Holiday Fudge: Invincible NPCs

[GMMichael]

Prelude:

Serana the vampire (see Skyrim) must be having a terrible holiday; she and my cleric just recently destroyed her vampire father. I thought I'd arrange a little pick-me-up for her by taking her to visit her vampire mother, who was "living" at the time in a dimension for stolen souls. I didn't mention to Serana that, as a good cleric, my goal was to destroy her mother too. Well, it turns out that in the soul-dimension her mother, Valerica, can regenerate faster than I can damage her. So, I told her the good news (we had destroyed her husband), and she packed up her stuff and moved back into the real world. It turns out that she's a little less invincible there, but she still cannot be destroyed! Which brings me to the point of the thread...

Some characters are better off alive. In Skyrim, invincible NPCs take damage normally until they run out. Then, they go down to a knee and other NPCs disregard them as long as there are other, standing opponents to fight. It's a pretty discreet way to handle the problem of keeping important characters alive; they look and act injured long enough for the fight to continue. Where it fails is when the player is the one trying to kill the NPC, because no one can take mace hits to the back of the head perpetually.

Since I haven't seen a (major publisher) rule espousing this sort of NPC treatment, I'd like to know:
- Are there TRPGs that incorporate rules like this?
- Have you tried using it as a house rule?
- Do you have your own fudge-rules for keeping NPCs alive?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Prelude:


Some characters are better off alive. In Skyrim, invincible NPCs take damage normally until they run out. Then, they go down to a knee and other NPCs disregard them as long as there are other, standing opponents to fight. It's a pretty discreet way to handle the problem of keeping important characters alive; they look and act injured long enough for the fight to continue. Where it fails is when the player is the one trying to kill the NPC, because no one can take mace hits to the back of the head perpetually.

Since I haven't seen a (major publisher) rule espousing this sort of NPC treatment, I'd like to know:
- Are there TRPGs that incorporate rules like this?
- Have you tried using it as a house rule?
- Do you have your own fudge-rules for keeping NPCs alive?

I don't know about systems, but in the 90s I remember there being a lot of GM advice that amounted to protecting plot important NPCs. The module the Created for Ravenloft suggested doing so for the toy maker Giuseppe (basically no matter what the players did, he wouldn't be killed because he was too important----they didn't expect you to have him drop to a knee while the players ineffectually bashed him, they advised helping him make an escape and fudging.

I have to say though, I think this is one of the worst things a GM can do in most games. It really undermines the player's sense that they have an impact on things.

 

[S'mon]

IME it's not a problem with NPCs the PCs aren't expected to fight; it's a problem with the Darth Vader type antagonists who show up & fight the PCs. It's occasionally a problem with Mary Sue NPCs who the PCs are expected to accompany on their awesome adventures.

The general principle is never give plot immunity to NPCs, always adjust the plot if one meets an unexpected demise. Luckily since the 1990s ended this seems generally accepted.

 

[steenan]

As most things in RPGs, it works the best when handled openly and honestly.

In a Fate game, I can have a campaign aspect "Villains escape to fight another time" and compel it - give each player a fate point - to have the baddie escape. If the players wanted a campaign in a genre where such campaign aspect is justified, they won't have a reason to refuse the compel.

It's also possible to handle it by clearly setting stakes for the conflict. Players may push for fight to death, so that they can kill the NPC, but by doing it they risk their character's lives. Or they may accept a lower stake, with victory allowing them to drive the baddie away and complete their quest and loss letting them get away, wounded but alive.

If the players are not interested in having a recurring villain, or hate him enough to finish things here and now - I just let them. After all, it's not a computer game and there is no predetermine script. The players are there to drive the game.

 

[Umbran]

P
Since I haven't seen a (major publisher) rule espousing this sort of NPC treatment, I'd like to know:
- Are there TRPGs that incorporate rules like this?

Not quite what you're looking for, but something that comes close:

In FATE games, any character (PC or NPC) can choose to Concede a conflict. They can do so before the dice are rolled for any action - once dice hit the table, they fall where they may. So this is not armor against them taking surprising amounts of damage the DM didn't expect in one round. If they Concede, they get to choose the nature of their loss - so they can leave the stage without being killed or captured, if that's what is desired.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

In its derivative, The Dresden Files RPG, certain NPCs are designated as “plot-level NPCs.” From what I understand, this gives them a level of insurmountable power, rendering them pretty much unkillable.

Not quite what you're looking for, but something that comes close:

In FATE games, any character (PC or NPC) can choose to Concede a conflict. They can do so before the dice are rolled for any action - once dice hit the table, they fall where they may.

 

[Imaculata]

Just don't make your plot reliant on any npc's. If one of them happens to die, then the plot should simply evolve. Everyone should be expendable.

 

[Umbran]

In its derivative, The Dresden Files RPG, certain NPCs are designated as “plot-level NPCs.” From what I understand, this gives them a level of insurmountable power, rendering them pretty much unkillable.

Not quite. They are "plot *device* level NPCs". Some of these are extremely powerful such that nobody would consider taking them on directly (like, say a Queen of the Fae). But others are small NPCs who really have only one small purpose in the session. The idea being that you don't need to give stats at either end, because why bother. If you gave the Queen of the Fae appropriate stats, she'd crush the PCs if it came to a conflict. So don't bother with giving her stats - just crush the PCs for being so dumb as to threaten her, and move on.

So, no so much invincible, as the result is a foregone conclusion - either the party will win (so don't give stats), or the party will lose (so don't give stats). Don't give it stats if you don't intend the result to be in question.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Ahh, gotcha. Just a player in that game, so my understanding was somewhat limited.

 

[Umbran]

Ahh, gotcha. Just a player in that game, so my understanding was somewhat limited.

Quite understandable. Basically, the game is saying that some NPCs are inconsequential, and others are less characters than forces of nature