Stepping over "The Line" in a campaign

[Chimera]

but some of my players have a real knack for coming up with things to do that will haunt them if not completely ruin their lives. They not only don't realize they are crossing the line, they have such a mind block against it that they will argue for hours or days if I let them about how what they did was perfectly appropriate. As best I can tell, they are simply so enamored by the idea of no consequences in the game that they're unable to see them.

Been there, experienced that.

"I am doing what my character thinks is appropriate and logical".

Sure, fine. But when the game ends because of it, who are you going to upset with? The GM, or yourself?

I never quite understand this belief that "Just because I believe that it's appropriate, there should be no consequences". The real world is full of counter-examples to that idea.

 

[Aaron L]

Been there, experienced that.

"I am doing what my character thinks is appropriate and logical".

Sure, fine. But when the game ends because of it, who are you going to upset with? The GM, or yourself?

I never quite understand this belief that "Just because I believe that it's appropriate, there should be no consequences". The real world is full of counter-examples to that idea.

That's a corollary to the "but I'm playing my alignment!" law.

 

[Kid Socrates]

I tend to joke around a bit when The Line is approaching for my players -- we make a lot of video game jokes, so when I say, "Would you like to save your game?" they get a good idea that something bad is just on the other side of their actions. I've never thought of doing an actual Save Point system, though. Even running a video-game-inspired game, that seems... too meta-gamey.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, count me in the "No to a Save Point" camp.

As for "the Line", my players generally wouldn't see it even if I drew it in bright red ink for them. Much hilarity has ensued when the realise just what they've done...

 

[frankthedm]

Hate the idea. Actions have to have repercussions good or bad. If the players has a bad week and thinks they deserve to mouth off to an in-game authority figure, the logical repercussions happen. If the players want to go down the road of evil only to realize the game becomes something they would of rather never had happen, tough $!@+, it happened, they can atone and undo the damage they did. If through bad luck and bad tactics, the players will be trapped forever in a dungeon since their foes reinforcements have arrived, so be it. If someone wants the “Reset button”, I have many, many console RPGs to let them play through.

I like the idea of "Fate points" myself, where the players has a small amount of points that are use for lucky escapes when they otherwise would have died.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I wouldn't play in a game with saves, outside of a computer game.

 

[Goldmoon]

I use a "Hero Point" system where a player can spend a point to add 20 to any roll or subtract 20 from any of my rolls. I really dislike the idea of a save point though.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

We have "Quick Save" jokes from time to time when we know we about to get into a nasty fight or we have a character do something we as players know to be Stupid With A Capital S.

But that's it. No real Saved Game File or anything..

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Why the hate on save points, I wonder? I mean, the reaction seems completely out of proportion to their actual effect on the game.

With the exception of MMORPGs and wargames with extended campaign play, *every other game, electronic or otherwise* has some type of reset button, even if it's restarting from the beginning. Yet it's a mechanic I've almost never seen explored for RPGs, apparently out of this sense of... outrage? I don't even know how to describe it.

I can see how it would be somewhat difficult to do; the GM and players would have to keep a good record of their status at a particular point, and especially for the GM that could involve considerable bookkeeping.

Personally, I would love to play in an RPG that used a save point mechanic, or to run one if it had a convenient way to deal with the paperwork.

 

[Remus Lupin]

In a Forgotten Realms campaign a few years ago, the DM had done a masterful job of setting the party up. Bit by bit over a long time he managed to maneuver us into a spot where we could be falsely accused of conspiring against the city with the BBEG.

Once the net dropped, when we were all over the city taking care of our business, we each had a choice. The rest of the party decided to go off quietly, but my elven bladesinger wasn't about to yeild. When the city guard came to take him away, he hit them with a Sleep spell and headed for the hills (literally).

But THAT wasn't the Rubicon moment: The guy playing the ranger, seeing what I had done, decided that his character wasn't going to go along quietly anymore. So when the action came back around to him again, he challenged the guard, and then drew his sword (which they had allowed him to keep under his oath that he'd be peaceful), and KILLED THEM!!!!!

Bear in mind that this was a good aligned town and the town guard were innocent of any wrongdoing. They were simply doing their jobs. He killed over one of them, even after the rest of us were saying "You mean you do subdual damage, right???" "No," he said. "I'm aiming to kill."

Needless to say, this radically changed the campaign from that point forward. We ended up on trial for our lives, the ranger ended up being killed, and his head put on a spike. The rest of us were acquitted, but only because I was able to call on the priest of Tyr to adjudicate and cast a spell to compell us to tell the truth, so our innocence was proven.

It was actually a great two or three sessions, but it was one of those times when yo KNOW things will have to change going forward. To this day I can't believe that the ranger slaughtered the city guard.