you can't maintain commitment to your characters, for instance, you could try shifting your goals to testing out new and interesting mechanical ideas that make a new character a new opertunity to experiment. While this is the scenerio Doc M suggests avoidng as a DM, I've found it a somewhat viable way of enjoying myself as a player in groups where I couldn't work up the investment to enjoy roleplaying.

kahuna burger

 

[Grazzt]

Clues aren't much of a solution...because who's to say the PCs will FIND them? Or even if they do, interpret it correctly?

Exactly. I've seen lots of players (not just in my group mind you) that overlook even the obvious.

Death happens...yeah, its no fun, but what's the point of HP and Saves for PCs if they don't run the risk of failing things? The risk of adventuring IS death.

Exactly. So long as their is random chance in the game (dice rolling I mean) then there will always be the chance that the players (and monsters too) fail a save or check or whatever. If death is the result, then...death is the result.