How to avoid killing your player characters as GM

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Is this thread about rpgs generally, or is it just about dungeon crawls? Because in the great majority of my campaigns, I don't see what you seem to be calling "default behavior." Even when I ran an intentionally combat-focused campaign, it wasn't about that behavior; it was about duels with the smallsword, typically to first blood.

It's more than dungeon crawls that can heavily feature existential combat (that is, combat where the purpose is to eliminate OpFor, and where OpFor is trying to do the same to you). Indeed, particularly considering this is the kind of combat that tends to crop up in action films and video games, many players go into a game expecting that to be the way combat is handled. Doing things differently - duels to first blood, foes fleeing (or surrendering) as soon as it appears they may be losing, it being more beneficial to capture - or even just drive off - foes than kill them, etc - is certainly a valid playstyle, and I expect is favored by groups who are markedly more interested in playing a role than playing a combat simulator, but many players don't expect that mode of play. Fortunately, the campaign prospecti (prospectuses?) you've mentioned supplying in the past probably help avoid players being surprised when that's the mode of play.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

And yet, if the GM runs monsters by this logic, many a good hack and slash game becomes frustrating.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if you view frustrating = challenging and use enough monsters that it's still difficult to force them all to flee, and make pursuit and finishing routed foes off permanently so they cannot recover and eventually counterattack an important part of the game.

But it's certainly different than the common default behavior.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Is this thread about rpgs generally, or is it just about dungeon crawls? Because in the great majority of my campaigns, I don't see what you seem to be calling "default behavior." Even when I ran an intentionally combat-focused campaign, it wasn't about that behavior; it was about duels with the smallsword, typically to first blood.

My post (not the entire thread) was explicitly about hack and slash gaming, and any game that's about smallsword duels to first blood doesn't sound like it's hack and slash, let alone "common" hack and slash.

I am not implying that hack and slash is the "common default" mode of GURPS play or that you personally play hack and slash. I'm not even saying that I play hack and slash the majority of the time. Your smallsword duels would fit right into diplomacy protocols for my last D&D 5E game.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

And yet, if the GM runs monsters by this logic, many a good hack and slash game becomes frustrating.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if you view frustrating = challenging and use enough monsters that it's still difficult to force them all to flee, and make pursuit and finishing routed foes off permanently so they cannot recover and eventually counterattack an important part of the game.

But it's certainly different than the common default behavior.

Prior to D&D3, D&D had morale rules for NPCs and monsters, etc., were absolutely expected to often retreat or flee if things were going against them unless they were something like mindless undead. This could/can lead to interesting situations where the players have reasoned "They're only goblins, they'll flee once we've killed a few of them", charged a band of 20-odd goblins, and then found that the goblins (due to good morale rolls or higher than expected morale) aren't the fleeing types, and now they're in a dicey situation, with the Goblins surrounding them and starting to eat away at their reserves (hot points, luck, whathaveyou).

I blame the modern view of hack 'n' slash dungeoneering on D&D3's removal of morale stats for monsters (because rolling for this stuff was too hard or something) and then having many of the D&D adventures have monsters explicitly not retreating or surrendering, to the point where it became the assumed norm that unless it was specifically noted that an encounter was with creatures that might retreat or negotiate, they wouldn't.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I blame the modern view of hack 'n' slash dungeoneering on D&D3's removal of morale stats for monsters (because rolling for this stuff was too hard or something) and then having many of the D&D adventures have monsters explicitly not retreating or surrendering, to the point where it became the assumed norm that unless it was specifically noted that an encounter was with creatures that might retreat or negotiate, they wouldn't.

I wish Morale or something equivalent were listed among DFRPG monster stats, but the closest we have is Will + Fearlessness, which isn't quite the same thing, since willingness to die fighting is not necessarily the smart thing to do. (And besides, Morale is useful to measure other things too such as willingness to refuse a bribe, willingness to leave a fixed position and maneuver aggressively towards a foe, and unwillingness to desert in the face of poor conditions like no pay and lack of food.)

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

And yet, if the GM runs monsters by this logic, many a good hack and slash game becomes frustrating.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if you view frustrating = challenging and use enough monsters that it's still difficult to force them all to flee, and make pursuit and finishing routed foes off permanently so they cannot recover and eventually counterattack an important part of the game.

But it's certainly different than the common default behavior.

Only if you're running the "D&D you only get exp if the NPCs are slain" style. Otherwise, it's neither common nor default.

I've played plenty of D&D games where we didn't kill everything, allowed for surrender, took prisoners, allowed a defeated foe to flee, etc, going all the way back to 1984. A few in between were 'murder hobo' fests, where you only got exp for killing the enemy, but most were not, so, we did not.

That behavior was expected in the Gauntlet arcade, not our rpgs.


Also, my games have never featured that, even in a pure dungeon crawl, because I don't run NPCs to be stupid. A few mooks drop, and the mooks will get spooked. Unless the NPCs have a decent leader amongst them, mooks will flee as soon as it looks like it's necessary (roughly 30-40% have fallen).

Originally Posted by Rupert

I blame the modern view of hack 'n' slash dungeoneering on D&D3's removal of morale stats for monsters (because rolling for this stuff was too hard or something) and then having many of the D&D adventures have monsters explicitly not retreating or surrendering, to the point where it became the assumed norm that unless it was specifically noted that an encounter was with creatures that might retreat or negotiate, they wouldn't.

That's because it was left to the GM. However 3e also explicitly calls out that PCs get exp for any 'defeated' encounter, whether that be via physical or social combat (either killing/defeating foes or diplomacy/fast-talk/intimidation) or even by successfully avoiding it entirely!

But yes, Gauntlet and Diablo had a strong impact on D&D for the worse (and Mike Mearls "back to the dungeon" and "orc and pie" nonsense didn't help either).

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

I wish Morale or something equivalent were listed among DFRPG monster stats, but the closest we have is Will + Fearlessness, which isn't quite the same thing, since willingness to die fighting is not necessarily the smart thing to do. (And besides, Morale is useful to measure other things too such as willingness to refuse a bribe, willingness to leave a fixed position and maneuver aggressively towards a foe, and unwillingness to desert in the face of poor conditions like no pay and lack of food.)

I just roll on the Reaction Chart with modifiers. That's exactly what it's for, determining random NPC reactions.

Otherwise, set a Loyalty stat.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

That's because it was left to the GM.

Yeah, that excuse is always weak. "Left to the GM" with no guidance and not even discussion is omitted with a fig leaf.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Varyon

It's more than dungeon crawls that can heavily feature existential combat (that is, combat where the purpose is to eliminate OpFor, and where OpFor is trying to do the same to you). Indeed, particularly considering this is the kind of combat that tends to crop up in action films and video games, many players go into a game expecting that to be the way combat is handled. Doing things differently - duels to first blood, foes fleeing (or surrendering) as soon as it appears they may be losing, it being more beneficial to capture - or even just drive off - foes than kill them, etc - is certainly a valid playstyle, and I expect is favored by groups who are markedly more interested in playing a role than playing a combat simulator, but many players don't expect that mode of play. Fortunately, the campaign prospecti (prospectuses?) you've mentioned supplying in the past probably help avoid players being surprised when that's the mode of play.

Well, okay, I was using "dungeon crawls" as synecdoche for fighting to the death as a play style.

As for prospectuses, here's an example entry from my 2020 prospectus:

_____ Demobbed. Streetlevel supers. GURPS. Source material: Astro City, JSA: The Liberty File, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Planetary, Top Ten: The Forty-Niners, Wild Cards, The Defenders (Netflix series).
It’s 1945, and the boys (and girls) with special powers are coming home from the war. How will they fit into civilian life in a world at peace? Player characters will be streetlevel supers—not necessarily “superheroes,” but generally inclined to obey the law, protect the innocent, and help the helpless. The focus of play will be partly on the usual superheroic combat and partly on inventing a role for people with strange powers and abilities. There won’t be a generic category of “superpowers”; rather, many different types of special abilities will be available, from ancient mystical rituals to superscientific inventions. Combat will be realistic and death will be possible, as will legal consequences for going too far with your abilities.
You may enjoy this campaign if you like streetlevel superheroes or pulp adventurers; a post-World War II setting appeals to you.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

My post (not the entire thread) was explicitly about hack and slash gaming, and any game that's about smallsword duels to first blood doesn't sound like it's hack and slash, let alone "common" hack and slash.

I am not implying that hack and slash is the "common default" mode of GURPS play or that you personally play hack and slash. I'm not even saying that I play hack and slash the majority of the time. Your smallsword duels would fit right into diplomacy protocols for my last D&D 5E game.

I was going to include this in my last post, but I can't figure out how multiquote is meant to work; when I click the icon I don't get a box to type in.

When you said "common default" it sounded to me as if you were saying that hack and slash was the normal mode for rpgs in general. So I thought it was relevant for me to say that I hardly ever do anything with that kind of high lethality, and—by implication—that my players don't even expect it (and I have no shortage of such players). I wasn't trying to refute the idea that I personally ran hack and slash, because I didn't assume you were saying that; I was just illustrating the point that there are other modes. Since it seems that you are perfectly aware of that, I don't think we actually disagree, and I apologize if I suggested otherwise.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

My post (not the entire thread) was explicitly about hack and slash gaming, and any game that's about smallsword duels to first blood doesn't sound like...

Okay, but can you understand our confusion?

I had to follow a quote chain to realize why you thought I was addressing you. I quoted a post by Boomerang (who was neither quoting nor directly responding to anyone) and a post by johndallman (who quoted Colonel_Klink). When I followed the quote chain back a step, I noticed Colonel_Klink had quote both you and johndallman in his previous post.

Not a superlong quote chain, but still not 100% obvious. Plus, I made sure to say this immediately after quoting johndallman:

Originally Posted by Otaku

I noticed this bit, though, and it too seemed like good, general advice.

So yeah, I wasn't speaking about it for hack 'n slash games. Thinking about it, I think it is pretty much a YMMV kind of thing. In some games - or even specific encounters! - the death spiral won't apply because:

1. You - or someone else on your side - can easily restrain/finish off the target next turn.
2. You're losing HP very, very slowly while your foes are not (similar to above).
3. Even dropped to half move and half dodge, you are still well beyond your foe.
4. Your fighting style is such that neither the loss of HP nor the drawbacks from dropping below 1/3 HP is an issue.

There are probably other exceptions. It is just that, given the main topic of this thread, johndallman's advice seemed good "in general".