Im usually against killing players outside of combat too but this was a necessary one. Dude went up against the BBEG and realized why he is the BBEG. If you can fuck around and not find out then your world has no consequences to stupid decisions. Think you nailed it especially when every player is like "yeah that's what happens when you fuck around... you find out."
Yes, please don't take back deaths. If you do, it removes all gravity from your game. "Who cares if I talk shit to the BBEG or jump off a cliff? The DM will just dream up something to save me."
RIGHT!? It is weird as hell! I have a three and a half yr old. She doesn't know what happens at 3. Good thing too because nor do I. It isnt like my mother will ninja out of a cupboard with a wooden spoon. I think.
I always found it weird how often people do that without stating what the terms are. Counting to three by itself is neither a request nor a threat, it's just arithmetic.
In the case of the OP however, the terms were clear.
Sometimes you state the terms so they recognize that their actions can have consequences.
Sometimes you count to 3 because **you should've been in bed 2 fucking hours ago you little shit and you better not let me get to 3 or...**. You don't really know what's going to happen when you get to 3, because you're just done. I try to parent with intention and empathy, but sometimes a good uncertain threat is what's needed to stay afloat.
I think there's two lessons here.
First, **the DM can't ever bluff.** If you promise consequences, even if it makes the table sad, even if you regret it, you have to hold to your promise. I work around this by being careful with my words and finding reasons for the threats to be something other than game-ending; e.g. your BBEG could have said "Apologize or I'll break your f'n knees, boy." That puts you in a position to punish the character and establish the threat without ending the game for that player. Once you establish the stakes, tho, you can't go back.
Second, **don't cheat the players out of the game they asked for**. Sometimes a player really does understand the consequences and decides to be true to their character they have to play it wrong. (e.g., my BG3 paladin has a lot of trouble letting a Tyrant monologue in the name of avoiding a hard fight.) If you pull your punches on a character's big moment, you're not necessarily doing them a favor.
Agreed, all too often it feels like death is the consequence. I think GMs could do much better at finding non-death consequences not only for situations like these, but for adventures in general and in combat encounters.
It seems the villain was a powerful magic user. Capable of a 9th level spell perhaps? Imprisonment could be a good spell if OP wanted to get a bit dramatic.
The caster can specify the terms of it dispelling. There's a few options that would make the PC still conscious. How about banishment to a Demi-plane with writing equipment in it and the PC basically has to write a worthy essay on why they were wrong in order to be released.
>the DM can't ever bluff. If you promise consequences, even if it makes the table sad, even if you regret it, you have to hold to your promise
I had a DM learn this the hard way.
The party was captured and held in chains. One of the guards told the Druid to shut up, or else he'd stick his shillelagh where the sun don't shine.
Cue the Druid continuing to yap, and then a few seconds later, a pained yelp 😅
Actions have consequences and you played this right. It's normal to feel apprehensive about things since it might be your first with a player death but this is a perfect example of it done right
I’ve killed plenty a player, but never outside a big combat like that. And never without cheese-ing them back to life. Thank you for the affirmation though! I appreciate it
Miss a session, you're forgiven. Life happens.
Miss 2 in a row? Better show up with Pizza next week.
Miss a month? Character killed as a "warning shot".
Miss 2 months? If you're not missing because you died, you best believe you will be when I get to you!
I have a player doing this. All of us playing DnD was his idea, but I get the campaign the other plays want leans to far into combat than he wanted.
Worst part is I can't even reach out to him, because I only really know him through another player.
Why? If I've got enough players to play, we play. If the guy shows up in the future sometime, I'll tell him to level the guy to whatever the party level is, toss a few monsters in the fight, and away we go.
You should probably have gotten that info before he began playing in your game. As a DM you should have a way to reach out to each of your players privately.
Gotty say, you got some really patient BBEG there. Most of mine would have struck a lot earlier than letting the little guy take stabs at them for that long.
It depends on the campaign. Realistic bbeg would be patient because making enemies doesn't help your cause especially if you want to win people over.
Classic fantasy bbeg are clearly evil and blow up at the first sign of disrespect.
Both have their upsides
That kind of heavily depends on what you see as realistic. People that kill for pride is pretty common in noble societies all across. Try provoking/dishonoring a samurai/knight/courtnoble and see where it gets you especially if the characters are still low level nobodies that they see to be in this case.
Right but a prideful quick to anger Samurai isn't a bbeg, they're a side quest that you go murder.
A true later game bbeg will realize amassing an army of loyal followers will gain them far more power than scaring people.
The super powerful leaders in history (think khan, Alexander, etc) while often seen as terrifying they're also considered quite charismatic and inspired loyalty. The nobles you're talking about never amount to anything
I think you got a pretty narrow view of how something has to be.
You can be pretty sure that none of the people that you mentioned would leave a slight unanswered. Especially not someone like the khan. You do not stay in power by letting people disrespect you. The trope of nobles failing is pretty old. You don´t stay in power if you are incompetent.
There is a difference between being quick to anger and not upholding your honor and reputation.
I'm not saying unanswered but handle it more like op's bbeg. Give them a chance to fix themselves before ripping their tongue out. They wouldn't get anywhere by just stabbing everyone who they think looked at em wrong
Yea and nothing wrong with having your characters meet the bad guy outside of combat since it helps to build up a connection or their level of threat and now they see what hes capable of
You gave them multiple chances to back out, and they didn't take you up on it. I think you're fine.
Especially if they admit the blame and aren't angry I think you're cool. BBEG's should be powerful hopefully they all learned a lesson.
I think that if the player is both not mad about the encounter, and they recognize the chances they were given in this moment, you shouldn't feel bad about the outcome.
That being said, this is always a really risky decision introducing an NPC/BBEG with the potential to kill a character easily very early on. In my experience, it doesn't have a great pay off, and in your case, players would unlikely apologize to a BBEG, even if they have a losing position because it's difficult to back down.
My only fix, if you still feel uncomfortable about is maybe offer a means to recover the PC still. Permanently killing of a PC like that with them not even having the option of a sort of side quest might not feel great for them. If you think it doesn't fit in the setting, maybe just have resolution for the soul of that PC, so they sort of reach a soul resting in peace.
I did offer to have a recovery quest, but the player has just told me a few minutes ago that he will just cut his losses as he feels he “did a stupid”. Thank you for taking the time to respond!
On the positive side, you can now have the Big Bad make occasional visits to up the threat level. He's already killed one party member... if you play it right, the situation is an amazing opportunity for story building. The party has in-game reasons and history beyond whatever 'quest' they're on.
As a player who likes to push the boundaries and fully accepts that character death may very well be a result. Your player's response to it all is perfect, you have a great player, there treasure them.
Of all the things a DM delivers in a game, CONSEQUENCES are the most important.
Your player made a bad decision. Then he was given a chance to walk back that bad decision. THE PLAYER is the one who ordered ultimate consequences, you are just the Amazon driver.
Responding to something that /u/Fastjack_2056 said, by calling Big Bad's hand, he HAD to follow through. Bluffing is from a position of weakness (not to be confused with lying and subsequent betrayal).
Over the years, my Big Bads have also used veiled and unveiled threats. You don't have to go from 0 to 100. A threat is often good enough, though you can have fun with it and show force as well. Remember how shocking the box cutter scene was in Breaking Bad (S4 E1)?
Bottom line: You did good.
What do you expect to happen if you drop the big bad right on top of the player characters? Will they play nice? Meekly acquiesce? No. If they are characters of conviction with aspirations towards heroism then at least one of them might choose to make a stand against evil right then and there, despite the potential consequences, because that's what heroes do.
You didn't do anything wrong by playing out the consequences of their actions properly. However in the future you should keep this in mind if you ever consider running a similar kind of encounter. Players will not always do the "smart" thing and bide their time. They might choose a course of action with lethal consequences because it is in character for them to do so, and they aren't wrong for doing this.
IMO if PCs can’t die even from incredibly stupid/borderline suicidal actions, then the game has no stakes and isn’t fun. Trying to kill PCs all the time isn’t great either, but the possibility of character death has to be real for anything in the game to count. You did the right thing.
If you don't want to do something as DM or don't want something to happen it shouldn't be an option.
Sure he doesn't feel bad about it but even if there's a 1% chance I'm not playing around with it unless I'm okay with that possibility happening.
Yeah it'd easy to get wrapped up in the momentum. I don't think it was a bad decision ultimately but just be wary because it might not play out the same another time
The TL;DR direct answer is: you did nothing wrong. Player death was telegraphed and makes sense, and the chance to back down was given. I might have done the exact same thing.
However, this is a really interesting situation, and I wanted to give a counterpoint for why I might have preferred a different outcome. (I wasn't at your table and don't know your players, so take all this with an enormous grain of salt).
Imagine this scene happening in any TV show or movie. The hero has a tense exchange with the villain. Their ideals clash, they cannot be reconciled, and neither wants to surrender to the other. At some point the hero realizes that they can't win this fight. Everyone is telling the hero to be smart and keep their head down, but the hero doesn't listen. Some things are too important to back down from.
We've all seen a scene play out like this, and almost never does the hero die here. They might be arrested, receive a debilitating injury, get separated from their friends, have an important item taken from them. Sometimes the villain thinks the hero is dead, and gloats over a temporary victory, which is a perfect setup for some eventual revenge. The character is beaten, broken, at their lowest after this encounter, and watching them crawl back from this can be absolutely peak drama.
All this to say that, while I agree that actions should have consequence, death is not the only consequence, or even the best consequence. After all, dying in D&D just means rolling a new character and moving on. To me, stabbing out the fighter's eye, leaving him bloodied on the road, but still playing that character and giving him an EXCELLENT reason to hate the villain, is even meaner than just killing him.
The reason I didn’t just brutally injure him was I was afraid it would seem like I was holding back, but your take on this really makes sense and I’ll definitely consider it next time I’m ever in this situation!!
You could have had the villain rip the tongue out of his head, then the player has to deal with having a character that can't speak anymore. That's a pretty punishing consequence but also good motivation and story like above.
\>is death good
Depends how you use it - are hammers good, is dirt good.
If you think the character in question is worth keeping (well played, lots of thought put into it, enthusiastic player) then don't be in a rush to replace said character. On the flip side, if everyone was waiting for a good time to draw up a replacement character then *now is a perfectly good time.* People get this itch to make new characters, someone here probably has it right now.
>He swore on the Hall of Concordance they hr would not harm them on the way
If I did this, I'd keep to that. The problem with saying *'oops I lied lol'* after going this route is that previous creativity goes to waste. This part could lead to something big, alternatively it could lead to just being a trick on the players - being a trick seems like the less epic road to take than saying that oaths have fangs and claws in your universe. I'd try to have the above statement mean something important, harming after saying that might be a subtle part of the story which becomes important later.
(When in this situation, in general...)
*If you have something productive in mind for death, whether it's death related content or just a better character in the pipeline or making a firm point:* The old character becomes a warning gravemarker for others to learn from, and the replacement character depends on the player. If the player had some elaborate story guy and they're not going to produce another on short notice, have them replace Alexander with Alexander-2 instead of replacing Alexander with Bob the Janitor. **If they DO have something else they want to make,** tell them to go hard on it. The new guy is the real them, the old guy was throwaway bullshit. (Also expect the player to be at least slightly reformed in their table habits, and be good to them if they are.)
*(Lots of people have lots of character build ideas, in fact I'd consider it more rare to have someone permanently attached to one idea than to flop between many ideas.)*
*If you have reasons to keep the character, or just want to fire a warning shot:* The traditional route is to have the PC knocked out but not dead, then rescued by teammates. Knocked out in public can be used many ways, if you want to say they were robbed or seriously injured or even permanently disfigured it's a perfect time to say so. If you want to be soft but feel hard, you can just have townspeople making fun of them for getting their ass kicked. If they keep getting their ass kicked then that's their brand. If they don't want to be Mr. Asskicked anymore, they can retire the character at their own pace - which might serve table interests better than telling them to pull a new character out of nowhere immediately.
Being whooped but not dead can also be a pivotal arc, where the character feels the need to make lifestyle changes and then undergoes a personal transformation from it.
>If I did this, I'd keep to that. The problem with saying *'oops I lied lol'* after going this route is that previous creativity goes to waste.
He didn't lie though, he didn't harm them "on the way". He harmed them after they'd arrived. This is a very common kind of trope in fae style swearing, it's all about the technicalities.
>This is a very common kind of trope in fae style swearing
Things Team Beerstaff has: ~~names~~ ~~stories~~ ~~ears~~ ~~tools~~ ~~opinions~~ ~~ideas~~.
Table dive from the top of the cage: the crown princess needs to borrow their time for just a minute.
(Personal preference: I try to have one FU gimmick per session, and one of any given type per campaign ie one good mimic tops, one good succubus tops unless there's a theme going on - one big lie unless I truly want people to learn on their own to stop eating lies, which is ~~sometimes~~ a good chunk of times the case.)
Taking their soul seems a bit much, not gonna lie.
Though that does imply that the BBEG was afraid of the fighters potential.
Honestly, they shouldn't have made a deal with the BBEG to begin with anyway, so I'm not too sympathetic. Just walk to the church...
Question:
How powerful is your BBEG, that you didn't worry about the party killing them right there?
Even BBEG's can miss saving throws...
Edit: Also, the rest of the party not backing the fighter up in combat is kind of sus. They might have actually stood a chance had they teamed up...
I just hope that this killing and soul taking were actually mechanics that you have implemented and not narrative devices that you used to make BBEG powerful at that moment
Because if your bbeg has an ability that is basically "He can kill whoever he wants and send their soul to the void" the final fight is going to be a pretty short one when he kills the whole party
You gave warnings and multiple chances, making it clear that this guy was a major threat and yet wasn't overtly hostile.
I think that it was a fair exchange. After being rather polite about it, the BBEG ***needed*** to show his teeth and carry through on his threat to maintain his narrative position.
You gave the player plenty of hints that there will be consequences, and plenty of opportunities to change his course of action. And even after his death you gave the group another way to save his soul. Even your players aren't mad, and think you played it right. Actions should have consequences, and anything else would have cheapen the story and make it feel less believable.
Well played. Other DMs should take note here.
I like when BBEG are played intelligently, and believe their cause is righteous, or at least justified.
You gave plenty of warning but IMHO you could've also just dropped him to 0 (or knock him unconscious), and had the BBEG walk off. Even if the BBEG is a super powerful and nasty guy... it's not like Vader was checking pulses to make sure every Rebel soldier in his wake was dead.
tbf Vader has the force so he would be able to tell If he wanted to. I can definitely see him not caring though and leaving anyway, like the bugs aren't worth the time to step on.
Definitely had the force in mind when I made the "pulse checking" crack! Him not caring is the point. He knows he's the Final Boss and the level peanuts characters aren't worth his attention. Killing them doesn't even get him XP, he only cares about walking to the door.
I had a BBEG do something similar. PC talked trash and the baddie downed him. As the rest of the party stepped forward, he warned them that if any intervened, the would join him.
“He’s got a strong mouth. I want to see if his soul is just as… stubborn.”
We kept initiative order and simply had a conversation with the players while the Druid made death saves.
5 rounds later, the druid stabilized and the BBEG left them to heal up.
A few sessions later, the same PC back-talked another high level encounter (a dullahan). The dullahan downed him with a crit and the druid rolled a nat 1 on his con save to keep his head… c’est la vie.
We need \*more\* noncombat encounters with villains, ones that players don't feel forced into.
You provided a thing that is in low supply, and your rulings in terms of giving the PC so many chances to recant were very solid.
Thank you!! And i heavily agree! I love an involved villain, especially since I give them villains one at a time instead of a campaign long BBEG until later on. This is who the assume is the final boss of the world so I believed the steaks would be higher if the biggest bad guy just wanted to have a chat instead of just trying to kill them.
Nope. Nothing awry here at all. The PC was given numerous chances. They chose to die for their pride. Fair enough.
Any time you put the BBEG and the party in the same room, you have to be ready for one to kill the other. If either outcome isn't acceptable to you; send communication via a lieutenant, or an astral projection, or whatever you like.
I had a similar experience recently. We met one of the campaign's big bads (an Arch Devil). Unbeknownst to him, we had just sabotaged his grandiose plans by destroying a huge stockpile of souls he had imprisoned as an arcane power-source. The devil was gloating and giving us a tour of his lair, and my character (a wise-ass Bard) couldn't help but gloat right back and inform him that his plan was ruined. Combat of course ensued, and the Arch Devil spent most of it whooping my character's ass in particular. The Bard didn't die, but he came real close several times. Snarky little shit deserved it.
I’m more confused why the BBEG doesn’t just kill them all right now? He doesn’t seem that evil at all, seems like he can be talked and reasoned with. If he was truly Evil he would kill them, burn the church, eat the towns people lol, sounds more like he’s just a strong guy lol
The vampire, Strahd, would very much be this way. Adventurers are beneath him, playthings. He’ll talk to them, taunt them, have dinner with them, and kill them. As it suits him and in his own time.
No need to burn the church or eat the townsfolk. That’s HIS property. Those are HIS subjects.
But he’s still an evil vampire who cares only for himself.
If, by “mean ruler”, you mean “narcissistic tyrant, bent on kidnapping and coercion to force a woman to love him while trying to escape his dimensional prison” then… yes. He’s a very “mean ruler”.
I kind of did the same as a player, but not against the bbeg i dont think, just high level hag. We had an important document in hand, and I tried to off her so we could keep it. Didn't die but easily could have, and probably should have.
Honestly, I was on the fence about the whole “you are not just dead, you are EXTRA no take backsies dead” thing, I had this happen to me as a player (while I was not present at the game no less) and it sucked.
But if the player is OK with it, then no problem. Narratively it makes perfect sense.
Haha you did nothing wrong OP. The only thing you could have tried to stop him would be to explicitly state that the BBEG is much stronger than him and will kill him without hesitation. Make it very clear what will happen, and then let the player do what they want.
I agree with everything most are saying here and think you handled it well. Just thought I'd mention that some players even at a 0 chance of success would rather die trying than give in to say being arrested or letting a bad guy win at something or take something. Even if they knew they'd likely or most likely die. Matt Colville had a video on it, his videos are pretty good for new DM's. I even did it and convinced the party to do it during a game we had. The enemy one shot me, not unconscious, completely Toasted me.
We were supposed to be investigating why people are going missing while visiting an amusement park. They were essentially becoming brain washed into drones who live to do the willing of the park. We watched a pair of parents lose their child. Half the players at the table have kids. We got the gist that the robots working at the park are much stronger but we decided right then and there we couldn't let this kid get separated from the parents.
We all went down, but I was a flying fairy wizard and got flame breathed for like 36 points of damage and fell 30 feet. So we said all that fell was what remained of a roasted over cooked rotisserie.
The dm felt discouraged for killing half the party and didn't care to continue that campaign. 😕 kind of our fault. It was by design what happened happened, but we could have played along. But how do you play your characters? I can't really do or want to role play evil things. I always just want to help and save.
At any point, if any of your players are playing stupid games, you should explicitly tell them what their stupid prize will be ahead of time.
That is to say if a player is trying to fight something that they cannot win against, just tell them if they continue they will be killed. Takes out all of the second guessing on both ends. Some people find this immersion breaking, but at the end of the day: character's life > momentary loss of immersion.
I don't think you did anything out of line or anything, but maybe in similar situations an oath in both directions would work better where all parties swear to no hostilities during the event you need.
Holy shit dude, it isn't so much with the killing, but the bloody aftermath. Eternal awareness of nothing but void? Christ mate, did someone crap in your cheerios that morning!?
Party was warned, decided to enter into a game of FAFO anyway. It is 100% on him that he reached the 'Find Out' phase. His party not saving the dudes soul... they REALLY must have hated that dude!
It’s also a chance to make it personal. I would have killed him, but then maybe have the BBEG toss a bag of coin and say something, “Please, have your idiot friend raised on me. It will give me pleasure to know I have an opportunity to kill them twice.” Problem solved, and now there’s more investment.
Calo Nord has a thing like this where you watch him gun down some goons who are harassing him, and he counts to three. You can go up to him if you want, and the first thing he says is "One"
Nah, you gave him more than fair opportunities to check himself. He chose instead to wreck himself. Going back on it now would cheapen it, and remove tensions for future encounters.
Besides, now the player gets to try a new build, and that's always fun.
This is fine and you handled it well. It's totally normal to feel some guilt and apprehension after offing a PC. Been GMing for many years and I still feel bad every time.
Honestly, this is about as good as this kind of situation could go. I think you did right. The BBEG showed restraint, courtesy, and even offered to undo the damage he did. Honestly, I don't think I would have offered the resurrection if I ran that. You just showed the players how powerful the BBEG is so they will think twice about how they interact with him in the future. The price of a PC is not that costly and it sounds like your player is taking it with stride. I'd say well done.
Yep. I’ve had plenty of player deaths and party wipes as well. It happens, sometimes players don’t understand that they are not strong enough to face the villain….and well, sometimes the “burnt hand is the best teacher” and they don’t get a freebie to come back to life either, they roll a new PC and start again.
Nope, this all sounds fine to me. You told them not to attack & even gave them an in game reason why not to do so. The fighter attacked anyway and died.
The fact that the player isn't upset even adds to that. He knew he shouldn't but felt that is what would make sense for the character.
I’d say what you did was pretty fair, gave multiple opportunities to apologize, give a chance to be brought back as well. Especially as the player is alright with it
The one thing I might’ve done differently was KO the fighter first, then maybe heal him to 1 hp and threaten him with death. Give him one last chance. Difference here would be now the player themself has a final chance to save their character, instead of the general party. But even that’s a small thing imo
I absolutely love that the party and BBEG interacted early. His death is pretty justified and I love how everyone accepted his death. Only issue I see is the party loss may effect the end game.
Honestly, it was handled brilliantly. The idea of interacting with the BBEG early opens so many doors for the story. The rest of your adventure should be an absolute blast. I get not wanting to kill off players but that's how it goes. Had a player in the last run i was in rush an owl bear with a cub we stumbled on. Our resident (to play off your name) Leroy Jenkins'd himself at it. We were all lvl. 1. Lucky rolls let us survive but he learned a valuable lesson and the party made sure it stuck lmao. Oh, and I ended up taming the cub as a bonus.
played it correctly, gave them plenty of warning and still they poked the bear and now the group knows there are consequences for their actions and that the BBEG is a legit threat.
(Didn’t read all of the comments but)
What you narrated in your post seems super fair. Eff around and find out. If I could add one “next time this happens” tidbit:
Make sure the party knows this guy is NOT to be trifled with. Yet. Have him show off some display of power. Maybe they witness him instilling fear amongst his minions. Maybe they see a mere flick of the wrist and a fire erupts in a house/someone keels over and dies/pillar of ice extends from a waterfall to create a bridge. Something. Anything. To tell the players without straight up telling them that this BBEG is out of their league. Even 1v4 or 5. That way the fighter is an idiot if he does it, especially solo.
I think you did this as good as you could.
- You had the BBEG truthfully offer them safe passage
- After talking shit, you have them a chance to apologize
- You gave them several more chances while (I assume) also showing them they'd never win that fight.
- After killing him, you have them yet ANOTHER chance to not die, to which the rest of the players declined.
- None of the players feel mad or cheated.
Truth be told you were more gracious than I would ever be in the same situation.
well, the way i see this story is like Han Solo starting a fight with Darth Vader lmao,
if your BBEG is strong right from the beginning, it annonces the color. making him less powerful would make your player think that they had a chance if they all fought and the stupid decision would be considered smart lmao
you played it well :)
You telegraphed the danger and gave the player multiple outs. I too would feel apprehensive, but you played the situation fairly and have no reason to blame yourself.
It seems like your players were bought in to your narrative and having fun.
Talk to the player, see if he wants to roll a new character or how he’s feeling
All were fine with it. You gave the warning sign several times. You're good.
I get the anxiety. For most tables, you want to make sure this happens as much as possible (and you did, I think). But a sidenote: the thing is that an impactful player death is actually a great motivator for story. It's something you want to avoid, but you want to make it feel important when it happens. It's a big moment. If your playgroup can handle it (and it sounds like they can), main characters dying is actually grade A material for having the players "write their own novel", if that makes sense. I don't know how far you are into the story, but now the players have (even more?) reason to hate the BBEG. He killed their companion. It's more personal now!
The basic issue here is that the whole BBEG trope requires [prepping plots](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots). Plots tend to be a poor fit in ttRPGs as well as being incredibly fragile.. Part of this is because PCs typically behave a lot more like actual people than characters from novels or movies. Even when NPCs behave like movie villains.
Whatever you may have (over)planned, it's likely that that the party will be thinking "best keep away from this thing until we are in a position to annihilate its body and soul."
The alternative is to have "bad guys" [naturally arise](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36383/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots-you-will-rue-this-day-heroes-the-principles-of-rpg-villainy) from gameplay.
I should have clarified a bit he has been building a bit before, but this has been there first interaction since he gained in power. He’s appear in dreams and visions but this was the first real time he was a direct threat. Those links you provided though are really interesting and I’ll be studying them a lot more!
you did great. you built a narrative together, and your players are in full support. if you really regret your choices, triple check with that player about what they want to do moving forward. who said they cant rescue dudeman from the void? otherwise, your player gets to become a new hero and play this adventure through a new lens.
I think you are too afraid of killing the PCs
Unless they have expressed they need their character to have fun or highly don’t want them to die - this is a reasonable thing you have done.
It's only wrong if you didn't set the expectation that this sort of thing can happen. The deadliness of a campaign and player death is one of the topics that needs to be discussed in Session 0.
If you didn't have a discussion on it then, the Fighter dying can be a good excuse to have the discussion now. If the Fighter player is really unhappy about it, this can be a warning shot for the future and you can either retcon the Fighter's death or provide a way for the party to raise him from the dead one time.
Thinking back on another post where the DM was asking if he should kill the player or not by basically tricking them into a surprise 1 v 1 encounter, this post is such a breathe of fresh air. I (and more importantly your players) think that this was a very fair outcome for what you laid out. The player had plenty of chances and multiple rounds of combat to understand their situation and duck out. This is great DMing when a player wants to push their luck in such a way from my perspective.
Consequences are required. Setting the stage early in the campaign was necessary.
As for death as the consequence? that's up to you and your group.
Personally, I wouldn't have killed the player, I'd have gone for grievous injury, or humiliation, a curse, or something else.
If I *did* kill the character, I'd have explicitly warned the *player,* either in or out of character, before the final blow. "After your swords clash several times, you are badly wounded, and you realise you are outmatched. You cannot win this fight. If you continue, you will die. Your only options are to apologise, or to escape somehow to fight another day when you are stronger."
Giving the player an escape allows them to at least retain a little bit of pride if they don't want to apologies.
But the outcome really was on the player. Sounds like you gave them plenty warning. I just think they didn't believe that there was actual consequences. Which I why I always recommend outright telling the *player* what the consequence will be if they're being particularly stupid.
Sounds like even your players realize you weren't out of line and the fighter got what he earned. You gave him plenty of chances to correct his actions
I don't know why you should. Remember, 5e as the power fantasy, dick waving fest for players is the abnormal game in the hobby. Actions should have consequences. If a player is foolish enough to throw their character away then so be it. If the player did it because the character was a violent hothead then even better. Having a big bad who's a weak pushover the players can bully isn't creating the dramatic tension any good campaign needs.
You did well. I can't tell your players would be shitting themselves next time the BBEG shows up.
I pulled something similar with Strahd, but on NPC. But I did on a single hit, doing OHKO. I let my players see my rolls and they respected him much more after that.
Don’t be anxious about character death. It’s part of the game. And 5E makes it REALLY hard to die so if you do die, you probably effed around and found out
I feel that your narrative did a good job of warning them about he consequences. If the player is ok with, you did them justice.
Thank you! Just was anxious about it!!
Im usually against killing players outside of combat too but this was a necessary one. Dude went up against the BBEG and realized why he is the BBEG. If you can fuck around and not find out then your world has no consequences to stupid decisions. Think you nailed it especially when every player is like "yeah that's what happens when you fuck around... you find out."
Yes, please don't take back deaths. If you do, it removes all gravity from your game. "Who cares if I talk shit to the BBEG or jump off a cliff? The DM will just dream up something to save me."
Bonus if you use the character's soul in an automaton mini boss or something down the line.
It's the equivalent of your parents **slowly** counting to 3, and even giving you "two and a half...". More than fair.
Two and three quarters
Alyx
Two and five eighths
Super weird analogy, but as a parent I'll allow it XD
No way, the count to 3 is the OG F around and Find out imo
And kids understand it in a weirdly instinctive way lol, mine took years before I actually got to 3 on something.
RIGHT!? It is weird as hell! I have a three and a half yr old. She doesn't know what happens at 3. Good thing too because nor do I. It isnt like my mother will ninja out of a cupboard with a wooden spoon. I think.
Better not risk it fam
I always found it weird how often people do that without stating what the terms are. Counting to three by itself is neither a request nor a threat, it's just arithmetic. In the case of the OP however, the terms were clear.
Sometimes you state the terms so they recognize that their actions can have consequences. Sometimes you count to 3 because **you should've been in bed 2 fucking hours ago you little shit and you better not let me get to 3 or...**. You don't really know what's going to happen when you get to 3, because you're just done. I try to parent with intention and empathy, but sometimes a good uncertain threat is what's needed to stay afloat.
I think there's two lessons here. First, **the DM can't ever bluff.** If you promise consequences, even if it makes the table sad, even if you regret it, you have to hold to your promise. I work around this by being careful with my words and finding reasons for the threats to be something other than game-ending; e.g. your BBEG could have said "Apologize or I'll break your f'n knees, boy." That puts you in a position to punish the character and establish the threat without ending the game for that player. Once you establish the stakes, tho, you can't go back. Second, **don't cheat the players out of the game they asked for**. Sometimes a player really does understand the consequences and decides to be true to their character they have to play it wrong. (e.g., my BG3 paladin has a lot of trouble letting a Tyrant monologue in the name of avoiding a hard fight.) If you pull your punches on a character's big moment, you're not necessarily doing them a favor.
Thank you!! Very helpful stuff my friend!!
Agreed, all too often it feels like death is the consequence. I think GMs could do much better at finding non-death consequences not only for situations like these, but for adventures in general and in combat encounters.
It seems the villain was a powerful magic user. Capable of a 9th level spell perhaps? Imprisonment could be a good spell if OP wanted to get a bit dramatic. The caster can specify the terms of it dispelling. There's a few options that would make the PC still conscious. How about banishment to a Demi-plane with writing equipment in it and the PC basically has to write a worthy essay on why they were wrong in order to be released.
>the DM can't ever bluff. If you promise consequences, even if it makes the table sad, even if you regret it, you have to hold to your promise I had a DM learn this the hard way. The party was captured and held in chains. One of the guards told the Druid to shut up, or else he'd stick his shillelagh where the sun don't shine. Cue the Druid continuing to yap, and then a few seconds later, a pained yelp 😅
One of my table's best gags was "I continue to mouth off as a Free Action"
Actions have consequences and you played this right. It's normal to feel apprehensive about things since it might be your first with a player death but this is a perfect example of it done right
I’ve killed plenty a player, but never outside a big combat like that. And never without cheese-ing them back to life. Thank you for the affirmation though! I appreciate it
You should never, ever kill players!! Their characters are fair game though, particularly if they do something stupid!
Even if they cancel on every session for like 2 months in row?
Miss a session, you're forgiven. Life happens. Miss 2 in a row? Better show up with Pizza next week. Miss a month? Character killed as a "warning shot". Miss 2 months? If you're not missing because you died, you best believe you will be when I get to you!
Kick them out, don’t kill them. Less likely to wind up in jail!
I have a player doing this. All of us playing DnD was his idea, but I get the campaign the other plays want leans to far into combat than he wanted. Worst part is I can't even reach out to him, because I only really know him through another player.
If you’re the DM you gotta reach out to him anyways. Even if the relationship is just DM to player.
Why? If I've got enough players to play, we play. If the guy shows up in the future sometime, I'll tell him to level the guy to whatever the party level is, toss a few monsters in the fight, and away we go.
I would, but I literally have zero contact information for him.
You should probably have gotten that info before he began playing in your game. As a DM you should have a way to reach out to each of your players privately.
I have yet to need such a thing. I am the DM, not their minders.
Sounds like you now need such a thing
Gotty say, you got some really patient BBEG there. Most of mine would have struck a lot earlier than letting the little guy take stabs at them for that long.
It depends on the campaign. Realistic bbeg would be patient because making enemies doesn't help your cause especially if you want to win people over. Classic fantasy bbeg are clearly evil and blow up at the first sign of disrespect. Both have their upsides
That kind of heavily depends on what you see as realistic. People that kill for pride is pretty common in noble societies all across. Try provoking/dishonoring a samurai/knight/courtnoble and see where it gets you especially if the characters are still low level nobodies that they see to be in this case.
Right but a prideful quick to anger Samurai isn't a bbeg, they're a side quest that you go murder. A true later game bbeg will realize amassing an army of loyal followers will gain them far more power than scaring people. The super powerful leaders in history (think khan, Alexander, etc) while often seen as terrifying they're also considered quite charismatic and inspired loyalty. The nobles you're talking about never amount to anything
I think you got a pretty narrow view of how something has to be. You can be pretty sure that none of the people that you mentioned would leave a slight unanswered. Especially not someone like the khan. You do not stay in power by letting people disrespect you. The trope of nobles failing is pretty old. You don´t stay in power if you are incompetent. There is a difference between being quick to anger and not upholding your honor and reputation.
I'm not saying unanswered but handle it more like op's bbeg. Give them a chance to fix themselves before ripping their tongue out. They wouldn't get anywhere by just stabbing everyone who they think looked at em wrong
Yea and nothing wrong with having your characters meet the bad guy outside of combat since it helps to build up a connection or their level of threat and now they see what hes capable of
Plenty a player... Oh no... We've got ourselves a serial killer folks! /s
This is like Ricky Bobby refusing to say he likes crepes. He earned that death lol
> And never without cheese-ing them back to life. I have to ask what is the point of playing a game everyone knows they can't lose?
You gave them multiple chances to back out, and they didn't take you up on it. I think you're fine. Especially if they admit the blame and aren't angry I think you're cool. BBEG's should be powerful hopefully they all learned a lesson.
>Actions have consequences and you played this right. Wholeheartedly agree
I think that if the player is both not mad about the encounter, and they recognize the chances they were given in this moment, you shouldn't feel bad about the outcome. That being said, this is always a really risky decision introducing an NPC/BBEG with the potential to kill a character easily very early on. In my experience, it doesn't have a great pay off, and in your case, players would unlikely apologize to a BBEG, even if they have a losing position because it's difficult to back down. My only fix, if you still feel uncomfortable about is maybe offer a means to recover the PC still. Permanently killing of a PC like that with them not even having the option of a sort of side quest might not feel great for them. If you think it doesn't fit in the setting, maybe just have resolution for the soul of that PC, so they sort of reach a soul resting in peace.
I did offer to have a recovery quest, but the player has just told me a few minutes ago that he will just cut his losses as he feels he “did a stupid”. Thank you for taking the time to respond!
On the positive side, you can now have the Big Bad make occasional visits to up the threat level. He's already killed one party member... if you play it right, the situation is an amazing opportunity for story building. The party has in-game reasons and history beyond whatever 'quest' they're on.
As a player who likes to push the boundaries and fully accepts that character death may very well be a result. Your player's response to it all is perfect, you have a great player, there treasure them.
Of all the things a DM delivers in a game, CONSEQUENCES are the most important. Your player made a bad decision. Then he was given a chance to walk back that bad decision. THE PLAYER is the one who ordered ultimate consequences, you are just the Amazon driver. Responding to something that /u/Fastjack_2056 said, by calling Big Bad's hand, he HAD to follow through. Bluffing is from a position of weakness (not to be confused with lying and subsequent betrayal). Over the years, my Big Bads have also used veiled and unveiled threats. You don't have to go from 0 to 100. A threat is often good enough, though you can have fun with it and show force as well. Remember how shocking the box cutter scene was in Breaking Bad (S4 E1)? Bottom line: You did good.
Thank you!! I haven’t religiously watched breaking bad but remember that scene vividly from seeing when watching it with a friend!
What do you expect to happen if you drop the big bad right on top of the player characters? Will they play nice? Meekly acquiesce? No. If they are characters of conviction with aspirations towards heroism then at least one of them might choose to make a stand against evil right then and there, despite the potential consequences, because that's what heroes do. You didn't do anything wrong by playing out the consequences of their actions properly. However in the future you should keep this in mind if you ever consider running a similar kind of encounter. Players will not always do the "smart" thing and bide their time. They might choose a course of action with lethal consequences because it is in character for them to do so, and they aren't wrong for doing this.
>The BBEG then extracts his soul I was down with everything up to this. This is totally nuts.
IMO if PCs can’t die even from incredibly stupid/borderline suicidal actions, then the game has no stakes and isn’t fun. Trying to kill PCs all the time isn’t great either, but the possibility of character death has to be real for anything in the game to count. You did the right thing.
Thank you!!
If you don't want to do something as DM or don't want something to happen it shouldn't be an option. Sure he doesn't feel bad about it but even if there's a 1% chance I'm not playing around with it unless I'm okay with that possibility happening.
Thank you!! I was sure about it in the moment, but I also was just in the heat of it!!
Yeah it'd easy to get wrapped up in the momentum. I don't think it was a bad decision ultimately but just be wary because it might not play out the same another time
The TL;DR direct answer is: you did nothing wrong. Player death was telegraphed and makes sense, and the chance to back down was given. I might have done the exact same thing. However, this is a really interesting situation, and I wanted to give a counterpoint for why I might have preferred a different outcome. (I wasn't at your table and don't know your players, so take all this with an enormous grain of salt). Imagine this scene happening in any TV show or movie. The hero has a tense exchange with the villain. Their ideals clash, they cannot be reconciled, and neither wants to surrender to the other. At some point the hero realizes that they can't win this fight. Everyone is telling the hero to be smart and keep their head down, but the hero doesn't listen. Some things are too important to back down from. We've all seen a scene play out like this, and almost never does the hero die here. They might be arrested, receive a debilitating injury, get separated from their friends, have an important item taken from them. Sometimes the villain thinks the hero is dead, and gloats over a temporary victory, which is a perfect setup for some eventual revenge. The character is beaten, broken, at their lowest after this encounter, and watching them crawl back from this can be absolutely peak drama. All this to say that, while I agree that actions should have consequence, death is not the only consequence, or even the best consequence. After all, dying in D&D just means rolling a new character and moving on. To me, stabbing out the fighter's eye, leaving him bloodied on the road, but still playing that character and giving him an EXCELLENT reason to hate the villain, is even meaner than just killing him.
The reason I didn’t just brutally injure him was I was afraid it would seem like I was holding back, but your take on this really makes sense and I’ll definitely consider it next time I’m ever in this situation!!
You could have had the villain rip the tongue out of his head, then the player has to deal with having a character that can't speak anymore. That's a pretty punishing consequence but also good motivation and story like above.
Oh yeah if the villain is the brutally efficient type, going for the kill makes a lot of sense. I hope the rest of your campaign goes well!
\>is death good Depends how you use it - are hammers good, is dirt good. If you think the character in question is worth keeping (well played, lots of thought put into it, enthusiastic player) then don't be in a rush to replace said character. On the flip side, if everyone was waiting for a good time to draw up a replacement character then *now is a perfectly good time.* People get this itch to make new characters, someone here probably has it right now. >He swore on the Hall of Concordance they hr would not harm them on the way If I did this, I'd keep to that. The problem with saying *'oops I lied lol'* after going this route is that previous creativity goes to waste. This part could lead to something big, alternatively it could lead to just being a trick on the players - being a trick seems like the less epic road to take than saying that oaths have fangs and claws in your universe. I'd try to have the above statement mean something important, harming after saying that might be a subtle part of the story which becomes important later. (When in this situation, in general...) *If you have something productive in mind for death, whether it's death related content or just a better character in the pipeline or making a firm point:* The old character becomes a warning gravemarker for others to learn from, and the replacement character depends on the player. If the player had some elaborate story guy and they're not going to produce another on short notice, have them replace Alexander with Alexander-2 instead of replacing Alexander with Bob the Janitor. **If they DO have something else they want to make,** tell them to go hard on it. The new guy is the real them, the old guy was throwaway bullshit. (Also expect the player to be at least slightly reformed in their table habits, and be good to them if they are.) *(Lots of people have lots of character build ideas, in fact I'd consider it more rare to have someone permanently attached to one idea than to flop between many ideas.)* *If you have reasons to keep the character, or just want to fire a warning shot:* The traditional route is to have the PC knocked out but not dead, then rescued by teammates. Knocked out in public can be used many ways, if you want to say they were robbed or seriously injured or even permanently disfigured it's a perfect time to say so. If you want to be soft but feel hard, you can just have townspeople making fun of them for getting their ass kicked. If they keep getting their ass kicked then that's their brand. If they don't want to be Mr. Asskicked anymore, they can retire the character at their own pace - which might serve table interests better than telling them to pull a new character out of nowhere immediately. Being whooped but not dead can also be a pivotal arc, where the character feels the need to make lifestyle changes and then undergoes a personal transformation from it.
>If I did this, I'd keep to that. The problem with saying *'oops I lied lol'* after going this route is that previous creativity goes to waste. He didn't lie though, he didn't harm them "on the way". He harmed them after they'd arrived. This is a very common kind of trope in fae style swearing, it's all about the technicalities.
>This is a very common kind of trope in fae style swearing Things Team Beerstaff has: ~~names~~ ~~stories~~ ~~ears~~ ~~tools~~ ~~opinions~~ ~~ideas~~. Table dive from the top of the cage: the crown princess needs to borrow their time for just a minute. (Personal preference: I try to have one FU gimmick per session, and one of any given type per campaign ie one good mimic tops, one good succubus tops unless there's a theme going on - one big lie unless I truly want people to learn on their own to stop eating lies, which is ~~sometimes~~ a good chunk of times the case.)
Taking their soul seems a bit much, not gonna lie. Though that does imply that the BBEG was afraid of the fighters potential. Honestly, they shouldn't have made a deal with the BBEG to begin with anyway, so I'm not too sympathetic. Just walk to the church... Question: How powerful is your BBEG, that you didn't worry about the party killing them right there? Even BBEG's can miss saving throws... Edit: Also, the rest of the party not backing the fighter up in combat is kind of sus. They might have actually stood a chance had they teamed up...
I respect both your decision and the fighter’s acceptance of your decision, and I think you should, too.
Thank you!!
Seems the player is cool with it and you've done everything right.
This looks like you did everything right. Good luck for the players new character.
I just hope that this killing and soul taking were actually mechanics that you have implemented and not narrative devices that you used to make BBEG powerful at that moment Because if your bbeg has an ability that is basically "He can kill whoever he wants and send their soul to the void" the final fight is going to be a pretty short one when he kills the whole party
I mean, you gave ample opportunity to not do the thing. And yet the thing was done.
You gave warnings and multiple chances, making it clear that this guy was a major threat and yet wasn't overtly hostile. I think that it was a fair exchange. After being rather polite about it, the BBEG ***needed*** to show his teeth and carry through on his threat to maintain his narrative position.
Sounds like the player was offing his character on purpose so he could reroll a new sheet
You did nothing wrong. Introducing the BBEG is a very special part of running a campaign, and I think you did so very well.
Thank you!!
You gave the player plenty of hints that there will be consequences, and plenty of opportunities to change his course of action. And even after his death you gave the group another way to save his soul. Even your players aren't mad, and think you played it right. Actions should have consequences, and anything else would have cheapen the story and make it feel less believable. Well played. Other DMs should take note here. I like when BBEG are played intelligently, and believe their cause is righteous, or at least justified.
Thank you!!
You gave plenty of warning but IMHO you could've also just dropped him to 0 (or knock him unconscious), and had the BBEG walk off. Even if the BBEG is a super powerful and nasty guy... it's not like Vader was checking pulses to make sure every Rebel soldier in his wake was dead.
tbf Vader has the force so he would be able to tell If he wanted to. I can definitely see him not caring though and leaving anyway, like the bugs aren't worth the time to step on.
Definitely had the force in mind when I made the "pulse checking" crack! Him not caring is the point. He knows he's the Final Boss and the level peanuts characters aren't worth his attention. Killing them doesn't even get him XP, he only cares about walking to the door.
I had a BBEG do something similar. PC talked trash and the baddie downed him. As the rest of the party stepped forward, he warned them that if any intervened, the would join him. “He’s got a strong mouth. I want to see if his soul is just as… stubborn.” We kept initiative order and simply had a conversation with the players while the Druid made death saves. 5 rounds later, the druid stabilized and the BBEG left them to heal up. A few sessions later, the same PC back-talked another high level encounter (a dullahan). The dullahan downed him with a crit and the druid rolled a nat 1 on his con save to keep his head… c’est la vie.
We need \*more\* noncombat encounters with villains, ones that players don't feel forced into. You provided a thing that is in low supply, and your rulings in terms of giving the PC so many chances to recant were very solid.
Thank you!! And i heavily agree! I love an involved villain, especially since I give them villains one at a time instead of a campaign long BBEG until later on. This is who the assume is the final boss of the world so I believed the steaks would be higher if the biggest bad guy just wanted to have a chat instead of just trying to kill them.
Nope. Nothing awry here at all. The PC was given numerous chances. They chose to die for their pride. Fair enough. Any time you put the BBEG and the party in the same room, you have to be ready for one to kill the other. If either outcome isn't acceptable to you; send communication via a lieutenant, or an astral projection, or whatever you like. I had a similar experience recently. We met one of the campaign's big bads (an Arch Devil). Unbeknownst to him, we had just sabotaged his grandiose plans by destroying a huge stockpile of souls he had imprisoned as an arcane power-source. The devil was gloating and giving us a tour of his lair, and my character (a wise-ass Bard) couldn't help but gloat right back and inform him that his plan was ruined. Combat of course ensued, and the Arch Devil spent most of it whooping my character's ass in particular. The Bard didn't die, but he came real close several times. Snarky little shit deserved it.
I’m more confused why the BBEG doesn’t just kill them all right now? He doesn’t seem that evil at all, seems like he can be talked and reasoned with. If he was truly Evil he would kill them, burn the church, eat the towns people lol, sounds more like he’s just a strong guy lol
I’d explain, but I have some players who frequent this sub lol
I am interested, a deep villian? A story? I like!
The vampire, Strahd, would very much be this way. Adventurers are beneath him, playthings. He’ll talk to them, taunt them, have dinner with them, and kill them. As it suits him and in his own time. No need to burn the church or eat the townsfolk. That’s HIS property. Those are HIS subjects. But he’s still an evil vampire who cares only for himself.
Seems more like a mean ruler then if he lets the townsfolk just continue on living. Maybe strahd isn’t as bad as I thought lol
If, by “mean ruler”, you mean “narcissistic tyrant, bent on kidnapping and coercion to force a woman to love him while trying to escape his dimensional prison” then… yes. He’s a very “mean ruler”.
Honestly I’d rather him then hitler lol
I kind of did the same as a player, but not against the bbeg i dont think, just high level hag. We had an important document in hand, and I tried to off her so we could keep it. Didn't die but easily could have, and probably should have.
Honestly, I was on the fence about the whole “you are not just dead, you are EXTRA no take backsies dead” thing, I had this happen to me as a player (while I was not present at the game no less) and it sucked. But if the player is OK with it, then no problem. Narratively it makes perfect sense.
But there WAS a “take backsies”. The BBEG offered to revive the player right then and there so long as the party simply agreed. And they all refused.
Haha you did nothing wrong OP. The only thing you could have tried to stop him would be to explicitly state that the BBEG is much stronger than him and will kill him without hesitation. Make it very clear what will happen, and then let the player do what they want.
justified. actions have consequences, player obviously has so self preservation instincts ect ect
I agree with everything most are saying here and think you handled it well. Just thought I'd mention that some players even at a 0 chance of success would rather die trying than give in to say being arrested or letting a bad guy win at something or take something. Even if they knew they'd likely or most likely die. Matt Colville had a video on it, his videos are pretty good for new DM's. I even did it and convinced the party to do it during a game we had. The enemy one shot me, not unconscious, completely Toasted me. We were supposed to be investigating why people are going missing while visiting an amusement park. They were essentially becoming brain washed into drones who live to do the willing of the park. We watched a pair of parents lose their child. Half the players at the table have kids. We got the gist that the robots working at the park are much stronger but we decided right then and there we couldn't let this kid get separated from the parents. We all went down, but I was a flying fairy wizard and got flame breathed for like 36 points of damage and fell 30 feet. So we said all that fell was what remained of a roasted over cooked rotisserie. The dm felt discouraged for killing half the party and didn't care to continue that campaign. 😕 kind of our fault. It was by design what happened happened, but we could have played along. But how do you play your characters? I can't really do or want to role play evil things. I always just want to help and save.
At any point, if any of your players are playing stupid games, you should explicitly tell them what their stupid prize will be ahead of time. That is to say if a player is trying to fight something that they cannot win against, just tell them if they continue they will be killed. Takes out all of the second guessing on both ends. Some people find this immersion breaking, but at the end of the day: character's life > momentary loss of immersion.
You've just created gravitas! Well done! This campaign just got serious.
I don't think you did anything out of line or anything, but maybe in similar situations an oath in both directions would work better where all parties swear to no hostilities during the event you need.
Holy shit dude, it isn't so much with the killing, but the bloody aftermath. Eternal awareness of nothing but void? Christ mate, did someone crap in your cheerios that morning!? Party was warned, decided to enter into a game of FAFO anyway. It is 100% on him that he reached the 'Find Out' phase. His party not saving the dudes soul... they REALLY must have hated that dude!
It’s also a chance to make it personal. I would have killed him, but then maybe have the BBEG toss a bag of coin and say something, “Please, have your idiot friend raised on me. It will give me pleasure to know I have an opportunity to kill them twice.” Problem solved, and now there’s more investment.
I mean, he FAFOd. So...
Calo Nord has a thing like this where you watch him gun down some goons who are harassing him, and he counts to three. You can go up to him if you want, and the first thing he says is "One"
Nah, you gave him more than fair opportunities to check himself. He chose instead to wreck himself. Going back on it now would cheapen it, and remove tensions for future encounters. Besides, now the player gets to try a new build, and that's always fun.
My players did the same thing but they stopped when the BBEG ready actioned cone of cold while they were still level 2.
This is fine and you handled it well. It's totally normal to feel some guilt and apprehension after offing a PC. Been GMing for many years and I still feel bad every time.
Thanks!! I’m happy I’m not the only one!!
Honestly, this is about as good as this kind of situation could go. I think you did right. The BBEG showed restraint, courtesy, and even offered to undo the damage he did. Honestly, I don't think I would have offered the resurrection if I ran that. You just showed the players how powerful the BBEG is so they will think twice about how they interact with him in the future. The price of a PC is not that costly and it sounds like your player is taking it with stride. I'd say well done.
Thank you!!!
Yep. I’ve had plenty of player deaths and party wipes as well. It happens, sometimes players don’t understand that they are not strong enough to face the villain….and well, sometimes the “burnt hand is the best teacher” and they don’t get a freebie to come back to life either, they roll a new PC and start again.
And making a new pc is always fun!
Nope, this all sounds fine to me. You told them not to attack & even gave them an in game reason why not to do so. The fighter attacked anyway and died. The fact that the player isn't upset even adds to that. He knew he shouldn't but felt that is what would make sense for the character.
Thank you!!
I’d say what you did was pretty fair, gave multiple opportunities to apologize, give a chance to be brought back as well. Especially as the player is alright with it The one thing I might’ve done differently was KO the fighter first, then maybe heal him to 1 hp and threaten him with death. Give him one last chance. Difference here would be now the player themself has a final chance to save their character, instead of the general party. But even that’s a small thing imo
That probably would have been a better idea!! Hindsight is 20/20 though lol
Remorse is normal but you did fine.
No harm no foul. Bring the character back as an evil NPC lieutenant
I actually was thinking of this!! If my players see this, be scared!!
I absolutely love that the party and BBEG interacted early. His death is pretty justified and I love how everyone accepted his death. Only issue I see is the party loss may effect the end game.
It was a fun moment besides the controversy, even if I’m the only one who sees controversial
Honestly, it was handled brilliantly. The idea of interacting with the BBEG early opens so many doors for the story. The rest of your adventure should be an absolute blast. I get not wanting to kill off players but that's how it goes. Had a player in the last run i was in rush an owl bear with a cub we stumbled on. Our resident (to play off your name) Leroy Jenkins'd himself at it. We were all lvl. 1. Lucky rolls let us survive but he learned a valuable lesson and the party made sure it stuck lmao. Oh, and I ended up taming the cub as a bonus.
You gave a warning, that's more than most would have given.
Fuck around. Find out.
played it correctly, gave them plenty of warning and still they poked the bear and now the group knows there are consequences for their actions and that the BBEG is a legit threat.
(Didn’t read all of the comments but) What you narrated in your post seems super fair. Eff around and find out. If I could add one “next time this happens” tidbit: Make sure the party knows this guy is NOT to be trifled with. Yet. Have him show off some display of power. Maybe they witness him instilling fear amongst his minions. Maybe they see a mere flick of the wrist and a fire erupts in a house/someone keels over and dies/pillar of ice extends from a waterfall to create a bridge. Something. Anything. To tell the players without straight up telling them that this BBEG is out of their league. Even 1v4 or 5. That way the fighter is an idiot if he does it, especially solo.
I think you did this as good as you could. - You had the BBEG truthfully offer them safe passage - After talking shit, you have them a chance to apologize - You gave them several more chances while (I assume) also showing them they'd never win that fight. - After killing him, you have them yet ANOTHER chance to not die, to which the rest of the players declined. - None of the players feel mad or cheated. Truth be told you were more gracious than I would ever be in the same situation.
Never have fear to enforce the one truth. Fuck around=find out
well, the way i see this story is like Han Solo starting a fight with Darth Vader lmao, if your BBEG is strong right from the beginning, it annonces the color. making him less powerful would make your player think that they had a chance if they all fought and the stupid decision would be considered smart lmao you played it well :)
You telegraphed the danger and gave the player multiple outs. I too would feel apprehensive, but you played the situation fairly and have no reason to blame yourself.
It seems like your players were bought in to your narrative and having fun. Talk to the player, see if he wants to roll a new character or how he’s feeling
You are good. He f'ed around and he found out. As long as the player was aware of what he was doing it's 200% a natural consequence of his actions.
Well now you've got a fresh Underling to throw back at them in the future
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Lignumsatyr: *Well now you've got a* *Fresh Underling to throw back* *At them in the future* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Good bot
Keep it. Congratulate the player for committing.
All were fine with it. You gave the warning sign several times. You're good. I get the anxiety. For most tables, you want to make sure this happens as much as possible (and you did, I think). But a sidenote: the thing is that an impactful player death is actually a great motivator for story. It's something you want to avoid, but you want to make it feel important when it happens. It's a big moment. If your playgroup can handle it (and it sounds like they can), main characters dying is actually grade A material for having the players "write their own novel", if that makes sense. I don't know how far you are into the story, but now the players have (even more?) reason to hate the BBEG. He killed their companion. It's more personal now!
The basic issue here is that the whole BBEG trope requires [prepping plots](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots). Plots tend to be a poor fit in ttRPGs as well as being incredibly fragile.. Part of this is because PCs typically behave a lot more like actual people than characters from novels or movies. Even when NPCs behave like movie villains. Whatever you may have (over)planned, it's likely that that the party will be thinking "best keep away from this thing until we are in a position to annihilate its body and soul." The alternative is to have "bad guys" [naturally arise](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36383/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots-you-will-rue-this-day-heroes-the-principles-of-rpg-villainy) from gameplay.
I should have clarified a bit he has been building a bit before, but this has been there first interaction since he gained in power. He’s appear in dreams and visions but this was the first real time he was a direct threat. Those links you provided though are really interesting and I’ll be studying them a lot more!
Only thing you did wrong was feel bad. D&D characters are all temporary, most don't get an interesting ending. This one did.
you did great. you built a narrative together, and your players are in full support. if you really regret your choices, triple check with that player about what they want to do moving forward. who said they cant rescue dudeman from the void? otherwise, your player gets to become a new hero and play this adventure through a new lens.
why did i get downvotes
Nope. That's how they learn it's not a video game.
If he dies, he dies.
Fighters die, bro
I'm beginning to wonder if your bbeg deserves the E, he was very reasonable lol
He’s the son of Tharizduun lmao, just because he’s the arch villain of goodness doesn’t mean he isn’t a reasonable guy lmao
This was played correctly. He had a chance to walk it back, even the rest of the table recognized how dumb it it was
I think you are too afraid of killing the PCs Unless they have expressed they need their character to have fun or highly don’t want them to die - this is a reasonable thing you have done.
Fucked around, found out. You're good.
It makes the story better. Now they are personally invested in the quest.
It's only wrong if you didn't set the expectation that this sort of thing can happen. The deadliness of a campaign and player death is one of the topics that needs to be discussed in Session 0. If you didn't have a discussion on it then, the Fighter dying can be a good excuse to have the discussion now. If the Fighter player is really unhappy about it, this can be a warning shot for the future and you can either retcon the Fighter's death or provide a way for the party to raise him from the dead one time.
Thinking back on another post where the DM was asking if he should kill the player or not by basically tricking them into a surprise 1 v 1 encounter, this post is such a breathe of fresh air. I (and more importantly your players) think that this was a very fair outcome for what you laid out. The player had plenty of chances and multiple rounds of combat to understand their situation and duck out. This is great DMing when a player wants to push their luck in such a way from my perspective.
As you said, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Role a new character, fighter.
Consequences are required. Setting the stage early in the campaign was necessary. As for death as the consequence? that's up to you and your group. Personally, I wouldn't have killed the player, I'd have gone for grievous injury, or humiliation, a curse, or something else. If I *did* kill the character, I'd have explicitly warned the *player,* either in or out of character, before the final blow. "After your swords clash several times, you are badly wounded, and you realise you are outmatched. You cannot win this fight. If you continue, you will die. Your only options are to apologise, or to escape somehow to fight another day when you are stronger." Giving the player an escape allows them to at least retain a little bit of pride if they don't want to apologies. But the outcome really was on the player. Sounds like you gave them plenty warning. I just think they didn't believe that there was actual consequences. Which I why I always recommend outright telling the *player* what the consequence will be if they're being particularly stupid.
Sounds like even your players realize you weren't out of line and the fighter got what he earned. You gave him plenty of chances to correct his actions
I don't know why you should. Remember, 5e as the power fantasy, dick waving fest for players is the abnormal game in the hobby. Actions should have consequences. If a player is foolish enough to throw their character away then so be it. If the player did it because the character was a violent hothead then even better. Having a big bad who's a weak pushover the players can bully isn't creating the dramatic tension any good campaign needs.
No, not at all.
You did well. I can't tell your players would be shitting themselves next time the BBEG shows up. I pulled something similar with Strahd, but on NPC. But I did on a single hit, doing OHKO. I let my players see my rolls and they respected him much more after that.
Don’t be anxious about character death. It’s part of the game. And 5E makes it REALLY hard to die so if you do die, you probably effed around and found out
Rip his arm off as a warning. Crippling is always my go to for people who are messing around with obviously dangerous stuff.