Plot immunity for PCs

[Kichwas]

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.

It is and it isn't. It has nothing on the Hero system for inability to get killed for example. Nor Mutants and Masterminds or any other super hero RPG. But if we want to be fair we should stick to other RPGs of the same genre. Fantasy Hero for example is a lot hard to die in than DnD. I would say GURPS is the same, and I've been running that since 1982 (the days of The Fantasy Trip). While you have less 'Hit Points' in the long run than you do in DnD, the means of doing damage don't get as high, and the system has a lot fewer means of instant killing.

In DnD it's easy to just lose a character on a single die roll -A death spell, trap, or Coup de Grace (two or three rolls in that, but one action).

Unless you actively avoid these things, death in DnD will be quite commonplace.

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.

But you protect them from their mistakes by making what should be dangerous non-dangerous. They don't own the results if they can't be responsible for their errors or are not subject to the dangers of taking risks. As I say on my site, even smart people die when they take risks -if you only kill the PCs of dumb players (something many other fudge favoring DMs claim), they aren't owning up to their actions fully. They're being led.

 

[d4]

...even smart people die when they take risks...

in real life. not in action movies.

i am not interested in emulating real life in my role-playing games.

But you protect them from their mistakes by making what should be dangerous non-dangerous.

i don't consider impulsive bravery and swashbuckling, improbable action to be mistakes. i want to encourage my players to do those kinds of things.

besides, there are plenty of ways to keep players in line besides killing them. sometimes killing them is just letting them off the hook...

for me, combat is not punishment because you couldn't find a better way to handle the situation. combat is merely a chance for the characters to show how badass and cool they are. it's not something i wish to avoid and unless it's against the BBEG, it should not be life-threatening for the PCs.

movie heroes don't get killed by random thugs on their way across town. they don't get killed fighting the BBEG's henchmen. they rarely even die fighting the BBEG.

that's what i am emulating in my campaigns.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I think you can have a proper roleplaying game without the threat of death (perhaps depending on the genre). I can't really see a completely no-death game as D&D though. I know I find myself unable to play for long in PBEMs that have a 'no PC death without player consent' rule, I find it very frustrating. But I can see that a soap opera or 4-colour superhero game with no involuntary PC death could be perfectly viable. I guess these no-death D&D games emphasise story-building over tactical play. My own game emphasises world-building - the PCs have the chance to literally change the course of the gameworld's history - the path is not fore-ordained, so eg I didn't know whether the PCs would succeed in their attempt to slay the Overking and replace him with a different ruler. They failed - and it still made a good story, but a different one from if they'd succeeded.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Lets not try and insult each other's players please.
...
Which is odd, having you insulting both types of players now. Let's just not go there please.

Arcady, you are the only one on this thread who has insulted anyone. (and thats impressive on a thread started by me.)

The majority of your posts have been either explicitly insulting (refering to a mature view that the right way to play is the one your players enjoy as "touchy-feely bulls**t") or implicitly (accusing others of coddling players, talking about group hugging orcs if they don't stop to coup de grace, saying in a not so subtle ways that the other side should be writing novels rather than playing with others, and everything else under the sun.) You are one of the few people here putting across the "my way is RIGHT for all groups" vibe.

So I can only assume that the above comments are due to either an amazing lack of understanding of your own terms, or you being a basic troll.*

That was an insult, honey, didn't want ya to feel loney.

*"Pirate cat says there aren't any trolls on en world... not real ones. But there are..."
"Yes, honey, there are"
"So why do moderators say things like that?"
"well, most of the time they're right...."
(15 points for parody identification)

Kahuna Burger

 

[Piratecat]

I knew my moderator-sense was tingling for a reason.* KB, if you feel that someone is being rude, it's MUCH better to reort the post instead of insulting them back. Doing it this way is messier for everybdy, and I'm not very fond of it. Arcady, please don't feel you have to rebut her points, as I'd like that portion of the discussion over with.

This is an interesting thread; let's please let all the insults slide and get back on topic. Less bickering, more killing of PCs!

Incidentally, there is something more important than killing PCs... and that's making the players feel like their PCs are in danger of dying or failing. It's the dramatic tension that is important, not the actual deaths. For instance, it wasn't until I was in a game with a cream-puff DM who wouldn't kill my character, no matter what, that I soured on the campaign. Maybe he was always that hesitant to kill a PC, but it wasn't until I was placed in a situation where I really should have died, and didn't, that the fun leaked away.

As a result, I generally won't hesitate to kill a Pc, but it happens fairly infrequently. The PCs are in fear of death quite a lot, though, and that adds some additional excitement to the game.

When players aren't at the game, they know that their PC may not survive. I tend to give a warning before especially lethal games; I tell people that I'm not guaranteeing PC survival if the player isn't there. For some reason, absenteeism at those games is low.


*

Spoiler

No, that's not what was tingling. Get yer mind out of the gutter. Sheesh.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

yeah, that was the impression I got on the other thread with the "god mode" comment and some of the comments here. I don't think all killer dms have that reasoning, and some just like the style, but I suspect it happens. I use a basic philosophy, as explained to one group of characters over email:

>Lets see. Are we assuming the death rate in Keith's campaign (for me at least <g>), or
>something a little less lethal?

"I find stories where the main characters die off pointlessly and often to be annoying. So I don't tell that kind of story. You are going to be near the top of the food chain in this setting, and many of your challenges you'll be choosing for yourself. So if you decide to run straight into the fire flats without an endure elements spell, you will die, but no one's making you do that.

There is always risk in combat, but there's always the chance of coming back too, so I suggest making a character you'll like for a while."

This philosophy has served me well, and PCs have neither run from the chance to be herioc, nor charged brainlessly into situations they know will likely be over their heads.

Now one group that I played in had some serious coddling of certain players going on and "plot immunity" in the bad way. (PC insults and annoys important npc constantly, important npc still helps the party) and I would have likely gone killer DM on them had I been given a chance just to get the group somewhere where I could deal with them in my perfered style.

This goes to the players responsibility in a story intensive game, which is another thing I get out front right away. "I encourage roleplaying, but I also encourage the generation of characters who you can roleplay without screwing up the game for everyone else."

Oh, and can we please give up the "X Y & Z seem to use this method in their campaigns and everyone loves the story hours therefore its the right way" bit? Style and skill are completely different issues. A DM of high skill may still have a style I find unenjoyable. And if I'm not enjoying it, they aren't a good dm for me. And I'm not a good player for them.

(piratecat, for instance, ran a great oneshot that I had fun in. However, I don't think I would play in a regular game with him as DM. No biggie.)

Kahuna burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I knew my moderator-sense was tingling for a reason.* KB, if you feel that someone is being rude, it's MUCH better to reort the post instead of insulting them back.

Hazy lines fill the screen as Kahuna Burger remembers when she lost faith in that particular method.... but the flashback is averted sue to low FX budget.

*

Spoiler

No, that's not what was tingling. Get yer mind out of the gutter. Sheesh.

aw......

btw, I've been meaning to meantion to you for a while: "pug pug pug pug pug..." not my first breed choice, but adorable and smart. Know of any aglity training places RI way?

Kahuna Burger

 

[clark411]

I agree that to really "own" something you have to feel both the positive and negative impact of what's going on. If all you get are the good things to the fullest, while the bad things are buffed from you by some strange way the world is working around you, it's almost like you're PCs are being cradled by some all powerful DM Force. I'd much rather have my PCs protected or lost through my own successes, planning, and failure.

The other day, the DM hit my 9th cleric with a Disintegrate spell cast by a 12th level enemy cleric. I rolled a 22 for the Fort save, and failed- took a bunch of damage and dusted. The combat lasted two more hours and I sat there doing initiative. I have absolutely no problems with it, our decision to make a frontal assault was ours. Our decision to invite half the major NPCs we met was also ours. The tactical mistakes we made were ours, as were our tactically smart plans. After two dispels and a counterspell cast by my cleric, the silenced fighters had still failed to get to her and I had failed to keep my head low with my spells, so I took the Disintegrate. It was that simple.

Later on, with a few major NPCs broken and dead on the floor, the enemy cleric died and the demon possessing it, some Balor scion of Demogorgon, erupted from it. We knew it was going to be trouble when the wizards in town we mentioned his name called in their apprentices and told them to pack their things.. but we kept going. The big NPC guy told the remaining PCs to run, and the paladin delayed to hit the balor. He recieved an Implosion spell and woke up next to me in heaven. He owned the choice, he owned the reprocussion of that choice.

If and when we're raised we'll actually learn from what we did more so than if we fought a half fight, and were saying "Darn, those boo-boos sure did smart, but at least the Balor ran off after we killed the cleric" after it.

 

[Blood Jester]

[Hijack alert]

KB:

For the sake of all that's holy! DON'T GET A PUG!!!

Sorry, by my sister has one, and...ugh! Get a real dog, I beg you.

[/Hijack alert]

 

[reiella]

I'm of the opinion that if a TPK occurs in my game, then I failed to convey the risk/danger inherit in the challenge, or I just flat out Messed Up and presented a No-Win situation. Even with bad luck, at least a Single member of a party should be able to survive.

I've actually only had to do that once, and the result wasn't fun for anyone in the group.