How to avoid killing your player characters as GM

[hal]

Hi All,
Without saying who or why, I thought it might be best to open up this topic and inviting veteran players and/or GMs to offer ways on using the GURPS rules as written, to avoid killing off player characters.

To the person who approached me on this, do NOT respond to the thread for a little while, just let the answers pour in and feast on the responses. For others who are also worried they may kill off characters - feel free to jump in and offer your own questions.

To start off with, nothing states that the GM has to play his NPCs as stone cold killers. He might say that his NPCs are afraid, and are making pop-up attacks with an additional -2 penalty to hit. He rationalizes that his NPCs are human too and do not want to die! He might rationalize that his NPCs are DRUNK, which adds a further -2 penalty to their skills. If he thinks their skill should be at DX-1 because they're not trained to use guns all too well (ie, they're not profesionals) then he can simply state that their gun skill is at best, a 9 or a 10. Just to hit a target that is 80 yards away, is penalized by a -10 to strike a target with a hasty shot.

Then there are those things that the rules don't provide for, but as GM, you can add to the game at your discretion. For instance, if an NPC decides to fire upon a character who has taken refuge behind a pine tree trunk, the GM has to decide how much DR that pine wood provides. GURPS has rules that an inch of wood provides a DR of 1, and the GM doesn't have any real guides towards how to handle what happens if you hit a tree with a 7d6 bullet. Quick answer: Google "a tree that is 2 feet in diameter is how old?" got me to https://www.treehugger.com/estimatin...es-age-1343321. This in turn led me to google the growth rate of Pine trees (it works out to about a factor of 5) and thus, I can estimate that a copse of pine trees 100 years old will be about 20" thick. That works out to a DR of 20. Against a 7d6 bullet averaging 25 points of damage per roll, that means that the tree at worst, stops 20 of those 25 points. But there is also the HP of structures to worry about. At about 60 some odd HPs for 20" thick tree (probably closer to 65 or so), and the rule that to totally destroy something requires -5xHP - I would estimate that to totally destroy the structure of the trunk implies that it has about 10 HP overall. So call it 20 DR plus a blow through of an additional 10 points for damage inflicted on the tree itself, for a total stopping power of about 26 HP. The bullet would likely LODGE in the tree itself and not come out the other side.

Is it in the rules that a living tree will stop 26 hit points? No specifically. But it is in the spirit of the rules for damage elsewhere and this instance, that as GM, I can simply rule that a given tree will provide a given amount of DR based on its age.

Being a GM requires that the GM practice the art of GM'ing and getting to know the rules. It also means that he likely needs to know what the penalties are to secure a hit by anyone - NPC and PC's alike. Most importantly, he or she needs to be aware of doing things that do NOT automatically KILL the player characters where ever possible.

Reiterating the one BIG rule I've come to realize is handy in GURPS for modern style games is this:

Death saving rolls that fail by less than 3, result in the player character - in the immortal words of Billy Crystal in PRINCESS BRIDE - being "Mostly dead". In a Cyberpunk campaign, missing your death saving roll does not mean the character is dead - especially if there are those who can be saved by prompt medical attention (Emergency Medical Response or Emergency Medical Technician). Add in the rules for the surgery required to save a mortally wounded character, and presto, last minute reprieve for dead or dying characters.

Also - I think the bleeding rules for GURPS are TOO harsh and result in far higher a casualty rate for modern battlefields than is perhaps warranted. As a consequence, I don't use those rules as written, but tend to make it -1 per 10 points of damage. In short, GMs can make those rules they don't like, weaker in their application than the rules as written were intended to do.

For all others who want to chime in - how do YOU keep your player characters alive in a modern or future campaign?

[Varyon]

One thing I've been considering for some Fantasy campaigns (where death by firearm is less an issue... but then I'm fond of having firearms - and variants like gear rifles - in Fantasy anyway) would be to essentially give everyone ablative magical forcefields, not entirely unlike how I believe Aura works in RWBY. This would help keep characters alive, and they may be inclined to retreat once their barriers fail*.

Another option for Fantasy campaigns - or any campaign with magic and similar - is to have death be reversible with relatively-easy spells or relatively-cheap items (Phoenix Downs come to mind)... but only within a certain time limit. Perhaps the soul sticks around for a short while after someone dies, and thus is easy to reincorporate into its body during this time - but once it departs to the Beyond, you're looking at a pretty extreme quest to bring it back, if you can do so at all. Schlock Mercenary had a superscience version of this for most of its run - slain characters could have their bodies tossed into cryocoffins to be revived later, and in more extreme situations this could be extended to just saving the head and regrowing the body later.

Absent magic, movies and comic books are chock-full of characters who rather-obviously get themselves killed, then show up later actually still alive (or who turn out to still be alive when the characters go to retrieve the body). As I recently suggested in another thread, you could basically treat any failed Death Check - and even dropping to -5xHP - as resulting in Mortal Wounds ("Mostly dead") rather than actual death, giving a chance for a character who gets got by an unlucky roll to be saved.


*I'll probably be making a separate thread to talk about this later, but the idea would be that the barriers are semi-ablative up until they are exceeded, but then instead of the attack breaking through the mostly-intact barrier, further damage subtracts directly from the DR, treating it as fully-ablative. Basically something like having two linked layers of DR - a Semi-Ablative layer, then a fully Ablative layer behind it, with any reduction of one also reducing the other. To further make it less likely for an unlucky hit to punch through, when the barrier is actually broken it gets a temporary surge that boosts its DR against that attack only. This was inspired by the way Shardplate seems to function in The Stormlight Archives (where it typically holds up until the point it shatters outright, after which another strike to the same place is needed to actually harm the wearer).

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by hal

Without saying who or why, I thought it might be best to open up this topic and inviting veteran players and/or GMs to offer ways on using the GURPS rules as written, to avoid killing off player characters.

A non-trivial component of this is players keeping themselves from getting killed. They build characters who can figure out the battlefield and use conditions to their advantage with skills like Tactics, Observation, and Stealth. That said, there's stuff I can do on my end to help:

Budget for heroics: A normal person on the modern battlefield doesn't last long, so a game set on modern battlefields meant to last any length of time shouldn't involve normal people. If I'm running a game in a modern setting where I expect a lot of shooting, point levels start out high, allowing PCs to buy high levels of skill so that they're successful at those keep-me-from-being-killed tasks, at shooting back effectively at the opposition, and can buy...

Lights, camera: ...cinematic options. Most players...well, a lot of players...OK, people like me don't really want realistic games. We want action-adventure-movie games. So cinematic options in the rules are generally on the table.

Mooks to the left of me, mooks to the right of me: All of the above is for the PCs. NPCs? Not so much. Most NPCs have fair-to-middling skills, garden variety equipment, and mundane capabilities. They're not stupid or inept, but they're not the skilled operators the heroic PCs are. I'm also willing to let them go unconscious when they hit 0 HP rather than rolling for unconsciousness. That's boring.

Hitting in the first place: The combat rules are full of modifiers and special situations. Use them. For example, opponents who are surprised or just in an emotionally heightened state may not take time to aim, which means they don't get an Acc bonus, which means they rarely hit. Darkness, smoke, and so on impose penalties as well.

[Tinman]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

A non-trivial component of this is players keeping themselves from getting killed. They build characters who can figure out the battlefield and use conditions to their advantage with skills like Tactics, Observation, and Stealth.

This is the most important thing! The Build & tactics of the players are the most Important factors.

That said, there's stuff I can do on my end to help:

Especially for new players:
1) Make them buy luck (& save it for emergencies).
2) Make them buy destiny Points
(as per Monster Hunters 1 p.23)

For all players:
3) Match the opposition to the team.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by hal

For all others who want to chime in - how do YOU keep your player characters alive in a modern or future campaign?

Honestly, by not having fair fights. If my players are fighting, its because its cover while they run away from superior odds, because the foe is weak, or because they've done enough prep that this fight either isn't hard anymore or it is the key to the last thing they need to "win", and usually both.

This is partially about my players, but its how I've trained my players to approach the challenges I give them.

As a secondary note, I've found that even in high tech, instant death is rare. Remember that a failed death check makes you "dying", not dead, and you only start rolling at -HP.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Honestly, by not having fair fights. If my players are fighting, its because its cover while they run away from superior odds, because the foe is weak, or because they've done enough prep that this fight either isn't hard anymore or it is the key to the last thing they need to "win", and usually both.

Who the heck wants to have a fair fight?

My PCs are trying to accomplish something (seldom fighting) and if they can get it without a fight, great!!

If you HAVE to fight plan to cheat, cheat often, improvise cheating, and lie about cheating. Then cheat some more.

Dueling is stupid. Avoid it. Do it if forced.

'Never give a sucker an even break.'

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Witchking

Who the heck wants to have a fair fight?

A LOT of gaming, both electronic and tabletop, is built around the concept of a fair fight. It can take some nudging to get that out of your system.

But yeah, getting that out of your system does wonders for survivability, and I agree with everything you said, unless you're in a weird meta-gaming state where you're trying to flex and win those fair fights.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Witchking

Who the heck wants to have a fair fight?

A lot of players want the catharsis of dishing out some ultraviolence, and may enjoy the challenge of a fair fight - or even one where the odds are against them. Sure, this might not be the ultimate goal of the character (although it certain still can be - consider Kenpachi from Bleach, or, for a less-extreme version, Nil from Horizon: Zero Dawn), but it's what the players find to be fun. And at the end of the day, the purpose of an RPG is having fun.

Now, personally, I love it when a plan comes together and the party is victorious due to superior manipulation of events and the battlefield rather than because the dice were on their side this time (although the latter can certainly be fun too). But not all players are going to be like me - plenty want to be able to just Leeroy Jenkins their way into a fight. And sometimes having disposable characters is the way to go - from what I understand, the playtesters all had a blast in the Delvers to Grow meatgrinder. But when it isn't, you'll need some options to keep the characters alive despite their best attempts to off themselves.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

A lot of players want the catharsis of dishing out some ultraviolence, and may enjoy the challenge of a fair fight - or even one where the odds are against them. Sure, this might not be the ultimate goal of the character (although it certain still can be - consider Kenpachi from Bleach, or, for a less-extreme version, Nil from Horizon: Zero Dawn), but it's what the players find to be fun. And at the end of the day, the purpose of an RPG is having fun.

Now, personally, I love it when a plan comes together and the party is victorious due to superior manipulation of events and the battlefield rather than because the dice were on their side this time (although the latter can certainly be fun too). But not all players are going to be like me - plenty want to be able to just Leeroy Jenkins their way into a fight. And sometimes having disposable characters is the way to go - from what I understand, the playtesters all had a blast in the Delvers to Grow meatgrinder. But when it isn't, you'll need some options to keep the characters alive despite their best attempts to off themselves.

I gotta note that a fair fight means you're 50% likely to lose it. (A fight that would be fair except you have superior manipulation of events and the battlefield is not a fair fight.)

I haven't seen anybody who wants that at a tabletop. In video games where there's a fairly tight die-retry loop, that's another story.

(Unless you implement that loop in your tabletop game, which is...definitely a thing you could do.)

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I gotta note that a fair fight means you're 50% likely to lose it. (A fight that would be fair except you have superior manipulation of events and the battlefield is not a fair fight.)

I haven't seen anybody who wants that at a tabletop.

It's kind of fun for professional gladiatorial combats and the like, where "losing" is not necessarily synonymous with "dying" even if it does always involve lesser pay and a potential loss of face/status (like losing the Super Bowl vs winning it).

I've run gameworlds where single combat between champions was the normal response to meeting foreigners (with a monetary prize called "kresim" at stake to buy the life of the loser). I used this to explain why e.g. drow and githyanki hadn't wiped each other out--it was mostly just their low-ranked warriors fighting each other, one at a time, mostly to claim kresim and not a life; not escalating to group battles unless the chosen champion from one side was so unimpressive that the other side felt confident about curbstomping them with no casualties.

This also happens to be the perfect setup for PCs to find adventure in. I should reuse this concept...