"Fear will keep the players in line, fear of my D100."
Love the Tarkin quote!
Incidentally, I too would truly fear your d100 if it's an actual 100 sided die. I'd fear it will take 5 minutes for the golf ball to come to a complete stop.
I'd fear it more if the GM was ready to lob it at my head. Especially if they've got a really good throwing arm
"Fear will keep the players in line, fear of my D100."
Love the Tarkin quote!
Incidentally, I too would truly fear your d100 if it's an actual 100 sided die. I'd fear it will take 5 minutes for the golf ball to come to a complete stop.
My god, I wonder if I still have my old zodeccihedron?
I'm still scratching my head on players potentially taken shots like a pin cushion and making it for dinner and some blue milk. I know this isn't Dark Heresy...but this might make for some shenanigans.
Really, no, it doesn't. No more so than we see in the movies. PC's are resilient, as are nemesis level NPCs. And the effects last more than one encounter, even if no crits are taken, unless someone in the party has godlike first aid.
This system reminds me of the princess bride. Combat is "to the pain" which I feel is much better than instant death. Having a character with no limb, or blind or a reduced stat is much more interesting to me than a fresh new character.
Having a critical injury is a bad enough consequence, I think, to not want to get hurt too much.
Indeed; One PC in my last campaign was more annoyed by the 7 unhealed crits rendering him essentially useless than he would have been at having to write up a new character.
What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.
You need to get out more. And stop using hyperbole and sarcasm as bludgeons - it really doesn't do you any favors.
A significant fraction of the gaming public feels that characters should not die ever (they should have script immunity); another significant fraction feel that death should be a choice, not mechanically imposed.
Much advice (bad advice IMO) has been given over the years to fudge dice rolls in order to keep PC's alive. Including from Gary Gygax.
In my experience, not dying and failing is much more of a "hardcore" experience than just tpk-ing. How many people would rather have their character branded a coward for running away (even if it was the smart thing to do) than have them go out in a futile blaze of glory?
A lot of players that I've met would rather have their character die than live with their failures, whether that be a severed limb or not stopping the evil plan in time.
Oh, so bloody true of my players as well.
I have a question for you GMs that prefer not to kill PCs (I'm of the same mindset).
What would you do if all your PCs (or maybe you're only playing with two PCs) were incapacited at the same time (e.g. they were low on strain and all recieved strain to knock them out, or whatever)? Realistically, the enemy could walk up and shoot them in the heads. An alternative would be that the enemy would take them captive...which would lead to an interesting prison escape scene or something, but now your whole planned narrative is thrown off.
So what are some ways to handle this situation where you don't want the PCs to die, but they have all become incapacitated during battle.
But it's also important to realize that strained-out need not be unconscious nor captured. It can be "fled in terror" or "crawled into the hidey-hole in terror." It's just "No longer able to contribute meaningfully".
Great thread! I am waiting for the game to arrive but thought I would chip in my two-penneth worth.
I have played some extremely lethal games, such as Aces & Eights, in which even a graze from a bullet can cause infection and kill you. However, the theme of that game was realism. Players were encouraged to respect weapons and to avoid conflict unless it was absolutely essential. One of my players actually ran away from a fight he was so scared of losing his character, and I had him run out of town as a yellowbelly. He ended up moving to Mexico and becoming an alcoholic - which is all great roleplaying fun.
The Star Wars universe is not like that. Everyone in it seems to be up for a fight whenever and wherever they can find one. Combat is commonplace. A setting like that is not the place for realism, so I'm OK with death being extremely rare but not impossible. However, if the players knowingly take on massively overwhelming odds even when warned that death is a real possible outcome, then I would not hesitate in terminating their PCs lives. The players do definitely need to be told up front though that the stakes are high or they aren't, so they can make an informed judgement.
Edited by SmokeGunner
The way I enjoy playing (your mileage may vary) is like previously mentioned, that my players don't die unless they want their characters to.
Aye. I think 'PCs can only die in cutscenes' should be the default for pretty much all modern RPGs, MAYBE with an option for permadeath for the kind of masochistic weirdos who actually enjoy that sort of thing.
I don't think this should be the case. Character death should usually be a chance in everything but the most narrative of games. The truth is that most players I know play these games expecting there to be some sort of "challenge" element to the game. Now, yes, RPGs generally shouldn't be adversarial, but many players (most I know) seem many of the incidents in a game as a puzzle, challenge etc to overcome. Purely "narrative" threat removes an element of this (yes, I know you can have other types of failure, but one of the most common is possibility of character death or maiming. However, there should always be ways for players to recover from purely random bad luck. Hit points function a bit like this, as when you are getting close to zero you generally have a chance to realise that you are in trouble and compensate. On the other hand they also tend to encourage a "well, I am still fine, I have 30 hit points" kind of thing. Re-roll mechanics also allow this (this is one of the primary reasons why I think d20 is a bit silly). I personally hold that most games should include a "fate point" mechanic. I can accept a game like this where death is basically impossible to occur from a single random roll, but if players continue in a certain way, and do not adapt to their circumstances, they can die. However, I don;'t think this should apply to *all* games as standard, but depend on the style of the course material. Star Wars certainly deserves a more forgiving rules set.
Except that most of my examples are not video games. As I said, most P&P RPGs have made death more rare, and board games have mostly gotten rid of player elimination.
Well, I am not totally sure about this. FFG certainly have (except on those rare instances, like I experience in mission 5 of Mansions of Madness last week), but I have still seen more recent games that have player elimination. Also 1) I would hold board games to a different standard. When kicked out of a boardgame you often don't really have anything else to do. As a player in an RPG game you can make a new character/take over NPCs temporarily to remain part of the game. Just because a PC character is killed doesn't mean the player cannot continue to take part in the game. Being eliminated from a board game leaves you completely outside the game. 2) Sometimes it would just be better if some games had elimination. Many people find it far more frustrating being drawn along to the end of a game when they have few options/no chance of winning, or at least partaking in the game in a meaningful sense, rather than just being eliminated.
What I would accept is that most RPGs have reduced random/pointless deaths to which the players have little ability to avert in any way. Things tend to have moved away from "Tomb of Horrors" like nonsense where the players essentially have to act randomly and hope they survive, and instead things presume that "if the players act competently they will tend to succeed."
I don't like GMs who cheat. Don't fudge for me. This is why I hate GM screens when GMs roll behind the screen. I love GM screens for the info they bring but that's why I always lay them flat so the tables are face up. I hate fudging. Let me see the dice and if you roll a natural critical hit and it slams me to the point of death then I will describe my own character's death in a fun, glorious way and if it happens at the hands of Stormtrooper #154512454 than so be it. That's the fun for me. If a GM rolled a crit hit but lied and said he missed, then that just makes my character invincible and that's just no fun. It's why I never use cheat codes in a video game also... I dislike it.
GM screens are for more than fudging dice rolls. Many games require rolls where it doesn't work if the players know what the result of the roll is (ok, some very good players will be able to deal with this), but there is the problem of "Oh, I failed a spot check... quick, everybody ready their weapons" (as a traditional example). There is also the matter of hiding notes from players.
Now, I will admit I have fudged. Normally when I would say that I misjudged something completely, and so felt that I hadn't given the players the opportunity to do anything about it (though it does depend on the source material). However, if someone throws themselves at a bunch of stormtroopers and that leads to their death... well, then that's their fault.
To be honest, I don't think anyone really believes that most people wouldn't be better off with a system that doesn't have character death.
Erm... the multiple negatives are causing my head to hurt. Basically you mean that everybody believes that most people would be better off with a system that doesn't have character death. I really don't believe this. Now, I think many GMs don't want to be able to accidentally kill a player, but instead want death to be a threat that hangs over the players in order to keep them honest. "Fights can kill you, so only have a fight when it makes sense, but if you do this and approach the fight sensibly, you shouldn't die."
I think another problem with player deaths is the unwillingness of many player to retreat. If a GM intends a fight to scare the characters off, but not to kill them it requires the players to accept this. However, often they will presume that any fight is meant to be winnable, or be unwilling to back down after initiative is rolled. If the GM has correctly made a fight for this purpose it shouldn't be survivable if the players stick around, but should have an escape route. However, when the players don't want to, the GM never intended the fight to actually have a likelihood to kill anyone, and so may back down.
Oh, and Boba Fett died in the Sarlacc... No silly comic or book is going to convince me otherwise.
Edited by borithanErm... the multiple negatives are causing my head to hurt. Basically you mean that everybody believes that most people would be better off with a system that doesn't have character death. I really don't believe this. Now, I think many GMs don't want to be able to accidentally kill a player, but instead want death to be a threat that hangs over the players in order to keep them honest. "Fights can kill you, so only have a fight when it makes sense, but if you do this and approach the fight sensibly, you shouldn't die."
I think another problem with player deaths is the unwillingness of many player to retreat. If a GM intends a fight to scare the characters off, but not to kill them it requires the players to accept this. However, often they will presume that any fight is meant to be winnable, or be unwilling to back down after initiative is rolled. If the GM has correctly made a fight for this purpose it shouldn't be survivable if the players stick around, but should have an escape route. However, when the players don't want to, the GM never intended the fight to actually have a likelihood to kill anyone, and so may back down.
I think video games are partly to blame for this (for good or bad). Every video game is "winnable". You get into a tough fight, you die, you try again. Every encounter has a method in mind for the player to succeed.
For players to play a tabletop RPG, running away usually doesn't come to mind. "well, we're supposed to stand here and fight, so let's do this." I think it's up to the GM to set the right tone at the beginning. Maybe with subtle (or not so subtle) reminders that it's okay to avoid fighting if the odds aren't in their favor. Our group was playing D&D Next (or 5e, if you prefer) and doing the Caves of Chaos. We get into this one tunnel and were told we could see about 30 goblins up ahead. It was only when we realized that we've never faced that number of enemies before that we realized we should simply go another way and not engage. It was kind of eye opening, really...especially after playing 4e where every fight is a discreet encounter with "kill all enemies" being the only win condition.
Edited by RookhelmGM screens are good for hiding maps, scenario notes, and NPC sheets.
GM screens are bad for hiding die rolls. If you're going to roll, roll publicly and accept the roll's input.
]You should have seen the look I got from my wife when my daughter's Pathfinder character was caught in a Blade Barrier... Sorcerer bits everywhere! Or the time our Monk tried to wrestle down the 'confused' fighter... who had a vorpal sword... and accidentally had to attack the nearest person... and rolled a 20. I expect this same party to achieve TPK soon given the players' experience, and inability to think tactically, or adapt cohesively on the fly. I'm kinda looking forward to this.]And that's why I don't play Pathfinder.
Killing your players is letting them take the easy way out!
Seriously though, no matter which gaming system I use, I'm loathe to kill players randomly or let them die unless it's for great dramatic effect that the player finds satisfying. I prefer to let the player getting taken down just push the narrative forward. Maybe they are capture/imprisoned. Maybe they lose their ship or something else of value while they are out. Maybe they gain an injury or some other sort of hindrance that they need to work towards overcoming. Star Wars is all about the cinematic cheesy "Saturday matinee" action. Impose serious but interesting consequences for "death" but let the character's story continue is my philosophy.
As a GM, I would never let a PC die unless they wanted to either stop playing altogether, or create a new character. The thing that sucks is, if you spend a lot of time building up a character it would be awful to start from scratch.
Killing your players is letting them take the easy way out!
Seriously though, no matter which gaming system I use, I'm loathe to kill players randomly or let them die unless it's for great dramatic effect that the player finds satisfying. I prefer to let the player getting taken down just push the narrative forward. Maybe they are capture/imprisoned. Maybe they lose their ship or something else of value while they are out. Maybe they gain an injury or some other sort of hindrance that they need to work towards overcoming. Star Wars is all about the cinematic cheesy "Saturday matinee" action. Impose serious but interesting consequences for "death" but let the character's story continue is my philosophy.
My players prefer their characters die than be captured. Characters die and new characters replace them and the story goes on. No big deal to me.
Killing your players is letting them take the easy way out!
Seriously though, no matter which gaming system I use, I'm loathe to kill players randomly or let them die unless it's for great dramatic effect that the player finds satisfying. I prefer to let the player getting taken down just push the narrative forward. Maybe they are capture/imprisoned. Maybe they lose their ship or something else of value while they are out. Maybe they gain an injury or some other sort of hindrance that they need to work towards overcoming. Star Wars is all about the cinematic cheesy "Saturday matinee" action. Impose serious but interesting consequences for "death" but let the character's story continue is my philosophy.
My players prefer their characters die than be captured. Characters die and new characters replace them and the story goes on. No big deal to me.
Whatever works for you and your group.
I wouldn't force a player to keep playing a character they didn't like anymore.
And character death can also be a way of pushing the story forward - as the players or maybe even the nemesis' actions change in response (maybe the players take on a new Obligation to avenge their fallen comrade or pick up the fallen characters Obligation(s)). But a character death can also derail a story depending on the character and timing of the death.
I have never seen a character death derail a story. Even Yoda had a backup plan if Luke had been killed.
I have never seen a character death derail a story. Even Yoda had a backup plan if Luke had been killed.
Character deaths may not, by themselves, derail a story, but I've been a number of games where character deaths have been the final straw that made stories completely end. Usually in book 2 or 3 of a Pathfinder module when the stupid random rules they include have stopped being fun and the game's punished the party for not murdering every person they fight.
I have never seen a character death derail a story. Even Yoda had a backup plan if Luke had been killed.
What if you're in the midst of a subplot designed around a particular character...and that character dies. It may or may not derail the story but it will likely suck a lot of the motivation out of the group.
Depending on the story at a given time it could be very difficult to introduce new characters for several sessions.
Also, depending on the setup/rationale for the character group, continually introducing new characters could strain the believability of the setting and erode the reason for the group to be together.
I've never seen a character death that actually made a game better. Usually it just kills the inter character dynamic and the replacement character isn't the players A-grade material.
Also, depending on the setup/rationale for the character group, continually introducing new characters could strain the believability of the setting and erode the reason for the group to be together.
Obligations and Motivations (particularly of the Relationship type) go a good way towards allowing new characters to add to a group without straining the fourth wall.
I've never seen a character death that actually made a game better. Usually it just kills the inter character dynamic and the replacement character isn't the players A-grade material.
I've discovered that, for some players, their 'A-grade material' isn't their best. It's often what they came up with before ever playing in the game and they've tried to make it fit (or to bend the world around them). A character that is made up after the player has been in-game for a bit is often much better IME.
Obligations and Motivations (particularly of the Relationship type) go a good way towards allowing new characters to add to a group without straining the fourth wall.Also, depending on the setup/rationale for the character group, continually introducing new characters could strain the believability of the setting and erode the reason for the group to be together.
Sure. I've also said a character death can add to the story building.
I'm not saying that character death always hinders the storytelling but that it can.
I have never seen a character death derail a story. Even Yoda had a backup plan if Luke had been killed.
What if you're in the midst of a subplot designed around a particular character...and that character dies. It may or may not derail the story but it will likely suck a lot of the motivation out of the group.
Depending on the story at a given time it could be very difficult to introduce new characters for several sessions.
Also, depending on the setup/rationale for the character group, continually introducing new characters could strain the believability of the setting and erode the reason for the group to be together.
I guess my groups are different. I have never seen a player's death suck any life out of he group. However, I don't run high casualty campaigns either and typically give players a way out when the odds are against them. I don't want players to die I just want them to know that it is possible.
I've seen player death bring an entire group to tears. It ended the session after it, but it was because we ran out of tissues.
I've experience a player death that was so epic (and accidental, thanks to Dominate Person) that a SECOND player death happened because he committed Sepuku for killing his sensei.
I've seen a player death be planned for, yet happen in a completely spur-of-the-moment and surprising way that caught the person off guard.
But death shouldn't always be scripted. Sometimes people just die. It shouldn't derail a campaign. But it SHOULD affect party dynamic, because death affects CHARACTERS. It shouldn't destroy their motivation; it should provide new and interesting ones.
Currently, GMs tend to fudge the heck out of systems to avoid death , which leaves success as the only outcome.
The more I think about it, this may be a good mechanic. Undeserved accidental deaths are always hard to deal with. As a game master, I'm all over my players when they make a (all too frequent) bad decision. But I always have issues with the 'accidents'.
Yep. I ran the first adventure in the Dawn of Defiance campaign (Saga Edition), and in the very first two rounds of combat rolled crits for attacks against the wookie soldier character. I fudged the second one all the way to a miss, because the first had left the character with 3 HP, and he was the *only* combat-oriented character in the game, in a 1st level fight against Stormtroopers, meaning most of the other players would have needed 14+ just to hit. Combat went on for another 6 rounds. Fortunately, my luck with the dice changed to favor the PCs after the 3rd round, so they survived the fight. There would have been no rational way for the PCs survive at all if they'd all been knocked out, much less escape from Imperial custody, after being gunned down by stormtroopers on an imperial-controlled station while protecting a known anti-imperial agent.
I absolutely *HATE* fudging the dice, to the point that I roll them on the table in front of the players. (I've had experiences with GM-vs-Players style GMs in the past who never fudged *for* the players, but regularly fudged *against* them.
I managed to snag that 2nd crit before anyone else noticed the result, but dealing with that sort of situation too often is just a hassle.
Edited by VoiceI would point out that buried in the RAW is text saying that characters can take a maximum of twice their wound threshold. This sort of implies death if they reach that point!
18 minutes ago, Radwraith said:I would point out that buried in the RAW is text saying that characters can take a maximum of twice their wound threshold. This sort of implies death if they reach that point!
No, it just means you don't continue to track wounds past that. If it worked like that, planetary-scale ordnance would be a one-hit kill in pretty much every scenario (minimum damage on planetary scale ordnance is 40)
Say your character gets hit by a turbolaser for 120 damage. If you stop tracking at WT*2, you can be back up before too long. If you track all of that, it's going to be a long time before you're back on your feet.
I have a house rule that adds a number equal to wounds past WT*2 to the crit. For example, you're hit by the above attack and have a WT of 15. 120-30=90, so you add 90 to the crit roll.
Edited by P-47 ThunderboltOn 7/15/2013 at 4:26 PM, Reydan said:And, since the EU is established canon, he didn't die. Gotta love EU haterz
On 7/16/2013 at 5:44 AM, Reydan said:I feel like I'm one of the only people that doesn't think that the new movies are going to decanonize EU stuff :'(. So many Star Wars fans have no faith!
The Star Trek movies were sooo gooood. Have faith, brothers and sisters!
These posts... did not age well.