Neonchameleon
Legend
Three times across two different groups and systems in the past two years, no, yes. And the house rules should just be a simple line of fluff.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Rule ideas for Heroic Sacrifice of PC
- Thread starter Janx
- Start date
Three times across two different groups and systems in the past two years, no, yes. And the house rules should just be a simple line of fluff.
Mathew_Freeman
First Post
I have a friend who introduced me to the "Leaf on the Wind" rule, named after Wash's tragic death in Serenity.
Broadly speaking, if you say at the start of a fight (or at any time during it) "I am a leaf on the wind" then you receive massive bonuses during the fight (we're currently playing L5R and haven't thrashed out what those might actually be). The tie-in to that is that your character has to die at the end.
Simple, effective, and speaks to our collective geek sensibilities.
Broadly speaking, if you say at the start of a fight (or at any time during it) "I am a leaf on the wind" then you receive massive bonuses during the fight (we're currently playing L5R and haven't thrashed out what those might actually be). The tie-in to that is that your character has to die at the end.
Simple, effective, and speaks to our collective geek sensibilities.
Mathew_Freeman
First Post
If a player pulled that trick I'd have a quiet chat. If they pulled it again after the quiet chat I'd boot them from the game. I do not want that in my games, ever.
That's another cool one. I sort of see these all as special declaration actions (free action?). Leaf on the Wind being a pre-emptive one that lasts through the encounter to get the PC/party a bonus to survive it, when something terrible happens.
the details aren't actually important, more in recognizing the varieties how to setup a cool death scene by player option.
In practice, to MF's abuse comment, I can't imagine these rules getting legitimately invoked very often. I would suppose just slightly less often as PC death occurs normally (including raising afterwards, as these rules ideas are in lieu of getting raised).
So if a PC dies once every 5 sessions, I would imagine seeing the rule invoked once every 10 sessions or less.
I would hope that in a game WITH raise dead/healing as an option, that choosing a heroic death instead is chosen based on situational suitability (today is a good day to die).
In a game without those options, it might be the inverse. Since your PC is dead/going to die permanently anyway, might as well make each death "better" by getting the pay-out, instead of just bleeding hitpoints.
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
In the RPG Torg, a key component of the game is a hand of cards that enhance your attributes/skills or give you other small benefits when you play them. There are also a few "story-arc" cards that influence the story itself like Romance or Nemesis or whatnot. Using the cards and playing along with the story twist got you extra XP for your character and anyone else who played a part in the subplot.
One of the subplot cards was called Martyr, and it basically let you sacrifice your character in return for being able to accomplish any task.
I lost more than one character to the lure of Martyr, mostly because I view my RPG sessions as if they were chapters in an awesome book, and one of the most memorable scenes in any story is one where a major character dies in the middle of the story.
DS
One of the subplot cards was called Martyr, and it basically let you sacrifice your character in return for being able to accomplish any task.
I lost more than one character to the lure of Martyr, mostly because I view my RPG sessions as if they were chapters in an awesome book, and one of the most memorable scenes in any story is one where a major character dies in the middle of the story.
DS
Count me in as one who doesn't think the game needs a heroic death rule:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?249719-heroic-death
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?249719-heroic-death
pming
Legend
Hiya.
I'm also in the "don't bother with heroic-death rules" camp.
To me, if you give 'absolutes' to the players, you totally cheapen the effect you were going for in the first place. For example, if there was a "Heroic Surge" feat that let you get +20 to hit, doubled you AC and HP and let you save on rolling 2+...if you use that against a guardian creature at the end, and, easily, kick its frellin' azz...the victory *will* feel hollow to everyone involved. There wasn't any real, actual doubt of success. No tension. Likewise, at the climactic battle of the campaign, and a player whips out his "Heroic Death" card to pick up the Emperor of Darkness and toss him over the tower into the lava below, while taking the negative energy barrage that will surely kill him....everyone will be left with a sour taste in their mouths. There was no chance of failure, so no real tension. Which doesn't make it heroic. It makes it expected.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I'm also in the "don't bother with heroic-death rules" camp.
To me, if you give 'absolutes' to the players, you totally cheapen the effect you were going for in the first place. For example, if there was a "Heroic Surge" feat that let you get +20 to hit, doubled you AC and HP and let you save on rolling 2+...if you use that against a guardian creature at the end, and, easily, kick its frellin' azz...the victory *will* feel hollow to everyone involved. There wasn't any real, actual doubt of success. No tension. Likewise, at the climactic battle of the campaign, and a player whips out his "Heroic Death" card to pick up the Emperor of Darkness and toss him over the tower into the lava below, while taking the negative energy barrage that will surely kill him....everyone will be left with a sour taste in their mouths. There was no chance of failure, so no real tension. Which doesn't make it heroic. It makes it expected.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
well ignoring the "don't need rules" part of your post, as it's not useful to my exploration of the concept, I do glean some useful ideas from your other points and observations.
I wouldn't want to cheapen a death or sacrifice. In my estimate, they don't happen enough or plausibly (as in staying dead or even being worth it).
One of the points you cite is getting such a bonus that it removes the uncertainty from defeating the monster. In your example, you cite +20 bonuses. Counter to that in my example, the only rule that gives a bonus is designed to give +1 for levels 1-4, +2 for levels 5-8, and so on. I basically chose a modifier akin to what they'd get from wielding a level appropriate weapon. There are buffs more powerful. And you only get that IF your PC dies AND you choose NOT to allow him to be healed/raised. Basically, burning your character sheet. I'm inclined to think that's a fair payout for actually sacrificing your character in true D&D terms. Nor does it ensure the party lives. After all, the monster killed one PC, odds are good it'll gank another.
The only action I've designed that has a "certain" outcome is the one where you stay behind to stop the bad guy while the party escapes. I suppose that could feel cheap, after all the party KNEW they would make it. But then again, one player's lost a PC (I had an extra clause for possibility of "getting better") but the main point was, your PC is out of play, party lives to fight another day. The point was to enable running away (which many feel is really hard to do in D&D), but at a price.
I think true destruction of a character is probably worth some certainty. But even then, the player doesn't know what MIGHT have happened if they toughed it out.
In your negative example of picking up the emperor and tossing him into lava, I don't have any plans to make a rule for that. I imagine my Heroic Sacrifice rule would be modified to leave the fate of the Balrog in equal mystery. So if Gandalf plays the Heroic Sacrifice card, he and the Balrog fall, and the party makes its escape. In my original, I give out XP based on the encounter's value, but that's mainly because a player burned his character sheet for it, and they players haven't played out the encounter. I would certainly modify my design to avoid "easy victory" by burning a party member, as that wouldn't be the rule's intent.
There's a couple of ways to look at what I'm proposing with these kind of rules. One is, that this is a form of ultimate Action Point. Instead of spending a point to get a re-roll, you are spending your character's life to more strongly influence the outcome of an encounter for the good of the party. Remember I'm assuming using these in normal D&D where healing and Raise Dead are quite common. So a player isn't all that likely to face permanent death for his character. I'm proposing giving him a more deliberate way to choose it for himself.
I'm also looking at it as giving narrative control to the player. In one of the early examples, while the player initiated it, the GM had to accept and enable the proposal for a heroic sacrifice to occur. The GM could have easily hardlined it with strict rules checks that would negate it. The party could have healed/raised him after the battle was won (and in one of the tales in danny's thread, that fact is bemoaned).
With specific rules, the player looks at the scene and decides to make this a dramatic moment that the DM can't really thwart by misreading or mishandling the situation.
I would still take your point about "absolutes" and "easy victory" to make these ideas not as fully insured on the outcome. I think the main one at risk of that is the Heroic Sacrifice as it implies victory over the monster and guaranteed escape from the encounter. the other 2 don't actually guarrantee anything as they outcome is still undeclared.
I wouldn't want to cheapen a death or sacrifice. In my estimate, they don't happen enough or plausibly (as in staying dead or even being worth it).
One of the points you cite is getting such a bonus that it removes the uncertainty from defeating the monster. In your example, you cite +20 bonuses. Counter to that in my example, the only rule that gives a bonus is designed to give +1 for levels 1-4, +2 for levels 5-8, and so on. I basically chose a modifier akin to what they'd get from wielding a level appropriate weapon. There are buffs more powerful. And you only get that IF your PC dies AND you choose NOT to allow him to be healed/raised. Basically, burning your character sheet. I'm inclined to think that's a fair payout for actually sacrificing your character in true D&D terms. Nor does it ensure the party lives. After all, the monster killed one PC, odds are good it'll gank another.
The only action I've designed that has a "certain" outcome is the one where you stay behind to stop the bad guy while the party escapes. I suppose that could feel cheap, after all the party KNEW they would make it. But then again, one player's lost a PC (I had an extra clause for possibility of "getting better") but the main point was, your PC is out of play, party lives to fight another day. The point was to enable running away (which many feel is really hard to do in D&D), but at a price.
I think true destruction of a character is probably worth some certainty. But even then, the player doesn't know what MIGHT have happened if they toughed it out.
In your negative example of picking up the emperor and tossing him into lava, I don't have any plans to make a rule for that. I imagine my Heroic Sacrifice rule would be modified to leave the fate of the Balrog in equal mystery. So if Gandalf plays the Heroic Sacrifice card, he and the Balrog fall, and the party makes its escape. In my original, I give out XP based on the encounter's value, but that's mainly because a player burned his character sheet for it, and they players haven't played out the encounter. I would certainly modify my design to avoid "easy victory" by burning a party member, as that wouldn't be the rule's intent.
There's a couple of ways to look at what I'm proposing with these kind of rules. One is, that this is a form of ultimate Action Point. Instead of spending a point to get a re-roll, you are spending your character's life to more strongly influence the outcome of an encounter for the good of the party. Remember I'm assuming using these in normal D&D where healing and Raise Dead are quite common. So a player isn't all that likely to face permanent death for his character. I'm proposing giving him a more deliberate way to choose it for himself.
I'm also looking at it as giving narrative control to the player. In one of the early examples, while the player initiated it, the GM had to accept and enable the proposal for a heroic sacrifice to occur. The GM could have easily hardlined it with strict rules checks that would negate it. The party could have healed/raised him after the battle was won (and in one of the tales in danny's thread, that fact is bemoaned).
With specific rules, the player looks at the scene and decides to make this a dramatic moment that the DM can't really thwart by misreading or mishandling the situation.
I would still take your point about "absolutes" and "easy victory" to make these ideas not as fully insured on the outcome. I think the main one at risk of that is the Heroic Sacrifice as it implies victory over the monster and guaranteed escape from the encounter. the other 2 don't actually guarrantee anything as they outcome is still undeclared.
Hi Janx. I just wanted to mention that KoDT 170 had an article you might find interesting: Heroic Death Tables. My group is found of the AD&D style of "there's a table for everything", so I thought it bore mention. One difference from the ideas discussed so far is that they are put into play as a sort of last great act, as the person performing these acts is already gravely injured. I'll see if I can dig up my copy when I get off work and provide a little more info
pming
Legend
Hiya.
Janx; I didn't mean to come off so negative...Christmas just does that to me (I don't like it, sue me...
).
Anyway, a long time ago I did something similar; "Hero Points" so PC's could get temp bonuses when they needed it, and you could spend a certain amount of them to dictate *how* something happens (re: you kill a bad guy standing on a thin bridge over a chasm filled with lava...you spend X amount to say you finish him off face to face with your sword in his belly as you whisper "I want my father back you sonofabich"...or you finish him off by chopping off his head as they both fall over into the lava below...or...). One thing you could do was spend 'all' your remaining Hero Points to guarantee an outcome, but at the cost of your characters life.
It worked ok...but after a while it just felt, well, "forced" or sort of Deus Ex Machina.
I may go another route; maybe go "in reverse". Think of it like one of the quotes from the movie Ghost Dog (awesome, btw):
"
So, if a character dies, maybe allow a roll of "X" (don't base it on level/hd...heroic sacrifices are not the purview of the powerful...)...say a roll of 1, 11, or 20 on a d20. If they succeed, they can carry out one final task, more or less regardless of dice rolling. i.e., "I say Not on my watch, and not in my backyard!, and tackle the bad guy over the edge, down into the lake of lava!".
In that way, the character is already 'dead', but has a chance to do something heroic. This clears out any mechanical schinannigans that players may be tempted to try via use of 'hero points' or what have you.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Janx; I didn't mean to come off so negative...Christmas just does that to me (I don't like it, sue me...
).Anyway, a long time ago I did something similar; "Hero Points" so PC's could get temp bonuses when they needed it, and you could spend a certain amount of them to dictate *how* something happens (re: you kill a bad guy standing on a thin bridge over a chasm filled with lava...you spend X amount to say you finish him off face to face with your sword in his belly as you whisper "I want my father back you sonofabich"...or you finish him off by chopping off his head as they both fall over into the lava below...or...). One thing you could do was spend 'all' your remaining Hero Points to guarantee an outcome, but at the cost of your characters life.
It worked ok...but after a while it just felt, well, "forced" or sort of Deus Ex Machina.
I may go another route; maybe go "in reverse". Think of it like one of the quotes from the movie Ghost Dog (awesome, btw):
"
Even if one's head were to be suddenly cut off, he should be able to do one more action with certainty. With martial valor, if one becomes like a revengeful ghost and shows great determination, though his head is cut off, he should not die."
So, if a character dies, maybe allow a roll of "X" (don't base it on level/hd...heroic sacrifices are not the purview of the powerful...)...say a roll of 1, 11, or 20 on a d20. If they succeed, they can carry out one final task, more or less regardless of dice rolling. i.e., "I say Not on my watch, and not in my backyard!, and tackle the bad guy over the edge, down into the lake of lava!".
In that way, the character is already 'dead', but has a chance to do something heroic. This clears out any mechanical schinannigans that players may be tempted to try via use of 'hero points' or what have you.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Similar Threads
