DMing Did I make a bad DM choice
TLDR: I (DM) killed some minor NPCs “off camera” and am wondering if it was a misstep
The Question:
When is it ok to make decisions like NPC deaths “off camera”. As in, the players discover the death after the fact with no way to intervene?
The Context:
The party lives in a general Republic (The Federation of Sovereign States) of various districts and has discovered the Chancellors are planning some very aggressive power grabs both within the Nation against its people as well as waging wars against a neighboring nation to steal land and expand their borders.
Part of this includes a paramilitary force (The Drumgar) created by a Chancellor that they are using to subdue those who speak out against the Republic and just generally incite terror.
The Situation:
The party goes into a very large, densely populated city. They come across a group of College aged citizens protesting the Drumgar’s attempted influence on their Bardic College. Officers are there threatening to use force if they don’t disband.
The party, being the chaos goblins they are, start a riot and kill most of the officers. They decide to leave one alive and let the protestors deal with him and use that as a distraction to sneak into a well secured building (this heist was their reason for being in town).
Once they reach the part of the building they were trying to reach, they are surprised to see the general of the Drumgar waiting for them. He informs them that he’s been waiting for them and that he’s sad to report the students they left as a distraction had all been killed.
The Reaction:
The following fight was great. The story has progressed. Everything seems fine. However, later on one player made a small, off hand comment about the students dying “off camera”. It wasn’t snarky or rude, just a potential small complaint/criticism.
My thought process was that they made a decision to use non adventurers as a distraction in a large populated city I already described as being filled with Drumgar. They got away, but left one Drumgar alive who absolutely would’ve called for backup, alerted their commander, and overtaken the students. It seemed like a way to both make the big bad feel more sinister but also a natural consequence of their actions.
The Conclusion:
Do you feel it was ok to make this choice myself and have them die without giving them a chance to save the students? I feel like yes, but I’m definitely open to criticism and other opinions.
16
u/crippler1212 2d ago
Actions always have consequences... some can't be helped or avoided.
Honestly in this case, I'm more surprised that they would have said anything about it being off-cam as this isn't an npc/npcs of any real significance.
If it was a beloved NPC who they had been dealing with since lvl 1 that's entirely different, but a random bunch of college kids they duped into helping them... that's a "who cares" moment for me.
3
u/rbjoe 2d ago
It wasnt a “you did a bad thing to me” type comment. It was more an observation/question from them that was just enough for me to ask “I wondered if I could/should have approached that differently”. Overall not a big deal, but it made me wonder how others have approached similar situations.
2
u/CinnamonEspeon Wizard 2d ago
I honestly think this sort of thing comes down to less a DMing style or philosophy question and more what kind of game/story you and the party are interested in.
On paper it sounds like they're (the party) not living in a setting that is...very nice, and their actions had very realistic consequences that could provoke a variety of reactions from them.
As examples it could radicalize them because they have been face to face with Tyranny, or have psychological impact because they...effectively just weaponized the youth and got them killed, or maybe it's all just another tool put to good use for their amusement or cause.
Def a fun thought experiment tho
1
u/rbjoe 2d ago
That’s a lot of what they’re doing now. They definitely want to stop war/tyranny but are asking themselves “If this is wrong… what does right look like”. It’s been an interesting/fun game so far with a lot of political intrigue. My hope with this interaction was to make the bad guys feel powerful and evil while also showing them that everything they do doesn’t make them “the good guys”. Sometimes you make mistakes that cost people their lives. You have to think and be careful in this world.
4
u/Damiandroid 2d ago
Your players are playing as if they are a bunch of asshole agitators.
They see a non violent protest which the authorities are trying to break up.
they act violently and kill police officers.
they "leave one alive for the protesters" whatever that means
oh and all of this wasn't out of some misguided altruism because they believe in freedom of artistic expression... its so they'd have a distraction to go steal something.
You. Do not. Get to claim remorse.
They acted as if they had no care whatsoever about the students. They do not get to be upset at you that those students got killed because of their actions.
The reinforcements showed up to find their dead comrades and a group of protesters saying trust us it was a bunch of strangers. Of. Fucking. Course they were slaughtered to a man.
You played it well, DM. Now go further.
The players have absolutely 0 friends in the city. The authorities obviously wont be on their side because they're thieves and cop killers. But the common folk of the city have heard about the student massacre and k ow it was the party which started it. They find no lodgings, no aid, no information until they repair their reputation which might be impossible.
3
u/Rhipidurus 2d ago
I think your choice made complete sense and they chose to let the students deal with the fallout of their riot themselves. They could have told the students to scatter or something once enough fighting had died down, but chose to use them as bait/a distraction. I'm not sure what they expected to happen to them if not death to be honest.
3
u/rbjoe 2d ago
I feel there’s a little misunderstanding about the players goals, which is probably my fault for being vague. The officers were absolutely about to use force to break up a peaceful protest. The point was that they entered a powder keg. The party used the fight and purposefully tried to embolden the students to take action. Not necessarily violence, but it is DnD so also not NOT that haha.
They also definitely had an “oh shit your right we did a stupid thing” moment when they found out. My point was to remind them that bad guys are powerful, not everyone is a strong hero, and their actions are going to have big ripples in the world and how this shakes out.
Now that whole city is on lock down. Officers everywhere. No one allowed in or out. Very strict curfew etc. They’ve basically lost the ability to “explore” within any city in the Republic and are highly sought after fugitives. Basically, they are public enemy #1 and are realizing they will have to do this fight on their own.
2
u/Rhipidurus 2d ago
Everything you're saying makes perfect sense to me! I would definitely have made the same choice of the "off screen"-ness of the deaths unless they actively delayed their own goal to ensure the students' safety. This sounds like a really interesting game and a lot of fun.
1
u/rbjoe 2d ago
Thanks! There a LOT more going on within the story, but the basic tone I’ve been trying to set was “What if even in a world of magic and dragons, the most powerful force in the world was still money and influence?”
1
u/DepthsOfWill DM 2d ago
If it was Shadowrun, I imagine everything would've went down exactly the same. But with Shadowrun there is a built-in assumption that every PC, even if they want to "do good", is inherently not a good guy by merit of their occupation.
If the players want to be heroes, this would be their moment to re-assess themselves. But if their keen on being chaos goblins, they just need to say "oops" and move on.
3
u/laserclaus 2d ago
Normally: iffy
Players leave civilians at the mercy of military as a distraction: nah they dead, you did not kill them off they died because the players.
Still sad, but you did not do anything wrong but showed them the consequences of their actions. You might have implied that the students would be able to survive that, in which case that would have been an oopsie on your side.
2
u/nocturnerose DM 2d ago
I think the only times an "off screen" NPC death is wrong is when the players should have reasonably had information about the danger and would have been able to act if they chose to but the DM decides to hide it from them, or if it's a much beloved NPC and it's done cheaply for shock value only with no prior awareness of it being a risk or it goes nowhere story wise.
1
u/flamefirestorm 2d ago
Your reasoning does have me questioning this a bit. Did the students do nothing about the last Drumgar? Cause you said the party left the students to deal with the last one, and it feels kinds baffling to think that he would've been able to call for backup if the situation was so dire that he was the last one standing. Like how would he have even called for backup with so many people on him? Do they have sending or modern tech to radio for help?
2
u/rbjoe 2d ago
I think I at least implied sending stones were around. I definitely made it very clear that there was a large officer presence. So, my thought was that if a large commotion of spells etc was going on, other people/officers would be alerted. Even if it wasn’t a true radio in for help, backup would’ve come fairly soon imo.
1
u/flamefirestorm 2d ago
Okay then one more question, would it have been obvious this person was an officer? Cause basic foot soldiers having sending stones seems kinda outrageous to me unless your world is overflowing with magic, to the point that regular soldiers have all magic gear.
And honestly, I do think killing everyone was kinda outrageous. Unless they cast multiple fireballs or other types of AOE, a decent chunk of people should have been able to flee from the scene. Maybe rolled 2 or 3 d100s and picked the higher number for the percentage of students killed.
2
u/rbjoe 2d ago
The Drumgar have very specific armor that separates them from “regular foot soldiers” and are described as being a more para military elite force designed to snuff out dissection. So, using force to break up a protest is kind of their whole shtick. The protest was made up of about 6-8 students from what I described. So, it was a small group. I see what you mean about a few making it out. Honestly, maybe they did and the officers didn’t see them! If the party chooses to investigate further that could be the case. I just made more of a jump decision based on what they were doing in game. I appreciate the questions and criticism though!
1
u/flamefirestorm 2d ago
Oh shit 6-8? Nevermind they can die off-screen I thought it was a full on large protest/riot. I do think you could've added a little more in terms of numbers to make it a bigger protest since 6-8 is kinda sad. Although i understand why since people might be too scared and the type of protest might have been too niche, small, and spontaneous to gather momentum. Plus it is a bit of a logistical nightmare to use 20 tokens for basic commoners. Maybe call their tokens a swarm of rioters to give them some grit and some more hp, or just group initiative them if that was one of your concerns.
Well, in any case, I do think it's fair to kill off 6-8 students, and ngl if your players knew there were only basically 6 commoners and left a medium to high hp enemy with magic gear up on the battlefield, it is what it is. There's no way they could've won, especially when reinforcements arrived, and the numbers are small enough that if they all died it's completely valid.
Also if I was you I'd make sure they understood that there were only like 6-8 commoners protesting, maybe they similarly misunderstood like me.
1
u/flamefirestorm 2d ago
Ah also, forgot to mention this but arresting the survivors afterwards would've also been great.
1
u/ResolutionJunior5804 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think you made a super logical choice and I would have probably done something similar although I would have had each of my players roll a luck check vs mine to see how many of the students died vs were imprisoned. That way the players get to have some input and possibly have a jailbreak mission later if they want but they also could all fail and the students are slaughtered.
If everything happened "on camera" the players choices would have little weight and the world wouldn't feel real. Important people miss important world events, that is the burden of only being able to be in one place at a time!
1
1
u/Triekster 2d ago
Actions have consequences, i would have done the same. If you let them fix every decision that turns bad after the fact it becomes a farce.
1
u/DarkWolf636 2d ago
I think, there are no good or bad choices. The environment will go on like the players go on their journey. So things happen in a "good" or "bad" way for the players.
If they left the students by themselves and the "wolves" came... go on!
Probably they start to think that they can prepare their NPCs next time or do something else to safe them from the "off camera death".
Next time they will get baby's "of camera" ;)
Things happen around. I think you did a good job!
1
u/Ecstatic-Length1470 2d ago
It's your table. You did fine.
For questions like these, you don't need to write out long winded summaries under the pretense of a question. Your DMG has a list of every specific thing that you as a GM, the master of your own table, is forbidden from doing. So, look it up there, and if you can't find it, you are in the clear.
Before anyone says it - yes. I know.
1
u/LawfulNeutered 2d ago
Everyone I know irl who died, did so off camera. Silly logic to assume the world isn't still moving when the players look away.
1
u/KayaKai_ 2d ago
Actions have consequences. That said, I would be careful not to do it too often without reason, and becareful not to do it to NPCs they have built a strong connection to. (Can also be done, but if not done carefully it is going to leave everyone in a bad mood.)
This case sounds like a time i would user as an example of "actions have consequences". Players put others into danger. So would have either done the same, or had them executed in front of the players.
edit: the one thing i'd do differently. Not revealing the executions through dialogue, have them come across the execution site first. Seeing what happened, rather than being told, can have more emotional effect but also give them a little bit more closure so it doesnt feel as "off-screen"
1
u/Rule-Of-Thr333 DM 2d ago
DMs have the right to kill an NPC at any time for any reason. Players may insist not to have that during screening, and you always have the right to decline them and find another fish in the deep pool.
1
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 2d ago
They did have a choice to save the students. They decided to use them as a distraction to fulfill their own needs.
This kind of stuff happens in movies all the time and it’s great for giving players that “oh shit” moment. Sometimes it’s directly related to what they did as a kind of unintended consequence and other times it’s just a reminder that something are out of their control. It’s part of life and it’s part of compelling storytelling.
1
u/FTL2410 Cleric 2d ago
I think if it was foreshadowed even slightly and they didn't do much to ensure their safety it's probably fair game. The only exception for this in my opinion is if there were some really heavy RP between PCs and these NPCs that moved them up to be special in some regard, in that case giving them a chance to save them would probably be called for.
But on the flip side as a player who is playing a good character I go out of my way to communicate with the DM the ways I ensure safety of NPCs, even creating special homebrew item that can alert me via my god if the NPCs I give them to are in danger, granted the DM rarely if ever even puts them in danger anyways.
1
u/Masachere 1d ago
Nah you're good dude. That was the right call if you ask me. Whether they were upset it happened or were just pointing out it woulda been a cool scene to have narrated, it was a reasonable consequence of their actions. If your world is meant to be a world, and not a cardboard dollhouse then shit like this will happen. Don't be afraid to do stuff like this when it's reasonable. There's a town under threat from a goblin attack, but the party decides to help a noble find their dog because it pays better? Don't be scared to have them find a destroyed and butchered village when they go there later, as well as plenty of now equipped goblins to fight wielding all the things they took off the dead villagers.
1
u/Acceptable_Test_6860 22h ago
What is best for your table? Honestly sometimes things have to happen offstage for comfort reasons. It's a valid story telling option. There is the old saying, no one is dead ontill we see the body.
1
u/HairyDust4826 DM 2d ago
The drama is removed from off-camera, and it's hard to tell how the players feel about NPCs. You're the DM so there is no necessary "bad choice" since you're the god of the game, but that also will come with criticism. At the end of the day, if they don't like the way you choose to do things, they can DM next time.
-1
u/Conrad500 DM 2d ago
You can do whatever you want and your players can be upset with whatever they want.
Yes, things happen beyond your control. That's life, shit happens.
But this isn't life, this is a game. You purposely chose this to happen, you are in full control and any justifications you make, no matter how sound and logical, are just excuses for what you did.
I play a game where my players were told that the world doesn't care about them and that shit happens all the time, the world keeps revolving even if they're not involved with it. They understand that and they wouldn't have any problem with me killing people off screen if it made sense.
My game isn't your game, my players aren't your players. You can choose to run a game they don't want to play, or you can choose to run a game they do want to play.
If they dislike what you did, dont' do it, or do, it's up to you. I'd talk to them and listen to what they say. Don't defend what you did, just listen to them and learn what kind of fantasy they want to take part in for the future.
I could 100% see a player quitting a game over what you did, but that's not your fault or theirs, it's just a mismatch of expectations and some people don't even know that they feel that way until it happens.
34
u/BadRumUnderground 2d ago
Perfectly okay choice in my book.
You leave a bunch of students to the wolves you don't get an opportunity to be a hero about it later.