That Thing You Won't Ever Do

[WayneLigon]

Another thread made me think of this idea.

The background:
[sblock]
I ran my first ever convention game a little while ago. It was a straight-forward survival-horror Western using Savage Worlds. A combination of an insane preacher-man and some tainted water had turned an entire small town into cannibals.

The scene is set. The PCs have finally arrived in the town and are just beginning to figure out what is going on. It's hushed as they realize just how deeply in the mire they are, miles from help. A curtain moves in a house, two small figures peep out.

One of the players makes the idle comment that if it involves killing kids, even zombie kids, he'll have to step out for the rest of the session. Fair enough: every player has that One Thing They Will Never Do and this was his.

Gears spin, a few notes get made, and the house becomes the last stronghold of the uninfected because they were one of the first settlers here and thus had their own well and didn't drink from the town's common well.
[/sblock]



The question being, what is that Thing You Won't Ever Do as a player or as a GM.

Some of the easy ones might be: Rape, Torture, Beat Women, Keep Slaves, etc. Others might be: "I can't play a fat character." "I can't play an orc."

Now this isn't just 'I might not like it, but I'll go along with a group' or 'Maybe in the right circumstances'.

I mean: this is a deal breaker. You will never return to the game that features this, or play with a person who does this, or speak to the GM who does it, etc. At best, you'll talk to them once and say 'Dude, if you ever feature X again, I'm not going to be able to continue with the campaign. That's my Thing I Cannot Tolerate and I can't do it'.

For the more minor things, it still means you'll try your damndest to not play that character or get him/her killed off literally the first chance you get. As in, 'Once the party assembles on the train platform, Bob steps off in front of the 9:15. Time for a new PC, I guess. Oh look, I happen to have one right here. Carry on.'

 

[invokethehojo]

Humorous one off's or similar are fun. But when I play in a serious campaign I want that feel to be consistent. A plucky or humorous type character is fine, but I WILL NOT play in a campaign that has a serious or semi serious tone where one of the characters names is "fluffy" or similar, or where a male player is playing a lesbian character.

Gotta draw the line somewhere.

good thread idea by the way.

 

[steeldragons]

As a player: Might seem obvious...but I like my characters to be heroic. They are the "good guys". As such "killing an innocent" is a general no-no. I will not play a character who will kill innocents...be they children (human or orc), non-combatant females, peasant farmers, whatever. I won't play a character that will do that.

As a GM: Along the same "heroic" thinking lines. I like my players to BE heroes...and as much as I will try to foil them...at the heart of it, I want them to succeed as much as they do. So I simply "will not", as GM, kill off a PC in a stupid/non-heroic way...That said, I will not want to do it...if the player does everything they can to get their character killed...they will probably end up dying. But I have fudged damage from, say, falling....or drowning...or tripping over their own sword. I'll maim them. I'll make them a liability for the group (end up with a broken leg and need to be dragged around on a sled, etc...until it can be healed), or some other detriment.

But I will do my damnedest not to kill off a character over something "random."

As example...I once had a fighter PC in a group...he was ladened down with plate mail and shield and weapons...and wanted to swim across a river/flowing moat. All told, with the encumbrance rules we used back then...he weighed easily over 350 lbs.

Several skill/ability checks later...he should have drowned. I gave him every opportunity to get out of the water...gave the party every opportunity to retrieve/save him (which said he refused to let them, but they flubbed their rolls too)...He was adamant he had enough strength to swim across with no problem...the numbers said otherwise.

He should have died...According to the rules and the dice rolls...he should have been at the bottom of the river. This was a mid-high level party and a PC this player had had for a few years and was very attached to...extended/evolved backstory, long history interwoven with the other PCs...I couldn't bring myself to kill him simply because the player was being stubborn.

I finally decided it ended up with him washed up, on the banks down river, unconscious for however many rounds. His folly delayed the party long enough to allow an enemy force to become aware of their presence (I think they were trying to cross the river to "sneak into" an enemy fortress...it was some years ago) and send a force after them...but he (and the party) survived.

--Steel Dragons

 

[frankthedm]

He should have died...According to the rules and the dice rolls...he should have been at the bottom of the river. This was a mid-high level party and a PC this player had had for a few years and was very attached to...extended/evolved backstory, long history interwoven with the other PCs...I couldn't bring myself to kill him simply because the player was being stubborn.

I finally decided it ended up with him washed up, on the banks down river, unconscious for however many rounds. His folly delayed the party long enough to allow an enemy force to become aware of their presence (I think they were trying to cross the river to "sneak into" an enemy fortress...it was some years ago) and send a force after them...but he (and the party) survived.

A fine example of a ruling that would cause me to walk away from the table. Would never play in a game where the DM did something like that.

 

[steeldragons]

A fine example of a ruling that would cause me to walk away from the table. Would never play in a game where the DM did something like that.

Because...you would have preferred your beloved character drowned for his own stupidity?

Sorry you wouldn't like it. Different games for different folks.

I'll stand by the point, as a GM, I won't kill a character for something random/unimportant to the story.

EDIT: For a "serious" long running campaign (which the above example was from). In a one-shot or a "fun" short sessions game...I might. But for long-running campaigns, which everyone at the table has invested in, I would prefer not to.

--SD

 

[Nagol]

Because...you would have preferred your beloved character drowned for his own stupidity?

-SD

Yep.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The one thing I know I wouldn't do is intentionally run an adventure that would push the RW buttons of someone in the group.

Example: one of my buddies was involved in helping address the psychological needs of the residents of Columbine on that fateful day, and it affected him deeply. He still goes into seclusion on the anniversary. Therefore, I would never run a Columbine-esque adventure for a group in which he was a participant.

 

[steeldragons]

Yep.

Well, I suppose I'm in no position to defend a ruling I made when I was in high school.

We can just all be happy that you don't have to play with me.

Enjoy the game you like.

--SD

 

[Dandu]

Abuse my position at the table for sex and profit.

... well, at least not the first one.

 

[Lanefan]

As a player - and this'll probably come across worse than it should but I can't think of another way to say it - in character, anything goes.

Sure, there's things I don't like; but nothing's a deal-breaker. Deal-breakers for me are usually more on the meta-game level; a good example of such can be found upthread where a DM wouldn't let a character die to bad luck. The only reason I could live with this would be if the setting by previously-noted design had no mechanism for revival of the dead; otherwise, let it die and either bring it back or move on to another character.

It cheapens the game too much if I know the party are in a bubble.

Lan-"6 deaths in my career and not one of them heroic"-efan