I put up a queation along these lines some months ago but what I am planning now is a step further. (very slight Shattered hope spoiler)

I ran shattered hope as my first scenario and one of the players (the adept) ended up rescuing the stone. Since then he has recieved aid several times from the stone (and been punished as well). Although there has been suspicion about the player it has not really developed. However, at the end of their last mission he recieved a critical wound (lost a leg) and the party's cleric was present twhen the stone healed him. Although the player tried to convince the cleric that the stone was a useful tool that had helped him several times, the cleric decided to purge him (quite rightly). At this point I stepped in and the daemon trapped within the stone stopped the cleric (gave him a nice permanent wound -3T and a hatred of demons). The adept (now an NPC) fled the station and took control of the ship the party arrived on leaving the rest of the team marooned on an abandoned space station.

I have been running for the campaign for about 9 months and am really enjoying it. However, my wife is pregnant and due in October so I will need to take a break from my campaign about then. Therefore I plan on leaving it on a quite dramatic point, maybe a cliffhanger. One of the things I am considering is the adept killing one of the other players in cold blood execution style in front of the rest of the group. Maybe as part of a ritual.

The question is, Is it unfair to decide to kill a player for the benefit of the campaign?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "deciding to kill a character..."

In my book, it's quite okay (and a good thing) to decide that an NPC will try and execute a player and they will go about attempting to do such by doing this, then that, and hopefully this other thing. It's not at all good to decide that an NPC will kill a PC and then simply narrate it happening without any input from the players. Giving the NPC a plan and then having the NPC work through that plan as the characters go about their business until (and if) it comes to fruition is the backbone of any good story. Magicing in the perfect situation for a scene that must play out no matter what the PC's do up to that point is a bit draconian in my opinion and a direction i wouldn't go in.

It depends a bit on what your local RP-culture is like. If your players appreciate a well narrated and retold story, no matter what their cost is in regard to loosing characters they might have invested lots of love and time in, then go ahead and do it. If your players are very fond of their characters, or if you do not have a tradition of GMs taking control of players characters, then don't. If you go ahead and decide to do it, I agree with Graver. Make the villain attempt to do his best, but give the players a chance.

One way to go about it in a slightly tricky way is to place the characters in a nasty combat situation that they are more or less guaranteed to loose. An ambush that starts with snipers or similar. Once a few characters are down give the survivors a chance to escape without their fallen friends. Then let those players whose characters got left behind roll up new characters. A few evenings of gaming later you can let the downed characters return as NPC-victims of a ritual, prisoners or similar. Maybe even let them turn into daemonhosts so you can keep having them as adversaries.

Good luck and let me know how it works out.

Yeah, I agree it's down to the group and its culture.

It most definitely wouldn't fly with me if I was playing or with the group I GM. Players should always have choices and be in control to change their own destinies. They should never have things decided for them, least of all in a cutscene where they're not in any control.

Either have an NPC around to take the brunt for the story, OR roleplay the scene. Let them roll for it, but allow them a chance to change things and if they do foil the NPCs actions, then be well prepared to run with that.

This would never fly in my game. Sure, you could railroad the scene but if I were a player I'd be forever resentful of the mistreatment of my character in that way. I would recommend doing this to a valued npc instead. If you do not yet have one, create an npce the players will get to know well and consider part of the group - then kill it off in the grand cliffhanger. Beloved npcs can be almost as daunting to lose as pcs.

Another possibility migh be to capture the pc in question and put him at the mercy of the villain, who is preparing to kill him. But, before the does so, end the session. If the situation seemed desperate enough the player will really be worried about his character and the whole party will spend time over the next months trying to think up some way to save the guy before he gets killed off. When you return to the game, make the scene tense, but let the pc's use some of the plans they've come up with and barely rescue the character. This will provide the suspense you want over the break and make the return session very powerful.

Generally this isn't a good idea. I'd recommend that you use an NPC that has some value to the players. Either a family member or even do it to their Inquisitor. The last option is probably the best I think. Not only does it cut off the players from their resources but the Inquisition could start looking for them for questioning in the death of their master. After all, the rogue Adept was once a member of their group and his actions call into question the rest of the party.

Basic story concept is fine. In answer to your "how far can you go" question: if you're talking about story direction, the answer is as far as the narrative commands.

Where you hit problems when you try to pre-set the outcome. This is a cooperative story-game with multiple authors. If the player feels like you decided on the death of his character before hand with nothing he could do to even attempt to change it, then you'll have problems.

So, go as far as you need to in setting up the story and/or situation, just don't pre-lock down the outcome of any given situation the characters find themselves in as their actions may change what you have planned.

antony131073 said:

Maby not kill a member but maby take a really dramatical turn. like if you got a Psyker ask him if it s okay that he turn into a Deamonhost or so, or ask one the member if its okay for him to become hostile, and get a new Acylote after

Outright killing a pc in a way that he never ever got a chance to avoid this (incluing forbidding the use of fate point) would never-ever happen in my campaign. Even those players who are not "roleplayers" but "munchkins" and "powergamers" would hate me with no end. And I do not have that many of them...

Suggestion:
Leave him for dead, make him burn a fate point... and "ease it up" by giving him some cool bionic for it a downtime later. But honestly...do not try to pull this up "in front of all other pc". Players are a resourcefull lot. Especially when it is one of their own who is threatend. One of them will have this one plan to stop this from happening you haven´t thought about. He will make this impossible roles and your little plot will either shatter or you will be forced into obvious railroading.

P.S: If your party enjoys this, my envy is with you!

To sidestep the original question, don't leave the game at a cliff-hanger at this point. In my experience, your real life issues will represent more than a short break from the campaign. Leave an opening to continue when life settles down again but just in case new schedules and other realities don't mesh wrap up the campaign.

antony131073 said:

Rule 1 of DMing: NEVER kill a PC by DM fiat. Not only will it end your game on a bad note, you probably won't be asked to run a game again. It's not good storytelling, it's masturbatory theater.

Suggestion: Give the illusion of choice to your players if you're going to do a fiat killing. Let them linger on the space station. For months. Supplies running out, it's possible that air is, and rescue is dubious. Then a demon (perhaps the demon in the stone) appears to make them an offer. He'll help, hell it's a one time thing, no strings attached save one... he needs the life of a party member taken in cold blood before he'll help. He won't say *why* he needs someone to be murdered, but he's adamant on the price. Otherwise, the party is marooned there to die.

Step back at this point and let the players end the campaign. Dole out the insanity and corruption points. If they do off someone (perhaps the "cleric" with the hatred of demons?), have something amazingly supernatural happen that gets them off the space station, and perhaps even into a safe place (if you're feeling evil, dump them on a feral planet with no hope of a ship coming within the next few years).

That, to me, is a FAR better alternative than a DM fiat PC killing. There at least is some role-playing and control given back to players.

Surely a proper cliffhanger would involve the adept in a situation where he is about to kill a PC in some terrible manner. When you resume, however long that happens to be, you allow your players a last minute, eleventh hour escape plan or savior that rescues them from this horrendous, and seemingly all-too-certain ending.

This is much more of a serialised 'Lone Ranger' style approach. Leave your players worried, but get them thinking of a plan over the time, or provide them with a stunning exit that they will remember for a long time.

Thanks for all your comments. Obviously I am quite nervous about going down this path, hence the posting. I agree with the general consensus that making the death of a PC unavoidable is probably not the best way to play it out. I think the death of the Inquisitor is a really good alternative. It also leaves the group in the middle of the trap that lead to the death of the Inquisitor. I will see how the next couple of adnentures play out and then decide which way to go.

Waste said: