When Do You (GM) Kill PCs?

[SweeneyTodd]

Voted Other: In my games, a PC can only die if the player decides that's what they want to happen. Otherwise, they can suffer all manner of horrible fates, but they won't die until the player's decided their story's complete.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

...darn near every one of my adventures is character driven through background or other pertinent "PC" factor. As such, I have a very, VERY hard time killing off characters. ...I just can't seem to bring myself to kill off a PC that doesn't really deserve it.

My situation is similar to the above.

My group sees D&D as less "game" and more "story." In that respect, we don't have a good time if the PCs get screwed by the dice and start dying early for no good reason. So I tend to have plausible "threat-reduction scenarios" ready. ;-)

As the campaign progresses, however, I tend not to pull punches. This tends to result in some severely messed-up PCs (e.g. critical injuries, diseases, what-have-you), and maybe one or two dead or dying PCs late in the campaign.

And if the campaign is drawing to a closer or major story transition, then I make a conscious effort *not* to do anything extra to save PCs. Instead I'll make the situation seem as dire as possible. If the PCs are both clever and lucky, its a heroic victory. If the PCs fail and/or some die, it's a heroic tragedy (in the Greek sense), which can be just as good of a story.

My last campaign was 23 sessions and averaged 4-5 players per session. One PC was beyond hope in session 22 and died at the beginning of session 23. A second PC died at the end of session 23 as a result of wounds sustained in the climatic battle.

ironregime

 

[sniffles]

My situation is similar to the above.

My group sees D&D as less "game" and more "story." In that respect, we don't have a good time if the PCs get screwed by the dice and start dying early for no good reason. So I tend to have plausible "threat-reduction scenarios" ready. ;-)

As the campaign progresses, however, I tend not to pull punches. This tends to result in some severely messed-up PCs (e.g. critical injuries, diseases, what-have-you), and maybe one or two dead or dying PCs late in the campaign.

And if the campaign is drawing to a closer or major story transition, then I make a conscious effort *not* to do anything extra to save PCs. Instead I'll make the situation seem as dire as possible. If the PCs are both clever and lucky, its a heroic victory. If the PCs fail and/or some die, it's a heroic tragedy (in the Greek sense), which can be just as good of a story.

My last campaign was 23 sessions and averaged 4-5 players per session. One PC was beyond hope in session 22 and died at the beginning of session 23. A second PC died at the end of session 23 as a result of wounds sustained in the climatic battle.

ironregime

I'm not a GM (man, I'm going to have to start GMing so I can post in these threads without feeling like an interloper) but this sounds like the perfect strategy to me. The games I participate in are mostly about story, and getting a character killed off is like losing a favorite character in a tv series just because the actor thought he could do better in movies. We can work around it, but we'd rather not have to, especially in the early "episodes". Ramping up the level of danger as you get closer to the big finale is perfect, IMHO.

I wish I could persuade one of my GMs to think like you do, Ironregime. Unfortunately, even though his campaigns are the least story-focused of any GM I play with, he's also the one who's most reluctant to kill characters. He keeps track of our hit points so he can fudge the dice. This takes any sense of suspense out of the combats he runs.

 

[Brainfreeze]

I go for "when dramatically approiate"

If done correctly people talk more about how their character died then what they accomplished while alive. People like the idea of dieing holding off the enemy while the rest of the party is allowed to escape.

I have more people talking about what their character managed to pull off in the process of dieing then what they did when there was no threat.

 

[The_Universe]

I generally let the dice fall where they may, though I occaisonally fudge if I find the death extraordinarily trivial. I think having PCs be at some sort of risk is important to the dramatic tension of the game. Similarly, I generally limit resurrection(s) to 1. I don't want a series of bad rolls some crappy night to take away your character forever - but at the same time, immortality is hardly heroic. So, I compromise by basically saying that God only gives you a second chance, and never a third, fourth, fifth, etc.

All that being said, I'm much mroe likely to fidge the results of a roll early on in the campaign. As you increase in level, you should be better at avoiding stupid risks, so when the campaign gets up into high gear, the dice are even more important. I have found that without some risk of death, characters pursue increasingly loony plans and start to take foolish risks because there's no risk to their work attached - only to mine.

On the flipside, I never fudge the dice for NPCs, either. I believe in story, but it *is* a game, and it's foolish to forget that. If the characters live or die only at moments I consider dramatic, I might as well be writing a book. If the characters die only when *they* thinks its dramatic, they might as well be writing a book. Even if they only die by mutual agreement, it'd still be a more narrativist game than I prefer.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

I wish I could persuade one of my GMs to think like you do, Ironregime.

Print this thread and casually slip it into his/her adventure notes the next time you play. ;-)

Unfortunately, even though his campaigns are the least story-focused of any GM I play with, he's also the one who's most reluctant to kill characters. He keeps track of our hit points so he can fudge the dice. This takes any sense of suspense out of the combats he runs.

Bummer. In college I played with one of the worst DMs you could ever imagine. The DM would never let a PC die if it wasn't already pre-written into the (railroaded) story line. And it was always one of the DM's super-NPCs that saved the day. Horrible. But actually I'm kind of glad I played, though, because I really learned a lot about what *NOT* to do from that DM.

ironregime

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I'll let the dice fall where they may *unless* I think things have gotten out of hand due to a miscalculation or mistake on my part. For example, if I forgot the party used up the healing potions a couple sessions back, and I send two tough encounters back to back thinking they have the potions to refresh them, I'll pull some punches.

 

[DonTadow]

Print this thread and casually slip it into his/her adventure notes the next time you play. ;-)



Bummer. In college I played with one of the worst DMs you could ever imagine. The DM would never let a PC die if it wasn't already pre-written into the (railroaded) story line. And it was always one of the DM's super-NPCs that saved the day. Horrible. But actually I'm kind of glad I played, though, because I really learned a lot about what *NOT* to do from that DM.

ironregime

You've said what I've been thinkin. It seems like with the extreme story telling mode, you're railroading the players because their death doesn't "fit in" with your story. Monte Cooke said something interesting in the lastest Dragon, when he talks about dm "winging it" instead of preparing or at least attempting to prepare. In relation to the thread, I wonder is it always "this is what my players want" or is just the lack of wanting to rewrite or edit the current storyline to account for a player death. Or as Monte called it " laziness bread by talent and experience. "

 

[Nyeshet]

Roll your fate.

I let the dice determines life or death, and I play sentient enemies intelligently. The players know if they just rush into a fight with an intelligent foe(s) without a plan - or at least a coordinated attack - then possibly one or more of them will die. Fudging is never used; all dice are openly rolled. On the other hand, I don't always state why I am rolling dice. Perhaps I am rolling their will save vs an unknown attack - and will pass a note to the necessary players afterwards if the attack succeeds. Perhaps I am rolling listen or spot checks for their nearby foes. Perhaps I am rolling random encounters. Or perhaps I am just a little bored. It keeps them on their toes.

In any case, the dice fall as they will. If they choose to attempt to difficult a dungeon or quest - despite the warnings / hints they receive - then that is their problem. They should know better, knowing me. Most of the time, however, they don't make such mistakes. They know that not all quests / plot-hooks are meant to be taken - are just background flavor. They know that creatures with an Int score are going use tactics and strategy, will consider ambush and terrain, will try to gather information on them beforehand and use it to their advantage. So they plan accordingly and rarely rush into any situation, no matter how minor it may seem. And if a creature that typically has a low int (or even no int) shows any sign of intelligence (or intelligent play) they know it is time to reconsider their plans - and options.

 

[Hussar]

You've said what I've been thinkin. It seems like with the extreme story telling mode, you're railroading the players because their death doesn't "fit in" with your story. Monte Cooke said something interesting in the lastest Dragon, when he talks about dm "winging it" instead of preparing or at least attempting to prepare. In relation to the thread, I wonder is it always "this is what my players want" or is just the lack of wanting to rewrite or edit the current storyline to account for a player death. Or as Monte called it " laziness bread by talent and experience. "

There's a bit of a telling point isn't it? I will preface this by saying that I do not make large over arching storylines. I might have them roughly (emaciated more) outlined in my head, but, I rarely go so far as to actually script anything beyond the next session or two. And even then my notes tend to be more along the lines of "If the players do X, then Y will happen" sort of prepwork.

I wonder if the DM's who do go for the story are unwilling to throw out the hours of work they've spent preparing that story by having a wounded kobold crit the PC and kill him.

On a side note, the most memorable deaths in my campaigns have always been meaningless. There was the triple critted (honest rolls, done in the open) rogue with six hit points left. My players still talk about that one. Or the recent lightning bolt trap that incinerated the party cleric who got careless about walking into unchecked rooms. The party has gotten a LOT better at letting the rogues do their jobs. I've also found that if you never fudge, the party starts working together better to help eachother, because they know I won't. Saw that today with half the party using the Aid Another option in combat to let the fighter do his thing better. They know that I'll kill them at any time. It's up to them to keep their characters alive. I think it's made them better players.