What good are insta-kill spells and monsters ?

[Davek]

What I have done in the past is have the insta-death spells reduce the character immediately to -10 (or whatever threshhold we happen to be using for death). They and their party then have 1 round to stabilize the character or death follows. A healing spell or potion is required to stabilize, not 10% chance of automatic stabilization, no healing skill, etc...

If they stabilize, they will remain unconcious for at least 10 rounds (If the healing spell brings them to 0 or higher).

This ensures that powerful spells are still powerful, yet don't totally wipe out a character with no recourse. It also forces the rest of the party to choose priorities in the midst of combat that may not be beneficial to winning the combat, but that's life.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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

Its good to get these things out in the open... This is Kahuna stopping arguing for the time saving nature of it. (though I wasn't really arguing per se, except with a flawed presentation of the other side. I feel deeply that an accurate understanding of an opposing veiwpoint is more valuable than the rhetorical skills to attack anything. political activism veiw vs debate club, perhaps.)

kahuna burger

 

[Spatula]

I think that the constant connection of non leathal behavior and railroading is just a demonstration that we aren't connecting on this.

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."

And you're misrepresenting the 'other side' with the high lethality characterization. No one here has advocated constantly killing off the PCs - just that death be possible, even if it's not a 'cinematically-appropriate' moment.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I must say that approprately creative and paranoid players will generally survive. I was worried when I started the Sunless Citadel with only 2 players that they would get slaughtered. So far, they're doing just fine (they just defested the baby white dragon by figuring out a way to lock it in a room with a bunch of goblins).

Part of my DMing philosophy "Don't tell me your clever plan or what you expect to come of it. Just tell me what you do. I'll tell you what happens."

It's worked well so far.

 

[Piratecat]

Who gets to define "capriciously?"

I trust my DMs. They can.

 

[Tom]

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.

If the PC's don't find the clues, then that is their fault. If the PC's don't interpret the clues correctly, then that is their fault.

Death happens should be the motto of the game, but not without reasoning. For instance, the party comes upon a baby crying in the street. As soon as one of them gets close enough, the baby whips out twin vorpal pacifiers and hacks his head off. That's not reasonable. And that's not fun. But if you changed it to, "the baby has two very brightly shining pacifiers pinned to his bib and an odd intelligent look in his eye", then the PCs should determine that something is up, or if not then they should suffer the consequences. Killing PCs without some sort of reasoning with the excuse of "Death Happens" just doesn't make a good game.

 

[Flyspeck23]

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.

I didn't accuse anybody of railroading, nor did I make a connection between railroading and non-lethality. What I did connect was railroading and "telling a story", because I can clearly see a tendency for railroading if the PCs are little more than plot devices.
And again, I didn't accuse anybody of this. No need to bang your head (and no need to put words in my mouth either )

Or did you just connect "storytelling" with "non-leathal"? Anyway, for someone who doesn't "have a problem with people who play a different way" I honestly don't see your point there.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

If the PC's don't find the clues, then that is their fault. If the PC's don't interpret the clues correctly, then that is their fault.

Death happens should be the motto of the game, but not without reasoning. For instance, the party comes upon a baby crying in the street. As soon as one of them gets close enough, the baby whips out twin vorpal pacifiers and hacks his head off. That's not reasonable. And that's not fun. But if you changed it to, "the baby has two very brightly shining pacifiers pinned to his bib and an odd intelligent look in his eye", then the PCs should determine that something is up, or if not then they should suffer the consequences. Killing PCs without some sort of reasoning with the excuse of "Death Happens" just doesn't make a good game.

No one's saying death should pop up every single corner there is. That's just pointless...to me, that misses the point of HP as much as NOT having death.

The situation here was a Golem killed a Cleric right away. This sounds to me from a PLAYER'S perspective too...which means there COULD have been clues there, they just may not have found them. Besides, surprises are part of the game too. Why should the PCs know everything? Sure, research can tell you some...but not all.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Or did you just connect "storytelling" with "non-leathal"? Anyway, for someone who doesn't "have a problem with people who play a different way" I honestly don't see your point there.

I do have a problem with (even unitientional) misrepresentations of the way I play. *shrug* You may not have meant to do that, but when someone says that not doing it as "if they die, they die" is equivelent to "emailing them the story" I feel that a intermediate play style is being missed. And as with all messageboard discussions, not everything said after a quote of your comments is an pure response to your comments, so relax.

In a similar discussion, someone asked if gamers who played low leathality played video games on "god mode" because he saw it the same. I responded by asking (rhetoricly) if those who went for "risk of death or there's no point" gaming couldn't enjoy older episodes of action tv shows if they had seen more recent ones and knew no one died. The point was that he clearly looked for similar things in RPGs to what he looked for in video games, while I look for similar things to when I am watching, reading or writing a story. The disconnect was so great that he had made a completely erroneous connection about how someone who enjoyed rpgs a different way might enjoy other things.

Now this is just a meta discussion about how we discussed it. off to work.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Tom]

No one's saying death should pop up every single corner there is. That's just pointless...to me, that misses the point of HP as much as NOT having death.

The situation here was a Golem killed a Cleric right away. This sounds to me from a PLAYER'S perspective too...which means there COULD have been clues there, they just may not have found them. Besides, surprises are part of the game too. Why should the PCs know everything? Sure, research can tell you some...but not all.

I have no problem with surprises. That's what makes the game fun.

If there where clues that the PCs missed, then if I were the DM I would have said as I was killing the cleric "an amulett around the neck of the golem begins to glow and suddenly the cleric doesn't feel so good, roll a saving throw". That lets the PCs know they screwed up.

Or if you want more suspense, don't tell the PCs anything until they search the golem and do a detect magic spell on the amulett.

But the PCs should screw something up before being killed. Screwing up might mean missing a saving throw. Screwing up might mean not doing enough research. Screwing up might mean missing a spot on an amulett or not interpreting the significance of it. Screwing up might mean the monster rolls two natural 20's and a crit and gets an instant kill, even though the PC actually didn't do anything wrong, they got unlucky. But not recognizing that a golem, who shouldn't be able to cast spells at all, can cast high level insta kill spells without providing some kind of chance of recognition that something is a miss, just seems wrong to me.