Total Party Wipeout!

[Reagren Wright]

For two weeks in a row the entire party has all but died. Now do I take the credit as a G.M.
or do I look at poor party planning. And when I say poor party planning, I mean really bad
party planning. If you going up against vampires, it might be a good idea to hold up a cross
So I ask my fellow G.M.s out there how often have you players been completely
annihilated. Was it because your fiendish G.M. skills or poor party planning? Let the debate
begin.

[Severus Snape]

As a GM, I intentionally go out of my way to NOT kill party members. I tone down monsters to an appropriate level for the party, making them hard enough so it's a challenge, but a challenge the players will overcome eventually.

TPK's in my games are due more to players being idiotic than my cleverness. A great example of this was in a campaign for AD&D where the party (which consisted of a high level mage, a high level priest, and a high level warrior) finally got to the lair of a black dragon and were getting ready to take it out. They didn't do any scouting of the area before-hand, and found out the hard way that you had to swim to the bottom of a 1,000 foot deep lake and then make your way through a series of maze-like tunnels before surfacing inside the dragon's lair. So they get to the area, realize they have to go underwater, and the mage proceeds to spend a few hours (in game time) to memorize enough water-breathing spells so they can make the swim. HE WAS RIGHT ON THE BEACH, which the dragon can see from his lair (scrying is a wonderful thing). The players then jump in the water, swim to the bottom, and the water breathing spells start to wear off. They start to navigate the tunnels and get lost even after I told them that maybe there is a better way, or that maybe there might be a map in a library somewhere. Nope - let's press on, they say. The water breathing spells completely fail while they are still underwater, and the mage drowns (3 natural 20s when trying to make a constitution check underwater is not good). The fighter and thief have decent constitution scores, so they hold their breath just long enough to finally make it, and the dragon is ready for them. Darkness is cast by the dragon prior to them getting there, so when they surface they can't see. The dragon then begins to cast lightning bolt at the water, semi-crisping the characters. They finally get out of the water, the darkness ends, and they are face to face with the beast. Who is much larger than they originally thought (they were expecting juvenile, they got mature adult). Do they run? "Come on - we can take this thing." Stupid. Their bodies were found floating downstream a few days later by the characters they ended up creating after they died.

[Killer Cyborg]

: So I ask my fellow G.M.s out there how often have you players been completely
annihilated.

Too many times to count.

Was it because your fiendish G.M. skills or poor party planning? Let the debate
begin.

Either or both.
It runs the spectrum.
In the early years of Rifts, the GMs didn't have a good gauge on what they party could survive, and the players all tried to play Rifts like it was 2nd edition D&D (i.e., just keep attacking and hope that you kill the enemy before it kills you).

After a year or so of nobody surviving past 2nd level, I finally made a vagabond who lived until 4th level.
He survived because instead of just leaping into the fray, he ran, ducked behind cover, hid, and took other measures to protect himself.
Initially, he did this because he had to- he started off without any armor.
When he finally died, it was because he had gotten some good armor (old school Heavy Dead Boy armor), and he got cocky.

But after that, we started to learn how to survive. The first step, just like in real life, is to avoid letting people stab, shoot, or otherwise successfully attack you.
The armor is there for the times when you screw up, for when things go really wrong.
So we started learning tactics that would help us survive, and to kill the enemy.

Also, our GMs got better at gauging encounter, which ones the party could handle, and which ones they couldn't.
And when we got in over our heads, we knew to run.

[Tiree]

I have never had a total party kill as a GM. I under power the encounter specifically for challenge, not for a kill.

As a player, I have never been in a TPK - till a GM decided that all missiles are considered hot (and will explode doing damage) when they are hit. A player had fumbled their attack roll. The GM rolled a Nat 20 for an attack roll, while the player rolled a 1. The ensuing explosion took out the two lead players. But due to the fact we were in a tunnel... under a mountain... the explosion was more impressive. It took out the party vehicle, which carried extra explosives. That also exploded, causing more damage. If the death of the party due to explosion was not enough, the collapse of the tunnel would be.

[Akashic Soldier]

: So I ask my fellow G.M.s out there how often have you players been completely
annihilated.

Too many times to count.

Was it because your fiendish G.M. skills or poor party planning? Let the debate
begin.

Either or both.
It runs the spectrum.
In the early years of Rifts, the GMs didn't have a good gauge on what they party could survive, and the players all tried to play Rifts like it was 2nd edition D&D (i.e., just keep attacking and hope that you kill the enemy before it kills you).

After a year or so of nobody surviving past 2nd level, I finally made a vagabond who lived until 4th level.
He survived because instead of just leaping into the fray, he ran, ducked behind cover, hid, and took other measures to protect himself.
Initially, he did this because he had to- he started off without any armor.
When he finally died, it was because he had gotten some good armor (old school Heavy Dead Boy armor), and he got cocky.

But after that, we started to learn how to survive. The first step, just like in real life, is to avoid letting people stab, shoot, or otherwise successfully attack you.
The armor is there for the times when you screw up, for when things go really wrong.
So we started learning tactics that would help us survive, and to kill the enemy.

Also, our GMs got better at gauging encounter, which ones the party could handle, and which ones they couldn't.
And when we got in over our heads, we knew to run.

I think thats where we're at just starting out. My players are used to being the top dogs and dispatching enemies on mass and I am trying to drill into their heads that as level one characters in Rifts they have to fight smart. Running into melee and hacking at the skelebot isn't always the smartest thing to do. (The whole party would have died if I had not already stated them out as "out dated used models with faulty AI.")

I am hoping that people start to get over their "Pffft why'd I use a gun mentality" and start fighting more strategically because when I take off the kiddies gloves if they don't think they're going to die and I don't think anyone will enjoy that.

Here's a good bit of advice from my own personal experience so far... out numbering your PC group will kill them if they are Melee combatants relying on Psi-Swords or low-MD weapons.

[the Captain]

Killing the whole party off can happen if you let it. Some players will stupidly continue to use the same weapon over and over, even though what they are fighting is impervious to it(what do you mean it's having no effect, it does 5D6 MD). I have also rolled a natural 20 against a player characters 1, some times you just got to fluff a roll(that IS why the GM screen was invented). Or had players that never tried to dodge or take cover, or buy new armor when theirs needed to be replaced. Usually at the end of a session I will explain to the players what they are doing wrong, sometimes you have to hold an in game intervention. Like: your CS ninja dude is trained to use cover and tactics to take down superior opponents, so why are you running at them with a battle cry? The character WOULDN'T DO THAT, and frankly neither would you unless you are trying to kill yourself...

I sometimes think the toughest part of GMing is giving the players a real challenge without killing them. The players can certainly be counter productive to your efforts to keep the characters alive and adventuring.

I had a player character that went into town, got pick-pocketed and noticed, then shot the kid with an MD energy pistol on the street, in front of the whole town. Let's just say the town got really unfriendly, but instead of making a run for it, the player group got all self-righteous. The rest of the session was a siege with the players holed up in a house and the town surrounding them. Eventually the players surrendered, I told them to roll up new characters, because they were going to have a show trial and be executed. One of the players protested, but I told him there was no chance they would get a fair trial, I didn't want to play Rifts Perry Mason for weeks in a row, and felt it best to put the whole episode behind us as a group. I had made several attempts throughout the session to get the players to make a run for it, but they got stubborn and kept digging a deeper hole for themselves. In those situations you can either get all deus ex machina, or just start the killing.

I don't think that it is wrong to kill player characters, the whole point is that they are staring death in they eye and not blinking. Although I feel it should happen rarely and ideally be dramatic or heroic. Having a character die in a trap isn't as interesting as having a character get seriously injured by the trap and the rest of the group come to the rescue. Yeah, sure the dice rolls should have killed the PC outright, but as the GM look at the story options that are available to you, fluff the rolls as appropriate.

The PCs that went on trial in the above example, were on the trail of a missing treasure. I had spent a whole month setting up the story, and getting the players intrigued. The players rolled up new characters and their first adventure was to hunt down some real scoundrels, that had attacked a town and escaped justice. They had to collect a bounty on their old characters, in game I passed the adventure forward to the new PCs with one of the old characters negotiating for his life in exchange for what he knew.

[Killer Cyborg]

But after that, we started to learn how to survive. The first step, just like in real life, is to avoid letting people stab, shoot, or otherwise successfully attack you.
The armor is there for the times when you screw up, for when things go really wrong.
So we started learning tactics that would help us survive, and to kill the enemy.

Also, our GMs got better at gauging encounter, which ones the party could handle, and which ones they couldn't.
And when we got in over our heads, we knew to run.

I think thats where we're at just starting out. My players are used to being the top dogs and dispatching enemies on mass and I am trying to drill into their heads that as level one characters in Rifts they have to fight smart. Running into melee and hacking at the skelebot isn't always the smartest thing to do. (The whole party would have died if I had not already stated them out as "out dated used models with faulty AI.")

I am hoping that people start to get over their "Pffft why'd I use a gun mentality" and start fighting more strategically because when I take off the kiddies gloves if they don't think they're goineg to die and I don't think anyone will enjoy that.

Here's a good bit of advice from my own personal experience so far... out numbering your PC group will kill them if they are Melee combatants relying on Psi-Swords or low-MD weapons.

You might be interested in a few old conversations I've had on the subject.
Here's one that revolves around armor repair, but that also heavily gets into my perceptions on how to survive in Rifts, as well as a bit on running/balancing encounters as a GM.
Including this example of the kind of encounter I try to aim for.

Here is another thread about game balance, specifically in the original Rifts book. Different tactics and abilities are discussed in that context, along with a bit more info on my Vagabond.

Here is another, covering similar ground, with various people weighing in. I think this thread is the longest of my "don't get shot" explanations (for people who don't get it), though the Armor Repair thread comes close.

[Akashic Soldier]

I'll check it out first thing in the morning Cyborg! Thank you!

I just finished tonights session -- and though it didn't go as I'd planned I'll admit I am kind of proud of them and I'm going to have to step up my game. You can read about it here.

Simple but it proved especially effective (this one time).

[Noon]

It's funny how if they are winning, everything makes sense and its a real and genuine game world. But if they lose, it's just the GM killing them. It's funny how a sense of an existant world never goes against them.

[the Captain]

It's funny how if they are winning, everything makes sense and its a real and genuine game world. But if they lose, it's just the GM killing them. It's funny how a sense of an existant world never goes against them.

Yeah, but it's a game. Your not aiming for hyper realism, certainly not in Rifts. How lame would it be to spend hours on a character and then get hit by a car and killed on your first day in the 'burbs. Sure it would be in the realm of possibility and portray the world in a realistic light, but that wouldn't be fun for anyone other than a megalomaniac of a GM.

This is just my opinion, but I think the whole point is to have a good time. If your character is getting massacred every or every other session, you might not be enjoying yourself. If your telling an epic tale of heroism, how can you have any continuity if all the heros have been replaced a couple times. It's a game, there should be a story, the story revolves around the player characters, you roll some dice and everyone has some fun.

I feel that when a character dies, the player should be proud of how their character died. I take liberties with the dice and the story so the players enjoy the game, I want them to be excited about the next big reveal or plot twist. I don't make it a cake walk, the attrition rate of power armor is pretty high in my games. I had a player go through two suits of SAMAS in one session, at one point he was flying around and fighting with a broken leg, and half his SDC gone. You should be tough on them, but your job isn't to kill them at every twist and turn. The second crash put him in a coma, or near enough.

All that said, the only cure for a stupid player is a blank character sheet.

[Myrrhibis]

I feel that when a character dies, the player should be proud of how their character died. I take liberties with the dice and the story so the players enjoy the game, I want them to be excited about the next big reveal or plot twist. I don't make it a cake walk, the attrition rate of power armor is pretty high in my games. I had a player go through two suits of SAMAS in one session, at one point he was flying around and fighting with a broken leg, and half his SDC gone. You should be tough on them, but your job isn't to kill them at every twist and turn. The second crash put him in a coma, or near enough.

All that said, the only cure for a stupid player is a blank character sheet.

Well said. Just as the stupid-deaths are the things of legend years later, so too are the epic or heroic deaths. The last line made me LOL, but it's sadly too true as well.

(reference: Even better is the resurrection that leaves an appropriate insanity, that causes the player to flip out. Flaming gay Undead Slayer PC resurrects other PC who died heroically - rezed PC has insanity of (using original Insanity table from PFRPG) Sexual Deviation - switch teams, and thus was *very* grateful to the Undead Slayer. Sadly, the player was very homophobic, and tore up his character sheet despite my GM offer of in game, going back to the Psi-Healer in the last town for treatment. If everyone else at the table didn't think the insanity was appropriate for the situation, I'd have changed it. But... ah well. Makes for a good story about how randomly fitting insanity-rolls can be)

[Reagren Wright]

The worse part of the whole thing, I think one player deliberately sabatoged the game just so we could switch from Fantasy
to Aliens Unlimited. Nevertheless, poor planing management is what essentially killed their characters. The sad part is I'm
not trying to kill their characters but they do stuff that despite my best efforts gets them killed. You do A then B will
happen. I can only steer them in the direction of C for so long for B catches up to them. If only someone held a cross in
their hand

[DhAkael]

It's been years since I've enacted a TPK event.
I've been fortunate most of my crew(s) have had more sense than gawd gave your average garden-slug/lemming/grouse.
That is NOT to say I haven't whacked a few PC's (individually) when they (or their players) have been exceptionally dense.

[Noon]

It's funny how if they are winning, everything makes sense and its a real and genuine game world. But if they lose, it's just the GM killing them. It's funny how a sense of an existant world never goes against them.

Yeah, but it's a game. Your not aiming for hyper realism, certainly not in Rifts. How lame would it be to spend hours on a character and then get hit by a car and killed on your first day in the 'burbs. Sure it would be in the realm of possibility and portray the world in a realistic light, but that wouldn't be fun for anyone other than a megalomaniac of a GM.

This is just my opinion, but I think the whole point is to have a good time. If your character is getting massacred every or every other session, you might not be enjoying yourself. If your telling an epic tale of heroism, how can you have any continuity if all the heros have been replaced a couple times. It's a game, there should be a story, the story revolves around the player characters, you roll some dice and everyone has some fun.

I feel that when a character dies, the player should be proud of how their character died. I take liberties with the dice and the story so the players enjoy the game, I want them to be excited about the next big reveal or plot twist. I don't make it a cake walk, the attrition rate of power armor is pretty high in my games. I had a player go through two suits of SAMAS in one session, at one point he was flying around and fighting with a broken leg, and half his SDC gone. You should be tough on them, but your job isn't to kill them at every twist and turn. The second crash put him in a coma, or near enough.

All that said, the only cure for a stupid player is a blank character sheet.

If you and the players acknowledge that your PC's can't die (or can't die 'unless you do something really stupid'), its not a game that includes PC death, then fair enough. That's valid.

Otherwise your fun is an exercise in denial, denying the fact that your PC can't die but getting excited over the supposed life risking escapades.

Hopefully it's the former. But it sounds like it's the latter, with a set of scales where you've piled on a million reasons not to kill PC's on one side, and nothing on the other side.

[the Captain]

If you and the players acknowledge that your PC's can't die (or can't die 'unless you do something really stupid'), its not a game that includes PC death, then fair enough. That's valid.

Otherwise your fun is an exercise in denial, denying the fact that your PC can't die but getting excited over the supposed life risking escapades.

Hopefully it's the former. But it sounds like it's the latter, with a set of scales where you've piled on a million reasons not to kill PC's on one side, and nothing on the other side.

I'm having trouble understanding how you would think, from what I have written in this thread, that PCs can't die in one of my games. I think there is a big difference between a death that impacts the story and pointless wholesale slaughter of PCs. I played in a game once where the GM killed two PCs with dysentery, because they didn't emphatically say they purified the water when they filled some canteens and failed some constitution checks. Sure it might have been realistic but it wasn't fun. After that session the player group split because it was completely stupid. Some GMs go off on a god trip, busting everyones nuts about minutia, using every little excuse to run 'em through the meatgrinder. I have seen GMs kill player characters because "the group needed reminding" or just to be sadistic.

When I read your comments, it seems like you see the GM and Players in some kind of contest, the GM vs Players or something. I find that disappointing, it sells Role playing short, makes it little more than Roll playing.

I GM because I enjoy telling stories and having characters that bring something unexpected to that story, even if it's just being funny. As the GM, I have the ability to introduce new story elements, control what happens outside of the player characters. If a player tells me his character walked across the street, I don't run him over with a car because the character didn't look both ways. As GM, I control what is going on around them, I have the ability to use the story to intervene when everyone forgets their character has a higher IQ than they do. Player characters can bungle their way through a fight, I might have to have some veteran come along and save the day.

Let's use a famous example from the beginning of Star Wars ANH; Luke goes and checks out the Sandpeople with 3PO, which is face palm level PC stupid. Of course he ends up getting knocked out, and is about to die. Now let's say your the GM, this is the first session, and your PC's just did this. Sure, you can kill them, it's realistic, it's unlikely that ANYONE else is in the junland wastes or whatever it's called. But why, what purpose is it going to serve? Who is going to rescue the princess? Maybe Link or Mario is available? How is the story progressing and why the hell are you bothering to GM? In my game, old Ben shows up and saves the day, it moves the story along, rather than wasting the rest of the session rolling up another moronic farm boy.

Can player characters die? Sure of course, they elect to run around with guns and swords trying to kill others in one fashion or another. They are trying to do dangerous stuff, but there is also a story(or there should be) and you have to take that into account. Wasting characters for no good reason isn't logically justifiable in the context of a role playing game, the caveat being that you just don't give a damn about the story. Yeah, sometimes you have to go all Deus Ex Machina to keep things moving along, or your can just scrap the whole thing because "thems the breaks" and your just reading the adventure out of a book.

Listen, if your not getting this, I might not be able to explain it to you. You can have whatever style of game you want at the end of the day. Wanna go ultra gritty, then go for it. I advocate using your powers as GM to tell a better story, killing off a PC might not be the best way to tell the story. Bringing a PC to the brink might be what the story needs, inject the right level of drama, make the other players rush around trying to save him. Or you can turn the guy into an evaporating red mist and the other player characters don't even blink. I have seen groups solidify when saving another player character, and I have seen player groups dissolve over a character getting killed.

What are your goals as a GM? If all you want to do is see each PC get kicked in the nuts in every session, then I think your not getting a big part of role playing games. If I am misreading your comments, then so be it, this is just my big dumb fancy opinion anyhow.

[Akashic Soldier]

I agree with the Captain but I intentionally do not have a safety net for my PC's. If they screw up and are beaten to death by Sand People THEY (the team) are expected to have a counter strategy to bail out their fellow or keep him holding on long enough to get to a someone who can treat his injuries.

I cultivate the GM verse the players atmosphere (but a lot of it is an illusion to keep my PC's on their feet and thinking quick). If you want an example of my eccentric style of play you can read all about it in the "GOING TO FAR?" thread. I'd love to see if people think I am a monster of a GM. One of my players recently complained that he rushed carelessly into what he knew was Ninja laying in wait, didn't declare he checked the door, and so I had the grenade trap they'd rigged go off on him when he declared he "threw the door open."

I am still not sure I was out of line for doing it because he didn't declare he stopped and used his skill to check for traps he just rushed out there and he knew they had grenades (and they'd legitimately made their demolitions roll). Of course, he survived. But I wouldn't be too worried if he didn't. It would suck and could damage my story but I'd trust my other PC's to get to him and help him out before he bled out.

[the Captain]

I agree with the Captain but I intentionally do not have a safety net for my PC's. If they screw up and are beaten to death by Sand People THEY (the team) are expected to have a counter strategy to bail out their fellow or keep him holding on long enough to get to a someone who can treat his injuries.

I cultivate the GM verse the players atmosphere (but a lot of it is an illusion to keep my PC's on their feet and thinking quick). If you want an example of my eccentric style of play you can read all about it in the "GOING TO FAR?" thread. I'd love to see if people think I am a monster of a GM. One of my players recently complained that he rushed carelessly into what he knew was Ninja laying in wait, didn't declare he checked the door, and so I had the grenade trap they'd rigged go off on him when he declared he "threw the door open."

I am still not sure I was out of line for doing it because he didn't declare he stopped and used his skill to check for traps he just rushed out there and he knew they had grenades (and they'd legitimately made their demolitions roll). Of course, he survived. But I wouldn't be too worried if he didn't. It would suck and could damage my story but I'd trust my other PC's to get to him and help him out before he bled out.

Yup, and I still think you should try a session without the Ninja dice check.

Try this in your next campaign. Sit down and come up with a story that you want to explore. Write a two paragraph synopsis about it, give it to the players and ask them what characters they would play in that story. Don't give them the ending, just a rough outline of what is going on and what the expected level of involvement for the PCs might be. Take the characters they create and write them into your story. Structure your gaming sessions around acts, like in a play.

One of the first gaming groups I played with was made up of theater and art room geeks from my HS. The players were really actors(well amateur) and the GM would bring these incredible hand drawn maps to the sessions. Everyone was in character with accents(no costumes, thank god), and whole sessions got spent with us telling ghost stories around the campfire. That had a big impact on how I perceive role playing games, and the relationship between players and a GM. In that group the GM was effectively providing a service to the players, we even paid dues(5 bucks a session) to play because the guy put so much work into the game.

I totally get it, it can be loads of fun to play samurai chompaloo with ray-guns. But there is also a chance to be creative, to come up with something that isn't in the books, to tell a story that is completely original. Samurai chompaloo has a great story, and it unravels nicely with lots of twist and turns. Now think for a moment, how would that show have been if the main characters got wasted in the second episode? It would have sucked. There would be all this set up, and then nothing.

Yeah, you can totally be "that's all she wrote" but I think GMing is much more than that. I think you should try exploring it a bit more, focus on the story, the action will create itself.

[Akashic Soldier]

Yup, and I still think you should try a session without the Ninja dice check.

Try this in your next campaign. Sit down and come up with a story that you want to explore. Write a two paragraph synopsis about it, give it to the players and ask them what characters they would play in that story. Don't give them the ending, just a rough outline of what is going on and what the expected level of involvement for the PCs might be. Take the characters they create and write them into your story. Structure your gaming sessions around acts, like in a play.

One of the first gaming groups I played with was made up of theater and art room geeks from my HS. The players were really actors(well amateur) and the GM would bring these incredible hand drawn maps to the sessions. Everyone was in character with accents(no costumes, thank god), and whole sessions got spent with us telling ghost stories around the campfire. That had a big impact on how I perceive role playing games, and the relationship between players and a GM. In that group the GM was effectively providing a service to the players, we even paid dues(5 bucks a session) to play because the guy put so much work into the game.

I totally get it, it can be loads of fun to play samurai chompaloo with ray-guns. But there is also a chance to be creative, to come up with something that isn't in the books, to tell a story that is completely original. Samurai chompaloo has a great story, and it unravels nicely with lots of twist and turns. Now think for a moment, how would that show have been if the main characters got wasted in the second episode? It would have sucked. There would be all this set up, and then nothing.

Yeah, you can totally be "that's all she wrote" but I think GMing is much more than that. I think you should try exploring it a bit more, focus on the story, the action will create itself.

OH!!! I do write a plot I just don't post it here until its unfolded in game because I have players that read the forum!

I have a very specific arc planned out, its just I had mini-stories that I intend them to play out like scenes.

For instance... in the first adventure I wrote I goofed because I planned out Event A through X and basically set them to " trigger" when the players entered that scene or location on the map. Then how they responded to that was up to them. The mistake I made was I planed that they'd be about level 5 or 6 by the time they got to Event X, Y, and Z and the NPC's I'd made were much stronger. Of course after exposure to Event A they ran past all the others, intentionally avoiding them, and ran head long into the main story arc.

Now everything is unfolding, I've managed to have enough Ninja survivors from their battles to FINALLY reveal that they have been gathering data and the survivors could form B.A.N.D (The Black Armband Ninja Division) and team up with Doctor Bastardstro to build At' Lan the evil Robot Double of Al'Lan (The Ronin) so they can use it to kill him off, then have the robot return to the Evil Empire and so the rebellion can see "Al'Lan" defeated (which will be the robot) by the current Emperor so their hope is crushed. At least that' s B.A.N.D's plan as much as I'll go into here.

I have set it out the same way I would set out a series continuity (which is one of the jobs I do part time in real life) but the D4 (works as you'd hoped, works but with unforeseen consequences, fails, and Ninja) Rule is just to handle things that aren't going to impact the meta-plot in any real way. Check out the last post I made as an example of the metaplot coming together. I am a bit burnt out from writing today so I won't finish up but yeah I totally get what you mean. I have a story, well a "first season" I just had not expected my PC's to do episode 11,12,13 before they'd done 1-10.

[Noon]

If you and the players acknowledge that your PC's can't die (or can't die 'unless you do something really stupid'), its not a game that includes PC death, then fair enough. That's valid.

Otherwise your fun is an exercise in denial, denying the fact that your PC can't die but getting excited over the supposed life risking escapades.

Hopefully it's the former. But it sounds like it's the latter, with a set of scales where you've piled on a million reasons not to kill PC's on one side, and nothing on the other side.

I'm having trouble understanding how you would think, from what I have written in this thread, that PCs can't die in one of my games. I think there is a big difference between a death that impacts the story and pointless wholesale slaughter of PCs. I played in a game once where the GM killed two PCs with dysentery, because they didn't emphatically say they purified the water when they filled some canteens and failed some constitution checks. Sure it might have been realistic but it wasn't fun. After that session the player group split because it was completely stupid. Some GMs go off on a god trip, busting everyones nuts about minutia, using every little excuse to run 'em through the meatgrinder. I have seen GMs kill player characters because "the group needed reminding" or just to be sadistic.

When I read your comments, it seems like you see the GM and Players in some kind of contest, the GM vs Players or something. I find that disappointing, it sells Role playing short, makes it little more than Roll playing.

I GM because I enjoy telling stories and having characters that bring something unexpected to that story, even if it's just being funny. As the GM, I have the ability to introduce new story elements, control what happens outside of the player characters. If a player tells me his character walked across the street, I don't run him over with a car because the character didn't look both ways. As GM, I control what is going on around them, I have the ability to use the story to intervene when everyone forgets their character has a higher IQ than they do. Player characters can bungle their way through a fight, I might have to have some veteran come along and save the day.

Let's use a famous example from the beginning of Star Wars ANH; Luke goes and checks out the Sandpeople with 3PO, which is face palm level PC stupid. Of course he ends up getting knocked out, and is about to die. Now let's say your the GM, this is the first session, and your PC's just did this. Sure, you can kill them, it's realistic, it's unlikely that ANYONE else is in the junland wastes or whatever it's called. But why, what purpose is it going to serve? Who is going to rescue the princess? Maybe Link or Mario is available? How is the story progressing and why the hell are you bothering to GM? In my game, old Ben shows up and saves the day, it moves the story along, rather than wasting the rest of the session rolling up another moronic farm boy.

Can player characters die? Sure of course, they elect to run around with guns and swords trying to kill others in one fashion or another. They are trying to do dangerous stuff, but there is also a story(or there should be) and you have to take that into account. Wasting characters for no good reason isn't logically justifiable in the context of a role playing game, the caveat being that you just don't give a damn about the story. Yeah, sometimes you have to go all Deus Ex Machina to keep things moving along, or your can just scrap the whole thing because "thems the breaks" and your just reading the adventure out of a book.

Listen, if your not getting this, I might not be able to explain it to you. You can have whatever style of game you want at the end of the day. Wanna go ultra gritty, then go for it. I advocate using your powers as GM to tell a better story, killing off a PC might not be the best way to tell the story. Bringing a PC to the brink might be what the story needs, inject the right level of drama, make the other players rush around trying to save him. Or you can turn the guy into an evaporating red mist and the other player characters don't even blink. I have seen groups solidify when saving another player character, and I have seen player groups dissolve over a character getting killed.

What are your goals as a GM? If all you want to do is see each PC get kicked in the nuts in every session, then I think your not getting a big part of role playing games. If I am misreading your comments, then so be it, this is just my big dumb fancy opinion anyhow.

Yeah, you've got a million good reasons not to kill PC's. It's just that you wont admit, like a vegetarian wont eat meat (they possibly can, but wont), that you wont kill PC's/wont allow the system, should it come to it, to result in PC death.

As I said quite clearly before, I'm fine with a game where PC's can't die (again, even with that vague 'unless you do something stupid' caveat).

I'm just not fine with nodding along when someone tries to leave the impression that PC can (just due to regular gameplay) die, when really they can't, because the GM just wont let that happen.

Are you trying to give the impression PC's can die in your game even though A: the system can't force that to happen so B: If you don't like it/don't want it to happen, it wont? Or am I mistakenly reading that your trying to give that impression and instead your group all know PC's can't die (barring the caveat above)?

[the Captain]

Yeah, you've got a million good reasons not to kill PC's. It's just that you wont admit, like a vegetarian wont eat meat (they possibly can, but wont), that you wont kill PC's/wont allow the system, should it come to it, to result in PC death.

As I said quite clearly before, I'm fine with a game where PC's can't die (again, even with that vague 'unless you do something stupid' caveat).

I'm just not fine with nodding along when someone tries to leave the impression that PC can (just due to regular gameplay) die, when really they can't, because the GM just wont let that happen.

Are you trying to give the impression PC's can die in your game even though A: the system can't force that to happen so B: If you don't like it/don't want it to happen, it wont? Or am I mistakenly reading that your trying to give that impression and instead your group all know PC's can't die (barring the caveat above)?

Your logic is flawed or your philosophy isn't clearly thought out. I am not sure of what you are even commenting on at this point...

[Noon]

When someone doesn't get something, they could just as much say that the logic is flawed.

It's not hard to get that if someone has a million reasons why they don't like X in their game*, X is not going to happen in their game, ever.

Here X = PC death.

Or my logic is flawed and when someone really doesn't like X, it shows up lots in their game anyway. Does someone here think that's the case?

* RPG written in the traditional way.

[Killer Cyborg]

When someone doesn't get something, they could just as much say that the logic is flawed.

Conversely, sometimes when somebody's logic is flawed, they attempt to defend it with "YOU just don't understand!"
Unless there is some way to definitively prove things, it is at this point in the conversation where both sides are best off leaving things alone.

It's not hard to get that if someone has a million reasons why they don't like X in their game*, X is not going to happen in their game, ever.

Here X = PC death.

Seems hard to get to me.
I don't like PC death, for a million reasons (give or take), and that's exactly why it is going to happen in my games.
Because if there's never any penalties, there's never any risk.

[Chronicle]

I tend to wait for players to kill themselves, i put in rules that would allow such a thing, but as a GM a dead PC can't feel emotionally scaring pain

[SpiritInterface]

As a GM of 30 years of playing RPG games I have only had 3 total party wipes and all of them caused by the players themselves.

I may set up encounters that might maul the characters real bad but I always leave a way for the party to survive(sometimes with only their underwear and their dignity). Sometimes as a GM you need to use the giant nerf clue bat on your players to get them to think, but unless they are wearing the giant nerf helmet of cluelessness you shouldn't lose the whole group.

[tuvermage]

In my many years of both playing and GMing Total party wipe outs have always been the result of players (not GMs) action. one game I was playing we were on a small space station and my party split into two group. I'll admit I made some moves that weren't exactly smart, but the GM even gave me an out when I caused a small hull breach; however, even a GM who tries to give you an out can't help you when your other party members decide to shoot a 90mm recoilless rifle into the bridge of the SMALL space station. Other total party deaths came about when the party walking into a Ally camp, doesn't stop to realize it's an ally camp (despite the friendly greeting and people treating them in a familiar matter) decide to open up everything they had into the camp.

I had to ban the 90mm from my games because it alone has caused too many Total party wipe outs, no matter how many times I explained to the players what the thing was and what a 100' blast radius means.

[Lord Z]

The only TPK I ever gave my players was when we were playing Paranoia. They didn't get through the mission briefing alive, but they are not supposed to do that. They had clones, so they were able to keep playing after that incident. Paranoia games only arguably count as TPKs anyhow.

Even when I run Madness of Cthulhu, I have never killed an entire party permanently. My Cthulhu games are brutal, so it isn't for lack of trying. But, I don't go out of my way to make all the players pay for the stupid mistakes of one either.

In my opinion, TPKs do not show a lack of control or planning on the part of the GM, but they might show a lack of flexibility.

[Hendrik]

Hi there,

killing a party requires no skill, doing it in a way that they think it was their (or player X's, scapegoats are always good) fault, however, requires finesse and a pinch of evil intent.

The only TPK I ever gave my players was when we were playing Paranoia. They didn't get through the mission briefing alive, but they are not supposed to do that. They had clones, so they were able to keep playing after that incident. Paranoia games only arguably count as TPKs anyhow.

Even when I run Madness of Cthulhu, I have never killed an entire party permanently. My Cthulhu games are brutal, so it isn't for lack of trying. But, I don't go out of my way to make all the players pay for the stupid mistakes of one either.

In my opinion, TPKs do not show a lack of control or planning on the part of the GM, but they might show a lack of flexibility.

Seriously, now. I am with the good LordZ on this.

I have never seen a situation where the whole party messed up so badly (but for (d) in the list below) that they all died. I have, however, seen various instances of individual players botching it (not rolls really, those only underscored the real mistake which usually lies on the tactical level or wrong choices on pivotal decisions) that led to PC deaths, and not necessarily the guy's who made the wrong choice, call, etc.

My only TPKs (as player or GM) where with

(a) Paranoia, which is even with untimely demises loads of fun - PC death is part and parcel of enjoying a good Paranoia game! *Hendrik shouting at the top of his lungs*: STAY ALERT! TRUST NO ONE! KEEP YOUR LASER HANDY! (had to say that loud) *Hendrik tiptoes away thinking, I am not sure if the smilies are within my security clearance, the board's theme as such is luckily INFRARED*
(b) in my youthful monty haul days with various systems, usually AD&D,
(c) in Call of Cthulhu games,
(d) when a party against better knowledge and with fair warning, out of their own volition faced an enemy much too strong for them (warm, or rather colourful acerbic, GM throughts here take me back to a certain black dragon encounter in AD&D) or
(e) because of what I deem exceptionally bad GM'ing.

Cheers
Hend-R-IKK-1

[Cybermancer]

For two weeks in a row the entire party has all but died. Now do I take the credit as a G.M.
or do I look at poor party planning. And when I say poor party planning, I mean really bad
party planning. If you going up against vampires, it might be a good idea to hold up a cross
So I ask my fellow G.M.s out there how often have you players been completely
annihilated. Was it because your fiendish G.M. skills or poor party planning? Let the debate
begin.

I've never presided over a TPK that I can recall. Usually at least one player (usually more, actually) escapes. That is because 1. there is has always been at least one smart player at the table and 2. I always leave the possibility of escape. The challenges I create range from very easy to extremely hard and it's up to the players to decide how to react to them. Or sometimes to even engage at all. All rolls are made in the open and I don't fudge things. There have been character deaths. Including one particular memorable instance where a player got cocky because he thought the plot somehow hinged on his character and that I wouldn't let him get killed. He lost two characters to incredibly dumb actions on his part. So dumb that even he admits that he effectively killed his own character both times.

I guess some characters are just destined to commit suicide by monster.

I haven't ever played in a TPK either, although I have had characters die. Some characters have died heroically and some have died pointlessly. All are well remembered for both how the character was played and how they eventually died. And it always added to the campaign because those deaths effected the other players. The story seemed more real and had more impact for that.

Usually though, I'm bright enough to know when to cut and run. I also avoid stupid risks when I can. I also prefer to play with others who generally like to play smartly.

I will say that it doesn't take any real skill to wipe out a group of players if that is what you set out to do as a GM. It doesn't matter how powerful the PC's are, more powerful and more plentiful opponents can always be made. The skilled GM creates scenerios where the possibility of character or even party death is very real yet so is the chance of overcoming (or at least surviving) the obstacle. It is from these circumstances that truly memorable stories are made in the game of role playing.

[mastermesh]

Just have the dead characters make up ghostly characters and/or some other undead critter... of course, bringing them back to life with a spell might just work as well.

[St. Evil]

I sometimes think the toughest part of GMing is giving the players a real challenge without killing them. The players can certainly be counter productive to your efforts to keep the characters alive and adventuring.

The truest thing I have read in a long time. Well stated.
However while I have killed characters I have never had a TPK while GMing. Only because I could not pull the trigger.
To answer the the question the players. I will give explicit questions and warnings before some sessions as a heads up and only one of the group seems to get the message.

[ZorValachan]

: So I ask my fellow G.M.s out there how often have you players been completely
annihilated.

Too many times to count.

Was it because your fiendish G.M. skills or poor party planning? Let the debate
begin.

Either or both.
It runs the spectrum.
In the early years of Rifts, the GMs didn't have a good gauge on what they party could survive, and the players all tried to play Rifts like it was 2nd edition D&D (i.e., just keep attacking and hope that you kill the enemy before it kills you).

After a year or so of nobody surviving past 2nd level, I finally made a vagabond who lived until 4th level.
He survived because instead of just leaping into the fray, he ran, ducked behind cover, hid, and took other measures to protect himself.
Initially, he did this because he had to- he started off without any armor.
When he finally died, it was because he had gotten some good armor (old school Heavy Dead Boy armor), and he got cocky.

But after that, we started to learn how to survive. The first step, just like in real life, is to avoid letting people stab, shoot, or otherwise successfully attack you.
The armor is there for the times when you screw up, for when things go really wrong.
So we started learning tactics that would help us survive, and to kill the enemy.

Also, our GMs got better at gauging encounter, which ones the party could handle, and which ones they couldn't.
And when we got in over our heads, we knew to run.

Excellent

[Giant2005]

Does no-one else find it mildly disturbing that the OP considers it some kind of great achievement and a credit to his skills a GM to kill off his party?

[MaxxSterling]

I am trying to run an epic campaign right now, for a single player. I have killed her 6 times in 12 sessions. I'm getting tired of figuring out ways to resurrect her, but I want to run the damn campaign so bad. It's really quite sad. She just doesn't know when to run...

[flatline]

PC death was common enough that we always had one or two backup characters already made per player (some players died more than others, but we were all prepared for it...). Even so, I don't think we ever had the whole party wiped out. Ever.

I do remember a couple times when things were going so badly that us players would decide which characters needed to live in order to allow the campaign to continue and then we did our best to guarantee that at least those characters survived. Of course, there was always at least character where it would have been out of character to place another's survival above their own, but sometimes you have to do something that potentially sabotages the campaign in order to be true to the character.

If the whole party had ever been wiped out, that would have been fine. I imagine we would have voted whether or not we wanted to continue the campaign somehow with new characters (maybe make NPCs into PCs to continue the storyline?) or start a fresh new campaign. Probably would have started a new campaign.

--flatline