Shooting people runs a high risk of killing them, end of story.

The PC pulled out the blaster, aimed it at another person, and pulled the trigger. If the player wanted to stun or wound the NPC, he should have said so as part of his statement of intent, up front. But he didn't, he just attacked him with his blaster.

The PC killed the NPC.

A player having their character whip out a blaster and shoot someone, with no stated qualifiers, is leaving the result up to the random hand of the dice -- and expecting the GM to bail them out "because narrative" is weak.

1. It's a matter of characterization and how the player portrays the action. Although from the original post, it was the GM that killed the NPC not the player.

2. The murderhobo is the GM as he took control over the PC and said the PC murdered the NPC. Here's the quote.

PC is insulted by NPC, so PC attacks NPC.

I ask "Attack him with what?" Player says "I shoot him with my blaster." I say "Okay..." and player starts gathering his Initiative pool, "...you shoot him and he falls to the floor, dead." Player says "I didn't want to kill him, just hurt him." I say "Then you shouldn't have shot him."

The GM didn't give the player the choice to use the stun setting or aiming at the NPC's legs or arms. Again, the murderhobo is the GM.

You are abdicating all authority in this scenario to the GM. That's dumb.

The PC shot someone.

To say "You shot someone and they died" isn't like saying "You give someone a donut and they died". There's a pretty obvious consequence in the former that is totally proportional to the action.

Also, the PC initiated the action of shooting. He didn't say "I stun him". Stunning someone is a special action -- a setting -- that isn't a default condition of the weapon. It would be like saying "I attack him with my pistol" and requiring the GM to ask "Do you mean you try to pistol-whip him with the butt of the weapon or you shoot him?" Obviously the default is "shoot"; obviously the PC bears the brunt of the responsibility in the action.

It's an RPG. You use words. Words have consequences. That's the whole point of an RPG. To expect a GM to intuit every possible nuance of an utterance is, frankly, a tiresome thought.

Rules exist for a reason. The moment the player said I shoot him with a blaster is when Initiative Starts. It's called combat. The GM bypasses combat altogether and decides to remove player agency by stating that the PC killed the NPC. The player objected and said that he was going to hurt him, not kill him. The GM decides that blaming the PC for being a murderhobo is the right call to do even after he blows the call for not going into combat as per the rules state.

Funny but did the player say that he killed the NPC? No, the GM dictated that to the player. The GM ignored the rules for combat and ruled through fiat. Rules exist to make sure that the game is fair for both the players and the GM.

Actually the GM decides when Structured Play begins, not the players.

Shooting people runs a high risk of killing them, end of story.

The PC pulled out the blaster, aimed it at another person, and pulled the trigger. If the player wanted to stun or wound the NPC, he should have said so as part of his statement of intent, up front. But he didn't, he just attacked him with his blaster.

The PC killed the NPC.

A player having their character whip out a blaster and shoot someone, with no stated qualifiers, is leaving the result up to the random hand of the dice -- and expecting the GM to bail them out "because narrative" is weak.

There's no record of damage being rolled so you can't say that.

The GM said that the player killed the NPC. The player had zero choice in the matter. He didn't even get the chance to say that he would put the weapon on stun since that does qualify as hurting the NPC. Naw it's best to side with the murderhobo, PC agency removing, and rules ignoring GM, and blame the problem on the player.

Shooting people runs a high risk of killing them, end of story.

The PC pulled out the blaster, aimed it at another person, and pulled the trigger. If the player wanted to stun or wound the NPC, he should have said so as part of his statement of intent, up front. But he didn't, he just attacked him with his blaster.

The PC killed the NPC.

A player having their character whip out a blaster and shoot someone, with no stated qualifiers, is leaving the result up to the random hand of the dice -- and expecting the GM to bail them out "because narrative" is weak.

There's no record of damage being rolled so you can't say that.

The GM said that the player killed the NPC. The player had zero choice in the matter. He didn't even get the chance to say that he would put the weapon on stun since that does qualify as hurting the NPC. Naw it's best to side with the murderhobo, PC agency removing, and rules ignoring GM, and blame the problem on the player.

The player made his choice when he said "I attack the NPC with my blaster".

You are abdicating all authority in this scenario to the GM. That's dumb.

The PC shot someone.

To say "You shot someone and they died" isn't like saying "You give someone a donut and they died". There's a pretty obvious consequence in the former that is totally proportional to the action.

Also, the PC initiated the action of shooting. He didn't say "I stun him". Stunning someone is a special action -- a setting -- that isn't a default condition of the weapon. It would be like saying "I attack him with my pistol" and requiring the GM to ask "Do you mean you try to pistol-whip him with the butt of the weapon or you shoot him?" Obviously the default is "shoot"; obviously the PC bears the brunt of the responsibility in the action.

It's an RPG. You use words. Words have consequences. That's the whole point of an RPG. To expect a GM to intuit every possible nuance of an utterance is, frankly, a tiresome thought.

I've been on both ends of that -- one of my oldest friends is very frustrating as a GM because he expects the players to intuit every nuance of his sparse descriptions...

Shooting people runs a high risk of killing them, end of story.

The PC pulled out the blaster, aimed it at another person, and pulled the trigger. If the player wanted to stun or wound the NPC, he should have said so as part of his statement of intent, up front. But he didn't, he just attacked him with his blaster.

The PC killed the NPC.

A player having their character whip out a blaster and shoot someone, with no stated qualifiers, is leaving the result up to the random hand of the dice -- and expecting the GM to bail them out "because narrative" is weak.

There's no record of damage being rolled so you can't say that.

The GM said that the player killed the NPC. The player had zero choice in the matter. He didn't even get the chance to say that he would put the weapon on stun since that does qualify as hurting the NPC. Naw it's best to side with the murderhobo, PC agency removing, and rules ignoring GM, and blame the problem on the player.

The player made his choice when he said "I attack the NPC with my blaster".

Yes and the GM made the choice to not run combat as required and kill the NPC even after he was told that the shot was not lethal. I guess you missed that part. Let me guess you believe that GM's that take over characters and ruling through fiat are okay. I'm certainly glad that I don't game with any of you guys.

The GM didn't take over anyone's character. The PC shot an NPC, and the NPC died.

Did the GM force the PC to pull out the blaster? Did he force him to aim at the NPC? Did he force him to pull the trigger? Did he force the PC to attack an unprepared unarmored guy in a cantina with a lethal weapon?

No, no, no, and no.

Shooting people runs a high risk of killing them, end of story.

The PC pulled out the blaster, aimed it at another person, and pulled the trigger. If the player wanted to stun or wound the NPC, he should have said so as part of his statement of intent, up front. But he didn't, he just attacked him with his blaster.

The PC killed the NPC.

A player having their character whip out a blaster and shoot someone, with no stated qualifiers, is leaving the result up to the random hand of the dice -- and expecting the GM to bail them out "because narrative" is weak.

There's no record of damage being rolled so you can't say that.

The GM said that the player killed the NPC. The player had zero choice in the matter. He didn't even get the chance to say that he would put the weapon on stun since that does qualify as hurting the NPC. Naw it's best to side with the murderhobo, PC agency removing, and rules ignoring GM, and blame the problem on the player.

The player made his choice when he said "I attack the NPC with my blaster".

Yes and the GM made the choice to not run combat as required and kill the NPC even after he was told that the shot was not lethal. I guess you missed that part. Let me guess you believe that GM's that take over characters and ruling through fiat are okay. I'm certainly glad that I don't game with any of you guys.

"...as required..." is to be determined by the GM. A PC deciding to shoot someone is not always grounds for a combat encounter to begin. Clearly this drunkard at the bar was a non-combatant who was easily overpowered by the PC, no combat necessary.

In my own games I only initiate combat if there are possible significant outcomes for either side or if was scripted. I would have done the same as the OP: no combat round, the PC can easily defeat this NPC, no roll necessary. I do the same for some skill checks.

Shooting people runs a high risk of killing them, end of story.

The GM didn't take over anyone's character. The PC shot an NPC, and the NPC died.

Did the GM force the PC to pull out the blaster? Did he force him to aim at the NPC? Did he force him to pull the trigger? Did he force the PC to attack an unprepared unarmored guy in a cantina with a lethal weapon?

No, no, no, and no.

The GM did in fact force the PC to kill the NPC. He also did force the player to aim at the NPC. I don't see where the NPC was unprepared and unarmored. It's not listed in the original post, so you're adding to the GM's original post. The NPC was prepared because he was talking to the party. Let me refresh your memory on the series of events.

PC is insulted by NPC, so PC attacks NPC.

I ask "Attack him with what?" Player says "I shoot him with my blaster." I say "Okay..." and player starts gathering his Initiative pool, "...you shoot him and he falls to the floor, dead." Player says "I didn't want to kill him, just hurt him." I say "Then you shouldn't have shot him."

It's funny that the post starts off with the PC being insulted and attacks. There is a lot of missing information there.

GM: Attack him with what?

Player: I shoot him with my blaster. (No aiming here. Just describing what the PC will be doing first in the upcoming combat encounter.)

GM: Okay (deep pause)

Player: (readies his Initiative pool)

GM: "...you shoot him and he falls to the floor, dead." (Notice the GM does the aiming of the blaster and does the resolution of the hit plus damage with no to hit or damage roll.)

Player: (Objecting and clarifying intent.)I didn't want to kill him, just hurt him. (If the GM had done his flipping job and run the combat as the rules require the player would have rolled to hit and damage. He did neither as the GM dictated what the to hit and damage roll was without dice being rolled. It's called GM Fiat and you might want to read up on it.)

GM: (Refuses to acknowledge he made the wrong call.)Then you shouldn't have shot him.

In the end, by the GM's own words he is the murderhobo and removed player agency and choice by determining to ignore the rules for combat, to hit, and damage resolution.

Shooting people runs a high risk of killing them, end of story.

The PC pulled out the blaster, aimed it at another person, and pulled the trigger. If the player wanted to stun or wound the NPC, he should have said so as part of his statement of intent, up front. But he didn't, he just attacked him with his blaster.

The PC killed the NPC.

A player having their character whip out a blaster and shoot someone, with no stated qualifiers, is leaving the result up to the random hand of the dice -- and expecting the GM to bail them out "because narrative" is weak.

There's no record of damage being rolled so you can't say that.

The GM said that the player killed the NPC. The player had zero choice in the matter. He didn't even get the chance to say that he would put the weapon on stun since that does qualify as hurting the NPC. Naw it's best to side with the murderhobo, PC agency removing, and rules ignoring GM, and blame the problem on the player.

The player made his choice when he said "I attack the NPC with my blaster".

Yes and the GM made the choice to not run combat as required and kill the NPC even after he was told that the shot was not lethal. I guess you missed that part. Let me guess you believe that GM's that take over characters and ruling through fiat are okay. I'm certainly glad that I don't game with any of you guys.

"...as required..." is to be determined by the GM. A PC deciding to shoot someone is not always grounds for a combat encounter to begin. Clearly this drunkard at the bar was a non-combatant who was easily overpowered by the PC, no combat necessary.

In my own games I only initiate combat if there are possible significant outcomes for either side or if was scripted. I would have done the same as the OP: no combat round, the PC can easily defeat this NPC, no roll necessary. I do the same for some skill checks.

How do you know that the NPC was drunk? You keep adding things to the situation that wasn't described in the first post to make your argument. In debate they call that a strawman and you are building it. So you regularly remove player agency, make decisions for the players, adjudicate to hit and damage without dice being rolled all the time? Like I said, I'm sure glad I don't play with you.

"...as required..." is to be determined by the GM. A PC deciding to shoot someone is not always grounds for a combat encounter to begin. Clearly this drunkard at the bar was a non-combatant who was easily overpowered by the PC, no combat necessary.

In my own games I only initiate combat if there are possible significant outcomes for either side or if was scripted. I would have done the same as the OP: no combat round, the PC can easily defeat this NPC, no roll necessary. I do the same for some skill checks.

Pretty much this.

Rolling initiative tends to take me out of the RP. And frankly, I don't see the point vs "movie extras" like the one described in the OP. It's the equivalent of a lvl 10 character in Pathfinder/DnD wanting to stab a single goblin. I'd rather save the time of rolling initiative and cut to the chase. The goblin's going to lose, let's continue the story and set the mechanics aside.

With that being said, I probably would have retconned the call and said "Oh. you meant to stun him. Okay he's stunned, but for future reference, let's be more specific". I feel, it's the most fair on both sides, and will help keep the game and story moving.

I don't see this as a wholly bad thing. So the NPC says the off color/smart @$$ remark and the PC shoots him.

You look around the bar and say "Anyone else wanna discuss cultural heritage? Anybody? OK. Bar keep, can we get a round of drinks over here and rag to clean up the table? Thank ya sir"

or if you don't wanna kill per se, flip the pistol around and break the NPCs teeth. "You broke mah teef!?! Welllll BlasTech does make a hefty piece of firearm, that's a fact, now why don't you clear on out for I stick the other end up your @$$ and pull the trigger. Barkeep, round of drinks over here please, thank ya sir."

Seems like rolling initiative kills a lot of fun RP potential to me.

The dm did not force the PC to do anything. He shot directly at him, note the lack of description, he didn't shoot at his hat, drink, or even anywhere else for dramatic effect. The PC SHOT AT HIM. AT, HIM. I don't know what possible creative interpretation one can have for this action of SHOOTING AT people asides from the intent of at the very least inflicting grievous, bodily harm. The fact that the player picked up the dice meant that his intent was final because otherwise a called shot would have been issued.

I'm sorry, I'm all for creative thinking but the player was the ultimate arbiter of his action.

My character has done a lot of things he's not especially proud of, one ill placed sentence had a entire settlement raized to the ground, he shot through a bystander, a little child being held hostage to kill an isb agent, he even whipped out his lightsaber and used it to wipe out the remnants of an imperial garrison. All these are actions he regrets, but I accept responsibility for them as a player because I chose to act in a manner that had disastrous consequences.

But difference is I embrace that, I thrive from my failures almost as much as the successes, because characters can't be perfect all the time. This guy could have embraced or avoided the situation However he close, he chose the gun and now he lives by it. This isn't a good or a bad thing, just merely another sentence in a growing tale.

The dm did not force the PC to do anything. He shot directly at him, note the lack of description, he didn't shoot at his hat, drink, or even anywhere else for dramatic effect. The PC SHOT AT HIM. AT, HIM. I don't know what possible creative interpretation one can have for this action of SHOOTING AT people asides from the intent of at the very least inflicting grievous, bodily harm. The fact that the player picked up the dice meant that his intent was final because otherwise a called shot would have been issued.

I'm sorry, I'm all for creative thinking but the player was the ultimate arbiter of his action.

My character has done a lot of things he's not especially proud of, one ill placed sentence had a entire settlement raized to the ground, he shot through a bystander, a little child being held hostage to kill an isb agent, he even whipped out his lightsaber and used it to wipe out the remnants of an imperial garrison. All these are actions he regrets, but I accept responsibility for them as a player because I chose to act in a manner that had disastrous consequences.

But difference is I embrace that, I thrive from my failures almost as much as the successes, because characters can't be perfect all the time. This guy could have embraced or avoided the situation However he close, he chose the gun and now he lives by it. This isn't a good or a bad thing, just merely another sentence in a growing tale.

Thread over! Exactly this.

I think a character that shoots someone for insulting him is a pretty cool concept. "Cool" in a dark, not-so-heroic, cold-blooded sort of way.

But man, you gotta play it like that. Not "Oh I didn't wanna kill him!" Rather, try these five words that will get you through 80%* of roleplaying situations: "I meant to do that." Own it, man. Either that, or spend your Destiny Points and retroactively influence the narrative.

On the flip side: Trying to rules-lawyer the situation and turn the GM into a bad guy is completely ignoring the fact that the dude shot another dude with his gun. There is no "safe way" to shoot someone with a gun. The GM did his "flipping job," and did it well. If the player doesn't want to play a character that murders people, then he shouldn't pull a gun on someone for running their mouth and then shoot them.

I'm sorry, but I am failing to see how "I shoot him with my blaster" is at all an attempt to scare or subdue the guy. What happens in Star Wars when characters get shot with blasters? In this situation, initiative would have been a terrible GM choice. You don't need to roll initiative every time someone pulls a gun or a knife. The GM made a good call. I say this with a caveat.

--

And here is the caveat: the thing that could have helped the situation is if the GM offered to let the player spend a Destiny Point and "have remembered to put the blaster on stun setting" or "the blaster bolts blows up the guy's drink" or something of that nature. I would have done that as the GM, since my players are not experts on the rules and they tend to forget things. I know that it's just perpetuating the problem, but being the resident rules expert, I want to allow them to have fun and feel like, in some way, they're actually accomplishing what they want to accomplish.

The bad thing that happened was that a player, at this table, wasn't having fun. And the GM is there, in large part, to make sure that everyone's having a good time. Otherwise, why play the game in the first place?

Now, not every table is for every player, and not all GMs and players get along with each other. But had it been me in the GM chair, I would have offered the Destiny Point to allow the player to continue being creative and shaping his portion of the story.

*Trust me, I'm a doctor.

Edit: darned punctuation...

Mind you, I still think that the GM handled it poorly. I would have done something like this:

"The guy at the other end of the bar calls you a 'rootie poo candy ass'."

"What the? I shoot him!"

"The band stops playing as you whip out your blaster and gun the guy down"

"Hey! Wait a sec - I just wanted to shoot him in the leg"

*shrug* "Okay, you kneecap the guy and turn back to your drink."

Yeah, the player may not have been clear on the outset, but I'm willing to work with them and craft what they had in mind to further the story. Small do-overs like that? No big deal, it keeps everyone from looking like a heavy handed douchenugget and makes sure everyone is still having fun.

The GM didn't take over anyone's character. The PC shot an NPC, and the NPC died.

Did the GM force the PC to pull out the blaster? Did he force him to aim at the NPC? Did he force him to pull the trigger? Did he force the PC to attack an unprepared unarmored guy in a cantina with a lethal weapon?

No, no, no, and no.

The GM did in fact force the PC to kill the NPC. He also did force the player to aim at the NPC. I don't see where the NPC was unprepared and unarmored. It's not listed in the original post, so you're adding to the GM's original post. The NPC was prepared because he was talking to the party. Let me refresh your memory on the series of events.

PC is insulted by NPC, so PC attacks NPC.

I ask "Attack him with what?" Player says "I shoot him with my blaster." I say "Okay..." and player starts gathering his Initiative pool, "...you shoot him and he falls to the floor, dead." Player says "I didn't want to kill him, just hurt him." I say "Then you shouldn't have shot him."

It's funny that the post starts off with the PC being insulted and attacks. There is a lot of missing information there.

GM: Attack him with what?

Player: I shoot him with my blaster. (No aiming here. Just describing what the PC will be doing first in the upcoming combat encounter.)

GM: Okay (deep pause)

Player: (readies his Initiative pool)

GM: "...you shoot him and he falls to the floor, dead." (Notice the GM does the aiming of the blaster and does the resolution of the hit plus damage with no to hit or damage roll.)

Player: (Objecting and clarifying intent.)I didn't want to kill him, just hurt him. (If the GM had done his flipping job and run the combat as the rules require the player would have rolled to hit and damage. He did neither as the GM dictated what the to hit and damage roll was without dice being rolled. It's called GM Fiat and you might want to read up on it.)

GM: (Refuses to acknowledge he made the wrong call.)Then you shouldn't have shot him.

In the end, by the GM's own words he is the murderhobo and removed player agency and choice by determining to ignore the rules for combat, to hit, and damage resolution.

"I attack him."

"With what?"

"My blaster."

So... he expressed his direct and clear intent to attack the NPC with his blaster... but he didn't draw the blaster, aim it at the NPC, or pull the trigger?

Right...

Stop playing gaming-table-lawyer.

IMO, I think the situation could’ve been handled better but I don’t think the GM did anything unreasonable. There’s a section in the book which presents “checks without rolls” as a valid way to speed along play. In this case it was clear the non-combative NPC “commoner” was simply sitting there. If the attacking character had any ranks in Ranged (Light) the GM can rule they auto succeed. For all the player knew, the NPC had soak 2/WT 2 which means even a holdout blaster could put them over WT in one hit. Once the NPC is over WT his fate is up to the GM and it is very common for minions over WT to simply die.

The game is narrative, so if the player is lazy and simply says, “I shoot my blaster” instead of describing something like, “aiming at a meaty chunk of arm hoping to give the bigot a lesson he’ll not soon forget” then it takes away from the scene. The GM might’ve done better to remind them “the shot could be lethal”, “this really doesn’t seem like the place for violence”, or something similar, but the player can’t rely on this type of thing. Both sides should be making their intentions clear, otherwise this type of situation happens from people not being on the same page.

I think the suggestion earlier in the thread of flipping a destiny to retroactively either set for stun or aim for less lethal parts is a good resolution and a way both parties could’ve gotten what they wanted out of the exchange.

Stromtrooper SGT: "We received a report of trouble in here."

PC: "Trouble?!? Nawww, weren't no trouble. Hell I shot em fore he even wiped the stupid look off his face....."

This is a thread that seems intent on venting spleen, rather than anything else.

I have no experience with the GM or the group in question, and every group has their own dynamic.

I will say that in my early days as a GM, I have reacted in a knee jerk manner. The players did not behave as I wanted, and in retaliation I allowed their actions but in such a way that they were in no doubt of my disapproval. It was a form of passive aggressive punishment, I suppose. I'm not saying that this is the same thing, but it sounds familiar somehow.

These days its less about getting the players to play "my game", and more about letting them be awesome. Of course, being awesome comes from hardships, and its very easy to die from hardships when or if you do something incredibly stupid during said hardships...

To me though, this incident sounds like a player doing something dumb and not particularly in character (as evidenced by the overall lack of cool factor in the whole thing), and the GM getting annoyed out of proportion to the "crime" and removing some of the player's agency as a result. With tempers flying high, player and GM clearly passed the threshold from game and onto a personal level. As someone who has been in similar situations, on both sides of the GM screen, this is not a fun place to be. As a player, I can really touchy about a GM who tells me "how it is" where my character is concerned. As a GM, I have been known to lose my patience with players who do seemingly stupid stuff.

I think rather than trying to dissect the incident itself and being all judgemental about it, I'd urge the GM to take a step back, take a deep breath, and then go have a civilized conversation with the player in question. Otherwise, this is likely to keep on being an issue between you, rather than being an opportunity for learning for both of you.

I don't see any removal of agency. The player said he was attacking the NPC with his blaster, no qualifiers or caveats, and that's what happened.

"Agency" != "backsies".

Magistrate: "It says here you shot the victim in the face sir?"

PC: "That is true your honor."

Magistrate: "It says here he did not appear to be armed."

PC: "That is also true your honor, however I don't feel as though I should be held to account for his lack of foresight."

Magistrate: "It says he insulted you and/or made crude remarks."

PC: "He in fact did your honor, so I taught him a lesson."

Magistrate: "..by shooting him in the face?.."

PC: "I see how some might hold it as a harsh manner of teachin courtesy, but a lesson all the same, yessir..."

I sincerely hope none of the people arguing "he didn't MEAN to kill him" ever own actual guns in real life.