I'm a newish DM several sessions into an adventure with 5 party members. We are all having a lot of fun. My party ran into an interesting situation last night -- well, to be blunt, they f$&#*ed up -- and I don't necessarily think it's a problem but I'm still deciding what I think about it and welcome other people's opinions.
They found a statue holding a gem that was trapped. After doing various sorts of investigation one of the players got the extremely clear sense that messing with the statue would be a very, very bad idea, though not precisely why. So they relayed this to the rest of the party. Then, one of the other PCs called in two NPCs who had hired them to clear monsters out of the area and said "hey look, we found treasure!" so of course one of the NPCs immediately went over to grab the gem. The trap went off killing him instantly and wounding one of the PCs. And the other NPC was in shock, naturally.
Talk about bringing down the mood! I don't think the PC who goaded the NPC into setting off the trap really thought much about it, they were just messing around/having fun. It's kind of cool though because they're a warlock with a fiend patron who wants them to act eviller than they really are naturally -- it plays right into that conflict from their backstory. So that's kind of cool.
I guess I feel weird about it because I'd rather my friends have fun/are happy when they play rather than feeling sad/guilty/etc. But on the flip side, something like this can make the NPCs seem a lot realer and the world thus richer and more rewarding. As a player, a while back I made a tactical mistake in a tough combat that resulted in the death of one of our followers, so it was only "my" fault in the loosest sense (we may not have been able to prevent it even if I had done everything "right") but I/my character felt guilty about it and it's part of my character's backstory and motivations now, not to make that kind of mistake again, certainly not at an ally's expense. And overall that's a good experience for me as a player even though we were all sad to lose our ally. So feeling sad or guilty on behalf of your character isn't *necessarily* a negative experience for players. Also, the game gets boring pretty fast IMO if there are no real consequences or risk to anything.
I guess the question is how to balance all of that in the best way, and that's what I don't really have good answers too. I bet it's probably a thing that comes easier with more DM experience.
Talking of risk though -- we ended on a cliffhanger in combat because we were out of time, but it's entirely possible one of the PCs may die because they made an extremely poor tactical decision and attacked a lot of orcs without making a plan or waiting for the rest of the party to get into position. (They acknowledged they were making an unwise choice because they hate orcs, as they did this). I guess I also haven't thought all the way through how I feel about having my PCs die or if I should try to pull punches so they don't, or what. I guess I could maybe have them get knocked unconscious and dragged off and need to be rescued if I decide to go that route.
Anyway I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on these issues!
Well, if it happened, it happened. Here's the question though: is one player's actions making the rest of the party feel bad? Cause if one player starts regularly killing off NPCs and doesn't mind, but the rest find it upsetting, that could start to be an issue. (And you could always talk to your other players in private to see how they feel.)
One thing I've found is to put a pause before the outcome of a more impulsive player's actions and the consequences, and ask the other players what they want to do. Otherwise, you may find the most impulsive players are running the show. I really only do this if I think the impulsive action might upset the party.
For example (and again, it's in the past), the NPC could first turn to another player and ask for help getting the treasure out. A more peaceful player would then have a chance to intervene, or if none of the players are willing to touch the treasure, then the NPC might also get suspicious.
A player risking their own skin...depends on what kind of game everyone signed up for. If you haven't, maybe it's a good time to discuss how death is handled in your game. You could always have a non-death consequence, such as being captured and having gold or stuff taken. I mean, if I was an orc, I'd take stuff from my captives.
If I am being objective, I'd say that you said it best as...
... feeling sad or guilty on behalf of your character isn't *necessarily* a negative experience for players. Also, the game gets boring pretty fast IMO if there are no real consequences or risk to anything.
Feeling things and seeing things from your character's perspective can add a lot of depth to your experience. For me, this is a major part of why I love RPGs. So, from that point of view, you should let the dice fall as they may -- even in the event it causes the death of a PC. The rest of the party can then react to this and make their own decisions on what to do next.
This can lead to a lot of different reactions. I once had a character spend 6 levels saving up every coin to purchase a Raise Dead scroll for a fallen companion. Another time, a bard's player wrote a very moving song, as a tribute. You probably don't want to deprive your players of these opportunities for character growth and development.
Of course there are a number of other factors to consider as well. Did you discuss death and dying as part of a session zero? If so what expectations were set for this campaign? You said that...
I guess I also haven't thought all the way through how I feel about having my PCs die or if I should try to pull punches so they don't, or what. I guess I could maybe have them get knocked unconscious and dragged off and need to be rescued if I decide to go that route.
I'll admit that I have done this-- pulled the punches. To make it work, I think you have to consider the motives of the NPC. In this case, do the orcs have a reason to kill the PC out of hand, or would they want to question or enslave them instead? Heck, you could even let the PC awaken bound and gagged to hear the orcs debating that very question. If a PC is going to die, it is usually best to let them die dramatically. And it is always a good idea to talk to the PLAYER, OOC and see how they feel about that eventuality. [I've had the range from "I'd really like Tennen to be saved, if it won't hurt the story" to "Nah, I'm good with it. Let me die." with "Are you kidding? I died saving people. That's what my character is all about." thrown in somewhere in the middle. Communication is vital to this decision.]
Or maybe I am a hypocrite, since I say I believe in not pulling punches -- and especially in not violating the narrative integrity of that story you are all telling together. But, I admit that I have tweaked things to avoid killing a PC. Perhaps it is wholly situational.
I keep thinking of a new player in a recent session who rushed to try to stabilize an NPC. This wasn't an ally or quest giver, just some nameless fisherman who happened to be on the docks when lizardmen attacked. The other players groaned or shrugged at him "wasting his turn", but at the end of the session, he turned to me with a grin and said "I'm so glad I got to save that guy."
As a DM, that is gold. So, of course, "that guy" now has a name and a family and there I am planning a scene for when the party return to town. [I'm thinking a young girl almost the same height as the halfling holding a slightly wilted handful of dandelions.]
I'm not sure if any of this is helpful, but it's thought, and you did ask for thoughts... best take away, I guess is talk to your players and don't be afraid to try some difficult -- and painful situations. They can be rewarding.
I mean... the character should feel guilty about this. If the players don't want to feel bad about things, they shouldn't throw their NPCs to the dogs.
I'm a big fan of consequences. If the players told me they were bummed out by this experience, I'd tell them to learn from this and stop using NPCs as canon fodder.
It's not like there isn't a perfectly obvious solution from the point of view of the PCs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don’t know all the details, but the way I read it, you may share a part of the blame. Why did you make the NPC go over and grab the gem? Did the PC tell him to or trick him? Did the NPC exercise reasonable caution and ask why the PCs didn’t pick it up themselves? I don’t know the exact dynamic of how and why the NPC would be expected to pick something up, so maybe it was all normal and the NPC was acting as they had through the adventure, but otherwise you as the NPC could have questioned it, at least force the character to make a persuasion roll or something.
Still, the PCs were being jerks, and if they didn’t feel bad about what happened, that would actually be more worrying.
I love the pause idea, RivaGreyEyes. If I had done that, it's possible one of the other PCs may have intervened, because they were not in complete agreement with how they wanted to treat the two NPCs who hired them. But also, I think my decision that the result of that action was the NPC setting off the trap was also a little impulsive, a gut decision that felt right at the time... the reason it felt right was that, as BioWizard observes, they were treating the NPCs really casually, more like Non-Player Very Minor Obstacles Between Us and Treasure rather than actual characters. And so the natural consequences here can maybe nudge them toward the view of NPCs that I prefer, which is they are characters who have their own lives and goals. I think NPCs like that make for a more fuller and fun world.
Part of the context I didn't mention, Xalthu, is that the PCs made a deal with the two NPCs that they would clear the place of monsters in exchange for a specific payment. The NPCs had already done a lot of work to clear rock and make the place accessible, and when the PCs tried to lay claim to any and all treasure they found in the negotiation the NPCs did not agree to that, because why would they? Then they'd have no benefit for their work AND be out the payment they gave to the PCs. They'd be worse off than if they just abandoned the whole project and wandered off. (I was actually a little surprised at some of my players wanting to completely screw the NPCs out of the fruits of their labor!) The party discussed it amongst themselves and eventually agreed that they could just lie to the NPCs and keep back some of the treasure, depending on what they found.
So -- the whole point of the NPCs hiring the PCs was so the NPCs could loot the place once the monsters were gone, and they expected the treasure found to belong to them. The PCs really were being jerks on a number of levels! So I'm not sorry they got a really big hint that they should treat NPCs more like people. Especially since I have a mix of new players and more experienced ones and the more experienced ones are the ones treating the NPCs like cardboard cutouts so they're modeling a behavior I find not so fun to the newer people. Anyway, as Riva pointed out there are other ways of handling this that I can put in my toolbox for next time. I think it's not terrible that this particular situation ended up this way and may end up being good. Which is not to say I don't want accountability. I just think after reflecting that I'm mostly okay with how this has turned out (unless I find out somebody was really upset by it, but then we can deal with that if it happens).
Thank you also Eriniel, for your thoughts on player death. Our session 0 ended up going a completely different direction than I expected and so there were some questions we didn't touch on and this was one. I should probably talk with the players about that soon. I can ask our orc-attacker how they feel in particular and go from there. I think having them captured and dragged off, if it comes to that, and the rest of the party having to rescue them, would be in some ways more fun than having them die, and still convey the dangers of combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone,
I'm a newish DM several sessions into an adventure with 5 party members. We are all having a lot of fun. My party ran into an interesting situation last night -- well, to be blunt, they f$&#*ed up -- and I don't necessarily think it's a problem but I'm still deciding what I think about it and welcome other people's opinions.
They found a statue holding a gem that was trapped. After doing various sorts of investigation one of the players got the extremely clear sense that messing with the statue would be a very, very bad idea, though not precisely why. So they relayed this to the rest of the party. Then, one of the other PCs called in two NPCs who had hired them to clear monsters out of the area and said "hey look, we found treasure!" so of course one of the NPCs immediately went over to grab the gem. The trap went off killing him instantly and wounding one of the PCs. And the other NPC was in shock, naturally.
Talk about bringing down the mood! I don't think the PC who goaded the NPC into setting off the trap really thought much about it, they were just messing around/having fun. It's kind of cool though because they're a warlock with a fiend patron who wants them to act eviller than they really are naturally -- it plays right into that conflict from their backstory. So that's kind of cool.
I guess I feel weird about it because I'd rather my friends have fun/are happy when they play rather than feeling sad/guilty/etc. But on the flip side, something like this can make the NPCs seem a lot realer and the world thus richer and more rewarding. As a player, a while back I made a tactical mistake in a tough combat that resulted in the death of one of our followers, so it was only "my" fault in the loosest sense (we may not have been able to prevent it even if I had done everything "right") but I/my character felt guilty about it and it's part of my character's backstory and motivations now, not to make that kind of mistake again, certainly not at an ally's expense. And overall that's a good experience for me as a player even though we were all sad to lose our ally. So feeling sad or guilty on behalf of your character isn't *necessarily* a negative experience for players. Also, the game gets boring pretty fast IMO if there are no real consequences or risk to anything.
I guess the question is how to balance all of that in the best way, and that's what I don't really have good answers too. I bet it's probably a thing that comes easier with more DM experience.
Talking of risk though -- we ended on a cliffhanger in combat because we were out of time, but it's entirely possible one of the PCs may die because they made an extremely poor tactical decision and attacked a lot of orcs without making a plan or waiting for the rest of the party to get into position. (They acknowledged they were making an unwise choice because they hate orcs, as they did this). I guess I also haven't thought all the way through how I feel about having my PCs die or if I should try to pull punches so they don't, or what. I guess I could maybe have them get knocked unconscious and dragged off and need to be rescued if I decide to go that route.
Anyway I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on these issues!
Well, if it happened, it happened. Here's the question though: is one player's actions making the rest of the party feel bad? Cause if one player starts regularly killing off NPCs and doesn't mind, but the rest find it upsetting, that could start to be an issue. (And you could always talk to your other players in private to see how they feel.)
One thing I've found is to put a pause before the outcome of a more impulsive player's actions and the consequences, and ask the other players what they want to do. Otherwise, you may find the most impulsive players are running the show. I really only do this if I think the impulsive action might upset the party.
For example (and again, it's in the past), the NPC could first turn to another player and ask for help getting the treasure out. A more peaceful player would then have a chance to intervene, or if none of the players are willing to touch the treasure, then the NPC might also get suspicious.
A player risking their own skin...depends on what kind of game everyone signed up for. If you haven't, maybe it's a good time to discuss how death is handled in your game. You could always have a non-death consequence, such as being captured and having gold or stuff taken. I mean, if I was an orc, I'd take stuff from my captives.
If I am being objective, I'd say that you said it best as...
Feeling things and seeing things from your character's perspective can add a lot of depth to your experience. For me, this is a major part of why I love RPGs. So, from that point of view, you should let the dice fall as they may -- even in the event it causes the death of a PC. The rest of the party can then react to this and make their own decisions on what to do next.
This can lead to a lot of different reactions. I once had a character spend 6 levels saving up every coin to purchase a Raise Dead scroll for a fallen companion. Another time, a bard's player wrote a very moving song, as a tribute. You probably don't want to deprive your players of these opportunities for character growth and development.
Of course there are a number of other factors to consider as well. Did you discuss death and dying as part of a session zero? If so what expectations were set for this campaign? You said that...
I'll admit that I have done this-- pulled the punches. To make it work, I think you have to consider the motives of the NPC. In this case, do the orcs have a reason to kill the PC out of hand, or would they want to question or enslave them instead? Heck, you could even let the PC awaken bound and gagged to hear the orcs debating that very question. If a PC is going to die, it is usually best to let them die dramatically. And it is always a good idea to talk to the PLAYER, OOC and see how they feel about that eventuality. [I've had the range from "I'd really like Tennen to be saved, if it won't hurt the story" to "Nah, I'm good with it. Let me die." with "Are you kidding? I died saving people. That's what my character is all about." thrown in somewhere in the middle. Communication is vital to this decision.]
Or maybe I am a hypocrite, since I say I believe in not pulling punches -- and especially in not violating the narrative integrity of that story you are all telling together. But, I admit that I have tweaked things to avoid killing a PC. Perhaps it is wholly situational.
I keep thinking of a new player in a recent session who rushed to try to stabilize an NPC. This wasn't an ally or quest giver, just some nameless fisherman who happened to be on the docks when lizardmen attacked. The other players groaned or shrugged at him "wasting his turn", but at the end of the session, he turned to me with a grin and said "I'm so glad I got to save that guy."
As a DM, that is gold. So, of course, "that guy" now has a name and a family and there I am planning a scene for when the party return to town. [I'm thinking a young girl almost the same height as the halfling holding a slightly wilted handful of dandelions.]
I'm not sure if any of this is helpful, but it's thought, and you did ask for thoughts... best take away, I guess is talk to your players and don't be afraid to try some difficult -- and painful situations. They can be rewarding.
I mean... the character should feel guilty about this. If the players don't want to feel bad about things, they shouldn't throw their NPCs to the dogs.
I'm a big fan of consequences. If the players told me they were bummed out by this experience, I'd tell them to learn from this and stop using NPCs as canon fodder.
It's not like there isn't a perfectly obvious solution from the point of view of the PCs.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don’t know all the details, but the way I read it, you may share a part of the blame. Why did you make the NPC go over and grab the gem? Did the PC tell him to or trick him? Did the NPC exercise reasonable caution and ask why the PCs didn’t pick it up themselves? I don’t know the exact dynamic of how and why the NPC would be expected to pick something up, so maybe it was all normal and the NPC was acting as they had through the adventure, but otherwise you as the NPC could have questioned it, at least force the character to make a persuasion roll or something.
Still, the PCs were being jerks, and if they didn’t feel bad about what happened, that would actually be more worrying.
I love the pause idea, RivaGreyEyes. If I had done that, it's possible one of the other PCs may have intervened, because they were not in complete agreement with how they wanted to treat the two NPCs who hired them. But also, I think my decision that the result of that action was the NPC setting off the trap was also a little impulsive, a gut decision that felt right at the time... the reason it felt right was that, as BioWizard observes, they were treating the NPCs really casually, more like Non-Player Very Minor Obstacles Between Us and Treasure rather than actual characters. And so the natural consequences here can maybe nudge them toward the view of NPCs that I prefer, which is they are characters who have their own lives and goals. I think NPCs like that make for a more fuller and fun world.
Part of the context I didn't mention, Xalthu, is that the PCs made a deal with the two NPCs that they would clear the place of monsters in exchange for a specific payment. The NPCs had already done a lot of work to clear rock and make the place accessible, and when the PCs tried to lay claim to any and all treasure they found in the negotiation the NPCs did not agree to that, because why would they? Then they'd have no benefit for their work AND be out the payment they gave to the PCs. They'd be worse off than if they just abandoned the whole project and wandered off. (I was actually a little surprised at some of my players wanting to completely screw the NPCs out of the fruits of their labor!) The party discussed it amongst themselves and eventually agreed that they could just lie to the NPCs and keep back some of the treasure, depending on what they found.
So -- the whole point of the NPCs hiring the PCs was so the NPCs could loot the place once the monsters were gone, and they expected the treasure found to belong to them. The PCs really were being jerks on a number of levels! So I'm not sorry they got a really big hint that they should treat NPCs more like people. Especially since I have a mix of new players and more experienced ones and the more experienced ones are the ones treating the NPCs like cardboard cutouts so they're modeling a behavior I find not so fun to the newer people. Anyway, as Riva pointed out there are other ways of handling this that I can put in my toolbox for next time. I think it's not terrible that this particular situation ended up this way and may end up being good. Which is not to say I don't want accountability. I just think after reflecting that I'm mostly okay with how this has turned out (unless I find out somebody was really upset by it, but then we can deal with that if it happens).
Thank you also Eriniel, for your thoughts on player death. Our session 0 ended up going a completely different direction than I expected and so there were some questions we didn't touch on and this was one. I should probably talk with the players about that soon. I can ask our orc-attacker how they feel in particular and go from there. I think having them captured and dragged off, if it comes to that, and the rest of the party having to rescue them, would be in some ways more fun than having them die, and still convey the dangers of combat.