Are The Players The Heroes?

[Brother MacLaren]

And this is explained in game and in story as well.

I really like this. If the game has the PCs be Heroes in the sense of "The Chosen of Fate," or whatever, then I really like it when there is at least some vague in-world acknowledgement of it. Midnight did this too, IIRC.

On the other hand, it's also fine with me if the PCs are inherently like everybody else, with the difference being due to their accomplishments and training (represented by their level).

What I really don't like is "The PCs are awesome because they are the main characters" in the absence of any in-world explanation or acknowledgement. In your case, it sounds like "The PCs are the main characters because they are awesome," which is a trope I can accept much more readily.

 

[Jacob Marley]

What I really don't like is "The PCs are awesome because they are the main characters" in the absence of any in-world explanation or acknowledgement. In your case, it sounds like "The PCs are the main characters because they are awesome," which is a trope I can accept much more readily.

Could you expound upon this a little? I am not quite sure that I see, or understand, the difference. The PCs are the main characters because the players chose to play them; the PCs are awesome because the game rules allow them to do "awesome things."

---

In my campaign, the PCs were tasked by a local noble to explore the ruins of an old castle (and the dungeons underneath!); to explore the surrounding countryside; and to free whatever treasure they can from the occupant monsters. The game is set-up as follows: a village, with a small dungeon underneath; the ruins of the castle; a dozen or so smaller "lair" dungeons; a demi-plane; and a wilderness area full of wandering monsters. The initial set-up was largely staus quo, but, monsters are now beginning to react to the PC's presence.

I have been running this campaign for about six months now; the PCs are in the level four-to-five range. One character has died and a hireling has been promoted to full PC status. These are not the only characters in the world who could undertake this exploration, but they are the characters the players have chosen - so their's is the story we tell.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm curious what happens when a PC dies, though. Does someone else take up his destiny? To me, that would make them replaceable in the very essence of the word. I know you've probably thought of this, which is why I'm curious what your solution is.

I don't think that this is that big of a problem, or at least no bigger of a problem than PC death usually is. Assuming the PC is in any real sense important to the story and not a disposable character sheet from a large stack that has been photocopied and the story doesn't involve hiding behind the mound of dead bards, PC death is always awkward. If a player invests time into imagining a PC, and if the DM takes steps to incorporate the character into the campaign world in a meaningful way, then when that plot thread stops abruptly there is pain and disruption and loss to everyone. The more meaningful the character, the harder that is.

Some games take that to the point of offering hard plot protection to a character, but you lose something going that way.

My solution is simply to say that the character fulfilled their destiny (or didn't, in which case, that may explain why they got raised from the dead). The story is continiously unfolding and I don't know what it is until it happens, so if a character dies then in game terms that was 'meant to happen'. Hopefully, the character died a good death. And if they didn't, then we have a story about how life doesn't always make sense or seem fair. And the replacement character who we now must find some way to weave into the story is destined to take the story however far that character lasts.

Really, only TPK or 'agreed upon victory' means we know that the story stopped and what the whole story was.

In my game, the characters are casual acquaintances that have been thrown together in the aftermath of a massive and tragic tsunami. In the desparate times that followed, they've found that they each have skills that they need to collectively survive. They've also discovered that the events that they are experiencing are all seemingly connected to some dark and sinister force which seems to center around some as yet shadowy names like - 'Keeropus', 'Esoteric Order of the Golden Globe', and 'Tarkus'. These names keep turning up whereever the characters go, but no one knows exactly yet what they mean. What do the cult of god destroyers have to do with this? How are the Deep Ones involved? Why is this necromatic cult keep digging up old tombs? All the many things that keep happening, when they are tracked back, seem to have some central connection. The character have just discovered a wall which has a warning on it that the thing on the other side of the wall represents a threat to the existance of all life on the world, so the players and characters are starting to get a sense of the scale of what is going on, but it will be as of yet some time before 'the game is really afoot'. Nonetheless, the assumption of the story is that this collection of characters is THE ONLY collection of characters that is uniquely positioned with the knowledge and collective skills to oppose the bad guys. If at least some of these characters don't survive to oppose the diabolical plot that is underway, then no one will. The final group of heroes that is there at the grand finale might not be the exact group that is travelling together now, but there will be some thread that connects them all together (even if in the worst case no character there at the tsunami is there when Keeropus's true intentions are revealed).

So yes, a death is awkward, but it doesn't end the story. Boromir can die, but the story goes on. Storm Brightblade might die, but some new general will arise to take his place in the story.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think that this is that big of a problem, or at least no bigger of a problem than PC death usually is. Assuming the PC is in any real sense important to the story and not a disposable character sheet from a large stack that has been photocopied and the story doesn't involve hiding behind the mound of dead bards, PC death is always awkward. If a player invests time into imagining a PC, and if the DM takes steps to incorporate the character into the campaign world in a meaningful way, then when that plot thread stops abruptly there is pain and disruption and loss to everyone. The more meaningful the character, the harder that is.

Some games take that to the point of offering hard plot protection to a character, but you lose something going that way.

My solution is simply to say that the character fulfilled their destiny (or didn't, in which case, that may explain why they got raised from the dead). The story is continiously unfolding and I don't know what it is until it happens, so if a character dies then in game terms that was 'meant to happen'. Hopefully, the character died a good death. And if they didn't, then we have a story about how life doesn't always make sense or seem fair. And the replacement character who we now must find some way to weave into the story is destined to take the story however far that character lasts.

Really, only TPK or 'agreed upon victory' means we know that the story stopped and what the whole story was.

In my game, the characters are casual acquaintances that have been thrown together in the aftermath of a massive and tragic tsunami. In the desparate times that followed, they've found that they each have skills that they need to collectively survive. They've also discovered that the events that they are experiencing are all seemingly connected to some dark and sinister force which seems to center around some as yet shadowy names like - 'Keeropus', 'Esoteric Order of the Golden Globe', and 'Tarkus'. These names keep turning up whereever the characters go, but no one knows exactly yet what they mean. What do the cult of god destroyers have to do with this? How are the Deep Ones involved? Why is this necromatic cult keep digging up old tombs? All the many things that keep happening, when they are tracked back, seem to have some central connection. The character have just discovered a wall which has a warning on it that the thing on the other side of the wall represents a threat to the existance of all life on the world, so the players and characters are starting to get a sense of the scale of what is going on, but it will be as of yet some time before 'the game is really afoot'. Nonetheless, the assumption of the story is that this collection of characters is THE ONLY collection of characters that is uniquely positioned with the knowledge and collective skills to oppose the bad guys. If at least some of these characters don't survive to oppose the diabolical plot that is underway, then no one will. The final group of heroes that is there at the grand finale might not be the exact group that is travelling together now, but there will be some thread that connects them all together (even if in the worst case no character there at the tsunami is there when Keeropus's true intentions are revealed).

So yes, a death is awkward, but it doesn't end the story. Boromir can die, but the story goes on. Storm Brightblade might die, but some new general will arise to take his place in the story.

Sorry, this just seems to go directly against what you seemed to imply earlier. They are not like Boromir in your game, they are like Rand. If he dies, it's over. If a someone is taking their place after their death, are they not every bit as replaceable as everyone else?

Between the quotes "If the players aren't the most important people on the whole world, then they are certainly numbered among them", "If an NPC knew of the PC's destiny, and the NPC was a hero themselves, they'd throw themselves in front of an arrow that was hurtling at the PC and say something like, "I did it because I am replaceable, but you are not", and "But in importance, they are just about unmatched" it seems like your PCs are so far above Boromir that the comparison is unfair.

That's why I'm curious. In a normal campaign, if a PC dies, it's usually good for RP. A close friend died. Now the PCs deal with loss, moving on, and maybe looking for someone to fill that void- perhaps even a new PC. This seems problematic in your campaign. If someone dies, do they simply get raised every time? It's odd to me, because it simply isn't doable in my game, but obviously in a 3.X game you can do it easily enough. Doesn't that give the players a feeling that they can get away with anything, as long as they're willing to lose a level?

I'm sure you've put more thought into this than I have. I'm just curious how death can be an option when the future depends on their survival.

 

[Celebrim]

Sorry, this just seems to go directly against what you seemed to imply earlier.

I don't see how.

They are not like Boromir in your game, they are like Rand. If he dies, it's over. If a someone is taking their place after their death, are they not every bit as replaceable as everyone else?

No, if you want to insist on level of importance, they are more like Gandalf or Frodo than Rand. Rand is The Messiah, so leaving aside that this seems to imply the need to die, Rand occupies a position that no one in my campaign has (because the mythology, for reasons I won't discuss isn't Judeo-Christian). But Frodo, if you read the story of LotR seems pretty irreplaceable. He is, afterall, as things worked out, the Ring Bearer. But, it if we were doing the game of the quest, I wouldn't actually know whether Frodo or Sam would end up completing the quest. Indeed, if it had to come to that, we might need to find a way for Pippin or Gollum to complete the quest and from the start I might not know how things will play out and who will complete the quest. However, certainly if the Nine Walkers fail their quest, then Sauron wins.

They are as important as Gandalf. Gandalf has a destiny. It turns out that destiny was not to die on the Bridge of Khazad-dum. It's pretty rare for characters to be brought back to life in my game because I generally play below 9th level and NPC's capable of bringing people back to life in my game are rare (in fact, in the entire starting country of some 450,000 people, there are zero clerics of 9th level or higher). However, it does occasionally happen. Awkward though it may be at times, it is part of the game of D&D since the beginning and sometimes it is less awkward to bring Gandalf or Wesley back to life than it is to give the player a new character and integrate them into the story line.

Between the quotes "If the players aren't the most important people on the whole world, then they are certainly numbered among them", "If an NPC knew of the PC's destiny, and the NPC was a hero themselves, they'd throw themselves in front of an arrow that was hurtling at the PC and say something like, "I did it because I am replaceable, but you are not", and "But in importance, they are just about unmatched" it seems like your PCs are so far above Boromir that the comparison is unfair.

Among other things, I think you are being unfair to Boromir. Boromir is the heir of Gondor. He is the strongest and bravest man in middle earth, exceeding even Aragorn strength and exceeding probably all but Aragorn in martial skill. He is important to his people and to the destiny of middle earth. He recieves visons and dreams that quite possibly come directly from the Valar, if not Illuvatar himself, and he takes up the quest to find Imladris. Then, he fails one stupid saving throw and it ends up getting him killed. Tough break that; but you know, take Iron Will next time. Still, you've got to feel for the player. But in the game of the quest, maybe Boromir makes his saving throw and Aragorn throws a one. Maybe Boromir takes the halflings to the edge of Mordor and meets his brother, and the four of them together complete the quest. Who knows. However, if everyone throws a one, TPK, and Sauron wins. Time to start a new campaign.

That's why I'm curious. In a normal campaign, if a PC dies, it's usually good for RP. A close friend died. Now the PCs deal with loss, moving on, and maybe looking for someone to fill that void- perhaps even a new PC. This seems problematic in your campaign.

I find it problimatic for any campaign that rises above pure hack and slash. My current game has been going on about 10 months (about 16 sessions). The group is now 3rd level. In that time, the game is beginning to move around the PC's and their particular relationships - Gareth and Father Anwell, Lythen and the Painted Lady, etc. If a particular thread snaps, it won't be particularly easy to fill the void. If Jarl dies now, the parties connection to the Shrouded Order of St. Janivieve is broken. If Lythen dies now, the parties possible conflict with The Spider loses much of its tension. Plot elements like the Sea Elf spy depend on connections to Rex, and looking forward Rex could have huge impact on the RP later on. Without Father Marauth, the tension with the Nauti is reduced. And what of the parties existing relationship with the Demarch Bel-Mercado, or young Sir Drystan Ap-Moltari? If PC's start dying, I start having plot threads snap, players start losing emotional attachment to their PC's, and promising story lines die still born. Building back that level of depth takes time. A story based game can survive player death, but too much character turn over robs it of much depth and eventually begins to border on the ridiculous. Sure, we do get some RP oppurtunity out of the tragic death of a colleague, but its not exactly pure win. And quite simply, speaking as a player now, it's emotionally painful to lose a long established PC. It hurts.

I'm sure you've put more thought into this than I have. I'm just curious how death can be an option when the future depends on their survival.

Well, I'm not that emotionally invested in the future of my homebrew. You put in contingency plans in the event of a villain win. If in a certain year it happens that almost everyone in a couple hundred mile radius dies, and various other things happen that I won't reveal at this time, then well, that sounds like an interesting starting point for a new campaign and a nice peice of history to add to the world.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't see how.

For reasons I explained, but I'll probably touch on them more in depth later in this same post.

No, if you want to insist on level of importance, they are more like Gandalf or Frodo than Rand. Rand is The Messiah, so leaving aside that this seems to imply the need to die, Rand occupies a position that no one in my campaign has (because the mythology, for reasons I won't discuss isn't Judeo-Christian). But Frodo, if you read the story of LotR seems pretty irreplaceable. He is, afterall, as things worked out, the Ring Bearer. But, it if we were doing the game of the quest, I wouldn't actually know whether Frodo or Sam would end up completing the quest. Indeed, if it had to come to that, we might need to find a way for Pippin or Gollum to complete the quest and from the start I might not know how things will play out and who will complete the quest. However, certainly if the Nine Walkers fail their quest, then Sauron wins.

I compared them to Rand after your initial comparison to them being like the Ta'veren. Perhaps Mat or Perrin are more fitting comparisons. Either way, to my knowledge, they're all supposedly very important to the future. If the PCs are similar, then it seems they're irreplaceable. If that's the case, making the comparison of one general taking the place of another doesn't seem to mesh, in my mind. Yes, realistically someone will take their place. However, if they take up their potential destiny as well, how are the PCs irreplaceable?

They are as important as Gandalf. Gandalf has a destiny. It turns out that destiny was not to die on the Bridge of Khazad-dum. It's pretty rare for characters to be brought back to life in my game because I generally play below 9th level and NPC's capable of bringing people back to life in my game are rare (in fact, in the entire starting country of some 450,000 people, there are zero clerics of 9th level or higher). However, it does occasionally happen. Awkward though it may be at times, it is part of the game of D&D since the beginning and sometimes it is less awkward to bring Gandalf or Wesley back to life than it is to give the player a new character and integrate them into the story line.

Okay, they're as important as Gandalf. Who was incredibly instrumental for success. The PCs are too, I imagine. However, if one dies, that seems to me that a fatal blow has been struck on the campaign plot, the future, etc. The PC cannot fulfill his destiny.

If, on the other hand, it can be explained off as "he didn't have that strong of a destiny after all," then I don't see how they are like the Ta'veren at all.

Among other things, I think you are being unfair to Boromir. Boromir is the heir of Gondor. He is the strongest and bravest man in middle earth, exceeding even Aragorn strength and exceeding probably all but Aragorn in martial skill. He is important to his people and to the destiny of middle earth. He recieves visons and dreams that quite possibly come directly from the Valar, if not Illuvatar himself, and he takes up the quest to find Imladris. Then, he fails one stupid saving throw and it ends up getting him killed. Tough break that; but you know, take Iron Will next time. Still, you've got to feel for the player. But in the game of the quest, maybe Boromir makes his saving throw and Aragorn throws a one. Maybe Boromir takes the halflings to the edge of Mordor and meets his brother, and the four of them together complete the quest. Who knows. However, if everyone throws a one, TPK, and Sauron wins. Time to start a new campaign.

Boromir was strong, and was important in his own way. He was nowhere near as instrumental as Gandalf, who you compared them to a paragraph before this. Considering that, I don't think I downplayed his importance too much, when he is obviously not in line with the importance of the PCs.

I find it problimatic for any campaign that rises above pure hack and slash. My current game has been going on about 10 months (about 16 sessions). The group is now 3rd level. In that time, the game is beginning to move around the PC's and their particular relationships - Gareth and Father Anwell, Lythen and the Painted Lady, etc. If a particular thread snaps, it won't be particularly easy to fill the void. If Jarl dies now, the parties connection to the Shrouded Order of St. Janivieve is broken. If Lythen dies now, the parties possible conflict with The Spider loses much of its tension. Plot elements like the Sea Elf spy depend on connections to Rex, and looking forward Rex could have huge impact on the RP later on. Without Father Marauth, the tension with the Nauti is reduced. And what of the parties existing relationship with the Demarch Bel-Mercado, or young Sir Drystan Ap-Moltari? If PC's start dying, I start having plot threads snap, players start losing emotional attachment to their PC's, and promising story lines die still born. Building back that level of depth takes time. A story based game can survive player death, but too much character turn over robs it of much depth and eventually begins to border on the ridiculous. Sure, we do get some RP oppurtunity out of the tragic death of a colleague, but its not exactly pure win. And quite simply, speaking as a player now, it's emotionally painful to lose a long established PC. It hurts.

I've run games where people have that connection to their characters. You almost feel bad when one of them fails, much less dies, or -even worse- is tortured to death. However, my game is far from hack and slash. Since it is so easy to be killed, the players rarely pick fights (though it depends on the character they are playing). We might go for 24 hours of actual playing time before a fight occurs, over the course of several sessions.

With that in mind, PCs death are exactly as I described them: a chance for a very good RP experience. Yes, the story is now altered. However, since the setting does not revolve around my PCs (even if the story does), it's very natural to have people come and leave the scene frequently, and adding another player is usually easy enough. Occasionally, a player does not make a character that works in a group game. The concept appeals to them, but his goals do not line up with the others. Or, worse yet, are openly opposed to them. He usually parts ways after a session or two, and the player has to make another character.

That's why I brought this question up. You are intelligent and creative, and I was curious how you could deal with PC death when you elevate their importance to such a degree. In my campaign, it's easy to accept faces coming and going, PCs included. The world is dangerous, people have different motives, and the residents of the worlds have learned to adapt to this.

In your game, it seems like one PC death can derail the plot, if they are as important as you say they are (Gandalf, or Ta'veren). If they can be replaced, I do not think they are quite as important, but maybe it's all subjective

Well, I'm not that emotionally invested in the future of my homebrew. You put in contingency plans in the event of a villain win. If in a certain year it happens that almost everyone in a couple hundred mile radius dies, and various other things happen that I won't reveal at this time, then well, that sounds like an interesting starting point for a new campaign and a nice peice of history to add to the world.

I'm in complete agreement with this sentiment, if not the specifics.

At any rate, I hope you aren't taking my questions as offensive in any way. I'm interested in how you deal with what I see as a potential problem. I know you probably can deal with it, and I like seeing your input. Thanks for the civil replies.

 

[Celebrim]

I compared them to Rand after your initial comparison to them being like the Ta'veren. Perhaps Mat or Perrin are more fitting comparisons.

The most obvious problem with making a comparison to Rand is that Rand as a character isn't merely more important than most NPC's, but that he's also more important than the other PC's. In a social game it just isn't generally acceptable for one character to hold that much spot light. Successful RPG's generally have a team based structure, and so must eschew the single protagonist model of most literature. My comparison to the concept of Ta'vaern was to the very concept itself, the idea that the universe was molding itself around you, conforming to your decisions and your presence in such a way that you couldn't help but be important. That is how I see my PC's; not as direct analogues for particular characters, but as critically important threads in the wheft of the universe.

When a PC dies, and is replaced by another PC that new PC by his very nature as being a PC was already a destined individual all along. The fallen PC was a destined individual, but his destiny was to go to this point and not necessarily any further. Because I can't see the future, because I'm telling story in both a linear fashion and without full control over the game, I can't gaurantee any particular outcome. So certain things become retroactively known to the participants as the story unfolds. In the case of Sturm, for example, his death and replacement doesn't actually in fact make him replaceable. No other character could have achieved what he achieved, and until the moment of his death the character who eventually carried on his work was not capable of carrying it. Sturm is still essential to the story even in his death. A PC that dies in the story is still essential to the story, regardless of whether someone comes along to carry on their work. Are they as central to the story as someone who doesn't die? Maybe and maybe not, but one of the rewards of playing well and not dying is that you role in the story is increased.

Boromir was strong, and was important in his own way. He was nowhere near as instrumental as Gandalf, who you compared them to a paragraph before this. Considering that, I don't think I downplayed his importance too much, when he is obviously not in line with the importance of the PCs.

But he could have been. We know that Frodo is important to the story because he succeeds (for certain values of success). We know from the beginning that he doesn't succeed by accident that there is a destiny being played out. But if Sam for example takes up Frodo's mantle, it doesn't diminish the story or the believability of the story, it merely makes it a different viable story. In fact, there is some reason to believe the gods of the Middle Earth do indeed have Sam along as a back up plan to Frodo, as the one other free person in middle earth who has a reasonable chance of carrying the ring to the Mountain. In the same fashion, the gods of my campaign world are neither all powerful or all knowing and if their plans are foiled then they too have plans within plans. All of that becomes the story.

In your game, it seems like one PC death can derail the plot, if they are as important as you say they are (Gandalf, or Ta'veren).

Concievably, it could. There are points in the most likely projectable path of play where character death could seriously derail the story I envision, not merely because of character's becoming highly important to the plot and depth of the story but for other reasons like the difficulty of adding a new PC to the game at a time when its difficult to explain the appearance of a new character. But ok, it's not like my plot is inflexible. If the campaign 'derails' as you put it, then its not hard to put back on track because it never had a single set of immovable rails to begin with. If the PC's lose, then instead of looking at this as failure, we can look at it as losing round 1, and instead of starting a new campaign from the point of Keeropus's triumph, maybe the surviving PC's now have to face Keeropus in the aftermath of the consequences of his victory. And that could be a good story too.

I'm not at all offended. I think alot of the problem is simply trying to explain a game when a demonstration would be far more descriptive. For example, I find your description of play rather baffling. I gather you are playing a low drama game with a lot of amateur theaterics and a high purity of role-play? I can't figure out what your stakes are, or what your conflicts are over if you neither engage in frequent combat nor do you have your PC's important to the setting. Do you play play for play's sake? How does your table cope with players overruling another players right to characterize? I have never heard of a sitaution where groups not only voted other characters 'off the island' but socially survived that sort of thing. Half the players I've ever met would be outraged if the other players tried to tell them what or how to play. How do you sustain a story line with an apparantly ever changing cast of faces? What do you mean by a story in this case? Do you have any sort of rising action at all? Do you have a central theme or conflict you are trying to resolve? Or your antoganists in fact more reoccuring than your protagonists? Do you ever even a real possiblity of denouement, and if not, why have you foresaken the thrills of wargaming and dungeon crawling for theaterics without even gaining the larger trappings of story?

 

[JamesonCourage]

[MAJOR SNIP] And that could be a good story too.

I totally agree, and see more where you're coming from. Not how I run my game, still, but I asked out of curiosity. Play what you like . Sounds like I'd play in your game, anyways.

I'm not at all offended. I think alot of the problem is simply trying to explain a game when a demonstration would be far more descriptive. For example, I find your description of play rather baffling.

I gather you are playing a low drama game with a lot of amateur theaterics and a high purity of role-play? I can't figure out what your stakes are, or what your conflicts are over if you neither engage in frequent combat nor do you have your PC's important to the setting.

"Low drama" is subjective. Roleplay is very important to us. However, the large majority of the time is the players interacting with the setting, rather than playing out long hours of in-game talks amongst themselves (unless they're planning for a battle, or some such other necessity).

Stakes? I don't feel there has to inherently be something akin to "the end of the world is coming, it's up to someone to stop it" in my campaign, though those types of things can happen.

The stakes are usually completely character-driven. If one of my players wants to advance in the noble court, he'll play the politics of the court, and the "stakes" are more of less his standing in the court. One of my players wants to get better armor and weapons? Low stakes, unless he decides to kill bandits and sell their ill-gotten gains. A player wants his character to avenge the death of his brother at the hands of assassins? The stakes are his life, and those of his comrades, while he tracks them down for his version of justice. These are the things my players engage in, and things that have occurred in my game.

PCs are not inherently important to the setting. They can affect the setting in profound ways, still. They have no right to, inherently, in my mind. No more than any NPC does.

Do you play play for play's sake?

I guess? We play to feel immersed. To have fun. To experience things in an imaginary realm.

How does your table cope with players overruling another players right to characterize? I have never heard of a sitaution where groups not only voted other characters 'off the island' but socially survived that sort of thing. Half the players I've ever met would be outraged if the other players tried to tell them what or how to play.

As I said, since it's character-driven, if goals do not align because one player made a character that opposes the other PCs, they find very little reason to realistically stay together, working together. The player who made a character that isn't a good fit for the party usually acknowledges this as a mistake, or lapse in consideration, and exits when he feels his character would realistically do so, rather than play him in such a way that goes against his concept.

The groups do not vote them out, by any means. They step aside if they feel their character would do so. It's akin to the players have a neutral-leaning-evil thief party in 3.X, and a PC thief dying. The new character really likes the idea of making a paladin, and makes one. He disagrees with the party, they disagree with him, and eventually they part ways. Of course, I'm not saying how any particular paladin would act, I'm just using an analogy to show that this situation is by no means a new situation. In my game, the guy with the "paladin" situation would say "I should have thought about party composition before making my character, that was my fault, guys. This new character will fit better, but give me some time to think what I want from him."

Lastly, as a group, we hate metagaming. Despise it. If any of us feels it's happening, we usually mention it. Them to me, me to them, or one of the players to another player. We usually have a short discussion, reasoning behind said questionable action is briefly discussed, everyone feels better after action changes or justifiably stays the same, and we move on. It's works for us, and I'm not saying that the majority of people should play this way.

How do you sustain a story line with an apparantly ever changing cast of faces? What do you mean by a story in this case?

Well, right now the players are residing inside Terres, where two players are part of the noble court, one as a performer (and manager of the other performers), and one as a court defender. Two other players were mercenaries, and had worked with the courts for various odd jobs for about 11 months. Training nobles from the elven mercenary, or going and driving off bandits with any local volunteers they could get, with full rights to the salvage.

One of the players (human mercenary) has a special ability. When he attacks with his sword or axe, ice forms, potentially maiming his foes. The king had this PC arrested on behalf of a well known organization on the continent (the players worked for them for a while). The organization is out to stop all harmful supernatural influence, and to fight off demonic forces wherever they are. After about four weeks, the PC was turned over, and Roekellen -the man in charge of the organization- banished the PC from the continent he and his band protect. He would normally imprison or execute such a violent ability, though he feels that this PC was a friend, and even gave him coin for ships passage. The elven mercenary left with the human (player choice, he had no reason to do so unless he wanted to).

The two players are okay with making new characters, and so they are. They are making characters with ties to the court in Terres, including backgrounds with the other two PCs. They are planning on going after the bandits that escaped and taunted the two remaining, and on behalf of the crown. They also wish to stop these bandits who are terrorizing the countryside now that this large bandit force seems to openly oppose the crown again.

And so the story focus shifts from two of the PCs, to two new PCs. The setting is the same, the stakes are as character driven as always. The setting changes as PCs or NPCs change it. But the story focus follows the characters, even if the setting was not made to bend to them inherently.

Do you have any sort of rising action at all? Do you have a central theme or conflict you are trying to resolve? Or your antoganists in fact more reoccuring than your protagonists?

The action is usually based on character motivation, or interaction with "background" setting. Some demonic forces of Sayreshi are attempting to once again break their former masters free of their bonds. This was nearly done once, and past PCs strengthened the bonds on one such Imprisoned. However, the current demonic rulers of Sayreshi (little better than warlords) seek to stop the other demonic forces, while also playing political chess with one another.

The Imprisoned can still communicate through their bonds, they just cannot act themselves. They have their lieutenants give orders to loyalists, and are attempting to fight the other demonic warlords, while simultaneously trying to free themselves, as well as sending demons to invade specific important locations on the Mortal Realm.

The continent the players are on had the demonic forces driven off, though it holds little strategic value. Foraldren, the home continent of the dwarves, elves, and trolls, is being invaded in a much more focused way, as the demonic forces attempt to breach the Gates of Neecro and capture the Everlasting Song, which is the force that gives the eight immortal races their immortality. Different PCs defended this, at one point, helping to fight back the massive forces of the demonic horde, while the powerful demons flew overhead and into the more powerful NPC spellcasters and warriors.

Meanwhile, on Param, a predominantly human continent, a chess game is going on with former students of one particular circle of magicians. Half of these students broke off to serve the demonic forces for some reason, while the other half hides, attempting to stop their advances as best they can. This is, of course, simultaneous with any other politics that the nations are engaging in: the city of Malinthus being invaded by the three southern nations, as it is still contested land, and the volcanic soil is sought after; the king of Therstat leaving his second eldest son to rule, even though he openly favored his eldest, and the eldest was groomed to rule.

The players find themselves in the midst of many different possible stories, all within the same setting. Their characters are invested in some, and not in others. They currently plan on engaging the bandits in Terres on Utopitres (the continent they are currently on), while also looking to advance in the court, for political power, and possibly to speak out in defense of magic as a tool, usable for either good or evil, and against this organization. One PC in particular has the kings ear (the court defender, who recently saves the heirs life), though he is the least likely to speak against the crown, as he is the most loyal, even when he disagrees with the decisions made.

Everything is character driven within the setting. The PCs can become instrumental in stopping the Imprisoned from being released, if they pursue it, and if they are successful. They may have no interest in that at all, though if it succeeds (which it may or may not do with or without PC intervention), then they might eventually concern themselves with it, when demonic forces ask them to kneel and serve. If the Imprisoned fail, they will probably forget about it.

Do you ever even a real possiblity of denouement, and if not, why have you foresaken the thrills of wargaming and dungeon crawling for theaterics without even gaining the larger trappings of story?

There is no end, no. There is only the world(s). Thrills are subjective, and dungeon crawling leaves a distinctively bad flavor in our mouths.

Also, I'm quite confident in my story. I have heard nothing but compliments on the complexities, the near-constant accurate analysis of the game world. I feel no fear whatsoever that our story is lacking, and I am confident stating that thrills are had at my table.

The world is not one big story to me. The players are the most important story, because that's who we're dealing with. They matter most to use, emotionally and intellectually. However, it does not mean that their actions inherently change the makeup of the setting. They can definitely change the setting, but the story of these characters are more important to us.

Sorry for the long reply. I hope I clarified some questions you had.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The game revolves around the PCs, as they are very literally the reason the game exists.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Could you expound upon this a little? I am not quite sure that I see, or understand, the difference. The PCs are the main characters because the players chose to play them; the PCs are awesome because the game rules allow them to do "awesome things."

What degree of awesomeness is open to the PCs and not to NPCs? If the PCs are inherently exceptional, I like that to be at least in part because of some things that people in the world can acknowledge. Like if all PCs have better stats, max HP at first level, and some aspect of "luck points" or whatever, and NPCs do not have this, my suspension of disbelief only works to a point. If the PC advantages are really glaring, I'm happier if there is some in-world explanation like "They are the Chosen of Fate," or "They are god-blooded," or "They were blessed and cursed by the Fair Folk." Cursed, I include, as I consider it quite ridiculous when people assume that NPCs encounter monsters anywhere near as often as the Wandering Monster tables would suggest for settled lands.

In "The PCs are awesome because they are the main characters," the PCs have superior luck and ability to succeed because they are the ones at the center of the story. It isn't explained in-world because "main character" isn't something the people in the world can understand. Consider Stargate SG-1. I'm in Season Six, and I think there are 20 teams? Nineteen of which are utterly useless compared to SG-1. Nineteen of which have never thwarted a single Gou'ald plot, nineteen of which suffer much higher casualties. SG-1 was simply the first, not the elite to which they promote the best of everybody available, but they are SO much better that it strains credulity. The in-world assumption would be that other military officers might be as able as Jack or (nearly) as smart as Sam, right? But nobody in this world ever comments on how far above everyone else SG-1 is, because it's just a storytelling trope. It's a fun show, just has a trope that I don't want in an RPG. By contrast, consider the comic book series The Avengers. They are supposed to be Earth's Mightiest Heroes, assembled to deal with various threats. Why are the main characters so capable? They wouldn't have made it onto the team if they weren't. They are exceptional in ways that people within the world can understand. Or consider Riddick in Pitch Black. He's also extraordinary, but this is known and acknowledged in-world. The story in this case is about somebody who is exceptional in his world.

So: I like the PCs to be mostly like everybody else (or with small enough advantages that it isn't glaring), or, if they have some serious inherent advantages, an in-world acknowledgment and explanation of that. Now, if the PCs are just exceptional by virtue of being higher level, that's different than inherent advantages, as the implication is that any human in the world has the potential for that sort of accomplishment, it's just that most don't risk life and limb to develop it.