Killing PCs in on-line games

I have a dilemma here.

Current thread in my play-by-web game:
http://www.dreamlyrics.co.uk/ubb/Forum54/HTML/000050.html

One of the player characters (Iodeth) has done something which, if my
gameworld is to retain consistency, would result in the death of that
PC 

The other two PCs decided wisely to run away, but the third of the
group (Iodeth) decided to stand and fight against an unknown,
invisible, and very powerful foe which has already left a trail of
dead NPCs behind it.

I don't really want to post "you're dead, no saving throw, please
create me a new character", but I don't want to violate internal
consistency either.

At the risk of using naughty words, I know this is a Simulationist vs.
Dramatist issue...
--
Tim Hall, http://www.kalyr.com

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever"
 - Spinal Tap
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

Could the PC receive a mental message in his mind to "Run, your life depends upon it" type of thing.  It fits with the psionics, but I'm not sure about rest of your campaign and current circumstances.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Hall
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 5:31 AM
To: gamers@phoenyx.net
Subject: GM: Killing PCs in on-line games

I have a dilemma here.

Current thread in my play-by-web game:
http://www.dreamlyrics.co.uk/ubb/Forum54/HTML/000050.html

One of the player characters (Iodeth) has done something which, if my
gameworld is to retain consistency, would result in the death of that
PC

The other two PCs decided wisely to run away, but the third of the
group (Iodeth) decided to stand and fight against an unknown,
invisible, and very powerful foe which has already left a trail of
dead NPCs behind it.

I don't really want to post "you're dead, no saving throw, please
create me a new character", but I don't want to violate internal
consistency either.

At the risk of using naughty words, I know this is a Simulationist vs.
Dramatist issue...
--
Tim Hall, http://www.kalyr.com

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever"
- Spinal Tap
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

From: "Tim Hall" 
> The other two PCs decided wisely to run away, but the third of the
> group (Iodeth) decided to stand and fight against an unknown,
> invisible, and very powerful foe which has already left a trail of
> dead NPCs behind it.
>
> I don't really want to post "you're dead, no saving throw, please
> create me a new character", but I don't want to violate internal
> consistency either.
>
There's some uncertainty here, so the following has as many questions
as suggestions.

1. PC's have to die from time to time.
It's an unfortunate fact that it's very difficult to make a campaign feel
urgent and dangerous unless PCs die from time to time.  Has this
group ever seen you, as GM, kill a character?  Do you think that
they feel that this is possible or might this death be necessary to
encourage caution in future?  Is it possible for you to kill one of
this group without damaging the campaign (in the sense that the
group playing become disconnected and stop playing)?

2. How much warning have they been given?
Reading the log I didn't get the feeling that they were entering a
situation which could easily kill them all.  They still seem to be
searching for information and trying to establish the identity and
nature of the danger.  To be killed by something they didn't know
was here may well be realistic, but it also tends to disappoint
people.  This might be an opportunity to indicate the nature of
the foe by having it immobilise the PC while it casually kills the
other fighters, becoming so wrapped up in it's sport that it
allows the PC to overcome the immobility and slip away.  The
combat should be sufficiently brief and bloody to suggest
escape as the only sensible option.

3. Is death the only possible outcome?
If the foe can easily kill then it can just as easily capture.  Would the
PC have any value to it?

Given the nature of the campaign perhaps the foe might find it
more useful to leave the PC alive, but with a deeply hidden command
or inhibition that the foe can call on in future.  If this foe is intelligent
and seeking to overcome a powerful organisation then turning an
enemy into a weapon may be both useful and appealing.  This hidden
gaes can then be hinted at in future (if you want to give the party a
chance to identify and remove it) or simply dropped on them at the
worst possible time (if surviving the encounter should be enough of
a clue).

Chris Tutty

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

Thoughts here...although i definitely belong to the "dramatist" (uggghh)
school, it is necessary for PCs to die.  If your player has made a clear
choice to stand up to an impossible foe, well...let's just say that if he
doesn't die, you've just effectively unbalanced what sounds like a
meaningful campaign.

Just a thought.

Dylan

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hall [mailto:tim@kalyr.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 6:28 AM
To: gamers@phoenyx.net
Subject: GM: Killing PCs in on-line games


I have a dilemma here.

Current thread in my play-by-web game:
http://www.dreamlyrics.co.uk/ubb/Forum54/HTML/000050.html

One of the player characters (Iodeth) has done something which, if my
gameworld is to retain consistency, would result in the death of that
PC 

The other two PCs decided wisely to run away, but the third of the
group (Iodeth) decided to stand and fight against an unknown,
invisible, and very powerful foe which has already left a trail of
dead NPCs behind it.

I don't really want to post "you're dead, no saving throw, please
create me a new character", but I don't want to violate internal
consistency either.

At the risk of using naughty words, I know this is a Simulationist vs.
Dramatist issue...
--
Tim Hall, http://www.kalyr.com

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever"
 - Spinal Tap
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

Chris Tutty wrote:

>1. PC's have to die from time to time.
>It's an unfortunate fact that it's very difficult to make a campaign feel
>urgent and dangerous unless PCs die from time to time.  Has this
>group ever seen you, as GM, kill a character? 

So far (in 5 years of message game, probably equivalent to
half-a-dozen sessions of offline play), I haven't yet killed a PC,
although I have had one or two get seriously wounded in combat. (And
have had players taking exception to that)

> Do you think that
>they feel that this is possible or might this death be necessary to
>encourage caution in future? 

So far I have used serious injury rather than death to 'warn' people.
Perhaps I'm too soft.

> Is it possible for you to kill one of
>this group without damaging the campaign (in the sense that the
>group playing become disconnected and stop playing)?

That's the big question. There has been a considerable turnover of
players over the 5 years, so much so that not one current player has
been there from the very beginning!    Bottom line is that I probably
could afford to lose one player if he doesn't want to create a new
character.

>2. How much warning have they been given?
>Reading the log I didn't get the feeling that they were entering a
>situation which could easily kill them all.  They still seem to be
>searching for information and trying to establish the identity and
>nature of the danger.  To be killed by something they didn't know
>was here may well be realistic, but it also tends to disappoint
>people.  

Did you read the whole thread across both pages?  They found a lot of
dead bodies and a witness to it's last killing spree.

[Snip]

>Given the nature of the campaign perhaps the foe might find it
>more useful to leave the PC alive, but with a deeply hidden command
>or inhibition that the foe can call on in future.  If this foe is intelligent
>and seeking to overcome a powerful organisation then turning an
>enemy into a weapon may be both useful and appealing.  This hidden
>gaes can then be hinted at in future (if you want to give the party a
>chance to identify and remove it) or simply dropped on them at the
>worst possible time (if surviving the encounter should be enough of
>a clue).

My thinking is currently along those lines, but I'll have to be
careful what I say in case someone from the group is reading this
list...
--
Tim Hall, http://www.kalyr.com

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever"
 - Spinal Tap
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

> So far I have used serious injury rather than death to 'warn' people.
> Perhaps I'm too soft.

	It's always hard to have the player feel the pain of their
	character.  That's why we've instituted the "electric
	shock" method.  Every time we badly injure a PC, as a GM
	we are required to shift our feet back and forth on the
	carpet and deliver the news with a touch-attack.



or not.

\\ Mb \\

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

Meera Barry wrote:

>	It's always hard to have the player feel the pain of their
>	character.  That's why we've instituted the "electric
>	shock" method.  Every time we badly injure a PC, as a GM
>	we are required to shift our feet back and forth on the
>	carpet and deliver the news with a touch-attack.

Yes, but how do you do that on-line, when the player is on the wrong
side of the Atlantic?  Can't afford several thousand miles of
carpet...

:)

--
Tim Hall, http://www.kalyr.com

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever"
 - Spinal Tap
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Tim Hall wrote:

> >	It's always hard to have the player feel the pain of their
> >	character.  That's why we've instituted the "electric
> >	shock" method.  

> Yes, but how do you do that on-line, when the player is on the wrong
> side of the Atlantic?  Can't afford several thousand miles of
> carpet...

	Well, that is why we have player-GM contracts.  Generally
	any form of self-mutilation is then acceptable, provided
	pictures are scanned in... We're understanding of our
	foreign-based friends.

[laughing]


----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

>	Well, that is why we have player-GM contracts.  Generally
>	any form of self-mutilation is then acceptable

and people ask me
about all of my piercings......

[as a long term MaBarry player]

for the real question,
I go the "guts and glory" route.

for the PC?
pain, lots of....pain.
allow opportunity to pass on important message.....
fade to black.

if message produces more heroism, great!

...sugar and spice And Everything Naughtie.



----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

Tim,

Killing a PC is a very significant step to take.

I haven't looked at the precise situation, but the question which you have
to be sure of the answer to is "Is it a fair kill?".

It is only a fair kill if the player
a) had fair warning that the character was heading into mortal danger;
b) was aware that the game meta-rules includes that PCs can die.

Now it seems from your posting that clause (a) was satisfied becuase two
other PCs worked out it was time to cut and run.

The problem arises with clause (b).   Some players assume that PCs are
indestructible by default, especially if they are thinking in terms of "high
action" films (or occsionally books).   They see it as the GM's job to find
a way for the character to survive absolutely any situation, and for some
genres indeed this is the case.   One has a high level of confidence from
before the opening credits that certain characters, such as James Bond, will
survive to the end of the film.   When death seems certain you simply cut to
the standard "certain death trap with obvious gaping hole in it" scene.

Is this what the player is expecting?   If so you have to do some serious
negotiating.   You can kill PCs in this sort of world, but not with a simple
you're dead message.   They have to go out in glory.

Consider the effort it took to kill James T. Kirk - I think we can assume
he's permanently dead.
Remember Spock's death in the second film, that was very dramatic and could
even have been permanent, though we know it wasn't.

As far as I can see you have these options:
1) negotiate a suitable death scene with the player and write a new PC into
the plot
2) alter-reality - rule all PCs fled
    (standard mechanism is the jump cut to "PC wakes from nightmare")
3) alter reality - another escape route exists and force the PC to use it
4) alter reality - the situation never was as dangerous as it might have
seemed

Which of these you use is your option, you are the GM.   You as the GM set
the rules.  The players' only option is to play or not to play.

Of course your objective is to select such rules so that all of you will
enjoy playing by them.  If one player cannot, the GM has to lose the player.
If many players cannot, they have to lose the GM.

Rgds,
Michael.

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

Could the PC receive a mental message in his mind to "Run, your life depends upon it" type of thing.  It fits with the psionics, but I'm not sure about rest of your campaign and current circumstances.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Hall
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 5:31 AM
To: gamers@phoenyx.net
Subject: GM: Killing PCs in on-line games

I have a dilemma here.

Current thread in my play-by-web game:
http://www.dreamlyrics.co.uk/ubb/Forum54/HTML/000050.html

One of the player characters (Iodeth) has done something which, if my
gameworld is to retain consistency, would result in the death of that
PC

The other two PCs decided wisely to run away, but the third of the
group (Iodeth) decided to stand and fight against an unknown,
invisible, and very powerful foe which has already left a trail of
dead NPCs behind it.

I don't really want to post "you're dead, no saving throw, please
create me a new character", but I don't want to violate internal
consistency either.

At the risk of using naughty words, I know this is a Simulationist vs.
Dramatist issue...
--
Tim Hall, http://www.kalyr.com

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever"
- Spinal Tap
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/

Killing PCs in on-line games

Michael Orton wrote:

>Killing a PC is a very significant step to take.

I know.  I've spent too long playing in games where PC death was very
rare, (unless someone drew from a Deck of Many Things at first level,
and drew Death)

>I haven't looked at the precise situation, but the question which you have
>to be sure of the answer to is "Is it a fair kill?".
>
>It is only a fair kill if the player
>a) had fair warning that the character was heading into mortal danger;
>b) was aware that the game meta-rules includes that PCs can die.
>
>Now it seems from your posting that clause (a) was satisfied becuase two
>other PCs worked out it was time to cut and run.

Agreed.  I was pretty sure I'd made the danger of the situation clear
But as GM I see the 'big picture', and it's easy not to realise that
the players don't know what you know, especially when some players
only read the threads their characters are involved in.

>The problem arises with clause (b).   Some players assume that PCs are
>indestructible by default, especially if they are thinking in terms of "high
>action" films (or occsionally books).   They see it as the GM's job to find
>a way for the character to survive absolutely any situation, and for some
>genres indeed this is the case.   One has a high level of confidence from
>before the opening credits that certain characters, such as James Bond, will
>survive to the end of the film.   When death seems certain you simply cut to
>the standard "certain death trap with obvious gaping hole in it" scene.

I'm not a big fan of that kind of gaming (or of that kind of movie).  

Once players know they're indestructable, they'll start taking
advantage of the fact, like the high-level DnD fighters jumping off
200' cliffs because they know they've got enough hit-points to survive
the fall.

>Is this what the player is expecting?   If so you have to do some serious
>negotiating.   You can kill PCs in this sort of world, but not with a simple
>you're dead message.   They have to go out in glory.

I think the problem is I've never made the 'social contract' explicit
enough.

[Snip]

>As far as I can see you have these options:
>1) negotiate a suitable death scene with the player and write a new PC into
>the plot
>2) alter-reality - rule all PCs fled
>    (standard mechanism is the jump cut to "PC wakes from nightmare")
>3) alter reality - another escape route exists and force the PC to use it
>4) alter reality - the situation never was as dangerous as it might have
>seemed

I've gone for option (5), about which I will not say in case any
players are reading this.
--
Tim Hall, http://www.kalyr.com

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever"
 - Spinal Tap
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/