The Campaign Builder's Guild

Okay, I'm not sure if Meta is the best place to post this, but, whatever... It's here now.

In a lot of games, the PCs solve problems through violence.

This is especially true in the game I'm currently running, as I'm using Iron Heroes, which is essentially a combat-specific variant of d20 3.5, so, in my game the character's primary skillset is combat, so their problem-solving "toolbox" is a very violent one.

While mindless hack and slash can be fun, I'm interested to hear how you all think it's best the handle the consequences of, oh my god, we just killed those guys, as in, actually killed them dead.

I mean, I'm running a game that's designed to be combat-heavy, and so it would bog the game and story and EVERYTHING down far too much if my PCs stopped to mourn every mook they chopped down, and got introspective after every killing.
However, I do want there to be some kind of an emotional reaction beyond just "oh yay we win"
Or, if there isn't, then there should be a pretty good reason why not.

So far most of the foes they have vanquished have been monstrous and undead - and when I say monstrous I mean monstrous of deed as well as just appearance - so they don't quite count for this debate. The one exception is a mercenary they chopped down for... essentially no reason. I mean, they were reasonably sure that the people the pair of mercenaries were guarding were up to no good, but they snuck up on them, and butchered one guy and captured and tortured the other.
I do plan on this... vile, for want of a better word, behaviour coming back to bite them. They since let the surviving merc go, and he is gonna be out for revenge and will certainly come back, with some nasty friends, to try and hurt them.
But, at some point down the line, they will fight and, presumably kill, other humans, innocent or otherwise, and while I don't plan to have every one of those have a friend or family-member come looking for revenge, I do want to somehow illustrate to them the fact that they have just killed someone and give them real consequences that, while poignant, will not stop them functioning or get in the way of the plot...

So... thoughts?

Family members are not necessarily alway capable of revenge. What if a NPC they kill has a kid, like a toddler? Or maybe they find a note on the characters body that says 'Thanks for donating all those toys to the orphans this week'. I'm not saying do those things specifically, but try to imagine the NPCs as more than just objects in the way of your PCs. They know people and probably care about things/places etc. When all else fails whip out the best puppy dog eye impression you can just as the PCs prepare to chop the guys head off.
Good luck.

If they do go around butchering people, they'll probably acquire a bad reputation at the very least.  They roll into town and people lock their doors; they have difficulty getting anyone to trust them (leading to all sorts of plot opportunities); everyone's so scared of them that gathering information is difficult.  They may also generally resent being thought of as "vile."

I think...I wish I'd thought of this for Friday Forum Philosophy!

If you want to run a hack-and-slash, you have to accept it engenders a certain mindset. Once players get into that action movie (or Dynasty Warriors) mindset, it's hard to break it.

The first step might be changing the play style--but make sure the players want to play a deeper game, rather than a free-for-all release. Don't kill a good campaign if your current players would hate the change.

The other ideas are good ways to change the player mindset, but my experience is you have to change your mindset first. You can't have times when it's okay to butcher and times when it's not--that's a double standard that will only frustrate PCs. (I don't see this applying to mindless undead, though.)

Quote from: SarisaFamily members are not necessarily alway capable of revenge. What if a NPC they kill has a kid, like a toddler? Or maybe they find a note on the characters body that says 'Thanks for donating all those toys to the orphans this week'. I'm not saying do those things specifically, but try to imagine the NPCs as more than just objects in the way of your PCs. They know people and probably care about things/places etc. When all else fails whip out the best puppy dog eye impression you can just as the PCs prepare to chop the guys head off.
Good luck.

I think the revenge thing was just one example, really, of the kind of thing I didn't feel was practical on a day-to-day basis in a campaign that is as combat-heavy as this one. My NPCs, even the mooks, certainly aren't stormtroopers, but I see what you're saying, and maybe I do need to take even a step further into realising them as multi-faceted people.

Quote from: SteerpikeIf they do go around butchering people, they'll probably acquire a bad reputation at the very least.  They roll into town and people lock their doors; they have difficulty getting anyone to trust them (leading to all sorts of plot opportunities); everyone's so scared of them that gathering information is difficult.  They may also generally resent being thought of as "vile."

I like this idea a lot. After all, I always think of NPC reactions as being the best "reward" in-game, so it follows that they should also be the best "punishment."

Quote from: PhoenixI think...I wish I'd thought of this for Friday Forum Philosophy!

If you want to run a hack-and-slash, you have to accept it engenders a certain mindset. Once players get into that action movie (or Dynasty Warriors) mindset, it's hard to break it.

The first step might be changing the play style--but make sure the players want to play a deeper game, rather than a free-for-all release. Don't kill a good campaign if your current players would hate the change.

The other ideas are good ways to change the player mindset, but my experience is you have to change your mindset first. You can't have times when it's okay to butcher and times when it's not--that's a double standard that will only frustrate PCs. (I don't see this applying to mindless undead, though.)

As I said at the beginning of my post, hack and slash can be fun, but even in a deeper game, violence still happens, even if rarely. My campaign I think is in something of a grey area - by definition of the system, it's combat-oriented, and the plots I draw up for the characters to be involved with are violent ones, or at least ones that can easily lead to violence. Yet I would hesitate to deem it hack and slash as such, because there are also elements of survival and politics and so on that come up occasionally, not to mention the fact that my players, thankfully, think into the world and into their characters beyond what they're gonna get at the next level up or how to kill the next bad guy.

So I suppose what I'm really looking for is a solution that lets the killings that the PCs will keep committing seem like they're not just... shooting aliens in Halo... but at the same time don't stop them from wanting to pursue plotlines that will lead to violence or from thinking that hey, the way to deal with it, even if it's not pretty, is to lop off some heads.

as far as metagame goes, there are two d20 variants that you could use to represent guilt/morality/vileness into your setting. the first is called "Taint" (which still makes me giggle.) it's basically a system to keep a record of good deeds and bad deeds, which in turn imparts penalties that range in strength to the characters - the penalties are actually fairly interesting considering WotC is concerned. here is a URL to hypertext of the rules - http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm

the second is the Sanity mechanic, which forces to make the characters to make saves when they encounter something horrific, do something particularly nasty, learn something alien - etc. So, in your predicament, you could have the PCs make a Sanity save every time they kill a sentient being to keep them from turning into deranged killers. here's a URL for the Sanity rules - http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm

hope this gives some inspiration.

on a side note, is the campaign your running a brew?

Sanity could work, or you could run some sort of scar/injury system that makes damage in combat more serious. Just slowing down the healing rate might be enough, but I'm not certain.

Okay, I should have specified, sorry, I'm not looking for a "crunchy" solution. I don't want the thief in my game to get any worse at stabbing people in the back by doing it too often, at least not statistically.

I mean, obviously, feel free to discuss the topic as a whole, and maybe a stat-based thing, like taint or sanity, would work for others, but what I, personally, am interested in exploring, is how you role-play the consequences of combat and killings and so forth.

Consequences of combat and killings? I don't understand... there's only consequences if you get caught (serious note: I have my own thoughts but I need to go to work... will post them later).

Then killing has to be illegal, pure and simple. And wrong. Then people will think twice about it.

Wait, what? Okay, "wrong" I get, but illegal? Why? Are you basing this on the idea that "conscience is not the thought of God but fear of the police"? (as an aside, I completely forgot who that quote is from, so if anyone knows, please remind me :D )

EDIT: and even if you are, those repercussions of "oh but people will do bad things to me if I do that" can come from other places than the law.

SECOND EDIT: also, when you say "people" do you mean players or characters or both?

[blockquote=Xeviat]Then killing has to be illegal, pure and simple.[/blockquote]From what little I know of Kindling's campaign is set more or less in the dark ages, which essentially means no organized law enforcement, which complicates the illegality option.  Blood-feuds and clannish vendettas would be much, much more common, as would holmgangs/trials by combat/duels to settle disputes.  Cyclical violence and all that.

Quote from: KindlingOkay, I should have specified, sorry, I'm not looking for a "crunchy" solution. I don't want the thief in my game to get any worse at stabbing people in the back by doing it too often, at least not statistically.

I mean, obviously, feel free to discuss the topic as a whole, and maybe a stat-based thing, like taint or sanity, would work for others, but what I, personally, am interested in exploring, is how you role-play the consequences of combat and killings and so forth.

well, I think it is extremely difficult to force PCs to roleplay the after effects of violence, plus I'm not sure if it would be all that exciting.

-"Aren't you coming with us on our next jolly adventure, oh mighty Rothgar Head-Smasher?"
-"Naw, I think I'm going to go to the temple and repent for my smashed heads." ;)

Your group would have to be very very into roleplaying, which seems like it's not particularly the case considering your campaign is hack n slash (but I could be wrong.) and while I'm not pushing the 2 mechanics I put up, I think mechanics themselves can make characters roleplay better. If there is a tangible effect to their actions, they will be much more likely to think about other possible solutions. but that's just what I think.

I think you need to consider stepping back and talking to the players about the tone of the game, rather than trying to change players' attitudes by hitting their characters with consequences.

If you're not going to do that, work with in-game tools to stop unsavory before it happens, not after it happens. Frankly, a lot of players are accustomed to games where violence is the primary, obvious solution to most problems-- it's a pretty long-established and well-known convention of the hobby. If you introduce a situation that looks like it might possibly be solved with violence, and players choose to solve it with violence, and then you punish them for choosing the obvious solution, your players would be right to consider that a suckerpunch.

for something poignant, if they have killed someone, but not buried them and return/passes by the area at some later point.

let them see a humble grave, or just a simple tombstone, the bodies buried by a random person that had arrived after they have left and decided to honout the unknown dead.

no consequens, heck, the people killed could very well had deserved it, but it might just make them pause abit.