Do you "save" the PCs?

[Steel_Wind]

Do I save the PCs? I'm tempted to say "no" - but the problem is that the question really obscures the actual question, which is this:

Do I save my campaign?

That's the question I'm really asking myself at that point. And the answer to that question is in turn going to depend upon my level of interest and work that went into the campaign and the players' level of enjoyment and interest in it too. Those are the real metagaming factors that needs to be assessed as to whether or not to save the PCs.

If the campaign is something I want to save, then I'll save the PCs; if the state of the campaign is such that the answer to "Do I save my campaign" is not clear - I'll be inclined to let 'em die if they were being stupid about it.

I might add - I usually work in safety valves into my campaigns well ahead of time so that the strategic "magic" resources are there within the party to avoid TPKs should a screw up happen. But "stuff happens" I suppose.

 

[Reynard]

Do I save my campaign?

That's the question I'm really asking myself at that point.

I don't think that's a universal question, tho. "Campaign" can mean a lot of things, but for me it doesn't generally mean one story about one group of protagonists, because, if it does, then a TPK does end the campaign. I prefer a game where there's enough going on, situationally, that even if there's a TPK the players are invested enough in those situations, the setting, etc... enough that the campaign lives on.

This is easier in an old megadungeon or sandbox, surely, but even in an AP "picking up" where the TPK'd group left off by other interested parties shouldn't be impossible.

 

[Janx]

steel wind brings up an excellent point, on which I must spread some XP around before I can give it to him.

Saving a PC may be driven by saving a campaign. I think a DM would do this if killing the PC would pretty much crater the quest. And there are some quests that are extremely personal.

to cover Reynard's point about new PCs picking up the quest, in my games, which are more story driven, I try to make the story revolve around the PCs.

That isn't to say I make a PC a long lost descendant of the great hero and only he can wield the sword, that's a definite GM trap for plot immunity, among other things.

Instead, I make a story that is based on the local stuff the PC wants to be doing. For instance, I had a monk PC, and I created a storyline where he was interested in a girl, who happened to be the sister of a monk in a rival (and not nice) dojo. It just kind of worked out that way (kinda stereotypical, but the player kept digging into it). The monk's personal quests and such were about him and stuff that had happened to him.

If he died, a replacement PC wasn't going to know about those pieces, let alone pick them up.

However, in being so personal (and not applicable to the whole party), if the monk died, the party would probably not even know they were abandoning it.

I try to make the whole-party storylines drive the same way. By basing them on what's happened to the party before and what they as a group (presumably with iintertwining business and personal goals) want to do.

Kill off the party, and nobody outside that party cares, at least not without some serious hammering into position of new actors.

Given the examples of that we see in Babylon 5 with Sinclair/Sheridan and Lita/Talia where original actors couldn't return, so some adjusting had to be done to bring in a replacement.

 

[Janx]

The misreading was probably on my part.

Wrt the decision-making: OD&D, BD&D and 1st ed AD&D had rules for encounter/adventure design using dice. They also has wandering monster rules, which are dice-driven. So in relation to those cames, "leting the dice fall where they may" probably extends beyond action resolution into the GM's decision-making efforts. And dice in action resolution extend to morale checks.

That might shape some people's impression that everything in OD&D was randomly and "impartially" generated. I'm not sure GMs truly ran that way, though on the other hand, even today, I'll make a game out of a randomly generated dungeon populated with random monsters and treasure.

But I make up all the fluff to get the PCs there or justify what's there, or adjust what came up randomly if I didn't like iit.

 

[pawsplay]

Do I save the PCs? I'm tempted to say "no" - but the problem is that the question really obscures the actual question, which is this:

Do I save my campaign?

In my campaigns, the PCs are important, but generally replaceable. I work under the assumption that long, difficult quests have serious staffing issues and plan accordingly. Also, it is permissible for the good guys to lose.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Not all DMs' styles are the same. I tend to go in for complicated metaplots, mysteries that unfold over a dozen or more sessions. In short, a lot more plotting and a lot less sandboxing, I guess.

Also, Ive found over the years that tying the metaplot closely into many of the backgrounds of the characters of the campaign makes the players far more invested and engaged in it. (If you haven't tried this in a while - you really should. Put some effort into it - your players will reward you for it.)

So for example, in a 3.5 campaign I ran in Krynn just prior to the War of the Lance, the campaign was very much about two of the PCs, who were brothers in game and their struggles. They were noble wannabe Knights of Solamnia. The campaign keyed into politics invovling their family, their investigation into how their father died and the recovery of their father's armor and sword over the span of the first 12 sessions or so.

There was more to it than that that engaged other members of the party and their backgrounds - but it was clearly a very focussed campaign which we started to refer to as "Knights of the Lance". Had there been a TPK - that campaign would have died, no question about it.

If there had been a TPK in the Age of Worms? Ok - I'm with you. Not so big a deal.

My current Star Wars: The Old Republic campaign has certain elements to it that are tied into specific aspects of the characters and their backgrounds as well. It's very early going, so a TPK would not necessarily wreck the campaign at this point. I think I could adjust without much difficulty.

But ten sessions, say, from now? I expect my answer would be very, very different.

The answer to "Does this kill my campaign?" is going to be answered differently by different DMs and GMs - and ever the same DM/GM may well will give you a different answer depending upon the campaign in question, the metaplot and the stage the campaign is at. So it's not a one-size-fits-all analysis, to be sure.

But none of that changes the fact that the underlying question is more complicated than punishing/rewarding good roleplaying and tactics in game by the players.

 

[Umbran]

In my campaigns, the PCs are important, but generally replaceable. I work under the assumption that long, difficult quests have serious staffing issues and plan accordingly. Also, it is permissible for the good guys to lose.

Individual PCs can often, even usually, be replaced, I'll grant you. But some campaign structures don't deal well with replacing the entire party at once.

As you say, it is permissible for the good guys to lose. But I think that's aside the question of whether the campaign is saved.

A campaign can represent a significant investment of time (leisure time, at that, which is scarce for some folks these days), effort, and possibly even money. If all the folks concerned don't get sufficient return on that investment, they may not come back for another round.

The return doesn't have to be in terms of success - there are many kinds of return in an RPG. The issue is whether any of the kinds have happened, and if they haven't, do you save the campaign to allow them to happen or not.

 

[pawsplay]

Individual PCs can often, even usually, be replaced, I'll grant you. But some campaign structures don't deal well with replacing the entire party at once.

OK. I'm kind of of left saying, "So what?" If it's a pathy kind of campaign, then I guess Sauron wins. If it's a Vampires in New Orleans thing, then I guess it's time to get some new vampires. If the campaign appears to hinge at certain very specific actions being successful, or certain characters having certain kinds of interactions at some point, I'm going to put forward the suggestion that the game is likely to lead to disappointment in some aspects. Good GMing is like any relationship; you focus on the things that you have control over.

I, personally, feel there is no substitution for real nail-biting anxiety, so I like to roll the dice in the open. But, as noted above, that is different than the notion of introducing real danger, itself. If the players know, based on the premise, that they are going to get to points A, B, and C, that is a very different kind of game. If the players know that the only thing that can really get their characters killed is doing the wrong thing, I think that is likely to shift focus onto the GM's expectations.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I, personally, feel there is no substitution for real nail-biting anxiety, so I like to roll the dice in the open. But, as noted above, that is different than the notion of introducing real danger, itself. If the players know, based on the premise, that they are going to get to points A, B, and C, that is a very different kind of game. If the players know that the only thing that can really get their characters killed is doing the wrong thing, I think that is likely to shift focus onto the GM's expectations.

I agree with this completely. I don't roll behind a screen either. So the traditional fudgery to allow the PCs to survive is not something I am inclined to do.

Does not mean there are not other ways to accomplish the same task, mind you. The best ways to preserve the PCs lives in the event of disaster is to encourage them not to end up there in the first place. On this, I think we can both agree.

 

[Umbran]

OK. I'm kind of of left saying, "So what?"

So what? So, some of us don't have infinite leisure time to develop new content, is what.

If the campaign appears to hinge at certain very specific actions being successful, or certain characters having certain kinds of interactions at some point, I'm going to put forward the suggestion that the game is likely to lead to disappointment in some aspects.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with specific actions being successful.

As for the matter of interaction - yes, that's exactly the point. A game that is built around who the characters are becomes disappointing if they all die. This is hardly surprising. However, some players and GMs find such play far more engaging and satisfying than a game where everyone is easily replaceable. So, for them, techniques to avoid that disappointment are useful.