Hey! You got a quibble in my prophecy!

[Heathen72]

So basically, if the party have the smarts to find a way to come at the big-bad with enough guns to have a decent chance of killing him, you're saying they should be out of luck no matter how hard they try or how well they roll, unless they manage to kill him in a way that matches the prophecy?

I'm not talking about the party that does its best to run along the rails of prophecy, or even the ones who come up with creative ways to bring it to fruition - I'm talking about the party who decide to go ahead and get the job done regardless of what some prophecy says is the one true way.

I don't think it's not railroading to say that there is a circumstance where players won't succeed. It is almost the opposite of the classic definition of railroading, where the GM is allowing only one path to success. I think it is reasonable to say that the latter party in your example may well fail. How many hints to you have to give someone? If the prophecy says "A human male can't kill this creature" and as GM you has made it clear that the prophecy could hold, then so be it. The challenge has been framed quite clearly, surely.

If the players insist on attacking because they are stubborn or have some sense of entitlement to victory because of their "character gen choices" and then leave it up to the male human in the game to deliver the killing blow, I have no problem if they fail. Maybe the big bad will flee. Maybe the male human's sword will break. Maybe the PC will succeed and discover that he has an extra x chromosome. Whatever. Obviously, you want to avoid a situation where the man in question is wailing futilely with his holy avenger on head of the the big bad, who is just sitting there picking at his teeth. In that eventuality the GM is being just as stubborn as the players.

Prophecies aren't about giving magical immunity to someone. They are about suggesting that someone has seen an aspect of the future, perhaps through a drug induced haze, and scrawled a note to themselves for when they wake up later. They can follow a dream logic, where something is certain but ambiguous at the same time. What makes them fun is how they all work out. Ignoring the prophecy to prove what big man muscles you have just seems to me to be contrary.

Of course, this all presumes that the players live in a world where there are prophecies and fate have a role to play so naturally mileage may vary. It requires an amount of player buy in, but all games do. If your group is mainly gamist in its approach, and there is an implicit requirement is that everyone gets an even shot all of the time and that everyone must have the opportunity to shine in every circumstance, then a prophecy that hinges on a "character gen choice" may not be valid for you. However, if the players have bought into a more simulationist or story based game campaign and your GM works to make sure everyone is engaged, your players have then it should be fine.

 

[MarkB]

I don't think it's not railroading to say that there is a circumstance where players won't succeed. It is almost the opposite of the classic definition of railroading, where the GM is allowing only one path to success. I think it is reasonable to say that the latter party in your example may well fail. How many hints to you have to give someone? If the prophecy says "A human male can't kill this creature" and as GM you has made it clear that the prophecy could hold, then so be it. The challenge has been framed quite clearly, surely.

But that is the prophecy granting a creature plot-immunity. In The Lord of The Rings, the prophecy doesn't state that no man can kill the Witch King - merely that no man will do so. He doesn't have some fundamental built-in immunity to being killed by a male human - if a male human had come up with the combination of Westernesse-lich-bane-dagger-to-the-ankle and big-sword-through-the-head that Merry and Eowyn used, it would have worked just as well. It's just that it was foretold, accurately, that it wouldn't be a man who did so. RPG campaigns aren't that predictable.

If your players come up with an entirely viable, effective way of eliminating a threat, then carry it out flawlessly, but the method they choose doesn't happen to correspond with that threat's prophecised fate, then having their attempt fail is granting plot-immunity to that threat.

 

[supermansdead]

So I think this is a really cool idea.

To use the clock as an example- no one knows it, but the artificer is held against his will by the tyrant, and with his advanced level of abilities he can heal the tyrant from almost any wound back to full health. But upon being shown a clock he cannot fix, it would cause his brain to rebel against the magic binding him to the warforged.

If you come up with the prophecies, then make them justified and seamless within the world, they could be a great tool. The prophecy shouldn't be the important part, the predestined events it speaks of should

 

[Heathen72]

If your players come up with an entirely viable, effective way of eliminating a threat, then carry it out flawlessly, but the method they choose doesn't happen to correspond with that threat's prophecised fate, then having their attempt fail is granting plot-immunity to that threat.

Well, part of the challenge for the GM is maintaining the illusion that it is prophecy instead of plot immunity, but, yeah, I am cool with that. If the players are trying to break the game in order to 'win' of course it won't work. Luckily my players are pretty cooperative. Gaming for us is a collaborative exercise.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So basically, if the party have the smarts to find a way to come at the big-bad with enough guns to have a decent chance of killing him, you're saying they should be out of luck no matter how hard they try or how well they roll, unless they manage to kill him in a way that matches the prophecy?

How do you destroy an artifact? No, better yet, how do you destroy a vampire, lich or The Tarrasque?

In each case, there is a specified way in which each can be destroyed, and if you don't do things the right way, your solution will be, at best, temporary, no matter how much force you use.

The prophesy works the same way, except it is not usually so specified as one of the examples above.

I've come up with more ways to satisfy the Witch-King prophesy in this thread than there are for each of the critters I just listed.

 

[Victim]

How do you destroy an artifact? No, better yet, how do you destroy a vampire, lich or The Tarrasque?

In each case, there is a specified way in which each can be destroyed, and if you don't do things the right way, your solution will be, at best, temporary, no matter how much force you use.

The prophesy works the same way, except it is not usually so specified as one of the examples above.

I've come up with more ways to satisfy the Witch-King prophesy in this thread than there are for each of the critters I just listed.

Those monsters care very little about intermediate steps though. The group can beat them up in variety of different moves - they just need to perform a special finishing move later.

And, in many cases, they are responsive to brute force. Using a Wish to seal the deal on a Tarrasque is basically pure magical brute force to make the thing stay dead. Vampires can be killed outright by a few spells, there are many magical and mundane ways to mess with their gaseous form escape, etc.

The vampire isn't invulnerable unless staked.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

But that is the prophecy granting a creature plot-immunity. In The Lord of The Rings, the prophecy doesn't state that no man can kill the Witch King - merely that no man will do so. He doesn't have some fundamental built-in immunity to being killed by a male human - if a male human had come up with the combination of Westernesse-lich-bane-dagger-to-the-ankle and big-sword-through-the-head that Merry and Eowyn used, it would have worked just as well. It's just that it was foretold, accurately, that it wouldn't be a man who did so. RPG campaigns aren't that predictable.

It depends entirely on your perspective. Did Eowyn and Merry kill the Witch King because they fulfilled the conditions of the prophecy or was the prophecy saying that Eowyn and Merry would kill the Witch King and that they were not Men.

If its the first, then even if two generic men had tried the magic dagger to ankle/sword to head combo they would most likely have failed do to other outside forces. They may have defeated him and forced him to flee, but he would not have died in the fight.

If it is the second, then if two generic men had pulled off the combo then the prophecy would have had references to those two generic men instead of Merry and Eowyn.

If your players come up with an entirely viable, effective way of eliminating a threat, then carry it out flawlessly, but the method they choose doesn't happen to correspond with that threat's prophecised fate, then having their attempt fail is granting plot-immunity to that threat.

Is "Plot Immunity" (Plot Invulnerability is probably a better term) from a prophecy actually a bad thing? Is it a bad thing when a vampire needs to be staked in order to put it down permanently? Or that you need to destroy a lich's phylactery to prevent it from coming back?

No.

Plot Immunity is just a tool. And just like any tool it in itself is not bad but it can be misused.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Those monsters care very little about intermediate steps though. The group can beat them up in variety of different moves - they just need to perform a special finishing move later.

Beat up a vampire as much as you want; until it gets hit with sunlight or a wooden stake throug a particular part of it's anatomy, it can't be pemanently killed.

Beat up a lich all you want; until you destroy it's phylactery it isn't truly defeated.

Until the Tarrasque has a Wish spoken over it, it will return to wreak havoc, no matter how much you beat it to "death."

Until the Witch-King is slain by something other than "a man", he will return to terrorize the world again.

There really is no difference.

 

[MarkB]

Beat up a vampire as much as you want; until it gets hit with sunlight or a wooden stake throug a particular part of it's anatomy, it can't be pemanently killed.

Beat up a lich all you want; until you destroy it's phylactery it isn't truly defeated.

Until the Tarrasque has a Wish spoken over it, it will return to wreak havoc, no matter how much you beat it to "death."

Until the Witch-King is slain by something other than "a man", he will return to terrorize the world again.

There really is no difference.

I can see that to some extent, but I do feel there is something of a difference between those examples. In the case of the vampire, the lich and the terrasque, these are immunities and vulnerabilities built into them physically.

A prophecy, on the other hand, is an outside agency defining under which circumstances something will happen. If that prophecy manifests itself as something resembling a physical immunity or vulnerability, then it is no longer merely a prediction, it is a power in its own right.

I can see a world operating like that, but it's another layer of storytelling constraint. It tells the players that if they don't act in accordance with that pre-written story thread, the game-world will conspire to defeat their efforts.

 

[thastygliax]

I've used prophecies in many of my games, but I'm not a big subscriber to the prophecy as inevitable fate approach due to lack of control over PCs' actions and the randomness of many game mechanics. Here are a few of the tricks I've used, some of which have already been mentioned:

* Prophecies are easiest to use in a game when they're vague or cryptic--that allows for more leeway in how they can be fulfilled.
* In some cases, character's actions can change the outcome, because the prophecy is conditional, or merely a warning, or because fate is malleable. Much as I might hate to reference Twilight, Alice is a good example here. What she foresees may come to pass, or might not. But forewarned is still forearmed.
* Oracles are not created equal. Even the most sacred, cherished sources might not be as reliable as those who put faith in them think. And the more cryptic the source, the harder it is to prove or disprove its reliability.
* Similarly, if prophecies come from the gods, who is to say that those entities aren't merely promoting their own agenda rather than telling the inevitable truth? I've used dreams and visions in this way in more than one campaign--the god is sending a message, which might be a warning, a helpful clue, a new demand or request, or merely an elaborate lie.