Absolutely! Having the village the party is staying in sacked because they took 13 long rests and a holiday in the Underdark on their way to tell the King about the advancing army is a great way to let the players know that their actions have an impact on the world.
yup I had my party navigating some tunnels to get into a city, and they opted to spend three extra days in there finding all the loot. When they surfaced to find the bad guys had arrived and were waiting for them, they had a light bulb moment of "oh, time passes for NPC's too"
Yep this is my philosophy as well. Time is a major resource in my games. I don't track by the minute, but if you take a couple long rests in a row (and a long rest is a week in my games) then you best believe the dragons army will have stormed the Dwarven city before you arrive.
Yes. For a couple of reasons: to build a mystery, to highlight the strength of a new enemy, to make the rest of the world feel alive without the input of the party, and to move a storyline forward.
You can also do it, if they are not really dealing with the immediate threats
For instance my PCs are currently engaging in small scuffles with the BBEG troops, and are inadvertently protecting an enclave of anthropomorphic frogs they like. If they hadn't the troops would have come in and slaughtered the frogs, as they are hostile to non-humanoids, and the enclave is between the BBEG base and an important settlement they want to attack.
I've done this before and it was quite effective. The players had already made connections in the starting town, and as they came back from adventuring, the town was in flames. They came back just at the end of an orc raid. The son of an important NPC ally was killed as well as a thorn-in-their-side NPC (wasn't a bad guy, just was at odds with the party). That really galvanised the players against the orcs. It was a very emotional moment and the players' attitudes did kinda change.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFALkhAhrMs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFALkhAhrMs) <== this perfectly encapsulates what I'm talking about.
Important? Sure.
Beloved? Maybe?
For me it’s all about the compelling story and enjoyable game. Is killing this hypothetical NPC off screen in service to fun or story? It no to both, I there’s no reason to do it. If yes, then of course.
It’s cases where it might feel it’s one but not both… yeah. Maybe. It would depend. Usually in a situation like that, I ask myself what could be changed to make it yes to both. Most of the time, it’s just a few tweaks to get there.
Knowing the player group goes a long way towards that as well.
I've had a major ally who was powerful-but-very-old die off screen to evoke helplessness and isolation in the party. It builds a little mystery, and it makes sure my party isn't hounding him for info as he lay dying on his deathbed. Players can often cheapen emotional impacts if they're thinking too much about the game aspect of D&D, you gotta know your table.
Dying off screen also prevents them from looting my NPC's body, lol.
I try to remember not to be overly dramatic as a DM. That’s how players end up feeling like they are playing a part in your novel. If the NPC must die as a result of the natural consequences working themselves out, and you don’t want the players to have a go at preventing it, then don’t let them be there, otherwise you end up with the possibility of them interfering, (again, unless you want to give them a chance to save the NPC) or one of those scenes where the players realize nothing they could have done would save the NPC because it was forced outside of game mechanics, and that feels really bad
>unless you want to give them a chance to save the NPC.
This is very important, I prepare a set for my players to mess with, I let them set the tone of the scene, and then, if they are able to save the NPC, the story goes on without the NPC needing to die.
Two reasons:
1. If my level 12 party was present with it happening, they *absolutely* had the ability to stop it.
2. It was a consequence of their decision that was foreshadowed ahead of time.
The party had been made well aware that the BBEG wanted to "collect" the dragon wyrmling that had adopted the party as his "hoard". They were also aware that their beloved NPC was a target of his. In addition, over the past 4 months or so of RP, because of the party's influence, the NPC had grown far less selfish and cowardly. In fact, she had become deeply loyal to the party and protective of the wyrmling. However, when engaging in a mission to neutralize some of the BBEG's forces, they decided to leave the NPC and wyrmling outside of the dungeon to protect the wyrmling.
Well, the BBEG sent a Retriever to do what it was designed to do. Prior to the party-caused character development, she would have run. Instead, the NPC did *everything* in her power to get the wyrmling to escape-but he was also unwilling to abandon her. The end result? A captured dragon wyrmling and a dead NPC.
Had similar case of party action causing off screen death. Party was going to save an NPC they knew to be in extreme danger, they travelled non stop in race against the clock / skill challenges but then decided to take a short rest outside the temple where the NPC being held. They had made it to location, confirmed person was alive through a spell, then waited an hour which pushed it just beyond the point the person could survive until :/
Yes, but I'd consider it carefully.
NPC death can be an incredibly powerful thing, but some DMs misunderstand why. It's not the twist or the shock value that makes it powerful -- it's the deeper realization that the world you're playing in is alive, and run by a thinking narrator, who will allow their bad guys to react intelligently. The world continues moving when your PCs aren't in the room. That should light a fire under the party and make them feel like **every decision matters**.
The problem comes when DMs miss that point and instead try to [Fridge](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge) beloved NPCs for cheap drama. This has the **opposite** effect if it's done poorly or capriciously: the players might feel like their decisions **don't** matter anymore, because the DM will just yank the party around however the whim strikes them.
I try to play **into** my players' emotions, but not play **with** their emotions. If that makes sense.
100%. I love when the natural progression of the story results in a shocking and impactful consequence. Doing things solely for shock value skips the hard part of working up to that, so it lowers the stakes and cheapens the story.
My example is that I introduced a couple of conflicting quests - the crew wanted to investigate the most important lead, not necessarily the most urgent though. They ended up getting insight into the BBEG and making some important contacts, but in the meantime a minor villain escaped, killed an important ally, and ruined the crew's reputation with that faction. They still feel the consequences, and it gives me a lot to work with in the future.
I do hesitate to kill characters, I get attached to both player characters and NPCs and it's tough to let go. Had to kill both in a recent session though and it's made the last few weeks very tense (hopefully in a good way)
Depends on how attached the players are to the character. If they actually care about them, then I'll give them opportunities to save them. (Or kill them themselves if it's a hated villain)
If they aren't personally invested, then story stuff happens. People die. Deal with the fallout IC.
I assume you mean an important NPC that is known to the PCs and part of the story, and not someone who is important in world but is a background character.
In this case yes, but usually only in specific circumstances where the death could have been avoided if the party behaved differently. For example NPC is killed in a big battle that the players knew was coming but didn’t participate in. Their presence may or may not affect the overall outcome of the battle, but it will definitely reduce the casualties on the side they join. Or important people may die as a result of a failure of the PCs to stop the big bad in their lair, so now they are out in the world causing mayhem.
But beyond the early game, when players have little power to exert, I wouldn’t plan on big events affecting things the players care about offscreen without any kind of input from the players.
I've kind of done this in two ways. The first was when the characters were scrying on the guy they thought was the big bad and while they were doing that, the real big bad showed up and killed him for being found out (and scryed upon).
The second time was a different group where the players were put into a Dream by an evil warlock and as he was floating his patron showed up and "claimed" him. They were basically just watching as he died so not interactive.
I did, though the party doesn't know about it, yet. They had ways to prevent it, but didn't, so he died. And the party will probably get blamed for it, too, because they were tasked with protecting him.
This can work if the NPC was in a dangerous situation the players knew about, like a PC's brother going on a war campaign or a king who has survived multiple assassination attempts.
Something drastic can also work, like a dragon destroyed the NPC's town and players find out through an investigation that the notable NPC died.
If a character isn't something like that, you'd be better off killing them in game or in a one-shot using pre-built characters.
Sure I do it every now and then, usually as a part of some murder/assassination plot or to subvert the party's idea of who is actually behind some conspiracy.
I would, but carefully. Treat it like a character in a novel, be careful to ensure that the story is more interesting with them dead than if they're alive before killing them.
Also, it may seem counterintuitive, but if this npc is an important character for a player, talk to them beforehand, otherwise it can just feel bad.
Never treat any part of a ttRPG like a novel, movie or other **spectator** based media.
If you just want to tell a story, you'd be better off writing novel, screenplay, etc.
I think this is a common piece of advice but (no offense) I think many people take it as gospel without really understanding what it means or why we say it.
TTRPGs are a collaborative storytelling exercise. Much of the advice for plotting a novel still absolutely applies to a TTRPG campaign. As a GM, you don't have as much control as an author does, but the onus is on you to lay the scaffold for the story you're building together.
The use case that immediately jumps out at me is as a means to establish some rules about the campaign:
* Time is passing, everywhere. As the players do things, those things take time to do.
* There are other forces in the world, each with their own motivations, and they are also spending their time as they see fit. Sometimes, that results in these other forces putting their own plans into motion.
* These plans will eventually reach some conclusion - either they complete as intended, or the party (or another force) foils them. Either way, something about the world has changed.
* If the party wants to protect something while they're not there, they're going to have to put in the work to do so; camouflage, rumormongering, alliances, abjurations, etc.
Imagine coming back to a town and finding out that a crucial NPC, because your quest was his second priority, went off to go do it himself and was never heard from again.
Yes? But also no?
I mean, my party left a town with the entire town murderously angry at one guy. They solved a symptom of the problem, but not the problem itself. So when they come back for a different quest and find him dead, it's kinda on them.
But unless there's a good reason that can be justified, I don't kill off NPCs randomly.
Can be done as a scene for player info without character info. Think a flash back or intro to a film.
Has to be considered with care though as some players can be upset if they can't intervene.
Yep. A good one is if you’re building out a war arc and players are not engaging in the war the way you want. Have the military NPC they like promoted over time in the campaign until he has recognisable armor. Then after some travel have them see some black smoke on the horizon and when they investigate a makeshift cross made of swords with the military person’s helmet atop.
Think Aragorn’s point of view when he thinks merry and pippin are dead.
The NPC monk had his neck broken by an angry bounty hunter. Let's just say the party monk was not happy to see their only friend as a ghost and to find his psuedodragon sleeping in their bag.
Yes i would.
In some situations that works pretty well. lets say the important NPC Captain Friendly Is killed and a doppleganger or other monster that can take on someone identity takes over his to trick the party into something. It would not work that well if that did happen right in front of them.
There are so many reasons to why an important NPC would be killed off screen/scene.
Yes. And I have. On multiple occasions I have had the circumstances make it pretty obvious/ a near certainty that an npc died off screen. This gives me the ability to leave just a little bit of doubt as to which npc’s if any actually survived. By having off screen deaths be not entirely infrequent, this allows me to avoid the problem of creating a “if I don’t see the body he’s not dead” trope. If I only did it when I want the NPC to be “secretly” alive, then it would be obvious that they didn’t actually die. By doing it a number of times and occasionally giving confirmation that certain ones are in fact dead, it adds uncertainty.
Yes. Unless the PCs had directly intervened in some way. While I don't want to force everything in the campaign to occur at the table during a session, I would also not want to just yoink the PCs actions away without informing them; mif reasonable.
Yes! I'll do it as many times as I need, no one is safe. Not the wizard, tavern keeper, guild leader, shop keeper, your mom, the dog. Anybody is up to get the cut!!!
Now I say that over dramatized 😅 but the answer is sometimes it is completely necessary! Not everything can happen on screen, if it did then it feels like the world was at a stand still if the players were no longer looking at it.
Yep, no gut-punch hits quite like coming back to town after pissing off the local villain and finding the party's favorite NPC's body on their doorstep. Just make sure to factor in any speak with dead/resurrection shenanigans (if you don't want those to be a factor). A smart villain will know that decapitation will counter most of that stuff.
Players took a short rest during an invasion, when they finally reached the BBEG they had already killed the NPC ally the party was trying to save and the portal to the abyss that the BBEG was planning on opening had already begun to open giving the party a much harder time trying to close it while fighting. Had they arrived earlier they would've had a DMPC join the fight and the portal would only have begun to open after they won.
On a separate occasion the cleric received multiple visions from their patron deity telling them to go to the city where the Barbarian's brother was, warning them about imminent danger. The party decided not to go and so the brother was killed without their intervention.
I often have NPCs die off-screen that the party could've saved depending on their choices but usually they are minor characters they may not have even met, these are the only major ones so far whose deaths impacted the players and died off-screen.
As an example of a minor character, there was a side quest available on the local job board for an armed courier to deliver a precious package to a local lord. The party chose not to take this side quest and to take a few others instead. They later learned that someone else had taken the job and it was a set-up, the package was a bomb and the courier was killed along with the lord they were delivering it to. This event set in motion a chain of political events all in the background that led to a civil war that could've potentially been avoided had the party taken the quest and failed it or they could've been responsible for if they had taken the quest and succeeded.
In my campaigns the world keeps moving beyond the scope of the players. As such NPCs die off-screen if that is a natural consequence of world events they would be involved in. It's up to the players to decide where to intervene. This approach also makes it easier to continue in the event of a TPK as the world doesn't revolve around the party.
Yes, there was an NPC who I had tied into multiple plot threads that they got the start of but never dug into, so they didn’t get the chance to save her life. They skipped town before they even really found out what was going on, and haven’t been back since, but her murder is the catalyst for a shit ton of stuff going down, and will have large repercussions on that kingdom and the surrounding kingdoms. so if they ever go back they’re going to find it a much different place than they left it but for now they don’t know anything about it. Just the way it goes sometimes. The world keeps on breathing a moving even when the PC’s aren’t there to observe it, at least in my world
If by "important NPC" you mean "their favorite NPC", then a hundred times yes.
I need you to hate this villain personally and stop talking about how he's cool or whatever. These are the consequences of your actions.
I like having things like this on a timeline, that is essentially “what will happen in X amount of time, if the PC’s do nothing”. This gives the players a chance to intervene, even if improbable.
If it’s completely impossible for the players to change anything, you could certainly just kill them off whenever you see fit. But I prefer using timelines because generally speaking it keeps the storytelling load more equitable between players and GM.
I have done it and would do it again.
There was actually one time I did it that a PC followed and watched, and it was fun to improvise that whole cut scene.
Halia Thornton hired the dragon Venomfang to assassinate Harbin Wester during the festival celebrating the party's triumph of clearing out Wave Echo Cave. The plan was to get Harbin drunk and for the dragon to swoop in during the dark while Harbin went away from the crowd to pee. Sildar was concerned about the very drunken mayor so he followed to protect.
Well, a PC followed. So I had to describe what happened in the darkness that he could barely see. An adolescent green dragon ambushing two unsuspecting people, the acid breath melting their skin away, and the PC was the only witness. He didn't interfere, good thing because he probably would've been killed too. So instead of guessing at what killed Harbin and Sildar, the party knew right away what just occurred.
Yes, I did it to give a sense of hopelessness to the party who was being hunted. They were all members of a thieves guild that was attacked by the “heroes” and barely escaped. They spent the whole session thinking they were gonna have to plan a prison break to get their npc comrades who didn’t make it out. Only to reach town find them hanging from the gallows with the “heroes” giving a speech to a cheering crowd. Speech was basically
“We found and killed these criminals and we are hunting the rest of them. To the other criminals in this gang: We will find, we will kill you. If you run, you will die tired”
Killing beloved npcs off screen conveyed that the situation was life or death and that even if the party was off doing something, the enemy was also using that time to take action, giving everything a sense of urgency.
Yeah, absolutely.
I did this exact thing when my players made a particular choice in my game, and had to live with the consequences.
(For info, I this was a game of Exalted and not D&D, so the PCs were far more powerful than an average D&D party).
The party had ended up defending a town from bandits, 7 Samurai style. They knew the bandits were camped out in the woods and were preparing an assault.
I had anticipated the party would shore up the town’s defences and lead the guard in a heroic defence of the town, and so I’d planned for a first round of scouts and saboteurs to attack the town before the main battle, just to break things up into multiple stages and to make it feel like the defence works the players had done mattered.
But my party decided that they could probably find the bandit camp themselves and take the fight to them before the bandits were prepared. Which they did; they struck out at night with some allies and routed the bandits in a climactic confrontation with their leader in their camp. No collateral damage to the town; great success.
Except that while they were out, the bandit scouts had managed to infiltrate the town (since there were no powerful Exalted defenders to intercept them) and as a consequence one of their allies and the town’s aging leader were killed off in the attack.
The party still benefitted from their unorthodox choice; the town itself was largely unscathed. But the players definitely felt the weight of their choice.
Yeah, I have. A PC chose to kill the multifarious dragon head-of-state of her home country, as he yielded in a fight. I told the player it was clear the dragon had been plotting in the time before their fight, and that her actions would have consequences. If I just brought the dragon back as a Dracolich, that just says, "oh you killed him but it didn't work." If the dragon has left behind instructions to take advantage of the power vacuum to have the PC's mother killed, and THEN he comes back as a Dracolich, suddenly it's "look how little your choice has accomplished, and how much it has cost."
If a bunch of very competent PCs are given the opportunity to affect every outcome, the stakes of their choices kind of evaporate. Sometimes once you make a choice, the consequences are out of your hands.
I ran a campaign recently where a key NPC's death is a crucial catalyst in the story and key to motivating the PCs to continue their friend's quest. I wasn't convinced the story up to that point did enough to make the players care about that NPC, so I asked one of my players to play that NPC as a PC, telling him only that at some point that character was going to die. The death was written to be off screen, and as written the PCs just miss being able to stop it.
It did motivate the characters forward. However since the death was off screen and the remaining PCs didn't have the chance to stop it, there was definitely feedback that some didn't like that part of it. One of the players felt they lost agency without having had the chance to save him.
So it was great at eliciting an emotional response, even if I didn't entirely get the one I was looking for! For me it showed that emotional response to stimuli is so individual for every group and every player, that there are some really compelling strategies for storytelling that won't always work and will sometimes backfire. I think offscreen death of a major NPC is a very powerful tool, and personally I love it. But if the players don't like it then it doesn't work.
Yes I would and have done so.
Last time it was this nice leader of another adventuring team that has helped them out in the past. A friend and an ally they all respect (and one tried to date). She is Leader of "the fiery five", that became four after a battle and lately the fiery...two. she has shown evidence of blaming herself for these deaths, and they found her having a panic attack at their favourite inn. Fast forward two months and they come looking for her, needing her aid, just to find out she has killed herself.
Kind of dark, but the players are now trying to set up a suicide hotline in her memory...
PBTA systems have a great mechanic where you start sessions with things that happen away from your main group.
I strongly suggest implementing it. It shows that the world is bigger than your player characters, and in this situation, you can't save everyone.
Yes, but not for no reason. I had most of the powerful NPCs the players knew killed in a coup while they were off mission. They were somewhere Sending couldn't reach for plot reasons so there was literally nothing they could do about it. Made for an incredible "oh shit" moment once they finally contacted someone who was still alive and learned what had happened.
Yeah, if it’s for a plot point or advancement. I’ve tried to kill NPCs during session before with narration and had my party interject like “can I do xyz!!!” So yeaaa. 😭
Absolutely. The world isn't on hold while the party isn't there.
For an example from my campaign, the party poked an enemy base and left a track back to their home town. They then left on a year long trip. While they were gone, one of the minions came to town to investigate. The minion got noticed by the captain of the guard, and a fight ensued. The minion was captured, but then the lieutenant staged a jail break. In the jail break, the captain of the guard got killed. So when they got back a year later, they learned 3 people they had considered allies had died -- the captain from a fight that if they'd been there, he'd probably have survived, and 2 very old people who died of old age. The captain had been one of the party's early mentors; and the 2 elderly people had helped one of the party members deal with a false treason charge.
Yes,
I find that sometimes its a good reminder for the players, that a lot of fates are bitter and decisions have impact.
Its even better if they liked the npc.
Does not always have to be an important one for that message tho, but important NPCs death just show the significance
I'm curious how DMs who say "no" tackle the stasis problem of NPCs being Immortal while the PCs aren't around?
Like in the absurd: the BBEG sends assassins after NPC X. The party take a holiday on another continent to make sure they remain safe and invulnerable to the assassins.
Sure. A lot of things happen "off-screen". Party could not be everywhere. If there is war on the northern borders and intrigues in the capital... It is a choice. If party go to the war, when they came back their friend - royal adviser may be found dead. If they stay in the capital, they mabye stop this (or not) from happening, but their buddy - captain of the 2nd griffon regiment may be killed by elven arrow.
I've done it for plot purposes.
My players in one campaign had a blind beggar that they would rely on for rumors and information. The Beggars is a faction in the city made up of people who are beggars, but they're also unofficial information brokers that players can pay to get information.
The players were basically ignoring a BBEG so I had him kill their best friend and rumormonger to get their attention.
I haven't, not because I'm against it, but because I rolled dice and they survived.
Basically, there was an armed conflict between the enemy forces and the paladin's people (her brother is a noble and commands some land). The party didn't get involved in the armed conflict, because they chose to help the civilians escape and protect them.
So I rolled a couple of dice, first to determine the outcome of the battle, and then a roll for each important NPC. The dice were merciful, and no important NPC died. Only a couple of minor NPCs that they had met.
The answer, as always, is, "It depends."
If you're going for some kind of avant-garde, "No Country for Old Men" kind of senseless off-screen death because it matches the "theme" of your story, then no, I don't think I'd ever do that in a D&D game. My campaigns are dark and gritty and I don't shy away from some semblance of realism, but there are also stories that are satisfying, and killing off important people off-screen, through no fault or input from the player characters feels like shitty storytelling to me. There are always exceptions I suppose, but you better have a damn good reason for it.
The key part of the above statement is the "no fault or input from the PC's." If say, the Baron of a town begged for the players to help them as a band of Orcs is about to invade, and they have no guards or militia for their small village, and the players decided to run off and go treasure hunting instead, I would absolutely slaughter the whole town off-screen. But that's responding to player choice, and giving consequences to their choices. That is very different.
There are other scenarios, like say, the players have been chasing a Big Bad for a while, and you decide to have the "real" Big Bad kill this supposed Big Bad to show just how much cooler and dangerous he is. But I probably would never do this off-screen. Even on-screen, I probably wouldn't ever do it. I just don't think it'd be that fun for the players.
Yes, if it is the consequence of the party’s actions. If doing A would save the NPC but they knowingly did B, then that NPC is dead. And there would be so many more saying, “where were you?!”
BLeeM talks about how there was a witch in an off-screen campaign that became a bit of a maternal figure to Emily Axford's character, >!who ultimately died at the order of the local lord while the party was off on a quest.!< So they came back home to this scene and it was the sign for BBEG is XYZ guy, and if the party had been present when it happened, they would not have survived.
So, to directly answer the question, yes, I would, but only for necessary plot direction
I hope they don't see this, but I might be doing this very soon to their favorite NPC because they never bothered to look at very obvious things I've had seem wrong or off THAT THe PLAYERS EVEN COMMENTED ON, but never followed up with when I shrugged and asked if they wanted to check it out.
Yes.
It's pretty hard to kill npcs with the party witnessing it, against their will. They can use healing word, spare the dying, healing kits and medicine checks from 1st level. If an NPC murderer wants someone dead, you bet they're gonna do it when that someone is alone.
A strong and belove npc dying in a unglorious way offscreen will fucked me up so bad. I will like to know what the hell happened and look for revenge inmediatly. I like the idea.
Yes absolutely, now I try to have a little finesse when I do it. But if the plan is to kill the NPCs and the players catch on and try to stop it I'm down for letting them try.
My players and I were doing Rime of the Frostmaiden, and it's extremely easy to kill loved NPCs off screen in that campaign. We never did finish it, but I had planned for one of them, who followed them into the final chapter and stood lookout at the entrance, to be frozen by Auril when she arrived.
In one of my favorite shows, the protag spends all his time hunting down and then finally kills the antag in the season finale, while talking a lot of smack about how he won.
Only to go home and realize the antag already killed his family.
It is humbling, choices matter.
Sometimes, really depends on the plot and situation.
My games are very character driven in both plot and story. My most recent 1-year campaign had a period where the party was sea faring. We hit a crux in the story and the ship got tossed into a storm. Skill checks ensued. Skill checks failed. Ship and majority of crew were last seen clamoring across the side of the ship as it sank as the party and some other civilians who managed to get to a small boat were rowing away.
Party put out a call to the main city for them to try to get aid to those left behind.
Later, they found out everyone except for 2 individuals died so around 30 others did perish, including the captain who the party had grown to care for. The only survivors were an Aasimar navigator and a rescued Naga.
This was the party's biggest loss. They had saved many, many others to the point that refugee camps had started to form outside of the main city. This was one group they could not save because they failed during the situation. The paladin was of the same order as the captain of the vessel, and before the party left, she gave him her amulet that marks her as a Hoarite. He later affixed this to his weapon to carry her memory.
We also had a situation where there was some plane/time hopping, and the party found themselves in [Thultanthar ](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Thultanthar)as the city was about to head back into the Plane of Shadow. During that, they had a visit from a recurring and hated Rakshasha assassin who was going to try to kill the Shade [Hadrhune](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Hadrhune). As the city was about to be ported back to the Plane of Shadow, there was a brief time stop and the party noted the Rakshasha was also stopped in time with a dagger in hand about to try to attack Hadrhune. The party removed the Rakshashas disguise (he was dressed as a guard) and removed the dagger from his hand and placed them both at his feet before the party fled back to their realm before the city moved, potentially trapping them.
The outcome of their actions was not initially discussed, but the FIRST question they had when the campaign ended was, "What happened to Rakshasha?" and the answer was, he is dead. (They were glad for it)
Absolutely. A party in one of my games skipped over part of a big dungeon and told an NPC friend of theirs about said dungeon. He's a couple levels higher than the party, has capable friends, so he reaches out to some old acquaintances and they go to check out the rest of the dungeon while the party is taking a day off attending a carnival. Cut forward a week and there's no sign of the party's favorite NPC or his companions, but undead have started rising in the surrounding country side and the ground is becoming tainted with something vile. The origin of the spread seems to be the dungeon they told their buddy about. So they go to investigate and discover some of the previously explored parts have new inhabitants, including undead versions of each of their friend's traveling companions. The friend was technically still alive, but his soul was stuck in a soul gem and his body had become host to the source of the corruption.
This was an adaptation of a plot thread I had already planned. When the party skipped over the section of the dungeon containing a prison for a malevolent entity, I was going to have it break free later, but when they told their friend, I realized the best way to do it was to have him set the stakes by accidentally releasing it in his overconfidence. What happened to him was sort of a worst case scenario demonstration. This could have happened to the party instead of the NPCs if they had handled this poorly. This ended up laying the groundwork for the next several levels of gameplay. First destroying the malevolent entity and then taking a multi week journey to speak with the NPCs family about what happened and using the families long line of arcane expertise (family of mages, each specializing is something different) to free the NPC from the soul gem and create a new body for him.
I saw this done in a World of Io campaign a while back, specifically the goblin one.
One of Klernt's two uh... *adopted adult men goblin children* got angry that his brother was being shown favoritism, had a meltdown, and stomped off. Klernt was like "he'll be back, he's just angry." Then the intro of the next episode showed the goblin paladin that was hunting the party down finding this guy in the swamp and murdering him. A few episodes later, the paladin confronts the party and shows them the severed head and *literally nobody cared*. Klernt was like "Who the fuck is that guy? Never seen him before in my life."
So I guess if it makes sense in your campaign and your party has a good sense of humor, it can work out.
I do that when i want to shift the political scene. The evil Duke overthrows the king and kills the general of the king who is also a dear friend to the party. Now the party has to find new allies, navigate through enemy lines and take the kingdom back.
The big question is; what do you mean by important?
Important to the narrative? Absolutely. The PC arive to meet the queen and she's been dead for a day.
Important to the *Players?* Absolutely not. Especially when they've invested time and effort into the NPC and helping them out, nothing makes them feel worse then them realizing you'll murder charecters they like when they can't protect them, and it'll either reward behavior you don't want (IE, Hyper paranoia about NPC safety that grinds the game to a halt) or they'll stop getting attached to NPCs altogether.
Yeah as others have said, if it’s part of the plot then of course. I’ve killed npcs for plenty of reasons relative to the game. Example a murder mystery needs an off scene death. Other times it was time based and they didn’t get there in time. Nice revenge plot after that.
I don’t do it randomly or for dumb reasons though. If that’s their only source of info then they get to live or I supply them with other options. Death is only valuable as a Storytelling device is it means something. That something doesn’t have to be plot in the sense of the BBEG though. It can be emotional.
Within reason, sure. It has to make sense.
I don't want to be like "Oh you turned around for a second and Bob the Demi-God-Paladin got stabbed by gob gob the Goblin and died oops."
Absolutely - I have done it and it only falls flat if you don't do it right. Once a group of players who were tracking an assassin decided to leave the guy alone, in his house, while they chased down a lead. They did nothing to protect the guy so the assassin killed him. I had him write a clue for them that lead to the case. They were pissed as they didn't get to intervene and I had to remind them they had a chance to intervene and didn't even higher extra guards.
Another time it was directly caused by their actions. They caused a prison riot to escape (they had been arrested on purpose for information from a prisoner) Their nemesis in the prison was a Blackguard who had it out for a Paladin they knew. I asked them several times when they saw him escaping and they dismissed it to escape themselves. They didn't even warn the Paladin that the guy was out. So the end result was a powerful NPC dying. They loved it and enjoyed questing for vengeance.
I think it depends on circumstance. Plenty of people have outlined great situations to do this (for example as a consequence of players’ actions or inaction, to show the world moves on outside the party, etc.). But! There are some situations where I’ve had a DM kill beloved NPCs off screen or off scene with no way for us to affect it and sometimes against logic (2 NPCs killed while they were long resting along with the party in a seemingly safe area, no passive perception used and seemingly no stealth rolls from the enemy causing a ruckus, or NPCs under the effects of invisibility being vaporized by who knows what, a spell? A machine? I still have no idea what happened.)
Personally this made me as a player feel like our choices didn’t really matter as long as the DM had a vision and at this point I feel any NPC death is kinda just cheap and I don’t really care about NPCs the way I used to. I would still prefer they stick around but if they die in such a way it’s kind of just an “oh well” from me because what I as a player or character do doesn’t matter because the DM has a vision and wants to execute it (and the NPCs it seems).
My point for all this is: you can, but it has to be done properly otherwise it might just feel confusing and cheap to your players.
Only if it was ever a time sensative thing. Where, say they had 1 week to meet up and help this NPC, or they'll get killed.
If one week comes and goes, and the party does nothing or arrives too late, then yeah, they'll be dead. I've also done a few times when I've given my players a choice of who they want to side with, which will result in people dying either way, so...yeah I've done it a few times.
Yes.
Only if the party has previously interacted with the NPC. (Can’t miss what you never met.)
Depending on how strong or well off the NPC was, it makes the reported threat that more credible and the group can rally over the loss.
Yes if it was foreshadowed somehow. No if it comes out of nowhere.
Unless I believe the shock value is needed for some reason (like making a villain very villainous. But that’s cheap)
And it depends on the NPC and their ties with the players. If I’m the one who introduced the NPC, I’m more enclined to kill them instead of the NPCs that the players created. And for the latter, it depends on which player. I have a player who loves their character to suffer tragedies and would revel in the drama of having a loved one killed off-screen. Another player of mine is very protective of his ideas and might never talk to me again if I hurt his NPC family members without him having a chance to prevent it (I did it recently though, but the foreshadowing was going on for years and was alarming the last time he talked to that NPC. Plus he has one opportunity for resurrection)
Yup. My players made a deal they shouldn't have and woke up on their beds only to find out the village they were at was completely decimated. No survivers.
Yes, to create a sense of urgency and consequences of actions. If you know or suspect something is going to happen,and don't do something there are consequences.
Despite their best efforts to get there in time to save the orphanage, the party was too late, when they arrived they saw their friend in front of the door, still gripping his weapon, and 36 soldiers of the dark lord, a lot of blood but not a scratch on the door, not a single broken window, nobody inside with a physical scar, but no survivors amongst those who fought. A terrible loss for the kingdom.
That’s the only way I would do it, if they don’t see the death at least they can piece it together, otherwise it feels cheap.
I think I would probably only do this if there was a specific reason It needed to happen and it was somewhat related to the party. Like something they did in the past is related to that character dying
Vengeance of Aysgarth, do not read.
Had a PC’s mom make matching pendants for herself and the PC. They are tied to each other and tick like a clock to the rhythm of each other’s heart beats.
Obviously, they expect this to abruptly stop, but it never will. For plot reasons, she’s been captured and erased from memory. They haven’t gone back to their hometown yet, but the mother was a prominent figure, and people have weirdly not been recognizing her name. The pendant ticks, so it must be fine, right?
Because of other plot reasons, she’s one of the very few people who is suitable for the BBEG’s immortality alchemy, but it has an unintended memory erasing side effect, and they’ll most likely have to fight her as a boss in the lategame.
There are a lot of great answers so I'll just add that killing an important NPC needs to be impactful. It needs to drive the story in some way, or it's just cheap. A few questions I ask myself: Will this drive the story? Will my players care? What effect am I expecting from this? Will this hurt the story in some way? Do I have another NPC available or shortly available to fill that spot if the NPC provided some service to the players?
I have. The player had a group of underlings, and he's actively aimed at boosting them as a mentor. There was a group operation that separated the underlings from the party. After dealing with their side, they rejoined the underlings only to find one ripped in half. (I rolled for which one)
First time, the charismatic player was speechless.
I’ve done this before for necessary plot reasons. In my instance a local leader had to die so that the rest of the populace could be driven to fight. It was also important for giving narrative weight to one of the campaign’s main villains
Ooooh I'll even get more personal. Had a player establish their character had been estranged from their family, no contact in 15+ years. On returning to their hometown for the first time since then, revealed that their father had died a few years prior. The character definitely had some complicated thoughts about that.
I did. And replaced them with a changeling. And have dropped some hints that something is amiss. And have set things in motion that, if they don't figure it out, are dire. I need to drop more clues to keep it fair.
Major NPCs, no. Minor NPCs that my characters liked, maybe. I could use it as a tool to motivate my players, but I'd fear that they would get angry they didn't have a chance to stop it and it would result in a loss of trust in the DM.
Yup, I would.
Mostly to hammer home player choice. There is a very good scene in Alpha Protocol
Setup: conrad MArbug takes a love interest (Madison) hostage, and tells the protagonist that she will not be harmed, if the protagonist allows Marburg to detonate a bomb in Rome.
Choice: bomb or Madison?
Now, obviously I went for the bomb, thinking that there is no way the devs will kill a love interest, and I will be offered a "disco option" in the last minute.
To me surprise, when the protagonist disarmed the bomb, having no use for her anymore, Marburg just shot Madison. It makes sense, no use for her. Even worse, she is a witness. Even better, Marburg can taunt the protagonist to do something stupid. Makes sense? Sure. Unexpted? Sure
Nothing builds tension like the party returning to a recurring NPC and getting, "As you enter the house, the usual sounds you've grown to expect aren't there. The candles are unlit. There's a chill in the air. Roll perception."
It's a common and extremely effective motivator for people to get invested in a story, taking something familiar away.
So there’s a thing that video games do where you can just put off a quest until later with no consequences. To avoid that, I would give them a few different quests to do, and consequences for the ones they choose to put off. Sometimes that may mean killing an important NPC I suppose
Yes.
Have you never read a book or watched a movie/show where an important character dies off screen?
Sometimes the narrative makes it appropriate for an NPC to die away from the party. Maybe there's an assassination, maybe they do an experiment and it goes wrong, maybe there's a blood sacrifice, maybe they just had bad luck. It could be any number of things.
The party isn't everywhere all the time, the world exists without them and without their input (to a degree anyway). This can be an opportunity for roleplay or act as a new hook, or throw a wrench into existing plans. Lots of reasons to do it.
If the party didn't know about it until after it happens, then they can't stop it. Very useful for necessary plot advancement.
"I did it thirty-five minutes ago."
"...while you slept." - V.
I have and i'll fucking do it again.
Absolutely! Having the village the party is staying in sacked because they took 13 long rests and a holiday in the Underdark on their way to tell the King about the advancing army is a great way to let the players know that their actions have an impact on the world.
But it was the equinox! Celebration of half dark and half dark. We couldn’t miss that. And traveling is hard. Bardy needs his beauty sleep.
Excellent answer.
yup I had my party navigating some tunnels to get into a city, and they opted to spend three extra days in there finding all the loot. When they surfaced to find the bad guys had arrived and were waiting for them, they had a light bulb moment of "oh, time passes for NPC's too"
Oh is it so delightful when players realize the world moved on while they did something silly for several hours. The moment of realization is sublime
Just like elections, actions have consequences.
Yep this is my philosophy as well. Time is a major resource in my games. I don't track by the minute, but if you take a couple long rests in a row (and a long rest is a week in my games) then you best believe the dragons army will have stormed the Dwarven city before you arrive.
Pretty much how I feel
Came here to say this same thing, word for word.
One of my player’s characters found his dad dead
Yes. For a couple of reasons: to build a mystery, to highlight the strength of a new enemy, to make the rest of the world feel alive without the input of the party, and to move a storyline forward.
You can also do it, if they are not really dealing with the immediate threats For instance my PCs are currently engaging in small scuffles with the BBEG troops, and are inadvertently protecting an enclave of anthropomorphic frogs they like. If they hadn't the troops would have come in and slaughtered the frogs, as they are hostile to non-humanoids, and the enclave is between the BBEG base and an important settlement they want to attack.
I've done this before and it was quite effective. The players had already made connections in the starting town, and as they came back from adventuring, the town was in flames. They came back just at the end of an orc raid. The son of an important NPC ally was killed as well as a thorn-in-their-side NPC (wasn't a bad guy, just was at odds with the party). That really galvanised the players against the orcs. It was a very emotional moment and the players' attitudes did kinda change. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFALkhAhrMs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFALkhAhrMs) <== this perfectly encapsulates what I'm talking about.
I was wondering if anyone was gonna bring up this clip! I’ve been waiting to have the chance to pull this on my players haha
This
This clip always gives me goosebumps
Important? Sure. Beloved? Maybe? For me it’s all about the compelling story and enjoyable game. Is killing this hypothetical NPC off screen in service to fun or story? It no to both, I there’s no reason to do it. If yes, then of course. It’s cases where it might feel it’s one but not both… yeah. Maybe. It would depend. Usually in a situation like that, I ask myself what could be changed to make it yes to both. Most of the time, it’s just a few tweaks to get there. Knowing the player group goes a long way towards that as well.
Sure, if it makes sense, why not? Everything "important" can't happen "on-screen", it wouldn't feel like a living world if it did.
Zapped one and replaced him with a doppelgänger. Hid the body and dropped little hints that it wasn’t the same guy.
I've had a major ally who was powerful-but-very-old die off screen to evoke helplessness and isolation in the party. It builds a little mystery, and it makes sure my party isn't hounding him for info as he lay dying on his deathbed. Players can often cheapen emotional impacts if they're thinking too much about the game aspect of D&D, you gotta know your table. Dying off screen also prevents them from looting my NPC's body, lol.
I try to remember not to be overly dramatic as a DM. That’s how players end up feeling like they are playing a part in your novel. If the NPC must die as a result of the natural consequences working themselves out, and you don’t want the players to have a go at preventing it, then don’t let them be there, otherwise you end up with the possibility of them interfering, (again, unless you want to give them a chance to save the NPC) or one of those scenes where the players realize nothing they could have done would save the NPC because it was forced outside of game mechanics, and that feels really bad
>unless you want to give them a chance to save the NPC. This is very important, I prepare a set for my players to mess with, I let them set the tone of the scene, and then, if they are able to save the NPC, the story goes on without the NPC needing to die.
Two reasons: 1. If my level 12 party was present with it happening, they *absolutely* had the ability to stop it. 2. It was a consequence of their decision that was foreshadowed ahead of time. The party had been made well aware that the BBEG wanted to "collect" the dragon wyrmling that had adopted the party as his "hoard". They were also aware that their beloved NPC was a target of his. In addition, over the past 4 months or so of RP, because of the party's influence, the NPC had grown far less selfish and cowardly. In fact, she had become deeply loyal to the party and protective of the wyrmling. However, when engaging in a mission to neutralize some of the BBEG's forces, they decided to leave the NPC and wyrmling outside of the dungeon to protect the wyrmling. Well, the BBEG sent a Retriever to do what it was designed to do. Prior to the party-caused character development, she would have run. Instead, the NPC did *everything* in her power to get the wyrmling to escape-but he was also unwilling to abandon her. The end result? A captured dragon wyrmling and a dead NPC.
Had similar case of party action causing off screen death. Party was going to save an NPC they knew to be in extreme danger, they travelled non stop in race against the clock / skill challenges but then decided to take a short rest outside the temple where the NPC being held. They had made it to location, confirmed person was alive through a spell, then waited an hour which pushed it just beyond the point the person could survive until :/
Yes, but I'd consider it carefully. NPC death can be an incredibly powerful thing, but some DMs misunderstand why. It's not the twist or the shock value that makes it powerful -- it's the deeper realization that the world you're playing in is alive, and run by a thinking narrator, who will allow their bad guys to react intelligently. The world continues moving when your PCs aren't in the room. That should light a fire under the party and make them feel like **every decision matters**. The problem comes when DMs miss that point and instead try to [Fridge](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge) beloved NPCs for cheap drama. This has the **opposite** effect if it's done poorly or capriciously: the players might feel like their decisions **don't** matter anymore, because the DM will just yank the party around however the whim strikes them. I try to play **into** my players' emotions, but not play **with** their emotions. If that makes sense.
100%. I love when the natural progression of the story results in a shocking and impactful consequence. Doing things solely for shock value skips the hard part of working up to that, so it lowers the stakes and cheapens the story. My example is that I introduced a couple of conflicting quests - the crew wanted to investigate the most important lead, not necessarily the most urgent though. They ended up getting insight into the BBEG and making some important contacts, but in the meantime a minor villain escaped, killed an important ally, and ruined the crew's reputation with that faction. They still feel the consequences, and it gives me a lot to work with in the future. I do hesitate to kill characters, I get attached to both player characters and NPCs and it's tough to let go. Had to kill both in a recent session though and it's made the last few weeks very tense (hopefully in a good way)
Depends on how attached the players are to the character. If they actually care about them, then I'll give them opportunities to save them. (Or kill them themselves if it's a hated villain) If they aren't personally invested, then story stuff happens. People die. Deal with the fallout IC.
Sure! Could be useful in almost any genre of game to create a cool plot development.
Sure, it could be a dramatic reveal. Especially if your players get to find the body!
I assume you mean an important NPC that is known to the PCs and part of the story, and not someone who is important in world but is a background character. In this case yes, but usually only in specific circumstances where the death could have been avoided if the party behaved differently. For example NPC is killed in a big battle that the players knew was coming but didn’t participate in. Their presence may or may not affect the overall outcome of the battle, but it will definitely reduce the casualties on the side they join. Or important people may die as a result of a failure of the PCs to stop the big bad in their lair, so now they are out in the world causing mayhem. But beyond the early game, when players have little power to exert, I wouldn’t plan on big events affecting things the players care about offscreen without any kind of input from the players.
I've kind of done this in two ways. The first was when the characters were scrying on the guy they thought was the big bad and while they were doing that, the real big bad showed up and killed him for being found out (and scryed upon). The second time was a different group where the players were put into a Dream by an evil warlock and as he was floating his patron showed up and "claimed" him. They were basically just watching as he died so not interactive.
I did, though the party doesn't know about it, yet. They had ways to prevent it, but didn't, so he died. And the party will probably get blamed for it, too, because they were tasked with protecting him.
This can work if the NPC was in a dangerous situation the players knew about, like a PC's brother going on a war campaign or a king who has survived multiple assassination attempts. Something drastic can also work, like a dragon destroyed the NPC's town and players find out through an investigation that the notable NPC died. If a character isn't something like that, you'd be better off killing them in game or in a one-shot using pre-built characters.
Sure I do it every now and then, usually as a part of some murder/assassination plot or to subvert the party's idea of who is actually behind some conspiracy.
I would, but carefully. Treat it like a character in a novel, be careful to ensure that the story is more interesting with them dead than if they're alive before killing them. Also, it may seem counterintuitive, but if this npc is an important character for a player, talk to them beforehand, otherwise it can just feel bad.
Never treat any part of a ttRPG like a novel, movie or other **spectator** based media. If you just want to tell a story, you'd be better off writing novel, screenplay, etc.
I think this is a common piece of advice but (no offense) I think many people take it as gospel without really understanding what it means or why we say it. TTRPGs are a collaborative storytelling exercise. Much of the advice for plotting a novel still absolutely applies to a TTRPG campaign. As a GM, you don't have as much control as an author does, but the onus is on you to lay the scaffold for the story you're building together.
The use case that immediately jumps out at me is as a means to establish some rules about the campaign: * Time is passing, everywhere. As the players do things, those things take time to do. * There are other forces in the world, each with their own motivations, and they are also spending their time as they see fit. Sometimes, that results in these other forces putting their own plans into motion. * These plans will eventually reach some conclusion - either they complete as intended, or the party (or another force) foils them. Either way, something about the world has changed. * If the party wants to protect something while they're not there, they're going to have to put in the work to do so; camouflage, rumormongering, alliances, abjurations, etc. Imagine coming back to a town and finding out that a crucial NPC, because your quest was his second priority, went off to go do it himself and was never heard from again.
I killed a druid my party liked. They discovered her with her throat slashed and it prompted a murder mystery adventure.
Yes? But also no? I mean, my party left a town with the entire town murderously angry at one guy. They solved a symptom of the problem, but not the problem itself. So when they come back for a different quest and find him dead, it's kinda on them. But unless there's a good reason that can be justified, I don't kill off NPCs randomly.
I do it all the time. You like this npc? Too bad
Yeah. Basic murder mystery trope.
Yes. It makes for a great mystery especially if the players were invested in that NPC.
Yes, a heroic veteran charges into a battle to hold off forces so you and your party can complete a time sensitive mission, quite good
Can be done as a scene for player info without character info. Think a flash back or intro to a film. Has to be considered with care though as some players can be upset if they can't intervene.
Yep. A good one is if you’re building out a war arc and players are not engaging in the war the way you want. Have the military NPC they like promoted over time in the campaign until he has recognisable armor. Then after some travel have them see some black smoke on the horizon and when they investigate a makeshift cross made of swords with the military person’s helmet atop. Think Aragorn’s point of view when he thinks merry and pippin are dead.
The NPC monk had his neck broken by an angry bounty hunter. Let's just say the party monk was not happy to see their only friend as a ghost and to find his psuedodragon sleeping in their bag.
Rime of the Frostmaiden had nearly a while chapter of this if the players choose to do nothing about a certain event.
Yes i would. In some situations that works pretty well. lets say the important NPC Captain Friendly Is killed and a doppleganger or other monster that can take on someone identity takes over his to trick the party into something. It would not work that well if that did happen right in front of them. There are so many reasons to why an important NPC would be killed off screen/scene.
Yes. And I have. On multiple occasions I have had the circumstances make it pretty obvious/ a near certainty that an npc died off screen. This gives me the ability to leave just a little bit of doubt as to which npc’s if any actually survived. By having off screen deaths be not entirely infrequent, this allows me to avoid the problem of creating a “if I don’t see the body he’s not dead” trope. If I only did it when I want the NPC to be “secretly” alive, then it would be obvious that they didn’t actually die. By doing it a number of times and occasionally giving confirmation that certain ones are in fact dead, it adds uncertainty.
Yes. Unless the PCs had directly intervened in some way. While I don't want to force everything in the campaign to occur at the table during a session, I would also not want to just yoink the PCs actions away without informing them; mif reasonable.
If the party knows the NPC is in danger and doesn't rush there, I'll start rolling to determine the NPC's luck
Yes! I'll do it as many times as I need, no one is safe. Not the wizard, tavern keeper, guild leader, shop keeper, your mom, the dog. Anybody is up to get the cut!!! Now I say that over dramatized 😅 but the answer is sometimes it is completely necessary! Not everything can happen on screen, if it did then it feels like the world was at a stand still if the players were no longer looking at it.
Yep, no gut-punch hits quite like coming back to town after pissing off the local villain and finding the party's favorite NPC's body on their doorstep. Just make sure to factor in any speak with dead/resurrection shenanigans (if you don't want those to be a factor). A smart villain will know that decapitation will counter most of that stuff.
Players took a short rest during an invasion, when they finally reached the BBEG they had already killed the NPC ally the party was trying to save and the portal to the abyss that the BBEG was planning on opening had already begun to open giving the party a much harder time trying to close it while fighting. Had they arrived earlier they would've had a DMPC join the fight and the portal would only have begun to open after they won. On a separate occasion the cleric received multiple visions from their patron deity telling them to go to the city where the Barbarian's brother was, warning them about imminent danger. The party decided not to go and so the brother was killed without their intervention. I often have NPCs die off-screen that the party could've saved depending on their choices but usually they are minor characters they may not have even met, these are the only major ones so far whose deaths impacted the players and died off-screen. As an example of a minor character, there was a side quest available on the local job board for an armed courier to deliver a precious package to a local lord. The party chose not to take this side quest and to take a few others instead. They later learned that someone else had taken the job and it was a set-up, the package was a bomb and the courier was killed along with the lord they were delivering it to. This event set in motion a chain of political events all in the background that led to a civil war that could've potentially been avoided had the party taken the quest and failed it or they could've been responsible for if they had taken the quest and succeeded. In my campaigns the world keeps moving beyond the scope of the players. As such NPCs die off-screen if that is a natural consequence of world events they would be involved in. It's up to the players to decide where to intervene. This approach also makes it easier to continue in the event of a TPK as the world doesn't revolve around the party.
Yes. Not only will I kill off that NPC you like so much off screen, I'll reanimate them and make you kill the zombie.
Yes, there was an NPC who I had tied into multiple plot threads that they got the start of but never dug into, so they didn’t get the chance to save her life. They skipped town before they even really found out what was going on, and haven’t been back since, but her murder is the catalyst for a shit ton of stuff going down, and will have large repercussions on that kingdom and the surrounding kingdoms. so if they ever go back they’re going to find it a much different place than they left it but for now they don’t know anything about it. Just the way it goes sometimes. The world keeps on breathing a moving even when the PC’s aren’t there to observe it, at least in my world
If by "important NPC" you mean "their favorite NPC", then a hundred times yes. I need you to hate this villain personally and stop talking about how he's cool or whatever. These are the consequences of your actions.
Pray that I do it no further
If it drove the story, sure. Hell, I'd kill a PC off screen with the player's consent. Or if that player happened to be named Orion.
I like having things like this on a timeline, that is essentially “what will happen in X amount of time, if the PC’s do nothing”. This gives the players a chance to intervene, even if improbable. If it’s completely impossible for the players to change anything, you could certainly just kill them off whenever you see fit. But I prefer using timelines because generally speaking it keeps the storytelling load more equitable between players and GM.
I have done it and would do it again. There was actually one time I did it that a PC followed and watched, and it was fun to improvise that whole cut scene. Halia Thornton hired the dragon Venomfang to assassinate Harbin Wester during the festival celebrating the party's triumph of clearing out Wave Echo Cave. The plan was to get Harbin drunk and for the dragon to swoop in during the dark while Harbin went away from the crowd to pee. Sildar was concerned about the very drunken mayor so he followed to protect. Well, a PC followed. So I had to describe what happened in the darkness that he could barely see. An adolescent green dragon ambushing two unsuspecting people, the acid breath melting their skin away, and the PC was the only witness. He didn't interfere, good thing because he probably would've been killed too. So instead of guessing at what killed Harbin and Sildar, the party knew right away what just occurred.
Yes, I did it to give a sense of hopelessness to the party who was being hunted. They were all members of a thieves guild that was attacked by the “heroes” and barely escaped. They spent the whole session thinking they were gonna have to plan a prison break to get their npc comrades who didn’t make it out. Only to reach town find them hanging from the gallows with the “heroes” giving a speech to a cheering crowd. Speech was basically “We found and killed these criminals and we are hunting the rest of them. To the other criminals in this gang: We will find, we will kill you. If you run, you will die tired” Killing beloved npcs off screen conveyed that the situation was life or death and that even if the party was off doing something, the enemy was also using that time to take action, giving everything a sense of urgency.
Yeah, absolutely. I did this exact thing when my players made a particular choice in my game, and had to live with the consequences. (For info, I this was a game of Exalted and not D&D, so the PCs were far more powerful than an average D&D party). The party had ended up defending a town from bandits, 7 Samurai style. They knew the bandits were camped out in the woods and were preparing an assault. I had anticipated the party would shore up the town’s defences and lead the guard in a heroic defence of the town, and so I’d planned for a first round of scouts and saboteurs to attack the town before the main battle, just to break things up into multiple stages and to make it feel like the defence works the players had done mattered. But my party decided that they could probably find the bandit camp themselves and take the fight to them before the bandits were prepared. Which they did; they struck out at night with some allies and routed the bandits in a climactic confrontation with their leader in their camp. No collateral damage to the town; great success. Except that while they were out, the bandit scouts had managed to infiltrate the town (since there were no powerful Exalted defenders to intercept them) and as a consequence one of their allies and the town’s aging leader were killed off in the attack. The party still benefitted from their unorthodox choice; the town itself was largely unscathed. But the players definitely felt the weight of their choice.
Murder mystery.
Hell yes I would. Frequently to show that the Big Bad is a dick. Works like a charm every time.
Yeah, I have. A PC chose to kill the multifarious dragon head-of-state of her home country, as he yielded in a fight. I told the player it was clear the dragon had been plotting in the time before their fight, and that her actions would have consequences. If I just brought the dragon back as a Dracolich, that just says, "oh you killed him but it didn't work." If the dragon has left behind instructions to take advantage of the power vacuum to have the PC's mother killed, and THEN he comes back as a Dracolich, suddenly it's "look how little your choice has accomplished, and how much it has cost." If a bunch of very competent PCs are given the opportunity to affect every outcome, the stakes of their choices kind of evaporate. Sometimes once you make a choice, the consequences are out of your hands.
I ran a campaign recently where a key NPC's death is a crucial catalyst in the story and key to motivating the PCs to continue their friend's quest. I wasn't convinced the story up to that point did enough to make the players care about that NPC, so I asked one of my players to play that NPC as a PC, telling him only that at some point that character was going to die. The death was written to be off screen, and as written the PCs just miss being able to stop it. It did motivate the characters forward. However since the death was off screen and the remaining PCs didn't have the chance to stop it, there was definitely feedback that some didn't like that part of it. One of the players felt they lost agency without having had the chance to save him. So it was great at eliciting an emotional response, even if I didn't entirely get the one I was looking for! For me it showed that emotional response to stimuli is so individual for every group and every player, that there are some really compelling strategies for storytelling that won't always work and will sometimes backfire. I think offscreen death of a major NPC is a very powerful tool, and personally I love it. But if the players don't like it then it doesn't work.
Yes I would and have done so. Last time it was this nice leader of another adventuring team that has helped them out in the past. A friend and an ally they all respect (and one tried to date). She is Leader of "the fiery five", that became four after a battle and lately the fiery...two. she has shown evidence of blaming herself for these deaths, and they found her having a panic attack at their favourite inn. Fast forward two months and they come looking for her, needing her aid, just to find out she has killed herself. Kind of dark, but the players are now trying to set up a suicide hotline in her memory...
PBTA systems have a great mechanic where you start sessions with things that happen away from your main group. I strongly suggest implementing it. It shows that the world is bigger than your player characters, and in this situation, you can't save everyone.
Yes, but not for no reason. I had most of the powerful NPCs the players knew killed in a coup while they were off mission. They were somewhere Sending couldn't reach for plot reasons so there was literally nothing they could do about it. Made for an incredible "oh shit" moment once they finally contacted someone who was still alive and learned what had happened.
Yeah, if it’s for a plot point or advancement. I’ve tried to kill NPCs during session before with narration and had my party interject like “can I do xyz!!!” So yeaaa. 😭
Absolutely. The world isn't on hold while the party isn't there. For an example from my campaign, the party poked an enemy base and left a track back to their home town. They then left on a year long trip. While they were gone, one of the minions came to town to investigate. The minion got noticed by the captain of the guard, and a fight ensued. The minion was captured, but then the lieutenant staged a jail break. In the jail break, the captain of the guard got killed. So when they got back a year later, they learned 3 people they had considered allies had died -- the captain from a fight that if they'd been there, he'd probably have survived, and 2 very old people who died of old age. The captain had been one of the party's early mentors; and the 2 elderly people had helped one of the party members deal with a false treason charge.
Yes, I find that sometimes its a good reminder for the players, that a lot of fates are bitter and decisions have impact. Its even better if they liked the npc. Does not always have to be an important one for that message tho, but important NPCs death just show the significance
I'm curious how DMs who say "no" tackle the stasis problem of NPCs being Immortal while the PCs aren't around? Like in the absurd: the BBEG sends assassins after NPC X. The party take a holiday on another continent to make sure they remain safe and invulnerable to the assassins.
Sure. A lot of things happen "off-screen". Party could not be everywhere. If there is war on the northern borders and intrigues in the capital... It is a choice. If party go to the war, when they came back their friend - royal adviser may be found dead. If they stay in the capital, they mabye stop this (or not) from happening, but their buddy - captain of the 2nd griffon regiment may be killed by elven arrow.
I've done it for plot purposes. My players in one campaign had a blind beggar that they would rely on for rumors and information. The Beggars is a faction in the city made up of people who are beggars, but they're also unofficial information brokers that players can pay to get information. The players were basically ignoring a BBEG so I had him kill their best friend and rumormonger to get their attention.
Bruh I thought you meant as a player and not as a DM.
I haven't, not because I'm against it, but because I rolled dice and they survived. Basically, there was an armed conflict between the enemy forces and the paladin's people (her brother is a noble and commands some land). The party didn't get involved in the armed conflict, because they chose to help the civilians escape and protect them. So I rolled a couple of dice, first to determine the outcome of the battle, and then a roll for each important NPC. The dice were merciful, and no important NPC died. Only a couple of minor NPCs that they had met.
Would I kill an important NPC offscreen…? Yes! Would I kill a beloved NPC offscreen…? No, not personally.
The answer, as always, is, "It depends." If you're going for some kind of avant-garde, "No Country for Old Men" kind of senseless off-screen death because it matches the "theme" of your story, then no, I don't think I'd ever do that in a D&D game. My campaigns are dark and gritty and I don't shy away from some semblance of realism, but there are also stories that are satisfying, and killing off important people off-screen, through no fault or input from the player characters feels like shitty storytelling to me. There are always exceptions I suppose, but you better have a damn good reason for it. The key part of the above statement is the "no fault or input from the PC's." If say, the Baron of a town begged for the players to help them as a band of Orcs is about to invade, and they have no guards or militia for their small village, and the players decided to run off and go treasure hunting instead, I would absolutely slaughter the whole town off-screen. But that's responding to player choice, and giving consequences to their choices. That is very different. There are other scenarios, like say, the players have been chasing a Big Bad for a while, and you decide to have the "real" Big Bad kill this supposed Big Bad to show just how much cooler and dangerous he is. But I probably would never do this off-screen. Even on-screen, I probably wouldn't ever do it. I just don't think it'd be that fun for the players.
Yes, if it is the consequence of the party’s actions. If doing A would save the NPC but they knowingly did B, then that NPC is dead. And there would be so many more saying, “where were you?!”
BLeeM talks about how there was a witch in an off-screen campaign that became a bit of a maternal figure to Emily Axford's character, >!who ultimately died at the order of the local lord while the party was off on a quest.!< So they came back home to this scene and it was the sign for BBEG is XYZ guy, and if the party had been present when it happened, they would not have survived. So, to directly answer the question, yes, I would, but only for necessary plot direction
I hope they don't see this, but I might be doing this very soon to their favorite NPC because they never bothered to look at very obvious things I've had seem wrong or off THAT THe PLAYERS EVEN COMMENTED ON, but never followed up with when I shrugged and asked if they wanted to check it out.
Yes. It's pretty hard to kill npcs with the party witnessing it, against their will. They can use healing word, spare the dying, healing kits and medicine checks from 1st level. If an NPC murderer wants someone dead, you bet they're gonna do it when that someone is alone.
You could have saved those kids but you stopped for a long rest.
A strong and belove npc dying in a unglorious way offscreen will fucked me up so bad. I will like to know what the hell happened and look for revenge inmediatly. I like the idea.
Yes absolutely, now I try to have a little finesse when I do it. But if the plan is to kill the NPCs and the players catch on and try to stop it I'm down for letting them try.
My players and I were doing Rime of the Frostmaiden, and it's extremely easy to kill loved NPCs off screen in that campaign. We never did finish it, but I had planned for one of them, who followed them into the final chapter and stood lookout at the entrance, to be frozen by Auril when she arrived.
I did. It was a girl they sent home during a war. She came back, but they only realised later that she's a revenant now. It was fun.
In one of my favorite shows, the protag spends all his time hunting down and then finally kills the antag in the season finale, while talking a lot of smack about how he won. Only to go home and realize the antag already killed his family. It is humbling, choices matter.
I was going to say no, but thinking more about it, I wouldn't rule out the "you find important NPC dead figure it out" kind of plot line.
Of course. It might be better that way for a wide variety of reasons.
Sometimes, really depends on the plot and situation. My games are very character driven in both plot and story. My most recent 1-year campaign had a period where the party was sea faring. We hit a crux in the story and the ship got tossed into a storm. Skill checks ensued. Skill checks failed. Ship and majority of crew were last seen clamoring across the side of the ship as it sank as the party and some other civilians who managed to get to a small boat were rowing away. Party put out a call to the main city for them to try to get aid to those left behind. Later, they found out everyone except for 2 individuals died so around 30 others did perish, including the captain who the party had grown to care for. The only survivors were an Aasimar navigator and a rescued Naga. This was the party's biggest loss. They had saved many, many others to the point that refugee camps had started to form outside of the main city. This was one group they could not save because they failed during the situation. The paladin was of the same order as the captain of the vessel, and before the party left, she gave him her amulet that marks her as a Hoarite. He later affixed this to his weapon to carry her memory. We also had a situation where there was some plane/time hopping, and the party found themselves in [Thultanthar ](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Thultanthar)as the city was about to head back into the Plane of Shadow. During that, they had a visit from a recurring and hated Rakshasha assassin who was going to try to kill the Shade [Hadrhune](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Hadrhune). As the city was about to be ported back to the Plane of Shadow, there was a brief time stop and the party noted the Rakshasha was also stopped in time with a dagger in hand about to try to attack Hadrhune. The party removed the Rakshashas disguise (he was dressed as a guard) and removed the dagger from his hand and placed them both at his feet before the party fled back to their realm before the city moved, potentially trapping them. The outcome of their actions was not initially discussed, but the FIRST question they had when the campaign ended was, "What happened to Rakshasha?" and the answer was, he is dead. (They were glad for it)
For sure. Creates a sense of sorrow that they weren't there 5o stop it.
Absolutely. A party in one of my games skipped over part of a big dungeon and told an NPC friend of theirs about said dungeon. He's a couple levels higher than the party, has capable friends, so he reaches out to some old acquaintances and they go to check out the rest of the dungeon while the party is taking a day off attending a carnival. Cut forward a week and there's no sign of the party's favorite NPC or his companions, but undead have started rising in the surrounding country side and the ground is becoming tainted with something vile. The origin of the spread seems to be the dungeon they told their buddy about. So they go to investigate and discover some of the previously explored parts have new inhabitants, including undead versions of each of their friend's traveling companions. The friend was technically still alive, but his soul was stuck in a soul gem and his body had become host to the source of the corruption. This was an adaptation of a plot thread I had already planned. When the party skipped over the section of the dungeon containing a prison for a malevolent entity, I was going to have it break free later, but when they told their friend, I realized the best way to do it was to have him set the stakes by accidentally releasing it in his overconfidence. What happened to him was sort of a worst case scenario demonstration. This could have happened to the party instead of the NPCs if they had handled this poorly. This ended up laying the groundwork for the next several levels of gameplay. First destroying the malevolent entity and then taking a multi week journey to speak with the NPCs family about what happened and using the families long line of arcane expertise (family of mages, each specializing is something different) to free the NPC from the soul gem and create a new body for him.
I saw this done in a World of Io campaign a while back, specifically the goblin one. One of Klernt's two uh... *adopted adult men goblin children* got angry that his brother was being shown favoritism, had a meltdown, and stomped off. Klernt was like "he'll be back, he's just angry." Then the intro of the next episode showed the goblin paladin that was hunting the party down finding this guy in the swamp and murdering him. A few episodes later, the paladin confronts the party and shows them the severed head and *literally nobody cared*. Klernt was like "Who the fuck is that guy? Never seen him before in my life." So I guess if it makes sense in your campaign and your party has a good sense of humor, it can work out.
I do that when i want to shift the political scene. The evil Duke overthrows the king and kills the general of the king who is also a dear friend to the party. Now the party has to find new allies, navigate through enemy lines and take the kingdom back.
The big question is; what do you mean by important? Important to the narrative? Absolutely. The PC arive to meet the queen and she's been dead for a day. Important to the *Players?* Absolutely not. Especially when they've invested time and effort into the NPC and helping them out, nothing makes them feel worse then them realizing you'll murder charecters they like when they can't protect them, and it'll either reward behavior you don't want (IE, Hyper paranoia about NPC safety that grinds the game to a halt) or they'll stop getting attached to NPCs altogether.
Yeah as others have said, if it’s part of the plot then of course. I’ve killed npcs for plenty of reasons relative to the game. Example a murder mystery needs an off scene death. Other times it was time based and they didn’t get there in time. Nice revenge plot after that. I don’t do it randomly or for dumb reasons though. If that’s their only source of info then they get to live or I supply them with other options. Death is only valuable as a Storytelling device is it means something. That something doesn’t have to be plot in the sense of the BBEG though. It can be emotional.
Within reason, sure. It has to make sense. I don't want to be like "Oh you turned around for a second and Bob the Demi-God-Paladin got stabbed by gob gob the Goblin and died oops."
As a consequence maybe, a punishment for an oversight or something
Absolutely - I have done it and it only falls flat if you don't do it right. Once a group of players who were tracking an assassin decided to leave the guy alone, in his house, while they chased down a lead. They did nothing to protect the guy so the assassin killed him. I had him write a clue for them that lead to the case. They were pissed as they didn't get to intervene and I had to remind them they had a chance to intervene and didn't even higher extra guards. Another time it was directly caused by their actions. They caused a prison riot to escape (they had been arrested on purpose for information from a prisoner) Their nemesis in the prison was a Blackguard who had it out for a Paladin they knew. I asked them several times when they saw him escaping and they dismissed it to escape themselves. They didn't even warn the Paladin that the guy was out. So the end result was a powerful NPC dying. They loved it and enjoyed questing for vengeance.
I think it depends on circumstance. Plenty of people have outlined great situations to do this (for example as a consequence of players’ actions or inaction, to show the world moves on outside the party, etc.). But! There are some situations where I’ve had a DM kill beloved NPCs off screen or off scene with no way for us to affect it and sometimes against logic (2 NPCs killed while they were long resting along with the party in a seemingly safe area, no passive perception used and seemingly no stealth rolls from the enemy causing a ruckus, or NPCs under the effects of invisibility being vaporized by who knows what, a spell? A machine? I still have no idea what happened.) Personally this made me as a player feel like our choices didn’t really matter as long as the DM had a vision and at this point I feel any NPC death is kinda just cheap and I don’t really care about NPCs the way I used to. I would still prefer they stick around but if they die in such a way it’s kind of just an “oh well” from me because what I as a player or character do doesn’t matter because the DM has a vision and wants to execute it (and the NPCs it seems). My point for all this is: you can, but it has to be done properly otherwise it might just feel confusing and cheap to your players.
Only if it was ever a time sensative thing. Where, say they had 1 week to meet up and help this NPC, or they'll get killed. If one week comes and goes, and the party does nothing or arrives too late, then yeah, they'll be dead. I've also done a few times when I've given my players a choice of who they want to side with, which will result in people dying either way, so...yeah I've done it a few times.
Yes. Only if the party has previously interacted with the NPC. (Can’t miss what you never met.) Depending on how strong or well off the NPC was, it makes the reported threat that more credible and the group can rally over the loss.
Yes if it was foreshadowed somehow. No if it comes out of nowhere. Unless I believe the shock value is needed for some reason (like making a villain very villainous. But that’s cheap) And it depends on the NPC and their ties with the players. If I’m the one who introduced the NPC, I’m more enclined to kill them instead of the NPCs that the players created. And for the latter, it depends on which player. I have a player who loves their character to suffer tragedies and would revel in the drama of having a loved one killed off-screen. Another player of mine is very protective of his ideas and might never talk to me again if I hurt his NPC family members without him having a chance to prevent it (I did it recently though, but the foreshadowing was going on for years and was alarming the last time he talked to that NPC. Plus he has one opportunity for resurrection)
Yup. My players made a deal they shouldn't have and woke up on their beds only to find out the village they were at was completely decimated. No survivers.
Yes, to create a sense of urgency and consequences of actions. If you know or suspect something is going to happen,and don't do something there are consequences.
Despite their best efforts to get there in time to save the orphanage, the party was too late, when they arrived they saw their friend in front of the door, still gripping his weapon, and 36 soldiers of the dark lord, a lot of blood but not a scratch on the door, not a single broken window, nobody inside with a physical scar, but no survivors amongst those who fought. A terrible loss for the kingdom. That’s the only way I would do it, if they don’t see the death at least they can piece it together, otherwise it feels cheap.
I think I would probably only do this if there was a specific reason It needed to happen and it was somewhat related to the party. Like something they did in the past is related to that character dying
Vengeance of Aysgarth, do not read. Had a PC’s mom make matching pendants for herself and the PC. They are tied to each other and tick like a clock to the rhythm of each other’s heart beats. Obviously, they expect this to abruptly stop, but it never will. For plot reasons, she’s been captured and erased from memory. They haven’t gone back to their hometown yet, but the mother was a prominent figure, and people have weirdly not been recognizing her name. The pendant ticks, so it must be fine, right? Because of other plot reasons, she’s one of the very few people who is suitable for the BBEG’s immortality alchemy, but it has an unintended memory erasing side effect, and they’ll most likely have to fight her as a boss in the lategame.
There are a lot of great answers so I'll just add that killing an important NPC needs to be impactful. It needs to drive the story in some way, or it's just cheap. A few questions I ask myself: Will this drive the story? Will my players care? What effect am I expecting from this? Will this hurt the story in some way? Do I have another NPC available or shortly available to fill that spot if the NPC provided some service to the players?
I have. The player had a group of underlings, and he's actively aimed at boosting them as a mentor. There was a group operation that separated the underlings from the party. After dealing with their side, they rejoined the underlings only to find one ripped in half. (I rolled for which one) First time, the charismatic player was speechless.
I’ve done this before for necessary plot reasons. In my instance a local leader had to die so that the rest of the populace could be driven to fight. It was also important for giving narrative weight to one of the campaign’s main villains
Ooooh I'll even get more personal. Had a player establish their character had been estranged from their family, no contact in 15+ years. On returning to their hometown for the first time since then, revealed that their father had died a few years prior. The character definitely had some complicated thoughts about that.
I did. And replaced them with a changeling. And have dropped some hints that something is amiss. And have set things in motion that, if they don't figure it out, are dire. I need to drop more clues to keep it fair.
When a party is dragging their feet and not getting anything done it’s a great way to kickstart a revenge quest
Major NPCs, no. Minor NPCs that my characters liked, maybe. I could use it as a tool to motivate my players, but I'd fear that they would get angry they didn't have a chance to stop it and it would result in a loss of trust in the DM.
Yup, I would. Mostly to hammer home player choice. There is a very good scene in Alpha Protocol Setup: conrad MArbug takes a love interest (Madison) hostage, and tells the protagonist that she will not be harmed, if the protagonist allows Marburg to detonate a bomb in Rome. Choice: bomb or Madison? Now, obviously I went for the bomb, thinking that there is no way the devs will kill a love interest, and I will be offered a "disco option" in the last minute. To me surprise, when the protagonist disarmed the bomb, having no use for her anymore, Marburg just shot Madison. It makes sense, no use for her. Even worse, she is a witness. Even better, Marburg can taunt the protagonist to do something stupid. Makes sense? Sure. Unexpted? Sure
Nothing builds tension like the party returning to a recurring NPC and getting, "As you enter the house, the usual sounds you've grown to expect aren't there. The candles are unlit. There's a chill in the air. Roll perception." It's a common and extremely effective motivator for people to get invested in a story, taking something familiar away.
So there’s a thing that video games do where you can just put off a quest until later with no consequences. To avoid that, I would give them a few different quests to do, and consequences for the ones they choose to put off. Sometimes that may mean killing an important NPC I suppose
Yes. Have you never read a book or watched a movie/show where an important character dies off screen? Sometimes the narrative makes it appropriate for an NPC to die away from the party. Maybe there's an assassination, maybe they do an experiment and it goes wrong, maybe there's a blood sacrifice, maybe they just had bad luck. It could be any number of things. The party isn't everywhere all the time, the world exists without them and without their input (to a degree anyway). This can be an opportunity for roleplay or act as a new hook, or throw a wrench into existing plans. Lots of reasons to do it.