Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[cranberry]

Strictly in terms of modern D&D, there seems to be a little interest in the risk of PCs dying. If a PC dies people get all upset because they spent days and dozens of pages writing up the PC's backstory. And death means they can't finish that story.

So, with death removed from the equation, I can see why there's a lot of interest in social mechanics.

 

[Cadence]

Exactly. There's no game to play if there are no meaningful choices for the players to make. But it's also about expectations and the unique qualities of those kinds of entertainment.

Well, note that the focus here is on "win/loss". At the moment, we are focused on whether the PC "wins", without recognizing that winning and losing are not the only possible outcomes of a conflict. Yes, the bad guy is down, flat out on the pavement - the PC won the fight. But what else happened? Did the hero take wounds that will impact them later? How far did the timer on the bomb set to destroy the Statue of Liberty tick down? And so on.

Strictly in terms of modern D&D, there seems to be a little interest in the risk of PCs dying. If a PC dies people get all upset because they spent days and dozens of pages writing up the PC's backstory. And death means they can't finish that story.

So, with death removed from the equation, I can see why there's a lot of interest in social mechanics.

And now I find myself pondering that minimizing danger of death through resource management and planning, bargaining if possible when that can't be done, and running away unless the heroic last stand is called for, is actually what happens in a lot of fiction. And wondering if stories that involve regularly fighting to the death against others who are relatively equally matched just might not be sensible inspiration for the way a lot of D&D systems are set up or for ongoing campaign experiences without vast amounts of character turnover.

 

[Umbran]

How about Paranoia, where the GM is literally supposed to wipe out the characters no matter what they do?

That's... not a really accurate description of the game, in my experience. It would be closer to say that the GM is supposed to encourage the players to make sure to the other PCs are wiped out, so there are no witnesses to contradict their version of events when debriefing comes....

 

[Malmuria]

The difference is that when you are consuming a pierce of entertainment, you are engaged with the fiction- because it is a fiction! It is a story.

However, when you are playing a game, it is generally the case that there must be stakes in the game.

Though, I actually wish more media had "bad" endings. Like it annoyed me to no end that Stranger Things were unable to let any of the core characters die; it has the effect of lessening the stakes there too

 

[Krachek]

A challenging vilain should take at least 45 mins of game time to be pull down.

A great vilain should be take down only at the second attempt.

A super vilain need at least three attempt before get rid of him, and eventually you never totally get rid of him!

 

[Lanefan]

I think I'm good with everything you said there - and completely agree (I mean, a lot of the shows I watch have that).

How does that mix with the game elements in a game with a lot of combat?

Are these two questions kind of opposed to each other: (1) Is ttRPG combat fun if you (essentially) know you're going to win?

Yes if there's still a chance you'll lose. No if there's no chance you'll lose. And this assumes "level-appropriate" combats; one way to spice things up is to vary widely from "level appropriate" - mix in some encounters that are combat pushovers and others that the PCs really shouldn't get violent with if they value their lives. Even better: don't always make it obvious up front which is which, instead sometimes have the docile-looking creature in fact be a deadly threat* while the slavering-jawed set of teeth charging at you really only wants you to play with it and will flee in terror at the first sign of aggression.

* - thinking here of @Manbearcat 's cocoon-spitting (moose? elk?) from another thread.

(2) Can you emulate the genres where the heroes always win (in the end) if you don't almost always win the ttRPG combat?

Maybe. It'd take an adjustment of attitudes to one where combat is seen as the riskiest and least-desirable means of solving problems rather than the go-to option, meaning the heroes would have to find other ways to win: diplomacy, stealth, bribery, trickery, etc. along with sometimes simply running away fast.

More personally, thinking about the games I run and play in: In practice, is a lot of D&D combat basically resource management before you get there and not doing anything too silly - and without many consequences? If that seems to be happening, what are some good resources for advice on adding more to the lead-up and aftermath, and maybe streamlining the actual fight more? Or is the trick just not thinking about it if you're having fun?

Yep, that's the trick.

 

[Atomoctba]

That's... not a really accurate description of the game, in my experience. It would be closer to say that the GM is supposed to encourage the players to make sure to the other PCs are wiped out, so there are no witnesses to contradict their version of events when debriefing comes....

And in my experience, all the clones really attempting to complete the mission rather than just zap one another. What creates a whole new layer of fun and laughs.

 

[MGibster]

And now I find myself pondering that minimizing danger of death through resource management and planning, bargaining if possible when that can't be done, and running away unless the heroic last stand is called for, is actually what happens in a lot of fiction. And wondering if stories that involve regularly fighting to the death against others who are relatively equally matched just might not be sensible inspiration for the way a lot of D&D systems are set up or for ongoing campaign experiences without vast amounts of character turnover.

It took me a while to figure out what I found so unsatisfying about combat in D&D, and it was because there were no stakes. The odds of the PCs dying was very, very low and there really aren't that many resources to manage when they can just take a short rest whenever they desire. And run away? I wish. Players tend to see any enemy as someone they can beat no matter how much I try to make it clear they're powerful.

I

 

[JohnSnow]

I think this is actually one of the most divided topics when it comes to RPGs.

I think it's absolutely essential that, to enjoy the game, I don't have total control over the outcome. Sure, as a GM, I have the ability to fudge things, but people generally play games in order to be surprised. Movies and TV shows are similar - since we're not the ones who wrote the story, we can be surprised by where it goes. Even if we know that (by convention) one or more characters has "plot armor" and likely won't get wiped out before the end, we don't know the final result. This is why we put randomizers in games.

Personally, I think that it's okay to give more (but not total) narrative control to players to directly influence those outcomes. Even if we limit the degree of negative results that can result from minor random events, or do not allow for character death in "just any" circumstance, or offer any other mechanism that lets the character "cheat death" for a period of time, the potential for surprise is preserved as long as that condition eventually goes away. A good case in point would be Savage Worlds with its Bennies and the wound cap firmly in place.

A character can use bennies to soak damage to avoid death for a large part of the game. But there's always the chance for a Critical Failure on the Vigor roll if the character becomes Incapacitated, at which point, they die. They have lots of plot armor, but things can turn against you. To be honest, with the ~1/36 (or less) chance of this happening, this is about a 3% (or less) scenario. If the character isn't already injured going into it, taking 4 wounds, burning all your remaining bennies on failed soak rolls, and failing the Vigor roll at the end is a wayyy lower percentage still, but it can happen.

(And groups who find even that too harsh could adopt the "Heroes Never Die" Setting Rule, where final death is a narrative choice).

 

[pemerton]

@Cadence

From mid-2018 to mid-last year I GMed 15 sessions of Prince Valiant.

The three principal PCs are all knights. They lead a warband, a holy order that they founded - the Knights of St Sigobert. Their warband gets into fights, that being its raison d'etre. They also engage in jousts, have defended against sieges, etc.

Fighting isn't the only exciting thing that happens in the game, but it's a big part of it, as one would expect for a game of Arthurian-esque fantasy.

Here is a central rule on consequences for fighting, from p 26 of the rulebook: "Normally death is not an important part of Prince Valiant." It is up to the GM to narrate the consequences of losing Brawn and (if it happens) of being reduced to zero Brawn and hence losing a fight. The GM should do so having regard to the principle just stated.

This doesn't stop fighting, jousting, conflicts between warbands, etc from being exciting. Losing a joust can mean losing your gear to the victorious knight, losing the chance for prestige among your fellow knights, or perhaps just looking a fool. In our last session (the second one linked above) stakes included relieving a losing army (succeeded in part), retreating in good order (succeeded), defending against a siege (failed), pursuing enemies across the plain (one was caught, but the one carrying the kidnapped boy escaped to his own castle), then fleeing to another (friendly) castle (failed, so the PCs are confronted by their enemies just as they approach the walls of the friendly castle).

In your OP, I'm not sure which "many ttRPGs" you have in mind, but maybe D&D and other RPGs that have a similar mechanical and resolution framework? If you think it's interesting, I could say a few things about what features of Prince Valiant support the action I've described, compared to D&D. If you look at the actual play post you might also get a sense of it.