Plot immunity for PCs

[Kichwas]

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.

This is the kind of touchy-feely bulls**t I hate about the post political correct era.

Anyway... group hugs aside...

I run a highly story focused and story driven game. The key is who writes that story and how. My players get as much of the story driving handed to them as I can. That honestly leaves a few of them sitting there taking up space in my living room too. But the ones who take the initiative get to write the story.

I largely respond and direct.

Story intense is -not- a counter side of of hardcore gamism or hardcore tactics though. I personally find the two drive each other to stronger heights. A different philosophy than I used to have (so you people in the peanut gallery who like to quote things people said five years ago can shut up and stuff it), I used to see the two as polar opposites.

Marrying player driven story intense roleplay to strict gamism leads to intense sessions on all ends where the player can feel they fully -own- whatever happens; good or bad.

If you read the story hours here, 9 times out of 10, the best ones, the ones with the most posts and the most readers, with the most intense levels of story and roleplay; are the ones with 'rat-bastard' DMs. That says something.

 

[d4]

If you read the story hours here, 9 times out of 10, the best ones, the ones with the most posts and the most readers, with the most intense levels of story and roleplay; are the ones with 'rat-bastard' DMs. That says something.

it does say that the majority of gamers who come to ENWorld enjoy that style of gaming.

of course, that style is not to everyone's taste, nor should it be.

 

[Berandor]

I extend a certain plot immunity on my players so that they normally don't die in a stupid random encounter dungeon dressing.
That could mean that the monster does not attack a downed PC, but moves on to one still standing, for example.

I play in a Vampire:TM campaign where the DM doesn't let you die if you jump down a skyscraper into a pot of molten lava. It's booring. It's like I can't influence anything in the game.

Same with a Ravenloft campaign I played in, where the group - through bad luck and stupidity - was officially dead three times, only to be saved by NPCs again and again.
It can be all right to do this, but the last time was even during the final confrontation. I killed off my character then and generated a new one, because to me, he had died there.

I need a certain sense of danger, and I impose it on my players. I want their characters to survive and succeed, but when the assassin downs a foe, he'll coup de grace. I think that generates emotional investment, because the players want to get back at the bastard that killed one of their own.

 

[Pbartender]

...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...

Of course, Han still wasn't stupid enough to exploit that plot immunity and stand there shooting down that phalanx of 'Troopers... He turned tail and ran away.

If you read the story hours here, 9 times out of 10, the best ones, the ones with the most posts and the most readers, with the most intense levels of story and roleplay; are the ones with 'rat-bastard' DMs. That says something.

But remember... True Rat Bastardry has nothing to with killing player characters. Certainly, on occasion, a PC's death may very well be the result of Rat Bastardry, but it is never the goal.

In my game, 'minor encounters' are not designed to kill PCs. Rather, I design them to challenge, distract and wear down the PCs. I've had several situations recently, when the PCs weren't in any actual real danger from an encounter, but they truly believed that they were... Due to colorful descriptions of the monsters and the monsters' special ability effects.

My 'major encounters' too are normally not designed to kill PCs, but are tough enough that there is every chance a PC might die during such an encounter due to bad dice rolls, poor planning, or utter stupidity.

During my games, plot immunity takes the form of "Favors"... A sort of house-ruled Action Point mechanic... Players may use a favor to maximize any single dice roll. So far, they been used to threaten criticals, to confirm criticals, to ensure maximum damage on a sneak attack, to ensure Saving Throws, to ensure Skill checks, and to ensure the stabilzation of an unconscious PC. So even though I don't pull punches, the players still have a few chances to evade misfortune by the skin of their teeth.

As a result, my PCs have learn to take risks on occasion, but tend to avoid unnecessary or stupid risks. They know when to fight, and when to run away, and when to leave well enough alone... And the same goes for the bad guys. There have been very few enemies they've run into who are truly willing to fight to the death... Especially amongst the 'random' encounters.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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?".

I'm interested by the number of people who say such things, considering no one has said they allow this sort of silliness. The disccussion of death (which wasn't actually what I started this thread about *cough* ) has always been in the context of what the DM throws at the players, not them going out looking for fights. In fact, d4 specificly mentioned (IIRC) that he is blessed with players who don't go into stupid situations where they would die if not for divine intervention. I have always been similarly blessed.

I think we're back to the 'god mode' thinking from the other thread. If you think of roleplaying at its base as another form of wargaming or video games - as a win/lose situation, then the idea of helping out the PCs and not trying to kill them (or even occasionally trying not to kill them) is just cheating. You aren't playing the game right and can be expected to run around doing impossible things like a kid with the cheat codes. But the people who play in limited immunity games aren't thinking that way in the first place. They are telling a story which the players have input into in more that a "live/die" sense. I always tell my players that there will be encounters where you win and those where you survive. They don't challange a elder wyrm, because that would make a stupid story. They also don't die unless in the service of their story and the greater one.

BWT, I never 'fudge' die rolls. I do however adjust monster tactics or hitpoints on the fly if I realize I've overstacked an encounter, let things work if it sounds good, and on at least one occasion allowed a ritual spellcasting attempt to save a downed PC after the combat was over.

Kahuna burger

 

[Kichwas]

But remember... True Rat Bastardry has nothing to with killing player characters. Certainly, on occasion, a PC's death may very well be the result of Rat Bastardry, but it is never the goal.

Of course not. It has to do with strongly challenging them, and making sure they fully own the results of those challenges.

If you think of roleplaying at its base as another form of wargaming or video games - as a win/lose situation, then the idea of helping out the PCs and not trying to kill them (or even occasionally trying not to kill them) is just cheating. You aren't playing the game right and can be expected to run around doing impossible things like a kid with the cheat codes. But the people who play in limited immunity games aren't thinking that way in the first place. They are telling a story which the players have input into in more that a "live/die" sense.

This is a bit presumptuous. It's in conflict with some of the statements I've made about my own style.

I -am- doing a story. And for me, that is -why- I have no plot immunity: I want the story to be in the player's control.

It would also seem that you're still seeing game as in conflict with story.

 

[mythago]

I used to have a GM's button, given to me by one of my players, that read Death Does Not Release You. Granted, it was for CoC, but the sentiment applies in a lot of games.

The death of a PC doesn't have to mean the death of the game for that player. There are many more options after a PC's death than telling the player oh well, here's a blank character sheet. I don't just mean resurrection spells, either. Where does the PC's essence go after death? How is the party going to react to her absence? If the PC does return from the Other Side, in what form will that be--and is it necessarily something the player wants? Is there some way to continue the PC's legacy through a new character who is friend, relative ("I am avenging my brother's death!"), or clansman? How does his death affect the party's plotline and the world?

It is a mistake to make PCs disposable, unless you are running Paranoia, in my opinion. People do not invest themselves in disposable PCs. The trick is to convince players that it's OK to risk death, because they can lose their character and still continue to enjoy your game.

Please understand that I run a game with a high body count. My players know that ANY combat they are in is likely to be fatal, and I don't pull punches. One PC has died and come back as, consecutively, a Carcossian automaton, a possessing spirit, and now a hummingbird. I'm not entirely sure that he wouldn't just have preferred a new character.

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

I think I can understand at least part of what might be the issue here. It seems that the "killer DM" side has had a lot of trouble with players, or even drastically immature players, who will just do a whole lot of stupid things in the game if their bad behavior isn't "controlled" in some way.

In the games I've been playing (and I'm only now speaking my perception here, not necessarily that of the other players in my group as I haven't asked them about it) I don't recall us doing all these stupid things regardless of who is doing the DM'ing, unless of course we were just running a mock combat.

Lots of times monsters will ambush us or make a surprise attack on us in some form, so we're often cornered into fighting, or we'll have to fight something in the process of completing a mission we've promised someone to do. However, we don't just go running up and attack everything that moves and will often attempt diplomacy or some form of verbal communication as a first resort and combat as a last resort.

We don't have a need for threats or killer DM's to encourage us to do these things, nor do we skulk around like cowards if that's not something our characters would logically do.

In fact, the only times I can recall players doing something intentionally stupid is when they didn't really want to continue with a character but needed an excuse for it without having to speak up and just say they didn't want to play the character anymore. In all other times, it's just a natural instinct to play as if you don't want your character to die. Even without any penalties whatsoever it would still be "losing" the game and most people want to "win."

I just can't see a need to punish players who don't need to be punished when it comes to such things. I can understand a group who has problem players who rush to attack dragons at level one or go around killing all the townsfolk just to be "kewl" and whatnot, but when everyone already acts at least mostly mature, then there's no reason to do things to force them to be overly-cautious or encourage them into making throwaway characters because "they're just going to die anyway."

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

Mythago, I think I'm in agreement with a lot of what you are saying. I like to treat character death as yet another story option rather than a provision for yet another blank character sheet. Being a hummingbird for a couple sessions or so could be very fun and there's still the chance that the character can somehow find a way to get back to his or her normal form. It definitely provides another possibility for more things to do in the game besides starting over another character time after time after time after time....

My problem isn't so much with character death so much as what happens afterwards. If what happens afterwards contributes to the fun of the player (and not just what the DM insists is fun for the player) then that's a good thing. If it's going to always be something like "Sorry, you died. Here's a blank character sheet for your new character" then I just have big problems with that approach, unless of course that's what the player really wanted.

 

[Kichwas]

I think I can understand at least part of what might be the issue here. It seems that the "killer DM" side has had a lot of trouble with players, or even drastically immature players, who will just do a whole lot of stupid things in the game if their bad behavior isn't "controlled" in some way.

Lets not try and insult each other's players please.

I have no such problem, nor has anyone indicated such. One person above tried to indicate this about the players of your types of games though. I believe it was you complaining about your players not being heroic enough actually...

Which is odd, having you insulting both types of players now. Let's just not go there please.

We don't have a need for threats or killer DM's to encourage us to do these things, nor do we skulk around like cowards if that's not something our characters would logically do.

As I understand it, you've been claiming you -do- need to be coddled and protected though. The monsters needs to be run weaker than they could be, and less self preserving so you can happily win out over them when your own ability to do so is not normally enough...

That's an insult, like above, btw. One built to boil down a perception of your side of this.

We can go down this road, or can not.

I just can't see a need to punish players who don't need to be punished when it comes to such things.

Nobody's punishing anyone. Not sure were you're getting that from.

Let me take a note from my "House Rules Humor" list:

Q: How will I run this game?
A: I plan to open my 3.5 rulebooks, read what's inside it, and apply it.

Q: Will you fudge to save us if we weren't being stupid.
A: No, even smart people die when they take risks, I plan to roll my die on the table with no screen and apply the results.

All I offer is to run the game by the rules, and not coddle or protect anyone. I'm not going to shield them from any of the risks they take.