NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 2626928" data-attributes="member: 198">I don't kill PCs unless the player wants to run a different character. But I don't fudge to keep them alive either. In my 2 Eberron campaigns, what I did was institute an action point option where you use 3 action pts so that instead of dying your PC ends up at -9 hp, unconscious and stable. The players are happy, since that means their PCs don't die, and some of them really want to develop their characters over a period of time and some really hate coming up with new PCs. I'm happy, since the games are both heavily PC-driven, as in the plots and direction originate primarily from the actions and choices of the PCs, and losing a PC might drastically affect some plots the PCs have chosen to pursue. Plus I'm good at seriously challenging the PCs in combat, and without this, there'd have been a total of about 12 deaths in 27 sessions. With this rule, I can kill PCs and not worry about it <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" />When coming up with this rule, I'd wondered if it would cut down on tension and challenge in the game, since players would know that PCs won't 'really' die unless they choose to let them. Interestingly, that's far from the case. I think the reason is a combination of roleplaying (a fight is always serious), pride (players hate to have their PCs lose, death or no death), and greed (players hate using up action pts).</blockquote>

Verification