When Do You (GM) Kill PCs?

[I'm A Banana]

For me, it never really makes sense to fudge things.

I wonder if the commonality of PC death is in any way related to the availability of resurrection?

 

[shilsen]

I wonder if the commonality of PC death is in any way related to the availability of resurrection?

I doubt that it's always the case, but I believe that a lot of the time it is. That's definitely the case for me. In both of my Eberron games, I allow the use of 3 action points to turn an effect which would kill the PC (whether spell, blow, trap, or anything else) into one that renders the PC unconscious and stabilized at -9.

There is almost no availability of resurrection magic in my game, so a dead PC means a new charactermust be created. Not only do some of my players not want to have to create new characters (it's too much trouble for the newbies and they really like their current ones), but it would be a problem for the campaigns since they are extremely PC-driven, with the plot and direction of the campaign arising almost totally out of PC backgrounds and choices. Plus I'm a tough DM and seriously challenge PCs during combat, and according to my calculations, without the 3 action pt rule mentioned above there would have been a dozen PC fatalities in 30 sessions (between the two campaigns). So PC death is substantially more of a negative than a positive in my game, and will only happen when a player wants to play a new PC (may not happen even then, if the old PC becomes an NPC). If there were easy and available resurrection in the game, PC death would be an option, but since there isn't, it isn't.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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?

Although it is a nigh impossibility in D&D for such a thing to happen, it would make an awesome story later, so I would go through with it. One might make a case that the DM isn't going to start fudging when the situation is reversed, but that's a bad argument, because like it or not, the DM is secretly cheering for the Players (even if we pretend that we arn't), so completely different circumstances.

Overall, I might save them in such a case from a TPK. Not a PC death, mind you, but perhaps a TPK. But, man, a story where a chipmunk beat down a party of adventurers who were trying to take his acorns would probably be waaaay too tempting to pass up.

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.

Never seen that! Of course, I've only played a PC once.

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).

Slavish rule following? The player can't roll a 2 and then say to himself, "Self, I think this time I should have rolled an 18. I'll make it so." But, the DM can. So, there are two schools of thought as to the answer to the question, why does the DM roll the dice? One group says that the DM rolls because the randomness is an aid to DMing. The DM is free to ignore any rolls, but for the most part the rolling of dice is an aid. The second camp says that they are there to keep the DM impartial and to promote fairness/equality within the game as to NPC and PC actions.

I fall into the second camp. The DM is on the Players' side, secretly. However, the game is not on the Players' side. The DM sets up the situations for the PCs, but the outcome of these situations are ultimately resolved by the rules of the game, by the random generation of dice rolls. That's part of the fun for the Player, in my experience. When the DM adheres to dice rolls, it does in fact remove responsibility from the DM. If a PC dies because of the dice rolls, then it isn't the DM who killed the PC.

Take that, flip it. Now the DM ignores a small number of rolls. Now the DM is killing the Players. Now the DM is responsible for the TPKs that happen. He's stopped death before, why not this one? He's stopped TPKs before, why not this one? Now its on his shoulders. He's taken the steps of taking the ruling of the game upon himself. He is now the arbitrator on who lives and who dies and not the game system.

This is why you say the DM is the one killing the Players, because you ascribe to the first group, and this is why I say that the DM is not the one killing the Players, because I am part of the second group. I have taken the responsibility away from myself. I could stop a TPK, but now I'm showing favortism. Why save John but not Alan? Why save Angela but not Kevin? I choose not to save any of them. Even if they never knew, I would know.

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'.

Ahhh, but you have it reversed. I'm not enforcing TPKs when I feel like it, you are! By saving the PCs sometimes and not saving them at others, you are arbitrarily enforcing TPKs when you deem them appropriate! I, on the other hand, I am letting the system play out and letting them happen when they happen. My feelings don't intervene for or against the Players.

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

Well, I do come off like that. Definately not saying you are bad and wrong, but it doesn't stir up debate if I say that we're both right! I mean, where's the fun in that??

 

[jdrakeh]

Although it is a nigh impossibility in D&D for such a thing to happen, it would make an awesome story later, so I would go through with it.

Can you honestly tell me that 'Your party is killed by a squirrel because you rolled crappy. The campaign's over!' sounds like a fun game? If so, I'm afraid we have extremely different reasons for roleplaying and will never agree on anything.

Overall, I might save them in such a case from a TPK. Not a PC death, mind you, but perhaps a TPK. But, man, a story where a chipmunk beat down a party of adventurers who were trying to take his acorns would probably be waaaay too tempting to pass up.

Yeah, I'm definitely seeing a 'We're never going to agree on anything' relationship beginning to gel.

The second camp says that they are there to keep the DM impartial and to promote fairness/equality within the game as to NPC and PC actions.

Yep. Even if they create completely non-sensical situations that run directly against the tone of a given campaign, apparently. If that's not slavish devotion to the rules, I'm not sure what is

Definately not saying you are bad and wrong, but it doesn't stir up debate if I say that we're both right! I mean, where's the fun in that??

Yeah. Definitely never gonna' see eye to eye on anything.

 

[Blue Sky]

I don't kill characters as a rule, but that's the confluence (ooh, new big word!) of several aspects of my play style.

1. I play a game where the characters are tied to the plot, both through my actions (your brother needs help with the Baromars again; your father is being brought back as a vampire, etc.) and player actions (a plot to rule the guild; I hate this politician, so this is what I'll do to wreck his public image). Thus, killing characters means more work for me.

2. This is a game. You play a game to have fun. My players don't have fun with their characters dying. Thus, killing characters means unhappy players.

3. A new plot hook is better than starting over. I have a rule, loosely stated, that when a character goes below -10 hp, instead of dying, something bad happens. Usually tied to whatever is most important to that character. They wake up and find their stuff stolen, the shattered remains of their family sword, etc. This is more fun for me. See the first two sentences on number 2.

4. I hate making an npc, then tossing that npc after five minutes because he died. Therefore, if the fates are sometimes kind to the players, they'll understand that sometimes the fates are kind to their enemies, and a death will turn into a last-minute escape. Also, my players know that if they start going blood crazy on important people, important people will start going blood crazy on them. See point 2, sentence 3. This lets me continue using npc's I think are cool.

With all that said, I bend the rules the other way if the players don't keep it fun for me. So while I'll go soft and think of a million ways to save the knight who risked it all to save the damsel in distress, I'll out and out kill a knave who kills peasants for sport. No save, no chance to run, just a quick death. (While that exact situation hasn't happened, a player did decide to just kill a goblin merchant, because he wouldn't give the pc the price he wanted. The pc was found dead in a corner later, poisoned by goblin assassins.)

Besides, when have you ever seen a villian, in a movie or a book, just up and kill the hero, when he can talk smack, then leave the hero guarded by an obviously incompetant lackey?

 

[jdrakeh]

3. A new plot hook is better than starting over. I have a rule, loosely stated, that when a character goes below -10 hp, instead of dying, something bad happens. Usually tied to whatever is most important to that character. They wake up and find their stuff stolen, the shattered remains of their family sword, etc. This is more fun for me. See the first two sentences on number 2.

This is genius. Please email me at jdrakeh[at]softhome[dot]net

 

[kigmatzomat]

Can you honestly tell me that 'Your party is killed by a squirrel because you rolled crappy. The campaign's over!' sounds like a fun game?

Ummm, I can. In a Runequest game there was a centaur, a human swordsman, a troll, and an elf wandering through a swamp. We were surprised by a giant alligator. The first round the alligator broke the Troll's legs with a tail sweep, KOing the troll. The centaur tried a trample but got stuck in the mud and the alligator did a "death roll" that shoved him under water (swim skill:0). The elf and swordsmen launched attacks at the alligator but most were deflected by its thick armor.

The swordsmen did the RQ equivalent of burning all his Action Points, used all his once/day specials in an attack guaranteed to kill anything short of a dragon. He then fumbled the attack and proceeded to roll four 00% in a row to get onto the "super-secret 1:1,000,000 you won't see these in a game but wouldn't they be funny" table where he inflicted double damage to himself.

The elf quietly looted the bodies he could reach and fled for his life while the alligator enjoyed its meal(s).

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

There is almost no availability of resurrection magic in my game, so a dead PC means a new charactermust be created. Not only do some of my players not want to have to create new characters ... but it would be a problem for the campaigns since they are extremely PC-driven, with the plot and direction of the campaign arising almost totally out of PC backgrounds and choices.

This is true in my campaign as well (no resurrections, PC-driven plot). Player fun trumps all other arguments, so I reserve the option to use subtle methods to avoid PC death in the early stages of a campaign. (Though, now that I think of it, it wasn't necessary in my last campaign; there were few encounters likely to be deadly until about game 4 or 5 anyway...)

ironregime

 

[megamania]

I go by the dice generally but if it is just bad luck I will fudge the results. However, if players are stupid or start fights (at level 3- a hobgoblin troop of 30+) then DIE!

 

[ThirdWizard]

Can you honestly tell me that 'Your party is killed by a squirrel because you rolled crappy. The campaign's over!' sounds like a fun game? If so, I'm afraid we have extremely different reasons for roleplaying and will never agree on anything.

I think you don't understand the odds involved here. This would be the Players rolling about 1000 natural 1s back to back with the chipmunk rolling about 100 natural 20s back to back. And, even then the PCs could still win if they had any spells or special abilities left for the day. No, a year or so down the line that will make the most amazing story of all time!

One of the most hillarious stories from my games is the time a PC was killed by a young street urchin who got a lucky double critical and killed him. It was some random encounter that didn't mean anything, something I threw in for a city encounter, some 14 year old pick pocket who grabbed 2 daggers when cornered and BAM!

He was raised in two minutes real time by his Faction.

And, that wasn't likely. But, it was in no way in the extreme odds that it would take a chipmunk or squirrel could kill a 1st level PC. Look at cat in the SRD. 2 hp. 1 damage on hits. No reach. Grapple of -12. 14 AC. Now take a group of four 2nd level PCs. Wanna calculate the odds that a cat can kill one of them? All of them is basically impossible. You act like this is actually something that happens.

Yep. Even if they create completely non-sensical situations that run directly against the tone of a given campaign, apparently. If that's not slavish devotion to the rules, I'm not sure what is

What are you talking about? You say non-sensical, but I have no idea what you mean. If you mean the chipmunk example, it isn't going to happen. You seem to be taking impossible events and turning them into reasons to fudge. Name a non-sensical situation that even has a 10% chance of occuring to me during my lifetime, okay?