When Do You (GM) Kill PCs?

[Mallus]

But if the characters don't have the possiblities of dying more than likely they will save the day because, honestly, theres nothing stopping them.

I suppose that depends on what they have to do to save the day.

Even assuming the PC's are totally immune to dying (which isn't what I'm advocating), 6 mid-level PC's would be hard pressed to say, whittle down an army of 100,000, after failing to raise an army of their own via diplomacy...

Its not the death that is important, but the fear of dyiing that is important.

What about the fear of loss? Death in standard D&D after a few levels is best described as a loss of resources. Is it so hard to imagine a kind of campaign where the loss of resources pertains to plot-elements and other forms of 'narrative capital', not just gold and a level?

In some games, loss of a PC's spouse (or kingdom, or favorite mule) means more to a player
than a measely 1 level drop.

It is the thing that makes pcs not go sailing on the lava river.

Unless the lava-sailing PC was immune to heat, they'd be --literally- toast in one of my campaigns. I'm assuming a certain level level cooperation between the DM and player here. If we to play a narrative-heavy game that assumes a certain level of character durability and continuity, it would be considered rude to turn that into Toon.

It just doesnt sound right to use death as an option in the game. Death is the ultimate pc failiure. It doesnt prevent other pc failures.

For some games, death as an option works fine. Its not for every game.

And what each player feels is the ultimate failure is the ultimate failure. I've played in high-lethality campaings... recently, in fact. Where an honest death was par for the course, and said death was a source of great amusement for everyone at the table. Irreversible death was the norm. You failed by making uninteresting characters...

 

[RedWick]

The issue really comes down to how you treat the game you're playing/running. If you treat is just as a game, then killing the characters off doesn't have the same sting. If you treat it as you might a cooperative story, then you want to make sure that the protagonists of the story stick around until you reach the end.

I'm more of the latter than the former, so I'm a big fan of maiming the characters instead of killing them outright. Break bones, sever limbs off, poke eyes out, leave lasting scars. Make the characters hurt. But killing them off outright? Unless the story demands such a thing, there's no glory in being killed during the build-up of the story. Once you reach the juicy bits of the story though, all bets are off.

 

[Globus]

I've noticed a disparity amongst GMs when it comes to killing player characters. Some really don't like killing PCs and will try to avoid it whenever possible, even when it involved fudging dice rolls or ignoring rules. Some only do it when it is dramatically appropriate in the story. And some just let the dice fall where they may. Where do you fall?

I'm pretty much of the "let the dice fall were they may" school. But we use a heropoint system so the players often have a shot at avoiding the inevitable (well, at least once)

Also, how easy is it to be ressurected in your game, and does this effect your willingness to kill PCs?

Although raise/ressurrection is available in my games it is rarely used. Most of my players just rolls up a new character. We're probably a little weird that way, but we just love to roll up new characters and try new character builds

Best regards,
Anders

 

[haakon1]

Theres no fun if theres no risk.

Here here.

IMHO, that's also why you need a "Shire". If everything is weirdo evil snake god outsiders and thieves' guilds, there's nothing "at risk" but the PC's themselves.

 

[Gold Roger]

I voted other, because I hadn't made my mind up about this really, it was allways dependant on the situation. I thought about every PC I killed in an actual combat situation and how I view that situation now.

For those interested in my reasonings about these, bear with me through my small bundle of flashbacks. Those not interested: Feel free feel free to skip to my last paragraph.

Flashback 1: Sun elf killed by pendulum trap. Sounds like a very unfun way to loose youir character. It wasn't and I'd handle the situation just like this anytime again. Why? Consider the following: The charakter was under half hitpoints but declined healing. He went ahead and checked the door before the passage he was killed in, but not the hallway itself and even though the group had a dwarfen rogue that would have found the trap in no time! The passage was descriped in a way that hinted at something special, even at the trap itself (splashed blood). The trap would have been survivable at more than half hitpoints. So it boils down to either player foolishness or recklesnes on the PC's part, both carry the expectance of death in a game mastered by me.

Flashback 2: Monk is killed by a large Air Elemental in a dramatic fight with two air genasi. The strike itself was a AoO for drinking a potion while threatened. I'm split on this death. Things that speak for it are: It was a very tense and climatic fight, that I'm proud of till today. One reason was player "stupidity". While you can't give a new player the fault for not knowing the rules, this player was in the campaign and had access to the PHB long enough to know about AoO's, but didn' even bother for one look at the PHB. I don't appreciate when players make so little affort for the game. But some things sour it for me: The large Elemental from an Elemental Gem was far to powerfull for the 3rd/4th level party of 5 chars that just fought a level 5 genasi wizard and a level 4 wizard/rogue. Trusting the NPC wealth guidelines that far to not check the stats of a large elemental was a terrible miscalculation that would have TPK'd, had I not made the elemental go *poof* when realizing my mistake. And the fight was not major to any storylines. These genasi weren't major villains, but just some punks that had stolen a wand from a blue dragon. The players where out to get them only because of a sidequest from that dragon to aquire a magic orb. I should have spared such a climatic and deadly encounter for a critical point in the campaign.

Flashback 3: Makkes Uldling, Gnome artificer, killed by two flanking horrific rats in the Ebberon CS's introductory adventure. This death left a bitter taste because the player didn't take it well. I think it's still justified. Uldling was the groups hp weakest member and ran streight into a position two 5ft steps away from getting flanked, without charakter or tactical reason to do so. Big "Dooh".

Flashback 5: Elven fighter/dervish in "City of the Spider Queen". Spoiler: The charakter ran of alone back to camp, only because the player wanted to show of his boots of speed + character speed. The adventure has a Maurezi ambush planned, just for such instances. Some failed saves and a "Where is he?" later, they found the Maurezi feasting uppon his remains. Talk about foolish players.

Flashback 6: Same player, same module, gnome druid. This one really sucked and the player was at no fault. He wasn't even participating at the session, which made it suck so much. He was killed by a dominated partymember in a small fight, that was a pushover in every other respect. We looked into every way to avoid killing his character this way, but in game solutions failed because of bad rolls and out of game solutions i.e. fudging it, threatened the athmosphere and suspension of disbelief. In the end it was agreed he would get a true ressurection from the massive loot the players had, but it never came to this because we broke of the campaign, massively turned of by standart D&D high level play. Because of, among other things, 150 damage rounds, massive christmastree presence, save or die effects, unfun randomness like that one dominate etc. I think it's okey to use dominate and have dominated PCs kill other PCs. But not in small pushover encounters.

Thinking of all this, where do I fit in? Somewhere between only if it's dramatic, when the dices fall that way and out to get them. PCs shouldn't regulary die in sideway encounters and fights that are not major, unless because of foolishness, either by starting fights they shouldn't or stupid in fight behavior (if it's roleplaying appropiate, I'm a little softer on stupid taktical decisions, though such character's players should expect them to die more easily. If it's a major fight however, I'll pull no punshes. I won't make it TPK or use Save or Die effects, because it's plain unfun. But hard fights are to be expected. A dragon, Archmage or Orc Horde is a terrible foe of legend, that is the doom of many heroes and sacrifices are to be made to defeat a opponent of such proportion. In a major fight, I'm out to make things as tough as I can, while still keeping it enjoyable for everyone. If loosing a charakter in spectacular way isn't acceptable to somebody, there are enough other games in my enviorement for them. Now remember, this is my subjective oppinion, I don't expect anyone to play this way. If no one else wants to play this way, someone else can DM or I adjust, as long as my players enjoy it, I keep it that way.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

But failure's not up to you or the dice, its strictly up to whether the DM wants you to win or lose. You said it yourself, in your campaign you're more of a story teller than a game master. You have more control over the character because you've reduced the number of ways they control their fate.

That's true anytime. The DM controls the way the PCs die just but stacking the rooms. It would take no effort at all to engineer a TPK with templated Kobolds and an ancient dragon, dice or no. Odds are, they all die.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That's true anytime. The DM controls the way the PCs die just but stacking the rooms. It would take no effort at all to engineer a TPK with templated Kobolds and an ancient dragon, dice or no. Odds are, they all die.

Difference being, in my campaign, they can almost die. In yours, they can think they almost died. There is a difference, and most people can pick up on the difference, at least subconciously.

 

[Black Omega]

When do I kill PC's? Only when they stand still. My aim is a little twitchy as long as they are moving.

More seriously, it's fairly rare. I've killed maybe 4 PCs in the last ten years with my current group. And I'm the killer GM of our group.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I largely let the dice fall where they may.

I can't imagine running a game where PC death wasn't a possibility from time to time. My players would be disgusted to know I was keeping them alive. I have fudged here and there but it isn't a regular thing and only if I feel that the death would be cheap or unfitting for a variety of reasons in the context of the story. I want the PCs to succeed, I want them to live to be great and powerful heroes but if they die, they die.

Having said that, my players are completely against the idea of me keeping them alive. I could never let them know I have fudged the dice to keep them alive. They would sooner quit playing a character than to continue playing one that was arbitrarily kept alive. Like myself, they see no purpose in playing an adventure where there is no risk.

If PCs can't die, or the DM is always propping them up despite their failures, then I think that the game turns entirely into a contrived story with a foregone conclusion of victory on behalf of the characters. If that's the case why not just forget the dice and just tell each other stories with the DM ultimately deciding how the story will end?


Chris

 

[Romnipotent]

The dice lie where they lay, but if the NPC's are out to kill them, and clearly outclass them then all I can say is "Sorry, you all die. We could play it out but your escape route will be cut off by the bugbear and hill giant..." etc