• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

How many hit points do you have?

In your D&D game, how much does a character know about his own hit points (his total, how much d


Ahnehnois

First Post
I was watching Marvel Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D
Well, there's your first mistake.
and a character said "I thought there was a 97% chance we were going to die". If she wasn't genre blind she'd assume closer to a zero percent chance (they're both main characters whose death at that point would be meaningless and random to at least two developing subplots.) Even if she didn't break the fourth wall entirely, if she was rational and self aware, she'd at least recognize that the team's survival rate has been extraordinary.
I don't think that's true. People say stuff like that all the time. I don't think that line of dialogue was intended to convey a literal truth. Particularly in dangerous situations, it's quite normal for gallows humor to kick in and for people to talk about death.

It's also normal for people not in those situations to overestimate how dangerous they are. I don't take it as given that the heroic characters in this show (or in a lot of action shows) really have exaggerated rates of survival.

Also, if Joss Whedon is involved in this show in any way, the chance of main characters dying at some point is actually pretty high.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dungeonman

First Post
I don't think that's true. People say stuff like that all the time. I don't think that line of dialogue was intended to convey a literal truth.
Watch it, then come back to me.

It's also normal for people not in those situations to overestimate how dangerous they are. I don't take it as given that the heroic characters in this show (or in a lot of action shows) really have exaggerated rates of survival.
Your first "mistake" was not actually watching the show. Your second mistake is that the character in question is a civilian turned agent with only basic training over a few days, similar to the lucky sidekick, and her heroic team member is the one who expressed his fear that they could die because he was taking on multiple opponents IIRC. And others with far superior training and experiencing were being killed or captured around them beforehand. Three of the protagonists are practically mooks in battle compared to many of the villians they had faced. If you think they didn't have exaggerated rates of survival for reasons of plot protection -- oh great, I just burned my toast. Moving on...

There have been several times in the campaign where the players expected to die with what was a higher level of probability than the actual odds of death, and they have certainly said things like, "I thought there was a 97% chance we were going to die".
The character thought there was a high chance she was going to die. Even if using black humour, she was still scared of the strong probability of death. In reality, those characters would not be killed, not in that episode anyway. That's the only point of that one anectode, or at least why I brought it up. Genre blindness to plot protection. If we want to extrapolate beyond that, it's probably more helpful to watch the episode first, as not to get detoured.

No, I think you are entirely wrong in all of that. <snip> Thus, Batman maintains a sharp bright line because he knows that if he crosses it, he personally won't be able to distinguish between himself and the people he fights. This all occurs out in the open in the comics, movies, and so forth and is continually challenged by the writers. Batman is continually questioned about the fact that he doesn't kill, and must repeatedly justify it to himself and others and with them the reader.
Batman has no justification whatsoever in my eyes. If his ultimate purpose is to protect the citizens of Gotham, he is a failure. I won't repeat the previous ideas of better ways that he could allocate his wealth to protect Gotham. I'm aware of the justifications you write of, and there are just as genre blind.

EDIT: See below
 
Last edited:


Dungeonman

First Post
I watched earlier this week; it's been a pretty lame show but maybe it's starting to come around. It didn't strike me as an example of "genre blindness"; it seemed pretty genuine to their situation.
Ya, IMO, it never comes around quite enough, but I watch it anyway. Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If [insert a superhero] faces a villian like Deathlok or Blackout and is challenged by that battle, and then a relatively puny SHIELD agent (some with field experience, others are mere scientists) face the same kind of villians and survive (not once but over and over), and they don't realize that they're exceptionally fortunate, I simply cannot imagine how that is rational relatable behaviour that suspends my disbelief if I chose to be critical in that way.

EDIT: See below
 
Last edited:

Dungeonman

First Post
Actually, repeating pemerton's usage of the term "genre blindness" may have confused the issue for me the last several posts. It may have a more specific nuance that's maybe parallel to but different from my original angle about self-awareness and rational relatable motivations
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreBlindness
"Furthermore, some stories in some genres really couldn't function at all if the characters displayed an innate and complete understanding of what genre they were in and exactly how they should act at all times within a story in said genre if they want to avoid trouble — which in most cases would also rob the story of tension and drama, since if the character knows exactly what to do to avoid trouble and conflict in their particular story, they'll do it, and consequently have an easy, trouble-free life, and... why are we watching again?"
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
If anything, though, I think the absence of genre blindness is characteristic to the way I've seen rpgs played. When I run a horror game, the players know it's a horror game. They don't split up or take unnecessary risks or trust people. They're not surprised when bad things happen. In fact, it's exceptionally difficult to run a genuine horror game under those conditions.

Likewise, I see players who are, to a significant extent, metagaming their characters with knowledge about how powerful they are. That includes things like using their knowledge of hit points (which, depending on how you look at it, is somewhere in between metagaming and normal in-world behavior).

One of the tremendous challenges of DMing is subverting players' genre-based expectations.
 

pemerton

Legend
In no way are the PCs the only levelled entities in the world, nor are they the only adventurers

<snip>

I just can't imagine is a game world where the PCs are the only adventurers, though I know some people play it that way.
The PCs are the only significant "adventurers" in my game, in the sense that they are the principal near-god-like-yet-still-mortal actors who are not themselves god/demon princes etc but nevertheless are taking steps in relation to the oncoming Dusk War.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The PCs are the only significant "adventurers" in my game, in the sense that they are the principal near-god-like-yet-still-mortal actors who are not themselves god/demon princes etc but nevertheless are taking steps in relation to the oncoming Dusk War.
I assume, then, that you have very little to no character turnover during the campaign? Permanent deaths? Retirements? Players dropping out and-or joining up? Because if you do have such turnover, the very existence of the heretofore non-party-member replacement characters makes it pretty obvious there *are* other adventurers out there; as the replacements are getting their levels and loot from somewhere. :)

Lan-"internal consistency rears its ugly head at the worst of times"-efan
 

pemerton

Legend
I assume, then, that you have very little to no character turnover during the campaign? Permanent deaths? Retirements? Players dropping out and-or joining up?
At 1st or 2nd level (I can't remember exactly now) one of the PCs died - the wizard initiate of the Raven Queen. I asked the player if he wanted to bring in a new character or keep going with that one. He wanted to keep going, and suggested that he might be sent back to the world on an important mission. So I narrated his spirit's encounter with the Raven Queen in Letherna, and the intervention of Erathis, who asked that he be sent back to the mortal world to recover a sceptre hidden in the Nerathi ruins where he had fallen in combat. Which duly happened. (Mechanically, it was adjudicated as Raise Dead, including an appropriate deduction from the treasure parcels for that level.) That sceptre turned out to be the first recovered piece of the Rod of 7 Parts.

The same character died again at 15th level. When the PCs had him resurrected, he was sent back to the world in his fully reborn form, as a deva invoker. (The player wanted to rebuild his PC, based on changes and developments that had occurred during play.) Full story here.

At 3rd level there was a "TPK" - one of the PCs, the paladin of the Raven Queen, actually died (to friendly fire), while the others were knocked below 0 hp by undead under the command of a goblin shaman. I asked the players who wanted to keep going with an existing PC, and who wanted to change. Only one wanted to change. So 3 of the PCs recover consciousness in the goblin cells, with a new cellmate (the new PC). They can smell the roasting flesh of the half-elf (the PC abandoned by its player, now being cooked by the goblins). The body of the dead paladin, meanwhile, was laid out on an altar by the goblin shaman, who was using the paladin as a channel to summon the spirit of the paladin's dead nemesis, in the form of a wraith. The summoning was successful (by way of GM fiat), but the paladin was also sent back by the Raven Queen to stop the summoned spirit going wild in the world. Which he and his friends, in due course, did. (Mechanically this was also handled as Raise Dead, as above.)

The only other deaths were fairly recently, around 24th level or so. Two PCs - the fighter and the paladin - died in a difficult fight against starspawn carrying the true name of the Raven Queen, and the angels of Vecna who were trying to learn said name. The other PCs, after defeating the final enemies, took their bodies back to a friendly homestead in the area that they had last visited around 20 levels ago, and stayed there for a day or two while the invoker/wizard Raised the dead PCs.

(I'm not counting the half-dozen or so "deaths" that have been immediately countered by "once per day when you die" effects that are pretty typical for epic characters. The paladin has two of them, the fighter, ranger-cleric and invoker/wizard one each, and I think the drow sorcerer might have one too.)

Because if you do have such turnover, the very existence of the heretofore non-party-member replacement characters makes it pretty obvious there *are* other adventurers out there; as the replacements are getting their levels and loot from somewhere.
If a new PC were to be introduced at this point in the game, s/he wouldn't be an "adventurer" who had acquired loot from random tombs. (That's not where most of the PCs' equipment came from either; it is mostly bestowed upon them as blessings from the various gods they serve.)

Depending on details, of course, s/he would most likely be the exarch of some god or other power sent to work with the party in this hour of cosmological crisis!
 

Halivar

First Post
I assume, then, that you have very little to no character turnover during the campaign? Permanent deaths? Retirements? Players dropping out and-or joining up? Because if you do have such turnover, the very existence of the heretofore non-party-member replacement characters makes it pretty obvious there *are* other adventurers out there; as the replacements are getting their levels and loot from somewhere. :)

Lan-"internal consistency rears its ugly head at the worst of times"-efan
In my 1E game, all new players/characters started at level 1. If you had a henchman, could use that henchman as your new character if your old one died (a frequent occurrence). For this reason, most of my players had a "favored" henchman that was always in the dungeon with them, collecting XP and gold. The system actually worked really well. 1E 1st level characters weren't as behind the curve as their 3E and 4E counterparts.

I may adopt a strategy something like this for 5E. I like the idea of adventurers being incredibly rare; the only way to get to high levels is by being associated with the PC's. If bounded accuracy works the way WotC claims, then starting new characters at level 1 won't be quite as punishing.
 

Remove ads

Top