Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[bloodtide]

I think perhaps the problem you're seeing may be one you're contributing to.

I'm not really sure what your saying. There is a large part of the player base that just does not care: nothing will ever change that.

The possibility of losing my playing piece is what turns a situation from interesting to edge-of-the-seat interesting.

You do notice how nearly everyone makes a huge, big deal out of character death.....must mean something. If it was just a "thing" then people could just let it happen and go on with the game. The fact that people can't do it, says something.

Which means death is apt to be the least interesting form of failure.

But why? Nearly everything else only makes a slight ripple in the story or plot...but death can make things really, really interesting. How is like "loosing a key" just so amazing and interesting as a failure?

I think I see the problem though, and it's all on the players. It's the bane of so many games: Player Self Insertion. Tons of players don't see their character, they see ti as themselves inserted into the game. This is why so many players don't even role play "a character" even a tiny bit: they just have the character Be Themselves.

And that is what causes the huge reaction to even the idea of the suggestion of player character death: to such a player, in their mind, "they" are dying, not a fictional character.

 

[The Shadow]

Also, in the sorts of campaign I play, there is no "larger story". The PCs are the main characters of the story. If they were all to die, it'd be a different campaign entirely. I suspect this is another major difference between us.

In a book, if all the main characters die, the story is over. You could set other stories in the same setting, but it's not the same book. (Provided you could find anyone willing to read further stories from you, once you killed everyone off! )

 

[The Shadow]

I'm not really sure what your saying. There is a large part of the player base that just does not care: nothing will ever change that.

Why game with people who don't care? Life is too short. Better a smaller group that is engaged than a large one that isn't.

For that matter, why are they gaming if they don't care?

But why? Nearly everything else only makes a slight ripple in the story or plot...but death can make things really, really interesting. How is like "loosing a key" just so amazing and interesting as a failure?

Who says those things make only a slight ripple in the plot? To me, those things ARE the plot! They're what I care about!

Random death is, frankly, boring to me. There's no plot there at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not really sure what your saying. There is a large part of the player base that just does not care: nothing will ever change that.

I'm saying that my experience is very different than yours. My expectation, both as a GM and as a player, is that I'll care about what's happening in the game, and so will the other players. I work to help make this happen, and I want others to do so as well.

I just GMed the first session of a new campaign a few nights ago, and thanks to a strong session zero, the players cared quite a bit about some NPCs. Which means their characters care.

None of them were nearly as concerned with their characters' lives as they were with the life of a kid that they were trying to save. If the kid doesn't make it, it'll matter in many ways.

The Lightbearer (a light cleric), whose god is not highly regarded in their town, will fail to deliver on the promise he made to the boy's father, and people will shun him and his beliefs. The father may even become a threat of some sort to the town.

The Blessed (a druid) will have failed to preserve the people of his town and to fulfill the blood oath he and the Ranger swore to protect it.

The Seeker (an antiquarian) is already mistrusted by many because of her strange obsession with artifacts, and because of things that happened in her past. If she fails to save the child, the townspeople will think even less of her.

The Ranger's young nephew is good friend's with the kidnapped child. Their relationship will face some strain if the boy dies.

Also, another NPC insisted on coming with them into the great woods to save the child. This NPC is a rival of the Ranger and the brother of the Seeker's betrothed. If anything happens to him, or if they don't work well with him, that will also cause issues.

The players care about all that stuff. Largely because we all came up with it together in session zero. It's all far more concerning to them than if their character lives or dies. They know they can simply create a new character if that happens.

So my point is that you need to facilitate the caring. Not simply expect it as a matter of course. And also, take ownership of your game. If no one in your game cares, then that's at least partly on you.

 

[bloodtide]

Why game with people who don't care? Life is too short. Better a smaller group that is engaged than a large one that isn't.

For that matter, why are they gaming if they don't care?

Well, it's not like you can know before the game. Such players will always lie.
Even with my game having perfectly crafted House Rules to send such players running, does not always work.

Who says those things make only a slight ripple in the plot? To me, those things ARE the plot! They're what I care about!

Random death is, frankly, boring to me. There's no plot there at all.

Things less then death only cause slight ripples: that is just how things work.

The queen is sad so when she talks to the king he gets sad.....well, that's a tiny ripple that does not even effect the kingdom.

The king is assassinated on his throne is a massive tidal wave that effects the whole world, not just that kingdom.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All of them. When the DM and players all agree to change, bend or ignore the game rules it does not matter what game you are playing.

True. But no edition I know of has a rule like "just ignore the damage as no player character can ever die".

Well, just playing through the adventure with the basic idea: the players succeed, lets just see how they do it. The most obvious is the "no character death rule", so they basically just ignore hit points. But also anything the characters "do" will be the right and correct thing to succeed at the adventure. The Dm and Players all agree the player characters can't fail....so they don't.

It's not a game as in rules set down on page 11. It's a game play style.

Again, it's a play style.

I have been running D&D games since 1976, basically, and all sorts of other RPGs. I have never ever heard of this concept of "the players always succeed." I agree it is a THEORETICAL 'playing style' or game design concept, but you are basically tilting at windmills here Don Quixote. I think you'd find your comments are more relevant to us (me at least) if you try to address actual sorts of play that exist in the real world instead of some sort of 'spherical cow' of a play style that never existed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

You all are like the Wet Blanket Brigade. Here I am, I want to experience things that real life cannot (or will not) let me experience, and you all want to focus on how many trail rations people ate and spend endless hours counting hit points. I mean, I did it! I am not even totally averse to doing it again if it was coupled with the right additional elements, perhaps.

 

[The Shadow]

Well, it's not like you can know before the game. Such players will always lie.
Even with my game having perfectly crafted House Rules to send such players running, does not always work.

...I don't encounter people like this. Largely because I play with people I already know.

Things less then death only cause slight ripples: that is just how things work.

The queen is sad so when she talks to the king he gets sad.....well, that's a tiny ripple that does not even effect the kingdom.

Can you really not conceive of anything between being sad and dying?

The king is assassinated on his throne is a massive tidal wave that effects the whole world, not just that kingdom.

Okay, I see what you mean by ripples now - you mean it doesn't affect the whole game world.

Who cares? It affects my character's world, and that's what I care about. If my character's beloved feels betrayed because he let her down, that matters intensely to him, whether it rocks the politics of the continent or not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also, in the sorts of campaign I play, there is no "larger story". The PCs are the main characters of the story. If they were all to die, it'd be a different campaign entirely. I suspect this is another major difference between us.

In a book, if all the main characters die, the story is over. You could set other stories in the same setting, but it's not the same book. (Provided you could find anyone willing to read further stories from you, once you killed everyone off! )

That is a big difference. The setting and the world and what's happening in it are the stars, and the PCs are people in that world. They can leave the story and it will continue on. I've played in far too many groups where players move, or decide to do other things, or just get tired of their characters and want to try other things to run my campaigns any other way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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!

This basically sums up 4e play when I've run 4e. I mean, YES, you CAN die. Now and then PCs bit the dust, generally in dramatic ways. I do remember one time a wizard sicced giant spiders on the party when they were pretty low level (it was in Fallcrest, they were in a cave underneath the wizard tower that connected up to the catacombs, and discovered some inconvenient facts). ALL the PCs ended up going down to the poison, it was a really nice clean TPK. So of course they all woke up trussed up in the laboratory! Nobody was disappointed at this! Sure, technically I could have just told them all to roll up new characters, but what would be the point? Much more interesting when the Paladin realized that the only way to reseal the gate holding back the Drow was FROM THE OTHER SIDE, nobody ever saw him again (well, yet, maybe 10 years from now whatever is left of him will show up in another 4e game).