Climactic Sacrifice of PCs

[shadzar]

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.

You disqualify your own statement with self only view again. So it all means TO YOU.

D&D however CAN and DOES allow the PC to combine effects.

Someone previously suggested trapping the BBEG in a stone and locking it away. All these things can be done with magic.

Many spells have effects of others built into them. 3rd specifically, I think, lets you combine spells without creating new ones by using more than one at the same time for a combined effect.

You don't need a wish to "pull rabbits out of your hat". You just need a Heward's Handy Hassenpfeffer Hat.

RAW

I only take vegetables raw, the rest you can have raw all to yourself and far away from me!

But by RAW, read the DMG...any of them. tell me how your RAW holds up to the DM being told essentially:

Here's some rules, don't always follow them.​

Wait, then what happens if you follow the rule to not follow the rules, then you are breaking the rules by following them!? OHNOES!

 

[CuRoi]

Wait, then what happens if you follow the rule to not follow the rules, then you are breaking the rules by following them!? OHNOES!

Referring to Rule Zero here I think...not sure. Sure, a DM can justify anything by Rule Zero. Does it serve them well to invoke this for every instance (whether creating "sacrifices" for PCs or "creating ways to avoid said sacrifices")? Probably not. If you consistently leave the rules behind to satisfy DM plot / storyline desires, you may alienate and lose most of your players. Of course, that depends entirely on the group.

However, I'd fall on the side that most interactions within the game should indeed follow the Rules As Written, with only some being dealt the "Rule Zero" exception. If it's all Rule Zero, well it's not really DnD anymore is just some other RPG focused on storytelling which would be much more fun without hundreds and hundreds of pages of rules to begin with.

However, if the DM, a the storyteller, wants to define a plot device that is outside the scope of the rules, then should feel free to do so. They should also feel free to tell the players how that particular plot device works. They should always remain the ultimate source for plot direction as that's their job. Players can then decide whether the way the DM is running things suits their playstyle or not and talk about it OOC or find a new game.

 

[shadzar]

most interactions within the game should indeed follow the Rules As Written

See I see "Rules As Written" and think "unplanned pregnancy" as opposed to "accidental pregnancy" so the resulting child doesn't get told they were an "accident" to soften the blow. RAW then is a softening of the blow of one of the despised elements of D&D....Rules Lawyers.

Anytime I see it used as a point of serious discussion, I instantly see the person as going to be a problem element in game because they do not respect the DM as a rules lawyer. They will soon be a disruptive player and ruin the whole game for all those playing. Each time in my gaming, those speaking of RAW, have proven that to be true.

This threads situation the find a new game won't much matter as it is at the end anyway...

The problem is, there are NOT rules for so many things, and this "DM initiated PC self-sacrifice" is one of them.

So RAW doesn't work, that moves into RAI territory, and the DM and players are ALWAYS doing that no matter what. The rules really only should come into play when there is confusion that is breaking down the game. So Rule Zero is always in affect with the DM, but the players have Rule Omega which states they don't have to continue when Rule Zero ruins the game for them.

Such as Rule Omega could be used in the case of too strict a selection set of options that don't let the players try to come up with their own options to try to escape some "thing', a fledgling god, BBEG requiring a PC self-sacrifice to defeat, a Terresque.

I posted elsewhere here on ENworld where each edition of D&D tells the DM to ignore the rules when they don't work for your group. The DM is a part of the group, and being the one running it, even if the players like the "RAW", the DM can still ignore them.

 

[CuRoi]

See I see "Rules As Written" and think "unplanned pregnancy" as opposed to "accidental pregnancy" so the resulting child doesn't get told they were an "accident" to soften the blow.

I just burned my 10' pole then disintegrated the ashes, heh.

RAW then is a softening of the blow of one of the despised elements of D&D....Rules Lawyers.

Anytime I see it used as a point of serious discussion, I instantly see the person as going to be a problem element in game because they do not respect the DM as a rules lawyer. They will soon be a disruptive player and ruin the whole game for all those playing. Each time in my gaming, those speaking of RAW, have proven that to be true.

Like an inconsolable player insisting the rules allow some means to circumvent a DM plot device perhaps?

The derogatory "Rules Lawyers" aren't the ones who know the rules backwards and forwards. Those sorts can actually be helpful at a table. If a player points out to me that I just misread a spell description or applied a rule wrong, I'm happy to make the correction. The true Rules Lawyers are the ones that insist on arguing an invalid or point or loophole and they continue to persist well after the argument has served its purpose thus ruining the game for everyone involved.

At any rate, I thought I'd give a shot at understanding what was being said here - because I do think it is an important topic to discuss. But frankly, it seems to the arguments seem to be swining back and forth so wildly that I'm pretty sure there is no solution or common ground so I'll just let things sorta die out

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

My answer to the OP - Do what you believe would be most fun for your players. I'm going to assume that you know what they would enjoy moreso than we.

 

[DEFCON 1]

shadzar... I think the point Umbran was getting at and what others were agreeing with, is that some game systems actually give you a format on how to accomplish Rule Zero, rather than just saying that you can do it.

You are absolutely right in that D&D has a Rule Zero - the DM can do anything he wants and make any rules in his game as he sees fit that work best for the story. And with Rule Zero, yes, the PCs could invent completely new spells or merge existing spells together to accomplish these "new things" that you are suggesting allows players to come with solutions that aren't A/B choices.

However, I think we can all agree that the D&D rules do not tell or show a DM how this could be accomplished. The magic system is actually rather rigid in that there are a specific number of spell powers each with specific results. A Scorching Burst does 1d6+INT fire damage in an Area burst 1. Now certainly as a DM, you can Rule Zero this to say that this Scorching Burst can also set the curtains in a room on fire, and if right after that the wizard then casts Magic Missile with the intent of the missile to "pick up and carry" the burning curtain out the window to light up the straw golem that is 20 squares away outside (which would have been too far for a normal Sorching Burst to reach)... again, you certainly can allow this cause it's cool. However, the rules don't show or tell a DM how to improvise these sort of reactions or what these reactions can and can't accomplish. The DM is entirely left to his own devices and has to hope that what he is creating or allowing with these frankenstein's monster of spell effects does not unbalance the combat or the game.

However, other roleplaying game systems actually do include rules in them on how a DM can do this very thing-- combine or create completely new effects... how much damage or effect these things can have... and how to set target numbers or difficulty classes to determine whether they are successful. If a player inside a house see a straw golem through the window 100 feet away, he can say "I want to cast a fire spell that can set the monster on fire causing X amount of damage to it...", there's no pre-created spell list that you have to search through in hopes that you have one on your sheet that can accomplish this-- fire at a certain distance that can set flammable objects alight for a certain amount of damage. You just say you want to do it, and the DM can follow the rules given to him by the game to allow it to possibly happen, and come with the target number needed to accomplish it. The rules themselves tell the DM how to Rule Zero it.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is really all the point Umbran was trying to make.

 

[Janx]

I don't think feeding the thread forker's going to help. I already made that mistake.

back on topic, thus far, I see 5 stereotypes for PC sacrifice:

• jump on grenade to save others
• hold the roof up so the others can escape
• stay behind to trigger the detonator
• sacrifice to seal the demon
• hold them back while others bar the door

I think the variations of these don't matter. That's just thematic flavor-sauce. What I'm interested in is identifying more unique stereotypes.

From there, what would be useful to a GM is how to setup those situations so the player COULD have the opportunity to do sacrifice themselves.

From a GMing "best practices" view, here's what I think:
a GM isn't required to give advance warning on a sacrifice being required. Some of these are more spontaneous, others are contrived situations by the GM.

However, in the contrived situation scenarioes, it may go over better if there was in-game warnings, prophecies, etc. Furthermore, the GM must not fall into the trap of thinking it is the only viable solution. The players may come up with something better.

 

[Umbran]

You are making a false claim here.

No, I am not. I don't think you fully understand my claim.

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.

I never said that D&D doesn't allow it. I said that it isn't explicitly part of the system as written. There are no solid rules for designing new effects (spells, powers, class abilities, skills, or what have you) that the players can expect to hold, or depend upon as part of a plan. It is a matter of GM fiat.

So, when playing D&D, is it the GM who allows or disallows it. The game doesn't enter into the process of designing the effect.

 

[Zhaleskra]

The third installment of a campaign of three adventure modules does the following: the PCs are sacrificed in what seems like a hopless situation. But, wait, what's this? One of the gods has intervened. The god saves the heroes from oblivion, and on their return before the final battle, they get a template added that has the requirement of them having died first.

 

[Umbran]

shadzar... I think the point Umbran was getting at and what others were agreeing with, is that some game systems actually give you a format on how to accomplish Rule Zero, rather than just saying that you can do it.

You are pretty much on the money there, DEFCON.

If I were playing Mage, and I wanted to know if I could create a spell to bind a powerful spiritual entity, I would first look at my character sheet and the rules. Creating new effects to solve problems isn't just allowed, but encouraged and expected - to the point where if you don't do this sort of thing, it is hard to survive.

As compared to D&D, where if I want to know if I can do the same thing, I have to turn first to the GM, and the game doesn't even present the GM with particularly clear guidelines! Your typical D&D character can (and probably does) go their entire career without creating a new spell, feat, daily power, or whatever.

Which is not to say you cannot do it. It just says the game isn't specifically set up to help you do it.

That puts the discussion into the "am I using the right tool for the job" category. While singular exceptions can always be made, if I chose to run D&D, it was because I wanted to do what D&D does well, and didn't want to do so much of what it doesn't support as well.

D&D doesn't specifically support PCs coming up with new magical solutions to major acute problems well. So, if I'm running D&D, my game isn't intended to have much of that happening. Rule Zero is handy, but it is a tool for a GM to use sparingly, and if used to solve a climactic problem it looks a lot like GM Fiat/deus ex machina, which is often unsatisfying for the players. Usually, you should choose a game system that does what you want without the GM having to fiat things frequently.