Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[The Shadow]

Drama doesn't figure much in our games, this is true; mostly because none of us are really interested in all the angst etc. that comes with that territory But it does often arise in one way: romances etc. between PCs or between PCs and NPCs.

So, 'drama' = 'angst'? Or at most 'romance'? Somebody go tell Shakespeare, he's got it all wrong! (To be sure, angst and romance have their place in drama - Hamlet and the comedies come to mind - but that's not the whole of it by a long shot.)

But story does. And the PCs are first and foremost the protagonists. BUT: here's the difference: the PCs are the protagonists not in themselves, but as the party they comprise; and the story that figures prominently is the story of the party as a whole.

You state these things as if they're laws of nature, but they aren't. At most they are true for your game. Which is fine, but I'd appreciate you not assuming they must be true for every game.

If your goal is to emulate the experience of being characters like these in their fictional universes, IMO you cannot give them total plot immunity.

Again, where does this idea come from that 'your character will not die meaninglessly' equates to 'total plot immunity'? It just ain't so. Nobody I've ever heard of plays a Teflon character to whom nothing bad can happen.

And yes, I can keep my play of the character separate from my knowledge that he's not going to die, just like plenty of gamers can keep it separate from their knowledge of his hit point total. It's not difficult in the slightest.

Indeed, and I agree. But the howls of player-side protest that'd come if anyone tried to put something like this in...yeah, if done here you'd hear 'em down there in Australia!

So the only reason you don't include sudden death by aneurysm in your game is because players would complain too much? I think you surely must be joking here, because I can't see why anyone would ever play in one of your games if that's your attitude.

 

[The Shadow]

The last thing I want in a player is a dispassionate view of the game. I don't know how you can have any consequences... PC death or otherwise... for a player at all if they're dispassionate.

They have to care.

Amen to this. If they don't care, why are they at the table in the first place?!

 

[Umbran]

Thinking about it more, I think its highly game dependent.

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

OTOH lets say we start a Stonetop game

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

...the TOWN is a major character, and there are plenty of NPCs there who have a stake in it, which pretty much puts them in a place where they can logically become PCs and the system gives you lots of ways to 'slot them into' the role of "someone important to the survival of Stonetop."

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.

 

[S'mon]

Again, where does this idea come from that 'your character will not die meaninglessly' equates to 'total plot immunity'? It just ain't so. Nobody I've ever heard of plays a Teflon character to whom nothing bad can happen.

And yes, I can keep my play of the character separate from my knowledge that he's not going to die, just like plenty of gamers can keep it separate from their knowledge of his hit point total. It's not difficult in the slightest.

1. "Again, where does this idea come from that 'your character will not die meaninglessly' equates to 'total plot immunity'?" Nothing to do with my point, which was about my own feeling of immersion.

2. "I can keep my play of the character separate from my knowledge that he's not going to die" - Bully for you. All I said was that for me, knowing "I" can't die harms my immersion. The pulse-pounding excitement comes when I feel like my character, when there is a lot of bleed. And IME FOR ME that requires the character's life actually being at stake in-world. ie World-Sim not Drama-Sim.

Edit: I know some RPG players don't experience or value immersion, but for me it's very important, and what separates it from board games. I even experience it as a GM playing NPCs. But certainly stronger with a PC as a player.

 

[The Shadow]

I know some RPG players don't experience or value immersion, but for me it's very important, and what separates it from board games. I even experience it as a GM playing NPCs. But certainly stronger with a PC as a player.

At times I experience immersion to a very strong degree. But, I'll admit, not normally in combat. For me, it's the interpersonal stakes that really get me immersed. Even when I do get immersed in a combat scene, it's more about what's at stake than whether 'I' survive.

EDIT: An example from my long-finished Story Hour, 'The Shadow Knows!': In the climactic battle that ended the first arc, I was fully engaged. But the question foremost in my character's mind wasn't whether he would live - he held his life rather loosely, or he wouldn't be a street-level superhero in the first place! - but whether he was going to be able stop these people from hurting anyone else ever again.

They had mind-reamed his sidekick, mentally forced him to betray him, and left a psychic time bomb in his brain. Still, it wasn't about revenge exactly - it was about making sure it wouldn't happen to anyone else, ever.

The scene in which he found out about the betrayal and the damage to his sidekick's mind... That was one of the most immersive I've ever experienced, bar none.

 

[hawkeyefan]

At times I experience immersion to a very strong degree. But, I'll admit, not normally in combat. For me, it's the interpersonal stakes that really get me immersed. Even when I do get immersed in a combat scene, it's more about what's at stake than whether 'I' survive.

I think context is a huge part of this.

In my last session as a player in a Stonetop game, my character may very well have led our entire group (two other PCs, 4 NPCs, and our two horses) to our doom. We were beset upon in the wild by two supernatural powers, one a corrupting darkness that had infested this area of woods, and another some otherworldly frost-fey. We needed to escape the corrupting darkness, so my character sought out the fey, and tried to negotiate with them. We had to turn over our weapons, and were brought to their queen. Our parley with the frost queen (a giant fey woman, and her court of twelve frost knights) started off well, but then negotiations reached a point where we could not agree to her terms.

And then a poor final roll put an end to friendly negotiations. Things are about to get hostile.

That's where we left things. My goal as a player is not to preserve my PC, but to try and save as many of the others as he can. He thinks of himself very much as the shepherd of the town, and it was he who led them to this moment, so he feels responsible for them. Not to mention that the mission they were on is important to the survival of Stonetop.

Death is certainly a possibility in this game, but the idea that it's paramount? I just can't get that. Even the most murder-hoboey games I've ever played, the PCs at least gave a damn about each other.

 

[Pedantic]

We're circling around the same couple of buzzwords again. I'm waiting on "immersion isn't real," as a talking point, and "immersion and author stance are incompatible" so I can fill out my bingo card.

This issue, more than any other, makes me wish we could neatly split the hobby in half and draw some nice lines so we didn't have to clarify terms and assumptions each time we try to talk.

 

[S'mon]

In the climactic battle that ended the first arc, I was fully engaged. But the question foremost in my character's mind wasn't whether he would live - he held his life rather loosely, or he wouldn't be a street-level superhero in the first place! - but whether he was going to be able stop these people from hurting anyone else ever again.

I've certainly been there. I've been the guy who says "I'll hold them off! You get out of here!" obviously not expecting to survive. It's not about valuing my/my PC's life as the highest goal. Who doesn't want to be Kyle Reese? It's the immersion in feeling what my character is feeling. I find that's strongly supported by a simulationist ruleset. It does not need to be a complicated ruleset, but it should allow for outcomes such as combat resulting in death.

 

[mythago]

Let's just say my experiences with players getting (too) attached to their characters are entirely negative, and leave it there.

What you seem to be saying is: you've had negative experiences with players who privilege their characters' success over all other things, and ruin everybody's fun if they don't get that; therefore you believe players should not be attached to their characters very much at all. That seems like a bit of an overreaction.

 

[The Shadow]

We're circling around the same couple of buzzwords again. I'm waiting on "immersion isn't real," as a talking point, and "immersion and author stance are incompatible" so I can fill out my bingo card.

This issue, more than any other, makes me wish we could neatly split the hobby in half and draw some nice lines so we didn't have to clarify terms and assumptions each time we try to talk.

Pretty sure I just said that I do experience deep immersion?

That said, it isn't really compatible with author stance... But I at least am certainly not in author stance all the time.