Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[Micah Sweet]

How about "I had to decide between betraying my country or killing an innocent, and either way I will lose the respect of people whom I care about?" Or "I learned that I'm actually NOT willing to lay down my life for you." Or "I like money and power more than my own family?" All these are questions we could ask in an RPG, but you don't seem to be able to imagine anything but death or maybe losing a limb or something as being legitimate stakes. Its like you read one comic book and declared you understand everything about the genre or something.

That's insulting. I've said more than once that all those factors are still relevant stakes. But to me, in D&D and other games in the fantasy adventure genre death or other semi-permanent harm needs to also be on the table for me to buy into it. In other games, sure, you can remove it and I won't bat an eye. Superhero games make it very hard to die. I'm putting together a Srar Trek Adventures game that has similar sensibilities, because they are genre appropriate. But for something like D&D, that doesn't work for me.

 

[Cadence]

Where possible, I want my RPGs to emulate reality as much as they can. Abstractions are a necessary evil.

< Looks over at Hit Points, Armor Class, d20 granularity, lack injury mechanics, lack of massive death rates from infection and disease, and only six ability scores >

Everything, or just the plots?

 

[Micah Sweet]

< Looks over at Hit Points, Armor Class, d20 granularity, lack injury mechanics, lack of massive death rates from infection and disease, and only six ability scores >

Everything, or just the plots?

Cute. I said where possible, to the extent my players will accept. And I do use injury mechanics.

 

[Cadence]

In your OP, I'm not sure which "many ttRPGs" you have in mind, but maybe D&D and other RPGs that have a similar mechanical and resolution framework? If you think it's interesting, I could say a few things about what features of Prince Valiant support the action I've described, compared to D&D. If you look at the actual play post you might also get a sense of it.

I had your Prince Valiant games, and several folks BitD family of games, in mind when I was trying to phrase the first sentence

In part I was trying to get at how a lot of not-those-game-folks - like me - seem to use games that aren't designed for the level of lethality/stakes/randomness/control that the underlying fiction is. And wondering if it's because a lot of people seem to like plot armor, but only if it isn't too obvious (we want the feeling of lots of risk and lack of bumpers... but apparently want the effect that not too much risk and having some bumpers).

I wonder if part of it is just what each individual is willing to buy into. Do contented D&D players just shove aside concerns about what HP and AC imply about the world as necessary (for D&D anyway) evils, and then just go on with life ignoring those implications? Do most things in fiction - whether books or movies or ttRPGs - have different strings pulling things that some folks can ignore and others can't?

If you'd like to post some thoughts on how Prince Valiant supports the play with links to or new posts of actual play, I'd sure hope some folks would find it interesting!

 

[Cadence]

Cute. I said where possible, to the extent my players will accept. And I do use injury mechanics.

I confess to trying to be a bit snarky. But as I mention to @pemerton in the post above this one, it feels like every work of fiction (from movie to ttRPG) has some strings and unreality hiding in them. I wonder what makes it easy for each of us to ignore some of those strings, and to be aggravated by others.

Take crime-noir detective shows from back when. How many times can the hero be knocked out, seemingly with a concussion, without the villain ever going too far and killing them and without any long-term bad effects? Are there some readers/viewers/listeners who run across that a few times and then just can't because it seems silly? Are there others where it's just a genre trope and they go with it? Are hit points in some ttRPGs and meta-currency in other ttRPGs examples of things that some people are fine with ignoring and others aren't?

 

[The Shadow]

Speaking for myself, I find that knowing undramatic death isn't a possibility very freeing. I recall playing in a game years ago based on the Arabian Nights. We were playing True20 - which can be quite lethal - but the GM (@Quickleaf) assured us that, much like the source material, sudden twists and miraculously close shaves were very much on the table, while dramatically-unsatisfying deaths were not.

And so I felt free to portray my character in the larger-than-life, over-the-top heroic manner that one would expect of an Arabian Nights hero. If I'd had to worry about dying meaninglessly at any moment, I'd have been far more cautious and timid.

Once again, this had no effect one way or the other on whether my character achieved his goals! But I can tell you this, that even if he didn't, his failure would be dramatic and meaningful!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I confess to trying to be a bit snarky. But as I mention to @pemerton in the post above this one, it feels like every work of fiction (from movie to ttRPG) has some strings and unreality hiding in them. I wonder what makes it easy for each of us to ignore some of those strings, and to be aggravated by others.

Take crime-noir detective shows from back when. How many times can the hero be knocked out, seemingly with a concussion, without the villain ever going too far and killing them and without any long-term bad effects? Are there some readers/viewers/listeners who run across that a few times and then just can't because it seems silly? Are there others where it's just a genre trope and they go with it? Are hit points in some ttRPGs and meta-currency in other ttRPGs examples of things that some people are fine with ignoring and others aren't?

To me it depends on what you grew up with and how invested you are in those particular genres and how they are modeled in a game. I dislike noir, for example, so unrealistic aspects of it are likely to bother me more than if I did like it. I grew up on 1e rules for my formative TTRPG experience, so I want and expect real danger and threat from any game I play that is descended from it and reminds me of it, because 1e had that. On the other hand, I love Star Trek and would want any RPG based on it to feel like Star Trek (particularly '90s Trek), and that means leaning into the narrative tropes.

It's different for everyone, and everyone's feelings about it are valid for them.

 

[The Shadow]

Where possible, I want my RPGs to emulate reality as much as they can. Abstractions are a necessary evil.

Perhaps we can boil our differences down to this:

You want to emulate reality. I want to emulate stories.

Does that sound about right?

(Incidentally, I also grew up with 1e as my formative RPG experience, so that can't be the whole story.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps we can boil our differences down to this:

You want to emulate reality. I want to emulate stories.

Does that sound about right?

(Incidentally, I also grew up with 1e as my formative RPG experience, so that can't be the whole story.)

That is the essential difference, yes. Out of setting, plot and character, setting is the most important to me. I'm aware this puts me at odds with a lot of folks here, but I get more fun out of worldbiilding, reading, and fiddling with mechanics than I do out of playing.

 

[Cadence]

To me it depends on what you grew up with and how invested you are in those particular genres and how they are modeled in a game. I dislike noir, for example, so unrealistic aspects of it are likely to bother me more than if I did like it. I grew up on 1e rules for my formative TTRPG experience, so I want and expect real danger and threat from any game I play that is descended from it and reminds me of it, because 1e had that. On the other hand, I love Star Trek and would want any RPG based on it to feel like Star Trek (particularly '90s Trek), and that means leaning into the narrative tropes.

It's different for everyone, and everyone's feelings about it are valid for them.

I guess my problem is that my formative ttRPG gaming was B/X, 1e and it was pretty lethal at low levels especially... but the literature didn't have tons of main characters dying to random things.

And so I like, for example, that 13th age has hard ruled encounter pacing and not dying to silly things - but I also hate having that four encounters are a day to recharge (wow - those 200+ hours on a boat with no combat all in that same day, and we never got any rest in) and that you can't die to a non-named foe (for the love of God, don't ask the villains their names!). Is it only my past experience and that I try not to think about it that DM villain and tactics adjustments on the fly don't bother me as much?