How willing are you to Kill your PC's?

Guardsman wrote:No, I demand from my players that they act independently. I do not construct missions for them. I've got a plot in my mind and adjust it to the actions of the players. The players on the other hand have to use the skills and talents of their characters in a way that they can deal with the situation.

E.g.: The players got some problems with a certain NPC. They could do several things like negotiate with this person or blackmail him. If they decide to assassinate this person... fair enough! I am neutral in this and when they start planning the assassination and the location I just describe the things and they have to deal with that.

And how many players enjoy it that their PCs get the hiding of their lifes, are ripped from limb to limb because their actions caused such a reaction?

I think we all let players have varying levels of independence and make them face consequences of their actions, but I don't think it's enough for GM to only make the setting and some small hooks into it. Instead of only making the target (heretic, cult, daemonic artifact, whatever) and letting the players try to find it I design what the target does, where it is, who knows of the target (and who knows who knows of the target, etc.) and several different routes how the players might get to the target. That way I can point them to right direction if the game is moving too slow and they are out of ideas.

For example, if group has no more ideas how to find the witch and the witch has a bunch of mercenaries protecting himself and keeping unwanted eyes (Inquisition?) out, PCs can overhear a couple of these mercs talking about the witch in a bar. By following or interrogating these mercs the group will get some more pieces of the puzzle and the plot will move on. Of course this may lead to a plot that is like a pipe where group is, making them unable to stray too far from the right direction. The trick is to make that pipe wide enough, because unlike some other games, in DH the acolytes of Holy Ordos can't simply decide "we don't care about this guy anymore, we go to that city and look if there's something interesting there", because that will make them traitors, heretics and prime targets for Inquisition's attention.

yeah, i also do it that way.
we have a sniper so if it is not totally unrealistic i create some points in the area i describe which the player (if he conecnetrates and stops reading the rulebook) might identify as a good vantage point for sniping, whilst the guardsman in our group loves to shoot his gun as fast as possible (hellgun, semi-auto ^^) and is very fond of ripping vilains into pieces in close combat. though i keep the plots and scenarios varying and changeing, i try to serve these needs. there also always is some tech-use part for our machine-man, which he CAN use but does NOT HAVE TO

this is simply because i know my players have a certain expectation of what their characters are like and they want possibilites which i have to offer them. i can't do that spontaneously all the time. hence i create some maps and events which i can readily employ if need be.

of course they will die if they act stupid

Jaxicle wrote:I think we all let players have varying levels of independence and make them face consequences of their actions, but I don't think it's enough for GM to only make the setting and some small hooks into it. Instead of only making the target (heretic, cult, daemonic artifact, whatever) and letting the players try to find it I design what the target does, where it is, who knows of the target (and who knows who knows of the target, etc.) and several different routes how the players might get to the target. That way I can point them to right direction if the game is moving too slow and they are out of ideas.

No offense but I wasted too much time to plan routes how players might get to the target especially since it is up to them to define the target. Every time I had a whole adventure in mind with solutions and everything the players did something different and surprised me.
And yeah, I plan too who might know what about what and some scenarios as well (like the last time when they wanted to get rid of a hive gang with the back up of a 100 guardsman with chimeras and sentinels. I planned that the gang consists of 250 members well armed and they knew the territory. The players never made some inquiries about the strength of the gang. I thought of what I would do if I were the gang leader and came up with a worst case scenario. The players thought that the gang consists of only 50 members and rushed in... In the end only 20 guardsman made it back alive and it was nearly a miracle that no PC died.)

For example, if group has no more ideas how to find the witch and the witch has a bunch of mercenaries protecting himself and keeping unwanted eyes (Inquisition?) out, PCs can overhear a couple of these mercs talking about the witch in a bar. By following or interrogating these mercs the group will get some more pieces of the puzzle and the plot will move on. Of course this may lead to a plot that is like a pipe where group is, making them unable to stray too far from the right direction. The trick is to make that pipe wide enough, because unlike some other games, in DH the acolytes of Holy Ordos can't simply decide "we don't care about this guy anymore, we go to that city and look if there's something interesting there", because that will make them traitors, heretics and prime targets for Inquisition's attention.

And that is what I do not like. If the players suddenly decide that their PCs are become heretics or that they want to run away from the Inquisition I would be in trouble. But that way I just have to adjust the plans of the involved parties.

The important thing is not to hinder them or encourange them but to stay neutral.

But yeah! I am lazy.

Guardsman wrote:No offense but I wasted too much time to plan routes how players might get to the target especially since it is up to them to define the target. Every time I had a whole adventure in mind with solutions and everything the players did something different and surprised me.

I have heard that "No story will ever survive an encounter with players". Therefore, I design some most likely routes the players will take, how to connect these routes if necessary and how to subtly steer their direction more towards my designs if players start to stray too far. I, too, never manage to run my story exactly like I designed it, but I often end up close enough so that in longer plots I don't need to throw all my future plans away after the session.

And that is what I do not like. If the players suddenly decide that their PCs are become heretics or that they want to run away from the Inquisition I would be in trouble. But that way I just have to adjust the plans of the involved parties.

The important thing is not to hinder them or encourange them but to stay neutral.

Well, players won't often go heretic and try to outrun the Inquisition, because they have seen themselves how powerful the inquisitors are and they haven't (yet) even small part of the power to fight back all those assassins, guardsmen, arbitrators and adeptus sororitas they will face if they turn traitor. Of course, in my games the players also have a lot of equipment acquired trough Inquisition, mostly weapons and armor, so they will have hard time to make sure there aren't tracking devices or traps like explosive collars hidden in their equipment.

I often find that I am a little overly nice as a GM and let my players sometimes survive things they shouldn't. I'm working on toughening up on that.

In about 15-20 years of running games only 3 instances of total party kills come to mind. 1 bad luck combined w/ insane pc doing insane things, 1 mix of bad luck and no tactics, and 1 sheer stupidity. These were in 3 different RPGs (Deadlands:Hell on Earth, WHFRP, and Recon respectively).

Even as soft as I usually am on players even I couldn't let slide the sheer idocity in the Recon game. For those of you who've never heard of it Recon is a Vietnam War rpg.

So we have a group of players and GM (who were grantedly at the time high school kids w/ no military experience among them, but still) going through a scenario where the players are way out from their own base sneaking around in the jungle searching for POWs.

They're sneaking in the jungle parallel to a major trail (so they won't get ambushed) and stumble into a semi-concealed NVA Machine gun tower. Now being the overly nice GM I am, i just decided that the guys in the MG nest were taking a smoke break and didn't notice the PC's w/o even making a roll.

So now that they found a MG tower in the jungle, do they decide to scout around a little and see what the situation is? (and thereby maybe finding the other MG tower hidden in the trees on the oposite side of the trail or the camouflaged encampment where the POW's were being held just over the hill) Of Course Not! Instead these geniuses decided it would be a good idea to start hacking at the bamboo posts of the MG tower with their machetes.

Now they were (just barely) bright enough to figure that if they stood under the platform they could avoid having the MG pointed at them, but being huddled so tight they were a perfect target to be mowed down by the MG gunner on the opposite tower when he looked to see what all the chopping noises were about. Add to that the two guys in the MG nest the PC's were chopping on opening the trap door and firing their AK-47s into the tops of the characters' heads and you have six very dumb, very dead PC's.

I just hope that, by the Emperor's grace, my Dark Heresy acolytes are a little brighter or at least will be a little more careful.

Pretty willing because there's alot of alchohol and the players random roll there characters. We're doing a demo right now..probably less willing if we make it an actual game. But I'll do it if they just screw up.

Don't worry about it too much: nothing teaches like Darwin

Jaxicle wrote:I have heard that "No story will ever survive an encounter with players". Therefore, I design some most likely routes the players will take, how to connect these routes if necessary and how to subtly steer their direction more towards my designs if players start to stray too far. I, too, never manage to run my story exactly like I designed it, but I often end up close enough so that in longer plots I don't need to throw all my future plans away after the session.

Everybody should do it the way which is suited best for him or her. I only make some preparations but I don't write much and that's it. In the end I just adjust the plot again and again and again and that's quite fun for me. Somehow it is some kind of talent that I don't need the stuff well prepared and can make the game on the run.

Well, players won't often go heretic and try to outrun the Inquisition, because they have seen themselves how powerful the inquisitors are and they haven't (yet) even small part of the power to fight back all those assassins, guardsmen, arbitrators and adeptus sororitas they will face if they turn traitor.

The Inquisition is not allmighty. Millions of mutants and other heretics running around causing mischief prove that. And right now my players are in a game where they go against another Inquisitor (although they still don't know it). If they ever decide to run away I will let them have their chance. It only depends on how they do it.

Of course, in my games the players also have a lot of equipment acquired trough Inquisition, mostly weapons and armor, so they will have hard time to make sure there aren't tracking devices or traps like explosive collars hidden in their equipment.

Not in my game! They've got their equipment and they are buying their weapons or aquiring them on the run.

I try not to kill the PCs too often. However, if it happens it happens. I prefer horribly maiming them beyond recognition

I, on the other hand, kill pc's every time I sneeze....

Locutor wrote:I, on the other hand, kill pc's every time I sneeze....

no big deal as long as you are of good health

maiming them is fun.

I want to keep em alive, I have spent a long time on the plot, but if they piss me off, hehehehe, spontaneous daemonic incursion, completely dedicated to castrating their PC.

My PCs were on a ship boarded by dark eldar. They had whole crew on their beck and call (the ship was very small and the captain was dead) and they went to investigate loud clanging noise and loss of comm with some decks all by themselves.

They were really lucky and managed to survive without much FP spending.

They all complained that I am too harsh on them.

The thing is, this is not D&D and I do not design encounters to match my PC's "level". If it is logical that there would be that many enemies that use that kind of tactics and equipment, I am not going to make them any weaker (or stronger). I prefer realism over game balance.

But, I always give them a chance, they just have to learn that they cannot fight everything. If enemies are too strong to face head on, there is always a way to triumph without charging and getting slaughtered.

Tell them you're trying to teach them value of "strategic withdrawal"

That has a much more positive ring to it than "Learn when to run away, idiots!"

DocIII wrote:Tell them you're trying to teach them value of "strategic withdrawal"

That has a much more positive ring to it than "Learn when to run away, idiots!"

I have had to teach too many vet players the importance of running away to fight another day it ain't even funny.

Retreat is not a bad option when you're out numbered--especially when you can return with bolter weapons and powerarmor and a contingent of Imp Guards behind you

I do not have to try and kill my players. They manage that all on their own. Some examples so far;

> Choosing to shoot the controls to the Teleportarium platform which was the only way of the planet with no oxygen, and all they have is what is on their suits, just because the player got annoyed at trying to figure out how the thing worked.

> Carrying around; 1 Heavy Stubber, 1 Bolt Pistol, 1 Autogun, 5 Frag grenades, glad in guardsmans flak armour, two ammunition belts wrapped around his body, walks into a bar where a hiver gang hangs out, and punch their lookout in the face...

> Psyker refusing to go down and accept result continue to use Healing minor power on himself.

> Sneaking around in the underhive tunnels, they smell prometeum fuel vapours. About 5 minutes later one of the players spots a large spider above them in the tunnel, and panic firing his one shot flamer straight up. BOOM!

Arioch wrote:I do not have to try and kill my players. They manage that all on their own. Some examples so far;

> Choosing to shoot the controls to the Teleportarium platform which was the only way of the planet with no oxygen, and all they have is what is on their suits, just because the player got annoyed at trying to figure out how the thing worked.

And of course you told them it was their door out before they shot the thing apart? Or at least allowed intelligence test to realise this before the thing went bang?

> Carrying around; 1 Heavy Stubber, 1 Bolt Pistol, 1 Autogun, 5 Frag grenades, clad in guardsmans flak armour, two ammunition belts wrapped around his body, walks into a bar where a hiver gang hangs out, and punch their lookout in the face...

Good old habit of picking a fight you can't win. I've seen plenty of these, both IRL and in RPGs. To be honest, I've even killed few my own characters this way, though not as openly as your guy.

> Psyker refusing to go down and accept result continue to use Healing minor power on himself.

Too bad that power doesn't cure stupidity, though that painful backfire can help. But to repeatedly do the same mistake in rather a short time, that takes some real effort. There is considerable similarity between this and the "an IG armory walks into a bar full of gangsters and punches the lookout"-episode above. Same player, perhaps?

> Sneaking around in the underhive tunnels, they smell prometeum fuel vapours. About 5 minutes later one of the players spots a large spider above them in the tunnel, and panic firing his one shot flamer straight up. BOOM!

I would have allowed intelligence test with +10 or +20 to realise the mistake before blowing up the tunnels. I mean, they have a flamer, they know the stuff in it's fuel-tank is flammable and they can smell the same stuff in the air around them. It's like a guy throwing a molotov to the ground while standing in puddle of gasoline. By the way, I remember reading that prometeum gets ablaze when contacted with air, so those vapours sound a bit weird.

Jaxicle: Believe me, they knew what they were doing. They knew fully well that the teleportarium platform was the only way to get back to their ship. And I constantly mentioned the smell of the prometium fuel vapours.

And it was not the same player that played the two characters. They just both tend to do things like that.

Well, if they were perfectly aware of what they were doing and what were the consequences, they deserved to die. Doing things like that don't count as deaths caused by stupidity, they count as suicides. Still, I can't see why a group would commit mass-suicide...

A slightly different point of view, in our game the GM seems very reluctant to kill/maim us! Now i don't mind rolling about with my mono sword dispatching the emperors justice left right and center but i'd like to at least find it a challenge.

In our five sessions to date my Assassin character hasn't taken a single wound! Not because i am some tactical genius or even very lucky, i get the impression he'd rather be nice to us than cause our characters any real harm.

So I say that the 40k universe is full of mutants, heretics, witches, corruption, bad guys and most of all guns! At best acolytes will stem the tide of darkness for a short while. Regardless of wether your players make stupid choices/ are unlucky at least make your setting full of the inherant danger of the larger universe and NEVER be afraid to kill a PC.

For me it depends on familiarity with the setting. If they know that four 5th level characters seriously aren't a match for two Dire Avengers, then fair enough, they'll hopefully run off and that'll be that (thinking their way out of it makes me lenient!). But if they perpetually do silly things in spite of their knowledge, then it'd be the fair result that they die.

On the otherhand, if they've no idea what a Warboss is and no idea who the Deciever is, then I think I'd be a bit lenient (or a bit illustrative...).

Basically, it depends on how willing they are to have their characters killed off. Killing them off senselessly is one thing, killing them off with purpose, plot defence and simply saying "Well, look at the situation, someone was highly likely to die...", that's fair enough.

I don't think I've enough (or little enough) moral fibre to simply kill off people because they're annoying me.

I'm neither "willing" nor "unwilling" to kill my PCs. I provide them the setting, and make the setting react to them as is realistic and appropriate. Whether they die or not depends on how well they play, and a bit on how lucky they are.

I have given due warning to my PCs pre game that the 40k universe is harsh and you can die from a particularly (un)fortunate round of fire from gribblies if you make yourself a target. However, on that note, I believe it is important to reward creative gaming from the PCs, so if they go about a confrontation in a well constructed and cinematic manner then I will happily skew the battle in their favor, dice rolls willing. In fact, the combat system does this quite well, with aiming, surprising, hiding, etc. greatly enhancing your chances of surviving by a) killing the gribblies and b) not getting killed by the gribblies.

I've also got 2c to contribute in regards to Guardsman's statement about tailoring the mission for the group: Personally, I think that spotlight moments are a great way to enhance the enjoyment of players, and reinforce just why they are using that character in the first place. In the case of the sniper, give them that situation where they are the parties only hope at stopping that fellow escaping in a shuttle, or the best chance at neutralizing a distant threat. Give the techpriest an opportunity to sabotage a generator, or wire a cogitator to gain info.
But don't pin these situations to a particular location or time, as inevitably the party will be on the opposite side of the hive when you decide that the event will occur. Have them as little tidbits that can be thrown in at any time just to liven up the plotline and make the acolytes indispensable.

But more importantly, I'm all for killing off characters when they get into 'killable' situations. Fate points are there to save the PCs, not me

damnitsham wrote:I have given due warning to my PCs pre game that the 40k universe is harsh and you can die from a particularly (un)fortunate round of fire from gribblies if you make yourself a target. However, on that note, I believe it is important to reward creative gaming from the PCs, so if they go about a confrontation in a well constructed and cinematic manner then I will happily skew the battle in their favor, dice rolls willing. In fact, the combat system does this quite well, with aiming, surprising, hiding, etc. greatly enhancing your chances of surviving by a) killing the gribblies and b) not getting killed by the gribblies.

You're right, using simple advantages like cover (even waist-high wall of sandbags, because for some reason left leg takes the most hits in my games) can seriously help the survival rate of players. Of course this may lead to some rather interesting choices (when my players were attacking cult hideout in low-hive sewers, one of them took crank cannon and rest of them took sandbags so that they could make gun-emplacement if needed) but most of those weird ideas a) work and b) are completely within the rules.

I've also got 2c to contribute in regards to Guardsman's statement about tailoring the mission for the group: Personally, I think that spotlight moments are a great way to enhance the enjoyment of players, and reinforce just why they are using that character in the first place. In the case of the sniper, give them that situation where they are the parties only hope at stopping that fellow escaping in a shuttle, or the best chance at neutralizing a distant threat. Give the techpriest an opportunity to sabotage a generator, or wire a cogitator to gain info.
But don't pin these situations to a particular location or time, as inevitably the party will be on the opposite side of the hive when you decide that the event will occur. Have them as little tidbits that can be thrown in at any time just to liven up the plotline and make the acolytes indispensable.

I think I said this earlier, but I also make these "now is your time to shine"-moments into my game. For example, if there is a sniper in the group, I let him choose a good shooting position (maybe some concealment-rolls here and there) before the rest of the group runs in guns blazing, because if he has no time to prepare the fight is over before he gets to the position.

But more importantly, I'm all for killing off characters when they get into 'killable' situations. Fate points are there to save the PCs, not me

One of my players was rather suprised to find out the fate points don't come back. He had been thinking "oh I can do that too, and with fate points I get out with not even a slap to the wrist", but when he asked how often they came back his character suddenly grew up instict to protect himself.

I never force my players into combat. If they fight, it's their own fault, and therfore they will have to deal with it.

During the first "real" combat that my players decided to get into (they ambushed 2 lone cultists earlyer on), one of the characters got down to critical, and the other (a guardsman, with 14 wounds) got down to two wounds. The players survived because the guardsman was lucky with his die rolls. When combat starts, i wont save the players from the dice.