When PCs activate their Self Destruct sequence

[Jim Hague]

What's wrong with a players getting tired of their characters and wanting to replace 'em? Some DMs don't like it when players just retire their characters and make new ones, so it's easier to die in glorious battle and make up a new character rather than just say "I'm tired of my barbarian, I want to play a rogue."

Which is fine - right up until they decide to take the campaign with them, which is what Quas has described.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I once saw a player (a mage) jump through a third floor window. When the DM wasn't fast enough in determining damage, he told the DM how much damage he should take (the correct amount) and rolled it. His characters were often suicidal.

IMC he was a wizard, again, with high Strength, Dex and Int and otherwise lame stats. His first combat encounter was against a wingless dragon. He ran right up to it, brandishing a melee weapon. I have to give him credit for making his Reflex save, but he still died from the breath weapon. Really, there's no way a 15th-level human mage adventurer should be running around with Con 10, not when they have 200,000 gp in magic items.

 

[WayneLigon]

I've seen it a couple of times (once just recently, though I was not the GM). Usually if someone is that determined to not play a character I just have that PC wander off and the new one come on. The one thing I don't give them the 'satisfaction' of is committing suicide. Against all odds, they will live and sometimes even reappear briefly.

 

[Corbert]

I've only seen this from one player, who would quickly tire of a new PC after only a couple of sessions. At that point, he'd try to get his old PC killed so he could bring in another.

One scene I remember....

Player: "Finally! That puts me at -6, unconscious. Don't anyone heal me!"
DM: "Roll your stabilisation check."
Player: "But I don't want to stabilise!"
DM: "You're unconscious - you don't get a vote. Roll it."
[roll]
Player: "Damn it!"



-Hyp.

Dude, you are so lucky... To have only ONE player like that.

Actually it's not that bad, one of my players really, really likes to make up new character concepts and then see how they play out, and I think the other just gets bored easily. This puts a lot of treasure in the party coffers though, so I put a level 9 cap in place on new characters now that the party average has passed 9th level.

 

[pogre]

Have you seen examples of PCs going down the self destruction path? I’m not talking about just making a foolish mistake – I’m meaning a Player/PC really pushing hard to get killed.

Quasqueton

In highschool I had a player when he would not get his way would announce, "I leap upon my sword in protest!" He would then storm out of the game room - ahhh yes, highschool memories.

 

[Quasqueton]

Of the three instances I mentioned in my OP, only one was the Player intentionally trying to get his PC killed.

Quasqueton

 

[Felon]

Over 3 years ago, there was a Player in my group who decided he didn’t like his character, in the very first game session. But he didn’t bother telling me (the DM), or any other Player. This Player then went about trying to get killed. It wasn’t apparent to me at first (I just thought he was being foolishly brave), and it wasn’t until after the “incident” occurred that I realized how malicious his intentions were.

The Player was trying to get his PC killed and/or trying to destroy my campaign. He talked the other Players into trying “just one more room” (after their resources were depleted), and then lead them all right into a major battle. Ironically/unfortunately, every other PC died before his did. He even had multiple escape routes and was actually already on the periphery of the battle. He ran back into the fight, alone, to take on two opponents already proven to be much too tough for him.

He managed to take down the whole campaign with his self destruction. I no longer game with this Player.

I'm curious. If he never came out and told you what his motivations were, then are we to gather that you're drawing inferrences? If those inferrences are accurate, he's a bit of a selfish jerk. Of course, the players are saps for letting him manipulate them.

A year ago, there was a Player who completely lost his head due to his personal invulnerability. He had an artifact that prevented undead from harming him (they could not/would not harm it at all). The group encountered a powerful lich and his powerful minions in a situation that wasn’t supposed to be a violent confrontation. The PC was rude and dismissive to the lich.

This is a magor "well, duh" situation. A player is equipped with a game-breakingly over-the-top magic item (and contrary to common belief, slapping the label "artifact" on an item doesn't suddenly legitimize it being game-breakingly over-the-top). It grants him a situation-specific invulnerability, yet it's surprising that the player takes advantage of the opportunity to exploit it when the specific situation arises? My guess is the player probably expected the lich to realize it couldn't act against him, and to back down. Doesn't really sound like a self-destruct button situation to me, just someone trying to make the most of a powerful toy.

I've got a player who constantly pulls stuff like that. Wants to act like he's been smoking eight bowls of pot before the situation, behaves in a silly Clouseau-like manner. This is generally because he's trying to amuse himself because he doesn't feel invested in his character or the campaign. The trick is finding some way to capture his interest and make him feel like an important part of the team.

 

[happyelf]

As for no such thing happens without the DM letting it happen, that's easy to say if you think you can identify such scenarios before or as they start to happen. It's much more difficult to stop the scenario when it isn't apparent what is going down until things are already in motion. DMing is much easier in hindsight or from the sidelines; much more complicated and difficult sitting in the chair behind the screen, in the moment.
Quasqueton

Keep in mind that a lot of the people on forums like this are DM's and have dealt with these issues. The examples you present are ok, but one of the DM's key tasks is to make sure the game avoids those big pitfalls that can rapidly doom a game.

It's not about railroading, but something like a potential tpk or similar event needs to be weighed heavily and attended to as befits the style of the campaign. If you're running a game where a TPK or serious casualties are going to severly damage the sort of campaign you're running, then you need to consider that fact when the PC's are under the threat of such an event occuring. It's too late when they're already dead- pause at the start of combat, and consider the consequences of a TPK, or the deaths of key part members.

The same goes for other similar situations. If you put a bottomless pit trap in a dungeon, what happens if somebody actually falls down it?

Generally I think DM's are too hesitant to call 'time out' or maybe even, horror of horrors, just flat out say 'you don't do that' to a player. Such a move should be extremly rare, but if a character is going insanely suicidal, then the situation is already an OOC situation, even if it's occuring in a primarily IC context. You can't solve an OOC problem with an IC solution, so if somebody has pressed that button, the solution is not going to lie within the fictional context of the game.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

What's wrong with a players getting tired of their characters and wanting to replace 'em? Some DMs don't like it when players just retire their characters and make new ones, so it's easier to die in glorious battle and make up a new character rather than just say "I'm tired of my barbarian, I want to play a rogue."

Would you really do some of the childish and immature things Quasqueton is describing though? I doubt it. I understand the point you are making though but taking an entire campaign with you on your way out is a very dickish thing to do.

Fortunately I have never had this happen. There have been times when I wanted to slaughter the entire group and start over though (as a DM).

 

[gizmo33]

Would you really do some of the childish and immature things Quasqueton is describing though? I doubt it. I understand the point you are making though but taking an entire campaign with you on your way out is a very ****ish thing to do.

It would be ****ish if they could take an entire campaign with them, but they can't. The problem might be in how you define "campaign" (as Quas' other poll anticipates). Besides, in two of the examples it was the other players that seemed to have a death-wish.

Regardless though, it's one player and the actions of his character. You can't say that the campaign is ruined unless it's pre-scripted and players are railroaded. If that's the case, then I suggest simply being upfront with the players about it - tell them they can't do such-and-such because it wrecks the campaign (campaign being defined as the story that the DM wants to tell), simple as that.

There's no sense in pretending that players are free to do what they want with their characters when they're really not. I'd bet the players already know that anyway (and that it's a contributing factor to some of this behavior).