Climactic Sacrifice of PCs

[DEFCON 1]

I myself have done the "character sacrifice" thing before in a superhero game climax and it was a definite choice on my part. I wasn't railroaded at all. The GM set up the scenario of what was happening, and I made the choice to give up my character's life to solve the problem. I didn't have to, and if I didn't the party would have had to think of something else... but my sacrifice was the smart/heroic decision at the time and in the end it met something.

Long story short (so you can see how the GM set the scenario up):

- BBEG that was known to be more powerful than any 10 superheroes combined invaded our world... while all his minions were going crazy killing stuff and the BBEG's giant ship was decimating the land.

- Halfway through the fight, a pair of PCs design a solution for dealing with the BBEG that the GM did not expect but which was very elegant (involving time travel and sending the BBEG back into the pocket prison he had been locked away in). Add in a couple very difficult dice checks that the PCs actually made to accomplish this, and the BBEG ended up being removed from the fight in the middle of the finale, rather than at the end. So anything past this point might've seemed anticlimactic unless the GM did some fancy footwork.

- During this second half of the finale, the other PCs make their way into the giant ship in an attempt to disable it, and it was discovered that there was an open portal to this pocket prison... and the PCs saw the form of the BBEG in the distance, running towards the portal to reenter our world.

- PCs attempt to figure out how to take control of the ship and close the portal... and it's determined (via dice rolls) just how much time the techie character would need to accomplish this.

- My PC sees how close the BBEG is getting, realizes that the portal might not get closed in time, and makes the decision to enter the pocket prison himself to slow the BBEG down to give the techie character more time.

- I succeed in slowing the BBEG down just long enough to allow the techie character to take control of the ship and close the portal, trapping me in the pocket prison (where it is assumed I am killed by the BBEG, although the GM didn't actually show it. He ended the scene with the other PCs watching me fight the BBEG in the prison and the portal slowly close behind us.)

So that how we had the scenario set up, and how/why I made the choice to sacrifice myself. But in no way was I railroaded into it. We players just did not honestly know whether the techie had the time to close the portal before the BBEG reentered our world. And we did have a few more rounds to try and think of something else to possibly work rather than have my character give his life to protect our world... but from my perspective, it just made the most sense and was the most superheroic thing for my character to do at that point.

 

[darjr]

This weekend in our Traveller game the party had a choice. The AI wanted and needed to be destroyed and someone had to stay behind to 'hold the button down'. They could have talked an NPC into doing it, except a player, almost before I was finished explaining what was going on, stepped up and had his character do it. I was actually a bit surprised, that guy takes great pride and care in his characters.

They could have convinced an NPC to do it. They could have tricked another NPC into it. They could have just walked away and left the AI in agony and the locality in dire straits.

Edit: to add they could have left the AI in pain and 'fixed' it for their own uses.

 

[Janx]

This weekend in our Traveller game the party had a choice. The AI wanted and needed to be destroyed and someone had to stay behind to 'hold the button down'. They could have talked an NPC into doing it, except a player, almost before I was finished explaining what was going on, stepped up and had his character do it. I was actually a bit surprised, that guy takes great pride and care in his characters.

They could have convinced an NPC to do it. They could have tricked another NPC into it. They could have just walked away and left the AI in agony and the locality in dire straits.

Edit: to add they could have left the AI in pain and 'fixed' it for their own uses.

not to pick on darjr here, but this could be used an example of the challenges of setting up a sacrifice opportunity.

a heavy book or some tape could have held down the button (assuming a literal button that had to be held down for 5 minutes while the party ran away). A remote detonator and some explosives could have just blown the whole dang thing up. if the AI was so intelligent, it could have held its own bloody button. if you have the power to cause trouble for others, you probably have the power to kill yourself if you try.

On the plus side, the DM says the robot says "hey, hold my button down for 5 minutes to detonate my self-destruct mechanism" the players can take the solution as is, or as I did, come up with some other solution.

Just because the GM reveals 1 solution, doesn't mean its the only solution.

As a player, when the GM reveals the "sacrifice is a solution" I see that as the puzzle to beat. How to win without the sacrifice. As a GM, I'd like to see a scenario where the player determines a sacrifice is the solution to which I hadn't thought of it.

 

[darjr]

A book and duct tape! Blast why didn't they think of that!

Nice!

I would have let them solve it some other way. In fact I was hoping that they would 'fix' the ship and later figure out how to fix the AI. That would have lead to some cool consequences.

 

[shadzar]

NOTE: Thought process at work.....

The world has rules that don't bend for the PCs. Some games (and genres) have it explicitly in their design that the PCs can pull rabbits out of the hat. D&D is not one of them, so the GM is not obliged to allow it.

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

You are making a false claim here.

The fact that the GM has the CHOICE, does NOT mean D&D does not allow that. It merely means the GM can allow or disallow that to them.

BIG difference in the statement.

so the GM is not obliged to allow it

This part contradicts your claim.

I would have said "for me" before that part, or changed the last sentence there to something like. "For my D&D games, I don't allow players to do just anything with magic."

The blanket claim D&D doesn't allow it is wrong, but the claim you don't allow it is incontestable. Well I haven't played in your games, so I technically could contest it as an observer after the fact, but it would really be pointless, as pointless as trying to contest someone claiming "4th edition isn't D&D to me".

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

This too is an invalid blanket statement, so will take that you mean "for you and your playstyle" and have no disagreement your games are that way.

While I am sure many GMs have allowed what you're speaking of

Ok you concrete it, you did mean for you, so I cannot argue with your playstyle as it is yours not mine. My confusion then lied in the blanket claim D&D didn't allow it, but your acknowledgment that GMs other than yourself allowed it, means D&D also did allow it.

Now we are on the same page.

Editing is key in communication with people in plain text.

As well further asking for clarification on the plain text as has been done here, and now I understand you and what you are saying.

I cannot deny your playstyle, and we agree the option exists for it, so it is left to others now to decide which option and method they choose to employ.

I love a good discussion that ends up all parties understanding what the others were saying in the end, even if they never agree to what was said in the discussion.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Pretty much. What they do and how they do it (physically, emotionally, and so on - so including the thespian/immersion aspects as well as the tactical aspects).

 

[Saeviomagy]

The fact that the GM has the CHOICE, does NOT mean D&D does not allow that. It merely means the GM can allow or disallow that to them.

It does mean that D&D doesn't have a good system for helping the DM do it: the DM is left to his own devices afloat on a sea of choice.

And, frankly, you're probably much better off saying "no, magic can't do that" (or at least "no, magic can't do that without a massive price that most people won't be willing to pay") than "yes, magic can do that" for a variety of reasons. One just has to look at Harry Potter for what happens to a magical world where the DM keeps changing the rules of magic for the sake of the plot without a consistent system already in place. And HP didn't even need to balance magical vs non-magical characters.

 

[shadzar]

It does mean that D&D doesn't have a good system for helping the DM do it: the DM is left to his own devices afloat on a sea of choice.

And, frankly, you're probably much better off saying "no, magic can't do that" (or at least "no, magic can't do that without a massive price that most people won't be willing to pay") than "yes, magic can do that" for a variety of reasons. One just has to look at Harry Potter for what happens to a magical world where the DM keeps changing magic for the sake of the plot without a consistent system already in place. And HP didn't even need to balance magical vs non-magical characters.

I will assume here also that you are saying "for you", as your devices are surely different from mine as we are both afloat on the sea of choice.

Being you stated a subjective and unobjectifiable claim of "good system", I think that is how you intended me to take it, correct?

 

[Janx]

NOTE: Thought process at work.....

I think you've been reading way too much into what Umbran is saying.

If nothing else, I read Umbran, I get his point. I read you, I go "what's this dude going on about?"


I'm not sure how we got onto D&D magic as regards PC Sacrifice situations. I suppose you surmise a PC could invent a spell to solve the problem in a new way.

I can't speak for 4e, but all the other editions sitting on my shelf:

D&D magic is rigid. Most of the spells only do exactly what the book says it does. Wish spells are probably the most flexible, but are limited to high level PCs usually.

Spells take time to invent. Probably more time than the PCs have to solve the problem (as in, hurry up and bind this demon before I run out of HP). they also require GM review and approval, which is something that tends to occur outside of the game. In short, PCs don't invent new spells during the game.

Story magic challenges aren't based on spells, but DM fiat. If the DM says it'll take a blood sacrifice to trap the demon, he just made that up for the encounter. To my knowledge, there's no RAW spell to do that or to setup that scenario.

So, barring spells like a wish being available to a PC, there are no spells or magic that allow the PC to just pull a rabit out of their hat, as in create a brand new effect never before seen in the game, in the scope of a gaming session.

Now we could preface all this crap I spouted as "in my game" and "by GM choice". But the probability is, the majority of people playing D&D by the RAW understood and accept what Umbran meant and what I expounded. Because as far as I can tell, that's generally how the game has worked for the last 30 years.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Don't forget the other reason for a character to sacrifice him/herself: "I hate that SOB, and he's gonna DIE, even if I have to go down with him!" Which I've seen more often than the Herocic Sacrifice.