Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[AbdulAlhazred]

And that sounds like a lot of fun, but in a game like D&D it is absolutely not what I want. Totally cool in a game like Blades In The Dark (as I understand the game).

It is, now let's take the example of my AD&D ranger character. At level one he sets out with his friends to make their fortune. Demogorgon worshipers murder the whole party except him. Do I just shake my head and go find some new PCs to adventure with? No! These jerks murdered my friends.

The character spends the next 10 years (of actual time) tracking them all down, destroying them, their cult, other demons, and finally Demogorgon itself. In the process he becomes totally twisted by his obsession until he's barely distinguishable from a demon himself.

What good would dying partway through that story be? The GM in that game totally understood that. Not that death was totally off the table I guess, but pointless death, snuffed by some random orc? Heck no! The character's story was too good to waste like that!

 

[bloodtide]

What good would dying partway through that story be? The GM in that game totally understood that. Not that death was totally off the table I guess, but pointless death, snuffed by some random orc? Heck no! The character's story was too good to waste like that!

I agree this idea would make a good story. But as soon as you say it's "too good", you ruin it. Once something is too good, your saying the character must automatically succeed. So why bother playing through the game. At best both the player and DM might do everything soft and easy: "oh, the..um...two goblins with clubs attack and both miss, um darn". And at worst the player and DM just handwave everything "oh, looks like your character took another 10 damage, so down to -120 hp, but this game is so good we will just ignore that"

I do such nightmare stories in my game often...and my game is all ready a nightmare....so when a player does a goal with a beaten and bloody character with three hit points and a sharp rock for a weapon THEY and EVERYONE knows I did my best(or worst as I'm a nightmare DM) to stop that character.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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 don't think that's how human psychology works. I mean, anyone is vulnerable to stress, psychic distress etc. Regardless.

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.

As any sort of argument for such shallow RP somehow NOT being shallow, don't buy it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think it is as much, or more, person/table dependant, but I see much of your point.



I am, unfortunately, not familiar with Stonetop, so I have to go more on what you say than shared understanding of the game.



Well, the issue I'm speaking of is more about getting to the point where the player says, "I love my character - I love who they are, their depth and relationships and..."

Making a character who is "important" (or effective, or the like) is not difficult in D&D. Getting the player to engage with who the character is, as a person takes time.

Sure but I do think it's possibly easier to pull in a new PC in that game simply because it does focus a lot on the town. Much of the action is built around caring for the community and the 'stats' of the town are an actual part of the game. So there's a natural 'thing to die for' and any replacement character will fit into the narrative and have similar values to the previous one.

Sort of like OA where you could come back as another member of the clan.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree this idea would make a good story. But as soon as you say it's "too good", you ruin it. Once something is too good, your saying the character must automatically succeed. So why bother playing through the game. At best both the player and DM might do everything soft and easy: "oh, the..um...two goblins with clubs attack and both miss, um darn". And at worst the player and DM just handwave everything "oh, looks like your character took another 10 damage, so down to -120 hp, but this game is so good we will just ignore that"

I do such nightmare stories in my game often...and my game is all ready a nightmare....so when a player does a goal with a beaten and bloody character with three hit points and a sharp rock for a weapon THEY and EVERYONE knows I did my best(or worst as I'm a nightmare DM) to stop that character.

Ok, but you are missing the whole thing here. Nothing at all guaranteed any specific outcome. My character could have wised up to the destructive nature of his behavior, or maybe an ally could have betrayed him due to some of the things he did, or he could have died in a futile attempt to get revenge, or nature itself could have turned against him, etc.

Y'all seem to have this weird idea that the type of play I describe means you just do whatever you want as a player and it just automatically happens. Nothing like that is true.

 

[The Shadow]

Y'all seem to have this weird idea that the type of play I describe means you just do whatever you want as a player and it just automatically happens. Nothing like that is true.

Right, it's like either 1) you must be vulnerable to death in every situation or 2) everything must always go your way, with sunshine and roses.

I don't get why the dichotomy? Why must it be one or the other? I've never experienced anything even remotely like that, nor would I want to.

 

[bloodtide]

Y'all seem to have this weird idea that the type of play I describe means you just do whatever you want as a player and it just automatically happens. Nothing like that is true.

But that is what you said? Here is the quote again:

What good would dying partway through that story be? The GM in that game totally understood that. Not that death was totally off the table I guess, but pointless death, snuffed by some random orc? Heck no! The character's story was too good to waste like that!

See where you typed "what good would dying part way through that story be?" So that means no character death, right? The character can't die because it would not be good. Sure it's not off the table as you say, in theory, but chances are you would not let it happen, right? The characters story is too good to waste, as you said?

 

[The Shadow]

See where you typed "what good would dying part way through that story be?" So that means no character death, right? The character can't die because it would not be good. Sure it's not off the table as you say, in theory, but chances are you would not let it happen, right? The characters story is too good to waste, as you said?

This is the exact dichotomy we're talking about! You're assuming that if the character won't die meaninglessly to any random orc, that therefore he will succeed in everything he does!

Why? Why make that assumption? I can easily see that character failing spectacularly! Going down in flames! They'd be dramatic flames, but still flames!

Maybe one of Demogorgon's lieutenants kills him, and mocks him as he dies! Maybe he succeeds in killing Demogorgon, but takes his place due to the corruption of his soul, changing nothing in the long run except losing his soul! Maybe one of his friends persuades him with tears to turn aside from his destructive path!

There's lots of possibilities! Why do you insist there's only one?

 

[Arilyn]

But that is what you said? Here is the quote again:

See where you typed "what good would dying part way through that story be?" So that means no character death, right? The character can't die because it would not be good. Sure it's not off the table as you say, in theory, but chances are you would not let it happen, right? The characters story is too good to waste, as you said?

Too good to waste from a random encounter that isn't supposed to be meaningful or particularly dangerous. Certainly open to death in a Shakespearean tragedy kind of way. This is how I'm reading it. Or the character grows in a more positive way, letting go of blind hatred. Might still die, or retire peacefully. Playing to find out. But dying in some stupid fashion? Not satisfying.

 

[Irlo]

Too good to waste from a random encounter that isn't supposed to be meaningful or particularly dangerous. Certainly open to death in a Shakespearean tragedy kind of way. This is how I'm reading it. Or the character grows in a more positive way, letting go of blind hatred. Might still die, or retire peacefully. Playing to find out. But dying in some stupid fashion? Not satisfying.

This.

And a note for those playing along at home: this is very clearly NOT an example of "preserving a character to save the DM's pre-written plot." It's not a reaction to the game being "too difficult." It's preserving a character to participate in an unwritten plot.