Do your PCs lead a charmed life?

[the Jester]

The pcs die a lot in my campaign, if that's what you're asking.

 

[iwatt]

I like games where, from the perspective of the campaign world, the PCs are treated the same as NPCs.

I Like running Heroic (Achilles, Robin Hood, Merlin, etc) froups of PCs alot. But I'd like to run one of these "grittier" campaigns once, just to get another feel. The problem is of course getting the right players. The campaign you mention requires very competent players that don't forget they had Item X or to use feat Y, and that use tactics correctly. Some groups I play with develop really good tactics that always fall out the window during combat beacuse they don't follow the PLAN. As a DM it's really hard to DM for them (it's no fun for me having to figure out a plausible way for their new PCs to join the party)There are just so many cousins, childhood friends, rescued prisonerrs, etc.. stories you can use before ity becomes cheesy

By the way, I think to run these "grittier" campaigns it behoofs the DM to not assign the PCs any Save the World Missions. If the PCs have to save the world they "have" to be a cut above normal. And don't use the hobbits in LOTR as a counterexample. Frodo had the greates willpower in Middle-Earth, except for Sauron himself. Sam was the Bravest/most Loyal sidekick you could ever wish for. And the other two were plain hobbits until they drank the Ent Water. Then they became extraordinary Hobbits. Of the 4, Sam was the least powerful. But he had improved critical (frying pan)

 

[MerakSpielman]

Of the 4, Sam was the least powerful. But he had improved critical (frying pan)

But he had the Gardener PrC, which cannot be underestimated.

 

[shilsen]

Yes, my PCs tend to have higher stats and better equipment than NPCs of the same level. But they also tend to get knocked around, chased, tortured, and often killed by weaker enemies. So I don't think "charmed" would be the best way to describe their lives.

 

[kigmatzomat]

We all have different styles of playing, and that's cool, ya know? But I've been wondering how many of you like the same kind of game I like. I like games where, from the perspective of the campaign world, the PCs are treated the same as NPCs.

Yup, that would be my game. IMC, ~98% of the populace are good little NPC classes with Adepts and Warriors being the most common professional "adventurer" (read: "someone who's life involves personal risk"). Characters with PC classes are the exceptional ones who have talent and an innate knack. Other than recent changes of fortune, a player's Fighter 16 will have the same level of loot as the Fighter 16 who acts as the Duke's personal champion and stats generated in a similar fashion.

I like games where sometimes the bad guy wins becuase you couldn't figure out how to stop him. And you just have to deal with the new situation.
Perhaps a necromancer is going to destroy the kingdom, and the PCs fail to uncover a vital clue. Is reality altered to give them another chance, or does the necromancer destroy the kingdom because they failed?

Lordy, no. Why, my players recently released a super demon that unleashed a hundred million undead on their world. Of course, by being high-profile they are involved in the events in a greater way than any other mook, but still the bad things happen.

On the consequences scale the party was in the Royal city when a riot broke out between religious groups. The guard was called out and the halfling ranger follows from the rooftops. The guard form up ranks and begin advancing slowly while the ranger goes ahead and begins firing arrows at those clerics summoning creatures willy-nilly. When the guard's spellcasters arrive, the ranger is held along with most of the other troublemakers, imprisoned, his gear impounded, and kept in prison for ~2 days awaiting arraignment. Once tried (a hallowed area with a zone of truth) he's fined for interfering when he knew the guard was onsite without family, personal property, or other personal interests to defend. He's also forbidden to have weapons within the city walls for a period of 1 year. Had he targeted anyone except those that were causing wholesale chaos it would have been much worse.

He was rather miffed ("But....I'm a hero!!!") but c'est la vie. Follow the guard over a mile to *find* the fracas and you get in trouble. Had he introduced himself to the guardsmen he might have been allowed to help and been regarded as a hero but instead he was a hothead. The people who were just defending themselves/ family/ property were released and in some cases provided reparations from the collected fines.

 

[AIM-54]

I prefer a grittier campaign style myself. I like for there to be a significant element of danger and I find that typical D&D campaigns tend to lack that. Once you hit about 10th level, there are creatures and such that one can "laugh off" as it were, because you're powerful enough to take them without too much trouble. I want the paranoia of knowing that guy on the street might pose just as much of a threat as the highly trained evil minion. I agree that these types of scenarios should not include a "save the world" aspect as mentioned earlier. It also requires the right group and probably a few stops and starts to get into it. It takes a certain type of player to enjoy the higher danger level from "lesser" opponents and recognize that sometimes the gods just don't want you to live. Random encounters should probably be monitored closely...I once had a DM who got a PK with a random encounter and that was not any fun at all...and I like a grittier style! But if a no-name character kills a PC during a PC initiated action...I think them's the breaks. It sucks sometimes, sure, but it should only take one or two of those before the PC's learn they really do need to be more careful.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Thanee]

Sam was the least powerful.

You mean that Sam, who singlehandedly defeated Shelob?

Bye
Thanee

 

[iwatt]

You mean that Sam, who singlehandedly defeated Shelob?

Bye
Thanee

I guess that was one of those cases when a critical hit swings the balance of a fight.

Actually I meant least powerful in relative terms. He's the real hero in my book (and not beacuse of the Shelob fight).

 

[d4]

Hey Merak! you might recall from past threads on this topic that you and i have completely opposite styles of gaming.

the main reason why i game is for stress relief.

the paranoia, fear of death and loss, painstaking strategizing and planning, and "gritty" feel that you enjoy so much is exactly antithetical to why i play the game. i would be bored and frustrated in the types of games you enjoy, as you would be in mine.

basically, things that increase the stress or tension of the game turn me off and make me lose interest very, very quickly. remember, i game to relieve stress, not to feel more of it. i know there are people who thrive on stress and feel energized by it, but i'm not one of them. this is also why i refuse to play horror RPGs.

here's a good example, from two different groups i've played in. in both groups, there came a time when we needed to assault a heavily-defended enemy stronghold.

in the first group, the other players spent over three hours during the session to minutely plan out the attack. every contingency was carefully discussed and weighed, and in the end, after much conversation, a beautiful assault plan was drawn up. we then proceeded to attack the stronghold. due to our brilliant tactics, we quickly overwhelmed the enemies in about twenty minutes of playing. due to our good planning, we were able to get the drop on the big boss guy and took him out in a round before he even spotted us. it was clean, quick, and executed flawlessly.

i was bored to tears through the whole thing, and felt cheated out of what could've been a fun and exciting combat scene. the whole thing felt very anti-climactic to me.

in the second group, we talked it over for about five minutes and realized none of us could think of a good plan to assault the stronghold with. someone suggested, "Heck, let's just bum-rush the front door!"

that's what we did. it took us about an hour or so of playing to fight our way through the stronghold, fighting mooks at every turn, slashing our way through hordes of enemies until we finally came to the big boss guy. a climactic final battle ensued, and after much chaos, we were finally victorious.

i had a blast. we didn't waste any time on the "boring" planning, and just jumped straight to the action. and instead of having an anti-climactic ending, we had a major combat at the end that really finished the session off with a bang.

that, IMO, is the essential difference in our play styles. it seems (and i don't want to put words in your mouth, this is just my assumption) you get enjoyment out of the planning, whereas i get enjoyment out of the action.

i have the same style when i'm GMing. i like the PCs to be larger-than-life action movie heroes. i don't have PCs arbitrarily die in my games. the only way a PC would die in one of my campaigns was if he did something really, really stupid and brought it on himself. fortunately, in my 20+ years of GMing, i have never had a player that stupid. (yes, that means i've never had a PC die in one of my games. ever.)

i don't like my games to be realistic; i like them to be cinematic. when wondering about what should happen next, my mantra is not "What would be the realistic consequences of this?" -- instead, it's "What would make a good story or kick-ass movie scene?"

this is not to say that the PC can act as they please with no consequences. yes, the fear of death has been eliminated almost completely. but there are far, far more dire consequences one can enact on a PC than just simple death. in some cases, letting them die is letting them get off easy.

for example, which is worse?

ok, you failed to stop the evil necromancer and he just blasted the entire kingdom into rubble. you're all dead. make up new characters.

or...

ok, you failed to stop the evil necromancer and he just blasted the entire kingdom into rubble. but you guys managed to survive somehow. now you must live the rest of your lives knowing that you failed, that all your loved ones are dead, and that everyone in the world knows it was your fault this great tragedy happened. deal with that, punk.

i would argue that it's the first group that suffered no consequences. sure, they all died. but then they just went and made new characters who have no guilt and no repercussions from the event. whereas the characters in the second group are going to have to live with it for the rest of their (in-game) lives.

 

[jasper]

the pcs are stars of the show. Sometime the show is a drama, sometimes it is comedy, sometimes something else. However some stars contract may not be renewed for the next season.

On the avg when combat has been heavy. Dead PC every 3 sessions and one totatlly dead pc after 6 to 7 session due either player wanting new pc or any no clerics high enough, near enough, or willing enough.

Gee so your Pc flumbled a roll three times. The villian laughs as he deals you the second critical. After all the PC laugh when they were doing crits to the monster last week.

I will occasionally reduce the damage on the pc if looks like a TPK but my group knows that a TPK is possible.

In fact one gamer got mad recently when I told her the pc could not be raised. She complained I had raised pcs 5 times in the city. I pointed out to her twice the city used a resurrection scroll to raise the pc. 3 times the party made back to the city for 10th level cleric could raise the pc. The city was now looking into getting more resurrections scrolls and the highest cleric was asking her superiors to send a more qualified inidividual to support the party. Plus in about 5 more session the group would either match or exceed the 10th level session.