Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1112001I've played a lot of Dungeon Crawl Classics, a little bit of Maze Rats, and ran my first session of the Whitehack tonight. In all of them, character death happens pretty often and unpredictably. In the game tonight one of my players got pretty upset after their 1st level warrior-type character was one-shot by the first monster they fought in the dungeon. He was down to 4 HP out of 6, and the monsters were rolling d6s. Of course I rolled a 6 on my first attack. One failed save later and whoop he was dead. We had to end the game there. He threw a bit of a fit. Clearly these games are not a good match for him, or I'm doing something completely wrong.

So yeah, in these high-lethality games, how do you as players or GMs deal with characters dying off so much? Does it disrupt the continuity of your game? Is it something that takes getting used to? Is there anything you can do as a GM to make it more fun or acceptable to the players? Or is total-buy-in the only way for these games to work? Is this even fun?

When I ran Original D&D, I guess that's OSR, 0 HP wasn't dead. You had a chance to survive (based on Con and Level) right down to a ridiculous number of HP below 0. To balance that, Raise Dead and such were flat never available. If your comrades survived and held the field, there was a good chance you were salvageable. Even if they didn't, we had a couple of occasions when a victorious enemy healed you up.

My players never complained about having to sit there while the scene played out but I have read that some object to that. Well, fights never lasted that long, even when I ran high-level OD&D, so they found out their fate fairly quickly.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112364See, I look at it the opposite way.

Animals are likely to go for the kill when they get an opening, or be in a battle frenzy and not even notice whether you're alive or dead until a few more whacks.

Intelligent enemies will realize you can get healed and take you out for good, just like players would. Granted, that would depend on the NPC's morality -- so dumb animals are actually more dangerous in that regard.

Well, I guess that's not opposite of you after all, but it's pretty common for PCs to go for the throat on downed enemies so I don't see it as something unusual in return.

A carnivore that has downed it's prey is going to try and drag it to a safe place to eat if it can do so. Of course carnivores that take down a larger target will expect the rest of the herd to flee. Really most RPG combats with animals are probably not very realistic...

Intelligent enemies won't waste time on a downed foe until they have won the battle, or see that they will lose the battle and decide to kill downed foes out of spite. The way they actually handle the situation will depend on if they perceive any value from taking prisoners. Killing a downed foe will mean the remaining opponents will fight to the death unless they are certain they can actually escape if they are losing. I think most intelligent creatures would give some consideration to what will happen if they start killing downed foes.

In my experience, PCs focus on the still dangerous foes (which generally means NOT the downed foes) unless they have no one else to attack or feel like they are losing.

Quote from: ffilz;1112370A carnivore that has downed it's prey is going to try and drag it to a safe place to eat if it can do so. Of course carnivores that take down a larger target will expect the rest of the herd to flee. Really most RPG combats with animals are probably not very realistic...

Intelligent enemies won't waste time on a downed foe until they have won the battle, or see that they will lose the battle and decide to kill downed foes out of spite. The way they actually handle the situation will depend on if they perceive any value from taking prisoners. Killing a downed foe will mean the remaining opponents will fight to the death unless they are certain they can actually escape if they are losing. I think most intelligent creatures would give some consideration to what will happen if they start killing downed foes.

In my experience, PCs focus on the still dangerous foes (which generally means NOT the downed foes) unless they have no one else to attack or feel like they are losing.

You're ignoring healing. If you take down an enemy that's key to the encounter, but they can be right back in it if they get healed -- and healing is pretty quick in games like 5e -- then the only way to make sure they stay down is to kill them. This is true on the PC and NPC side.

One rule of thumb: you as DM run combats against this group all the time, but most foes have never seen them before and (unless directed by someone with intel) fight with whatever common tactics they'd use against your average 0-level group of mercs or bandits, unless adventurers are common as dirt.  Run NPCs/monsters according to their own tendencies.

This is what makes recurring villains so much fun - they have experience with the PCs, which allows you to DM with the gloves off.

But most groups don't fight against people who can heal a lot, and their tactics won't reflect that until it starts happening.

Quote from: EOTB;1112376One rule of thumb: you as DM run combats against this group all the time, but most foes have never seen them before and (unless directed by someone with intel) fight with whatever common tactics they'd use against your average 0-level group of mercs or bandits, unless adventurers are common as dirt.  Run NPCs/monsters according to their own tendencies.

This is what makes recurring villains so much fun - they have experience with the PCs, which allows you to DM with the gloves off.

But most groups don't fight against people who can heal a lot, and their tactics won't reflect that until it starts happening.

I would say that depends on how much magic they're used to.

A bunch of peons in a backwater -- yes, they'd be caught off guard. The royal guard of the kingdom -- no, they'd be aware of such tactics.

Sure, OK.  If your PCs are taking on that type frequently they're either not very bright players or that sort of competition is being funneled to them.

Point being, a lot of DMs make average everyday foes perform at a high level against players because they're forgetting one aspect of roleplaying is playing the competition at their own level, instead of above what they would likely normally do.  This flows from the mistaken idea that a DMs job is to manufacture tension.

Quote from: EOTB;1112380Sure, OK.  If your PCs are taking on that type frequently they're either not very bright players or that sort of competition is being funneled to them.

Point being, a lot of DMs make average everyday foes perform at a high level against players because they're forgetting one aspect of roleplaying is playing the competition at their own level, instead of above what they would likely normally do.  This flows from the mistaken idea that a DMs job is to manufacture tension.

Well, that and the mistaken belief that playing the monsters that way is a good means towards their goal.  If you want to manufacture tension, you do it with uncertainty. Playing every group of monsters the same way is the opposite.  Moreover, if you simply play the foes according to their natures, the players will be able to handle a wider range of encounters (both in power level and scope of capabilities).  Whether one wants to emphasize a living world reacting in a consistent manner or emphasize drama or some combination of the two, the correct answer is still playing monsters according to their nature.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112373You're ignoring healing. If you take down an enemy that's key to the encounter, but they can be right back in it if they get healed -- and healing is pretty quick in games like 5e -- then the only way to make sure they stay down is to kill them. This is true on the PC and NPC side.

(trying to take into account the progression of the discussion)

Sure, if healing is part of the equation, and foes expect it (this all goes into what the world is actually like as has been pointed out, and may be adjusted as part of the "game"), then they will react accordingly. In that case, maybe it is worth a blow at a downed opponent to make them less likely to bounce back up. On the other hand, depending on the system, it may still be more worthwhile targeting the healer.

Ultimately I think it's hard to really know how the reality that an RPG rule set creates will affect creature reactions. We do know in the real world that many animals that don't have experience with humans don't react to the actual danger humans present them, while other animals learn about humans and react accordingly.

I think it's important to make the game fun while allowing prediction based on natural understanding. It may be worth highlighting that: "This world knows healing is easy, so intelligent opponents will consider that may allow incapacitated foes to re-enter the combat, in that case, intelligent creatures may decide to swing at incapacitated foes."

(I am going to have my power forcibly conserved for my benefit again. I almost had a whole 24 hours of bourgie decadence to wear down The People's Resolve.)

I really need to run my own DCC game. Got the book. Just need a module and some sporty victims. :cool:

If a PC is lying unconscious on the floor of a battlefield, they are in much danger. Missed arrows go somewhere. Area attacks might include them. Large dumb monsters stomping their way to their next opponent might not care what they step on. Some enemies are vindictive and cruel, seeking to use a decapitation to intimidate the PCs into fleeing.

AKA, unconscious allies don't enter a protected stasis. PCs should rescue their fallen quickly...and monsters can take advantage of that altruism as well. No good deed goes unpunished!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1112331I wouldn't want to see death become a revolving door, but the occasional rescue from death for a favorite character can be pretty cool.

In my Mazes & Minotaurs game, PCs are always welcome to rescue their friends from the Underworld...

The one time they went for it, they didn't research or plan their escape, not understanding that it's really easy to ENTER the Greek Underworld and a nightmare to EXIT. They succeeded in bringing their old friend back to life, but at the cost of 4 of the 6 person party who died in Hades.

Perhaps the 1E rule on a PC being nearly worthless for several days after being healed up from negative HP is an in-game mercy, in that NPCs know that downed foes won't be springing up to fight again even if they are healed.  Enemies might welcome it, since all that is happening is one of their foes getting distracted and not fighting back directly, while stablilizing a companion who (from the enemies' perspective) is now possible to sell or ransom instead of simply strip and bury.

So playing btb 1E, there's no incentive to further savage a downed foe out of fear they'll spring up and fight again.

Correct. If your foe is downed, you don't stand around stabbing him some more, you move on to the next surviving foe. The umberhulk is not possessed by the spirit of the Punisher.

But the umberhulk doesn't daintily walk around the fallen to get to their next food, I mean foe.

If death is off the table, then most of the game's stakes and tensions are lost. OTOH, if there's a PC death every session, some of the roleplaying aspects are diminished and PC's start to feel disposable, also reducing stakes and tension. It's a balance and it's different for every group.

Yes but he also doesn't want to trip over the downed foes.

Sure, he's big and it shouldn't be much of an issue for him if he does step on someone. But then you get into relative sizes and strengths and start to wonder why a single blow from an 800lb umberhulk doesn't send a 150lb fighter flying, and reality gets too confusing. So it's easier to say that just as I wouldn't step on a rabbit I'd shot, an umberhulk wouldn't step on a downed human fighter. Maybe, like me with the rabbit, he doesn't want to ruin his dinner?

Who knows. "You're still alive, but... whooops! The umberhulk steps on you and you're squashed to death! So sad!" is getting into dickhead DM territory, and we try not to do that.

There's no need for DMs to go out of their way to kill PCs when players are so keen to do it for them.