We're all tossing around the world "kill", but with Fate Points, that doesn't have to be the case.

PC1 attacks PC2, criticals and 'kills' PC2. PC2 burns a fate point. PC2 goes down in a welter of blood, PC1 believes PC2 to be dead. The GM may well need to step in to explain how this happens, but it's all very feasible. What happens afterwards (whether other PCs tell the aggressor to back off, or the GM creates an intervention) can be down to roleplay.

If the character in question has no fate points, maybe the GM needs to intervene sooner to create a suitable scenario to save the character's life.

RP is important to me, but if the situation arose again and my friend looked at me and said "please don't kill my character", of course I would come up with a way for it not to happen.

I do think it's okay to have in-party violence, if that's what a situation ultimately degenerates into, for the above reasons.

If the PC's have enough time to kick one another's arses, the GM needs to be heaping much more pressing issues onto them to keep them occupied. About the only time this has popped up in a game I ran, was a full blown possession of a psyker character at a really bad time that would have more than likely actually killed ALL of the party, solution was to burn a fate point and keep going.

@MKX - totally agree the GM probably isn't providing a stronger focus. Then again there's no politics like 'family politics'.

I guess we run into a paradox where gaming and roleplaying meet - for a player who's idea of fun is roleplaying, the concept of "ultimately fun has to trump the best rp" translates into "fun has to trump the best fun" which makes complete sense and no sense at all whichever way you look at it ; )

There's no one way of playing an RPG (see what I did, I got 'roleplaying' and 'game' into the same idea!) so I guess it starts with a consistent selection of players? Either that or a negotiated agreement on the 'feel' of the game and people being mature enough to accept that.

Ultimately I do not think I will ever understand why some players feel so crushed when their character dies. I see it as the culmination of a lot of care and dedicated effort, but it's not like the family dog just passed away! A little perspective, please. On the same topic I bet that there is also a strong correlation between groups where PKing is a no-no and groups where the players and GM tacitly agree that PCs will never die.

Insequential said:

I can't speak for other game masters, but for me this is most certainly not true; my players come into each game knowing I will kill them if they do something stupid. I am more inclined to be a bit forgiving if the dice have simply turned against a player that night - flubbing a bit so they survive a bad roll here and there. But sometimes bad luck is just that and I can't save a character every time ... well, I guess I *could*, but it ruins any sense of randomness that the dice add to the game if I'm always bailing characters out for rolling poorly; in general I assume each character has one extra Fate Point each session which is entirely within my discretion to use ... after that ... well, sometimes it's just meant to be.

Dice aside, however, my players learned long ago that if they are not careful and thoughtful in my games I have no compunctions against killing them quite dead. This tends to be more important in games which heavily rely on noncombat solutions or approaches, as it means they feel the weight of their actions and know that if they die it is often their own fault. (because I have two players who really enjoy combat, however, I tend to toss in one battle every couple sessions so long as it can flow realistically from the plot ... and these tend to get pretty hairy, with the threat of death always looming over them)

Personally, I never agreed with those GMs who refuse to kill players in their games - as that kills any suspense and the players start to feel as though they can get away with anything, because the GM won't kill them. Having spoken to my players extensively on the subject, and even offered them the "no death" approach to a campaign, they have always, vocally, shared my view on this and balked at the very idea.

Thus, while I disapprove of PKing in a game, I am no stranger to killing characters.

Insequential said:

Not everyone views character death as a good thing. Death doesn't always make for a good story and sometimes the story is better when someone lives. Honestly would the Harry Potter books be that popular if Harry bit it during the first book? Or even the third book?

Also I imagine there is no correlation between groups where Pking is not allowed and groups where plaers and GM's don't allow PC's to die. These are two seperate issues. A PC can die through the normal course of game and people be fine. But a lot of players do tend to view Pking a fellow PC as acting against the group. It's part of the GM's job to toss challenges at you that may lead to character death. Some people don't want to worry about other players too.

I guess I come to the game from a writing/prose point of view where character-character interaction is the key to a good story (I said 'good', action flicks with cool CGI aside ; )

In an RPG it has to be the players that generate this interaction. Thus, if the level of realism in the game includes grimdark character death then it's up to the players to bring it, more than it is up to the GM. When I GM I have to say that although neithet option is great, and I have fudged rolls to save characters, ultimately I'm much happier with the idea of a PC dying because another PC killed them, than because an NPC killed them. Being killed by an NPC is like being killed by falling scenery in a play!

Maybe I'm not identifying with my NPCs enough - LOL

Insequential said:

I suspect a lot of players and even more GMs come to the table with a background in writing, acting, and so forth.

But it does sound like you're somehow shortselling your NPCs if you feel they are nothing more than scenery - they are supporting cast and the good ones should feel real to the players. Of course, a player falling to a monster isn't as dramatic and complimentary to the story as it could be, but by the time PCs start getting to the levels where their deaths will significantly impact the overall stories, fewer of their enemies should be spare monsters and more of them should have faces. (and by "when they get to the levels" I think one should leave that determination up to the GM ... for me, my players tend to deal with major events early in their careers, so I rarely have the equivalent of "random encounters" in my games)

And I have to disagree with your assertion that it is the player's job to bring the Grimdark to your game - the GM sets and paints the set, to use your play analogy, and as such it is up to him to generate and perpetuate the atmosphere of the setting. Certainly the players have a responsibility to help carry that aspect forward with the way they play their characters, and interact with the campaign world as a whole, but ultimately their input should be the lesser of the two influences when talking about creating and maintaining a theme.

Mind you, I'm not saying you're approach is inferior to mine, merely that I do, and see, things differently. (it is an unfortunate truth that these "share experience and viewpoint" threads often become pissing contests between GMs, even if subconsciously ... it is not my intent that anything I comment on here should be taken that way.) I, for example, can't imagine not "identifying with NPCs"; a lot of my story is told through them.

No pissing detected or given.

Actually plays were not the analogy I was aiming for, it was in fact novels (novellas precisely).

I am waaaaay too old not to know that you can change someone's mind about something through as fragile a medium as a forum, but it's interesting to get feedback on our perceptions. I suspect that feedback has to digest a while and get reconsituted in a form that fits the psyche of the listener before they can act on it. At least that my excuse for never paying attention in lectures ; )

I profess that I'm more of a 'sandpit' GM, which necessitates that players bring a lot to the table. Seriously, if the players can drive their own story forward I'm really impressed.

Insequential said:

But even when writing a story a character dies to move the story forward. Not just for the sake of dying. Even if we take a look at this from the grim dark character to character interactions it doesn't mean that another player has to be the one to kill you. For some groups that works. But for other groups, even with the grim dark story being told it's viewed as a betrayal from the player himself. I've seen where PC on PC violence leads to player on player problems. The GM is viewed differently from the players. In many rpg's we are told that the other players are our friends and teammates and that we can depend on them. No one wants their friend and teammate to kill their character.

I'd also have to disagree that death by an NPC is like being killed by scenery. NPC's should be just as important to the overall story as the PC's. Sure the PC's are the ones who are the hero's but that doesn't mean that the NPC's are just there as set pieces.

Ultimately there is no right or wrong way to play the game. So long as the group agree's with killing each other then it's fine. But it has to be something everyone in the group is on board with. Some groups have fun with that kind of game.Other groups would prefer not to worry about it and focus on the challenges set forth by the GM as opposed to worrying if the Guardsman is going to put a bullet in their head.

Kael said:

I see your Harry Potter and raise you a Game of Thrones.

But yes, of course it comes down to individual preferences... Like some others in this thread, I strongly believe in in-character reactions, and that bending and twisting one's character too much to accomodate screw-ups (either voluntary or unvoluntary) would, in my case, be detriment to the overall gameplay experience.

Frankly, there are sufficient character types for people who want to avoid inner-party conflicts. But when you play extremists (Sisters, puritan Clerics, etc) or notorious troublemakers (Psykers), then one should simply expect that the road will likely become a bit tougher, unless the entire party is constructed in a way that its members either identify with or support such things, or at least do not care about them. Don't like it? Roll something else.

Psykers are not your classic D&D Sorcerer, and whilst many of the lesser perils may be funny from an OOC point of view, the players should be well aware of the fact that the characters will think quite differently. It is because of this that a Psyker should use his powers sparingly and wisely, as tempting as it may be to "cast one of those nifty spells" to make things a bit easier.

On the other hand, PC versus PC will in many cases likely kill the fun as well, so whilst I do not approve of simply waiving any f**k-ups away I do understand the underlying issue. Perhaps the GM or the other players can intervene, allowing for a solution that maintains the integrity of everyone involved without any character deaths. But in the end, if hostile action seems unavoidable, I'd rather have my own character die in an unsuccessful attempt to put down the "Witch" rather than distorting the concept beyond what would seam feasible in the setting.

As for when said unavoidable situation would occur, I think that this is truly something that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Affected by the players' interpretation of the setting (or how serious they take it) as well as the affected characters' personalities and, of course, the dimension of the incident. There will no doubt also be many groups where Perils are no problem at all, simply because they don't mind acting "grimdark" on it. As long as they have fun, let them do it. All others will simply have to find a way to deal with this. Consequences are simply an integral part of more serious games, and this is especially true for 40k.

Zakalwe said:

That's not necessarily true My players ended up in a sticky situation about 2 months real-time into the campaign I'm running. They'd finally tracked down one of the head honchos (though it was more that this guy tracked them down, but they *still* don't know that ) and two characters (a seneshal (long story, but it worked out storyline-wise) and an arbites) had a sit-down chat with the guy at his penthouse office. In an interesting conversation, it was revealed that this guy was an inquisitor working at cross-purposes to the one they were working for and he attempted to bribe the two players to get information from them. Seneshal weighed his options, decided the cash was right.

Seneshal: Oh, in that case, we're working for-

Arbites: I shoot him in the face.

Seneshal: WHAT?!

Arbites: I have quick draw and he's not facing me. I draw my bolter and shoot him in the head.

DM: You're shooting Travis (the seneshal) and not The Suit?

Arbites: Yep. In the face.

DM: Roll it!

Seneshal: What the hell?

Arbites: *rolls a 01*

DM: Wow.

Seneshal: Holy crap. Can I dodge this?

DM: Nope, you didn't see it coming, didn't figure on any of it... and he's got quick draw... and shooting you from about 6 feet away. *looks at damage roll, notes a crit* Pretty sure he just sheared off most of your face too.

Seneshal: Holy crap. Man. Crap. I burn my last fate point.

The Suit: (to Arbites): Heh. That was unexpected. I guess I should thank you for making negotiations easier. So, what's your price?

Arbites: I don't have one and right now, I'm the guy with the gun.

The Suit: Well, that is somewhat inconvenient, but I assure you that the eight guys I have in the back room might object. Besides which, once we have your smoking corpse, I'm pretty sure we could get the information out of your friend, he doesn't look quite dead yet.

Seneshal: Oh hell no!

Arbites: Flip to burst, shoot Trav in the head again. *rolls a 03, ends up critting again*

DM: Well trav, I do believe you are my first player to take a dirt nap. I got rules for missing legs, missing feet, missing arms, and missing hands... but no missing head.

Senseshal: (to both of us, laughing) Bastards. Well played sir, well played.

Worked out well for us Travis rolled another seneshal and eventually became the party inquisitor

@ Storm6436

What else can I say except that the part of me that is a heartless bastard thinks that is awesome.

Zakalwe said:

Kudos to the seneschal's player, too. He took that really well, and it does sound like a very awesome game. Cinematic!

That does sound like a splendid bit of roleplaying, and it's good to see someone offering a non-psyker player execution scenario.

On the other hand, if the Seneschal's player burned a fate point to survive the encounter, from a rules perspective I feel no one should have recognised he was still alive. Otherwise, when you go down in combat, you automatically die because the enemies sense you still have fate points and keep hitting you until you don't!

I only raise that because I don't feel fate points have been taken into consideration in the whole "is it okay to kill a fellow PC" debate. To me, that's their greatest use: enabling a GM to run a tough game in which anything from an unexpected meteorite to a five-year-old with a laspistol can 'kill' players, and the universe feels suitably dangerous, but without players constantly having to roll up new characters and lose ones they loved.

Niqvah said:

That's definitively true. Of course, this raises another issue. Even if the character in question survives, how could his player continue to play him? The group would simply march on, believing him dead.

Of course, in some cases, a solution may present itself, such as the cell's Inquisitor recovering the body for interrogation and then performing a mindwipe (as actually happened to my first Dark Heresy character - an Assassin who got possessed by a Khornate daemon blade, knocked unconscious as she attempted to kill the other Acolytes, then dragged away to quarantine by a bunch of IST's) but that doesn't seem much different from rolling a whole new character. Considering all the lost memories, a recycled physical appearance usually pales in comparison to the excitement of an entirely new character with a proper personality as opposed to an indoctrinated drone (though they do make awesome NPCs, especially when encountering the former party members and not recognizing them).

Another option could be to have that character "roam" in the background and rejoin play with a different group, such as a bunch of Radicals. And once Black Crusade comes out, these rogue player characters could even become enemies of the Imperium, turning to Chaos for being betrayed by their former masters! A delicious irony, considering how strongly this resembles the mindset of many CSM Legions.

For the players' current campaign, however, I do think such a character is more or less gone, even if he miraculously survives the attack.

Lynata said:

True, true. See, the funny (or not so funny thing if you look at it from my player's perspectives) is that the majority of my quasi ad-lib game is that this game is primarily for my own amusement generated from putting the players in various extremely uncomfortable circumstances and seeing how they choose to weasel their way out of it. I didn't hide this from them when I advertised running the game, 'If you think the universe hates you and is trying to kill you, don't be confused: it is."

A few of my W40K-familiar compatriots agreed, and rolled up characters that night. Though I suppose that would be expected, most of these folks enjoyed games like Paranoia, Call of Cthulu, and the Ravenloft campaign setting, so it's nothing new to them.

I will admit to taking some liberties with the fate point ruling in regards to PvP engagements that have impacted some PvE events, as the "I burn my last fate point" line was actually a 5 minute conversation where I outlined the predicament the rules had set us up in, the possible ways we could handle it, how each one of those ways could screw things up, and ended with something along the lines of: "I propose that if you can actually *see* the **** thing die, burning fate points will not have the effect as stated by the rules. They can be used to heal until you're dry to let you take stupid amounts of punishment, excepting massive crit damage as we just witnessed... but it's pretty hard for me to tell Andy (the Arbites) that you survived a 10+ explosive crit table entry when it explicitly says your head poofed simply because you decided after-the-fact, to burn a fate point. IMO, this would mean that if you took enough damage to get 1-shot, there's no coming back if everyone sees you eat it. Cases where you could legitimately wiggle your way through it without jumping the shark, I'll take. You guys are in a house that takes a mortar round, sure. Titan steps on you, hell, the soil could be particularly soft and you threw yourself down at the last second and only got crushed *mostly* to death? That's a stretch, but unless anyone objects, I'll take it. Catch a direct orbital strike, like a lance, or god forbid a nova cannon round? Nope, dead. Last seen getting marooned butt nekkid on a planet minutes before exterminatus... yeah, stick a fork in you, you're just as well-done as the planet."

They talked back and forth, considered the options, and the five players at the time all decided that my course of action would be the fairest and have the least 'unsavory' consequences.

This has impacted their play styles in a more realistic manner... instead of having a few gun-cutters airstrike a custom-written tyranid hybrid (ie. 1/2 human, 1/4 genestealer, 1/4 unknown species that appears to parasite tyranids) infestation concealed in a operational orphanage, they elected to attempt to evacuate the kids (hoping to save on their ammunition costs) and then sweep/clear for the 'stealers and their hybrids. They went to a huge effort to try to separate the known hybrid kids from those believed clean and would've managed it were it not for Andy (the Arbites) forgetting that the janitor locking the rooms for their 'fire drill' was a hybrid... and dropping the teleport beacon in the gym too soon. Yeeeaah, that turned into a murderous event quickfast as the hybrids freaked and started killing everything that moved... and in the mass melee of 300+ kids and 30+ adults, it turned into a free-fire zone that the actual 'stealers attempted to use to cover their attempted escape from their nests in the basement-- think one of the combat scenes from the movie Aliens: "They're everywhere!! What the hell?! *gunfire*"

End result: 136 of 140 uninfected children dead, 4 of 6 uninfected adults dead, and 8 city blocks razed to the ground by air support in an attempt to 'contain' the outbreak.... the Sister of Battle NPC telling the party leader, 'See, if we'd gone in with carapace and flamethrowers like I suggested none of this would've happened," and their NPC inquisitor being highly unamused. Meanwhile I was very highly amused.

On a more positive note, this has also saved their rear-ends as well, as much more recently they were in a huge multi-story auditorium that was wired with the equivalent of a few dozen claymore mines... and a half dozen earthshaker shells converted to IEDs. They made judicious use of their fate-points as allowed by the rules at the time, with one player whistling as I described the *real* trap as it went off "Well, next time I think we'll be a bit more thorough on checking for traps. Note to self: When attempting to apprehend a seasoned commando, expect them to be bastards... that trap you found? Yeah, it's impressive all right, but it's just a distraction. Impressiveness just makes you think it's the only trap there."

So yeah, my players have called me a bastard several times, but they all laugh because once they think about it, I've either directly given them all the information they'd need to know what was coming (and they missed or otherwise overlooked it) or I'd given them multiple opportunities (sometimes *very* obviously going out of my way to do so) to figure out that things weren't all as they seemed. They enjoy it, even if certain party members have been forced to pick up cybernetics as a result. Of course, the tech priest is both overjoyed and dismayed by this at the same time, as he (both player and character-wise) sees this development as a slow-motion foot race between the path to machine perfection and human stupidity... and has, on a few occasions, openly wondered which will win in the end. *smirk*

And to address your last bit, my players are slowly coming to realize that I'm doing more than simply walking NPCs through their game on strings, as I've been accurately simulating multiple ongoing plots both for, against, and unrelated to the party's interests... and they're also learning to take *nothing* for granted that they can't see with their own eyes or otherwise confirm in a trustworthy manner. I've been playing around with having Travis's semi-faceless seneshal show up as a horribly disfigured enemy sometime in the near future, which they have no clue might happen. One player though, is well aware the the 'you must see them die' implication when faced with NPCs with fate points. He's the only player that has expressed concern that the 'big boss guy' they'd spent 6 real months tracking down, only find out the guy is an inquisitor (did I forget to mention they stepped into an inter-faction war in the very beginning of the game? ), he finds *them* instead, arrests them under trumped up charges... they end up on his light cruiser facing "court martial" as the guy wanted it to look semi-official, only to have his ship boarded en masse by Chaos Thousand Sons searching (a little deus ex machine, I know ) for an artifact I'd only hinted about ... all to open the next arc of the storyline with them using said Chaos to escape, leaving Inquisitor Guy to his "certain" doom. I was impressed with the player for not missing the fact they never saw him die, and highly amused at his reaction when I told him, "Yeah, he could be dead. Could."

Maybe I'm way off base here but I think the simple fact that this thread exists is proof of poor game design. Creating an environment where role playing your character well requires you to kill another players character is just ridiculous. Sure there are similar problems in other RPG's (A paladin and a thief in DnD for example) but the key diference is the trigger by which the Psyker pisses off his party mates. I would analogise this to a situation where a character has a random chance every time he does what his character is meant to do to create a situation where the other characters are almost required fluff wise to murder him.

Cast magic missile, roll 1d100, get a crap roll and your party's paladin has to kill you or lose his alignment. How long would this game last? Would people still be playing DnD today?

mosern said:

I say, shoot them as soon as possible. That'll teach them to not create PCs that play with forbidden powers at leisure anymore.

Alex

Dark Caesar said:

And lastly, everything also comes down to the players and the careers they choose to play. You can easily gear the Acolyte cell in a way that its members don't care if the Psyker made the walls bleed again, or at the very least where the ones who do are in minority and thus have to yield, creating a situation where everyone perfectly stayed in-character and still avoiding PK. I think this is much better than the alternatives - which would be not making the Psyker career playable at all, or completely forego the rather interesting and important (in terms of the setting) possibility that he could **** up and open a rift into the warp (simultaneously making Psyker powers weaker because, hey, the player doesn't have to weigh his chances anymore and can just play his Psyker like a D&D mage).

Lynata said:

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Also, I would say there is no need for the issue to come up if it is not the desire of the players and GM. The Inquisitor, for example, could issue an edict stating they are well aware animosity could arise within the party, but it is not to interfere with missions, and no one is to make any judgements (or executions) without explicit instruction.

That was basically what my Cleric's Inquisitor told him after his run-in with the Psyker. If we hadn't wanted to go there in the first place, it could easily have been said when the cell was founded.

Lynata said:

I don't thin "grimdark setting" should be used as an excuse to PK someones character. There is room for compassion in a grimdark world. Not everyone has to be so grim and dark and brooding and itching for an excuse to execute everyone around them. The grim dark nature of the setting already punishes the Pysker for playing a psyker, so why should PC's add in more pressure for the character?

I think people look for more reasons to kill another person character than they do to keep them alive.

Kael said:

Why? Because maybe the over-zealous cleric believes that the Psyker is nothing more than a tool of the warp, little more than a rabid dog allowed its freedom because it can be useful to have around... or the Tech Priest could get tired of getting Tech Jinxed over and over again (as has happened in my campaign) ... or the guardsmen could believe that the Psyker is bad luck... or any of the above PCs start wondering if the psyker isn't exactly playing for Team GoodGuy anymore... and with the release of Black Crusade, my players will have to worry about that one even more ;D

Kael said:

Not at all! Note that when I talk of lethal consequences, I am assuming the worst case scenario - the point where people snap and believe this to be the only option.

In essence, the point where your only options are to:

• a) sacrifice a rerollable player character or
• b) sacrifice the integrity of the entire game

Also note that I am absolutely for finding alternatives, such as one part of the cell convincing the other to stay their hand, thus creating a scenario where everyone is able to play their character without bending or even breaking plausibility, and without any PKs. I am just strongly advocating against the idea that player deaths have to be avoided at all cost, because said cost can be quite high.

And as some people have proven, such incidents do not always have to leave a stale taste in people's mouth, but even can create epic, memorable events that players will talk and laugh about for months to come.

As always, though, preferences may vary wildly between individual players, and there's nothing wrong about adapting the game accordingly. In the end, this is just one of the many small things where people's modus operandi, and thus their game, will differ from one another.

Kael said:

The opposite is true in the groups I've played 40k games with (have been in games with Gaius, who's posted already). Most times, people have gone out of their way to accomodate dodgy characters who probably should have shot in character at an earlier stage. That view has hardened somewhat with a number of psyker characters (and players) unwilling to acknowledge the chaos they cause. I've heard the excuse "but I was only playing my character!" in response to calls of incredible stupidity or backstabbing other PCs. So these days I make a point of telling players before a campaign begins to ensure that their characters are capable of working as a team.

In my current game, I play a Guardsman. The Prime of our Cell is a Psyker. During a Warp Incursion on our ship, we were engaged with a couple of Bloodletters. In the midst of battle, the Psyker decided to use the Heal power on one of the PC's and subsequently rolled up Daemonic Possession on the Perils chart. Because he had a Reaction left for the round, the GM allowed him to "kill himself" with his Psykana Mercy Blade. The GM also allowed the Psyker's player to burn a Fate Point to miraculously survive without being a DaemonHost, though he did gain quite a bit of Corruption. After the incident, the GM decided it was a good time to introduce the Fettered, Un-Fettered and Push Psykic Rules from Ascension. Though both the thread and the previous discussed using FPs to help vs. Perils, no one has brought up this as a possible "fix". These rules have made for a much more predictable and controlled Psyker and some 40K fluff describes Psykers gaining a new "understanding" of the Warp after similar incidents. My character has kept a very close eye on the Psyker ever since and was even more distrustful than usual, but the IC effect on the new rules have made my character come around and he now views the Psyker as being very capable and in control of his powers. That being said, my character will ABSOLUTELY be informing our Inquisitor of the incident at the first available opportunity.

A very interesting thread...Thx all.