Climactic Sacrifice of PCs

[shadzar]

Well, then there are some sorts of things you cannot have in your game - like magics the PCs don't fully understand, or that they cannot design to their own specifications.

PCs: Man, we screwed up in that fight, and now the high priest has let loose Mulchinato! How do we stop this fledgling god? He's way too powerful for us to beat in a straight up fight.

PC Wizard: I'll do some research, and see if there's something that'll do the trick!

DM: You spend some time pouring through old tomes, and you discover a ritual that would enable you to lock Mulchinato back in his interdimensional cage. However, it requires the death blood of an innocent to complete the ritual....

Now the PCs have a choice - use that ritual, or not. They don't know if more research will find a ritual that only calls for celery juice, or if such a thing can be created in time. They have to choose to pursue that avenue, or not.

The fictional world has rules. That means that eventually the PCs may work themselves into a corner in which their options are limited.

1- How would you feel if they continue their research to look for other options, and would you, after your last statement, keep presenting them with those options?

2- Why did you set up such a solution that removes or heavily limits player choice? Are you just wanting to kill off characters for the thrill?

3- If you are not willing to destroy the world or have a TPK, why present either in the game?

4- If at such a level to have go around to screwing with a fledgling god to begin with, and such would be a threat, are their no clerics to ask for help from a real full god so that his worshipers are not destroyed by one of his faithful followers? The DM has his deus ex machina to allow BBEG to escape for later fights to build tension, so why can't the players empower their deus ex machina to get out of DM situations they don't like?

I am still seeing the "One Ring" game here. That is fine if you told the players they were playing a "One Ring" game to begin with, but what if they find out later such and didn't want to play the game of "One Ring". When playing Final Fantasy I enjoy and expect that, as well the CRPG options are limited by the code of the game, but D&D does not have these code restrictions, so why add them? Final Fantasy CAN get away with "if you don't act or fail the world ends" because that is front loaded. Not all people want to play D&D like that.

That is what sets tabletop RPGs apart from computer RPGs in that they don't have silly arbitrary restrictions due to filesize, memory, or coding limits. Tabletop RPGs are only bound by the limits of the DM AND players imaginations.

I am pretty sure I know how you would answer a part of the first question as you previously stated about "presenting things for the players to reject", but what about the rest of it, and the other questions?

 

[pemerton]

The fictional world has rules. That means that eventually the PCs may work themselves into a corner in which their options are limited.

I'm a pretty big proponent of the line that, in building and playing the fictional world, the GM ought to take account of the limitations that it will impose on the players. That is, the fictional world should be designed, in my view, metagame first and ingame logic second.

So I think (I'm not 100% sure) that we might come to this whole question from different GMing perspectives.

Despite that, I can agree with what I've quoted here, because it states the megatame rationale - namely, it is a good game where the players can end up painting themselves (or at least their PCs) into a corner. This is one interesting way of making their choices have consequences that they actually care about.

2- Why did you set up such a solution that removes or heavily limits player choice? Are you just wanting to kill off characters for the thrill?

3- If you are not willing to destroy the world or have a TPK, why present either in the game?

It's Umbran's scenario, and he's amply capable of answering for himself, but I did want to pick up on these two questions.

As to (2) - Umbran presented his scenario as the culmination of a series of choices by the players. That's the meaning of "painting themselves into a corner". Assuming that, had other choices been made, the players wouldn't have painted themselves into a corner, then choice hasn't been limited at all - it's been enabled. It's just that the players have chosen poorly.

As to (3) - who said that they're not willing to destroy the world or have a TPK? If Umbran said this upthread, I certainly missed it.

 

[shadzar]

It's Umbran's scenario, and he's amply capable of answering for himself, but I did want to pick up on these two questions.

As to (2) - Umbran presented his scenario as the culmination of a series of choices by the players. That's the meaning of "painting themselves into a corner". Assuming that, had other choices been made, the players wouldn't have painted themselves into a corner, then choice hasn't been limited at all - it's been enabled. It's just that the players have chosen poorly.

As to (3) - who said that they're not willing to destroy the world or have a TPK? If Umbran said this upthread, I certainly missed it.

I am fine with others answering them, it furthers even more discussion.

2- I know what painting yourself into a corner is, I am just wondering how such a dire punishment for such is called for.

In the context of this thread, we really aren't talking about that, just a singular method to end the game with only one resolution.

Out of the context of the thread, you are in the middle of a game, so I am curious how we get to this point where the fledgling god is the "reward" for the string of choices that led to here.

What are the odds a group of players really enjoying the game world would make every choice that would lead to their own demise in such a fashion?

I am thinking there is something missing in there. If the DM can pull the BBEG away so often for later, how is it this fledgling god cannot be if the players made a few bad choices. I am thinking of the "dick move" thread involving the rogue character that was tied and gagged right now.

The DM gave warnings and a single player nearly destroyed the game for all, and the DM held true to fashion. Is this what is going on here, or did the group of players make the choice as a group that led them here?

Also why is this the consequence? Does this fledgling god play some part in the overall plot, or was it just stumbled on and now has the capacity to ruin the game by pretty much destroying the world?

3- He did not say he is unwilling, and I don't know if the concept of the fledgling god would/could do so in his example. I am just positing, again in the context of this thread being the end of the game, that some DO place TPK and world destroying things but don't want to pull the trigger on them. So curious if this might be the case. If not then it dismisses the potential of the DM presenting something he isn't willing to deal with.

But then Why so willing to do so and throw away the rest of the game you may have had planned out as the DM? I am all for the players destroying the world when they want to, but I will not litter the world with ways for them to do so, because there might just be that chance that they don't want to destroy it and bad dice rolls can too easily cause it to happen.

All in all, it is the how we got here that determines if it is being done "right", when presenting only a single either or choice.

One comment stick to me and seems missing a part:

A major hallmark of the non-railroading GM is that the players can fail - either by bad luck or by their decisions.

Likewise a major hallmark of a non-railroading GM is that players can succeed with means other than those devised by the GM.

When all I am presented with is the DM saying "this is the way it must be done if you intend to do it" I am ready to jump off the train.

With this game, and the fledging god scenario, I don't have enough info except the final result that caused a either or option to determine if it was a railroad or enough warning was given prior to allow the players to paint themselves into a corner.

The funny thing about painting yourself in the corner is you can walk on the wet paint, so you aren't trapped.

Yes I know the analogy isnt directly about paint, but the concept remains the same with D&D. There is ALWAYS a way the DM didn't think of to get out of something. It tells people a lot about the DM in the way they handle those ways that the players come up with that the DM did not.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Use a Fortune Cookie.

The Auld Grump, that's the way the cookie crumbles....

 

[OnlineDM]

I had the opposite issue to deal with recently. One of the players in my online game was moving to a different time zone where he would no longer be able to play with the group, and he asked about the possibility of sending his hero down in a sacrificial blaze of glory. As a DM, I failed in not having enough time to come up with a sufficiently epic scenario for him. I did throw a really cool dragon battle at the group, and it was possible that he could have laid down his life for the rest of the party, but it didn't end up going that way. That's a missed opportunity on my part.

 

[pemerton]

What are the odds a group of players really enjoying the game world would make every choice that would lead to their own demise in such a fashion?

It can happen. Especially because it is not the players choosing their own demise - they are choosing their PCs' demise. So players take risks with their PCs that they wouldn't take with themselves. And in fact, in this thread, we're talking about only 1 PC's demise.

I haven't had players paint their PCs into a "must sacrifice a PC" corner. But I have had them paint their PCs into a "no way we're all getting out of here alive" corner, which can be a pretty similar corner. On one occasion when this happened, most of the party got out by agreeing to let the enemies use one PC as a human sacrifice, before then signing up to the enemies' religion and war plans.

When this happened, the player of the sacrificed PC was quite happy to bring in a new PC. Had he not been, then I'm sure the players would have had their PCs try and fight their way out instead, but I don't think their chances would have been very good. Which they knew. Which is why they took the option of turning and sacrificing one of their own.

 

[Umbran]

I'll note that we are here dealing with a hypothetical - I haven't actually done this in my game.

1- How would you feel if they continue their research to look for other options, and would you, after your last statement, keep presenting them with those options?

They're free to continue. There is a point where there would be no new options available.

If we were playing Mage: the Ascension, or some other game specifically designed so that the metaphysics are something the PCs can muddle in when designing magics, they might well think of something I have not that would solve the problem. But most high-fantasy games, including D&D, have opaque metaphysics - the PCs cannot find or design a new magic without the GM's consent. If I don't make the new solution available, it simply isn't available.

2- Why did you set up such a solution that removes or heavily limits player choice?

As I said, I'd use this only at the tail end of a bunch of bad decisions or bad luck on their part. This wouldn't have been the only way out from the start - it is merely their last resort, after they've exhausted other avenues.

Why would I set up this final solution? Because the question of whether you'd willing to just lay down your life (as opposed to risking it in battle) is an interesting one, often seen in heroic genres, and I've had several players over the years who'd have enjoyed exploring the possibility.

Are you just wanting to kill off characters for the thrill?

I get no thrill from killing PCs.

You might want to avoid questions that suggest particular mindsets of others, especially uncomplimentary ones. It is an ugly rhetorical device, addressing the character of the speaker rather than the speaker's position. Ultimately, my motivations are not relevant - what matters is if my players have fun. Even if I did get a thrill from killing them, that'd be okay so long as the players enjoyed the deaths of the PCs.

3- If you are not willing to destroy the world or have a TPK, why present either in the game?

I am willing to destroy the world, or have a TPK. On the other hand, I'm not heck-bent on destroying the world or killing off the characters either. So, I am willing to offer them an expensive option, when they've exhausted other avenues.

4- If at such a level to have go around to screwing with a fledgling god to begin with, and such would be a threat, are their no clerics to ask for help from a real full god so that his worshipers are not destroyed by one of his faithful followers?

That's a game-setting metaphysics question, and since we aren't talking about a real current running game, we can't reasonably get into it. It should suffice to say that, in the cosmologies I run about half the time, new rising powers can be a threat where the old established ones cannot directly muddle in the world.

The DM has his deus ex machina to allow BBEG to escape for later fights to build tension, so why can't the players empower their deus ex machina to get out of DM situations they don't like?

Deus ex machina is a plot device where a seemingly inextricable problem is suddenly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new character, ability, or object. By definition, it is not something the characters within the narrative have at their disposal.

It is also generally considered poor narrative. Deus ex machina is, in my experience, less satisfying for the players than expensive solutions the PCs implement. They'd prefer to save the world themselves, at the cost of one of their own, than having the GM scrape their butts out of the fire at no real cost to them.

 

[shadzar]

I haven't had players paint their PCs into a "must sacrifice a PC" corner. But I have had them paint their PCs into a "no way we're all getting out of here alive" corner, which can be a pretty similar corner. On one occasion when this happened, most of the party got out by agreeing to let the enemies use one PC as a human sacrifice, before then signing up to the enemies' religion and war plans.

When this happens for me, on the few times it has; I don't throw the switch to destroy the world unless my players are looking for that climactic ending because of something else they may have in mind. I have never had any wanting to kill off their own character unless they screwed up along the way trying to make that character and got lost in their path to when going back would screw up the game for the other players and themselves such that continuity is lost. So here comes in the brother of said PC to collect the remains of his dearly departed kin and offered a job in the party in memory of the fallen ally.

Also if I end up with the players making choices that paint themselves into that corner, where it isn't a battle situation where, in every combat I am willing to allow a TPK unless just crappy player dice rolls or super ones from me, they would naturally have the chance for death...I would ask myself how I got here.

Did I somehow not present things enough and screw up as a DM and failed my players so that they ended up in a bad spot? Did I design something poorly? I will ask my players this at that point to check myself, and if they are happy with the game I will let that corner resolve. If we feel something went off course, then the corner opens via god's grace to let the players out of the corner.

Back to here and now, I would find out long before the end how the players thought it should end. If they wanted to continue or have some climactic scene, or play into the epilogue.

So the sacrificing PC would have been determined and set up by the players. Being a PbP game I think, then it might not matter much as the group may not get together as a whole again....which makes this case rather tricky.

the PCs cannot find or design a new magic without the GM's consent.

If there is time to come up with a new magic for D&D, why not consent to it. Just make it as singular as the situation. It could be as climactic as a heroic PC death, even if the characters are never used again, as their name goes down in history.

Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter, as one such example of a new amgic, that was made for a single purpose, and really still only has that purpose, but used for much more more, AND netted the player (11 year old girl at Gary's table IIRC) a place in the game forever. Even by not dying a PC traping BBEG in some way with a new spell that requires a LOT of conditionals to be used, will let that character name resound as it is related, and maybe the spell used by others, if they also find themselves in like situations be it end game or middle.

"thrill to kill", My post with questions I would ask are stream of consciousness. Not always a question to be asked, but these are the questions I would ask upon viewing things.

I see a "Little Red Wagon", but its blue and think "Why is it blue not red?" If I post that it was just a question I would ask, not that I would really care for someone to answer it.

Also what about the things in response to pemerton above in regards to "did the DM cause the PCs to paint themselves into a corner due to DM screw up?"

I am guessing you evaluate that when it comes to a thing like the fledgling god example, before throwing out that fledgling god, and if found you might throw out the deus ex machina to fix the game, even if only the form of more than "A or not A".

 

[Umbran]

If there is time to come up with a new magic for D&D, why not consent to it.

There are several possible reasons, but I believe they come down to two basic forms:

1) The world has rules that don't bend for the PCs. Some games (and genres) have it explicitly in their design that the PCs can pull rabbits out of the hat. D&D is not one of them, so the GM is not obliged to allow it.

2) If you do that with any regularity, the players will figure out that they can always find low-risk, low-cost solutions if they simply continue to refuse high risk ones. That's not particularly heroic. While I'm all for giving the players what they want, I'm not big on training them to badger me into letting them off without scratches.

Just make it as singular as the situation. It could be as climactic as a heroic PC death...

To you, perhaps.

Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter, as one such example of a new amgic, that was made for a single purpose, and really still only has that purpose, but used for much more more, AND netted the player (11 year old girl at Gary's table IIRC) a place in the game forever.

Yes, but I'm not Gary, and I'm not publishing my settings. Nobody in my game is going to be so immortalized, so that kind of glory is not going to be available. And, at the moment, none of my players are 11 year old girls - my choices as GM are influenced by who my players are, and what they like. I probably wouldn't use such a device playing with 11 year-olds.

My post with questions I would ask are stream of consciousness.

Ah. Well, that's an uncommon approach, and so is apt to lead to confusion (and quite possibly hurt feelings and arguments). You might want to consider a little self-editing before you hit the Submit button.

I am guessing you evaluate that when it comes to a thing like the fledgling god example, before throwing out that fledgling god, and if found you might throw out the deus ex machina to fix the game, even if only the form of more than "A or not A".

Quite. If the situation is clearly the fault of the GM, that's a different issue.

 

[shadzar]

There are several possible reasons, but I believe they come down to two basic forms:

1) The world has rules that don't bend for the PCs. Some games (and genres) have it explicitly in their design that the PCs can pull rabbits out of the hat. D&D is not one of them, so the GM is not obliged to allow it.

Since when is D&D not one of them? What is there that magic, arcane or divine, cannot do?

Though not the easiest thing to do in ANY edition, Rules Cyclopedia, 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd, and even 4th has a form of spell/ritual research/creation available to the players. That pretty much encompasses all but the earliest form of D&D.

Which will allow me to cut to my Tasha spell bit real quick...

Yes, but I'm not Gary, and I'm not publishing my settings. Nobody in my game is going to be so immortalized, so that kind of glory is not going to be available.

This is all about you and your games, but it IS an option that others may enjoy at the end of a game. A spell the player created continues to be used in future games, or they read about it on the internet in some "story hour" or game report, and the joy and memories come flowing back and a bit of feling is gained similar to the heroic death of a PC is attained.

Are you sure your players wouldn't want this to happen where something they create is used later by others? If so, then so be it. But it is an option for others is what I was saying.

As some suggested binding the BBEG in this case to a stone and such to lock them away forever or something should be just as likely to solve the problem. Some may want the chance for heoric sacrifice, like the one attempt sadly missed, and others might seek other ways of of being immortalized.

To you, perhaps.

And to many others. I am not picking on you, just using your example for a good foundation for discussion. What works for you is all well and good, but to make sure lurkers and others participating in the thread are concerned the largest group of options should be explored. That singular instance is a viable option.

Never likely to happen as I am know to respond to someone saying something with "I wonder why?" and not even be looking for an answer. I like to share my thought processes when it comes to something that intrigues me. Just got to get to know me kind of thing. Maybe I should stick that in a signature: "Warning post may contain random stream of consciousness, please watch for sudden floods."

I will look to trying to preface a post though.

I dont recall what Tasha's was created for, but it wasn't who that the example was, as explained. Just wanted to touch again, that it was the immortalization that is similar to heroic PC sacrifice. Otherwise what is really the point of the heoric PC sacrifice if it will not be remembered by the players, or ever mentioned again beyond the moment it happens?

The climax of something is for the purpose of soliciting an emotional response right? A heightened emotional response over all others present in the piece of work. So if not something memorable, was it really climactic?