How brutal should the GM be?


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You Think he was talking about folks that the bad guys tripped?

Editor

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm one of the fudgy GMs. My encounters are designed to be beaten, and it takes a good deal of bad luck before I'm willing to say that a character dies. I usually aim to have the PCs win, but juuuuust barely—I still want them fearing for their lives.

That said, I also have a lot of power gamers in my group, and I'm frequently surprised by just how easy they find my "challenges." So I've learned to try to overestimate them by bumping the assumed APL up by one or two when planning my encounters.

Often this ends up right in the sweet spot, but sometimes I realize after a fight has started that the PCs are way overmatched. So I empathize with an inexperienced GM who doesn't realize the danger until after the encounter has begun.

At that point, my reaction is usually to say something like "Hey, you are all welcome to stay and fight, but you should know that this encounter is much tougher than normal." If I can give them a warning and a chance to run, I'll let them die if they choose to stay and fight. The trick is to make sure everyone realizes the danger. If you can do that with in-game description, great. But it's better to break the fourth wall for a moment than to have death suddenly spring upon the players.

For me, the solution to killing a PC "fairly" is giving the PC a few rolls to try and avoid the fate. I killed my player's bloodrager last night, but only after he failed a disarm check and a few other AoOs to disable the baddie... Then the big bad rolled a crit with her bow, and that was it. If the player has rolled only once in the whole encounter before dying (including saves and AoOs), it's going to feel like she didn't have a chance. But there'll be no bad blood if she rolled three attacks and missed (or worse, hit and failed to take the bad guy down, and chose not to run away from a clearly superior foe).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why were the archers able to ready actions outside of combat? If they were first-level (which is still hugely dangerous when you have ten of them), they should only get one shot in the surprise round. Coltron's character would still have died, of course.


Cap. Darling wrote:
You Think he was talking about folks that the bad guys tripped?

I think he was talking about unconscious and dying PCs. Because if they wanted to say dead, they should have just said "dead". And how do you "sell" a dead PC anyway? I mean I guess you could, but that's not my take away.

Grand Lodge

He should be as brutal as the players want him to be, no more, no less. And if there is any question about it, they should discuss it like grown ups.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

#1

Anzyr wrote:
He explicitly never mentions killing fallen characters. And sees the game as a story where the players succeed. Maybe you should reread it?
Abrisene wrote:

To quote a different game:

Human Occupied Landfill wrote:
If you want the campaign to last -- don't kill off the players. Yes, unless the drama dictates you should for the purpose of the story, it's best to let them keep kickin'. Let them develop into their characters -- torture them all you want, tease them with the scythe -- but if you're going to dice 'em, do it in a way that makes them want to spew epic poetry. (Or whatever). Remember -- f%#$ rules, the play's the thing.

#2

The game does not run itself. That is a CRPG
The game has narrative and characters. Without, it is wargaming.

#3
Success is perspectival. Success is not survival.
In Call of Cthulhu, success may be having the final party member be insane instead of ghoul poo.
In Braunstein, it may be getting your faction's students released from jail, yet dying.

#4
Iv'e had more than one plot involve trying to track down a character's body in order to resurrect it. As well, I've been KO'd more than once, to wake up with no gear yet a new owner.

#5

Abrisene wrote:

The point of playing this, or most any, RPG is to tell the story of how this weird improbable group of characters succeeds.

The GM needs to kick out the crutches of characters, needs to put them in unusual situations, else the players have no real stories of how they overcame.

A litmus test of whether a campaign was good or not, is for how long do the players keep talking about it. The dice inform the narrative; as the narrative is repeated for years after, no dice are involved.

This game makes stories.

Grand Lodge

In paranoia, success is being the last one to run out of clones. Or the first. Or the funniest. Depends on your perspective.


Abrisene wrote:
Stuff

I meant your rules, not a quote by someone else. But if you are willing to have the villain cast Mass Suffocate and TPK when the entire party fails the save, then that's fine. The important thing is that the game drives the story, not the other way around. Sometimes the story the game tells is "The Heroes lose."

Final note: People talk about TPKs all the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Abrisene wrote:
Stuff

I meant your rules, not a quote by someone else. But if you are willing to have the villain cast Mass Suffocate and TPK when the entire party fails the save, then that's fine. The important thing is that the game drives the story, not the other way around. Sometimes the story the game tells is "The Heroes lose."

Final note: People talk about TPKs all the time.

Yeah. Sometimes, it was awesome.

Sometimes it's just bongoing about bad GMs. I still bring up the 1st level AD&D party that got eaten by a purple worm from time to time. Doesn't mean I thought that was a great game.

Find out what the players want. Give it to them. If that's a meatgrinder, that's cool. If it's a story driven cakewalk, that's cool too.

If it's too far from what you want to run, find a different group. Or compromise, if there's a middle ground you'll both enjoy.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It does seem like the game is less about a story than it is a way to murder you with whatever tactic he fancies.

If you can GM without spite, I suggest you take a turn and run the kind of game you would enjoy playing in. Maybe he'll take inspiration when he realizes the objective isn't to kill the PC.

Or maybe he can't have fun unless he has a chance (or in those examples, a certainty) to kill the PC. In which case, yeah, don't play under him again.


Soilent wrote:

I'm currently GMing a ROTRL campaign in which the party is level 2, has just received a letter regarding an early PC kidnapping, and two of them are insisting on going off to hunt the Sandpoint Devil, which is a CR 8 encounter with save-or-die abilities.

They really want to go hunt this creature, but I don't want to drop a TPK on them, in their 4th session.

There's a level of mystery and intensity with creatures like the Sandpoint Devil, and I won't nerf him, out of principle.

What should I do here?

Drop in game hints that a fight with the Sandpoint Devil may be too tough for them.

If the hints dont work then just flat out warn them that the Sandpoint Devil will likely kill their PC's at this level but give them no more info than that.

If they still insist? Let the dice fall where they may. If their characters die and they get upset about it?

FIND NEW PLAYERS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm of the mind that character death does not mean the end of the campaign. Even a TPK doesnt mean the end of the story.

I was inspired as a GM, over 12 years ago, by a story hour that I read on Enworld. (Contact's) Temple of Elemental Evil 2. It was originally played using tidbits of the then new at the time 3.0 rules gleaned from Dragon Magazine.

I thought that reading some gaming group's story was going to be the driest and most boring thing in the world. It wasnt. It was really fun and entertaining.

But the thing that caught my attention the most were the character deaths. The character deaths never derailed the campaign. People simply made new characters and integrated them into the group. The players/GM found creative ways to keep the game and the central conceit of the campaign going (with from what I can tell little to no ego in regards to the loss of their respective PC's).

The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going.

and that doesnt mean artificially keeping the characters alive like in books or stories.

I think that a roleplaying game should comprise of elements of BOTH. And I think that a balance can be struck. Hell, I've been running my Curse of the Crimson Throne game off and on for the better part of 5 years now (My group can only get together intermittently) and the PC turn over has been high but not outrageous. My house rules include Hero Points and inflated HP and then averaged Hit Points. And each of my players (5 of them) have lost at least one PC. One of my players lost his starting PC at level 8 or 9 ascending Kaer Maga and was promptly reincarnated by another PC Druid as a Dwarf. That player recently lost that character again in Scarwall at level 11.

PC death is a thing my game. I don't celebrate the deaths but failed saves are failed saves. Crazy Crit damage (we don't confirm natural 20's in our game) is crazy crit damage. It happens. But for every character death these players and their PC's have pulled out some EPIC win's against their foes.

All I'm saying is that there's a balance to be had. And I let my players know from the outset that character death will be a thing. Role play the hell out of your PC, but be prepared to role play the hell out of a different one should the time come. Like I said roleplaying game. I find the idea of roleplaying being a waste of energy "if the character is just going to die" a huge cop out. I'm a GM. Alot of the characters and creatures that I roleplay wind up meeting their fates at the end of a PC's blade or spell.

Hasnt slowed me down.


To address the OP, GMs should be as brutal as their players want (which has been mentioned). In my experience, players remember the "barely" won fights, not the cake walks.

As for your thinking the GM is out to kill you, from what you've said it seems right. Mention to him that the CRs for creatures assumes a party of FOUR characters, so your level 5 character should be facing CR 1 and 2. Also, number increase the CR. You can try to give him your character ahead of time so he knows what you can and can't do. Maybe he can tailor an encounter you can win, or at least not lose without acting. You can even try re-creating the same encounters for him, but at the proper CR.

In my personal opinion, drop him and move on. He seems the type of GM who feels he has to "win" the game, and you're the scorecard.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going.

I'm not really sure what you mean by Alien and Lacks Verisimilitude? MOST of the stories I've read and movies I've watched have central group of characters from the beginning to the end. There may be a change of one or two.. but the 'core' remains. I'm sure they're out there, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any story I know where the whole cast is gone by chapter six and a whole new group is carrying the torch.

Maybe Game of Thrones...

I think it has to do with what type of play style you prefer. Personally I like it when the characters are tied to the story in some way. Whatever the quest is, is somehow personal and important to them. They were there from the beginning, and they're determined to finish the quest.

I've played in a couple games where the death rate was so high... none of the new characters even knew why they were doing the quest... and had no beef with the BBEG, and everything was heresay... but the players knew that was the direction to go, so their characters went...

It wasn't as satisfying.

honestly, a constant turnover of heroes is what breaks the verisimilitude for me, not the near-death heroics.


TheRiverOcean wrote:
As a GM I don't have a problem with this level of brutality, as long as you failed several saves, or made several mistakes that resulted in your death.

This is pretty much my mentality. My most brutal moments as a DM came stemmed directly from poorly and unrepentantly made PC actions, them reaping what they sowed. For instance, if you in character alienate the other party members to point where they agree to join a conspiracy led by powerful NPCs you screwed over to kill you, you may deserve the curb stomp battle followed by death that is coming. That's a true story of my old game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going.

I'm not really sure what you mean by Alien and Lacks Verisimilitude? MOST of the stories I've read and movies I've watched have central group of characters from the beginning to the end. There may be a change of one or two.. but the 'core' remains. I'm sure they're out there, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any story I know where the whole cast is gone by chapter six and a whole new group is carrying the torch.

And that's kind of my point.

I'm playing a game, not reading a book or watching a movie. Both of those media have predetermined outcomes. The author or authors have already decided whats what and as a passive participant you're just along for the ride.

There's no way that I want any game that I run or play in to be like that. Nor do I want to play with players who want that type of game. For me it kind of defeats the point of playing a game.

And if the players cant tie new characters into the present story line after losing PC's that has to do with the lack of imagination concerning the players, not the story or the game.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the world revolving around the PC's. I prefer that the PC's exist in the world. They may be the big damn heroes but they're involved in dangerous work. Work that by all accounts SHOULD have a high mortality rate depending on what they're facing. That's what I mean about verisimilitude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going.

I'm not really sure what you mean by Alien and Lacks Verisimilitude? MOST of the stories I've read and movies I've watched have central group of characters from the beginning to the end. There may be a change of one or two.. but the 'core' remains. I'm sure they're out there, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any story I know where the whole cast is gone by chapter six and a whole new group is carrying the torch.

And that's kind of my point.

I'm playing a game, not reading a book or watching a movie. Both of those media have predetermined outcomes. The author or authors have already decided whats what and as a passive participant youre just along for the ride.

There's no way that I want any game that I run or play in to be like that. Nor do I want to play with players who want that type of game. For me it kind of defeats the point of playing a game.

I find it interesting that there often seems to be this correlation of low death rates with some kind of "passive participant youre just along for the ride".

There are plenty of ways for players to not be passive and drive the game off in unexpected directions without a high death toll. In fact, you can run an awfully railroaded game, killing off PCs left and right. The story and ending are known from the start, the only question is whether it's PC 1 or 5 that'll be there at the end.
Or you can have a game where no one dies, or only a few, but the actions they took and the decisions they made drove the game in their own unpredicted ways.


thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going.

I'm not really sure what you mean by Alien and Lacks Verisimilitude? MOST of the stories I've read and movies I've watched have central group of characters from the beginning to the end. There may be a change of one or two.. but the 'core' remains. I'm sure they're out there, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any story I know where the whole cast is gone by chapter six and a whole new group is carrying the torch.

And that's kind of my point.

I'm playing a game, not reading a book or watching a movie. Both of those media have predetermined outcomes. The author or authors have already decided whats what and as a passive participant youre just along for the ride.

There's no way that I want any game that I run or play in to be like that. Nor do I want to play with players who want that type of game. For me it kind of defeats the point of playing a game.

I find it interesting that there often seems to be this correlation of low death rates with some kind of "passive participant youre just along for the ride".

There are plenty of ways for players to not be passive and drive the game off in unexpected directions without a high death toll. In fact, you can run an awfully railroaded game, killing off PCs left and right. The story and ending are known from the start, the only question is whether it's PC 1 or 5 that'll be there at the end.
Or you can have a game where no one dies, or only a few, but the actions they took and the decisions they made drove the game...

thejeff Please read what I actually wrote.

I LITERALLY said if you're reading a book or watching a movie you are a passive participant just along for the ride.

I said that to enforce the point that that's NOT what a roleplaying game is. Two different types of media/consumables.

I mean, you guys do get that I was citing what I like in a game right? I'm not saying everyone's game should be like mine or that I want a slaughterfest of a game. I was addressing the fact that there are more than a few people in this thread who seem to like a low fatality game and the idea that fatalities end campaigns. I'm of the mind that they dont have to and if they do that it's the players who make that decision NOT the GM or the campaign. Which dovetails into the idea that the entire game is pretty much focuses around not only PC's but those SPECIFIC PC's. And if those PC's aren't around then the game is over.

It's as if there's no way (depending on what's going on) another group of heroes can't pick up where the old PC's left off. OR the remaining PC's have to find new heroes to help them complete the quest. OR if the heroes were part of an organization that organization wouldn't gather more people to help complete the mission. I mean I'm pretty sure that there are a more than a few stories or movies that start with someone gathering a new group of heroes to complete a failed or stalled mission. But that option isn't available or feasible to players because they're stuck on their specific PC having to complete the mission from start to end?

Nah.

Again, I'm not interested in that style of play. It works for some people but for me? I find that way of thinking kind of alien and counterproductive to the experience I'm looking for.


You did, but then you talked about wanting the game to not be like that, in the context of not caring about high levels of PC death.

Why complain about things not related to the point phantom1592 was making? Especially without making it clear you weren't talking about the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I often wonder just how many people read others' posts here and think, He/she's a smart person, and has my respect, but ... if I had to play in a campaign with him/her we'd be at each others' throats in ten minutes, if that.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

I LITERALLY said if you're reading a book or watching a movie you are a passive participant just along for the ride.

I said that to enforce the point that that's NOT what a roleplaying game is. Two different types of media/consumables.

/Shrug

I don't see them as THAT strict of a line. There are a lot of novels written in continuity with a game world, Some are written about actually games that have been played and some authors are also DMs on the weekend... The Adventure Paths are written with a beginning/middle/end and yet it's the characters that make the decisions. The video games have set stories too...

I think it's absolutely awesome to finish a campaign and then look back at the story the players and the DM wrote together. Which is key. You're not just passively watching a story... you're also WRITING it...

To see the connections and relationships the characters had with each other. To see the vendettas that were formed with the BBEG. Some of our campaigns have been Novel/movie worthy epics...

That gets lost sometimes (not Always... and not for everyone) when there is a rotating band of strangers picking up the torch and trying to figure out the quest.

I got into roleplaying by watching movies, reading novels, Reading Comics... and then seeing a game where I could BE the main character. Go through adventures like that and make the decisions on what to do.

So yeah, the cinematic adventure is what I enjoy. I like being the hero, not just nameless extra who cleared out dungeon room K-3... and died before finding K-4... but his replacement was found wandering K-5 for completely unrelated reasons and choses to join the party...

Different playstyles.


thejeff wrote:

You did, but then you talked about wanting the game to not be like that, in the context of not caring about high levels of PC death.

Why complain about things not related to the point phantom1592 was making? Especially without making it clear you weren't talking about the same thing.

???

Wait...let me see if I've got this straight.

I say this:

"The idea that a campaign should be focused around all of the same PC's making it from beginning to end is alien and in alot of ways lacks verisimilitude considering the level of threats that they usually face. Very few of the starting PC's make it to the end of that first campaign. But some of the PC's who come in later are more memorable than some of the starting ones. But the focus should be on the campaign and keeping the story going."

Wherein I'm clearly using the identifiers PC, CAMPAIGN and PC and CAMPAIGN and STORY clearly in reference to a GAME and NOT a movie or a book.

He says:

"I'm not really sure what you mean by Alien and Lacks Verisimilitude? MOST of the stories I've read and movies I've watched have central group of characters from the beginning to the end. There may be a change of one or two.. but the 'core' remains. I'm sure they're out there, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any story I know where the whole cast is gone by chapter six and a whole new group is carrying the torch.

Maybe Game of Thrones..."

Wherein he's clearly referencing different media, THAT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT.
I know that I'm not talking about those different media because in the initial thing that I wrote i said THIS:

"and that doesn't mean artificially keeping the characters alive like in books or stories."

So when you say something like:

"Why complain about things not related to the point phantom1592 was making? Especially without making it clear you weren't talking about the same thing."

It makes me wonder if YOU were actually reading what was being written and what was said or maybe YOU didnt understand what was being said.

When you say:

"You did, but then you talked about wanting the game to not be like that, in the context of not caring about high levels of PC death."

it kind of makes me wonder. Again especially when I wrote my initial post:

"PC death is a thing my game. I don't celebrate the deaths but failed saves are failed saves. Crazy Crit damage (we don't confirm natural 20's in our game) is crazy crit damage. It happens. But for every character death these players and their PC's have pulled out some EPIC win's against their foes."

So to sum up:

Phantom1592 responds to my post addressing something that I was saying using a completely different frame of reference.

I respond to him actually CLARIFYING what I was saying and reinforcing my point.

You respond to me disagreeing (which I have NO PROBLEM WITH) and also clearly misquoting me OUT OF CONTEXT (Which I do have a HUGE problem with).

I correct you.

You say that why am I complainig about things not related to the point that Phantom115 was making?

WTF?!?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And that's one of the reasons I find slavish devotion to die rolls, when the DM can employ his authority to judiciously fudge them, tremendously silly. Random chance does, on occasion, ruin things. Sometimes the guy/gal in charge can fix that with a tweak.

In my opinion, it's irresponsible in that case not to do it.


phantom1592 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

I LITERALLY said if you're reading a book or watching a movie you are a passive participant just along for the ride.

I said that to enforce the point that that's NOT what a roleplaying game is. Two different types of media/consumables.

/Shrug

I don't see them as THAT strict of a line. There are a lot of novels written in continuity with a game world, Some are written about actually games that have been played and some authors are also DMs on the weekend... The Adventure Paths are written with a beginning/middle/end and yet it's the characters that make the decisions. The video games have set stories too...

I think it's absolutely awesome to finish a campaign and then look back at the story the players and the DM wrote together. Which is key. You're not just passively watching a story... you're also WRITING it...

To see the connections and relationships the characters had with each other. To see the vendettas that were formed with the BBEG. Some of our campaigns have been Novel/movie worthy epics...

That gets lost sometimes (not Always... and not for everyone) when there is a rotating band of strangers picking up the torch and trying to figure out the quest.

I got into roleplaying by watching movies, reading novels, Reading Comics... and then seeing a game where I could BE the main character. Go through adventures like that and make the decisions on what to do.

So yeah, the cinematic adventure is what I enjoy. I like being the hero, not just nameless extra who cleared out dungeon room K-3... and died before finding K-4... but his replacement was found wandering K-5 for completely unrelated reasons and choses to join the party...

Different playstyles.

Okay I'm gonna stop right here because you and I seem to be talking past one another. It's entirely possible to have a deep immersive game without mollycoddling the PC's to make sure that they survive an entire campaign. The PC's in my games ARENT nameless extras. They have motivations. They have families. They have friends and obligations. Sometimes they succeed and other times they DON'T. And the game and their backgrounds are rich enough that when a PC DOES die it's not hard to figure out how a new PC is going to integrate into the story at present.

But yeah nameless extras? NO.


Jaelithe wrote:

And that's one of the reasons I find slavish devotion to die rolls, when the DM can employ his authority to judiciously fudge them, tremendously silly. Random chance does, on occasion, ruin things. Sometimes the guy/gal in charge can fix that with a tweak.

In my opinion, it's irresponsible in that case not to do it.

Here's the thing I will cop to very, VERY rarely fudging dice as a DM. Everytime that I've done it it's been to benefit my players. When I say VERY rarely? I mean MAYBE twice in 5 years of game play. And one of those times wasnt even a fudge, I didn't have a piece of information right in front of me (I had it on a post-it and couldn't find it!) so I went with the option that would have benefited the PC's as opposed to the opponent.

I usually house rule in a buttload of buffers to give the PC's the best chance of survival in my games. But usually once actual play starts? The dice fall where they may.


ShinHakkaider wrote:


Okay I'm gonna stop right here because you and I seem to be talking past one another. It's entirely possible to have a deep immersive game without mollycoddling the PC's to make sure that they survive an entire campaign.

I hope you aren't taking any of this personal, because I certainly am not. We are talking past each other a bit, but we come from different places and play very differently. As we'll most likely never be in the same game, I really have no problem with you, your play style or anything else.

I'm just continuing conversation from the OP as much as anything else. I fully believe that you can have a game that does NOT Mollycoddle... AND is not an epic Bloodbath of disposable characters. The OP's DM is whacking characters in one surprise round with questionable rules... that doesn't sound like fun to me.

So most of my comments are generalized comments not directly attacking you in any way... but something you said about there not being main characters of the story and what not confused me and I use them as a springboard to my own thoughts and comments.

ShinHakkaider wrote:


The PC's in my games ARENT nameless extras. They have motivations. They have families. They have friends and obligations. Sometimes they succeed and other times they DON'T. And the game and their backgrounds are rich enough that when a PC DOES die it's not hard to figure out how a new PC is going to integrate into the story at present.

But yeah nameless extras? NO.

In Epic bloodbath meatgrinders... I have seen this happen. We did a Tomb of horrors Halloween game where everyone showed up with XX characters... and just fed them in. Some of my characters were more developed then others. However when they lasted thirty minutes real time, their hopes and dreams amounted to nothing.

I've had a character last 14 levels or so... only to die and get replaced by a new character for the last 4-5 game sessions. He didn't have the same kind of experience that I would have with the original. Had he shown up around level 10 or so... I could have delved deeper into him and had more fun... them's the breaks.

I am not opposed to player deaths. It happens. I do not believe the DM should be out to murder them in a 'me vs. them' mentality. Some of the DM's on this board seem to keep a scorecard of how many kills they've gotten. (again, not directed at you... directed at the concept of Brutal DMs)


I find this variant rule to be a perfect balance between the styles discussed here. It allows me to be, at times, brutal to the players while allowing them the opportunity for consistency. Some fall in love with their characters and don't want them arbitrarily taken away from them. Others play for the narrative and are frustrated by the mechanical burden of continually making new characters. Using this rule, I find players at high level would rather take the death because it is easier to undo than the consequences I generate with this rule.

Killing PCs and saying "come up with a new one that fits the story so far" can be lazy GMing. It takes more talent and creativity to make a story where the PCs genuine fear the narrative consequences of failure than to leave all narrative onus on the player.


A GM should be absolutely ruthless, but never brutal. There's no point in being brutal: haha, my balrog kills your level 1 party then resses them just to kill them again! No one will have fun.

Ruthlessness on the other hand can lead to fun memorable sessions. You have to give the players a chance to succeed, provide them hints, and context and backstory. Then you have to run the story as they play it -- if they screw up they deal with the consequences. People will groan, and moan and think 'gods, why didn't I stop the mayor's consort before she opened a hole to the Abyss?' Ruthlessness can drive story, brutality never does.

Liberty's Edge

I've said before, a GM need to do a TPK with a group of new players in the very first session to establish GM authority. ;)

Silver Crusade

I'm not sure where I fall on the brutality scale. I was always taught 'don't kill them, you can't make them suffer then.'

I neither set out to kill, nor coddle my players. I create the experiences they'll encounter, and try to make them realistic. I don't actively gun for players, and I never create situations that are tit-for-tat against player builds.

I've killed a few players (some players multiple times) mostly and ironically for this thread, due to monsters trying to act intelligently.

Some monsters tend to dislike attempting CDGs when they have angry barbarians in their face. Its just not worth the AoO most of the time.

I tend to come pretty heavy in most encounters as well according to my players.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:
I've killed a few players

That's too brutal. Better to just kill their characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
I've killed a few players (some players multiple times)
That's too brutal. Better to just kill their characters.

But if he's bringing them back to do it again, as "some players multiples times" implies, that's something.

It's the ones he kills and doesn't resurrect I feel for.


Coltron wrote:

I am just going to go the other way with this. We are playing every day this week(nothing else to do really). I am going to have every new character be the following, hopefully he gets the message since talking to him doesn't work.

Dhamphir: -2 con
Sorc- d6, 3hp/lv (half is hs rule)
7 starting con

7hp @ lv5

Contrasting my last character:

Dwarf: +2 con
Uc monk: d10, 5hp/lv
Favored class 1hp/lv
18 starting con(not including racial)
Toughness 1hp/lv
Item: +2 con

60hp @lv 5(I was one shot by a charge atk hit on 30 to ac)

Why aren't you starting at level one and building a character properly from the ground up? It sounds more like you and your GM are playing World of Warcraft as opposed to a roleplaying game.

My question is what is the backstory to the two scenarios you have described? Did the GM attempt to build a story in the world or just set you down and start throwing monsters at you?

And in your second example, how can you fail a perception check when something is knocking down trees?

It sounds like your GM doesn't know how to run the game.


phantom1592 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


Okay I'm gonna stop right here because you and I seem to be talking past one another. It's entirely possible to have a deep immersive game without mollycoddling the PC's to make sure that they survive an entire campaign.

I hope you aren't taking any of this personal, because I certainly am not. We are talking past each other a bit, but we come from different places and play very differently. As we'll most likely never be in the same game, I really have no problem with you, your play style or anything else.

I'm just continuing conversation from the OP as much as anything else. I fully believe that you can have a game that does NOT Mollycoddle... AND is not an epic Bloodbath of disposable characters. The OP's DM is whacking characters in one surprise round with questionable rules... that doesn't sound like fun to me.

So most of my comments are generalized comments not directly attacking you in any way... but something you said about there not being main characters of the story and what not confused me and I use them as a springboard to my own thoughts and comments.

ShinHakkaider wrote:


The PC's in my games ARENT nameless extras. They have motivations. They have families. They have friends and obligations. Sometimes they succeed and other times they DON'T. And the game and their backgrounds are rich enough that when a PC DOES die it's not hard to figure out how a new PC is going to integrate into the story at present.

But yeah nameless extras? NO.

In Epic bloodbath meatgrinders... I have seen this happen. We did a Tomb of horrors Halloween game where everyone showed up with XX characters... and just fed them in. Some of my characters were more developed then others. However when they lasted thirty minutes real time, their hopes and dreams amounted to nothing.

I've had a character last 14 levels or so... only to die and get replaced by a new character for the last 4-5 game sessions. He didn't have the same kind of experience that I would...

No not taking it personal. Just a little annoyed by a 3rd party taking our exchange out of context. I guess some of that annoyance may have spilled over into my response to you but no worries.

We just have very different playstyles is all.

Epic Bloodbaths arent any fun unless that's what the table is going for. But I've never at any point said that's what I was going for. I think that I very clearly say in my post that there is balance to be had. That I dont think that character death should derail a good game if the players and the GM find a way for it to continue. My main issue is the conceit that if you lose a PC or even a succession of them that continuing to play the campaign is pointless. And I find that attitude to be kind of strange considering all the talk I always hear about the game being a story.

Is it a story where everyone needs to stick to the idea that the same group that starts out HAS to finish the mission or it's a failure?

What's the point of playing an RPG with so much leeway if the thinking on how to progress the story is so restricted? And I'm not a big "story" guy. But it seems to me that if the game is fun enough and rich enough that it should find a way to continue.

But only if people want that. Again, I acknowledge that this is my own preference.

In my own game I've had two players actually give up their PC's as NPC's around level 5 or so because they were unsatisfied with them in play. So they both stayed in the city getting involved with other NPC's and situations around their newly created PC's.

Those same two players each lost the new PC later on and created yet two other PC's tied into the previous party. One of them was basically enlisted by the spirit of the previous character (a druid) to carry on his mission. The new PC was made aware of the stakes and agreed to help. The other player's new PC had ties with the city guard and was seen kind of as an annoyance but since the guard was running low on volunteers the allowed him to help out.

Both of those PC's are still around at 11-12th level. One of the players has decided to go BACK to his retired PC for this one adventure and have her rejoin the group.

The whole thing with my particular group of players feels very organic considering what they're trying to do. Yes, people have lost PC's. In our last session a demi-lich killed 2 PC's and an NPC. The two people who lost their 11th level characters had 2 new PC's ready to go and back stories that would tie them to the location and the missions of the previous two and also leaving the window open to raise at least one of the dead PC's later on. (A complication having to do with the current adventure prevent that from happening right away...)

I think the thing is that we think about what we want to do to make the story and the game work for us. I know our group isnt the norm but it is frustrating to constantly hear that character deaths basically ruin campaigns and games when the game itself is SO MALLEABLE and flexible and really is only limited by the prowess and imagination of the people playing the game.


Anzyr wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
@anzyr he was talking about fallen characters so we Can safely assume he dont play with kids gloves. But the game should be stacked so the PCs Can come out a head. And if they make unforseen choices killing them for it is ending the game. Try rereading what he is saying and see if you actually disagree with him. You dont like him using the word succeeds but he is not saying that it should be a walk in the park, he is asking for setbacks and problems to overcome.
He explicitly never mentions killing fallen characters. And sees the game as a story where the players succeed. Maybe you should reread it?

RPGs use elements of storytelling to create their framework. If there are no quest givers there are no quests. In CRB and the Gamemastery Guide it all but says the point of the game is to ensure the players have fun.


Brutal in their description but merciful once in a while. Not everything has to be brutality and the school of hard-knocks all the time.


Brother Fen wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
@anzyr he was talking about fallen characters so we Can safely assume he dont play with kids gloves. But the game should be stacked so the PCs Can come out a head. And if they make unforseen choices killing them for it is ending the game. Try rereading what he is saying and see if you actually disagree with him. You dont like him using the word succeeds but he is not saying that it should be a walk in the park, he is asking for setbacks and problems to overcome.
He explicitly never mentions killing fallen characters. And sees the game as a story where the players succeed. Maybe you should reread it?
RPGs use elements of storytelling to create their framework. If there are no quest givers there are no quests. In CRB and the Gamemastery Guide it all but says the point of the game is to ensure the players have fun.

What does "fun" have to do with the rest of your statement?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Brother Fen wrote:
Coltron wrote:

I am just going to go the other way with this. We are playing every day this week(nothing else to do really). I am going to have every new character be the following, hopefully he gets the message since talking to him doesn't work.

Dhamphir: -2 con
Sorc- d6, 3hp/lv (half is hs rule)
7 starting con

7hp @ lv5

Contrasting my last character:

Dwarf: +2 con
Uc monk: d10, 5hp/lv
Favored class 1hp/lv
18 starting con(not including racial)
Toughness 1hp/lv
Item: +2 con

60hp @lv 5(I was one shot by a charge atk hit on 30 to ac)

Why aren't you starting at level one and building a character properly from the ground up? It sounds more like you and your GM are playing World of Warcraft as opposed to a roleplaying game.

My question is what is the backstory to the two scenarios you have described? Did the GM attempt to build a story in the world or just set you down and start throwing monsters at you?

And in your second example, how can you fail a perception check when something is knocking down trees?

It sounds like your GM doesn't know how to run the game.

Somehow TC, I don't think enabling him is going to get the message you want across.

I don't begrudge people for starting at higher levels though. Lvl1 is the most deadly, especially when you have no party to stabilize you. And a lot of people are tired of giant rats in a cellar or goblin/kobold warren.


I don't care if people want to start at 1st, 5th or 15th level, so long as they're enjoying the game.

Silver Crusade

Jaelithe wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
I've killed a few players (some players multiple times)
That's too brutal. Better to just kill their characters.

But if he's bringing them back to do it again, as "some players multiples times" implies, that's something.

It's the ones he kills and doesn't resurrect I feel for.

You other DMs lack the vision and power represented therewithin.

They live and die at my whim. It really helps with table discipline.

Seriously though I meant characters. I (hope) that much is obvious.


Spook205 wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
I've killed a few players (some players multiple times)
That's too brutal. Better to just kill their characters.

But if he's bringing them back to do it again, as "some players multiples times" implies, that's something.

It's the ones he kills and doesn't resurrect I feel for.

You other DMs lack the vision and power represented therewithin.

They live and die at my whim. It really helps with table discipline.

Seriously though I meant characters. I (hope) that much is obvious.

Either that or you're a lot more bad-ass than I want to mess with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Carry on, people.

Sovereign Court

Well, one time I had a player who choose to have his dwarf be a cannibalistic maniac who flayed people alive on a whim.

The party (who was mostly good) convinced me to let them kill him. As the story went along the campaign turned into a manhunt. The player avoided the other 5 characters for 4 sessions. I finally decided just to kill the cur with divine intervention. A solar angel came along and ended the mass serial killers life after he had already skinned 30 people and wore their skin as clothes.

When you have a crazy person, just wipe their existence off the face,of the planet. Have something kill it! But do it fair. Give him a chance to not get hit by the solar angels arrows because of a natural 1.


wraithstrike wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
@anzyr he was talking about fallen characters so we Can safely assume he dont play with kids gloves. But the game should be stacked so the PCs Can come out a head. And if they make unforseen choices killing them for it is ending the game. Try rereading what he is saying and see if you actually disagree with him. You dont like him using the word succeeds but he is not saying that it should be a walk in the park, he is asking for setbacks and problems to overcome.
He explicitly never mentions killing fallen characters. And sees the game as a story where the players succeed. Maybe you should reread it?
RPGs use elements of storytelling to create their framework. If there are no quest givers there are no quests. In CRB and the Gamemastery Guide it all but says the point of the game is to ensure the players have fun.
What does "fun" have to do with the rest of your statement?

Two statements. One about storytelling as it relates to RPGs. The second relates to the goal of the game. That's what.


Jaelithe wrote:
I don't care if people want to start at 1st, 5th or 15th level, so long as they're enjoying the game.

Your mileage may vary of course but in my experience, players are more emotionally invested in their characters when they build them up from level one. Start at 20th if that's what works for you. Different strokes and all that jazz.


Brother Fen wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
I don't care if people want to start at 1st, 5th or 15th level, so long as they're enjoying the game.
Your mileage may vary of course but in my experience, players are more emotionally invested in their characters when they build them up from level one.

I agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes creating a bad-ass out the gate is fun, though.


Jaelithe wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
I don't care if people want to start at 1st, 5th or 15th level, so long as they're enjoying the game.
Your mileage may vary of course but in my experience, players are more emotionally invested in their characters when they build them up from level one.
I agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes creating a bad-ass out the gate is fun, though.

I'd say that emotional investment is usually proportional to how long you've played the character rather than where it started.

If you start at 1st, you'll be more vested in the character when you reach 15th than you would be when you started a character at 15th.

Though starting high level characters is tricky, since they're so complex and you haven't had the chance to grow into them.


Chase scene with a Mythic Half-Fiend Great Wyrm Red Dragon... at level 1, anyone? I think my grognard is showing!

*Finds a leaf to cover the grognard area and has to settle for the Sphere of Annihilation trap page from Tomb of Horrors*

Before flagging my comment as inappropriate, look up what a grognard actually is! :P

Liberty's Edge

You're awful... well... alive for a Grenadier of Napoleon's Old Guard.


Hehe, nice grasp of history, even if it wasn't what I was referring to!

I was referring to grognard as in the gaming term, found HERE for ease of reference.

Considering that I used to do some old 2E/AD&D and still own a copy of the original Fiend Folio, I believe that I fit the profile of the (Pop culture) grognard.

Then again, I think most people on these boards are, given that we likely prefer Pathfinder to 4.0/5.0, and PF is a D&D 3.X revamp (So much better of an edition, thank you Paizo!!!).

51 to 100 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How brutal should the GM be? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.