Killing in the Game

[newtinmpls]

Hello,

"That's basically what I was asking - do the PC treat others in the game as objects to be disposed of on whim? Does their level of lethal violence go far beyond what is shown in the books? Are PCs attempting to solve issues creatively or are they just in "kill the bad guy" mode. Since "orc" is usually gamer shorthand for "see it, kill it, loot it, get praised for killing it" type things I used that term to simplify the question."

My point is that the "see it, kill it, loot it" stage of the game doesn't long for the intelligent, thoughtful people I have played with. Yes, I've had the "pee on such and so altar for the heck of it" player. Once. Kicked him out, and don't miss him. In my opinion, if the level of violence in any campaign goes beyond the level of violence in the average Dresden files book, then these are folks that aren't going to be enjoyable for me to game with.

"Speaking of Harn, how is the game making out since Robin Crossby's all too soon death? He, Gygax, and Wujcik all going that year made 2008 a very sad one for the RP role."

I'm not really sure. I still love it - the magic system (the original one, not all that 'multi-level spell' crap) is second to none, and it's really really good at portraying the mechanics of injury amazingly well. However I just cannot translate it to modern day and guns and such - so on that level, it's limited.

Dian

[Bruce Coulson]

So far, my primary game has killed several vampires (one Black Court and a few Reds) but only one mortal (warlock summoning somethings from Outside).  The PC who shot him went off in character to seriously think about what he'd gotten himself into.  He finally decided that if the group wasn't there to stop this sort of thing, who else would?

Right now the group has been contacted by the local Ghoul leader.  He wants them to deal with an obsessed ghoul who's intent on breaking with the Red Court and killing RCVs...right now!  (The leader isn't happy with the current situation vis a vis the Red Court, but wants to lay some groundwork first...)  And the reason that the ghoul is obsessed with killing RCVs?  Someone in the group with a IoP that can sway people's emotions manged to instill hatred of vampires in a particular ghoul...

The best games spring from prior decisions and actions of the PCs...

[Richard_Chilton]

My point is that the "see it, kill it, loot it" stage of the game doesn't long for the intelligent, thoughtful people I have played with. Yes, I've had the "pee on such and so altar for the heck of it" player. Once. Kicked him out, and don't miss him. In my opinion, if the level of violence in any campaign goes beyond the level of violence in the average Dresden files book, then these are folks that aren't going to be enjoyable for me to game with.

There are some gamers that I won't play with - but that's mostly over honesty issues (a game is a game and not worth cheating over; if someone calls a three a 18 then I don't want to know them).  I've LARPed with people who haven't been involved in combat in years (that's years of playing the same character with lots of conflict but no actual combat) and I've game at conventions with people who talk about using on line optimizers to make the "best" D&D characters.

Different people game for different reasons and get different rewards from gaming.

"Speaking of Harn, how is the game making out since Robin Crossby's all too soon death? He, Gygax, and Wujcik all going that year made 2008 a very sad one for the RP role."

I'm not really sure. I still love it - the magic system (the original one, not all that 'multi-level spell' crap) is second to none, and it's really really good at portraying the mechanics of injury amazingly well. However I just cannot translate it to modern day and guns and such - so on that level, it's limited.

Here's hoping it survives the death of its creator.  Some small press games can't.

Richard

[Wordmaker]

I've only used one mortal antagonist so far, and she was allowed to live, until she was later killed by an NPC for unrelated reasons.

Most players in my group are very quick to attack, though, and try to finish a fight by at the very least removing a particular enemy as a threat for the remainder of the story.

[ralexs1991]

"Do PCs keep the violence to a minimum or do they treat mortal threats like they are orcs?"

A question like this comes from a "orcs as items" mentality. My PC's are transplants from the HARN game system, which has so much detail that you simply cann't get away with the sort of killing too many "o level monsters" the way D&D allowed.

Anyone dies in my campaign, any campaign, there are consequences. Family may come after the killers, or maybe it was done because the PC's work for the guarde and this was an outlaw. I just think that there shouldn't ever be anyone that it's somehow "okay" to kill.

All that being said, I also love the "obscure death rule" which says that if the baddie fell off a cliff or for some other reason the PC's did not get to witness the death "for sure" - well, he, she or they are probably not really dead. But he/she/they now intend to make the PC's which they were.

Dian

Um not to sound like an idiot but what's harn i mean i've gathered as much as its a game but what's so special about it

[jadecourtflunky]

Killing makes for a GREAT story tool. I usually invoke aspects to make the characters get angry and kill their opponents so I can use that later. For example, I used one of my players (a were-leopard)'s aspect adreniline junkie to make him go to far on his adreniline, and he clawed a bad guy's stomach open and watched in shock as the bad guy died. I later had him in his apartment wondering if this thrill-seeking thing of his had gone too far.

[CGregory]

Anyone dies in my campaign, any campaign, there are consequences. Family may come after the killers, or maybe it was done because the PC's work for the guarde and this was an outlaw. I just think that there shouldn't ever be anyone that it's somehow "okay" to kill.

To me every death having a consequence is just as unrealistic as deaths never having any consequences.  The number of unsolved murders in even a small city can be quite high and that assumes a body was found in order to classify it a murder.  Otherwise it is a missing persons case and even then that assumes it was reported.  To me it as depends on the circumstances surrounding the death.

Many people feel it is okay to kill.  What do you think soldiers sometimes have to do as part of their job? However, there is a general belief that it is not okay to commit murder.  In many cases the belief as to whether a death is viewed as "killing" or "murder" may depend on the laws of that person's culture. So a wizard may feel it is perfectly okay (perhaps even necessary) to kill the evil necromancer, while the mortal cop may not believe it is okay to murder him.

[toturi]

So a wizard may feel it is perfectly okay (perhaps even necessary) to kill the evil necromancer, while the mortal cop may not believe it is okay to murder him.

The mortal cop in the know may be fine with justifiable homicide.

[pulphero]

    One way to encourage players to be more careful with leaving biddies in there wake is to let them run to emissaries of a large power that they can't continue there normal life and persuading goals after making a mortal enemy of. One off my Hunter the Reckoning games became a game of being on the run from the cops and the FBI after shooting at the cops from a car licensed in there name. After that they where able to interact with the world in a less D&D way.

[mostlyawake]

One of my players summoned a flying fire spirit and sent it after an escaped bad guy, who was on a boat miles away.  People in the area think a stray meteorite actually hit the boat, making it explode.

Killing is SO much more acceptable when you're evil.  Of course, now the white counsel has a hitman... er, warden... in the area.

[Amseriah]

Is the problem killing mortals or just killing in general?  I ask because unless Harry facing a mortal, always "shoots to kill".  Now granted in the earlier books he tends to investigate more just to make sure that he is getting the right person.  In the later books however he never uses less than lethal force, when fighting Shagnasty, Denarians, Billy Goats Grimm, RCV, ghouls, BCV, oh and necromancers.  I understand not wanting your Dresden game to be like a DnD game with wanton violence, but they don't shirk from using the stick in the books.  I actually kind of view DFRPG to be like Feng Shui in that regards, it is about the cinematics and the story of the combat, not about the body count, that being said, the mosters need to die in order to keep humanity safe.

[deathwombat]

What the heck are biddies?

[tallgrrl]

What the heck are biddies?

don't you have an auto "typo" translation option on your browser?  That's biddies = bodies ...or so I believe.

[devonapple]

don't you have an auto "typo" translation option on your browser?  That's biddies = bodies ...or so I believe.

I thought they might be "baddies."

[tallgrrl]

ahhh, good point!  I'll give my translator a kick, it may be misbehaving!