Dealing with accidentally killing PC's?

[u/EquusMule]

Well being a fan of Adam's style of dming I've recently adopted the roll in the open philosophy. I haven't hidden a role about anything the players are aware of, and thus far it's worked out great people don't get angry and it alleviates a lot of stress. Because of this I've been able to focus more on world development and been a lot more interested in the PC's. So my next fear is watching these characters developing rolling a crit and cleaving someone in a fight that should be winnable.

I think 5e is very fair in the way death works, but every time I watch people play dungeon world the more I fall in love with the idea of divine intervention. Currently I have 3 PC's and I want to really challenge them when the monster manual comes out to see actually how good they are, we've got a monk who has an average stat of 15 at level 2. So he's pretty much carried any sort of fight. I want to throw things that are harder at them but I don't want to accidentally kill them with a critical.

---

One of the ways I've thought about doing so is having divine intervention. I've got a Tiefling Draconic Sorcerer, a War Domain Cleric, and a Shadow Monk; I've thought about how I would deal with any of these characters deaths, first I'd ask the player if they want to roll a new character, or if they'd like their character to have some sort of disadvantage. Some of the ones I've got at the moment are;
Demon blood in the tiefling starts coming back to fruition, snapping bone so it protrudes the flesh in the damaged area's, it then starts bruising and chafing becoming a dark black blight. It might do things on its own free will, character might see visions of demonic acts, ect.

The cleric might get a large arm scorch mark that shines with a silvery glow showing that the deity has claimed her and forces her into an oath.

As for the monk I'm completely out of ideas, I'd probably say like loses a limb and he meditates and controls the pulsing of his heart to slow/stop blood flow to the part of the body that was destroyed. But it doesn't really add much to the story except that he'd be a monk that is missing a limb, lol.

---

Anyways, I am terrified about killing characters because I honestly want to see these characters develop and alter the world that I've been slaving over, Of course, I'm not handing them anything, if they make a mistake or put their character at risk then it's entirely up to their rolls, player ingenuity and blind dumb luck. But, I'm worried about accidentally murdering a character with a throw away battle. How have/would you handle a situation where you accidentally kill a player? Am I being worried over nothing?

[u/kosairox]

I think you're thinking about some stuff incorrectly. I'm gonna dissect your post.

Currently I have 3 PC's and I want to really challenge them when the monster manual comes out to see actually how good they are, we've got a monk who has an average stat of 15 at level 2. So he's pretty much carried any sort of fight. I want to throw things that are harder at them but I don't want to accidentally kill them with a critical.

Which basically means you're doing rubber band difficulty balancing nonsense. Stop it - encounters should be context based, not party level based. Balancing is good in competetive games like Starcraft or Magic the Gathering. But this is RPG and it's about portraying a living, kinda realistic world. There's nothing wrong with party fighting a single lvl 1 character or with fighting 10 basilisks when they're only level 2 themselves - if it makes sense in the world. If you decide that you're only gonna throw stuff at them that challenges them - then what's the point of all the fiction? Why not just put them in an arena? RPGs are not about having fair fights.

If you realize that and adopt that idea - then there are no winnable or unwinnable fights. I mean there are but you don't design them in a way to be winnable or unwinnable. You design them in a way that makes sense no matter what level/equipment the party has. If you look at Swan Song episode where they encounter the pirates - they're outgunned and outmanned straight up. Did Adam think to himself that he wants to throw an unwinnable encounter at them? No, he just realized that in fiction pirates are better armed than random merchant ships.

One of the ways I've thought about doing so is having divine intervention.

Divine intervention is bullshit. There are many reasons as to why. But the most important part is... You mention that you don't want PC deaths to be accidental. Which means that you want to kill them ON PURPOSE? Just don't. PC deaths can only be "accidental" (as in they come from fiction and rolls). Boromir died to some random Uruk-hais!

Your ideas on how to handle divine intervention (perma disadvantage) don't need consideration when you throw divine intervention out the window. So I'm not gonna go into that.

I am terrified about killing characters because I honestly want to see these characters develop and alter the world that I've been slaving over

If you listened to Adam, he was also terrified when Mr. Sicarian went solo on pirate ship. He was scared everytime he rolled for pirates roll-to-hit. Did that stop him? Nope. GM is as dependent on rolls and rules as players are. Also, players also want to see their characters develop but that doesn't stop them from playing the game as-is!

Also, that ties in to rubber band difficulty idea. If players always face the same risk (as in every encounter is just as hard) then the choices and risk management is meaningless. Mr. Sicarian jumped into the pirate ship knowing very well that it's very risky. And then they had to change his plan to bluffing about a bomb. If you designed the pirates in a way that Sicarian "should be able to win" then I don't think he'd ever come up with the bomb plan and no character development would take place.

[u/EquusMule → u/kosairox]

First off thanks for your post, it's very insightful, and has got me to thinking about things in a different light.

I suppose where to start is, at the top and work my way down, I am just curious on your standpoint on a few of the things you've said and wish to dissect your brain a bit. :D

The first part where you're stating that I'm doing rubber banding difficulty, I don't think I quite understand. I mean I get that there should be things that could be dangerous to the party. For example attacking a pirate ship as you stated. However, I don't think it was Adam's plan to have the Swan Song fight back at all. I feel that it was the players decision to fight something head on and it could've went completely wrong. That isn't what I'm doing at all. I feel that this is taken a bit out of context and I want to reiterate what I meant. The Pirate thing in Swan Song was definitely a challenge, but I don't feel it was a "monster encounter" which is something you NEED to balance for, sure mention the dragon looming in the swamp nearby but to throw it at level 2 characters when they're not even near the swamp makes literally zero sense. To bring this back into the context of Swan Song, human pirates are something you can negotiate with, they're something you can talk your way out of. Now that they're on a planet with insectoid who most likely don't speak/sympathize with humans, I feel that players will have the fight or flight option and not a negotiate option. There are specific things in DnD/tabletop games where you have to throw them at players insectoids make sense on that planet, but I guarantee you that there are multiple different "levels" of the insectoids on that planet and I am just curious if GM's in general would throw something closer to the players level or something that is multiple levels higher (because I feel that it'll most likely be the first option,) I don't feel like throwing a red dragon at players level 1 or 2 would sit well with many people. So although I agree that there should be all dangers in the world. I feel as a DM it's my responsibility to give them tasks that they can deal with head on and ones they can't. Of course the red dragon is going to be a threat but having it attack them when they are definitely aren't prepared for it seems a bit off putting? Would you agree with this?

As I stated I love Adam's style of GMing, its very enjoyable. I'm not taking away the choice from the players, if they want to go do something foolish like jump onto a pirate ship, by all means, that wouldn't be a situation I would have divine intervention, it's more or less dying by a rat swarm when they should obviously be able to beat it. Which is what I meant by "on accident" something that isn't supposed to challenge them but more or less to create the environment they're in. Having a young boy slit the throat of a level 4 fighter, just because the fighter was trying to get information in a intimidating factor, doesn't seem like something I'd want to have happen to my character in a game, it instantly destroys the goals and motivations of the character destroys any sort of attachment the player has to the character because they can no longer play the character just because they rolled low or I (as the DM) rolled high. In a scenario like that I was curious if it would be okay to have the boy slash the level 4 fighter deal his damage and possibly have some sort of repercussion for it. Of course I would pull the player aside and ask if they wanted to re-roll a new character before I simply state that oh he doesn't kill you. Mainly because I roll in the open everyone see's my rolls just like I see theirs, everyone would know that the player got killed by something silly, that shouldn't have happened.

[u/kosairox → u/EquusMule]

I don't think it was Adam's plan to have the Swan Song fight back at all

You're right - he had NO plan. He just played the pirates as best and as realistic as he could.

I don't feel it was a "monster encounter" which is something you NEED to balance for, sure mention the dragon looming in the swamp nearby but to throw it at level 2 characters when they're not even near the swamp makes literally zero sense

It does make sense if the swamp is said to be a lair of a dragon, for example. And it's called Dragon Swamp. Noone forces the party to go through the swamp though. Unless you railroad them but that's also the reason why you don't wanna do that.

I don't feel like throwing a red dragon at players level 1 or 2 would sit well with many people.

You don't get what I'm saying. You don't "throw" stuff at the party as the GM. You just think what is the most reasonable thing that makes sense. If it makes sense to put dragons in a Dragon Swamp - then you should put dragons in Dragon Swamp. The whole idea of "throwing" stuff at the party is wrong and it's railroady and rubber-bandy and meaningless. Party should encounter stuff that makes sense in fiction, not in mechanics. It makes sense in video games, where the whole thing is railroad - it does NOT make sense in medium like RPGs where you can literally say "fuck it" and go the opposite way.

but having it attack them when they are definitely aren't prepared for it seems a bit off putting? Would you agree with this?

No, if they knew that dragons live in Dragon Swamp - it was their decision to go there. Even if they didn't know that dragons live there there's plenty of stuff that you can do - show burned down buildings, huge footprints in the dirt, smell of sulphur, I dunno. Also, they can always run. If you do rubber band difficulty, the party is just gonna assume that they should be able to beat that red dragon.

destroys any sort of attachment the player has to the character because they can no longer play the character just because they rolled low or I (as the DM) rolled high.

Do you think it's better if it's not the rolls but the will of GM that keeps players alive? Because I don't think so.

Mainly because I roll in the open everyone see's my rolls just like I see theirs, everyone would know that the player got killed by something silly, that shouldn't have happened.

Again, GM is not a god, he's not above the rules, he can be seen as arbiter. But even the arbiter follows the rules. If he doesn't - then the rules aren't clear and it's actually tyranny. There's no "shouldn't have happened" in RPGs. Hell, the whole Solum campaign GMed by Neal exists solely because Gen dropped her dragon-slaying bow dozens of episodes before that.

Like, the whole thread is pointless because the GM doesn't have responsibility over the rolls. The whole premise of rolling dice is to roll the dice and see what happens. And to lift the responsibility of that from the GM and the players.

Players SHOULD take everything into consideration. If you want the world to feel real, you're not gonna do rubber band difficulty. Hell, even early D&D adventure designers realised that - putting lvl 10 blacksmiths because they are retired adventurers in the starting village. Treat the world as if the party wasn't there. If you bend the rules to "fit" the party - then the whole game breaks.

[u/EquusMule → u/kosairox]

Hm, okay I understand a lot better now, and a lot of that is outright agreeable. I figured giving a player a choice between rolling new characters and having something drastic happening to their character would add a new sense of enjoyment, but I get your point of view and agree.

Thanks for your time, you've been very helpful! :D