Am I a bad GM if I intentionally set up an encounter that has a disproportionately high chance of killing a specific party member because I want them dead for narrative reasons?
Their death also explains the player's absence during a four week holiday he'll be on. And his current character is shit. I believe he'd be better suited to playing his backup.
>>45950072
If the player's cool with it, do it.
>>45950201
All of the players are fine with the concept of losing characters, which is why they all made backups at the beginning of the campaign. This would just be me stacking the odds in my favour.
Just make sure the odds are stacked against them but don't force the bad end if they somehow get through whatever ordeal you have planned.
>>45950323
In that case I wouldn't say you're an inherently bad GM.
Depending on what kind of narrative reasons, you could discuss it with the player and perhaps make something even cooler of it?
Why not chitchat with the player about a story arc when they are gone, like they are injured, in a convent, fking learning from wizards, whatever... may want to let teh playa have some ideas about it. Maybe he likes this character...
>>45950072
Just don't make it obvious you're out for blood, and you should be fine.
>>45950072
If it improves the story and would make the player happier in the end then you would be a bad dm to not do it.
When I read the OP I invariably thought no, but after reading the circumstances maybe. It's a good idea.
>>45950072
What specifically makes his current character shit?
>>45950072
I'd say, take the risk of fielding it by him. He'll probably be chill about it.
>>45950072
If you set this up and kill him without asking him about it beforehand, then yes, you are a bad GM.
Especially since you make a point of mentioning that there really isn't a narrative reason at all, you just don't like his current PC.
>>45950072
As long as the players are none the wiser about your intentions go for it.
It seems you have smoothness of story and gameplay at the front of your mind as well as player fun, which is the trifecta of GM top-priorities.
>>45956897
His character is supposed to be a badass pirate guy but instead he roleplays it as 'himself but a Fighter' and simply goes along with what the other two do. He's the shittiest badass Dragonborn pirate ever.
His backup is a Elf Paladin. Although it would probably be the same 'him but a paladin' shit he'd at least have a code to follow, meaning he'd be more inclined to actually do things.
>>45950072
Killing a player's character intentionally without discussing it with them is bush league GMing.
Stacking an encounter and hoping for a negative outcome for that specific character is bush league GMing, as you'll discover when you accidentally kill Throg Princesshumper, the erstwhile hero.
But remember, anon. You're fucking dumb and deserve this.
My opinion since OP asked is given what i am seeing from OP, yes that would be a shit move.
Bob the shitty dragonborn pirate is going to be Bob the shitty elven paladin. If you are having issues with a player's play style to the point of it being disruptive, then talk to them about it.
Ultimately though it depends on the type of DM you define:
DM vs Players
DM = story with player as bit parts
DM + Players = story
>>45950072
You're better off asking him if it would be alright to kill his character here, and tell him you're interested in seeing his Elf Paladin down the road.
Talking is almost always better than stacking and hoping.
>>45959661
Talking to him won't help. Him being a shitty roleplayer is the least of his problems.
I'll just stat out a reasonable combat encounter and let the dice fall where they will.
