Climactic Sacrifice of PCs

[CuRoi]

I've read through quite an interesting argument here! I'd like to weigh in just a bit:

If your players aren't willing to sacrifice their PCs for say, a big overarching goal in your campaign, perhaps you haven't created something they care that much about.

Now, I'm not saying everyday needs to be a choice between "You do "x" or the world dies". That is sort of a railroad (though it could make for a very suspenseful campaign if done right.) But if you have done something they feel invested in, they will want to protect it. If they are playing certain roles, they will also want to fulfill those roles, even it means a bad end for their PC.

I once had players willingly opt for a TPK to avoid capture. They had drawn the ire of a powerful secretive group. For weeks, they were aware they were under surveillance (constant scrying sensors, dark shadowy figures, etc.) They knew something was coming and were driven to the point of extreme paranoia. The bad guys spent weeks collecting intell, but the party feared they were after certain info they protected. Wrong - they were watching the PCs every move. They developed a list of spells the mage could cast, PCs exit strategies from battles, etc etc. They then showed up with what amounted to a highly specialized rendition force tailored to kidnap the PCs.

Was it a railroad? Yeah, sort of. But it was intriguing, a fun as heck for myself AND the players. The cloak and dagger running around, the paranoia, the final big clash with this special ops team. In the end, they were just about to be captured and decided to start a massive forest fire which would surely consume them as well as the enemy.

That was unexpected - I just wanted to capture the PCs and take them to the an enemy base on a demi-plane they hadn't found yet allowing them to play out a "jail break" scenario. They were , to a player, so terrified of being taken alive by this shadow group, they opted to kill themselves over capture. They weren't upset about in the least mind you. they were having the time of their lives and the sacrifice seemed well worth it. (They chose magical fire so as to hopefully leave nothing for ressing...they had a plan)

On the fly, I altered my plans and let them live (for other reasons). I think some were even just a tad disappointed.

In other campaigns, I've had players willingly sacrifice characters for goals as well. At one time the PCs were collecting an artifact that had been broken into many pieces. They discovered that the artifact aged whoever possesed. One player volunteered to take on the burden and rapidly aged throughout the remainder of the campaign. Due to it being magical aging, there was no "benefit" (just physical stat loss). In the end, there was a big battle - and the PCs chose a path of certain doom just to make sure they succeeded in their quest.

In the first case it wasn't "choose this or die" but it was a "railroad" of sorts as there was very little they could do at the time to stop this group from scrying on them. In the second case, it very much was a "sacrifice your health and very possibly your lives to stop the evil bad guy" or allow the world to fall under darkness. Nobody complained about "being forced" to save the world and ultimately die.

Leads me to my biggest complaint - the enormous rash of "neutral-selfish" characters people bring to the table. Nobody seems interested in playing a role or an alignment anymore, but that's probably another thread.

 

[pemerton]

Also if I end up with the players making choices that paint themselves into that corner, where it isn't a battle situation where, in every combat I am willing to allow a TPK unless just crappy player dice rolls or super ones from me, they would naturally have the chance for death...I would ask myself how I got here.

Whereas I don't see why combat encounters should be singled out as allowing the PCs to die.

Some non-combat encounters, and some longer term strategic scenarios, are more gripping than some combat encounters, and so just as apt (in my view) to have dramatic loss of one or more PCs as a possible climax.

 

[shadzar]

Whereas I don't see why combat encounters should be singled out as allowing the PCs to die.

Some non-combat encounters, and some longer term strategic scenarios, are more gripping than some combat encounters, and so just as apt (in my view) to have dramatic loss of one or more PCs as a possible climax.

Not the "dick move" thread, but other than combat a properly placed trap can easily and quickly kill a party member of turn into TPK.

The point a trap exists, many don't realize, is to keep people out in general not just people of the appropriate level of the PC party. Maybe they were made for things of much HIGHER levels, which would mean they weren't meant to be screwing with this.

Kind of like Ultima Weapon in Final Fantasy games. Beating one is full of rewards IF you can, but you have to decide if you want to take that risk, as the game doesn't require it.

Engaging in combat or a trap if something in the player control and options. If I am going to railroad them into having to do something or go somewhere, then they are just captured for a bit and not likely to have a chance to risk life to escape.

If we are just talking about things that would random kill the players or destroy the world...Yes, I am an ass that has given players a Deck of Many Things.

But I am not going to set something up to kill off any number of PCs in order to further the plot unless a player so chooses his PC to die.

It is not rewarding to me to have that work done and nobody interested in doing it, nor the players being asked which one will die.

King Brian tricked Darby to set him free from his fate.

Which one is the bigger cliche? You offer yourself as a sacrifice or after doing so, your reward is your life for the self sacrifice from some god-like being.

It just isn't something I would ask of my players "Ok which one of you wants to kill your character to further the story?"

I just wont serve them a lose-lose situation since they dont have access to reprogram the exam to beat the Kobayashi Maru.

Beam me up Scotty, Kirk out.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I've been in a game where the characters were asked to effectively sacrifice themselves to keep the big bad away: basically nasties from another dimension are going to invade, and there is an individual who will hold them back. You get the choice to either stay and help him (with no certainty about what that means or whether you'll succeed) or to return to the real world (with no certainty that the guy who's stemming the tide will fail even if he's unassisted).

Out of our 6-man party of shadowrunners (ie - not typically who you might describe as heroes) 5 stayed.

So - you don't even need to make the stakes as high as "the world will definitely end if you don't make this sacrifice" in order for some players and some characters to sacrifice themselves.

Umbran's right though. If the PCs can never screw up worse than "well, I guess you'll have to have another adventure to fix up your mess", I think the world will be lacking in verisimilitude. If you end up at that stage where you think you should really be screwed and it all ends in rainbows without you needing to work for it, that's going to make everything you've achieved up to that point feel pretty hollow.

 

[pemerton]

other than combat a properly placed trap can easily and quickly kill a party member of turn into TPK.

The point a trap exists, many don't realize, is to keep people out in general not just people of the appropriate level of the PC party. Maybe they were made for things of much HIGHER levels, which would mean they weren't meant to be screwing with this.

<snip>

Engaging in combat or a trap if something in the player control and options. If I am going to railroad them into having to do something or go somewhere, then they are just captured for a bit and not likely to have a chance to risk life to escape.

I'm not sure I entirely follow this, but you seem to be saying that players have options as to whether or not to have their PCs engage with particular tactical situations - combats or traps - but that bigger questions for the game, like where the PCs will go and what their objectives will be when they get there, are under the GM's control.

That doesn't reflect how I run my game. Nor does it sound like a sandbox. It sounds more like adventure path play. I would agree that, if you're running an adventure path, then mandating PC sacrifice at the conclusion of the path would probably not be a good idea.

If we are just talking about things that would random kill the players or destroy the world...Yes, I am an ass that has given players a Deck of Many Things.

<snip>

But I am not going to set something up to kill off any number of PCs in order to further the plot unless a player so chooses his PC to die.

It is not rewarding to me to have that work done and nobody interested in doing it, nor the players being asked which one will die.

<snip>

It just isn't something I would ask of my players "Ok which one of you wants to kill your character to further the story?"

I don't think I fully follow this, either, but it looks like you are saying that random PC deaths are OK, but deaths that result from the players' engagement with the unfolding story of the game are not.

It's complicated by the fact that you seem to be treating this as something primarily under the GM's control, whereas the choice of whether or not to sacrifice a PC would normally, I think, be under the players' control (unless you're talking about a very tightly scripted adventure path).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It depends quite a bit on game, too.

RuneQuest for example, it's all but a given that you'll die. But at the same time, dying is not of itself a bad thing, both in the in-game lore and the in-game mechanics; what matters is that you die heroically. The game is all about facing life or death situations with the full understanding that it may be your last moment, but that if you go down it should be in a blaze of glory and heroism.

In D&D, the main goal is to stay alive, so dying heroically can be difficult simply because the game's base ideas run counter to it.

 

[shadzar]

I'm not sure I entirely follow this, but you seem to be saying that players have options as to whether or not to have their PCs engage with particular tactical situations - combats or traps - but that bigger questions for the game, like where the PCs will go and what their objectives will be when they get there, are under the GM's control.

Threads are mixing again into the great melding pot....

As in the other thread, the locations exist WHERE and WHEN the players can get to them is up to them. The players wanting to go to Bobsville, will be SoL since Bobsville doesn't exist.

Sort of like the current place OOTS is in, there was a Bobsville in one of my games, and doing research gave them the name, sadly that was an obscure reference of a short-lived place that they did find where they were looking for eventually.

You can call Bobsville a red herring, but I had no clue they would try to find it rather than keep researching to find something else, like a more current name for the location. I blame Obi-Wan and his lost planet for that though.

I don't think I fully follow this, either, but it looks like you are saying that random PC deaths are OK, but deaths that result from the players' engagement with the unfolding story of the game are not.

It's complicated by the fact that you seem to be treating this as something primarily under the GM's control, whereas the choice of whether or not to sacrifice a PC would normally, I think, be under the players' control (unless you're talking about a very tightly scripted adventure path).

Are you sure you are reading my posts. In each I have said I wouldn't try to get the PCs to make a "self" sacrifice a the DM because that isn't "self".

 

[TarionzCousin]

So if my BBEG kills off all of the PC's at the climax of the campaign, does that count?

 

[Umbran]

Since when is D&D not one of them? What is there that magic, arcane or divine, cannot do?

Magic cannot do what the GM does not allow it to do.

In some games (like Mage), there are explicit rules for what magic can do or not do that the player can build upon - the rules of magic are known to the players, and they can (and are expected to) build new effects upon those rules. This is not true in D&D.

In some other games, there are explicit rules for "I pull a rabbit out of a hat" effects, where the character can accomplish things that nominally are not allowed by their stats and skills and abilities and powers, but happen anyway because the mechanic allows the player to grab that level of narrative control. Previous editions of D&D did not have such mechanics, and 4e's action points are very limited in scope of what they can accomplish.

So, no, D&D isn't one of the games that explicitly makes allowances for what I'm talking about.

Are you sure your players wouldn't want this to happen where something they create is used later by others?

I don't generally keep the game world when I switch campaigns. I don't usually even use the same game system for two campaigns in a row. My players are not interested in repeatedly playing the same game in the same world. So, chance for others to use what they do is negligible.

My point is that the example you chose is nearly unique. While I am sure many GMs have allowed what you're speaking of, very few players have ever seen their creations come into widespread use. As a practical matter, there's pretty much a 0% chance that things arising in a game run by anyone other than a professional game designer will ever see use outside the group. So, "You'll have glory, and your name will be sung with honor forever," is a pretty weak argument.

Yes, developing the spell that accomplishes a climactic goal is cool, but given how D&D does spell design and implementation, it isn't apt to be a very visceral experience. You presented this as an option to reduce the risk of personal loss to the characters. Reduced risk typically means reduced dramatic tension - which means it is likely have less impact, and be less memorable.

So, sure, it is an option, but if we are talking about the end of the campaign, it doesn't seem to be a notably better option.

If so, then so be it. But it is an option for others is what I was saying.

Of course it is. Never have I said otherwise.

I like to share my thought processes when it comes to something that intrigues me.

The issue is that it does not at all come across as a thought process. If you were speaking face-to-face, it might, as someone could get that from facial expression, vocal tone, and such. But in text a question is a question - a question you mean to ask looks exactly like one you don't mean to ask.

Editing is key in communication with people in plain text.

 

[Janx]

the point of any such scenario is to put the players in a decision quandary and to see what they do.

Thus, revealing that to seal the BBEG will require a blood sacrifice, the GMs goal isn't to "see a PC die"

The goal is to see what the PCs do.

Do they decide to not seall the BBEG?
Do they murder an NPC?
Do they convince an NPC to sacrifice?
Do they murder a PC?
Does a PC sacrifice himself?
Do they find a loophole?
Do they do something completely unexpected?

the GMs job is to set up situations, and to react to the players response.
The GM gets his entertainment from seeing that response.

The interesting point of this thread was "how do you setup a scenario where a PC could sacrifice himself?"

I find these situations are uncommon to be practical.

If the party is unlikely to retreat because they think the rules won't let them get far enough away, then they're more likely to stand and fight together than have 1 stay back to hold them off (because 2 bad guys would stay, and the rest would still chase the party).

To my mind, 3 stereotypical scenarios exist:
somebody has to trigger the explosion and it can't be done remotely
somebody has to be the blood sacrifice to seal the bad guy.
somebody has to hold the collapsing ceiling up while you all escape

the stereo types wouldn't be so bad, if there were more plausible examples and not just variations on the theme.