View Full Version : Player knights killing
cromcrom
05-27-2010, 03:27 PM
I don't kill Player Knights. I just quite seriously maim them, kill there horses, followers, steal there beloved father's sword, put them in jail, ransom them, burn their manor, murder their family, but I won't kill them.
Unless they are really dumb, or have a suitable heir to play.
In my opinion, people, players and GM, are playing for fun, and having a character you spend hours of "real life" playing with, die, can be an incredibly frustrating moment, as I experienced myself.
What do you think ?
Merlin
05-27-2010, 03:33 PM
Hi Cromcrom - welcome to The Round Table!
I voted in the sometimes option. I always roll my dice in the open - my player know that their characters will die a number of times before we get to the end of the Great Pendragon Campaign (if the dice don't get them old age will). I don't set out to do it on purpose, but if that's the way the dice fall, that's the way the dice fall. I find as long as they understand that, its ok. Thing is, with the the long term dynastic campaign nature of Pendragon, death isn't the end of the game - it passes on to an heir, or an ally etc. the investment by the player is in more than just the one character. I also feel that Pendragon is a risky game - that chance of death the next time a critical is rolled against you makes it all the more exciting.
cromcrom
05-27-2010, 03:57 PM
Thanks for welcoming me here :-)
I always roll my dice in the open
I also show the rolls to my players, I think it adds intensity to some part of the game.
with the the long term dynastic campaign nature of Pendragon, death isn't the end of the game
Yes, I think that dynasty thing is one of the great flavor of this great game.
I also feel that Pendragon is a risky game - that chance of death the next time a critical is rolled against you makes it all the more exciting.
There I disagree. I believe a PK shouldn't die because of critical unluck. Unless he sacrifices himself to kill the dragon, or whatever. PK should die in a blaze of glory, not because a random saxon berzerker scored a critical.
personal feeling :-)
Ruben
05-27-2010, 04:19 PM
I also show the rolls to my players, I think it adds intensity to some part of the game.
Then how do you avoid killing a player character?
cromcrom
05-27-2010, 04:29 PM
I don't always apply all the rules to the letter ;-) The PK knows he SHOULD be dead, and falls unconscious. Unconsciousness can allow for a lot to happen "in between", and explain this or that, GM things ^^
Atgxtg
05-27-2010, 05:28 PM
I also feel that Pendragon is a risky game - that chance of death the next time a critical is rolled against you makes it all the more exciting.
There I disagree. I believe a PK shouldn't die because of critical unluck. Unless he sacrifices himself to kill the dragon, or whatever. PK should die in a blaze of glory, not because a random saxon berzerker scored a critical.
personal feeling :-)
I think running that way. without the risk, takes away the excitement. At least once the players figure it out. There isn't much of a sense of accomplishment in slaying a dragon or whatever, if players know that there was no real risk. And the players will also start to feel that they have no effect on the course of events. Sooner or later a PC will luck out and kill the dragon. Rewards will be cheapened, as the obstacles weren't really as bad as presented.
Xarlaxas
05-27-2010, 11:56 PM
Aye, I think when I start running the GPC I will go for the "if the dice kill you that's how it is" method, but will avoid decisions that result in a player not being dead but being effectively out of the game, an example of what happened to me was the whole "let's go to France and fight for the Roman guy" and given the option of "do you go back with Uther who has just broken his oath" or "stay and fight honourably as you had promised to do!" I chose the latter and the GM just went and said "right, new character for you then", which I felt was a bit unfair as I was effectively being punished for being in character. . . .
ewilde1968
05-28-2010, 12:14 AM
Aye, I think when I start running the GPC I will go for the "if the dice kill you that's how it is" method, but will avoid decisions that result in a player not being dead but being effectively out of the game, an example of what happened to me was the whole "let's go to France and fight for the Roman guy" and given the option of "do you go back with Uther who has just broken his oath" or "stay and fight honourably as you had promised to do!" I chose the latter and the GM just went and said "right, new character for you then", which I felt was a bit unfair as I was effectively being punished for being in character. . . .
We're playing 488 in our next session and the narrative is such that the player knights won't have a choice but to go with Prince Madoc to Bayeaux. One of the player knights has kin in Manche and there is risk that he will choose to go with Syagrius due to his kin. I'm not quite sure I want to pull his character out of play if he does go, though disobeying orders will definitely cost him. There's probably some other way to handle it than just pulling him out of play.
Atgxtg
05-28-2010, 12:30 AM
Aye, I think when I start running the GPC I will go for the "if the dice kill you that's how it is" method, but will avoid decisions that result in a player not being dead but being effectively out of the game, an example of what happened to me was the whole "let's go to France and fight for the Roman guy" and given the option of "do you go back with Uther who has just broken his oath" or "stay and fight honourably as you had promised to do!" I chose the latter and the GM just went and said "right, new character for you then", which I felt was a bit unfair as I was effectively being punished for being in character. . . .
He may have acted in character but he was punished for disobeying a direct order from his Liege (the part where Earl Roderick forbids the PCs to go), one of the worst things a knight can do. It's sort of like saying Mordred is being punished for "just acting in character."
With the way traits & passions work, characters are constantly being punished (and rewarded) for just playing "in character". It is the nature of the game.
We're playing 488 in our next session and the narrative is such that the player knights won't have a choice but to go with Prince Madoc to Bayeaux. One of the player knights has kin in Manche and there is risk that he will choose to go with Syagrius due to his kin. I'm not quite sure I want to pull his character out of play if he does go, though disobeying orders will definitely cost him. There's probably some other way to handle it than just pulling him out of play.
The thing is, most of the other ways of handling it might be worse than writing up new characters. The knights have demonstrated that they can not be trusted to obey their Liege's orders. The liege is not going to let such knights keep land, and might just take it back for failure to fulfill their feudal duties. That put the PCs family out in the cold,or worse, and probably get the PC ostracized for being the one who brought about the ruin of his family. I suppose if the PCs father was very loyal the Liege might just hold the PCs responsible, pass the land onto a younger brother, and the family disowns the PC.
Xarlaxas
05-28-2010, 01:14 AM
I think that the GM might have forgotten to mention that we had been forbidden to go, or at least didn't make it clear at the time or that choosing the latter option was effectively killing my character. . . .
One wonders whether a liege is worth following if he breaks his oaths anyway? Guess that's part of the harshness of feudal society, but when I get to that point with my players I will make sure to have them know that their choices in that matter are extremely important.
Atgxtg
05-28-2010, 02:11 AM
I think that the GM might have forgotten to mention that we had been forbidden to go, or at least didn't make it clear at the time or that choosing the latter option was effectively killing my character. . . .
That's a horse of a different color. In the GPC Earl Roderick specifically forbids the PCs from going off with Syagrius. If the GM doesn't run that part, then there is nothing for the PCs to get in trouble over.
One wonders whether a liege is worth following if he breaks his oaths anyway? Guess that's part of the harshness of feudal society, but when I get to that point with my players I will make sure to have them know that their choices in that matter are extremely important.
True, but...
1) Uther is the one who said he would fight, but he is back in Britain.
2) Prince Madoc didn't make any oath and wasn't bound to continue fighting.
3) Earl Robert (the PCs Liege) , also didn't make any oath and wasn't bound to continue on.
Some people (Syagrius for one) might hold this against Uther, but shouldn't hold it against Earl Roderick.
ewilde1968
05-28-2010, 04:11 AM
One wonders whether a liege is worth following if he breaks his oaths anyway?
"It sometimes seems as if kings are exempt from the normal laws of humanity. It’s not our place to question them, no matter how… how iniquitous they may seem."
The thing is, most of the other ways of handling it might be worse than writing up new characters. The knights have demonstrated that they can not be trusted to obey their Liege's orders.
Perhaps. There would definitely be major repercussions; but, it could very well be the right thing for this knight to do. I should add that we're not playing the GPC straight as written. For example, we're not playing in Salisbury and the knights do have ties to the larger world.
cromcrom
05-28-2010, 07:16 AM
Please, friends, back on topic, that is about Player Knights KILLING.
There isn't much of a sense of accomplishment in slaying a dragon or whatever, if players know that there was no real risk.
Please note I don't want to impose my view, I am just sharing some thoughts here :-)
"Almost dead" (below 1 HP, with 1 hour to fix things) cannot go without consequences, and usually lead to some very damaging permanent maiming for the knight (2 or 3 lost characteristics points, one or two hard to deal with "fears", and so on...), to the point that the player decides to retire it, or tries to find an heir, or whatever.
So there ARE risks for the knight. I would even say that, gentle as I am to my player friends, it makes it easier for me to "punish" them that way, than to kill them right away. This way, I can openly play the dice (that berzerker critical) in front of the player, which adds to the drama, still have them fear the blow ("when you wake up, you try to look around you, but your vision seems strangely impaired, maybe because you lost an eye..."), and save the death of the character for some really glorious deed, or have the character retire, which saves a lot on RL frustration.
Mazza
05-28-2010, 11:03 AM
I think the poll needs another option, one which seems to describe the opinions of many of the people posting in this thread - "If the dice say they die, they die".
My players know that I am not going to pull any punches. They also know I am not going to go out of my way to try to kill them. They are never forced into a situation which will lead to their certain death (not by me anyway). But if they choose to risk their knight's neck, then it is well and truly on the line, and if the dice say they die... they die. :)
I find that it gives the decisions of the players a more important feel. Generally speaking they will only risk probable doom for a very good reason, and that gives play an heroic quality.
I think the poll needs another option, one which seems to describe the opinions of many of the people posting in this thread - "If the dice say they die, they die".
My players know that I am not going to pull any punches. They also know I am not going to go out of my way to try to kill them. They are never forced into a situation which will lead to their certain death (not by me anyway). But if they choose to risk their knight's neck, then it is well and truly on the line, and if the dice say they die... they die. :)
I find that it gives the decisions of the players a more important feel. Generally speaking they will only risk probable doom for a very good reason, and that gives play an heroic quality.
what he said!
// M
cromcrom
05-28-2010, 03:28 PM
New "dice rule" option added :-)
Merlin
05-28-2010, 03:32 PM
Hi Cromcrom - welcome to The Round Table!
I voted in the sometimes option. I always roll my dice in the open - my player know that their characters will die a number of times before we get to the end of the Great Pendragon Campaign (if the dice don't get them old age will). I don't set out to do it on purpose, but if that's the way the dice fall, that's the way the dice fall. I find as long as they understand that, its ok. Thing is, with the the long term dynastic campaign nature of Pendragon, death isn't the end of the game - it passes on to an heir, or an ally etc. the investment by the player is in more than just the one character. I also feel that Pendragon is a risky game - that chance of death the next time a critical is rolled against you makes it all the more exciting.
OK, voted again with the new dice option - the votes were reset at 0 when it was added.
DarrenHill
05-28-2010, 03:40 PM
One wonders whether a liege is worth following if he breaks his oaths anyway? Guess that's part of the harshness of feudal society, but when I get to that point with my players I will make sure to have them know that their choices in that matter are extremely important.
In this case, Prince Madoc isn't your liege, Earl Roderick is, and Roderick has tasked you to follow madoc. If you disobey Madoc, regardless of what Madoc does, you are dishonouring your bond with your liege. Any bad things madoc orders you to do are between him and Roderic - you follow orders, then report to Roderick, and then it's his problem.
Also, what matters in your relationship with your liege, is whether he breaks his oaths to his vassals. A liege might make treaties with other great nobles, and break them (losing honour in the process, no doubt), but for the household and vassal knights under that liege, it's not so important. If the liege is good to his men, he is a good liege.
Madoc, in sacking the city, getting loot for the men under his command, and leaving when he decides this war is unwinnable and will only get men killed, may actually be being a good liege, from that viewpoint. :)
DarrenHill
05-28-2010, 03:47 PM
I don't always apply all the rules to the letter ;-) The PK knows he SHOULD be dead, and falls unconscious. Unconsciousness can allow for a lot to happen "in between", and explain this or that, GM things ^^
I roll all my dice out in the open, and if they result in a player-knight's death, that knight dies. That said, I don't leave them in the lurch: I try to give them good advice, and I have their opponents spare them when it is reasonable to do so. I also give opportunities for heavily injured knights to retire the adventure, and for the player to bring in a spare character.
Some people have said they don't like characters being sent out of play, like say when one goes off to France when the main "adventuring party" stays at home. I don't mind this. The rules do present situations, like Madness, where a character may be out of play for a time. So I view this as an opportunity. I do one of two things:
1) The character who leaves, is left out of play for a year or more. The player designs a new character to play in the mean time, or brings in one of his backups. Then after a while, either the original character returns, which some previous experience and a tale to tell, or the main party has an adventure which takes them to somewhere where they learn the fate of the other character, and have a chance to rescue him or be reuinited with him.
2) The character leaves, and I split the party in two. Each player designs another character. The player whose character left brings in a replacement to join the original party. All the other players bring in an extra character to join the player who left. We then play both parties, either alternating years, with them in different places. Sooner or later, the parties will rejoin (or maybe each party suffers some deaths), and the players then have two characters in the same place, and from then on, can choose each year which they want to play.
The second approach works well with the dynasty game. Later in the game, players often have spare characters they don't have time to play - this allows them to do that. Earlier in the game, it gives players two chances to start a family, and have a dynasty later.
Atgxtg
05-28-2010, 04:51 PM
Please, friends, back on topic, that is about Player Knights KILLING.
Or not killing. ;)
Please note I don't want to impose my view, I am just sharing some thoughts here :-)
That's what forums are for. I just think what you are doing is going to hurt your campaign.
"Almost dead" (below 1 HP, with 1 hour to fix things)
Uh, "1 hour to fix things" until what? If you have just demostrated that you weren't going to kill the character when they got cut, stabbed, head pulped, or whatever, you can hardly frighten the players with bleeding to death. They know you won' do that. It's not much of a deadline, is it? I guess you could roll on the aging table every hour until the guy finally heals up.
cannot go without consequences, and usually lead to some very damaging permanent maiming for the knight (2 or 3 lost characteristics points, one or two hard to deal with "fears", and so on...), to the point that the player decides to retire it, or tries to find an heir, or whatever.
So rather have a character die a glorious death in combat, you have him loose stats and become a coward. Is that the message you want to send to your players about playing knights?
Well, that is your call as GM. But I think you are cheating them. A couple of weeks back, I slaughtered half the group with a redcap. It was in a ruin, and fought at the top of a single file staircase. The group chose to fight in one on one and it killed two characters, easily, with critical hits.Now I could have just had the character suffer mutiple stat losses, give out Fear (Redcap) passions and so on, but I just killed the characters.
Now both players have to play their sons, who are planning on seeking revenge on the monster (not to mention retrieving a family heirloom). The dead characters got to die in combat (something that your players will never be able to experience), and the campaign is richer for it. If and when somebody actually manages to defeat the redcap and gain the rewards (the heirloom sword, a manor, glory, possible a little revenge) that go with success it will be all the better because of the deaths of the previous characters.
Oh, if you aren't going to kill PCs how would you have fudged the PCs escape from the redcap in the situation I mentioned above? It is hard to accept that two seriously wounded PCs could crawl down the staircase and escape while the redcap wasn't looking.
it makes it easier for me to "punish" them that way, than to kill them right away.
I think that is the real issue. It makes it easier for you. But being a GM means that you have to do hard things at times. When I ripped through the group with the redcap, it wasn't easy for me as a GM. I didn't want to kill the best character in the group like he was a bandit. Nor did I want to take away the character's heirloom sword he rolled on the luck table. But that's my job.
I did say sorry, and I am sorry that things worked out that way. I'm also a bit disappointed with the players for being so stupid that session, and fighting the thing one one one with it having a height advantage. But thats all part of being a GM. On the flip side, when they do well and are rewared, they know that they earned it, and not that I was "being nice."
This way, I can openly play the dice (that berzerker critical) in front of the player
I don't see why you couldn't play the dice in fromt of the player without fudging. If you are not going to apply the results of the dice, then open rolling doesn't mean anything.
Once more, I'll say that you are cheating your players. Soon they will learn to expect that they will never get killed, no matter what, and begin acting accordingly. No matter what "punishments" you inflict (and BTW, you shouldn't "punish" players, that's being sadistic, you are supposed to run the game), the players will know that they cannot be killed, and that will change your game, and not for the better.
Just think like a player for a minute. Consider facing down a Saxon Berserker, big, burly, armed with a great axe, and likely to cleave you in two. Now add in the fact that you know he can't kill you, because the GM will step in and fudge the results. It kinda takes the edge off the Berserker doesn't it? He suddenly isn't quite as big or scary. Beating him isn't quite as impressive as it was when you though he could chop you up like firewood. That is what you are taking away from your players.
It is your campaign, and you can run it however you wish. I think that not killing the characters will hurt your campaign. I'm not saying you should be butchering the player characters every session. But I do think that you will get a better Pendragon game if you let the dice (and the characters) fall where they may.
DarrenHill
05-28-2010, 05:11 PM
<snip>
So rather have a character die a glorious death in combat, you have him loose stats and become a coward. Is that the message you want to send to your players about playing knights?
<snip>
Once more, I'll say that you are cheating your players. Soon they will learn to expect that they will never get killed, no matter what, and begin acting accordingly. No matter what "punishments" you inflict (and BTW, you shouldn't "punish" players, that's being sadistic, you are supposed to run the game), the players will know that they cannot be killed, and that will change your game, and not for the better.
Just think like a player for a minute. Consider facing down a Saxon Berserker, big, burly, armed with a great axe, and likely to cleave you in two. Now add in the fact that you know he can't kill you, because the GM will step in and fudge the results. It kinda takes the edge off the Berserker doesn't it? He suddenly isn't quite as big or scary. Beating him isn't quite as impressive as it was when you though he could chop you up like firewood. That is what you are taking away from your players.
It is your campaign, and you can run it however you wish. I think that not killing the characters will hurt your campaign.
I've just quoted some of A's excellent post, and emphasize a couple things in bold.
In a lot of other games, the death of a character is a tragic thing, and it is much more acceptable to have ways around it. In D&D, for instance, when a character dies, the player might be forced to start with a new lower level character, and the whole group suffers while that character is brought up to speed. Thus, the easy availability of resurrection and raise dead scrolls. Also, having to design a new character with some experience might take an entire session, in an experienced group, so the player of that character is basically removed from play for a long period. Not fun. Many GMs have been trained through such games to believe character death is bad - in those cases, character death is a good thing to avoid.
In Pendragon, player death is a part of the game. A new, starting character can join an experienced group, and contribute fully. By a certain point in the campaign, everyone has multiple backups ready to bring in at a moments notice, and if they don't, a new character takes only a few minutes to get ready if you are using the standard design system. In the long time-scale of Pendragon, each character death is an opportunity: for instance, will the sons of that dead character grow up with a hate (or fear) of whoever killed the character? Even if not, will that character's death be remembered for years after?
A rare death from a lucky critical in a fight with bandits might seem cruel, but it gets to be much less of a danger later in the campaign as armour improves, and it is useful to highlight the stark brutality of the early years of the campaign. Players will look back fondly at their earlier times, and appreciate all the more things like improved armour and horses.
cromcrom
05-28-2010, 05:48 PM
Thanks for your frank but harsh point of view, Atgxtg.
So rather have a character die a glorious death in combat, you have him loose stats and become a coward. Is that the message you want to send to your players about playing knights?
This is not what I said. I said that I rather have the characters die a glorious death in combat that to be fallen by a random critical hit.
Now both players have to play their sons, who are planning on seeking revenge on the monster (not to mention retrieving a family heirloom).
As I also said, if the knights have heirs, it would be easier for me and them to see them die.
And the sons can also try to exact revenge from their father's lost honor, or crippling, or whatever. The elders don't HAVE TO die, although it adds for some very dramatic and beautifull moments, I guess.
The dead characters got to die in combat (something that your players will never be able to experience),
Once again, this is not what I say. I say they don't "stupidly" (in my opinion) die in combat because of dices.
Oh, if you aren't going to kill PCs how would you have fudged the PCs escape from the redcap in the situation I mentioned above?
I would consider it part of the GM fun and experience to try to find a way ^^
I tend to consider that my PKs are not your normal basic knights, that they have a destiny. But this is personal consideration.
But that's my job.
GMing is a hobby for me. My hobby is about having fun, and respect the sometimes hard to reach balance between fun and frustration.
On the flip side, when they do well and are rewared, they know that they earned it.
Not killing doesn't always mean giving up treasures and land ^^.
Soon they will learn to expect that they will never get killed, no matter what, and begin acting accordingly. No matter what "punishments" you inflict (and BTW, you shouldn't "punish" players, that's being sadistic, you are supposed to run the game), the players will know that they cannot be killed, and that will change your game, and not for the better.
Once again, not what I said.
Now add in the fact that you know he can't kill you, because the GM will step in and fudge the results. It kinda takes the edge off the Berserker doesn't it?
Not if the Berz killed you beloved horse, maybe your squire that sacrifices himself to protect you from certain death, and took away a few strength points with that wound...All without killing and frustrating the player for his death at the hand of a "simple" berzerker. My players don't usually run lightheartedly into berzerkers ^^
you shouldn't "punish" players
Maybe "Punish" is a little too strong, English is not my native language. But then I rather reprimand them for doing quite dumb stuffs, or having bad dice luck, than kill them right away, and frustrate them.
As you may have figured out, I am also talking on a player point of view. Loosing a beloved character because you have no luck is one of the worst thing that can happen to a player in my opinion.
cromcrom
05-28-2010, 06:31 PM
Players will look back fondly at their earlier times
Survivors ? ... :D
But indeed, if one considers that the player plays a dynasty, and not a single knight, death might be acceptable in the long run. Still, dying from random bad luck DOES seem overly cruel in my opinion.
DarrenHill
05-28-2010, 06:53 PM
But indeed, if one considers that the player plays a dynasty, and not a single knight, death might be acceptable in the long run. Still, dying from random bad luck DOES seem overly cruel in my opinion.
This is the single-most important difference in Pendragon from other games, and you need character death to see it in action and appreciate it fully. By keeping characters alive longer, you and the players lose out on a unique extra dimension of Pendragon campaigns. In my campaigns, character death isn't that common, but in any ten year period, say, if we are playing out every year, there will probably have been a few deaths. Some periods will have more deaths than others. Plus, the odd Total-Party-Kill happens - maybe once a generation.
I appreciate the desire to not wanting characters to die in pointless situations, and I do my best to avoid it in many other games, but a Pendragon campaign is richer for character death. I don't do anything to make death more likely, but when it happens, I let it happen, and ensure the characters deal with it afterwards (a loved character will have a memorable funeral, and his family may recieve an award from the liege, or someone who he has helped, for instance.)
Also note: a character who drops below zero hit points is not dead. You can do first aid, or give him healing unguents and other stuff, and if you can get him back up above zero hit points, he survives (albeit possibly with statistic loss). The kind of damage that bandits and weak opponents do, even on a critical, is such that survival is often possible - and those first aid rolls can be enjoyably tense.
(Bandit crit: 8d6, average 28 points. So, lets say a player has 10 hit points left, and is wearing chain, and suffers that critical. He drops to -8: he can't usually be saved, unless the group has one of those special limited healing potions you can get as starting luck in the Book of Knights & Ladies, or something similar. But if he had got his shield in the way, he'd only be at -2, and a good first aid roll would save him. If he'd been healthy when he'd taken that blow, say 28 hit points, he'd drop to 10, and the next solid blow would knock him out. After that, being knocked out is the most likely consequence - he'd have to take another critical to actually die. The 4d6 damage of a bandit will not be enough to kill him, save a near-maximum damage roll.
In a later period, he might have 14 armour points (ignoring potential chivalry bonus), greatly increasing survival chances.
Pendragon isn't a very lethal system, when you are fighting mundane opponents. It feels more deadly than it is. But most of the time, when facing 'mundane' opponents, characters end up unconscious rather than dead. So a character death in these circumstances is uncommon enough that by its nature, it becomes special.
Now, when you face unusual opponents, like berserkers, famous knights, redcaps, dragons and whatnot, damage rolls are often high enough to lead to character death - but these are by definition special situations, exactly the situations where death should be a real danger. (If you're outnumbered 3-to-1 by saxons, character death might also be very possible - but those aren't good odds, and players should think twice before rushing into such situations. That is by definition a desperate situation - exactly the sort of thing where death should be an option, and survival is a memorable event.) If they know they aren't going to die in mundane situations, they'll rush headlong into danger more often, and end up getting more glory and other rewards than they should be getting.)
I think Pendragon does a good job of keeping PCs alive in ordinary situations, and puts death on the table just enough to keep the engine of the dynasty game ticking over.
Xarlaxas
05-28-2010, 07:32 PM
Thanks for your input vis-a-vis the whole Madoc thing, it makes a lot more sense now and will keep on topic from now on! :)
I think I'm going to definitely go by the suggesions of rolling damage dice in the open and if a player dies they die, I've not had much experience with rolling up a character in 5th edition so I'm not sure how long it takes, do you guys think it would be good to have my players make two characters at the start of the game one as the primary and then another as a secondary for when the first (inevitably) dies just so that if it happens the player doesn't have to sit out the rest of the session just until the secondary character can reasonably appear, heck, maybe I could make my players stat themselves and their squire who plays NPC until the main character dies?
Any thoughts?
Atgxtg
05-28-2010, 07:55 PM
Thanks for your frank but harsh point of view, Atgxtg.
Sorry if I seemed harsh. Just trying to get the point across. [/quote]
This is not what I said. I said that I rather have the characters die a glorious death in combat that to be fallen by a random critical hit.
I'd rather have that too, but it doesn't always work out the way I want it to. And that is generally a good thing, as its adds unpredicability and drama to the game. If you fudge the unimprtant rolls then you a better off not rolling for unimportant tasks.
Let me try another example. A while back I ran the "Sir Gorboduc the fiend" adventure from the GPC. Nothing went as planned. irst off the PCs took Merlin's warning to heart and just charged the ruffians without so much as a hello. The fight went badly for the group, too. Only one guy managed to beat and drop his bandit during the lance charge, and one PC was even unhorsed. A few rounds later, most of the group was being double or tripled teamed, and by the time Sir Gorborduc and his lieutenants joined the fray only three PCs were still mounted and fighting, and they all had at least one opponent. I figured the fight was a forgone conclusion and braced myself for a session of rolling up new characters next week.The players sunk in thier chairs and awaited thier inevitable doom.
Then I fumbled for Gorborduc. Then I did it again, for his first Lieutennant, and yet again for the third. All out in the open. A one in 8000 chance! We were all on the edge of our seats again. Then the guy who was fighting Gorborduc got into a hot streak and started knocking him around the field for five rounds while the rest of the group dispatched thier foes. When the dust settled only one PC was still standing (not the guy fighting Gorborduc, he took a major wound, and lost 3 points of stats).
Now what made the fight exciting was that we (not even, yours truly, the GM) had no idea how it was going to turn out. You don't get that same kind of excitement when the GM fudges it.
As I also said, if the knights have heirs, it would be easier for me and them to see them die.
I wasn't easy for me to kill that player's character. He was the only one who really understood what they were facing, and he died mostly because he was the one who made his valor roll, while the others were down stairs trying to work up thier courage. But those are the breaks. He got killed and I had to enforce it, where it was easy for me or not.
He would have been the first one to jump down my throat if I hadn't. You see what happens is that if I fudge things to save one PC today, then the rest will expect me to save them tomorrow. Otherwise I'm not being a fair GM.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
And the sons can also try to exact revenge from their father's lost honor, or crippling, or whatever. The elders don't HAVE TO die, although it adds for some very dramatic and beautifull moments, I guess.
No, characters don't have to die. But it will seriously affect the style, tone, and believability of the campaign if they don't. Have you ever seen a TV series where supposedly normal humans walk away from car crashes, explosions, lots of machine gun fire and such unscathed all the time? The old A-team series, or most of the Roger Moore James Bond films, for example. Eventually, the audience stops consider such scenes exciting, and just takes it in for comedic effect.
Once again, this is not what I say. I say they don't "stupidly" (in my opinion) die in combat because of dices.
IMO getting killed by bad dice rolls isn't "stupidly" dying. That's just bad luck. It sucks, but it's part of the price you pay so that you can revel in your successes. I've lost many a good character that way. It hurts, but I'd have rather lost those characters than had the GM fudge it so that I would have lived but been punished for bad dice.
Stupidly dying, IMO is when a character dies because the player does something stupid. If given the choice, most my players would rather be able to blame the dice.
I would consider it part of the GM fun and experience to try to find a way ^^
Don't you think that would lessen the impact of the encounter?
I tend to consider that my PKs are not your normal basic knights, that they have a destiny. But this is personal consideration.
Killed by a redcap seems like a heroic destiny to me. That this knight, with over 10,000 Glory and Sword 27 got killed by the redcap does more to illustrate just what a fearsome monster the thing is that anything else i can think of.
GMing is a hobby for me. My hobby is about having fun, and respect the sometimes hard to reach balance between fun and frustration.
GMing is ahobby for me, to. But that doesn't mean it isn't a responsibility. There are certain things I "owe" my players. I owe it to them to try and make each session; I owe it to them to have an adventure to play; I owe to them to try and be fair. I owe it to then to try and run the game in the style that I think was intended; I most definately owe it to them not to pull punches and to do the "unfun" stuff that occasionally needs to be done, including killing PCs, when necessary. Because I promised the players that I'd run Prendragon. Now if were some other RPG I might run it differently. I haven't killed any PCs in my LOTR or Star Wars campaigns. But death is an important part of Pendragon.
Not killing doesn't always mean giving up treasures and land ^^.
Eventually it does. If the PCs can't die, then they will eventually get stronger and return. Give a PC enough tries and eventually he will get lucky.
Right now, in my campaign, the players are seriously considering going after the redcap to try and get the manor and recover the magic sword. They haven't done so yet because they are (rightly) afraid of getting killed by the thing. If they knew that death wasn't an option, even if there was stat loss and fear passions involved, they be going off to redcap tower each year until someone finally killed the thing.
Because even if the winner, is dragged away with a 4 in all stats Reckless 39, and Fear Redcap (25), he is still going to leave a manor to his son.
Once again, not what I said.
You said:
I don't kill Player Knights. I just quite seriously maim them, kill there horses, followers, steal there beloved father's sword, put them in jail, ransom them, burn their manor, murder their family, but I won't kill them.
Unless they are really dumb, or have a suitable heir to play
So if you don't kill PCs, the players will catch on and adjust their style of play.
You also said:
In my opinion, people, players and GM, are playing for fun, and having a character you spend hours of "real life" playing with, die, can be an incredibly frustrating moment, as I experienced myself[/quote]
Sure, we are playing for fun. But in order to have that fun, we have to take the risk that comes with it. That means occasionally getting frustrated and upset when things go badly. It goes with the territory. I once had a character, a knight errant, stumble across a siege, attack the besieging force, kill the commander, and essentially win the conflict single handedly. Then I fumbled a lance roll and got skewed by the rear guard. It sucked. I had gambled on a long shot, pulled it off, and then got killed by some lucky peasant with a sharp stick. It happens.
But if it didn't happen, then everyone would go around attacking armies single handedly.
At least it was a great funeral.
Loosing a favorite character is much like seeing a favorite athlete team loose the championship. You don't like it, but if it didn't happen, you wouldn't enjoy it when things go you way.
Now add in the fact that you know he can't kill you, because the GM will step in and fudge the results. It kinda takes the edge off the Berserker doesn't it?
Not if the Berz killed you beloved horse, maybe your squire that sacrifices himself to protect you from certain death, and took away a few strength points with that wound...
Yes, it takes the edge off. You get another horse, a new squire, train up you stats and go back. Hardly the same meance. Losing horse, squiares ansd stats are an ineveitable part of battle. So what makes the beserker special?
All without killing and frustrating the player for his death at the hand of a "simple" berzerker. My players don't usually run lightheartedly into berzerkers ^^
Don't your players find getting slapped around, seeing their mounts, squires, and friends killed, losing stats points, and gaining fear passions frustrating? My players are finding paying tribute each year frustrating. Some would rather fight a battle and take their chances rather than pay. My players also don't run lightheartedly into berserker. They usually try ride into them behind a lance.
Maybe "Punish" is a little too strong, English is not my native language. But then I rather reprimand them for doing quite dumb stuffs, or having bad dice luck, than kill them right away, and frustrate them.
Okay, perhaps not quite the meaning you were going for. Even with reprimand. I don't blame the players for rolling badly. Only for the things that were within their control.
But, as or frustrating you players. I've seen groups where the GM pulls punches and usually it ends up frustrating the players more. Especially if the GM fudges things "some of the time." When death does arrive, the players often get frustrated when they don't get saved this time.
As you may have figured out, I am also talking on a player point of view. Loosing a beloved character because you have no luck is one of the worst thing that can happen to a player in my opinion.
Keep playing. There are far worse fates. For starters that player now has a character whose memory he can treasure for the rest of his life. A character who you will hear stores about for years, decades if you are unlucky.
As for worse things, consider:
-People too stupid to play (as in so stupid you wonder how they manage to survive between game sessions.)
-Having a beloved character go into "limbo" because the rest of the group keeps dying off around him.
-GMs who can't separate in game and out of game events ("You scratched my CD, I'm going to kill your character")
-GMs who lead the players around by the nose.
-GMs who get upset when players kill "their monsters".
-GMs who run every NPC as all-knowing, and always see through any ruse, since the GM was in the room when you planned it.
-Gms who play favorites (especially if they game with their significant other)
I'm pushing this point because I feel it is important for a GM to be fair. Once you are know to "bend things in the players favor", even if only from time to time, the players will come to expect you to always bend things in their favor, and resent it when you don't. They will also question you motived as to why you did it at one time, and not at another time. And they will second guess every judgment you make for the rest of the campaign. They players will know that you aren't fair, they just won't know how, when and why.
Every GM, at least every good Gm, doesn't want to kill off the characters. Most go through a time where they pull their punches hoping to make a better game. Usually with the opposite effect.
But it's your campaign. Good Luck. Hope it works out they way you want it to.
Atgxtg
05-28-2010, 08:01 PM
I think I'm going to definitely go by the suggesions of rolling damage dice in the open and if a player dies they die, I've not had much experience with rolling up a character in 5th edition so I'm not sure how long it takes, do you guys think it would be good to have my players make two characters at the start of the game one as the primary and then another as a secondary for when the first (inevitably) dies just so that if it happens the player doesn't have to sit out the rest of the session just until the secondary character can reasonably appear, heck, maybe I could make my players stat themselves and their squire who plays NPC until the main character dies?
Any thoughts?
It is definitely good to have a back up character. I fairly certain Greg mentions that in the books, supplements, on the forum, and elsewhere. It's no fun to sit around and do nothing all night. Even if you hand out an NPC or copy the stats of a deFault knight, it is better than doing nothing.
All the players in my group have a backup character. That way they can still play should something happen that removes the main character from the adventure.
DarrenHill
05-28-2010, 08:06 PM
do you guys think it would be good to have my players make two characters at the start of the game one as the primary and then another as a secondary for when the first (inevitably) dies just so that if it happens the player doesn't have to sit out the rest of the session just until the secondary character can reasonably appear, heck, maybe I could make my players stat themselves and their squire who plays NPC until the main character dies?
What I usually do when starting a campaign, is in the first session design one character each and start play.
Then at the start of the next session, design backup characters, before getting down to play with the original characters. After that design them only as needed.
cromcrom
05-28-2010, 09:32 PM
@Atgxtg
Ok, thanks for the precise input, some was really interesting to read. Maybe I don't simply play enough to waste time killing Knights, and maybe I prefer imagination to Rules enforcement, but reading this
That this knight, with over 10,000 Glory and Sword 27 got killed by the redcap does more to illustrate just what a fearsome monster the thing is that anything else i can think of. , even if it certainly brightly illustrates the Redcap's power, seems like a mistake to me.
Moreover, I don't see Pendragon as a "Average peasant life in the dark Arthurian Ages" RPG, but as a RPG about heroic deeds of knights in a Fantasy Arthurian setting.
So I think I will stay "old DnD school" (no offense, mister Stafford), and avoid to "stupidly" mundanely kill my Knights.
But again, reading your points was really interesting. Thanks for sharing :-)
doorknobdeity
05-28-2010, 10:37 PM
Wasn't old-school DnD all about killing players in cheap ways?
cromcrom
05-28-2010, 10:45 PM
I re read the Introduction and designer notes of Pendragon, I must admit that according to these writings, and mister Stafford's design ideas, I seem totally wrong trying to "protect" my knights lives:
Page 5 "Warning: this game is potentially deadly to your player knights...every character is going to die, either through violence (quite common)..."
This can hardly be clearer ^^
I could even feel like a traitor reading this
page 222 "The original stories were entertainment for men who knew the realities of combat, and I felt that to water that down betrayed the litterature.".
So I guess I am not playing Pendragon, but a RPG in an arthurian setting using most of the "pendragon" rules ^^
My bad.
Atgxtg
05-28-2010, 11:21 PM
@Atgxtg
Ok, thanks for the precise input, some was really interesting to read. Maybe I don't simply play enough to waste time killing Knights, and maybe I prefer imagination to Rules enforcement,
maybe you'll feeling a bit superior? If you find it a waste o time to kill knights then your running the wrong game. Between monsters and battles, you going to be forced into killing some knights eventually. And consider your outlook on dice rolls, I can't see how you can use the aging table.
As for using "imagination over rules enforcement", c'mon now. This isn't about stepping in in order to preserve some storyline. It is about you not wanting or liking the fact that characters can die and trying to do an end run around it.
but reading this
That this knight, with over 10,000 Glory and Sword 27 got killed by the redcap does more to illustrate just what a fearsome monster the thing is that anything else i can think of. , even if it certainly brightly illustrates the Redcap's power, seems like a mistake to me.
A mistake? Why? Becuase the PC lost? Because the PC lost of a redcap, one of the nastiet faeries creatures one can come across?
Moreover, I don't see Pendragon as a "Average peasant life in the dark Arthurian Ages" RPG, but as a RPG about heroic deeds of knights in a Fantasy Arthurian setting.
What makes something a "heroic" deed is putting onself at risk tohelp other. If you take way that risk then the characters aren't acting heroic.
And since you brought up the setting, have you read any of the literature on the setting? The characters, brave heroic knights, often fail and die. Often is less that heroic dramaitic fashion. Look at poor Gareth. He is probably the best of the Orkney clan, and he gets cut down by Lancelot, who isn't even aware of who he just killed. Lamorak gets ambushed and murdered by the Okney clan, and a lot of guys get killed simply for entering thier own Pavillion (never wake a sleeping Lancelot).
There is a reason why the game works the way it does and why it is as deadly as it is. Because it is an attempt to be true to the soruce. Death, in this game, serves a purpose. It, along with the economic system, difficulites in having children, personality traits, and the other featues that differentiate Pendragon from other RPGs are all there to try and be true to that Fantasy Arthurian setting you mentioned. But that setting is a lot darker, tougher, and meaner than people often think.
So I think I will stay "old DnD school" (no offense, mister Stafford), and avoid to "stupidly" mundanely kill my Knights.
If you can't accept the results of random dice rolls, why roll dice? And you seem to have no problem "stupidly mundanely" penalizing your knights.
But again, reading your points was really interesting. Thanks for sharing :-)
I get the feeling that I failed to get my points across. I think you are making a mistake and to the detriment of your game and players.
It's your campaign. It's you call. Hope it works out for you.
cromcrom
05-29-2010, 12:12 AM
If you find it a waste o time to kill knights then your running the wrong game.
True.
Between monsters and battles, you going to be forced into killing some knights eventually.
True, but not on random encounter critical.
And consider your outlook on dice rolls, I can't see how you can use the aging table.
I use it according to the rules.
It is about you not wanting or liking the fact that characters can die and trying to do an end run around it.
True and false.
A mistake? Why? Becuase the PC lost? Because the PC lost of a redcap, one of the nastiet faeries creatures one can come across?
SEEMS a mistake because they just tried. But then, sometimes, you can't prevent players from trying suicidal stuff, even with all the due warnings.
What makes something a "heroic" deed is putting onself at risk tohelp other. If you take way that risk then the characters aren't acting heroic.
Different definition of "risk" between you and me. Although yours is definitely the right one, according to the setting defined by M. Stafford.
And since you brought up the setting, have you read any of the literature on the setting? The characters, brave heroic knights, often fail and die. Often is less that heroic dramaitic fashion. Look at poor Gareth. He is probably the best of the Orkney clan, and he gets cut down by Lancelot, who isn't even aware of who he just killed. Lamorak gets ambushed and murdered by the Okney clan, and a lot of guys get killed simply for entering thier own Pavillion (never wake a sleeping Lancelot).
I have, although its not fresh in my memories.
There is a reason why the game works the way it does and why it is as deadly as it is. Because it is an attempt to be true to the soruce. Death, in this game, serves a purpose. It, along with the economic system, difficulites in having children, personality traits, and the other featues that differentiate Pendragon from other RPGs are all there to try and be true to that Fantasy Arthurian setting you mentioned. But that setting is a lot darker, tougher, and meaner than people often think.
Sure.
If you can't accept the results of random dice rolls, why roll dice?
Come on, please, read what I wrote: "This is not what I said. I said that I rather have the characters die a glorious death in combat than to be fallen by a random critical hit." Maybe I should have added from a random ancounter critical, but I guess it won't change anything.
And you seem to have no problem "stupidly mundanely" penalizing your knights.
True.
I get the feeling that I failed to get my points across.
True.
It's your campaign. It's you call. Hope it works out for you.
Thanks.
As my conclusion, I will say that you are right, M. Stafford designed his game to be deadly to knights, and so, I am not playing King Arthur Pendragon.
However, I will keep visiting this forum, because it is full of great tips and counsels about running the game, which I might someday be able to do when I am a grown man.
Until then, I will keep having fun with my scares covered and 'destiny' favored knights :-)
DarrenHill
05-29-2010, 03:07 AM
Wasn't old-school DnD all about killing players in cheap ways?
In some groups it was like that. It never was in mine once we got past the teenage craziness phase. :)
doorknobdeity
05-29-2010, 04:41 AM
And since you brought up the setting, have you read any of the literature on the setting? The characters, brave heroic knights, often fail and die. Often is less that heroic dramaitic fashion. Look at poor Gareth. He is probably the best of the Orkney clan, and he gets cut down by Lancelot, who isn't even aware of who he just killed. Lamorak gets ambushed and murdered by the Okney clan, and a lot of guys get killed simply for entering thier own Pavillion (never wake a sleeping Lancelot).
You don't think these are dramatic? I think they're right up there with Brutus and Caesar, or Othello and Desmonda, or Macbeth and--well, basically every other character in the play. They're iconic examples of murder, treachery, passionate crimes, tragic mistakes, and so on and so forth.
There is a reason why the game works the way it does and why it is as deadly as it is. Because it is an attempt to be true to the soruce. [...] But that setting is a lot darker, tougher, and meaner than people often think.
I am trying to think of times when a knight of great renown is taken out by some random scrub (as opposed to a notable opponent or base treachery or something suitably dramatic), which seems to be the issue here. Lancelot once gets wounded by an arrow in the arm, Gawain torments the hell out of some knight during the Roman war by pretending to be a lowborn soldier (and thus bringing shame on the guy he just beat), but other than that I don't recall any knights being taken out by random lucky schlub. (Wait, maybe in Mallory Gawain dying from an oar to the head during the war against Mordred after being wounded by Lancelot earlier? But even then the focus is more on the tragic consequences of the conflict between the great and chivalrous heroes rather than the lethality of random lucky hits)
cromcrom
05-29-2010, 07:37 AM
But even then the focus is more on the tragic consequences of the conflict between the great and chivalrous heroes rather than the lethality of random lucky hits
That's what I am trying to tell. I don't even recall the tales being about Dynasties, but about Time limited Heroic Adventures.
But again, it's not what Pendragon is about, Pendragon is about harsh and heroic (Dude, that saxon random raider gave me a critical causing a major wound, I am off for the Big Fight, have fun, guys... "Kill them all, let God sort them out") times in an arthurian setting.
Mazza
05-29-2010, 02:16 PM
New "dice rule" option added :-)
Thank you, you're a gentleman and a scholar. ;D
Also, just because you're playing differently, don't think that you're not playing Pendragon - of course you are. You are just playing it a different way. It may not even have been the way the designer intended (it would be interesting, as a side note, to know how many games designers "fudged" the rolls frequently in their own campaigns and why), but that doesn't make it wrong. I am pretty sure that if you and your group are having fun playing Pendragon your way that Greg Stafford isn't going to drive to your house, kick down your door, and beat you with your own shoes until you "play my game the way I intendend dagnammit!" ;)
Greg Stafford
05-29-2010, 02:29 PM
I am trying to think of times when a knight of great renown is taken out by some random scrub
1. No one tells about their defeats. Some history books incline us to think the US has never suffered a military defeat, for instance.
2. Anyone who would have taken out a great knight is, thereafter, no schlub, by definition.
doorknobdeity
05-29-2010, 06:47 PM
We do hear about defeats, even really harsh defeats at the hands of young or unproven knights (e.g. Beaumains vs Kay), but just as no characters in Star Wars got killed by a random stormtrooper, I can't think of any Arthurian knights who were taken out by the narrative equivalent of a random critical hit.
Greg Stafford
05-29-2010, 09:44 PM
We do hear about defeats, even really harsh defeats at the hands of young or unproven knights (e.g. Beaumains vs Kay), but just as no characters in Star Wars got killed by a random stormtrooper, I can't think of any Arthurian knights who were taken out by the narrative equivalent of a random critical hit.
Harold of Wessex. Oh wait, he wasn't Arthurian. Geoffrey de Charney, the most famous French knight would qualify as a Round Table knight, even including the chivalrous and religious requirements. Of course, killing him made the guy famous afterward.
My point in the clownery is that chance does occur in the real world. So, seriously now.
Well, Lancelot was once take out by a woman archer who "thought he was a deer" (Yea, I am sure!) and put an arrow in his ass. He was out of the tournament.
OK, seriously. I forget, who killed Gawaine?
The English Alliterative Mort and Stanzaic Mort (which I am finally reading) are less merciful, with a number of named characters killed. But the main characters do have their usual script immunity.
I can not fudge dice rolls. They are always in the open.
I have sometimes rolled the dice and, considering any number of reasons internal to the game (is this a silly death?) or external (is this a first gamer?), offered some appropriate intervention. The price is always for some unspecified future "obedience," whereupon the old players roll their eyes and the knight comes to life again.
"Thanks, um... Morgan. See ya later."
Whereupon everyone ells him how lucky he is to be alive, and they never saw it before, and it would probably never happen again.
(I tell them to do it if they don't)
Atgxtg
05-30-2010, 03:30 PM
We do hear about defeats, even really harsh defeats at the hands of young or unproven knights (e.g. Beaumains vs Kay), but just as no characters in Star Wars got killed by a random stormtrooper, I can't think of any Arthurian knights who were taken out by the narrative equivalent of a random critical hit.
Most were taken out by fate. I suppose if we wanted to remain absolutely true to the soruces the GM should plan all the PCs deaths in advance and then fudge the dice to see that it happens as written.
I think the reason why you don't see heroes killed by "random" foes in the literature is because anyone who takes out a great knight pretty much instantly (and retroactively) becomes a great knight (or Saxon warrior, etc) upon completion of the deed. Much like in a Western, the young hotshot has just made a name for himself.
It even works that way in the Pendragon rules, too. Take down Lancelot and suddenly someone isn't just a "random" Beserker, but "Osric the mad, slayer of Lancelot".
I guess GMs coould give the PCs script immunity and oritect them for all but the major events and people, but then 90% of the game sessions are going to be boring. And once the PCs realize that they have this immunity they will start to push the envelope.
Decipher's LOTR does give the PCs script immunity, but warns the GM that, under no circumstances, allow the PCs to figure it out.
Some games use a "hero point" mechanic that allows the players to alter the dice results somewhat, allowing thier characters to make key rolls, or avoid falling off thier horse, or getting killed accidently at a torunament. How well such systems work, vary from system to system.
DarrenHill
05-30-2010, 04:40 PM
I guess GMs coould give the PCs script immunity and oritect them for all but the major events and people, but then 90% of the game sessions are going to be boring. And once the PCs realize that they have this immunity they will start to push the envelope.
Decipher's LOTR does give the PCs script immunity, but warns the GM that, under no circumstances, allow the PCs to figure it out.
!!! Really? Did they think no player would ever look in the GMs section, or no GM would ever be a player? Bizarre.
There are ways to keep a game interesting and fun when death is removed as a consequence. In fact, in some games I run these days, I explicitly tell players their characters will not die, unless they choose to make it happen. This has improved my gaming tremendously. But I don't do this in Pendragon - death is very much part of the system, and serves a positive purpose. Even if players may experience some upset when it happens, their experience of the campaign is heightened by it in the long run. That's not just me as the "evil GM" speaking - we've discussed it as a group, and my players have told me the same thing, and some told me they didn't expect to say that.
doorknobdeity
05-30-2010, 09:30 PM
For the most part, Gawain's killer remains anonymous; in La Mort du Roi Artu, the Stanzaic Morte Arthur, and Mallory, we don't know who ultimately killed Gawain, but it's connected to the wounds from his fight with Lancelot. It's spun as Lancelot killing him in some tragic accident; Gawain himself dictates a very touching letter to Lancelot or has a tombstone saying "Here lie Gaheriet and Gawain whom Lancelot killed through Gawain's foolishness." In the Alliterative Morte Arthur, the whole Lancelot-Guinevere episode never happens, and Gawain is killed by Mordred. I don't know where I got the idea that someone hit hit him with an oar.
That really is the closest I can see to the assertion that random deaths of major characters from lucky crits are in line with what the genre is "supposed" to be. We've got Beaumains and La Cote Mal Taille, but they don't actually kill the established Round Table knights they fight, and there's clearly a whoooole lot going on in their backgrounds.
I could see how you could spin this your way after the fact: "Oh, no, the footman who took your PK out isn't actually a lowly footman, he's actually Sir Alan, son of Sir Gui of the Northern Isles, fighting incognito," or "Remember that sergeant who killed your character last session? Well, he's been knighted by King Lot himself, and is doing great deeds in the war against King Arthur. He's quickly becoming one of the North's greatest champions He singlehandedly routed seven of our knights by himself, and fought Sir Gawain to a standstill."
I guess GMs coould give the PCs script immunity and oritect them for all but the major events and people, but then 90% of the game sessions are going to be boring.
I disagree, I really do. I think there's a difference between protecting the PKs from anything bad happening to the ever, and allowing a PK to keep 1 hp, take the stat loss, and accept the embarrassment of being incapacitated by a stray arrow rather than throwing him in the graveyard when there's still a lot of character development the player wants to see.
Atgxtg
05-31-2010, 05:14 AM
!!! Really? Did they think no player would ever look in the GMs section, or no GM would ever be a player? Bizarre.
Yes, really. It says not to hit the PCs so that way they can go around in clothing like the characters in LOTR rather than tanking it up like in D&D. There are a few things in the book that are a little strange. In some places it looks like there was supposed to be something else but that that something got cut or never finished.
There are ways to keep a game interesting and fun when death is removed as a consequence. In fact, in some games I run these days, I explicitly tell players their characters will not die, unless they choose to make it happen. This has improved my gaming tremendously. But I don't do this in Pendragon - death is very much part of the system, and serves a positive purpose. Even if players may experience some upset when it happens, their experience of the campaign is heightened by it in the long run. That's not just me as the "evil GM" speaking - we've discussed it as a group, and my players have told me the same thing, and some told me they didn't expect to say that.
Yes, certainly. I've run quite a few RPGs where death is either not an opion or a very unlikely one. This typically means a shift in stakes. The bad guys don't have to kill the PCs, if they are planning on nuking London or some such. Even something mundane can work as long as there is something at stake that the PCs are interested in.
But I don't do that in Pendragon because I don't think it suits the game. Death and failure are a part of the setting, and removing them would signficantly alter the feel of the game. Plus my players wouldn't stand for it. The higher risk makes the successes all that more rewarding.
One thing I don't like about most RPGs where the PCs are "heroes" is that they are set up so that the risk is so low that the PCs aren't that heroic at all. For example, AD&D where he fighters had 3 time the hit points and did 3 times the damage of the dragon that they were ganging up on.
cromcrom
05-31-2010, 07:57 AM
Without counting all the historical figures that died from lucky shots (Harold from an arrow in the eye during the battle of Hastings, this french king(henri the first?) from a lance through its helms visor in a friendly tourney...)
But still, they were kings already, and there lives were not meant to be fun and enjoyable anyways.
That's not just me as the "evil GM" speaking - we've discussed it as a group, and my players have told me the same thing, and some told me they didn't expect to say that.
This is very interesting in my opinion. May be, if things are made clear with the players, the random no meaning death could be acceptable.
I could see how you could spin this your way after the fact: "Oh, no, the footman who took your PK out isn't actually a lowly footman, he's actually Sir Alan, son of Sir Gui of the Northern Isles, fighting incognito," or "Remember that sergeant who killed your character last session? Well, he's been knighted by King Lot himself, and is doing great deeds in the war against King Arthur. He's quickly becoming one of the North's greatest champions He singlehandedly routed seven of our knights by himself, and fought Sir Gawain to a standstill."
I love this too.
Some other points:
Sometimes, "failing" an adventure can make you feel miserable enough, without adding the Death penalty.
I agree with the fact that death adds intensity to the story and the period. But here, I sometimes feel that this is more a game of luck and rules than a game of skills and (Hi (gh))story ("My knight is 32 years Old" "Wow, you are either a coward or lucky"...)
doorknobdeity
05-31-2010, 08:53 AM
Without counting all the historical figures that died from lucky shots (Harold from an arrow in the eye during the battle of Hastings, this french king(henri the first?) from a lance through its helms visor in a friendly tourney...)
That's the history, not the literature. Though I guess that's one of the big sticking points in this thread, how much you want to emulate the literature, which provides a very heroic, gilded version of purely chivalric combat, and how much you want to emulate gritty realism.
I don't know, when I think of Arthuriana, I think of Lancelot and 106 other knights going up against 20,000 of Galeholt's men, and doing pretty well for themselves, all thinks considered; death may be brutal, but it is also either heroic or tragic, and never anticlimactic. A genre where you can do that and not be instantly annihilated is, I feel, a genre that can forgive a fudged die or two, especially if it leads to a fifteen-page soliloquy on how much you looooove Lancelot.
(In fact, forget this stupid argument, whenever your knights die just have them be miraculously rescued by Lancelot and listen to everyone talk about how awesome Lancelot is and how much better he is than you and blah blah blah until they're begging for death)
Atgxtg
05-31-2010, 03:37 PM
I agree with the fact that death adds intensity to the story and the period. But here, I sometimes feel that this is more a game of luck and rules than a game of skills and (Hi (gh))story ("My knight is 32 years Old" "Wow, you are either a coward or lucky"...)
Just how high a mortality rate did you have? While death is a factor in the game, it doesn't come up every session. In my experience PPK death usually occurs when the PCs fight something really tough (redcaps, giants, dragons), when they push themselves while heavily wounded (like the guy who went through the Battle of Royston with 7 HP going in), or when the act stupid. Usually a combination of all three. Most of the time, critical hits included, the PCs don't die. The major wound and unconsciousness rules help
keep PCs alive.
My current Pendragon campaign is probably the bloodiest save perhaps for my very first (with the much more lethal KAP1). IN 22 years game time (we're at 505), I've seen 3 PCs get killed. One through bad circumstances (he got double teamed by Saxons while on foot), and the other two by a combination of recklessness and stupidity (the redcap incident, where the PCs pretty much ignored every hint and clue thrown at them, turned their brains off, and got what they were asking for).I have, however, seen each character save one take multiple major wounds over those 20 years.
If you are seeing really high casualty rates then something is probably going wrong. Often the PCs get a little reckless.
Morien
06-14-2010, 07:59 PM
Just dropping my couple of denarii here...
I tend to be hesitant about killing PKs. I find this usually messes up stories I want to tell quite well. Luckily, Pendragon tends to be a quite forgiving system as far as actually death is concerned, at least as long as you fight against humans rather than monsters and giants. Our campaigns tend to be more mundane than many of the others, with most enemies being mortal humans rather than monsters.
In the early years of the campaign, I think we had a houserule in place that a mortal wound was equal to 3 major wounds. So if you were knocked below 0 and not first aided to positive points, he rolled three times to see if his stats dropped. This seemed enough to install some carefulness onto the players, and finally, at least one player decided to start a new char due to the fact that his stats had dropped below what he considered acceptable, combining with the fact that his old char botched a Passion roll and ran screaming into the forest. At that point, he decided that he might just as well make a new character anyway, a cousin to the old char, so he stayed involved in the life of his old char's son and heir (his next char).
In addition, in some climactic battles, I might say: "This is for real this time. If your chars die here, they die."
Most of the death 'saves' were due to lucky criticals and high damage rolls by 'random' opponents. It wouldn't have added to the story so much to have them die there, and the players didn't like the idea either. Not saying that this would work with all groups, but it worked with ours, to ensure that there would be some kind of a family continuum in place.
Nowadays we use a slightly different system... The players can hoard their character's Glory points and influence fights with those. In essence, it turns any opposed role victorious for them. So if they are about to get hit onna head with a crit, they can burn a glory point and score a hit on the opponent instead. Since crit usually leads to a major wound, they have been pretty eager to use their Glory points for that... Which may have some consequences down the road when they do not have the glory points to get those 20+ skills, but not like that is essential for the game...
In any case, it is easier now since they are in the second generation already, and have 'spares', i.e. younger sons of their previous chars, so if their primary drops dead, there is an adult brother ready to take up the family standard. Or it at least feels easier.
I have planned and executed (good choice of words there) one TPK: The Battle of Badon Hill. I was moving away at the time and it was understood that the game would be going into a hiatus for some time. The PKs were on nickname basis with Arthur, two of them founding member of the Round Table, other two joining in the couple of years later. In any case, they were assigned to hold the hill with the infantry long enough for Arthur to outflank the saxon hordes with the rest of the knights.
And it went well. They stopped a saxon king on his tracks and cut through his bodyguard to kill him. This kept the saxons from overrunning the briton infantry, leading directly to the victory at Badon Hill. Then, in the misty darkness of the night between the second and third days, the three male knights are approached by a tall, lanky Saxon with a wide-brimmed hat, one eye and a spear, flanked by two wolves, two ravens perched on his shoulders. "You have interfered with my plans for the last time..." A fight follows, the highest glory PK against Wotan, the other two against the wolves. Not surprisingly, they lose, although not without making Wotan work for it. But being singled out by a god for some divine ass-kicking is pretty epic. The lone surviving knight, a woman, returns from the infirmary where she had been helping, and sees Wotan finishing her husband off. She is given a choice: forsake the sword and return to the hearth and home to raise her kids like a woman should, or die. She charges Wotan and dies beside her husband. (The player, by the way, has been regretting that choice a bit afterwards, since it dawned to her how much a Glory 15k+ matron could have done to keep the family together and advice people, even if she never touched a sword again. But those are the breaks.) They of course got the 1000 glory bonus for heroic death and were eulogized by Arthur, and rewarded posthumously with manors in Hampshire, close to the planned site of Camelot, which then were inherited by their next characters, when we picked up the campaign later on.
So yeah, that worked.
cromcrom
06-15-2010, 05:47 PM
That's about what I mean, a nice and glorious death, suited for heroes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2018 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.