How many have killed off PCs?

[Roxy Rocket]

The DFRPG is like a good book. Every time you read it you see things you never saw before. Admittedly, the little notes from the characters always distract me. Also copying out those neat runes on the sides.

Ahem.

Back to solemn character death scene thread, already in proh-gress.

[sinker]

I've had several characters in games I've been involved in go off the deep end, but no one's died yet.

[zenten]

Remember, it's the player that declares the taken out result, not the character.  So if your nasty killer NPC takes out a PC in a fight that doesn't necessarily mean that the PC is dead, even though the NPC wants the PC dead.

[admiralducksauce]

Remember, it's the player that declares the taken out result, not the character.  So if your nasty killer NPC takes out a PC in a fight that doesn't necessarily mean that the PC is dead, even though the NPC wants the PC dead.

You mean for concessions, right?  The player of the victim makes concessions.  The player of the victim's opponent declares the Taken Out result.  This means that yes, the GM would be within his rights within the rules (whether he's a dick according to his group is another matter and one that cannot be quantified) to have the murderous NPC put two in the PC's brain.

[zenten]

If the GM declares the PC dead after an NPC takes them out, then that means the GM chose to kill the PC.  Sometimes that's appropriate, but if the players have a problem with it then it's probably not.

[Richard_Chilton]

Most games need a certain element of risk - but there shouldn't be surprises.

If a PC plans on going up to Johnny Marcone and kicking that SOB in the balls, then the GM (and the rest of the table) should warn the player that this is almost certainly going to result in that PC's death.  If not now then Marcone puts a hit on the PC.

Walking alone in the wrong part of town? If the PC doesn't think of the dangers then the GM (and the rest of the table) should point them out.  Going after a Red Court Vampire armed only with a pocket  knife? Again there should be a warning.

But if the player is told "do that and there's a really good chance that you'll to make a new PC" and still wants to do it, then the PC does it and lives with the consequences.  Or, in some case, doesn't live with the consequences.


Personally, I'll sometimes change the danger levels of places based on the date.  I hate to say this, but statistics say that the closer it is to the day the welfare cheques come out the more dangerous the streets get.  The druggies always need money, but needing to buy food now when your cheque isn't due for two days means that there are more desperate people on the streets just before those cheques come out.

Richard

[MorkaisChosen]

You mean for concessions, right?  The player of the victim makes concessions.  The player of the victim's opponent declares the Taken Out result.  This means that yes, the GM would be within his rights within the rules (whether he's a dick according to his group is another matter and one that cannot be quantified) to have the murderous NPC put two in the PC's brain.

I believe his point was that while the murderous NPC might want to kill the character, the GM could decide that it's inappropriate at this point.

[Taran]

We had a game where a PC was in danger of dying during a combat and everyone warned him and told him all he had to do was move back one zone (the baddie would be dealt with within the next exchange), instead he decided to take his licks...and he got taken out.  The GM told him not to bother with the Extreme consequence and told him he was taken out.  After the fight the CHaracter spent one week in the hospital(out of game), and was fine by next session.

To me, this was a cop-out.  If it was me running the game and I'd warned everyone that the combat was lethal AND all any of the players had to do to avoid death was retreat back (it was a stationary threat) AND they chose not to....that player would be making a new character.  There has to be some kind of danger for there to be tension, in my opinion.  Maybe not necessarily death in most cases, but if a player is being blatantly *insert politically correct word*, then they should pay the consequences (no pun intended).

Also, I find it hard to suspend disbeleif if an Main NPC wizard is flinging high velocity projectiles at PC's and doing piles of damage that you can just say, "oh, that final blow that did 12 damage knocks you out instead of spraying your brains all over the ground".  If you're doing lethal damage, it's lethal and sometimes you can't control how deadly your attacks are.  But maybe that's another topic of discussion.  I suppose you can always justify anything...

[citadel97501]

I would have given that player an Extreme Consequence, and had him taken out. . .
Then again I am an   "insert appropriate derogatory term"  to players who annoy me with stupidity. 

[Tedronai]

Also, I find it hard to suspend disbeleif if an Main NPC wizard is flinging high velocity projectiles at PC's and doing piles of damage that you can just say, "oh, that final blow that did 12 damage knocks you out instead of spraying your brains all over the ground".  If you're doing lethal damage, it's lethal and sometimes you can't control how deadly your attacks are.  But maybe that's another topic of discussion.  I suppose you can always justify anything...

Do I really need to bring back the 'Mack Truck' example?

Just because the attack (the game action) causes stress, in ANY amount, however high, does NOT necessarily mean that the attack (the multi-tonne kinetic missile barreling toward the target at highway speeds) actually HIT the victim.

[Taran]

Do I really need to bring back the 'Mack Truck' example?

Just because the attack (the game action) causes stress, in ANY amount, however high, does NOT necessarily mean that the attack (the multi-tonne kinetic missile barreling toward the target at highway speeds) actually HIT the victim.

My issue is when the party wizard is doing it and doing piles of damage to mortals without any risk of breaking the laws because he can dictate how they were taken out...I don't think this is the right thread for this, but there it is...

[Tedronai]

Any taken out result is subject to a 'reasonableness' test, judged by the table as a whole.

[Shadowman17]

My rule is this: if I think that the creature that my players are fighting would kill them, then it kills them.

For instance, if my players run into  a Black Court vampire, I think that it's reasonable to assume that the thing will kill at least one of them if it can manage to take them out. That being said, if it's, say, two of my players to one BCV, then there's a good chance that neither player will die if only one of them is taken out before the vampire is toasted (all but one of my PCs decided to play a caster).

[Tedronai]

My rule is this: if I think that the creature that my players are fighting would kill them, then it kills them.

Runs into the same 'Mack Truck issue' as the 'but that should have been lethal' crowd.






Just because the game action mechanic indicates failure does not mean that the character has failed to achieve the goal of that action.
Just because the game action mechanic indicates success does not mean that the character has actually succeeded in reaching the goal of that action.

DFrpg, and FATE upon which it is based, are narrative systems.  The story takes precedence, informed by the dice, not dictated by them.

[Richard_Chilton]

DFrpg, and FATE upon which it is based, are narrative systems.  The story takes precedence, informed by the dice, not dictated by them.

Speaking of stories, let me tell you one about Mary Sue.  She's a great person - everyone loves her.  Even the bad guys respect and like her.  And talented? Why if she was on the Iron Chief show and the secret ingredient was scorpion she would flash back to that summer she spent with her uncle in the desert and before you know it she'd have a perfect meal prepared.   If there's danger then she'll save the day.  If she's in a contest then she'll win - or win the real prize by losing the meaningless contest.

In short, she's a perfect character - so perfect that there can be no real drama built around her.  She's been in countless stories under countless names - most of them fanfic - and none of them are worth reading.

For there to be drama there has to be conflict.  For the conflict to be worthwhile the stakes have to be high.  Without that conflict, with that drama, then there's no real story.

When Harry Dresden goes into a fight you know that people can get hurt and maybe die.  Over the series some reoccurring characters have been hurt, crippled, or killed.  Sometimes the innocent victim can't be saved.  Sometimes bystanders get hurt.

If you're playing a game where you know that your character will not be crippled or killed - then where's the stakes? I'm not saying it needs Call of Cthulhu levels of PC death, but if you know that your PC will never die then where's the drama?

Which is why I think that warnings are a good idea.  If a player knows that the action is dangerous and still wants to do it then why rob them of that danger?

Richard