Do your PCs lead a charmed life?

[clockworkjoe]

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.......

I understand what you mean, but to me I feel completely opposite about this. This is a game. However, the game is meaningless if there is no risk to a character's actions. I really get bored at the type of games you describe where PCs can almost never die or where success is more or less determined by GM fiat.

To me, that isn't a game; it's a badly written play and I'm stuck improvising the dialogue. The story has already been determined. Nothing will change that.

The important thing is that the random element of D&D makes it exciting. No one knows if the PCs will succeed or fail until it actually happens. No one can tell how the story will wind up until we get there. And the story that does happen because someone died of a random encounter and an unexpected detour took place makes it VASTLY superior to anything totally planned.

The problem with the playing style you advocate is that it metagames on a very basic level. The players KNOW that they will not die so the PCs act differently than if they really were at risk.

D&D is vastly more rewarding when there is risk involved. All games are better off when the outcome is not predetermined.

 

[Spatula]

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 don't think that's what Merak's saying. Or maybe it is. I'd be bored by your planning session as well, but mainly because the execution went off without a hitch. Where's the fun in that? I want to match wits with intelligent villians, be forced to think on my feet to deal with unforseen events, and above all be faced with the possibility of failure. I want to be challenged. That doesn't mean I like spending the entire game session planning, I'd rather be killing bad guys. But only if they don't fall over the first time they're hit, or make unreasonable mistakes for the PCs to take advantage of, or otherwise not pose any real threat.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I don't think that's what Merak's saying. Or maybe it is. I'd be bored by your planning session as well, but mainly because the execution went off without a hitch. Where's the fun in that? I want to match wits with intelligent villians, be forced to think on my feet to deal with unforseen events, and above all be faced with the possibility of failure. I want to be challenged. That doesn't mean I like spending the entire game session planning, I'd rather be killing bad guys. But only if they don't fall over the first time they're hit, or make unreasonable mistakes for the PCs to take advantage of, or otherwise not pose any real threat.

I think d4's got me just about pegged. I love a good plan, a battle of wits between the players and their opponents. I make up exhaustive contingency plans for my villians ahead of time, and like to excuse myself from the table during the PCs planning sessions so I'm not corrupted by foreknowlege of their plan. Sometimes their plan works brilliently, and sometimes it doesn't.
There's nothing I love more than a good battle of wits. On the computer, I like to play strategy games with the AI cranked up, not action games with hordes of easily defeated enemies swarming me.

It's so shocking and disapointing to see there are people in the world who are so different from me!

 

[d4]

I understand what you mean, but to me I feel completely opposite about this. This is a game. However, the game is meaningless if there is no risk to a character's actions. I really get bored at the type of games you describe where PCs can almost never die or where success is more or less determined by GM fiat.

i guess you didn't really read what i posted. i NEVER said there was no risk, no consequences, or that success was pre-determined.

all i said was that PCs had little to fear from death.

they can still fail.

they still risk many, many things besides their lives -- their reputations, their loved ones, their possessions, their honor, and so on.

it is not pre-determined whether or not they will succeed or fail -- they still need to work hard for their victories.

the ONLY difference is that if they fail, i won't kill them. their reputations may be destroyed, their loved ones killed or abducted, their prized possessions taken away, their honor called into question -- yes, i've done those things. but kill them? no.

i just don't understand where you take that and translate it into "there is no risk" and everything is determined by "GM fiat." please do not misrepresent my position.

from many conversations i've had on this subject, it seems that many of the people who disagree with my playing style have the inability to recognize any kind of risk or failure other than death. when i say the PCs do not need to fear death, they automatically assume there is no risk at all. that's just ludicrous.

The problem with the playing style you advocate is that it metagames on a very basic level. The players KNOW that they will not die so the PCs act differently than if they really were at risk.

to some extent, yes, it does change player behavior. it makes them more reckless and willing to face challenges. and that's exactly what i want!

on the other hand, a player who cannot separate their own (player) knowledge that i as GM am unwilling to kill their character from their character's knowledge of risks and consequences is NOT welcome in my games.

if i ever had a player who said, "well, i'm just going to walk off this cliff, because i know the GM won't kill my character." -- guess what would happen? no, he wouldn't be making up a new character; he'd be told he wasn't welcome in my game any more. THAT level of metagaming is wrong. luckily, as i said, i've never encountered a player like that in my 20+ years of GMing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My PC's are definately a cut above the normal NPC's, and I like it that way -- it gives something of a reason we're focusing on this party, rather than on Farmer Joe and his Epic Struggle with Ground Squirrels.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

i have the same style when i'm GMing. i like the PCs to be larger-than-life action movie heroes.

[snip]

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?"

I understand both your points and Merak's. I do like PCs to be better than equal-level humanoid NPCs, as well as immune to random unavoidable death (e.g. heart attack, plague, random encounter with mind flayer at level 2). But I do like a real challenge (monsters rather than NPCs, or foes that are greater in number, higher level, or use poison or other cheats), and I do like a chance of death.

I quote your post above for this reason - often, in really cool action movies, major characters *do* die, whether through treachery or overwhelming odds. "They Live" comes to mind, as do "Braveheart," "The Princess Bride," "Gladiator," "Fellowship of the Ring," and "Conan the Barbarian."

I would also say, I don't like having lots of high-level NPCs in a world, either as a player or as a DM. Makes the PCs seem irrelevant. After 11th level or so (legendary status as per the Legend Lore spell), I'd be tempted as a DM to basically say "That's it, you're the greatest heroes in the known world. There are some bad guys of higher level who keep each other in check, and of course dragons, demons, giants, and monsters, but there are no higher-level versions of you on this plane. You are the best and people know it... be prepared to deal with that."

I also favor a rare-NPC-magic world where the PCs have almost-standard level of magic (thereby standing out), and who at high levels find many of their challenges in outer planes, against nonhuman opponents, or in the political sphere.

 

[d4]

I quote your post above for this reason - often, in really cool action movies, major characters *do* die, whether through treachery or overwhelming odds. "They Live" comes to mind, as do "Braveheart," "The Princess Bride," "Gladiator," "Fellowship of the Ring," and "Conan the Barbarian."

ok, i knew someone was going to bring this up.

in those movies, one of three things is happening:

a) the main character dies but comes back to life (Princess Bride, Gandalf in LOTR)

b) the main character dies at the end of the movie (i.e., end of the campaign) (Gladiator)

c) if the character dies midway through the movie and doesn't come back, he must've been an NPC, or the player got bored and decided he wanted to play something else. (player decides to switch out Boromir for Eowyn)

another point is generally in books and movies, a major character's death is meaningful. to use LOTR as an example, Gandalf dies holding back the Balrog so the Fellowship can escape. Boromir gives his life (in vain it turns out) to protect Merry & Pippin, to assuage his guilt for driving off Frodo.

i have no problem with those kinds of deaths. it's the deaths from random encounters in Room 5 of the dungeon that i have a problem with.

i just don't think Sam dying from dysentery in the Dead Marshes, or Pippin falling into a pit trap in Moria, or Legolas getting critted by a random orc warrior at Helm's Deep, or Frodo failing a Fort save against Shelob's lethal poison would add anything to the story, nor do i think similar things add anything to the game.

 

[Lokishadow]

Gritty...but Heroic

I like all the things you like. And I like to drive that home to my players.

In short, you and I like 1st edition.

Thus, a number of revisions on my part, as DM.

Bigger XP requirements. The simplest way to drive home how valuable those levels are. Of course, that required some multi-classing rules retooling. I won't go into too much detail, but suffice it to say that if you read the Unearthed Arcana rules for Gestalt characters, and jack up the XP requirements, you've got a good idea of how I do multi-classing. Or, they can dual-class, similarly to old 1st ed. games.

How does this help? Well, every one of my ecounter tables has at least a 1% chance of producing a dragon. Who's age category is then randomly determined. Of course, these situations always bow to the needs of the story. If the PC's are poking around in a centuries-buried tomb, there probably won't be a dragon in there. But there could very well be a lich. Or an illithid. And their flunkies, and bodyguards, and friends, and allies, etc. In short, if the PC's stick their noses where they have no business sticking their noses, said noses, and the heads they are attached to, will probably get removed.

This initially ticked off my players to no end. Until the first wizard picked up 7th level, they really began to appreciate their 4th level spells.

I made this decision because of a 1st edition game I once played. With all the options available to PC's, you can expect them to handle almost anything, at least by the skin of their teeth. My group, with an average level of 7th, went poking around in a tomb. What did we find? Why, a 21st level lich wizard, of course!

And we killed it with only one casualty. Meaning one death. Not that the rest of us weren't about to bite it. If we hadn't gotten off a critical hit with a Spear of Obliteration, the lich would have nuked us with a 21-die fireball (no die caps in 1st edition, remember?).

Give your PC's some nice toys, give them some tools, and have at them. They'll surprise you.

 

[clockworkjoe]

i guess you didn't really read what i posted. i NEVER said there was no risk, no consequences, or that success was pre-determined.

all i said was that PCs had little to fear from death.

they can still fail.

they still risk many, many things besides their lives -- their reputations, their loved ones, their possessions, their honor, and so on.

it is not pre-determined whether or not they will succeed or fail -- they still need to work hard for their victories.

...

to some extent, yes, it does change player behavior. it makes them more reckless and willing to face challenges. and that's exactly what i want!

on the other hand, a player who cannot separate their own (player) knowledge that i as GM am unwilling to kill their character from their character's knowledge of risks and consequences is NOT welcome in my games.

...

Giving the PCs any form of plot immunity stills breaks the suspension of disbelief that I think is important to a game like D&D. It's like seeing the boom mic at the top of the screen for a few seconds in a movie. It reminds you that you're watching a movie and distracts you from the story.

I have played several games of that type in the past, which is why I don't like them anymore. In my experience, they tend to take the structure of a 'choose your own adventure' where the players are given a limited set of options and must choose among them, if they are even given real options. Players that make a 'wrong' choice are punished (lose reputation/items etc.) but are never killed since that would break the GM's plot apart. The GM basically writes a story about them and they are more or less along for the ride. This type of GM tends to be pretty inflexible about sudden changes of pace (PC 1: Forget about the elves. I want to see the Mountains of Zondar! PC 2: Yeah, the elves suck. PC 3-5: ok. GM: The elves bar you from leaving and the mountains of Zondar fall off the face of the earth) and may railroad the players pretty frequently.

To me, roleplaying is a game about telling a story that no one knows before it happens in the game. More importantly, the best stories happen in a consisent world mediated by the GM that the player characters inhabit. Generally speaking, the less a GM does in terms of metagaming or plot management PERIOD the better. Let the players play the game. The story of every single campaign should be whatever the players do.

So, the more I think about it, the more I oppose basically every form of GM plot management. Let the PCs do whatever they want, and let the dice fall where they may. If the players are so neurotic that a PC death affects them more emotionally than say losing a game of pickup basketball, that player probably has bigger problems than worrying about playing a game.

Obviously, this has just been my own experience, but I relish games where the dice are honest. It's more interesting and more fun than games run by GM fiat (and any game where a player can never ever die is run by GM fiat, period).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

another point is generally in books and movies, a major character's death is meaningful. to use LOTR as an example, Gandalf dies holding back the Balrog so the Fellowship can escape. Boromir gives his life (in vain it turns out) to protect Merry & Pippin, to assuage his guilt for driving off Frodo.

There are two kinds of meaningful deaths: certain death and near-certain death.
The first: the PCs and freed hostages are fleeing the orc fortress. If someone cuts the portcullis chain, they can delay the orcs long enough for the rest of the PCs to escape, but that person will be trapped on the inside with twenty orc bezerkers rushing him. I used this, it was awesome, the players loved it. The sacrificed character's son was among the hostages being freed. (Or: the dwarven cleric, battling the drow queen deep under the mountain, is at the end of his strength and casts Earthquake, burying them both)

The second: PCs assault the enemy army, knowing that the odds are heavily against them and they might not all make it back. Some PCs die in the fight, but there is no specific decision to die.