Plot immunity for PCs

[fusangite]

My big problem with this discussion is that, like arcady, my answer varies depending on the game genre and rules. For those who are into plot immunity, I am left with a nagging question: why do you use D&D? It seems like you have chosen the worst possible rule system to run the kind of game you purport to want to run.

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

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

Eh? Not meaning any insults. I was just stating it generally as I read it and didn't have you or any particular person in mind when I stated it. There were lots of times when I was reading various posts when the "killer DM" side seemed concerned about players not taking the fights seriously enough or "playing stupidly" when it comes to fights. Or maybe I should just pad my words a bit and use "not always utilizing the greatest amount of discernment when judging a fight."

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...

Hmm I don't think I could have been the one complaining about my players as I'm a player in the games I'm in, not the DM's. I have absolutely no major troubles with any of the DM's or the players in my groups. The only thing which causes us trouble sometimes is the mixture of playstyles, but even those troubles are minor. [/QUOTE]

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

I am not insulting anyone here, but if you choose to be insulted....

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.

However, I am not taking the statement as an insult, but simply as a misperception which I would attempt to clarify if I believed it to be inaccurate. There are not really just "two sides" to this issue actually. My own argument has more to do with death being permanent with no recourse to doing anything else besides rolling up a whole new character rather than having anything at all to do with coddling players in fights or making the monsters weaker.

We can go down this road, or can not.

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

If a DM is using draconian measures with the assumption that if s/he doesn't use such measures, the players would do things which are, er...unwise...then it would be very much like a punishment, yes.

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.

That's all fine and good, but it's what you would do *after* a character dies which would be of more concern to me if I was thinking of joining one of your games at least as a serious gaming endeavor rather than just being social because I enjoyed the friendship. I prefer both of course, but I've also resorted to the last when necessary. That's when the throwaway characters come in.

 

[bekkilyn_rpg]

My big problem with this discussion is that, like arcady, my answer varies depending on the game genre and rules. For those who are into plot immunity, I am left with a nagging question: why do you use D&D? It seems like you have chosen the worst possible rule system to run the kind of game you purport to want to run.

After being involved in this discussion, I'm getting the idea that I might have a bit different definition of "plot immunity" than some others. My definition really isn't about character death per se. I don't mind character death really if I feel that it adds beneficially to the interactive story in a way which is mutually satisfying to both the player and the DM, whether it be the player choosing a new character or the DM working with the player to find some other arrangement for the continuation of that old character even if it means the character must be a hummingbird for a while.

Plot immunity to me is that which doesn't ruin the fun and/or the story for the players involved. (The plots can be changed, modified, branch out in all kinds of directions, but are "immune" to being ruined by a few bad choices or random unluck on the part of the players and/or DM) *Permanent* character death can potentially put a huge damper on things. Almost nothing is worse in a game than finally just starting to have a huge amount of fun with a character only to have it suddenly taken from you and told you have to begin all over again from scratch without any other recourse. My response would be either to stop playing the game altogether or just make throwaway characters without all the emotional and time investment and hope that one day I could play in another game where I could feel such investments would be rewarded rather than punished.

Edit: Oops, almost forgot....

In answer to the actual question, I like d20/D&D because it's a great rule system. There's a rule there for practically everything if you find you have need one of one, but in general, the rules are still more like guidelines. It's perfectly okay to break them if it saves the game from being ruined.

 

[d4]

My big problem with this discussion is that, like arcady, my answer varies depending on the game genre and rules. For those who are into plot immunity, I am left with a nagging question: why do you use D&D? It seems like you have chosen the worst possible rule system to run the kind of game you purport to want to run.

i don't agree -- i have absolutely no problem running the games i do with the d20 system. i have no house rules that apply to combat and i rarely fudge die rolls.

i could turn the question around -- if you want to run a high-lethality, highly realistic game, why do you use D&D? the d20 combat system is very cinematic and quite unrealistic in many aspects. if you want your players to fear death, why not play GURPS or some other system in which even a highly-experienced, powerful character has rarely more hit points than the average weapon damage?

i see a lot of people making house rules that make D&D combat more lethal, but IMO it doesn't take any house rules at all to make it low lethality. hit points, armor class, and the -10 "death's door" cover that quite well already.

i'm curious as to why you think the d20 rules better emulate high lethality vs. low lethality.

 

[d4]

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.

i'm not that kind of DM. luckily i don't have players that foolish.

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.

this is the type of players i have.

the players know they have plot immunity. the characters do not. the people i have gamed with have no problem role-playing that difference.

 

[d4]

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.

Perhaps plot immunity is just another term for the dm not saying "what is the most realistic/more likely thing to happen now?" and instead asking herself "If this was a story about the PCs, what would happen now?"

all right then, to get back to your original point i am in perfect agreement with your above quote.

for me, the game is a story. the story is about the PCs. what happens next is determined by the necessities of the story, not by what would be most "realistic."

 

[Nightfall]

Players are best served under glass.

 

[Ferret]

I don't kill them off intentionally, but if they die at the end they is dead. At the start I might be more lenient.

 

[Kichwas]

d20 is a naturally lethal. You have a small pile of beans (hit points), a pack of saves, and a dozens of things that get you through either angle.

To not kill off PCs with regularity you have to fudge either the dice or the tactics -either ignore that 9 damage roll, or have that Orc not follow through and attack the person trying to kill it.

I encourage heroic, and I encourage very deep in depth storylines. But I want them to be earned. I don't want to hand my players the stories and hand them the victories. I want them to feel a sense of acomplishment and a sense of ownership for how the story and success is shaped. I want a strong story, that everyone feels is theirs -the last thing I want is a game where they come and expect me to just tell them what happened. This isn't my novel we're writing -I do that on my own time.

It's their tale, not mine. So no fudging and no group-hugging Orcs.

As for PC death, it's not a video game. This is not Neverwinter nights or Final Fantasy -you don't get to respawn. When your character is dead it's dead. Unless somebody has some of magic to bring it back, it's time to buy a casket.

Look at story hours like Contact's, Priatecat, or Nemmerle. These are no-immunity no-fudge DMs. By being so they encourage, not discourage, some of the most intense roleplay you'll find. Being in Contact's game for a while is one of the key things that changed my views on this subject. It's intense, you're drawn into the moment, and you start to really feel for the characters you play. Even the players who go through a bad run of PC deaths get in depth and into the story and plot.

Because it matters more, it's theirs -they earned it.

 

[d4]

d20 is a naturally lethal.

it's nowhere near as lethal as GURPS or any of several other games on the market. d20 is one of the most nonlethal systems i've played over the years.

i'm really trying to understand your point, arcady, but you keep talking about the players having "ownership" of the story... i just don't see how my style is any different in that respect. the PCs are the heroes, it's their story, they own it. i give them chances to shine and be heroic.

I want a strong story, that everyone feels is theirs -the last thing I want is a game where they come and expect me to just tell them what happened. This isn't my novel we're writing -I do that on my own time.

i'm in total agreement. did you honestly think i don't have the same thing happening in my campaign? it's not my story. it's the players' story. they are the heroes and they drive the action.

It's their tale, not mine. So no fudging and no group-hugging Orcs.

i don't quite understand how one follows from the other. so by fudging and having a less lethal campaign, that makes it the DM's story and not the players'? i don't get understand that line of thinking. i facilitate their heroics. i set up an environment in which their characters can achieve things they've only read about in books or seen on a movie screen. i'm allowing the players to assume the roles of larger-than-life figures. i don't see how that suddenly makes it my story over their's.

quite the opposite in fact. if the party gets wiped out by a random encounter with a group of orcs, then it's the orcs' story and not the players'. and who is playing the orcs?

Look at story hours like Contact's, Priatecat, or Nemmerle. These are no-immunity no-fudge DMs. By being so they encourage, not discourage, some of the most intense roleplay you'll find.

firstly, i have. i would not wish to play in their games. they do not suit my style. secondly, i have seen just as intense role-play in my own campaigns. i've seen much more intense role-play in low-lethality campaigns than i have ever seen in high-lethality campaigns. this has been a constant across my 20 years of gaming.

It's intense, you're drawn into the moment, and you start to really feel for the characters you play. Even the players who go through a bad run of PC deaths get in depth and into the story and plot.

as i've said before, i feel more for my characters in low-lethality games. as soon as the body count starts to rise, my emotional attachment to the character and the game drops to zero. i am a different kind of gamer than you.

i used to think like you do now, arcady. i used to think that without death being held over your head, you weren't having a "proper" role-playing game. i switched to my current style and i find i am enjoying gaming more than i ever have in my life.