What do you think of defensive abilities in rpgs

[NichG]

Those issues are solved by first establishing the freedom of things to be suboptimal without being unbelievable. Then, you let the table decide the level of challenge that is desired.

If in fact roflstomping the opposition is boring to everyone, then players who do not feel bound to optimize above all else can choose to play more challenging premises, or go all out on optimization and take on things beyond their level. But that only works when you don't take the mindset of those things being forced choices.

You also gain the other side of the coin. Sometimes a player really doesn't want to be challenged or does just want a power fantasy or wants some elements of the game to stop providing friction against the things they're actually interested in, or even just disagrees with the GM about what is compelling. In which case, they can choose to play in that corner of the space of possibilities.

This is harmed by adopting ideals like 'dramatic tension is an inherent good' or 'things should be balanced' or 'its bad form not to optimize as much as you're capable of' or judging characters that are played in terms of quality of fiction rather than if the player is enjoying it. That sort of thing allows external factors to hinder that ability for the table to find it's own level. Now when someone publishes Shivering Ray it's a problem to be solved rather than an opportunity that you can take or leave. When the players happen to win easily it now hurts verisimilitude or indicates imbalance even if the players actually enjoyed it.

Now if the players win easily and are bored, sure, address that. But putting the ideal first is like saying 'if you aren't bored by this, something is wrong with you'. Why do that?

[King of Nowhere]

Now if the players win easily and are bored, sure, address that. But putting the ideal first is like saying 'if you aren't bored by this, something is wrong with you'. Why do that?

because the vast majority of people don't like winning too easily. sure, there are exceptions, but it's a pretty assumption to start working around

[NichG]

because the vast majority of people don't like winning too easily. sure, there are exceptions, but it's a pretty assumption to start working around

Doesn't hold up if you look at the various complaints and GM troubles threads we see around, nor if you look at the behavior of people who do self-defense min-maxing.

There are lots of reasons people play. Challenge is a possible one, but not universal by any means. Love of traditional dramatic structure exists, but is not universal by any means. Love of flawed characters exists, but is not universal by any means. You can find many examples of people on these fora asking for different things than just that.

All of these things can be useful as tools in order to craft a gameplay experience, but not all tools are appropriate at all times and in all contexts. When you change a tool that you have the ability to deploy or not as appropriate into an ideal that you're constrained by to always follow, you lose out.

[Quertus]

stuff

There's a lot of interesting stuff there; senility willing, I'll go back and read over a lot of it again, out of context. But, in context, all I can hear is that I haven't gotten my point across. So let me try again.

The type of "genius" I was talking about wasn't Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, the "there's an app for this" Wizard (who, like a certain dwarven Cleric, never seems to have the correct app available when it's needed). It was more like this:

"Armus moves to position himself between one of his party members (who has better defenses than Armus) and the foes"

You've "seen me do it", what have you learned?

It's been years, and the Playground hasn't given me a good answer to this simple question. Can you? Can you answer how Armus, my (in 3e parlance) "Commoner with items", wins fights?

You claimed that, if the PCs had tech, it would spread. Well, tell me what Armus' tech is, so that others can copy it.

And this is easy mode, compared to "the party killed a Dragon -> logic leaps aplenty -> suddenly everyone has Shivering Touch".

Wars involve lots of participants, and, with any luck, lots of survivors, at least on your own side. D&D parties, OTOH, have a much more reasonable expectation of silencing witnesses, and of their opponents not knowing why this particular group seems to see so much success. And that's even before biases, like the OP Tainted Sorcerer Arcane Spellcaster BFC build under a GM who only thinks in terms of "damage dealt", and thinks that the BFC character isn't contributing.

So, the much simpler question, where what he's doing seems visible to eyewitnesses, witnesses that are allowed to survive, and can be passed on: Armus moves to protect an ally (with superior defenses, not that that's visible) when hostilities seem likely. What tech can you glean?

[Satinavian]

Is it? Do parties TPK on half their missions against NPCs? Or is the balance point tipped in the PCs' favor?

As I already said, that is achieved best by the NPCs just being weaker not by the NPCs being artificially stupid. Fewer levels, XP, whatever the system uses for progression or fewer numbers are more than enough the achieve consistent PC victory.

Really.

When the Strength-obsessed Barbarian leaves the party - and the campaign - to test the health benefits of Kale, when he leaves his new party and his new campaign to work out with Hans and FransÂ… when he leaves his new new new new new new new new new new new new new new party when he encounters a keto diet master? And does this across countless campaigns across countless tables?

Then that barbarian can talk about being as dedicated to strength training as Quertus is to research.

I have enough characters seen leaving a party to do their own thing. I also have seen episodic play with ever chainging groups and the characters doing their thing in the downtime. I also have seen characters make the campaign about their own thing in sandboxe,

What i haveN't seen is a character who always leaves the group mid-adventure and still gets to start over new adventures all the time. Well, at least the introduction before he leaves again. But that would be a pretty toxic character, wouldn't it ?

I've not seen that level of dedication. And, in the modern environment of hating on characters from other tables or other campaigns, even if someone does try to create such a character, do you really think such a character can be played?

See above. I don't think Quertus is particularly more dedicated than most of those others. He could theoretically be more toxic but i am not sure that is the case. He seems still the archetypical researcher doing his thing.

[Quertus]

As I already said, that is achieved best by the NPCs just being weaker not by the NPCs being artificially stupid. Fewer levels, XP, whatever the system uses for progression or fewer numbers are more than enough the achieve consistent PC victory.

Artificially stupid? No, I'd say you're trying to make NPCs artificially smart.

What's the best tennis racket? Now, go down to the local tennis court, and see what portion of players are using that racket.

What's the best handgun? Now, go to the firing range, and see what portion of people are using that firearm.

People just aren't optimal.

But it's not wrong for players to want to play the rare few people who are.

Not that I and my players always play so optimally, mind - I'm just saying other people choosing to do so, because that's what they enjoy, isn't wrong.

But world-building that believes NPCs will take such optimal choices with unrealistic frequency, OTOH, is wrong.

I have enough characters seen leaving a party to do their own thing. I also have seen episodic play with ever chainging groups and the characters doing their thing in the downtime. I also have seen characters make the campaign about their own thing in sandboxe,

What i haveN't seen is a character who always leaves the group mid-adventure and still gets to start over new adventures all the time. Well, at least the introduction before he leaves again. But that would be a pretty toxic character, wouldn't it ?

See above. I don't think Quertus is particularly more dedicated than most of those others. He could theoretically be more toxic but i am not sure that is the case. He seems still the archetypical researcher doing his thing.

Lol. "You know there might be a problem when…" the fan favorite, my most requested character, sounds toxic.

Like you said, you haven't seen characters so dedicated to research as to leave the spotlight over it getting to get back into new games. So you've not seen another PC like him, one who actually had the opportunity to do that much "research that takes you out of the game" in game.

That's why I doubt that there's another PC like him.

Also… were this single-author fiction, it wouldn't be "leaving to do their own thing", so much as "researching the secrets that let the protagonist win" most of the time. Thankfully, RPGs don't have to follow such narrative contrivances, and Quertus researching "the health benefits of Kale" (or, rather, researching the unique magical secrets the GM included for generally stupid reasons) took him out of the campaign.

But that's *why* D&D Wizards joined in "adventures" to explore dangerous dungeons from the beginnings of Dungeons and Dragons: to learn long-lost magical secrets. So that's what Quertus does.

[Satinavian]

Artificially stupid? No, I'd say you're trying to make NPCs artificially smart.

Seems like we disagree about that.

Lol. "You know there might be a problem when…" the fan favorite, my most requested character, sounds toxic.

That is why i wrote i was not sure that actually is the case. I can't imagine Quertus being beloved and also that loner guy who leaves all the time because he has no interest in the group or the adventure.

Like you said, you haven't seen characters so dedicated to research as to leave the spotlight over it getting to get back into new games. So you've not seen another PC like him, one who actually had the opportunity to do that much "research that takes you out of the game" in game.

Oh no, you misunderstood. I have seen a couple of them. Leaving the game to do research, getting played later. that is not so rare.

But i have not one who made it a habbit instead of a rare occurance to leave games midgame. But in most cases that research is a downtime activity. It is rare that something can't wait until the general situation is more under control and research easier and still takes so much time that the group must move on without the character.

And i would see such a character as toxic. A player should not bring a character to the table when he expects that "First we have character introductions, than engage with the advendure hook and the NPCs a bit and then I switch characters" or something like that.

Also… were this single-author fiction, it wouldn't be "leaving to do their own thing", so much as "researching the secrets that let the protagonist win" most of the time. Thankfully, RPGs don't have to follow such narrative contrivances, and Quertus researching "the health benefits of Kale" (or, rather, researching the unique magical secrets the GM included for generally stupid reasons) took him out of the campaign.

So was the stuff you researched relevant to the game or a side activity that does not actually demand you leaving or did Quertus just went and left the group and you played someone else ? Which is it ?

And yes. Research is the archetypical wizard motivation. How can you think it is something rare when all the other archetypical wizards are suppossed to do the same ?
If i have research minded magical characters in a group then pretty much every magical secret some GM introduces (and many many GMs have regretted putting in things that they can't properly explain when someone takes a closer look) gets researched. How do all those character do less research than Quertus ?

[icefractal]

Regarding "artificial stupidity" vs "artificial smartness" -
Personally at least, I've never been assuming that all or even most NPCs use the same tactics as the PCs. I'm just assuming that some of them do. That if the PCs are using an effective tactic which only requires combining a couple spells, they're probably not the only ones in the whole world to think of doing so. And that if the PCs are cutting a swath through all opposition and on a path to become the powers that be, they're likely to eventually come in conflict with the current powers that be, who by virtue of surviving this long would be more likely to be "clued in" to effective tactics.

Unless that's part of the premise of the game, in which case I'm totally fine with it. Like say -
A few centuries ago, a group of gods, immortals, and the rulers of powerful nations came together and decided they wanted the world to be more stable (or static and easy to control, to view it less charitably). To this end, they wiped out all mention of the most "destabilizing" knowledge - anything that prevents a medieval stasis from working - and have inquisitors out to purge any "corruption" (say, a Sorcerer spontaneously learning forbidden spells). The PCs are rebels against this, either because they want to overthrow it or just for their own survival, and are thus rediscovering that forbidden knowledge.

Something like that sounds fun, and in that premise it makes sense that the PCs are asymmetrical. I just dislike "The PCs are ordinary people, honest ... except somehow they're the only people who can put two and two together."

[Quertus]

it's not a single low level spell. it's a spell that will defeat almost any foe without any kind of counterplay. as for a "true genius", we had a lot of those in the real world. some of them even managed to do the "total roflstomp pown" thing for a while. then everyone adapted.

but regarding the point of the "true genius" that solves every problem by researching a new spell for it, i can lean on someone more qualified to explain the problems with the approach: the sanderson's laws of magic. I think you may enjoy the read if you're not familiar with them. they are meant for writing books, but they focus on worldbuilding aeasily apply to roleplaying games.

The first law explains why a character that will research spells to solve any problem is bad. this is a guy whose answer to any solution is to press an "i win" button. if he lacks that button, he'll hole himself up for a while, and come out with another "i win this situation too" button. this is not a "true genius". this is a guy with an informed ability. where is the tension in that? how is the resolution satisfying?
still from that essay:

swap "author" with "player", it's still valid. "i cast a spell, therefore i win", how is that a fulfilling or exciting way to overcome an obstacle?

this ties also in the second law. A character than can do everything... how is that exciting to play? how is that interesting, if your answer to everything is "i have a spell for exactly this"? or "i wade into the fight and win because i'm invincible"? what's interesting is to have limitations and to overcome them.

finally, what kind of campaign world will that produce, where everyone will keep inventing new rules as they go along?
the third law applies less to magic, and it's more the reason my campaigns tend to focus on a few locations and groups. if you follow the "fantasy kitchen sink" approach, you get a story that's not cohesive. your campaign becomes "you go to place A, fight enemy X. Then you go to place B, fight enemy Y". it's also among the reasons i hate shared universes, crossovers, and all those other things where everyone keeps introducing new plot elements without ever figuring out how they fit into the whole. it makes for a shallow world. It can captivate an audience only as long as they don't stop to think things through.

those laws make sense; upon first reading them, i recognized they were things i always realized on some level, even before seeing them clearly expressed. sanderson uses them, and he's credited as one of the best worldbuilders of this generation.
I never understand why so many

one last point, not connected to sanderson laws but to your idea that players should get all the cool things and the rest of the world shouldn't: what happens when - by virtue of being the only ones allowed to have cool things - your players are so powerful, they face virtually no opposition?

this is good for a chuckle, but it's not my idea of a compelling campaign. but it's what happens if we follow your premise to the end

So I've had some time to think about this, out of the context of a true genius like I was describing. And, well, I'm pretty sure I fall on the opposite side on this one in several places.

"The first law explains why a character that will research spells to solve any problem is bad. this is a guy whose answer to any solution is to press an "i win" button. if he lacks that button, he'll hole himself up for a while, and come out with another "i win this situation too" button."

Well, in the classic Fighter / Wizard divide, if the iconic Fighter cannot deal with the problem by reducing its HP to 0, the Fighter responds with, "I lose this situation, too".

In an RPG, I lean much more towards, "problems should be solvable, eventually, if the party cares, and tries" than, "all problems should be forever unsolvable".

Yeah, sure, it's a spectrum. But, in an RPG, how often is it fun to say, "no, we can never find the BBEG - and, even if we could, we can never hurt him. Nor can we ever close the portal he opened, or remove the Taint that the creatures from that portal have spread."? I lean really heavily on the "solvable problems" side, where, if the party has problems, they should generally be able to find solutions. Plural. Not just throw up their hands and say, "it's impossible".

RPGs are different than single author fiction. They have different needs. Sanderson's "laws of magic", at least as you interpret and apply them, seems to me to be a place where those needs may diverge.

" "i cast a spell, therefore i win", how is that a fulfilling or exciting way to overcome an obstacle?"

Careful with that line of thought. "I move a chess piece, therefore I win." "I roll a die, therefore I win." "I stab it, therefore I win." I can think of a lot of things that have less game to them than spells (in most systems). Go too far down this rabbit hole, and the logical outcome may be that the only possible fulfilling game is MtG, but where the cards change, and the rules sounds more like "but since it's an even Tuesday, the crescent moon means that all Demir beasts and birds retain the 'menace' rules of Halloween." "No, sorry, we need a DNA test to prove that that rule applies to you."

[Quertus]

That is why i wrote i was not sure that actually is the case. I can't imagine Quertus being beloved

Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, is my most popular character among players. His popularity among characters… is neither superlative, not universal. He even has a defensive dwoemer that became known as "protection from slaps".

and also that loner guy who leaves all the time because he has no interest in the group or the adventure.

Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.

Not *no* interest in the group or the adventure. Just often less interest than would be necessary to pass up a "once in a lifetime" research opportunity.

I can either… stick with you guys, and hunt down some Orc that I don't really care about… or stay here, and learn the secrets of channeling moonlight from the recovering goddess we just saved, during the brief period she'll be earthbound? Um… is that really a choice? Have fun with that Orc!

Oh no, you misunderstood. I have seen a couple of them. Leaving the game to do research, getting played later. that is not so rare.

But i have not one who made it a habbit instead of a rare occurance to leave games midgame. But in most cases that research is a downtime activity. It is rare that something can't wait until the general situation is more under control and research easier and still takes so much time that the group must move on without the character. .

I guess it's a matter of perspective, whether one says Quertus "made it a habit", or whether he's just the lucky lottery winner who happened across oh so many such scenes.

And i would see such a character as toxic. A player should not bring a character to the table when he expects that "First we have character introductions, than engage with the advendure hook and the NPCs a bit and then I switch characters" or something like that..

Expect? No, I wouldn't say I ever *expected* Quertus to leave. (Well, not counting that one time I took over as GM, read the module, and said, "well, if this plays through like I expect, then this is the scene where Quertus leaves the adventure.")

But, apparently, a lot of my GMs predate TV tropes, or any other source of brainwashing narrative structures where all available research opportunities must be tied into the main plot, and the eventual victory of the protagonist.

So was the stuff you researched relevant to the game or a side activity that does not actually demand you leaving or did Quertus just went and left the group and you played someone else ? Which is it ?

Mu?

The stuff Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, researched often seemed plot-relevant, but, generally, when it necessitated his removal from the spotlight, in fact was not.

Eh, that's not quite right.

Sometimes, the lost culture / recovering goddess / alien spaceship / whatever was the plot… and then the rest of the party moved on to the next plot, while Quertus stayed behind to continue research into what the old plot could teach.

Sometimes, time travel / alternate power sources / unstable portals / whatever were central to the plot (or "were the plot"), but, for whatever reason (usually, GM was an idiot railroader, who not only could not conceptualize anything but their one right answer to how the story could and must go, but also couldn't grok the concept of "studying","investigation", or "learning" possibly having any value) never imagined anyone would ever want to learn about them, and couldn't make "learning about the plot" fit into the plot.

And yes. Research is the archetypical wizard motivation. How can you think it is something rare when all the other archetypical wizards are suppossed to do the same ?

Because they don't? They metagame, and stick with the adventure, passing up research opportunities, or they don't get the opportunity to join new games after they leave.

If i have research minded magical characters in a group then pretty much every magical secret some GM introduces (and many many GMs have regretted putting in things that they can't properly explain when someone takes a closer look) gets researched. How do all those character do less research than Quertus ?

I'm claiming that they're less dedicated to research. Which, actually, the claim should probably more accurately be, you're less dedicated to depicting them as dedicated to research if you're unwilling to leave the campaign, repeatedly, in order for them to pursue their research.

I'm claiming that there probably is only one Quertus, only one Wizard depicted as so dedicated to research as to leave countless parties under countless GMs to pursue research opportunities.

To answer the question you asked, though, the answer is "trivially": Quertus researched every magical secret *multiple* GMs put down, on top of his numerous "once in a lifetime" research opportunities, on top of his own personal research projects, across numerous worlds and realities.

Regarding "artificial stupidity" vs "artificial smartness" -
Personally at least, I've never been assuming that all or even most NPCs use the same tactics as the PCs. I'm just assuming that some of them do. That if the PCs are using an effective tactic which only requires combining a couple spells, they're probably not the only ones in the whole world to think of doing so. And that if the PCs are cutting a swath through all opposition and on a path to become the powers that be, they're likely to eventually come in conflict with the current powers that be, who by virtue of surviving this long would be more likely to be "clued in" to effective tactics.

Unless that's part of the premise of the game, in which case I'm totally fine with it. Like say -
A few centuries ago, a group of gods, immortals, and the rulers of powerful nations came together and decided they wanted the world to be more stable (or static and easy to control, to view it less charitably). To this end, they wiped out all mention of the most "destabilizing" knowledge - anything that prevents a medieval stasis from working - and have inquisitors out to purge any "corruption" (say, a Sorcerer spontaneously learning forbidden spells). The PCs are rebels against this, either because they want to overthrow it or just for their own survival, and are thus rediscovering that forbidden knowledge.

Something like that sounds fun, and in that premise it makes sense that the PCs are asymmetrical. I just dislike "The PCs are ordinary people, honest ... except somehow they're the only people who can put two and two together."

Ignoring how many of them are dead, if Einstein, Hawkins, daVinci, Darwin, and Quertus got together, would you really find it odd if they had ideas ordinary people didn't? I'm not claiming that the PCs are "ordinary people" - quite the opposite, in fact.

Or do you, you know, always play yourself / "everyman" as your PC?

Do I own the best tennis racket? No. Do I own the best handgun? Debatable. But, if I'm playing Warhammer, do I expect my fellow PCs to be Space Marines rather than, say, Joe Average janitors? Absolutely.

If I invent a new spell in D&D, or in ShadowRun, do I expect to see anyone else using that spell? Absolutely not. (And, even though Quertus has shared "Quertus's Spell Star" with several Wizards (mostly other PCs, but a few NPCs as well), where expecting imitation might be reasonable, I've still never seen anyone else cast it.)

And, lastly, even the vaunted Playground has failed to demonstrate the capacity to learn from and imitate Armus' tech. So I cannot accept claims that such imitation is easy. Heck, I built Quertus based on my confusion that people could play the same game for years (or decades!) and still be clueless, still fail to comprehend or even imitate even the most basic concepts and strategies of the game.

So, if I - no, if an immortal Lich - were to travel to the Earth of, say, 10,000 years ago, and start shooting people to death with modern firearms, do you really believe that people would quickly learn to put sulfur and bat guano together to make gunpowder, and fight firearms with firearms? It's just putting together a couple of things, right? Surely this Lich isn't the only one in the world to think of it, right?

My experience with humans leads me to believe that the answer is that no, they wouldn't. A genocidal Lich would certainly be impetus to innovate, but I suspect that their innovations would more and better follow their own existing tech trees than to suddenly successfully imitate the Lich's tech.

[Satinavian]

Not *no* interest in the group or the adventure. Just often less interest than would be necessary to pass up a "once in a lifetime" research opportunity.

I can either… stick with you guys, and hunt down some Orc that I don't really care about… or stay here, and learn the secrets of channeling moonlight from the recovering goddess we just saved, during the brief period she'll be earthbound? Um… is that really a choice? Have fun with that Orc!

Yes, seems completely normal and something i have seen dozens of times. Not every wizard/wizard equivalent is a researcher but those who are tend to always choose research in such a situation.

But, apparently, a lot of my GMs predate TV tropes, or any other source of brainwashing narrative structures where all available research opportunities must be tied into the main plot, and the eventual victory of the protagonist.

I don't research opportunities tied to the main plot that often. What i see more often are research opportunities that can be researched without abandoning the main plot. Because the GM expected them researches when he wrote the adventure. Because that is what a couple of his PCs would have done as well.

Sometimes, time travel / alternate power sources / unstable portals / whatever were central to the plot (or "were the plot"), but, for whatever reason (usually, GM was an idiot railroader, who not only could not conceptualize anything but their one right answer to how the story could and must go, but also couldn't grok the concept of "studying","investigation", or "learning" possibly having any value) never imagined anyone would ever want to learn about them, and couldn't make "learning about the plot" fit into the plot.

If there is any difference in our experiences irt is probably this. In my gaming circle researching PCs are incredibly common and GMs generally expect research. So with the same amount of research done, the need to leave a group behind arises less often.

To answer the question you asked, though, the answer is "trivially": Quertus researched every magical secret *multiple* GMs put down, on top of his numerous "once in a lifetime" research opportunities, on top of his own personal research projects, across numerous worlds and realities.

And to sum it up, that is not special, it is something i have seen dozens of times. Well, at least without the world hopping as most campaigns here don't allow that and GMs sharing worlds is more common.

[Slipjig]

Wow, Quertus (the character) sounds like somebody who wouldn't get invited to go on many second adventures. "Hey guys, I'm leaving you in the lurch again! Have fun risking your lives saving the world while I study how Grey Oozes reproduce!"

[Mordar]

Wow, Quertus (the character) sounds like somebody who wouldn't get invited to go on many second adventures. "Hey guys, I'm leaving you in the lurch again! Have fun risking your lives saving the world while I study how Grey Oozes reproduce!"

Funny, I've always thought of D&D characters as more of the "I'm in it for the money", with a helping of "I'm here to save the princess/dragon/kidnapped child/whatever" and an occasional sprinkle of "Have fun storming the castle/Hooray we saved the town" thrown in.

Saving the world was more for those superhero games.

- M

[Ignimortis]

I like being tanky. I tend to like systems with soaking damage best, since they usually let you build something that has a double layer of defenses (first you gotta hit, then you gotta pierce my armor/Fortitude/whatever). Being able to take an assault rifle burst to the chest is exhilarating.

As for "if you get tanky enough to ignore everything, the GM just won't use those things at all", there are two solutions. 1) Your GM builds the world and the enemies organically, so that sometimes, your "immune to everything" schtick catches someone by surprise. 2) Build enough tankiness to deal with most threats, but not the biggest ones. If you can tank the average weapon/attack just fine, it doesn't have to mean you can survive anything. You can tank ARs, but can you survive a 20mm shell? You can take a swipe from a giant's club, but what about focused dragonbreath? Etc, etc.

Tanking, though, is a more complex beast. I haven't seen any TTRPG that supported outright videogame tanking, because aggro systems aren't usually a thing, and enemies tend to resist attempts to goad them into fighting the most beefy opponent. So tanking usually works in three ways:

1. Kill/CC everyone before they get to hurt your teammates. Simple, but rarely works due to how turns are structured in most games. Early SR editions and specific multi-target 3.5/PF1 D&D builds being an exception.
2. Intercept attacks and take them onto yourself. Usually has severe limits so that you don't dash around the battlefield, turning your own soak into the whole party's soak.
3. Be enough of a threat that everyone goes "oh man we gotta deal with this one first". Also doesn't always work, but when it does, you know that at least you got respect.

None of these are as easy or as convenient as videogame tanking, but it can provide neat opportunities to show off and provide chardev. I once jumped on a grenade for a squishy mage, and earned a lot of goodwill through that.

[Quertus]

Wow, Quertus (the character) sounds like somebody who wouldn't get invited to go on many second adventures. "Hey guys, I'm leaving you in the lurch again! Have fun risking your lives saving the world while I study how Grey Oozes reproduce!"

Funny, I've always thought of D&D characters as more of the "I'm in it for the money", with a helping of "I'm here to save the princess/dragon/kidnapped child/whatever" and an occasional sprinkle of "Have fun storming the castle/Hooray we saved the town" thrown in.

Saving the world was more for those superhero games.

- M

Hilariously, Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, has (helped) save over 100 worlds - largely *because* of bailing on parties when given the choice between "research" and "lesser stakes". Funny how useful "knowing stuff" can be.

Additionally, by constantly bailing, he knows lots of parties. Funny how useful "knowing a guy" can be.

(Also, Quertus typically borders on being "The Load" - him leaving the party "in the lurch" would be not unlike Hawkeye leaving the Avengers in the lurch.)

[Satinavian]

Additionally, by constantly bailing, he knows lots of parties. Funny how useful "knowing a guy" can be.

OK, I'll bite.

How is that ever useful in game when the only PCs you will be able to reach are those whose players are sitting at the table ?

[NichG]

OK, I'll bite.

How is that ever useful in game when the only PCs you will be able to reach are those whose players are sitting at the table ?

That kind of thing has come up for me in the context of a gaming club where people were in each other's games and there was some sense of wanting to connect them. Had a game take a very sharp turn when a group of characters found the name of a PC from another campaign in a comic book and on the basis of eerie coincidences attempted a summoning.

[Xervous]

I like being tanky. I tend to like systems with soaking damage best, since they usually let you build something that has a double layer of defenses (first you gotta hit, then you gotta pierce my armor/Fortitude/whatever). Being able to take an assault rifle burst to the chest is exhilarating.

As for "if you get tanky enough to ignore everything, the GM just won't use those things at all", there are two solutions.

Overlooking the third solution where the system math dictates that sustaining omnidirectional immunity bankrupts your point budget leaving you as a piece of scenery that lacks the means for influencing most scenes.

[Ignimortis]

Overlooking the third solution where the system math dictates that sustaining omnidirectional immunity bankrupts your point budget leaving you as a piece of scenery that lacks the means for influencing most scenes.

That's what the second solution tends to work with, usually. Not sure if there's a system where you technically can get a high resistance to everything, but lowering it to pay for other abilities won't actually pay enough.

[Quertus]

OK, I'll bite.

How is that ever useful in game when the only PCs you will be able to reach are those whose players are sitting at the table ?

You've made a huge assumption there. Or maybe two.

Let's say that, IRL, "the PCs" consist of the few of us involved in this conversation. But every single Playgrounder was, in one or more "campaigns" (threads) a PC.

If this conversation turns to, say, "the nature of Evil", there's a certain PC, not currently in this campaign, that it'd make an awful lot of sense to summon.

Now, if that PC is played by the same player as one of us currently active in this adventure, it's a lot easier from the table's PoV, I'll grant you. But I've seen systems where some of the characters explicitly had "create background NPCs to help" powers, and… fate? (The one with the skill pyramid) has "allies" (or some such) as one of the skills to roll. When I tried to understand that system by writing Quertus in it, "allies" was his "top of the pyramid" (with "lore" and… maybe "wealth" as his second tier attributes (yes, "Magic" was a tertiary ability for my signature academia mage)).

So it's… atypical thinking for a D&D mindset. Which is why Quertus can do things most D&D characters can't. Which is why he could save so many worlds.

And that's even before "a Wizard did it", and Quertus just straight-up summons aid, not unlike

That kind of thing has come up for me in the context of a gaming club where people were in each other's games and there was some sense of wanting to connect them. Had a game take a very sharp turn when a group of characters found the name of a PC from another campaign in a comic book and on the basis of eerie coincidences attempted a summoning.

So, yeah. Quertus has great magical power, used poorly, and great knowledge and contacts, used well. I've been lucky enough to have some GMs skilled enough to recognize that characters having a past (as opposed to playing pieces with blank slates) is a good thing, and to allow characters to leverage that past at logical junctures.

Sometimes, the relevant portions of that past involved things that happened at that table and/or with those players; other times, it did not. But good GMs know how to work with material that isn't 100% their own (because the alternative is railroaders who should go write single author fiction), and some can even extend that to events that happened outside their game actually being potentially important.

So I'd say, "the only PCs you will be able to reach are those whose players are sitting at the table" a) is a symptom of a problem; b) isn't as limiting as you might think if Quertus knows dozens of PCs not actively involved in the current campaign that fit that description.