Is it alright to kill your players for narrative reasons...

but it's not really a twist, it's the premise for the beginning of the next arc.
It'd be like asking your players if the next direction of the game should be a pirate adventure, a wilderness crawl, or an afterlife escapade. It's not revealing ALL the details to give them enough information to get on board.
OP could even incentivize his players characters death by (with their knowledge) giving them scaling rewards to start the next arc with based on how gloriously they die in combat. Fall on a rock and eat it in the first turn- too bad you'll have bare minimum starting gear. Take out a small army fight until finally your body betrays you? Shit, here's a spear and magic helmet gj.

That's fucking retarded.

I'd like the deaths to be a surprise, the hook I had in mind was that the party would be tasked with scouting this ancient city of the dead said to be overrun with the most vile undead creatures around, only for them to die and become undead themselves, and now they have to go to the undead city to try and find a way back to life.

The paladin group who accompanies them will be the BBEG, as he'll be the one who betrays them and kills them, so I would like to avoid telling them I plan for them to die.

What part, the one where I suggested working with the players so they know what to expect, asking players about what they want to play, or the suggestion to make OPs idea less of a punishment?
Based on your opinion, I'm thinking rpgs aren't actually YOUR thing. Combat roll playing maybe, but role playing? Maybe not the right fit for you.

ok but dying is usually a Game Over situation. Players feel cheated being forced into that situation and you'll have to make it a hell of a good game to make up for the anger they're going to feel at "losing."
Looks like you've already sure you're going to do this, you're just seeking validation for your decision. Except a bunch of anonymous assholes aren't the people who's opinions need to matter to you- they aren't going to make your group run any more smoothly or calm down that one autist who is just a little TOO attached to their character you just no-save killed (I'm sure you've got at least one).

Nah, I'm legitimately looking for input, because I can't ask my players how they'd feel about it. (For obvious reasons.) It seems like a risky idea, so I'll give it more thought. Might end up doing something else.

I think that's a fun idea but rather than kill the players to force them to be ghosts I'd pitch the idea as there's an objective that can only be completed BY ghosts.

So the players presumably set up a way to die, become ghosts, do the thing, get rezzed.

That way you also get a bit of drama if their plan to get rezzed doesn't go as hoped and the whole thing is their choice.

>Is it alright to kill your players
>players
No.

I doubt this applies to you, but try thinking of it this way:
>You're sitting at home on a friday night
>Figure you could go for a drink
>Call up a friend
>"You were going to go to the bar anyway, stop seeking validation for your decision"
That's you right now.
I'd be careful with something like that. You'd have to somehow make it abundantly clear that they aren't going to actually "die", and that there is a way back. And just hope your players aren't Veeky Forums level autismo faggots

/thread

We can do that, we don't even need a reason.

Only time I ever killed my players as a group was after they got stuck in a high tech time loop trap, with the stereotypical laser corridor between them and the exit. Way it worked out was two of the three walked forward, failed the very high perception check to notice the lasers, and got chopped up. The third one sat in the corner having a mental breakdown until the loop restarted. The initial plan was that they'd basically trial and error their way through the laser maze, each time through getting easier, but they were surprisingly averse to repeated suicide so I let them come up with another way out. Worked out pretty well in the end, lead to a pretty hype session.

I'm in the camp of opinion that believes GMs have every right to "rail-road" and make an entertaining story to play through, so yes it's alright.

But, as you can see, others believe the GM is just there for admin.

If you want afterlife shenanigans, make sure the reward dangled at them is returning to their mortal form

What a sperg.

Absolutely, but you should ask the specific player privately before doing it to see if they're okay with it - otherwise no.

Warning players ahead of time that they will receive no plot armor is a good thing too.

Yes. But don't try that around here or with throwaway online groups.

Bitches CRY so much when a story is actually attempted.

I'm stealing this user. Thank you.

>If you're going to railroad, discuss it with your players first
This. Springing a complete game-change with no warning or consultation will erode the trust of your players.

However, if it's still the same story going forward and overall consistent with the game they agreed to, then I figure it should be okay. Maybe you can have your PCs' souls pulled out of their bodies by a supernatural force so it's not a supposed-to-lose fight.

I ran a game where the party had to stop a god of law from turning the world to stone. 4 person game, and the party member that carried out the ritual died. I didn't tell the party that. They took it well.

If there has been no lead up or foreshadowing then its absolutely cheap, like to the point where some might just walk out.

LOL, I'm surprised no else caught this.

Was this the game you were running?

1d4chan.org/wiki/Heroes_of_the_Spiderwoods
For those who want to see what they read

I guess the big thing to address is once this campaign is over, these players might still want to play these characters. If they're going to e reincarnated with some of their astral loot then I'd definitely agree with this without any question, because it removes the finality that even an afterlife gives your campaign.

...

Not really.
It's not just your story, your players are bringing their dudes to the table to mash them against your world to make a new story.
Removing player input in this sort of thing is a massive novice gm mistake.
That said, giving them an incentive to go along with your story, like suggested, might get you the story you wanted without the players feeling like they're just reading a novel you wrote.

DMing is not story-telling and you're a terrible DM if you seriously think that "TPK for plot reasons" is a good idea

I think there's a few okay ways to do it.
>ask the players if they're okay with it
At the game's heart, you're playing WITH them. Act like it.

>save the idea for when/if it happens naturally
As a twist in the result of a real TPK, could be fun.

>know your players
If you have a good enough relationship with your players that you know what they enjoy, and they have enough trust in you that they know you're not going to do stupid shit without a payoff, you can probably go for it

If they knew beforehand, sure. Like, if it were the premise of the campaign itself. In any other circumstance? Absolutely not.

never do anything without giving your players a chance. that is always something that i stress when people ask how to advance a plot or anything. even if their rolls are going to be moot because the probability of success is extremely against them, always let them roll. never narrate events to them, roll events and act them out

You're not discussing a twist, you're making sure that your players know what's coming and are prepared for it if and when it decides to come to that out of respect to their agency as a player and as a friend (assuming you're not playing with rando's).

Besides, killing off the main cast is already pretty shit storytelling by default so I'd advise not doing through fiat if you can stifle yourself long enough to realize how bad an idea it'd be.

>Bitches CRY so much when a story is actually attempted.
Maybe your attempts at story are shit.