Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[Lanefan]

I apologise if I missed you posting this. I think that @Lanefan and @bloodtide have denied this, and I understood you to be broadly in agreement with them.

Death is pretty much the only important fail state left in 5e and even its impact has been nerfed somewhat; I prefer games where other important fail states exist as well e.g. level drain, loss of mind or other abilities, loss of wealth and-or magic, petrification, irreversible polymorph, etc.

In real life, people can die from quite small falls (eg climbing ladders), have sudden and shockingly unexpected aneurisms, etc. Yet these things are not part of any version of D&D that I'm familiar with.

Indeed, and I agree. But the howls of player-side protest that'd come if anyone tried to put something like this in...yeah, if done here you'd hear 'em down there in Australia!

That's before we get to the "plot armour" that hit points provide, such that (eg) the 10th level fighter whose hit points are at max is not at risk of dying from a crossbow shot, even though in real life we all know that crossbow shots can be fatal.

Again agreed, but this one at least can be fixed fairly easily (if in a clunky manner - hey, nobody's perfect!) to a small degree by making any point-blank shot against a restrained or sleeping opponent in effect a save-or-die for the target, before even bothering with damage rolls.

 

[Lanefan]

Angst-ridden? Lets think for a few seconds about how you would feel, in the real world, if bad people overthrew the government of your country and forced you into exile. I mean, really think about it, not just give it some very surface attention. You wouldn't be 'angst-ridden' to be angry, depressed, vengeful, sad, horrified, etc. etc. etc. That's NORMAL HUMAN 101!

Keep in mind, though, that I-as-me don't have the abilities of a typical adventuring character. All that anger, sadness, depression, etc. would stem not only from what had happend but from my own inability to do a damn thing about it.

A typical adventuring character has both the potential (always) and the actuality (now or later) of being able to do something about it, either alone or in concert with others; which means the adventurer can take those negative emotions and channel them into clear goals and concrete actions in long-term opposition, knowing there's at least a chance of success sometime down the road.

This is an option most normal schlubs in the real world simply don't have.

I want a PC that actually has real actual reactions to things and cares and concerns and isn't just a device for playing the game where if such feelings are a bit inconvenient to play then you say "Oh, I don't want to be angst-ridden." Really, I just find that kind of play super shallow on the RP side. I agree that it is very convenient for a certain type of play (which happens a lot in D&D) but role play? Barely.

Again, the typical PC has the advantage of being in a position, now or later, to be or become powerful enough to stand up and confront the root cause of those concerns. Thus, the PC's "real actual reaction" is very likely to be different than that of a commoner (whose only real option is to sadly go along with whatever happens); taking the form of "what can I do about this and how long will it take?" and then acting on that long-term goal.

 

[Manbearcat]

I know what its like to GM games where PCs are merely game pieces and the only thing that matters is “score” (therefore the two points of duress are “did we eek out our best payoff in this level = crawl” and “game over = PC death”). I’ve GMed that in abundance.

Its not difficult to change that while still playing a vitality-infused game. You just (a) remap what “best score in this level” looks like (and that necessarily includes a robust mechanical remap), (b) let the stakes flow naturally from that remapping, and (c) situate the players so that they’re dictating the nature of (a) and (b) (the nature of protagonism in this game). Then you play their adversity/opposition as hard/aggressively as possible (just like you do in the initial “score” and “game over” setup).

Done.

Now relationships and values/ideas/beliefs can matter in the visceral way that “score” and “game over” matter in the alternative setup.

 

[pemerton]

Death is pretty much the only important fail state left in 5e

This thread is in general RPG. But even within the universe of 5e D&D play, I expect there are many groups that play the game such that there are important "fail states" other than PC death (which in any event seems to be reasonably easy overcome in by-the-book 5e D&D above lower levels).

At the moment. Two years and twelve adventures down the road the party lineup might have ship-of-Theseus-ed its way into a complete turnover, and at that point those are the main characters in what is still the same (emergent) story!

For example: in a typical dungeon crawl there might be (depending on which route the party takes and-or how thoroughly they decide to clean the place out) something like 5 to 15 minor combats or encounters, each of whcih individually is pretty low stakes but when taken in aggregate are more significant, in that the stakes of aggregate success is to earn the right to take on the BBEG at the end.

There are assumptions made in these posts - about "adventures" as a unit of play, about "BBEGs" as opposition - that are not true of all RPGing, and that are not likely to be true in RPGing that focuses significanlty on losses and setbacks other than PC death.

It's realistic in the setting, in some games anyway, for two reasons:

One: most of a PC's wealth is going to go into buying, commissioning, or otherwise acquiring magic items; most of which will stay with the PC as odds are high those items are intended to help that PC be a better adventurer..
Two: unless a party or PC has a secure home base or unless the setting has a secure banking system that doesn't rip you off (not something I'm accustomed to), the safest place for a PC's wealth is usually with the PC and party.

And there are many more assumptions here: roughly of the sort that underpin the rootless adventurer approach to D&D play. As soon as play focuses on grounded, connected PCs - such as ones who might suffer if exiled, or if their loved ones suffer - these assumptions (obviously) no longer apply.

But in the scenario presented it did fail, and now I-as-revolutionary have to square with that. I mean, I suppose I could just go and throw myself on the king's justice (and thus at the meta-level almost certainly roleplay my PC out of the game either through it being executed or having to serve a lengthy jail sentence). Or, I could go and hide somewhere and bemoan my sorry fate until the cows come home (meta: great for the dramatic roleplay side but not very group-oriented and boring as hell after the first ten minutes). Or, I could find a way to gather a group around myself and set off for faraway lands; and after we adventure our little faces off over there and get stinkin' rich in the process, come back and try this revolution business again (meta: provide both the DM and the other players with something to grab for out of this failed revolution story).

Or the character has great emotional connection and is roleplayed as burying that emotion deep; wich from the outside observer's view would produce about the same characterizations as a result.

These are not the only possibilities. A PC in jail can be played. A PC can be exiled to another place that is not a "faraway land" in which they "adventure their little face off".

In the real world there have been responses to exile that differ from the ones you provide here. They can be part of fiction too, and hence can occur in RPGing.

the primary goals being pursued are those of the party as a whole (which in party play strikes me as being the point of the exercise anyway). If all a player cares about is the goals etc. of an individual character, why play in a party-based game or system?

Not all RPG play is party-based. Not all RPG that involves multiple PCs is party-based. Not all RPG that involves parties of characters involves the sort of party-as-a-whole play that you are assuming in your posts.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I know what its like to GM games where PCs are merely game pieces and the only thing that matters is “score” (therefore the two points of duress are “did we eek out our best payoff in this level = crawl” and “game over = PC death”). I’ve GMed that in abundance.

Its not difficult to change that while still playing a vitality-infused game. You just (a) remap what “best score in this level” looks like (and that necessarily includes a robust mechanical remap), (b) let the stakes flow naturally from that remapping, and (c) situate the players so that they’re dictating the nature of (a) and (b) (the nature of protagonism in this game). Then you play their adversity/opposition as hard/aggressively as possible (just like you do in the initial “score” and “game over” setup).

Done.

Now relationships and values/ideas/beliefs can matter in the visceral way that “score” and “game over” matter in the alternative setup.

I've made relationships along with values/ideas/beliefs matter, but not by using a robust mechanical remap within our existing 5e game but by tying the measurement of level increases to relationships + values/ideas/beliefs. It is not as immediately satisfying as what you're proposing but it ensures players through their characters lean into that side of the game more, now that it has value.

 

[Umbran]

A player can't or won't look beyond their own character(s) and see the bigger picture of the campaign isn't someone I want to game with, be it as DM or fellow player.

That isn't what I said. In misreading and taking it to such an extreme you are doing this conversation a disservice. Maybe ask some more questions before leaping so far ahead.

They can "look beyond" their character, and see the "bigger picture" in the long run. But their emotional attachment is to the character first, to the greater world second. GMs are attached to their world first, but the world isn't where the players typically invest most of their creative energies.

Let's just say my experiences with players getting (too) attached to their characters are entirely negative, and leave it there.

Yes, there are levels of attachment that are unhealthy, and lead to issues at the table. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about pretty normal everyday human stuff. This is stuff folks need to deal with in everyday socialization.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does that mean you don't use the AC & hp mechanic to resolve a single crossbow bolt shot at a 3rd level fighter on full hp?

You're really hung up on this huh? Fine. I do use hp and AC, and yes, sometimes a situation that should be deadly can't be. But that's the goal I'm striving for. It's one of those necessary evils I mentioned above.

 

[Umbran]

Which is part of why I discourage players from growing attached to their characters.

You realize that humans don't actually control their emotions well at all, right? Vulcans, we ain't.

Except given that the story of the campaign as a whole is and must be* bigger than the story of any individual character** I put that down as a player issue.

And I put down your position as a GM issue - asking/expecting people to invest more in your creation than their own isn't reasonable.

Be emotional as a character; be dispassionate as a player.

Again - humans, not Vulcans.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here is the post to which you are replying:

Suppose the thing you did was to support a coup. And the coup fails. And now you're banished - and have probably lost much of your wealth and fame in the process. Why would you not care?​

Your reply strikes me as an utter non-sequitur. It appears to me that many revolutionaries are "ready to pay the price" in the sense that a failed attempt at revolution can lead to exile, death, imprisonment etc, they are aware of this, and they proceed regardless. But most of these failed revolutionaries also care, in that (i) they would prefer not to suffer those losses, and (ii) they would prefer their revolution to succeed rather than fail.

I've GMed FRPG campaigns in which some PCs are part of political movements of various sorts (in some cases initiating them). Our play has taken it absolutely for granted that the players, both as participants in the game and as "inhabitants" of their PCs, care about whether or not those movements achieve their goals, whether or not their PCs succeed or fail, etc.

I remain utterly baffled by your suggestion that the norm, here, is to not care.

Why is that the only viable option? History is replete with revolutionaries and coup leaders who identified and pursued other options. There's no reason why this can't also happen in RPGing.

There are so many assumptions built into this it's hard to know how to start unpacking them.

Here are the two obvious ones: that the character has no emotional connection to the coup or its cause; and that the character has no emotional connection to their homeland. Again, history is replete with counter-examples to those two assumptions, and so there is no reason why those assumptions should be true in RPGing.

This is a spurious distinction, or at least a gerrymandered one. If you define failure = character death (or similar loss of the player's playing piece then by definition other sorts of loss or setback do not constitute failures. But so what? Why is your definition of failure of any interest? What does it actually tell us about the nature of RPGing, or the nature of stakes in fiction? My suggestion is that it tells us nothing about either.

In @Lanefan's terms, then, there is no failure here as the new character can continue to pursue the same goals. (And in a traditional D&D game where the players play their PCs as a party pursuing the opportunities for adventure provided by the GM, typically this is exactly what will happen.)

Like @The Shadow, I am puzzled as to how this "fungibility of characters" point is meant to square with the "death as the principal, perhaps only, significant consequence point".

Suppose that's true - why is it relevant to me? I play with players who care about the fiction, not just whether or not they have to change their playing pieces.


As with @Lanefan's posts, there are so many assumptions being made here it's hard to know where to begin unpacking them.

One is that "the world" is an object of care or attention in RPGing. That's not true of much RPGing.

Another is that there is a "story" or "plot" in which ripples may or many not occur. This is not true either of much RPGing.

In any event, in the real world, many interesting things happen both to individuals - they have children, they become romantically entangled, they lose their jobs, their homes are destroyed by natural disaster, etc - and to communities - they hold rituals and ceremonies, they elect new governments, they complete great works, their great works are destroyed by natural disaster, etc - that don't involve death. I don't see why fiction would or should be any different.

So, the upshot of all this, combined with some of the discussion we had the other day, kind of tells me what is going on: You and I and others I won't care to list, are interested in the development of our characters in human terms, and we enjoy that. We imagine fantastic adventures (or whatever) as a way to experience interesting/fantastic things and exercise our imaginations, but mostly we USE those things to feed into character explicating situations.

It appears that other people, whom we seem to not see eye-to-eye with often, don't really have an interest in that kind of development at all. They may well depict situations and events which would be character defining, but at some essential level the game is 'character-as-pawn', and thus the most weighty threat which can exist in the game is having your pawn taken away, especially after it has reached the most difficult to attain states in the game (IE a high level D&D PC equipped with the most iconic gear).

Now, I don't really believe there's some entirely hard and fast division between the two groups, and many people may be happy playing either way, but it does strike me that pawn-stance-play is a bit more lightweight. It also admits of a much more directed and curated experience. I think its popular because it is simply easy to go buy a module and let someone basically describe what's in it and do some adjudication. The other participants can have fun putting some surface characterization on their PCs and figuring out how to beat the module. Game companies love it, its easy to write material for, mostly everyone is happy, except that damned @pemerton, who really should just quit complaining and go back to his cave!

My conclusion, Doc, you are just a big spoil sport!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Be emotional as a character; be dispassionate as a player.

The last thing I want in a player is a dispassionate view of the game. I don't know how you can have any consequences... PC death or otherwise... for a player at all if they're dispassionate.

They have to care.