When Do You (GM) Kill PCs?

[jdrakeh]

I guess it depends on the means of death.

I think it depends more on whether the players are ready to end the campaign or not. If they are, a TPK that kills all of the PCs dead forvever is no big deal. If, on the other hand, the DM is merely tired of running the game and decides to end it on his own by killing off all of the PCs in short order without first asking the players their opinion... well, you can generally expect some pissed off players.

My point is that "suicide via DM" is not the DMs fault

Actually, it's entirely the DM's fault as the final decision on whether or a not a TPK occurs is entirely in his hands. In my experience, handwaving this fact away with the 'Well, the characters deserved it!' is a fairly transparent attempt to disown responsibility by DMs who frequently kill of PCs according to personal whim and don't want to admit to doing so for fear that their players will stop coming around (note, as transparent as it is, they usually stop coming around anyway).

It can result in the end of a campaign but in a world of magic that is far from an absolute.

Fair enough - but to play the devil's advocate, the frequent use of resurrection magic no less cheapens a campaign than the DM secretly staying Death's hand. In fact, I think that the frequent use of resurrection magic does more to cheapen a campaign, as it is always plainly visible - where a DM's fudging is not (i.e., if done with restraint, other players may never know about it).

Ultimately, I think that TPKs have their place, but I have seen precious few DMs use them as anything other than an excuse to vent their personal frustration directly upon the players. Then you get the clueless idiots who brag about doing this, as if intentionally !#@$ing over the players is some admirable display of intellectual superiority

 

[ThirdWizard]

Actually, it's entirely the DM's fault as the final decision on whether or a not a TPK occurs is entirely in his hands.

I leave that in the hands of the dice. It hasn't happened yet, but I don't see how a Player dying is my "decision" and I certainly don't see how an entire party dying is somehow my "decision" either if it occurs. If by that you mean that it is my decision not to fudge rolls to save the party, then yes, that is my decision, and I will stand by it. But, that is different than a concious decision to kill the PCs.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Actually, it's entirely the DM's fault as the final decision on whether or a not a TPK occurs is entirely in his hands. In my experience, handwaving this fact away with the 'Well, the characters deserved it!' is a fairly transparent attempt to disown responsibility by DMs who frequently kill of PCs according to personal whim and don't want to admit to doing so for fear that their players will stop coming around (note, as transparent as it is, they usually stop coming around anyway).

The choice between TPK and party capture isn't always in the GMs hands. I was in one group where the players were tired of the game and forced a TPK. We had plenty of opportunities to retreat but chose not to. We were given options to surrender and chose not to. We knowingly fought to the not-so-bitter end. I've been in near-TPKs where players made the same suicidal decisions out of some belief that the DM wouldn't kill characters or that death wasn't a justified result of their action.

I think "the characters deserved it" is a perfectly valid reason to kill off characters. Causality should exist within a campaign and if the characters deserve killing they should expect some serious attempts on their lives.

IMO a "good" TPK is one where no one is surprised that it happened and where the key decisions leading up to the TPK were made by the players. In a decent campaign causality is reasonably predictable. The surprise should come in the form and individuals involved in the consequences but not the general nature of the consequences themselves. E.g. try to overthrow the king and you should expect to be hung if caught.

Breaking that causality cheapens the whole setting, far moreso than the use of resurrection magic.

Fair enough - but to play the devil's advocate, the frequent use of resurrection magic no less cheapens a campaign than the DM secretly staying Death's hand.

I won't disagree but then I've only had 3 characters brought back from the dead over the 5-year life of my current campaign. I generally play it that clerics who bring individuals back from the dead bear some degree of responsibility for the revived's future actions in their god's eyes. As a result, it isn't a willy-nilly affair.

... I have seen precious few DMs use them as anything other than an excuse to vent their personal frustration directly upon the players. Then you get the clueless idiots who brag about doing this, as if intentionally !#@$ing over the players is some admirable display of intellectual superiority

Hence my innate hatred of all things Ravenloft. I've never once been asked to play in a Ravenloft game and yet I've played in 5 of them, each time resulting in an infuriating TPK, with the possible exception of the time we forced the TPK on our terms.

 

[jdrakeh]

The choice between TPK and party capture isn't always in the GMs hands.

It isn't?

I was in one group where the players were tired of the game and forced a TPK.

The DM could have still said 'no' - thus, the final decision was still in his hands

I think "the characters deserved it" is a perfectly valid reason to kill off characters.

Sure - but it's purely subjective. What a given DM feels is desrving of TPK retaliation, the players may not and vice-versa.

IMO a "good" TPK is one where no one is surprised that it happened and where the key decisions leading up to the TPK were made by the players.

We're agreed here.

Breaking that causality cheapens the whole setting, far moreso than the use of resurrection magic.

The thing is that, for some folks (myself included), resurrection magic cheapens that causality by providing a guaranteed out (i.e, DM fiat may or may not effect casuality, but resurection magic always will).

 

[ThirdWizard]

It isn't?

It is always in a bad DM's hands. It isn't always in a good DM's hands.

(Using the axiom that excessive railroading is inherently a bad thing.)

 

[jdrakeh]

It is always in a bad DM's hands. It isn't always in a good DM's hands.

(Using the axiom that excessive railroading is inherently a bad thing.)

Don't get me wrong, I hate railroading - but ultimately, the choice to allow or disallow a TPK is always made by the GM. For example, in the situation of a 'forced' TPK mentioned by kigmatzomat, the DM didn't have to let the TPK occur - but he decided to go along with the players. As I pointed out above, he could have said 'no'.

Point being, the outcome of a TPK is always in the DM's hand - it has nothing to do with being a 'good', 'bad', or even 'railroading' DM (although enforcing or not enforcing a TPK against the wishes of the players would be railroading). Merely being the DM places the final onus of deciding what happens on your shoulders.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't agree with DMs who force TPKs (or don't allow them) against the wishes of his players - but make no mistake, the final call is still theirs.

 

[ThirdWizard]

But, to me, that isn't saying anything at all. In the end, everything is in the DM's hands. A DM who lets his players get into spots where they should, by all rights, die and then swoops them out of danger because "TPKs are bad" is doing his players a grave disservice, IMO. Whether it is because the PCs didn't do enough research before going into the dragon's den or rushing in fully knowing it is a great wyrm red dragon makes little difference to me. When the consequences dictate death, and the DM fudges or pulls out deus ex machinas out of nowhere, the campaign has suffered a fate worse than death.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Don't get me wrong, I hate railroading - but ultimately, the choice to allow or disallow a TPK is always made by the GM. For example, in the situation of a 'forced' TPK mentioned by kigmatzomat, the DM didn't have to let the TPK occur - but he decided to go along with the players. As I pointed out above, he could have said 'no'.

As gets said time and time again, once the characters become immortal the fun is gone. Had he said no he would have invalidated every decision we, the players, made and turned the game into a railroad. He wasn't that kind of GM. Oh sure, he'd change the game to Ravenloft 15 minutes into the 1st session, but he wasn't a full-on railroader. He just really liked Ravenloft and couldn't understand why we didn't.

 

[jdrakeh]

that isn't saying anything at all.

Sure it is.

In the end, everything is in the DM's hands.

Which is the point I've been trying to make.

A DM who lets his players get into spots where they should, by all rights, die and then swoops them out of danger because "TPKs are bad" is doing his players a grave disservice, IMO.

I agree, but somtimes TPKs can occur unintentionally as the result of horrible dice rolls when the situation doesn't warrant a TPK (see the old Rolemaster small animal critical hit charts for some examples of how this might happen). In cases such as an entire party of hereos being killed by a small squirrel because of some die rolls, is it 'doing the players a grave disservice' to veto the TPK, not because it's 'bad' but because it makes absolutely no sense in the context of the game being played?

Note I've never advocated getting rid of TPKs completely - only when they don't make sense (go back to my earlier examples in this thread) in the context of the game being played or when they run roughshod over the enjoyment of the players (e.g., ending a campaign when the players are still interested in it). Like I've said - TPKs have their place, but more often than not, they seem to be used by DMs to 'teach their players a lesson' or indulge in some other form of chest-thumping Alpha Male behavior.

When the consequences dictate death, and the DM fudges or pulls out deus ex machinas out of nowhere, the campaign has suffered a fate worse than death.

Only if the fudging is obvious, I think. Fact is, if you have no idea that DM fiat has been exercised, then.. uhm... you have no idea that DM fiat has been exercised. That is, you'll be none the wiser. They key is to not make PC death impossible - it can and should always be possible. That said, this doesn't preclude fudging things when it makes sense to do so - fudging dice sometimes doesn't make PC death impossible all of the time.

Now, if you're honestly saying that it never makes sense to fudge roll results and that the DM and players should have no say in what happens during a game, but instead follow the rules slavishly regardless of whether or not they make sense in a given situation, then... ah... I don't get that. That sounds... ah... very contrary to the design goals of pretty much every RPG ever written (with the possible exception of The World of Synnibarr).

If, OTOH, you're arguing that the DM should enforce a TPK whenever they feel like it, how is that any less biased than preventing one whenever they feel like it? It sounds as though you might be beating the 'bad wrong fun' drum here, because you seem to be advocating a a different, although equally biased and arbitrary, approach to TPKs as the one you're saying is 'wrong'.

Of course, it's possible that I'm getting you wrong altogether and you're merely saying 'That's not the way I like it' as opposed to 'That's bad and wrong and anybody who does it is bad and wrong!'. Which makes a lot of sense, and is something that I understand all too well

 

[jdrakeh]

As gets said time and time again, once the characters become immortal the fun is gone.

And I agree. Note that I haven't advocated getting rid of character death (or TPKs) altogether. What I guess I'm having trouble following is how some people on this thread keep reading 'I only advocate killing PCs when it makes sense' but see 'I never, ever, kill PCs ever!' - because the two things are entirely different.

Killing PCs when appropriate != Never killing PCs

Had he said no he would have invalidated every decision we, the players, made and turned the game into a railroad.

I agree with that, too - but that doesn't change the fact that the option was available to him. He merely chose not to take it. You didn't make him take it (unless you had a gun in his ear or something).

Oh sure, he'd change the game to Ravenloft 15 minutes into the 1st session, but he wasn't a full-on railroader.

That sounds pretty 'full-on railroad-y' to me