Plot immunity for PCs

[Umbran]

Not penalizing PCs for poor dice rolling is my fave.

What the?

Dice in the game represent the randomness of things, fate if you will, you roll bad you die.

It's not as clear cut as that, though. In the real world, occasionally a person is killed completely by accident. A piano falls on them, or what have you. This generally doesn't happen to characters in fiction. Where does your story go if your main character chokes on a grape and dies a completely pointless death unrelated to the story in the third chapter?

The question isn't really if randomness has an impact, but when, where, and how it will have an impact. Some DMs will have characters trip and die walking down a set of stairs, and others won't have characters die unless it's particularly dramatically appropriate. It's a style choice, and different folks like different styles.

 

[d4]

One could also argue that those stormtrooper fights were anti-dramatic and should have been evaded somehow.

however, Star Wars isn't drama, it's action-adventure. IMO it doesn't matter if it's anti-dramatic, since that's not the purpose of the scene or the tone of the movie.

Everyone knew while watching that that none of the good guys would get so much as a scratch. It was merely a time filler, a transition scene. No tension. There's more excitement to be had from watching the pseudo-romance moments with Luke and Leia. Even as a 6 year old talking about the movie in the schoolyard the next day we were all over that and the death star moments with Vader -the scenes where you weren't sure how it would play out.

everyone gets something different out of every movie. that's cool. i've always loved the scene where Han scares off a bunch of stormtroopers by yelling and screaming and running down the corridor to make them think there's a lot of him. then he turns the corner and comes face-to-face with a whole wall of them. scenes showing that kind of bravado always stayed with me more than the Vader or Luke/Leia scenes.

Compare it to a film like Full Metal Jacket - there's not a fight scene in that entire flick were you don't wonder if we're headed for a TPK. As such, the conflicts in it grab you a lot stronger, make you feel them much more, and leace you savoring the drama in between with that much more interest. It matters more. Even if the movie's genre as a whole is not my style.

see, in my GMing style, combat is not about creating drama and tension. it's an excuse to allow the PCs to show how badass they are. that's why my combats probably run a little bit different from yours. they serve a different purpose in my campaign.

you may think, "that just sounds like mastubatory self-gratification." well, it is in a way. but that's what i'm looking for out of role-playing games. story's nice (i love a good story), dramatic tension is nice, but according to Robin Laws' player types, i'm a buttkicker. i like to play RPGs because they give me a chance to escape reality, to do things i can't do in real life. to be larger-than-life. to be a badass and look cool doing it. that's what i look for as a player, and its the type of environment i try to create as a GM.

i'm just very one-dimensional that way -- that's my GMing style for all the games i run; whether it be Star Wars, M&M, or even D&D.

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

...

see, in my GMing style, combat is not about creating drama and tension. it's an excuse to allow the PCs to show how badass they are. that's why my combats probably run a little bit different from yours. they serve a different purpose in my campaign.

I suppose this is very similar to how I view combats as well. In fact, I could personally do without a whole lot of combat in games as my primary love is character interaction, character interaction, and yet more character interaction. Also, exploration, solving problems, political intrigue...many of which have little if nothing to do with combat.

However, the groups I've played with have always had mixed playing styles and while I could easily do without a whole lot of combat or even without combat at all in most sessions, some other players do not feel this way. They like the combat and they want it. They want to use and show off all the new combat toys they get from level to level and they want to have fun and kick-butt doing it.

Yes, sometimes players will die in the process, but why make character death into a punishment for the player having fun instead of using the death as yet another fun potential plot element? For example, sure the local temple of Tymora might agree to resurrect this person even though he wasn't one of Tymora's faithful..tsk tsk, but after he's back then he and the rest of you will be helping us with this little rat problem we've been having. Oh? Did we forget to tell you they were wererats? Oops!

So instead of death being a punishment it can lead into new adventures or maybe it will simply just empty the party's pockets a little. Or in an epic campaign, perhaps a little spiritual rescue sidetrip to the Fugue Plane might not be too bothersome....or will it? Mwahaha. There *are* sometimes things worse than death you know....

 

[Kichwas]

I could personally do without a whole lot of combat in games as my primary love is character interaction, character interaction, and yet more character interaction. Also, exploration, solving problems, political intrigue...many of which have little if nothing to do with combat.

See I'm the same here.

It's part of why I work to make combat so lethal. As long as they stick to intrigue, mystery, and social interaction they're likely to stay alive. But if they try to use the Orc they meet on the road as a pin cushion she's likely to everything she's got to stay alive -at the cost of the PCs if she can manage it.

In my MnM game we regularly go several sessions in a row without any fight scenes - it tends to resemble a Scooby Mystery without the 60's rock bands in the background of the chase scenes.

DnD is a little more conflict driven, and they're a little more likely to seek out fights. When they do, the big die comes out onto the table and I play my NPCs as people who want to live just as much as the PCs do.

 

[Norfleet]

I agree with D4, in games where I've tried to make combat "realistic", players have been amazingly cautious and never taken any risks. Although this may be more life like, it just isn't fun to play.

Pfah! It's interesting how that works, yes? Players are all willing to be "brave", as long as they aren't actually at risk for dying. Put them in a situation of real potential danger, though, and you quickly seperate the mice from the men. This, I feel, is what heroism and bravery are all about: Anyone can act brave when they know they aren't in any real danger, but only the truly brave can keep it up in the face of potentially impending death.

Of course, the difference between heroes and fools is that heroes still know when to duck.

 

[d4]

Pfah! It's interesting how that works, yes? Players are all willing to be "brave", as long as they aren't actually at risk for dying. Put them in a situation of real potential danger, though, and you quickly seperate the mice from the men. This, I feel, is what heroism and bravery are all about: Anyone can act brave when they know they aren't in any real danger, but only the truly brave can keep it up in the face of potentially impending death.

i totally agree with you, Norfleet. and there's a disconcerting dearth of truly brave people in real life. but that's another subject.

most people aren't brave in life-threatening situations, even if those situations are just role-playing scenarios. since i am more interested in seeing that brave / "foolhardy" behavior than "realistic" behavior, i find it is easiest to coax it out when the players realize they are in a low-lethality game.

to see a band of truly brave and stalwart PCs in a high-lethality game would be great, but i have never had the privilege to see a group like that. if you've got a crew that can rise to those standards, you are truly a lucky GM.

as i said before, in the high-lethality games i've played in or GMed in the past, i've only ever seen the PCs devolve into a bunch of overly-conservative paranoid cowards. "we don't want to do that because we might get hurt." "help you? what's in it for me? why should i risk my neck?" "ok, now let's spend the next four hours planning our strategy..."

i'm tired of those kinds of campaigns, and so far, the best way i've found to turn players away from that style is to let them know that my style of GMing is low on lethality and high on wahoo bravery and action.

my mantra, which comes up many times when a player says, "Can my character do that?" is: "Sure. this isn't reality. it's a movie."

 

[Natural20]

Common Sense

Reward common sense. If the level one PC's mess with the dragon, they SHOULD die. It ruins the "reality" of the fantasy to be immune to death. If I know the DM will only ever let opponents I can beat cross my path, I will naturally be a lot cockier and more brash. Part of the edge of the game is "Gosh he looks wimpy, is he lvl 1 or 21?".

Obviously there has to be signs for the party, you can't just let the beggar turn out to be a high level evil monk and kill the whole party for no reason, but it's no fun to DM if they don't have to use their heads as well as you use yours.

 

[Norfleet]

to see a band of truly brave and stalwart PCs in a high-lethality game would be great, but i have never had the privilege to see a group like that. if you've got a crew that can rise to those standards, you are truly a lucky GM.

A little bit of prodding can help. Give them a nice commissar to follow them around and shoot anyone who retreats, or even better, try to induce one of the players to become the commissar.

The key here is that you prod your players along by positioning them between something that will try to kill them, and something which will very successfully kill them.

 

[ES2]

I just want to say to all of you that all of you are right in this discussion. We each have our own opinions and ways, and if it works for us, then we are right, and if it doesn't work, then thats doing something wrong.

Me, I roll combat dice in front of my players. No fudging in combat, period. All combat situations should have some suspense in it, even if they are fighitng just kobolds (and against 1st or 2nd level parties, even 6 kobolds with crossbows can be very dangerous, especially if they won surprise; killed a PC with two natural 20 crits just after he reached 2nd level because he didn't spot them).

 

[S'mon]

A little bit of prodding can help. Give them a nice commissar to follow them around and shoot anyone who retreats, or even better, try to induce one of the players to become the commissar.

The key here is that you prod your players along by positioning them between something that will try to kill them, and something which will very successfully kill them.

I certainly expect my players to play brave, heroic (good or evil) PCs even knowing they can die. It's only the piece of paper that dies, anyway. d4's players seem more cowardly with their PCs than many real life people are with their own lives!
Only once have I seen a player act as d4 describes, and that was my wife playing a very normal, non-heroic female journalist in a BRP Call of Cthulu campaign. Even in that game, which is a _far_ less heroic system than D&D, it made running scenarios for her very difficult. D&D is built to enable heroism - but of course heroism still involves a risk of death, just not the near-certainty of CoC. I agree with Gary Gygax that the story is what emerges in retrospect to the game, the story should not be predetermined by the DM - and that includes who lives and who dies. When a new PC is rolled up I never know if he'll be a legendary hero or a damp squib.