PDA

View Full Version : Preventing awkward player death?



Buddha's_Cookie
2013-11-11, 11:07 PM
In a new game I am writing up the PCs are playing themselves. And it just occurred to me that knowing my group someone will die, probably. Is there any way to prevent this from occurring with out giving cheesy immunity to the PCs? The power level of this game is low enough that resurrection spells are not a clear or easy option. If it helps let me know what info is needed as the game is in the earliest design phases.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-11, 11:53 PM
Why do you want to prevent their deaths?

Buddha's_Cookie
2013-11-11, 11:57 PM
Well it is awkward for a player to die and have no means (clean or easy to explain) to bring him or her back and they can't simply roll a new character as the characters are themselves.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-11, 11:59 PM
Well it is awkward for a player to die and have no means (clean or easy to explain) to bring him or her back and they can't simply roll a new character as the characters are themselves.

Roll up an identical twin?

Benthesquid
2013-11-11, 11:59 PM
Put the players in non life-or-death situations. A heavy RP/diplomacy/social maneuvering campaign should be good for this. A player character who screws up might be arrested by the palace guard, or simply banned from the vital councils, but he or she will still be alive, and will have a chance to overcome the difficulties their mistakes have created.

Jenrock
2013-11-12, 12:06 AM
I'm not trying to be glib here, but just don't kill them. If you think it would be weird for their character to drop, then make the monster go elsewhere, have the trap hurt the badly enough for a hospital/healer (but not the morgue), "accidentally" dilute the poison intended for them.

Jacob.Tyr
2013-11-12, 12:06 AM
Just make combat non-lethal in most cases? I usually run with neg hp means the character (PC or NPC) is either unwilling or incapable of fighting, not dying. Death comes solely from one actor deciding it will happen once a foe is in the negative.

Buddha's_Cookie
2013-11-12, 12:08 AM
Put the players in non life-or-death situations. A heavy RP/diplomacy/social maneuvering campaign should be good for this. A player character who screws up might be arrested by the palace guard, or simply banned from the vital councils, but he or she will still be alive, and will have a chance to overcome the difficulties their mistakes have created.

The only problem is that my group is not to big on the RP, but I still want to go through with this campaign. We do some RP and are certainly getting better at it, but it is not at the level that we are happy with a 70+% RP based game.

Buddha's_Cookie
2013-11-12, 12:13 AM
Sorry to double post.

I think I can work around it, bit of an odd way, in that the players were already targets of gods (good and evil) before this topic was relevant. The players are the preferred vessel of many of these gods in order to act in the world. I can work in a bit of divine intervention. I trust my players to not make this happen too often.

Rhynn
2013-11-12, 12:21 AM
Well it is awkward for a player to die and have no means (clean or easy to explain) to bring him or her back and they can't simply roll a new character as the characters are themselves.

Well, that sort of clearly and easily identifies the main weakness:


the characters are themselves.

Right there.

That said: give them hero/fate/whatever points that let them avoid death (and possibly have other uses).

kyoryu
2013-11-12, 01:17 AM
Use a system that doesn't use death as a primary failure mechanism.

Tengu_temp
2013-11-12, 01:42 AM
PCs that drop down are not dead but dying and will bleed out if they don't get medical help in, say, 3-5 rounds. Easy enough to prevent, still keeps combat dangerous and exciting.

Brookshw
2013-11-12, 06:43 AM
PCs that drop down are not dead but dying and will bleed out if they don't get medical help in, say, 3-5 rounds. Easy enough to prevent, still keeps combat dangerous and exciting.

That's pretty good right there, especially as it put a "timer" into effect, urgency can add to immersion.

Another option perhaps, they die but either fate or some other cosmic force (are you using the standard D&D cosmology?) isn't ready for them to leave and brings them back, but this comes at a corruption cost, if and when this happens player mysteriously returns to life the next day with some form of twist. Small silly things like no longer seeing the color green, to larger things, occasionally the world will send them strange messages (example a news paper that has a headline that only they can read which is normal again when someone else looks). Mess with them a bit if they die and come back.

tommhans
2013-11-12, 09:43 AM
dying is such an important part of the game that you shouldn't take that completely away. The most intense moments are when you are just one save dice away from dying, or like 20 hp fighting an beholdr that can disintigrate you with one hit, fights wouldn't be much "fun" if you always found a way to survive, even if you do a "supernatural" style of reviving with the vessels, it might work the first couple of times and that is ok for that matter, but after that you should consider letting them go, as they could always make new characters, eventhough they play as themselves, they could play as themselves as another class / race

You could do it the awesome way, have a necromancer /cleric / healer, live in a hut nearby, he says there is just a 25% chance of him surviving, throw a d100, then like 80-100 and he is ressurected, 30-79 he is an undead, depending on how well you hit he can either be disgusting and braindead, or undead with normal thinking but with minuses on several stuff(could be a lot of cool rpging there) under 30 he isnt ressurected at all and he stays dead.

prufock
2013-11-12, 10:28 AM
Some good suggestions here, including having nonlethal-type encounters. My primary suggestion, though, would be to change up the "death and dying" rules (assuming you're playing 3.5 D&D).

1. You have a number of "Wound Points" equal to your Con score.
2. When you run out of HP, you are treated as disabled and further damage subtracts from your WP.
3. When you run out of WP you are unconscious and dying. As long as you receive first aid within 1 minute you will stabilize.

This means that that characters will really only die if there is a TPK. The threat of death is still very real, however, and you're taken out of the action if you get hurt.

Souju
2013-11-12, 11:10 AM
could crib the Hero Points system from Pathfinder too. Basically gives them "one free pass". If they die twice in too short a time, they probably deserve it :P

Slipperychicken
2013-11-12, 11:32 AM
Have you tried asking your players about this? If they don't do much RP, they might be cool with their self-inserts getting gibbed.

Segev
2013-11-12, 01:58 PM
What sort of game is this? What genre, setting, and stylistic conceits are available?

Might they be remote-piloting robo-clones of themselves? Might they be "logged in" to a video game? Might they be some sort of disembodied intelligence that wills a new avatar into existence after a time?

Jay R
2013-11-12, 02:59 PM
If you are going to prevent their deaths, and they find out about it, they will immediately take advantage of it to try ridiculous ideas.

[Also, to be clear - despite the thread name, we're talking about preventing character deaths, right?]

Slipperychicken
2013-11-12, 03:05 PM
[Also, to be clear - despite the thread name, we're talking about preventing character deaths, right?]

Umm.. You do know what it means when you play as yourself, right?

If you die in the game, you die for real.

Jay R
2013-11-12, 03:13 PM
Umm.. You do know what it means when you play as yourself, right?

If you die in the game, you die for real.

Well, that's what I thought. I kept telling my DM he was doing it wrong.

Rhynn
2013-11-12, 03:32 PM
Umm.. You do know what it means when you play as yourself, right?

If you die in the game, you die for real.

NO, NOT BLACK LEAF!

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-12, 03:51 PM
The sacrifice must continue.

(I always want to make this joke whenever someone talks about "killing players", but this time it's rather apt. :smallbiggrin: )

In seriousness--there's a number of problems with having players play themselves, and you've discovered one of them.

Buddha's_Cookie
2013-11-12, 05:44 PM
What sort of game is this? What genre, setting, and stylistic conceits are available?
The idea is that the players start in the real world and are brought into a fantasy world. Part of the goal is to get home, obviously involving a few hoops.



If you are going to prevent their deaths, and they find out about it, they will immediately take advantage of it to try ridiculous ideas.

[Also, to be clear - despite the thread name, we're talking about preventing character deaths, right?]
I don't plan on making it clear that I am doing this and it will come with the warning that I (DM) won't pull that card often or ever again. And yes we are talking about character deaths.


NO, NOT BLACK LEAF!
Haha I only learned about this the other day. I am the newest member of my group and they have only been playing for a few years.

Tengu_temp
2013-11-12, 06:28 PM
If you are going to prevent their deaths, and they find out about it, they will immediately take advantage of it to try ridiculous ideas.


Not true. In pretty much all the games I'm running the PCs are guaranteed not to die, ever, unless they do something that's just asking for it. The only ridiculous ideas they have are ridiculous in a good way.

J-H
2013-11-12, 06:50 PM
Why not just go ahead and plan for one? Have a player "decide" (to the rest of the group) to play his/her older brother/absent friend, etc.... and then kill that character.

Ie, put the fear of chardeath in them by killing a character that you planned to kill from the start. Just be subtle about it.

Buddha's_Cookie
2013-11-12, 11:06 PM
Why not just go ahead and plan for one? Have a player "decide" (to the rest of the group) to play his/her older brother/absent friend, etc.... and then kill that character.

Ie, put the fear of chardeath in them by killing a character that you planned to kill from the start. Just be subtle about it.
That is actually not a bad idea, I have something like that I could do that is a bit less obvious.

Kane0
2013-11-12, 11:41 PM
I read the threat title and my first thought was my DM saying:
"You die in a compromising position. Pray that a necromancer does not find you like that."

Kelb_Panthera
2013-11-13, 03:10 AM
I read the threat title and my first thought was my DM saying:
"You die in a compromising position. Pray that a necromancer does not find you like that."

So in not the only one who thought about a pc's corpse being found with its pants around its ankles.

If you're okay with silly you can just do it Kenny style; if someone dies they're just inexplicably alive again at the beginning of the next session and noone acknowledges that they did die in-character. Having to sit out the rest of the session can be enough of a deterrent for some players to avoid excessive silliness.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-11-13, 10:57 AM
I read the threat title and my first thought was my DM saying:
"You die in a compromising position. Pray that a necromancer does not find you like that."
Why is this not a Have A Nice Death (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HaveANiceDeath) line in a Sierra Game already? :smallbiggrin:

* * *

So, the best solution is to play a game where PC death is not the primary failure mechanism (as kyoryu said) -- and there are plenty that exist -- but I imagine you already have a system in mind for this campaign.

Judging by your notes, you have two main options:

(1) Divine Intervention
(2) Sacrifice Others

#1 has that some powerful force keeps resurrecting the fallen PCs. This is the most direct solution, fits your scenario, and avoids the inevitable "PC Death = Massive Loot" problem that most "Identical Twin" mechanisms produce. The primary problem, of course, is that without mortality to worry about your Players are more likely to subject their PCs to suicidal actions, confident that they will be revived.

#2 is trickier, but has all the benefits of #1 without the problems. Here the PC is getting resurrected by some outside force but must sacrifice someone else / something valuable to do so. This can range from "my favorite NPC" to "more of the world succumbs to evil" depending on your flavor. Even if your Players are as RP-adverse as you state, tainting their game-world every time they resurrect is likely to keep them from causally offing themselves.

How do those sound? :smallsmile:

InQbait
2013-11-13, 04:07 PM
Cloning. Nuff said.

NickChaisson
2013-11-16, 12:22 AM
You could just change how death works in your campaign. Maybe when they die they just go to another plane of existence where they are given some form of test/puzzle/maze that if they beat/solve it they get to return to life. You would just need a way to explain why everybody does not do it. You mentioned them being vessels for gods, that could tie into it. Hope you have fun ^_^

Lorsa
2013-11-16, 09:41 AM
While I do think it's not a great idea to have players play themselves, since you have chosen to do so my recommendation is:

Cheat.

It's perfectly possible to have characters coming close to the brink of death and the players believing it was only a lucky low damage roll that saved them. You just have to be a good actor.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-16, 10:18 AM
It's perfectly possible to have characters coming close to the brink of death and the players believing it was only a lucky low damage roll that saved them. You just have to be a good actor.

A DM fooled me once or twice on this one. When I found out the extent to which he was cheating, I felt betrayed, and shouted at him for a few minutes before quitting his game forever.

Suffice it to say I think this is an awful idea.

Gavran
2013-11-16, 11:22 AM
A DM fooled me once or twice on this one. When I found out the extent to which he was cheating, I felt betrayed, and shouted at him for a few minutes before quitting his game forever.

Suffice it to say I think this is an awful idea.

That's... absurd? I mean, sure death is part of the game too but obviously he didn't want to derail the plot or dissolve the group cohesion by introducing a new character or... any number of things. None of which justify angry outbursts or ragequitting. Talk to him about it, ask him to stop if you want, but ultimately whether a character dies or not is up to the DM - and it's important that if they misjudge the strength of the party or of an encounter that they can correct for it. You don't want your players to find out about it because it cheapens things, but no good DM is playing to kill the PCs... you know?

Edit: To clarify, I don't mean to say you aren't entitled to play however you want, and not play with whoever you want for whatever reasons you want. I'm just kind of shocked that you'd react so poorly to it.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-16, 12:04 PM
That's... absurd? I mean, sure death is part of the game too but obviously he didn't want to derail the plot or dissolve the group cohesion by introducing a new character or... any number of things. None of which justify angry outbursts or ragequitting.

Well, there were other contributing factors in that case too. I understand it when the GM makes an encounter way too hard by accident and has to tone it back down to be a reasonable challenge, but in most cases I would rather lose (i.e. usually character death) than get bailed out by fiat. Besides, many of the plots I've played through can be restarted/picked up like they began; someone walks down to the bar to hire another band of thugs to replace the first one.


Also, it's partly about fairness. One of my main motivations for playing D&D is challenges. If my character is predestined to always win, then there's no challenge. There's no reason for me to sit through hours of character-building minigames if the game statistics are rendered irrelevant by GM fiat. Similarly, there's little reason to sit through hours of die rolls and decision-making if the end result is always predetermined total victory/success with no casualties. If the GM denies me that challenge entirely, then I feel cheated out of the time and energy I invested in that game.

Rhynn
2013-11-16, 03:33 PM
Cheat.

It's perfectly possible to have characters coming close to the brink of death and the players believing it was only a lucky low damage roll that saved them. You just have to be a good actor.

The GM shouldn't cheat. That's not very good GMing. You can always do something better and just not cheat - this thread is full of ideas.

I've done exactly what you describe, back when I was a teenage GM. It was definitely one of those poor GMing habits I've left behind.


I would rather lose (i.e. usually character death) than get bailed out by fiat.

Case in point: if the only lose condition in your scenarios is, as a rule, death, that's something that you can do better at as a GM. (Granted, it's also something that requires player proactivity.)

NB: Not saying Slipperychicken is saying it is, was, or should be; but I know that, for many GMs and in many systems, it commonly is.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-16, 04:59 PM
The GM shouldn't cheat. That's not very good GMing. You can always do something better and just not cheat - this thread is full of ideas.


For the record, I don't count it as cheating if he's being honest about it and/or is just trying to correct a mistake he made earlier.

I don't expect any GM to be perfect. If you really screwed up and want to fix it (like if you used the wrong encounter/treasure table or something), I'll be cool with retconning something like that as long as you're being honest and aren't trying to pull a fast one.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-16, 05:02 PM
I definitely don't believe that a GM should lie about the lethality of a situation. If you're going to save a character, don't deceive them about it and make them think they escaped. When they find out, it's an actual betrayal--you get cheated of your narrow escape, because you weren't actually narrowly escaping, but were being coddled by the GM. That's a major letdown.

Rhynn
2013-11-16, 05:24 PM
For the record, I don't count it as cheating if he's being honest about it and/or is just trying to correct a mistake he made earlier.

For sure. If a GM screwed up, they oughta throw their hands up, admit it, and try to fix it. Lying about secret dice rolls, though... why even roll dice if you're gonna lie about the results?

Slipperychicken
2013-11-16, 06:39 PM
I definitely don't believe that a GM should lie about the lethality of a situation. If you're going to save a character, don't deceive them about it and make them think they escaped. When they find out, it's an actual betrayal--you get cheated of your narrow escape, because you weren't actually narrowly escaping, but were being coddled by the GM. That's a major letdown.

This, so very much this.

Tengu_temp
2013-11-16, 08:16 PM
Also, it's partly about fairness. One of my main motivations for playing D&D is challenges.

I don't understand this approach. RPGs, in the end, are about a bunch of people playing make-believe together, with one of them being the final arbiter who might try to be objective, but never fully is (because no human is fully objective). That's one of the worst environments for creating a fair challenge I can think of. If I want to play something that provides me with a fair, objective challenge, I play a video game.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-11-16, 09:39 PM
I don't understand this approach. RPGs, in the end, are about a bunch of people playing make-believe together, with one of them being the final arbiter who might try to be objective, but never fully is (because no human is fully objective). That's one of the worst environments for creating a fair challenge I can think of. If I want to play something that provides me with a fair, objective challenge, I play a video game.

While it's true that noone can be wholly objective in the global sense, a person can be wholly objective in regards to a narrow subject. Arbitrating the rules of a P&P is more than narrow enough for many people. Setting up encounters is too, but the math to be certain of the encounters' odds is a much more complex matter and having to properly cipher potential tactics and strategies for the encounters is even more so sometimes.

I too feel that the DM should arbitrate the rules as they were written objectively unless he makes a colosal error in setting up. I can accept the death of my characters if that's what the gods of the dice decree. If the DM can't accept that, then his game is not for me.

I can also accept the DM saying, "Hey, I screwed up here and the story can't continue if you guys lose this encounter this way," though I'd be a bit miffed.

What I cannot accept is a DM saying that we can lose if the dice say so then screwing with the rolls to arbitrarily let us win when we should be dead. This is a huge red flag with blinking, neon lights that the DM is going to be more railroady than I, personally, find acceptable. If I catch him doing it once I'll talk it out to see if he's willing to bend on the issue. If not, i'm done. If I catch it a second time after that talk, I'm done with the game and my friend is skating on thin ice as far as the bond of trust between us goes. A game is far too trivial a thing to lie over.

Cikomyr
2013-11-16, 09:49 PM
What I cannot accept is a DM saying that we can lose if the dice say so then screwing with the rolls to arbitrarily let us win when we should be dead. This is a huge red flag with blinking, neon lights that the DM is going to be more railroady than I, personally, find acceptable. If I catch him doing it once I'll talk it out to see if he's willing to bend on the issue. If not, i'm done. If I catch it a second time after that talk, I'm done with the game and my friend is skating on thin ice as far as the bond of trust between us goes. A game is far too trivial a thing to lie over.

That's clumsy.

The DM should be able to arbitrarily let you remain alive. You just lost the fight, and the story should keep on going despite you losing. "The Game Must Go On" :smallbiggrin:

I keep remembering what one of my DM taught me: Death is Too Easy. You just wash your character sheet and you start over. The much, much more interesting part is dealing with the consequences of your actions.

They did something stupid? Take away their magical items. Take away their contacts, their ressources. Their accomplishment. Their friends. Their family members. Their limbs (!). If you actually care about your story (and if your players do too), they should accept these sort of consequences as a logical fallout for their failures.

rushing headlong into death is just too easy a release...


As for the OP: the very, very simplistic mechanics that I would take from WFRP is the "Fate Point" mechanic. It's basically a in-rule "Survival Fiat". No matter what happens, the players survive the encounter. They may wake up naked, sick and in the sewers, but THEY SURVIVED, and the game continues.

Gavran
2013-11-16, 11:39 PM
Fair enough, thanks for explaining. I don't have very much DM experience so getting the perfect encounter balance is a struggle for me, and I'd prefer to fiat it than accidentally kill PCs - but I'd have no problem being up front about that if that's what my players wanted. Encounters are tough. :c Some players are optimized/tactical to the point that regular encounter building doesn't challenge them and then there's the problem with deciding how tactical to be with the enemies, too. I will note that I'd rarely notice the problem so late that I'd be changing the damage done of the would-be killing blow. Ideally I'd notice early enough on that I could just tone down the tactical play / write out an ability that is too problematic or something. Deus ex machina isn't much more compelling than having the PCs die because of an oversight.

Cikomyr
2013-11-17, 12:00 AM
Your players shouldn't feel cheated. That's the most important part. If they lose, they have to accept it as a fair loss, and they must have had fun at it.

Just find a way, in-story, to keep the story going even if they lost :smallwink: the "we are captured and must escape" is a old' cassic

Kelb_Panthera
2013-11-17, 12:07 AM
That's clumsy.

The DM should be able to arbitrarily let you remain alive. You just lost the fight, and the story should keep on going despite you losing. "The Game Must Go On" :smallbiggrin:

I keep remembering what one of my DM taught me: Death is Too Easy. You just wash your character sheet and you start over. The much, much more interesting part is dealing with the consequences of your actions.

They did something stupid? Take away their magical items. Take away their contacts, their ressources. Their accomplishment. Their friends. Their family members. Their limbs (!). If you actually care about your story (and if your players do too), they should accept these sort of consequences as a logical fallout for their failures.

rushing headlong into death is just too easy a release...


As for the OP: the very, very simplistic mechanics that I would take from WFRP is the "Fate Point" mechanic. It's basically a in-rule "Survival Fiat". No matter what happens, the players survive the encounter. They may wake up naked, sick and in the sewers, but THEY SURVIVED, and the game continues.

That works for intelligent and/or malicious foes and/or enemies that can't afford to have people wondering where these fresh bodies came from.

If a manticore or a red dragon beats the party, they're lunch. Then there's a random bullette from time to time.

Sometimes the dice hate you and while it certainly sucks I'd still rather lose the character than feel like I'm wearing plot-armor.

Rhynn
2013-11-17, 12:37 AM
I don't understand this approach. RPGs, in the end, are about a bunch of people playing make-believe together, with one of them being the final arbiter who might try to be objective, but never fully is (because no human is fully objective). That's one of the worst environments for creating a fair challenge I can think of.

Yet it's worked for about 40 years. Bizarre!

We're not talking about some kind of platonic ideal of fairness (not that computer games give you that, given how many of them adjust difficulty by cheating and bending the rules for "the other side"), we're talking about functional fairness. That's pretty easy to achieve when the GM doesn't cheat (either for or against the players).


Setting up encounters is too, but the math to be certain of the encounters' odds is a much more complex matter and having to properly cipher potential tactics and strategies for the encounters is even more so sometimes.

This is actually irrelevant if you don't force the PCs into encounters; if you provide them with the opportunity to gather information, a world with some internal consistency that gives them a frame of reference for this information, let them decide how to (or whether not to) engage situations, and don't regularly force them into contrived "fight or perish!" circumstances, fairness is quite achieved, I find.


What I cannot accept is a DM saying that we can lose if the dice say so then screwing with the rolls to arbitrarily let us win when we should be dead. This is a huge red flag with blinking, neon lights that the DM is going to be more railroady than I, personally, find acceptable.

Exactly. What's the point of using the dice if they're ultimately just an illusion? And why lie about it? There are RPGs that don't use dice, and dispense with the illusion of randomness (and others that don't use them to the same degree as traditional RPGs).

Cikomyr
2013-11-17, 01:15 AM
That works for intelligent and/or malicious foes and/or enemies that can't afford to have people wondering where these fresh bodies came from.

If a manticore or a red dragon beats the party, they're lunch. Then there's a random bullette from time to time.

Sometimes the dice hate you and while it certainly sucks I'd still rather lose the character than feel like I'm wearing plot-armor.

A Red Dragon may always have the party Prisonner, and have a task to ask of them. Always ready to screw them over later and try to eat them, but the players will have the time to prepare for something.

Manticore is a bit harder, but you just gotta try to work your brains a bit. You are the freakkin' GM; you should find a way for your players to survive, yet pay the consequences for their failures.

Be creatives. And don't be afraid to be honest with your players and tell them you are twisting "what should happen" because you don't want them to just die.


A character dying should an epic moment filled with meaning. You aren't recreating Real Life; you are the characters of a Great Story. Always remember; the narrative is more important than the simulationism.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-17, 01:59 AM
This is actually irrelevant if you don't force the PCs into encounters; if you provide them with the opportunity to gather information, a world with some internal consistency that gives them a frame of reference for this information, let them decide how to (or whether not to) engage situations, and don't regularly force them into contrived "fight or perish!" circumstances, fairness is quite achieved, I find.


Also, the possibility of retreating helps a lot if your players are able to roleplay their characters' choice between fight and flight. They aren't as likely to get TPK'd if one of them has the bright idea of running away before the excrement strikes the circulation device.



A character dying should an epic moment filled with meaning. You aren't recreating Real Life; you are the characters of a Great Story. Always remember; the narrative is more important than the simulationism.

I typically prefer to emphasize gameplay over narrative, and allow any narrative to emerge naturally from gameplay, with characters falling as the dice and rules dictate. I feel that emphasizing story over rules too much can lead to railroading and functional elimination of gameplay challenge and meaningful choices. I know you might feel differently, just try not to promote your own preference as though it's the only (or "best"*) way to play.


*I don't quite know why, but a lot of people who prefer it seem to feel that narrative focus is intrinsically superior to focus on gameplay challenges. They seem to regard the latter as a 'lower' playstyle, as if it's somehow wrong. It gets especially absurd when these people start saying that their way is objectively more fun, even when others don't see it that way. It perpetuates the stereotype of the "snobby role-player" often associated with World of Darkness and similar systems, who turn up their noses at any character with a stat below 10, or anyone who doesn't have a full page of backstory and a special accent for every character.

I just find it absolutely infuriating when someone tells me I'm playing incorrectly, or thinking about the game wrong, even when everyone at the table (myself included) is having fun.

Tengu_temp
2013-11-17, 02:22 AM
Yet it's worked for about 40 years. Bizarre!


"Worked" is subjective. The way almost everyone played RPGs for the first 20 years, and most people who only know DND and no other games still play them today? Doesn't appeal to me. At all.



*I don't quite know why, but a lot of people who prefer it seem to feel that narrative focus is intrinsically superior to focus on gameplay challenges. They seem to regard the latter as a 'lower' playstyle, as if it's somehow wrong. It gets especially absurd when these people start saying that their way is objectively more fun, even when others don't see it that way. It perpetuates the stereotype of the "snobby role-player" often associated with World of Darkness and similar systems, who turn up their noses at any character with a stat below 10, or anyone who doesn't have a full page of backstory and a special accent for every character.

I just find it absolutely infuriating when someone tells me I'm playing incorrectly, or thinking about the game wrong, even when everyone at the table (myself included) is having fun.

I suspect it's a reaction to how many people who prefer a more gamist playstyle go all "what, you don't roll 3d6 for all stats, your DM sometimes cheats in the players' favour to keep the story going, and you don't play the game for tactical challenge? Your group is made of big babies who'd cry if their characters got killed!" at more narrative-focused players.

Snobbery goes both ways.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-11-17, 02:39 AM
As slipperychicken and tengu_temp have just succinctly demonstrated, the importance of gameplay and narrative aspects of gaming is subjective both globally and in the minds of individual players.

Demonstratively;

It would appear that cikomyr holds the narrative above the gamist aspect while the reverse is true of slipperychicken. Neither of them is objectively wrong.

Personally, I find that the two are of near equal importance, though I put the gamist aspect just slightly ahead.

RochtheCrusher
2013-11-17, 06:21 AM
Honestly, keeping your players alive is a lot easier if you don't threaten them. Place them in a city whose gate is about to be betrayed from within, and set them up against an enemy within the walls who just don't have time (or motivation) to kill them... they just want to escape and open the gate for the army outside.

If the party loses control of the situation and the gate opens, make it clear that, while this fight was winnable a few minutes ago, now it isn't. The army is ten times what they can handle, the city is burning, and it's time to drag your wounded out while you still can.

The PCs live, the story goes on, but those wizards who were working on getting them home? The friendly shopgirl at the item shop? The political influence of that city which was helping to keep everyone else in check? All gone.

PC death is too easy.

Lorsa
2013-11-17, 07:07 AM
The GM shouldn't cheat. That's not very good GMing. You can always do something better and just not cheat - this thread is full of ideas.

I've done exactly what you describe, back when I was a teenage GM. It was definitely one of those poor GMing habits I've left behind.

Yes, the thread is full of lots of good ideas for how to make other things at stake than character death.

However, if you're ever going to have a foe physically attack a character with lethal force you ARE going to have the risk of character death there.

If you've decided that character death is NOT an acceptable outcome under no circumstances your only option in this situation is to cheat (maybe, depending on the results).

So what you have to do is to decide if that is acceptable to you and your group. Saying it is objectively bad is dangerous territory. Also, your comment about your teen GMing can be seen as trying to insinuate that anyone who would cheat is immature.

Some players hate when the GM cheats, some players actually expect it and most fall somewhere between those two extremes. Personally when I am a player I really dislike when the GM cheats in my favor. I can take the bad die outcomes.

I have one friend though that doesn't really mind a bit of cheating now and then in his favor. He just doesn't want to know when it happens. It's a preference thing.


Also, cheating and railroading really isn't the same thing, but I don't have time to get into that right now.


Tl, dr: I don't like cheating myself, but some people find it acceptable.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-11-17, 08:05 AM
For clarity's sake, I never said fudging rolls was railroading, I said it was a sign of railroading. Refusing to let characters die shows a certain degree of attachment to the narrative, that he's willing to change rolls to preserve the narrative and may be indicative that he's willing to fudge things to save his BBEG, if it's not the "final scene" for that character.

Cikomyr
2013-11-17, 08:55 AM
As slipperychicken and tengu_temp have just succinctly demonstrated, the importance of gameplay and narrative aspects of gaming is subjective both globally and in the minds of individual players.

Demonstratively;

It would appear that cikomyr holds the narrative above the gamist aspect while the reverse is true of slipperychicken. Neither of them is objectively wrong.

Personally, I find that the two are of near equal importance, though I put the gamist aspect just slightly ahead.

because the question was "how can I prevent character deaths". It's a purely narrative-focused concern, as the simulationist approach would simply go with "let them die". A narrative approach is the moment where you admit there are more important things than sticking to the rule.

If people wants their RPG to be a tactical simulator; who am I do tell them they are playing it wrong? That's what gets their mojo going, and I am fine with that. It's just that I find that sort of gamer to end up playing the game with the same mindset of an action video game; there are challenges to be overcomed. You end up asking yourself "what's the tactically smart thing" than "how would my character react?".

Now, that is not to say the simulationist aspect of RPGs isn't a great source of enjoyment in of itself. After all; gamers love to overcome challenges and come up with clever ideas to do it. But any game reach a "higher level", in my opinion, when they have becomed involved so much in the plot that resolving it becomes of a higher priority than getting the reward or the simple pleasure of beating the challenge.

Rules should never be in the way of having fun. Sometimes, you have to bend or break them so your story flows well. If your players don't like it, don't be the jerk DM who just tells them "that's the way it is", but instead acknowledge that the story came to a point you need to fudge things a bit.


Plus, it's always funnier if your high-level PCs find themselves with no equipment whatsoever because of their own screw ups. :smallbiggrin:



For clarity's sake, I never said fudging rolls was railroading, I said it was a sign of railroading. Refusing to let characters die shows a certain degree of attachment to the narrative, that he's willing to change rolls to preserve the narrative and may be indicative that he's willing to fudge things to save his BBEG, if it's not the "final scene" for that character.


Ah, yhea. The classic "you have killed my BBEG before his time!!" conundrum. I usually just swallow the pill and try to find a way to play around that. Otherwise your players feel cheated of a much earned victory.

The alternative is to actually be honest with your players that you didn't anticipated that character's death so soon. You will say "he end up alive anyway, but you will have extra reward for your troubles". It's veeeery clumsy; basically a bribe attempt. But as long as your players do not feel they struggled had no impact whatsoever, you are probably going to be okay on the long run.

Just.. don't do it too often. A BBEG who is accidently killed may not be that great of a BBEG, don't you think? Maybe he had a sponsor who controlled him? Maybe he was a decoy, to the much more dangerous BBEG? There are so many tricks you can pull as a GM, why do the clumsy ones? :smallbiggrin:

Kelb_Panthera
2013-11-17, 09:25 AM
Personally, I think that Tsun Tzu's Art of War and Machiavelli's The Prince are two great DM resources. :belkar:

It doesn't hurt to find a good covert operations manual to read over too.

Rhynn
2013-11-17, 10:15 PM
"Worked" is subjective. The way almost everyone played RPGs for the first 20 years, and most people who only know DND and no other games still play them today? Doesn't appeal to me. At all.

You're being a bit coy here, so this is difficult to engage, but let's just say that either you're under some misapprehension (based on very popular memes about "killer DMs" etc.) or a "storygamer" (which is a fine thing to be; infinitely preferrable to being a cheating GM).

And yes, it's subjective. That's not much of a statement, is it? How well I or anyone does at GMing is subjective, too! What sort of games or gaming is fun is subjective. There's very few objective things when we're talking about RPGs. (Statistics, I guess.)


However, if you're ever going to have a foe physically attack a character with lethal force you ARE going to have the risk of character death there.

If you've decided that character death is NOT an acceptable outcome under no circumstances your only option in this situation is to cheat (maybe, depending on the results).

The thread also has ideas that involve allowing the characters to be killed yet still dealing with it in other ways. It's all about the set-up and context of the characters.


Also, your comment about your teen GMing can be seen as trying to insinuate that anyone who would cheat is immature.

People can certainly infer that, yes. Can't stop 'em! And FWIW, I think inexperienced GMs are more likely to cheat because they are more likely to find themselves in a situation they didn't think of or prepare for, and they can't think of a more elegant solution. I also think inexperienced GMs are more likely to have an idea in their head about how things are "supposed to" play out (which I find is nonsense and absolutely counterproductive for fun play).


Also, cheating and railroading really isn't the same thing, but I don't have time to get into that right now.

Definitely not, although they may correlate (i.e. I feel they they are frequently found together), and railroading often involves cheating.


For clarity's sake, I never said fudging rolls was railroading, I said it was a sign of railroading. Refusing to let characters die shows a certain degree of attachment to the narrative, that he's willing to change rolls to preserve the narrative and may be indicative that he's willing to fudge things to save his BBEG, if it's not the "final scene" for that character.

Absolutely, exactly this. (All of that sounds horrible to me, and I say that as someone who has done it.)


because the question was "how can I prevent character deaths". It's a purely narrative-focused concern, as the simulationist approach would simply go with "let them die". A narrative approach is the moment where you admit there are more important things than sticking to the rule.

Well, no, there are simulationist approaches. I can think of several settings where resurrection upon death is a core assumption, and in some of them it's an issue that the characters can engage with. ("Why does this happen?") Cloning (Paranoia-style) was suggested upthread. Heck, GURPS has braintaping technology at a certain Tech Level that gives a perfectly simulationist answer to wanting PCs to be deathless.


Rules should never be in the way of having fun.

Absolutely. More than that: good rules produce fun!


Sometimes, you have to bend or break them so your story flows well.

Disagree. I'm not writing a story, I'm playing a game that results in a story when it's over.

Also, not fussing over every last rule isn't anything to do with cheating, e.g. cheating at/lying about dice rolls.


The alternative is to actually be honest with your players that you didn't anticipated that character's death so soon.

I recently read something that's very relevant here...


However, if you're ever going to have a foe physically attack a character with lethal force you ARE going to have the risk of character death there.

:smallbiggrin:

Again, though, there are many simulationist approaches in different games to solving this problem. D&D 3.X and derivatives are the easiest; indeed, it's almost ridiculous that any "BBEG" would stay dead without having been the target of a soul bind spell or similar magic.

Cikomyr
2013-11-17, 10:51 PM
Again, though, there are many simulationist approaches in different games to solving this problem. D&D 3.X and derivatives are the easiest; indeed, it's almost ridiculous that any "BBEG" would stay dead without having been the target of a soul bind spell or similar magic.

Some games do have rules to allow for character comeback (resurrection magic, cloning, etc..) as you said. But these clearly do not apply in the OP's character, as he clearly stated that the players are playing themselves, in the modern day.

Hence; we need to dispense with some aspects of the simulationist approach in favor of a more narrative story game when it comes to character death. The single most important thing, however, is not to make failure feel cheap.

As I stated: it's ALWAYS better to hurt your players by taking away parts of their character's sheet instead of just handing them a blank sheet.

Cheating is fine; you have to avoid your players feeling cheated. If they achieved something beyond your imagination; they should be rewarded for it, don't take away that achievement. If they screwed up, they should feel punishment for it.

Certain GM will do the (mistaken) approach of simply stealing the victory away from their players in order to "save an important BBEG", which is more detrimental to the story you are trying to implement than the death of a plot-critical NPC. Ultimately, your players have to want to jump in your boat by themselves; part of it means they will have the power to row in directions you aren't anticipating.


Sometimes, you have to bend or break them so your story flows well.


Disagree. I'm not writing a story, I'm playing a game that results in a story when it's over.

Yes. But you may break certain rules when you feel it's pointless for the characters to be stuck at point X; especially if it's merely a trivial obstacle meant initially for flavor and your players only stumbled into it because of bad luck.

If the game is about getting into a Bad Guy's lair; you shouldn't ignore rules when checking if they infiltrate/knock the door/smuggle inside. after all, your players coming up with daring ideas and executing them is half the fun of a good game.

However, if the players roll crap on trying to locate the Bad Guy's lair, FFS, just find a way to give it to them. The Heroic Part was to GET INSIDE, not finding where it is on the map.

Breaking the rules is not something you do carelessly; merely at points to avoid getting bogged down in trivialities in order to get to the "good parts". Obviously, if one of your player has created a character who is a fantastic Cartographer/researcher of map/intelligence network, then "finding the Bad Guy's Lair" suddenly becomes important and should not be skipped; since Intel-gathering is clearly important to a player. As a GM, you should put certain challenges that can be met by certain players' skillsets.

am I making sense? Or I am too tired to articulate myself properly? :smallbiggrin:

TuggyNE
2013-11-18, 01:49 AM
Yes. But you may break certain rules when you feel it's pointless for the characters to be stuck at point X; especially if it's merely a trivial obstacle meant initially for flavor and your players only stumbled into it because of bad luck.

If the game is about getting into a Bad Guy's lair; you shouldn't ignore rules when checking if they infiltrate/knock the door/smuggle inside. after all, your players coming up with daring ideas and executing them is half the fun of a good game.

However, if the players roll crap on trying to locate the Bad Guy's lair, FFS, just find a way to give it to them. The Heroic Part was to GET INSIDE, not finding where it is on the map.

If you find yourself in the position where you have a choice between "the adventure ends abruptly for no good reason because the players failed some critical rolls and have no other recourse" and "subtle cheating/rule-ignoring to keep things moving", yes, ignoring rules is probably the better course, though not always, and some players would prefer not to have rules ignored in their favor even then. However, it is vastly better to, as much as possible, design encounters and campaign flow to avoid ever running into that problem at all.

To give an analogy from a computer game, Battle for Wesnoth is a turn-based tactical RPG with a sequence of scenarios in each of various campaigns, where every one of dozens of units you eventually acquire has a name and unique traits, and you generally want to preserve as many as possible, both because you've gotten to know and like them over the course of the campaign and because running out of veterans for your army will not work well. A moderately skilled player, such as myself, will attempt to preserve units with intricate maneuvering, careful calculation of odds, and when all else fails and random chance proves unfavorable, reload an earlier save and try again. A truly expert player, however, does not need saves, because they can lay out contingencies for even the worst turns of luck and adapt to changing situations; even the occasional loss of a unit is accounted for and recoverable.

Bringing this back to RPGs, use of ideas like action/fate points, resurrection/depetrification/restoration magic, BBEG contingency plans and decoys, and the three clue rule (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) can prevent most such Hobson's choices from ever appearing. In particular, a situation where the PCs have to make a single roll, or even one of two or three, or else fail everything is not one that should ever come up; if it does, it's a sign that you're a GM of moderate skill, not an expert.

Obviously, this is not easy to learn; I've been practicing in Wesnoth for some time, and have made only modest progress, and GM skills can take years to develop. But it's important to have the best games to at least make the effort and know that it is possible.

Rhynn
2013-11-18, 03:04 AM
If you find yourself in the position where you have a choice between "the adventure ends abruptly for no good reason because the players failed some critical rolls and have no other recourse" and "subtle cheating/rule-ignoring to keep things moving", yes, ignoring rules is probably the better course, though not always, and some players would prefer not to have rules ignored in their favor even then. However, it is vastly better to, as much as possible, design encounters and campaign flow to avoid ever running into that problem at all.

Very much this. A "need" for cheating can be pre-empted by good design.


am I making sense? Or I am too tired to articulate myself properly? :smallbiggrin:

I think so, yes; again, I think there's a huge difference between ignoring or breaking rules and cheating (which is where you lie to your players about the numbers, changing die results or stats on the fly in secret).

Lorsa
2013-11-18, 07:34 AM
First, let's start with the premise again.


Well it is awkward for a player to die and have no means (clean or easy to explain) to bring him or her back and they can't simply roll a new character as the characters are themselves.

This was the assumption we had to work on.


The thread also has ideas that involve allowing the characters to be killed yet still dealing with it in other ways. It's all about the set-up and context of the characters.

Actually, the OP specifically stated the there weren'y any "bringing back to life" magic, which is why the suggestion of divine intervention isn't working with the premise. The OP also said the players weren't very interesting in heavy social intrigue so there's probably going to be some fights. That means we are reduced to:


Just make combat non-lethal in most cases? I usually run with neg hp means the character (PC or NPC) is either unwilling or incapable of fighting, not dying. Death comes solely from one actor deciding it will happen once a foe is in the negative.


That said: give them hero/fate/whatever points that let them avoid death (and possibly have other uses).


Use a system that doesn't use death as a primary failure mechanism.


PCs that drop down are not dead but dying and will bleed out if they don't get medical help in, say, 3-5 rounds. Easy enough to prevent, still keeps combat dangerous and exciting.


Why not just go ahead and plan for one? Have a player "decide" (to the rest of the group) to play his/her older brother/absent friend, etc.... and then kill that character.

Ie, put the fear of chardeath in them by killing a character that you planned to kill from the start. Just be subtle about it.

as being useful suggestions. The last of this is changing the premise of the characters playing themselves so while it might be a good suggestion it isn't really an answer to the OP's dilemma.

Some of these involve changing either rule system or the rules entirely. Adding some point mechanic to buy off death or giving the other characters some arbitrary amount of rounds to save a dying foe isn't really a solution either, it just makes it less likely to happen. What happens when the fate points run out or when all characters are dying at the same time or they fail to revive their comrade or whatever? All these suggestions are really just dodging the issue or postponing it.

Like I said, if you're going to have a foe use lethal force against a character, death will be a possible outcome.

Either you accept that and everything is fine. Or you don't accept it, like in the OP's case, and then you have to accept that at some point down the line you might have to cheat. It really is that simple. You can use a completely non-lethal rule system of course, but that didn't seem to be what the OP was going for either.

Cheating might be bad form, I agree, but it's the inevitable conclusion of the premise "there will be lethal force but characters should never die". It's the only solution that is guaranteed to work.

So claiming it is bad avice when it's in fact the only 100% workable advice under the premise seems a bit weird to me. It's a logical conclusion and if you don't like it then change the premise!

Furthermore, and this doesn't only go for RPGs, some people actually end up much happier if you cheat for them to win. They might have had a bad day and you loosing that game of [whatever] made their day all the better! Some people prefer to live in an illusion of them winning. If you can make sure they never find out the truth then what's so bad with it? Obviously you need to know which type of people your players are as this doesn't go for everyone.


People can certainly infer that, yes. Can't stop 'em! And FWIW, I think inexperienced GMs are more likely to cheat because they are more likely to find themselves in a situation they didn't think of or prepare for, and they can't think of a more elegant solution. I also think inexperienced GMs are more likely to have an idea in their head about how things are "supposed to" play out (which I find is nonsense and absolutely counterproductive for fun play).

Yes I agree that the more experience you have the less likely you are to find yourself in a situation you really don't want to be in. Furthermore, having a premise that allows both character death and maximum player agency is also a good way to not find yourself in situations you don't want to be in (because just about any situation will be acceptable!). I do agree that GMs having an idea how things are "supposed to play out" is not very fun. But in this case the OP DOES have a wish for how things are supposed to play out, so why claim that my advice is bad when if anything it is the premise that is bad?


Definitely not, although they may correlate (i.e. I feel they they are frequently found together), and railroading often involves cheating.

Yes, if you want to railroad you'll have to accept that you might need to cheat. I suppose if you count "characters shouldn't die" as railroading then well they go together in this case too. But even if you have that premise, you can still leave everything else open like what decisions the characters make, what direction the plot takes, when your enemies gets killed etc etc.

Cikomyr
2013-11-18, 07:38 AM
Bringing this back to RPGs, use of ideas like action/fate points, resurrection/depetrification/restoration magic, BBEG contingency plans and decoys, and the three clue rule (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) can prevent most such Hobson's choices from ever appearing. In particular, a situation where the PCs have to make a single roll, or even one of two or three, or else fail everything is not one that should ever come up; if it does, it's a sign that you're a GM of moderate skill, not an expert.

Obviously, this is not easy to learn; I've been practicing in Wesnoth for some time, and have made only modest progress, and GM skills can take years to develop. But it's important to have the best games to at least make the effort and know that it is possible.

There is nothing I can add to that; you nailed it very well. With maybe one, tiny-itsy-bitty specification: have the situation where "a single roll can cause the players to fail" is totally acceptable, even DESIRABLE, in a situation:

- The Endgame. The Climax. When not only can they all lose due to that single die roll, but they also WIN the game with that single die roll. After the players have struggled, schemed and strived to get to this place; they have the feeling they EARNED that final roll.

These are the best story moments. If getting there in the first place was truly epic, nobody is going to feel cheated by Dat Final Roll. Even if your players lose, they will think it fair and great.


And regarding your argument of "a truly skilled GM can plan contingencies and have layover plans", I agree with the core of your argument, but we don't all have the time to superplan everything, or the skill in general world-building. I myself have simply multiple plot thread hanging for my players to find and swallow whole. If they break a line, I have others.

And if a line is cut prematurly, I can always reserve the right of the Schrodinger's Plot Point. Just never tell your players. ACT as if you feel screwed, and tell them you are improvising at this point. Players love to feel they outsmarted the GM fairly, and should be allowed to feel smug at their achievement.

In a way, being a good GM is playing emotionally with your players to give them a sense of purpose and satisfaction with the game you are running. The story is for the purpose, the achievement/failure is for the satisfaction.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-18, 09:48 AM
@Lorsa: I think that "cheat them to life/success" is bad advice, but it's also the less bad option in the situation, if those other options are really so much of a no-go. The lesser of two bad options is still a bad option and whatnot.

Lorsa
2013-11-18, 11:42 AM
@Lorsa: I think that "cheat them to life/success" is bad advice, but it's also the less bad option in the situation, if those other options are really so much of a no-go. The lesser of two bad options is still a bad option and whatnot.

Well yes, the lesser of two bad options is still a bad option.

However, there are two kinds of "bad avice":

1) Advice that doesn't actually solve the problem they are given for.
2) Advice that suggest something that is objectively bad.

I think what is being implied is that cheating falls into #2. Personally I think cheating is only bad if it goes against the wishes or desires of the involved players. So it can be good (or rather acceptable) or it can be bad, all depending on the situation and involved people.

Airk
2013-11-18, 02:13 PM
This may be some sort of record for "most re-hashed RPG arguments in a single thread". At least, for my reading lately.

It starts with a super poorly worded OP and goes downhill from there. Arguing about 'cheating', arguing about gamism/simulationism/narrativism (with insults, no less!), railroading, GM fiat, the whole nine yards. I'm a little disappointed that no one cited Rule Zero so we could have basically every RPG argument of the past decade in this thread.

Fundamentally though, what we have here is someone who is not playing the right game. Not "not playing the game right" because there IS NO "The game". And that's why we keep having stupid arguments like this one where everyone assumes they know the 'right' way to play.

The OP wants a way to run a game where he doesn't have to worry about character death. Fullstop. Therefore, the OP should choose a game system that avoids arbitrary character death. There are LOTS AND LOTS of these. In fact, I strongly, STRONGLY suggest that the OP discard his current system (whatever it is) and think seriously about what he wants his game to simulate. Because it doesn't sound like it aligns with his goals for the game at all.

I'm going to throw this link out here again, because I think it solves SO MANY game problems:

http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/

Toofey
2013-11-18, 03:29 PM
ooh ohh ohh

Make them the McGuffin for the bad guys so that anyone who's interested in the Party wants to capture them as opposed to wanting to kill them (until they're a high enough level to be able to get better)

Buddha's_Cookie
2013-11-20, 01:01 AM
It starts with a super poorly worded OP and goes downhill from there.
I am a little offended. The only reason it might be poorly worded is like I said the game is still in its infancy, its earliest concept phases. I'm just happy I hit this problem now instead of later. I offered to give more info if people asked and I am surprised that no one did actually.

I did not intend for the cheating discussion to go on for so long, and I believe enough has been said on the subject already. If any "cheating" is to happen it would be story fudging.

Things I know for sure: I want to play 3.5 D&D (It's what the group knows and enjoys the most), the level cap is 6 (I have my own reasons for this), there are about 5 players.

I don't want to change the system, it's what the group knows and I accept that lethal damage is apart of this game. The only thing going for the players story wise is that a lot of sides want the members of the party alive, and have the power to prevent player death. This prevention involves getting screwed into a bad contract (hey even gods have to be through). What I don't want is to use this "card" on every,or most, player(s). These contracts are a quest in them selves and come at the heavy cost of never going home, which is part of the primary story arc.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-20, 10:27 AM
Oh! If the game is in its infancy, then, I'd really advise doing away with the "you play yourself", and that'll solve a lot of problems.

Airk
2013-11-20, 11:05 AM
I am a little offended. The only reason it might be poorly worded is like I said the game is still in its infancy, its earliest concept phases. I'm just happy I hit this problem now instead of later. I offered to give more info if people asked and I am surprised that no one did actually.

Sorry, but I read it, and I had a LOT of trouble figuring out anything about your game. Heck, I had no idea what you meant by "the PCs are playing themselves" until someone else made the connection later on in the thread, because OF COURSE the PCs are playing themselves. That's what the PCs ARE. If you had said the PLAYERS are playing themselves.... but you didn't. You said the characters were.



Things I know for sure: I want to play 3.5 D&D (It's what the group knows and enjoys the most), the level cap is 6 (I have my own reasons for this), there are about 5 players.

I don't want to change the system, it's what the group knows and I accept that lethal damage is apart of this game. The only thing going for the players story wise is that a lot of sides want the members of the party alive, and have the power to prevent player death. This prevention involves getting screwed into a bad contract (hey even gods have to be through). What I don't want is to use this "card" on every,or most, player(s). These contracts are a quest in them selves and come at the heavy cost of never going home, which is part of the primary story arc.

Well, good luck. If this game doesn't crash and burn, it will be entirely down to your skill as a GM, but picking a game system 'because it's what everyone knows' is not helping you.

Gavran
2013-11-20, 12:17 PM
Sorry, but I read it, and I had a LOT of trouble figuring out anything about your game. Heck, I had no idea what you meant by "the PCs are playing themselves" until someone else made the connection later on in the thread, because OF COURSE the PCs are playing themselves. That's what the PCs ARE. If you had said the PLAYERS are playing themselves.... but you didn't. You said the characters were.



Well, good luck. If this game doesn't crash and burn, it will be entirely down to your skill as a GM, but picking a game system 'because it's what everyone knows' is not helping you.

Just to throw in a bit of perspective, I had no problems at all understanding the OP and I think "play a new system" is really awful advice to give someone who has expressed zero interesting in changing systems. There are probably systems that work better for games where you don't want PCs to die, but there aren't better systems for when you want to play a game where your players have been transported to the D&D universe and turned into PCs - 'cause, you know, it's the D&D universe they're in. Being genre-savvy is a theme for the game.

I will also add a few other thoughts I have.

1) "The players are in the game for real" is super cliche and I hope your friends have already approved the idea rather than you springing it on them.

2) You need a genre-savvy BBEG too.

3) Whatever force is responsible for bringing them into the game can solve your death concerns. Whether that's kind of a "your consciousness is transferred because fate/gods/a wizard did it" thing, or the outright prevention of death is up to you. You can still punish death mechanically without it being the end of the character.

Cikomyr
2013-11-20, 12:51 PM
Well, good luck. If this game doesn't crash and burn, it will be entirely down to your skill as a GM, but picking a game system 'because it's what everyone knows' is not helping you.

And yet, it's the damn same reason I keep hearing as to why we always play 3.5 among gamers I know. It's kind of like WoW; you play if because your friends are playing it.

Airk
2013-11-20, 01:10 PM
And yet, it's the damn same reason I keep hearing as to why we always play 3.5 among gamers I know. It's kind of like WoW; you play if because your friends are playing it.

Yup! And that's why we have countless threads like this one, and the "How do I deal with intraparty conflict" one and their myriad neighbors along the lines "I have a powergamer, a roleplayer, and a hardcore simulationist in my group! HALP!"

Tabletop gaming is a super dysfunctional hobby.

If people don't want to hear good advice, that doesn't make it bad advice, sorry. I always presume people want to have fun with this hobby, and give the advice that is most likely to lead to people having fun. "We're playing this game because it is the game we have always played" is, in fact, a negative influence on fun.

Rhynn
2013-11-20, 01:34 PM
D&D dominates the hobby by inertia. There are many games that are much better at delivering specific experiences, but inertia is powerful.

Gavran
2013-11-20, 01:43 PM
Honestly, you just come across as being a petty detractor of D&D - upset not because you think it isn't a good game, but because your favorite game gets outshined by it. It's okay that you prefer other systems, but even if you could suggest a system that was 100% objectively better for this exact situation (it's noteworthy that you didn't suggest a system at all) that doesn't make it good advice. There are myriad valid reasons not to change systems and you're not helping anyone by ignoring them all. "Because we'd rather play than spend time/effort/money changing systems" is one of those reasons.

Edit: Not directed at you Rhynn. You're simply stating facts.

Edit edit: Of course, if you didn't really understand the OP then it's somewhat more understandable that you'd give off-topic advice with good intentions.

Cikomyr
2013-11-20, 01:47 PM
Yup! And that's why we have countless threads like this one, and the "How do I deal with intraparty conflict" one and their myriad neighbors along the lines "I have a powergamer, a roleplayer, and a hardcore simulationist in my group! HALP!"

Tabletop gaming is a super dysfunctional hobby.

If people don't want to hear good advice, that doesn't make it bad advice, sorry. I always presume people want to have fun with this hobby, and give the advice that is most likely to lead to people having fun. "We're playing this game because it is the game we have always played" is, in fact, a negative influence on fun.

I personally would rather not play an RPG than play another 3.5 game. And I always try to incite my fellow gamers to try something different, at least to see if we can find what we crave somewhere else. This is why I try to find rule sets that are relatively simples and more about the game than about character-building. D20, in my opinion, is just waaay too much about statsheet-design for my taste, not enough about playing the role you picked up.

It has the class that I single-handily find the worst aspect of an RPG: the Fighter. It's an out-of-context combat element meant to encourage the idea that "I know how to swing a sword, everything else is useless"

Airk
2013-11-20, 02:33 PM
I'm in a D&D campaign right now and I don't have a 'favorite game', so I suggest you back down with the unfounded accusations, sir. I simply believe in using the right system for the right gaming experience, and D&D gets shoehorned into so many things that it is not designed to do, that I find it hard to defend all of what I see as people essentially trying to tighten lug nuts with a hammer and then complaining that their tires keep falling off.

D&D (any of them, though the original goals of early version diverge pretty strongly from what anyone thinks of as 'tabletop roleplaying' today) is a good system. And a hammer is a great tool for driving in nails. But both were designed with a specific task in mind, and you use them for other things at your peril.



Edit edit: Of course, if you didn't really understand the OP then it's somewhat more understandable that you'd give off-topic advice with good intentions.

I -still- don't know enough about the OPs goals and intentions for this game to make a recommendation for a system. Though at this point, I don't think the OP does either. To make that kind of judgement, you need to seriously sit down and ask yourself the sort of questions that you find in the link I provided. If you don't do that, you might get lucky, but more likely, you'll end up with a system that hampers the kind of game you want to run, and/or with players who have radically different ideas about the 'right' way to play who are constantly making trouble for each other.

As Rhynn said - inertia is powerful, but I think what is even MORE powerful is the fact that many people don't even REALIZE that there could be other choices. And not just choices in the sense "Well, this game uses d100 for its skill checks!) but choices in the sense of the fundamental goals and methods of the game.

ReaderAt2046
2013-11-21, 12:16 AM
I'd just like to add that even blatant DM cheating can be good if done right and in the right context. I'm in a 4e campaign right now, where rampant DM cheating is precisely what makes it an awesome, over-the-top, comic-book-esque ride of a campaign. The DM cheats in three main ways:

1. He slashes monster's Hp and defenses, allowing our level 5 party to fight mind-flayers, beholders, and lich necromancers.

2. He massively hand-waves equipment and xp. Standard rules are basically "at the end of every session, everyone gets however many Xp they need to level", and we just had a session on a literal Treasure Planet and got some crazy loot.

3. He allows players to do ridiculous things if it would be awesome and the player can justify it. For example, our Goliath Berserker has developed a predilection for using his minor action and his massive Atheletics skill to Goomba Stomp various random opponents. Or a few sessions back, where we were in the Elemental Chaos and could make will saves to rewrite reality by doing stuff like making all the air in a certain space vanish or turning the floor into bleeposchmeeg*. Or in the whole premise (our party is flying around in a Spelljammer with a PlaneShift stone). Or yet more.

*Pancake for chocolate pudding.

Rhynn
2013-11-21, 12:26 AM
The DM cheats in three main ways:

None of what you describe sounds like cheating. Changing the rules is not cheating; cheating is, e.g., when you secretly change or ignore damage rolls (by the players or by the monster) or alter the hit points of a creature after the fight has started because you feel it has too many or too few.

MonochromeTiger
2013-11-21, 12:30 AM
Well it is awkward for a player to die and have no means (clean or easy to explain) to bring him or her back and they can't simply roll a new character as the characters are themselves.

there are two things I can suggest here, A: make their death so amazing that they have absolutely no reason to complain about it...I mean riding a dinosaur into a black hole to save the universe while freebird plays in the background levels of memorable.

B: alternate reality suddenly spits out the same person with different stats.