Movies, Novels, Heroes and D&D.

[ForeverSlayer]

I've been reading the various threads here on Enworld and the Wizard's websites and I have noticed a growing trend with people about being a hero like in a novel and in the movies and the hero always wins in the end so they feel like their characters should as well.

Well I just want to say that "plot armor" should not protect anyone when it comes to playing D&D. Now if you run that type of game then then should be an option but it should not be the default of the system. I really don't understand where this attitude came from.

Movies keep main characters around because of money. If they three Indiana Jones movies lined up why would you kill him in the first one? Same goes with novels. Movies are made and novels are written to entertain and make money, also their stories are already planned out. The movie will never change no matter what happens nor will the novel. You can read that novel 500 hundred times and the ending and what happens in between will always be the same.

D&D is different to this because a player's choices, actions and dice rolls write the story as it goes along. I've been gaming for many years and while I write stories for my games, I write them very loosely and I give them just a skeleton while the PC's and their actions fill in that skeleton.

I've even seen people talk about getting rid of everything that they feel is mundane and I don't understand this either. What is mundane to one person may not be mundane to another.

I read latest L&L and I feel like all options should be used when it comes to climbing because every DM doesn't make their encounters the same. I feel like this goes along with the "hero syndrome". I get the feeling that people feel like climbing a ladder is too easy for a hero to waste their time on and I feel this is false.

Your story as a hero should be finished when that character hits the last level they plan on going to whether it's 15, 20 or all the way to 30. Walking around with "plot armor" that you granted yourself and then expect your DM to adhere to because it wouldn't be "heroic" to die from a bad roll is not my idea of D&D. Sounds like these people need to play a diceless game where the story determines what happens and nothing else.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Those people want to have fun and having their character die anti-climatically isn't all that fun to said people. I can sympathise and really, is it such a big deal if the characters have "plot armour"? Wouldn't you rather people be satisfied and not begrudge a game because on a bad die roll?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Those people want to have fun and having their character die anti-climatically isn't all that fun to said people. I can sympathise and really, is it such a big deal if the characters have "plot armour"? Wouldn't you rather people be satisfied and not begrudge a game because on a bad die roll?

Then what's the point in having a game with dice? There are already games that appeal to this out there.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Then what's the point in having a game with dice? There are already games that appeal to this out there.

I really don't see this as a dichotomy. Dice can be used in a number of ways that don't facilitate a random, uncaring death for a PC.

Dramatic tension being the most obvious, at least to me.

 

[Quickleaf]

I like the old school spirit your exemplifying, but I also disagree.

Well I just want to say that "plot armor" should not protect anyone when it comes to playing D&D. Now if you run that type of game then then should be an option but it should not be the default of the system. I really don't understand where this attitude came from.

Plot armor is great! It's called raise dead

By "default plot armor" do you mean how resilient 4e PCs can be in many (but not all) games?

I get the feeling that people feel like climbing a ladder is too easy for a hero to waste their time on and I feel this is false.

You mean whether or not a roll needs to be made? Do most people you know have trouble climbing ladders? It should be easy in the game because it is easy. Now if it's a fricking melting ladder being swallowed by rising lava, then yeah a check makes sense...

Your story as a hero should be finished when that character hits the last level they plan on going to whether it's 15, 20 or all the way to 30. Walking around with "plot armor" that you granted yourself and then expect your DM to adhere to because it wouldn't be "heroic" to die from a bad roll is not my idea of D&D. Sounds like these people need to play a diceless game where the story determines what happens and nothing else.

Like many gamers I've played with, you seem to assume that the only end game state with teeth is death. That's not the case in my games, where failing at a quest is the more potent end game. Sure death might mean failing at a quest (though not necessarily), but there are lots of other ways the quest can go south that I find more engaging.

 

[GreyLord]

Plot armor, not all movies have it for the heroes.

Star Wars - Obi Wan dies, biggs dies, Luke's only relatives...die

Empire Strikes Back - Heroes get beaten pretty solidly, Han gets frozen, luke takes a critical hit (or critical fumble however you see it) and loses a hand...etc.

Fellowship of the Ring - Gandalf dies/well...at least gets dragged down to who knows where...Boromir dies, merry and Pippen captured.

Back to the Future part 2 - Kid is stranded in 1955...all alone

X-men 2 - Jean Grey dies, one of the heroes turns bad guy

X-men 3 - Jean Grey dies yet again (I think), Cyclops dies

X-men origins - Darwin dies, Magneto turns completely evil, Xavier's "sister" turns evil

Most of those ARE part of the trilogies and the good guys MAY win at the end...but not ALL of them get to that end...and some of them have the good guys losing at the time the movie ends.

So, even in hollywood there's no assurance that you'll survive to see the good end. Hopefully the rest of your party will however.

 

[KarinsDad]

I get the feeling that people feel like climbing a ladder is too easy for a hero to waste their time on and I feel this is false.

Thirty years ago, Dragon Magazine ran a survey where one of the questions was something to the effect of "What kind of PC do you like to play?". One of the multiple choice answers was something like:

In real life, I can trip over a garbage can. I want my Dwarven Fighter in Platemail to leap over a fence and keep going.

Some players enjoy playing really HEROIC HEROES. And that's cool.

I do agree with you that when it comes to bad things that happen to a player's PC, "you get what you get and you don't throw a fit". Death is part of the game. PCs are not guaranteed to survive. Plot armor should not exist beyond Raise Dead.

But on the other hand, as PCs level up, there starts to be lower challenges which just aren't challenges anymore. A ladder at level one during the stress of combat might require a Climb check, but once the PCs get near Paragon, this should no longer be required.

 

[SoulsFury]

I DM PBP, and I prefer not to kill of my PCs. Why? Because finding new, reliable PBP players is hard. Creating new characters takes time as well. My players know that they can die. I will kill off a player if they make a completely stupid move. However, if the whole group makes a stupid move, I'm not going to kill them off. For instance, my genius fighter took it upon herself to climb onto the back of a sleeping tarrasque at level 5. The whole group followed. Had she went alone, I would have killed her off. Since the whole group went, I punished them by trapping them in the Shadowfell and they won't successfully complete their original mission. They are now on a different mission and have no clue they are even on it yet, nor do they know where (and also in this case, WHEN) they are. They will return to their world and realize they are several years in the future and were known as martyrs (they sent a bat messenger to warn the towns folk of the tarrasque).

 

[Neverfate]

I don't really see the point of this thread. D&D is about tailoring the game to what your players enjoy. That's like saying the thread on here about the group of players that play non-combative 4E are "doing it wrong". D&D is primarily a game of pretend. Some players want to be Indiana Jones (a character that explores death trap riddled dungeons and always survives. . . even nuclear bombs) and other players want a politically charged and intriguing game that relies on plot development rather than combat development.

It seems to me you're not understanding the subjectivity of D&D or movies or novels/stories/etc. There is a ridiculous amount of things you can do with 4th Edition D&D. Probably the same amount you could do with previous edition, but it's a bit easier to set up this time around.

I don't want to make assumptions, but I'd say a large amount of D&D 4th Ed players are there to "kick ass" so to speak. A lot of action movies are like that. The Transporter, Fast and the Furious, Rambo (all 4 of them) and even the Terminator are always exceptionally dumb, but entertaining movies that take away the risk of death in order to show crazy stunts, action and explosions. If Rambo dies . . . well then that's kind of boring. Who's going to shoot the -insert communist controlled villains here- if not him?

It's really a matter of taste. It's also a matter of talking about what you (the DM) and what the players want from the experience (whether a single game or a campaign). There should be a middle ground probably, but sometimes it's a give and take.

 

[S'mon]

The Terminator?!
Lots of people want to play Kyle Reese type PCs, and not to " take away the risk of death in order to show crazy stunts, action and explosions"...