TheRPGSite

My players are very much the "let the dice decide the fate of the character" type of gamers. They never had a problem with character death. No whining. "Bad stuff happens during a game, we're all adults, none of this story is more important nonsense - death is the story, baby - just roll with."

Now, a couple of days ago, in the opening episode of the third season of our Hunter campaign, one of the characters while trying to save an innocent npc, nearly got killed. I say, nearly because I put the character in a coma. Now the dice, says he should die. But, because it was near the beginning of the session, I allowed this character to remain in a comatose state and allowed the player, to roleplay/roll dice for some of the npcs in the session. It was all good. The session ended with all the pcs gathered around the comatose body of this admired character in the hospital's ER unit.

After the session, I told the players, not to worry, their precious let the dice roll philosophy was not compromised and that the only reason, I didn't kill of the character because it was too early in the session, and I thought it would be nice if there was a big send off scene. Their reply (to be clear, three of the seven players) : "Maybe he does not have to die?" Needless to say, I spent a few minutes recovering my jaw from the floor.

Now, this character is an awseome character. He is the linchpin of the group for this campaign anyway. A few of the players have storylines connected to his, but the main thing that draws, inspires the whole group, is that this character is the moral center of the campaign. That the player roleplays the character well - okay damn freakin' well - goes without saying.

On another level - and knowing my players this is an issue, but not of any real importance - is that this player has discovered a few of the secrets of the campaign, and has not really shared any of it, with the players for various in game reasons. I didn't set out to make it so, he has some answers, it just happened. His behaviour as a character (and player) - unafraid to take chances, noble, brave extremely active - allowed him insights into the campign, that the others may have missed out on.

He is (was?) the center of much activity and all the other players really liked that. They were not jealous or resentful, and really thought that his character was what made (besides my GMing of course) really awesome.

So, what am I to do. We are in the discussion stage right now. The player whose character this involves has abstained from contibuting saying only that he still believes in the "roll with it" philosophy. Three of the other player think an exception should be made and the other three think that although they really like this character, they think, that allowing him (the character) to live even though the dice says otherwise is a mistake.

So, what's a GM to do.? Thoughts?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSo, what am I to do. We are in the discussion stage right now. The player whose character this involves has abstained from contibuting saying only that he still believes in the "roll with it" philosophy. Three of the other player think an exception should be made and the other three think that although they really like this character, they think, that allowing him (the character) to live even though the dice says otherwise is a mistake.

So, what's a GM to do.? Thoughts?

Regards,
David R

The player of the vegetable should be put the question.  I don't think it's a good idea to leave it up to committee, because it's his character.  He's already expressed that he's a roll-with-it guy, so I'm (as an outsider) thinking that he's abstaining simply because he doesn't want to get into this argument.

As GM I think you need to cut through the BS here and get a quick answer from the guy and be done with it.

EDIT: Also, it's a good idea to prep your campaign for the idea that the lynch-pin dies.  Since that's what involves the most work from the GM, it's inevitably going to be what happens.  ;)

Guy in question sounds like a good player.  I doubt he'll turn into shit just because he's running a new character.

You've been running with a rule for a while now and it's treated you very well.  Gen up the new PC and whatever issues some players have will be forgotten by the time the beer gets warm.

(Or they'll have a shit hemorrhage and storm out.  Then you wouldn't want them around anyway.)

Just let him live, but with some permanent injury, a limp or whatever.

This was something that came out of a Recon campaign... our characters won a shitload of medals, more than almost anyone historically. Why? Because the system had no rules for crippling injuries. If it didn't kill you on the spot, then you'd get better.

Whereas historically, if people do the sorts of things you need to do to get a medal, they'd usually be seriously wounded. If the wound didn't kill them, then it'd have a permanent effect. And that permanent effect would get them a medical discharge from the military.

So the guy lives, but he's impaired in some way. Depends on what kind of wound he has, but "nerve damage" can account for a lot.

Personnaly, I say that chosing to make a 'fatal injury' instead 'crippling and incapacitating' isn't doing a damn thing towards violating the 'dice'.

Game designers and GM's are often very quick to pull the 'you must die at this point' card.  The dice said he was fucked up, you, the GM, fucked him up.  If the gamble is so precious to you, roll for it, high he lives, low he dies. Otherwise, have the doc's patch him up and bring him back to the game.  Heroes don't die in the hospital after being in a coma... they always recover to fight (and possibly die...) another day.

Heroes get killed on the battlefields themselves, often in horrific ways. If you were gonna kill him, that's where ya kill him. :pundit:

Quote from: SpikeHeroes get killed on the battlefields themselves, often in horrific ways. If you were gonna kill him, that's where ya kill him. :pundit:

:shrug: It was an unlucky roll(s) against an insignificant mook of the campaign's elusive BigBad - hardly a hero's death.

Redfox. I get where you are coming from. Normaly as a group, we discuss things like this. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the group as a whole used to subscribe to the "roll with it" philosophy and derived much fun from it. Now, as one of the long time player said, "maybe it's time to amend the philosophy".

Needless to say, this has fuelled a friendly if lively discussion around the gaming table. We are the kind of group that knows a compromise will eventualy be reached, one that is acceptable to all. The point of my post is to get feedback, and maybe even a couple of ideas as to how to resolve this issue. I'm sure most folks have dealt with something like this before, I want to hear about it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RNeedless to say, this has fuelled a friendly if lively discussion around the gaming table. We are the kind of group that knows a compromise will eventualy be reached, one that is acceptable to all. The point of my post is to get feedback, and maybe even a couple of ideas as to how to resolve this issue. I'm sure most folks have dealt with something like this before, I want to hear about it.

Regards,
David R

Oh I don't think you should shut-down discussion.  If you want to talk to them about the policy change, I think you should.

But this PC; it's important to get his opinion, because regardless of bigger issues, it's his character. :)

I mean, you're getting suggestions in a vacuum of ideas as far as what the player wants.  You're hearing stuff like, "cripple the PC but let him live," but for all we know, the guy could be the type to absolutely hate playing a guy with nerve-damage and would rather roll up a wizard now.  *shrug*

Quote from: RedFoxBut this PC; it's important to get his opinion, because regardless of bigger issues, it's his character. :)

Very true. I think at the end of the day, it's really up to him. Everyone knows this, I'm sure, but for the moment we're just just discussing the bigger issues :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThe point of my post is to get feedback, and maybe even a couple of ideas as to how to resolve this issue. I'm sure most folks have dealt with something like this before, I want to hear about it.

Well... I've not had the same situation, because for as long as I've had an actual GMing philosophy - since I realised the GM wasn't there just to look up tables - I've never let rules or the dice run the game.

I'm the GM. Not a few hundred pages of over-priced badly-organised sloppily-written saucily-illustrated book, and certainly not some funny-shaped blocks of plastic with numbers of them. As GM, I master the game, the game does not master me.

I usually begin each campaign with, "I assume that if you create the characters, you must want to play them, right till the end of the campaign. So they won't die unless you're persistently stupid, or it's appropriate to the character. A paladin might die slaying a lich, and a thief might die stealing the largest diamond in the world, because that's what paladins and thieves do. But you won't fall in a ten foot pit it on your way to the crapper one night and break your neck. On the other hand if you walk off a cliff, what can I do. And none of them means you can't be injured permanently maimed, or humiliated."

That's how I set out from the start. I've honestly never consulted players on whether they like this or not. I assume they must like it, because they keep turning up for sessions. Of course, this is in the context of cosed-ended campaigns of 10-20 sessions. I suppose if I were planning to have 200 sessions over four years I might feel differently.

There sure as shit have been a few players whose characters I'd have been delighted to kill off, unfortunately whenever I was pissed off with them, they started playing cautiously and I didn't have a plausible excuse.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm the GM. Not a few hundred pages of over-priced badly-organised sloppily-written saucily-illustrated book, and certainly not some funny-shaped blocks of plastic with numbers of them. As GM, I master the game, the game does not master me.

This used to be my style of GMing. When I strated running games for my current crew, they made it very clear, that they got a lot of fun from the "roll with it" philosophy. At first I was a bit sceptical...but after awhile letting the dice fall where it does, gave me a kind of freedom...I didn't really have to worry about the pcs anymore. Shit happens and they dealt with it. Everyone was happy.

Now, it seems, some think that perhaps my old style of GMing has some merit, and they want to explore that :D I'm good either way, but I think, exploring new methods of play should be left in their hands.

Regards,
David R

My own experience as GM letting the linch pin die really hammers home the point of leathality in a campaign. If you have great Gamers who make great characters there should be no trouble at all.

My experience as a Player was a little different. I create a character that I really enjoyed and who challenged the religeous beliefs of others. He was competent and the Native Guide for the adventure. He was killed defending another PC and died instantly. (Let the dice fall where they may).

Unfortunately I lost my next character in short order much to my chagrin. Let us know what happened.



Good luck

QM

If your group or the player doesn't reach an agreement, let the dice decide the fate of the character. You could go with "heads he lives, tales he dies" for example.

I recomend near death comas that allow characters to "nearly die." You get the best of both worlds: the players still have a reason to play cautiously since every near death could be their last but you don't kill off characters so dang quickly.  

Wierd story: I GMed a game in Mythic Europe, a land where botched chiurgy skill rolls can kill the patients outright. After a particularly gruesome attempt to cauterize a tinywolf scratch, everyone decided to eschew medeval surgery whatever the cost, if only to preserve the corpse for proper burial.
No doctors! No doctors! :flameon2:

QuoteThis used to be my style of GMing. When I strated running games for my current crew, they made it very clear, that they got a lot of fun from the "roll with it" philosophy. At first I was a bit sceptical...but after awhile letting the dice fall where it does, gave me a kind of freedom...I didn't really have to worry about the pcs anymore. Shit happens and they dealt with it. Everyone was happy.

Now, it seems, some think that perhaps my old style of GMing has some merit, and they want to explore that  I'm good either way, but I think, exploring new methods of play should be left in their hands.

No rule to handle this in the game you are using? Crappy. Shadowrun has had one for a while. SR3 had the once only per character Hand Of God. SR4 has a somewhat more flexible permanently lowering your Edge Attribute avoid certain death, though you don't avoid all the consequences. It doesn't have rules in place to implement JimBobOz's great suggestion that he ends up with limp or other permanent injury. But it is handwavable sort of.

Then there is Burning Wheel where the rules work exactly that way as written. When the character recieves a Mortal Wound the player can either choose to let the character die or spend a point of Persona Artha (if they have one) to invoke the Will to Live rule. The character is then going to end up in a comma until they've had time to heal up, afterwhich a unanamous vote by the players could bestow a new Trait, typically somehow based on the type of injury, to the PC.

EDIT: I'm sure others can bring up some more examples of rules that work along these lines.

Since these are rules centric people maybe you should bring in a rule here. Frame it as an existing rule, but just being imported from another system. Name it after the character so when someone invokes it they remember that this rule is for heros, and also are reminded of all the cool things this PC had done. But you'd do well to mould the rule carefully lest you screw up the Threat of Death in the game too much. Sort of what TheQuestionMan is talking about. You don't want their experience of changing the rules to be one that devolves into screwing up the feel of the game, which I assume they like?

Just an idea, in this world could there be a McGuffin that the other characters could obtain/do to help the other character out of the coma? That might be a nice plot twist to throw in, if they have to work to save their buddy it'll probably help ease any "cheating" feelings the other players might get.

Or let him die, that's good. Biting it during a heroic attempt to save an innocent? “This is a good death, there is no shame in this.” Hell of a lot worse ways for a PC to die. Or recover and retire from play to some sandy white beach somewhere.

since the player of the character in question seems to be indifferent to the outcome, i would say let him have a neat death scene in the hospital.  the dice have "decreed" that he goes, and the players know this.  and since the group seems evenly split on the whole thing, i would say to stick with your previous practice.

the fact that he was taken out by a mook should make the rest of the group more careful.  lesson learned.  the fact that he is/was the lynchpin of the group, moreso.  his loss should inspire the other characters.  

my refereeing experiences have never been in the "story is more important" category, tho.  sure, there's a story of sorts.  but no one gets immunity.  some heroes die a noble death, some don't.  

i'd say if you wanted to change your philosophy on the matter, it should be done at the start, before something like this happens.  to change it mid-stream alters the mood of the campaign.

Quote from: David RSo, what's a GM to do.? Thoughts?

First, if they are the ones who asked for, "Bad stuff happens during a game, we're all adults, none of this story is more important nonsense - death is the story, baby - just roll with," then you need to mention that, if you let this character live at their request, how should you handle similar situations in the future?  Is this a one-off exception or going to happen again?

You mentioned, "His behaviour as a character (and player) - unafraid to take chances, noble, brave extremely active - allowed him insights into the campign, that the others may have missed out on."  That's the sort of thing that puts a character into this sort of situation again and again.  It's going to come up again.  What are you supposed to do next time?

A few ideas and suggestions.

With respect to, "On another level - and knowing my players this is an issue, but not of any real importance - is that this player has discovered a few of the secrets of the campaign, and has not really shared any of it, with the players for various in game reasons," that can be dealt with without saving the character if you don't mind borrowing a Hollywood cliche.  While the other characters are in the hospital, the character wakes up out of the coma, spills his guts, and then flatlines.  Not only does that transfer the knowledge but it gives the character the sort of heroic death being killed by an unlucky roll robbed him of, especially if you let the player play the scene out.

With respect to whether it's going to come up again, I don't think that calling this a one time exception will probably hold.  Like I said, with that sort of character, it's probably going to come up again and you also have a split of opinion within the group so I think you need to consider setting a policy.  I think there are a few ways you can handle it (this list is by no means meant to be exhaustive):

• If the death is unheroic (e.g., at the hands of a mook because of a lucky roll), give the character a "Save vs. Stupid Death" roll.  That way, the character is never guaranteed to come back (for that "roll with the dice" feel) but has less of a chance of dying a stupid death than they otherwise would (a more cinematic feel).  Adjust the odds of death for this roll to suit what the players want or maybe how stupid the death is.  This might help keep death serious enough for the ones who want to go with the dice and cinematic for the ones who don't.
• Give them some sort of Fate Point that they can use to stop a death.  Give each player 1 (or maybe more, if you really want) that they can spend to save their own character from a death result or give it to someone else.  This puts everything in the hands of your players but makes it a limited resources.  They might not like the feel of this (because it makes it a choice rather than random) but it's an option that a few systems go with.
• Go with the idea of giving the player a choice between the character having a permanent wound or disability (reflected an attribute drop or disadvantage of some sort) or dying.  This is sort of what D&D does by taking levels away for characters being raised from the dead and I agree with JimBobOz that this is more realistic than death or full recovery.  But there are players for whom a disabled character is not worth playing (they don't find it fun) so the player should probably always have the option of death for their character.
• Some combination of the wound and either the Save vs. Stupid Death roll or the Fate Point so that the character never survives without paying a price for it.

ADDED: Of course you can always just let the character die an change nothing, especially if that's what the player wants.  The above suggestions are alternatives to that quite viable option.

Make sure to let us know how you resolve it.

Let the players vote, and stick to whatever the decision is.

Really -as a GM-- I just leave these (kinds of) decisions up to the players.

I have a bit of an advantage in fantasy gaming in that all the tools are in the players hands. If they want to raise dead, it's like 6500 gold.

Quote from: David R:shrug: It was an unlucky roll(s) against an insignificant mook of the campaign's elusive BigBad - hardly a hero's death.



Regards,
David R

You obviously haven't seen enough heroes die. Often they don't even get to see the one that got 'em. :pundit:

Just puttin' in my two cents and all that..;)

Quote from: David RThis used to be my style of GMing. When I strated running games for my current crew, they made it very clear, that they got a lot of fun from the "roll with it" philosophy.[...]

Now, it seems, some think that perhaps my old style of GMing has some merit, and they want to explore that :D I'm good either way, but I think, exploring new methods of play should be left in their hands.

No. Because players are whimsical creatures. What they love today they'll hate tomorrow. If the players had their way each session, the game would be Sopranos one day and Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman the next. And overall they'd be miserable. And they'd blame you for that - and rightly so. The GM is there to provide consistency, because players are inconsistent, whimsical, flighty, indecisive, and basically crazy.

You should be deciding this yourself, without direct input from the players. Indirect input, yes - but not direct. The rules are what you say they are, not what the book or the dice say, or God forbid, what the players say.

Indirect input is superior to direct input because players say a lot of things about their ideal game which they don't really mean or feel. For example, almost every player will claim they want deep and meaningful roleplaying, dealing with the depths of multi-dimensional characters - then in the game, they beat someone up and toss him in a dumpster. Then they claim they want to let the dice fall where they may, but the first character cops it, and what do they do? Start mumbling about how he shouldn't die. When players talk about their wishes, they speak of ideals which they'll never practice in play.

So you have to judge it, and balance all the indirect input of your different players, to give them not what they say they want, but what they really want. What that is, I don't know because I never met the guys, but with a little thought you will know.

If you've got a 3-3 deadlock, the player whose character it is casts the deciding vote. In this case he's abstaining, but he says he's a "roll with it" guy. That sounds to me like "I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I'd call for death if I were to vote." Kill him.

I think you should put the responsibility on to the players, and particularly the player whose chr it is. The way I see it, you've been put in a very difficult position. Three players want it one way, three want it another, and you're the bad guy either way. Clearly, this sucks.

I'd say: "Look, folks. My understanding was that we let the dice fall where they may. Since this is a surprise crisis-point, I think we should let Dead Boy choose whether or not he wants to continue playing this chr. After that, we should have a talk about how we want this to go in future."

Thanks for all the interesting replies.

John Morrow: You are right. I don't think this is a one time deal. Earlier I mentioned that some of the players wanted to review/amend the "roll with it" philosophy. Honestly, this change of attitude amongst certain players has been bubbling in the background. We've been having some intense character driven campaigns, intricately plotted and there is much invesment by the players in their characters. sometimes when a player nearly dies esp when the death is based on a bad roll, there have been murmurs of discontent.

This had never happened before,or at least when I began gaming with them, there was a certain collective point of view. Even when new players joined the group, this POV was accepted by the new guy/gals. Strange then, that two of the old timers are the ones who want a change, and the new folk are pretty content with the philosophy as is.

I shoud have reacted earlier, but I thought it would be better if any change of policy was brought upon by play instead of me ( the GM and one who has a prefered style of play), perhaps that was unwise but yet I think, if I had brought it up, it would be going over old ground and really, my assumptions of discontent amongst certain players could have been wrong.

So, yes, we will as a group, have to discuss this issue before going any further. From what has been said so far, I think all sides want this issue resolved before going any further.

Lastly, your ideas are pretty interesting. I do think that one of the ideas I'm going to discuss with them is the possibilty of Fate points. That seems like a good rule compromise that all can live with.

JimBob: Our experiences with players are obviously worlds apart. The folks I game with are always on the same page with regards to the kind of games we want to play. For instance, This Hunter campaign is based on early John Carpenter movies. Before the campaign we had pretty intensive and fun discussion about what exactly that meant. They asked about tone and atmosphere and we talked about how they could contribute towards it. Part of the discussion was about the role of humour (black) in the game. There was a lot of talk about action and drama...a lot of film watching too.

Basically what I'm trying to say is this: They always say what they mean and nearly always mean what they say. For instance, although this major issue came up, they still operated within the unoffical rule of the group, which is : If you got a problem bring it up after the game. They played as normal quite content for the issue to be discussed after the game. We all pretty much know, that what we have is a good thing and that perhaps change is in the air. I'm a pretty hands on GM, but I do believe that player input direct or indirect when it comes to the way how we as a group game is extremely important.

I think our experiences are different because from what I gather, you game with a lot of different folks whereas I game exclusively with friends. We have built up over the years a certain, I don't know, trust? communication? :shrug: whatever it is, it only comes with time spent gaming consistently with the same group of people.

Spike: When I read your post I though of the Micheal Caine version of Get Carter...he was not a hero, but it would be the kind of demise that would be right at home in my current campaign, except...

droog ,Abyssal & beeber : The player in question, will definitely be the guy who makes the call.

An idea (okay a cop out) I am toying with, is to have the player create a new character - he always has a stand by, in this case a defrocked, priest partly based on Mark Ruffalo's character in You Can Count On Me - I'd suggest that this new character does charity work at the hospital . I'd leave dead boy in a coma and have the priest be able to communicate telephatically with him. This way dead boy is not in play, the roll with it rule is left more or less intact, some info can be passed on to the players and there is always the possibility of dead boy making a comeback....

Off course, the group has to decide once and for all, how we are all going to game...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David ROff course, the group has to decide once and for all, how we are all going to game...

I think not: you only have to decide how you're going to play this game.

I can see many choices for this game, but you could change up the rules for any other game. It's being on the same page at any particular moment that's important.

1. You could do the really drastic thing, and switch to a different system, eg HQ, where chrs don't die except as an explicit decision.

2. You could implement that as a house-ruie in the system you're currently using, or some other house rule like "Nobody gets killed by a mook."

3. You could continue to let the dice fall as they may, and damn the consequences.

4. You could continue to make decisions ad hoc. "The GM is allowed to fudge to save chrs when he feels like it."


Which do you feel most comfortable with for this game? But answering that doesn't mean you have to play the same way for all time. I've used both 1. and 3. in different games, for example (I used to use 4. but it's too fraught with difficulty for me).

Quote from: droogI think not: you only have to decide how you're going to play this game.

I can see many choices for this game, but you could change up the rules for any other game. It's being on the same page at any particular moment that's important.

Yeah. I get where you are going with this. I do, think however the roll with it philosophy - at least as far as they concerned - should be used where applicable, as a general rule. I'd much prefer the we are on the same page at any particular moment approach myself...

Regards,
David R

Well, I still stand by my opinion.

The Game (any really) tends towards a really black and white take on getting hurt.  Cross x line and you die, which can rob the game of some much needed drama... does he live or does he die?  That's tension for ya.  It's the GM's perogative to put that tension into the game when someone hits that line, regardless of philosophy. It's not a violation of letting the dice fall, it's taking the GM's duties seriously.

I still say just kacking the guy while he's comatose is anti-climactic, a foregone conclusion. The players are divided, the tension is there. Use it, make a quick house rule roll to see if he makes it, preserving the 'fall where they may' but allowing the character to survive. Put the dice in his hand. Maybe its a stamina check (with bonuses for good doctoring) or a will to live check (willpower? Maybe...)...  IF he lives, he'll still have to recover, if he dies, well, he dies. roll up a new one.

IF your group has been debating this like I think they have, then that will probably be one of the most intense and watched rolls of the season/campaign/whatever you call it....

Quote from: SpikeIt's the GM's perogative to put that tension into the game when someone hits that line, regardless of philosophy.

Odd sentence structure. The part before the comma looks like a statement of philosophy. The part after it appears to be a negation of the importance of philosophy.

:)

Quote from: James McMurrayOdd sentence structure. The part before the comma looks like a statement of philosophy. The part after it appears to be a negation of the importance of philosophy.

:)

The 'dice fall where they may' thing is a philosophy, the 'GM's perogative' is a belief. I have faith in it.

I hope that puts an end to that before Akrasia decides to step in and wave his career in academia at us, and you start popping off with the dictionary thing...:what:

Sure, it clarifies your misconception of the language fairly well. If you don't want to discuss it, I won't try to make you. :D

There's no hard and fast rule about what you should do, and anyone who's trying to pitch you one is a horse vagina. You should pretty much talk with everyone and see which way they'd rather go, and whether they'd like this to become the way things are handled or not. And then do whatever the conclusion is.

He did talk to them. Half wanted one thing, half wanted another, and the deciding vote pseudo-abstained.

The point isn't to take a vote, but to build a consensus.

You can't always get a consensus. In this case, the player with the character on their death bed obviously won't step up and say, "let him live!" because he doesn't want to stick out or ask for special favours.

When you can't get a consensus, well that's why every GM has a Viking Hat sitting under the table ready to go.

Quote from: SpikePut the dice in his hand. Maybe its a stamina check (with bonuses for good doctoring) or a will to live check (willpower? Maybe...)...  IF he lives, he'll still have to recover, if he dies, well, he dies. roll up a new one.

IF your group has been debating this like I think they have, then that will probably be one of the most intense and watched rolls of the season/campaign/whatever you call it....

I'll consider this. But I do know there are some in the group that are not entirely happy with the roll with it philosophy esp when it comes to random non-heroic death. I'm probably not describing this last bit accurately. For sometime now, I've observed that with some in the group, rolling dice although still as exciting as before comes in second to other aspects of the game.

:shrug: This problem would have come up even if I had allowed the character to die on the street. We're playing this Thursday so one way or another this issue will be resolved.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYeah. I get where you are going with this. I do, think however the roll with it philosophy - at least as far as they concerned - should be used where applicable, as a general rule. I'd much prefer the we are on the same page at any particular moment approach myself...

Regards,
David R

It sounds like you've got a good read on them. For folks that are willing to do it and sound rules roll with it works really well. The only thing at this point that you need to figure out is whether the rules as they stand right now give, in the long run, the desired results or if ammending is appropriate. And for that concensus is pretty damn important. It certainly is and should be framed as something bigger than buddy in a coma.

I wonder, do you think the others might be a little scared of picking up the stone and running with it themselves? If so might be time to remind them that RPGs are not a spectator sport and give them a encouraging verbal shove out of the nest. Turn the spotlight on them and make them react. :cool:

Besides if this guy really did grasp the rules well he should have know that this could happen. Maybe this is why he's cool with the guy dieing because as he sees and understands it the threat is the thing that enables him to enjoy it? If he is inherently a risk taker/pusher this could be the case.

Quote from: David RBut I do know there are some in the group that are not entirely happy with the roll with it philosophy esp when it comes to random non-heroic death. I'm probably not describing this last bit accurately.

Maybe you mean non-climactic death? Because as described this sounded like a hero's death. Just not a "storybook single protagonist at the end of the book/season" death.

Quote from: blakkieMaybe you mean non-climactic death? Because as described this sounded like a hero's death. Just not a "storybook single protagonist at the end of the book/season" death.

Yeah, this sounds much better :D

As for you other post, you raise some interesting questions. They deserve detailed answers. I'll get to them later.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: blakkieIt sounds like you've got a good read on them. For folks that are willing to do it and sound rules roll with it works really well. The only thing at this point that you need to figure out is whether the rules as they stand right now give, in the long run, the desired results or if ammending is appropriate. And for that concensus is pretty damn important. It certainly is and should be framed as something bigger than buddy in a coma.

Yes, I did however put forward the view (droog's actually) about "being on the same page at any particular moment. I've also thrown into the mix, John Morrow's "fate" point  suggestion and off course my own cop out idea. All are being considered by my players.

The thing is,the roll with it rule is not a deal breaker, we ain't that kind of group. Obviously certain players want some change. It's all about working it out, so that what made the games exciting before for all, is not totally changed in favour of the ones who want something different.

QuoteI wonder, do you think the others might be a little scared of picking up the stone and running with it themselves? If so might be time to remind them that RPGs are not a spectator sport and give them a encouraging verbal shove out of the nest. Turn the spotlight on them and make them react. :cool:

This is actualy part of the dicsussion. You see in some games certain players kind of are like the main stars. Now don't take this the wrong way. Everyones contributing and having fun and are obviously deriving satisfaction from the games, but one or two stand out. It happens in every group, and I'm lucky that in my campaigns it's not awlays the same folks.

In this particular campaign the comatose character and another player are the two opposing viewpoints that the other characters gravitate towards. The former is the noble hero type whose struggling to retain his humanity and compassion while facing off vile forces and encourages the others to do the same, while the latter is cynical warrior whose only aim is to eradicate the growing evil no matter what the cost.

This dynamic is something I had nothing to do with. Like I mentioned earlier, it was something the players created amongst themselves. There is the worry (by all, I might add) that once this character goes, something will be lost in the campaign.

(Curious, I started a thread about the GM's role in making the game fun, and here's an example of the players doing it all by themselves...)

It's not so much about shining the spotlight - they all have their moments, but rather the fear, that the tone of the campaign will change, a tone which was to all of them, the best thing about this campaign. Sure, I also have something to do with it, but the dynamic between these two character propelled the story forward.

QuoteBesides if this guy really did grasp the rules well he should have know that this could happen. Maybe this is why he's cool with the guy dieing because as he sees and understands it the threat is the thing that enables him to enjoy it? If he is inherently a risk taker/pusher this could be the case.

Oh, he knew the risks. All my players thankfully are not whiners. If they create heroic characters (like he did) they show how heroic their characters are :)  

He's warming to the idea of using his standby character, but likes the idea of letting his comatose character remain in the campign if only as a symbol. He likes the idea of the possibility of coming back though, but he also likes the idea of his character dying - maybe not as heroic as he would have liked, but the way he's going has the "banal stench of normality, that fits perfectly with the 70's era malaise tone of this campaign" (his words more or less)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI'll consider this. But I do know there are some in the group that are not entirely happy with the roll with it philosophy esp when it comes to random non-heroic death.

This statement gave me an interesting idea that I'm going to toss out partially formed to see if anything can do something with it.  If the problem is an unheroic death, how about turning an unheroic death into a sort of "living on borrowed time" that the player has to cash in during the next heroic encounter or the character will die anyway?  (I wouldn't be surprised if some system already has something like this and would be curious how it works.)

Very interesting idea John. I liked the idea so much, that I proposed this to the comatose guy's player.The plan is, he mysteriously vanishes from the hospital and has one day to find his heroic moment. He's thinking about what that is...and knowing him, he will come up with something interesting. The next adventure will have two paralel storylines.

The first, the rest of the group trying to find the missing pc and the second his last final attempt at a heroic demise.The other players really like this idea, and are dying to see what he comes up with. Although he has told all of us, that depending on how events unfold, he wants to have a Rutger Haur (Roy Batty) death scene :D

All the players seem happy with the way how things turned out. The general consensus seems to be that they will tackle game problems as it comes up. Although I realise I've not heard the last of this, they are not really interested in making any grand declarations, being quite happy with the way how things have turned out and deciding to deal with problems on a case by case basis.

Regards,
David R

Make sure to keep us up to date on what happens... tonight, isn't it?

It's very early Friday morning here in Malaysia, we just finished the session an hour ago :D

I don't normally name individual sessions of a campaign except on special occasions, and I think this one qualifies. So, here's a rundown of A Requiem For Detective Merrin...

So, the pcs approved of my - okay, John's - borrowed time idea , and the game started with the mysterious dissapearence of deadboy from the hospital. Joining them was a new character (although they did not know it at the time) a defrocked priest who volunteers at the hospital. After a brief discussion, they set out look for their missing comrade - minus the priest.

Now, upthread I mentioned that this player was looking for his heroic moment, and what he came up with suprised me. Although the campaign is in the thrid season, I have yet to formally introduce the BigBad. They are still putting down roots, so to speak in the setting. What this player had been concentrating on since the beginning of the campaign was investigating (on his own time) a group of corrupt police officers he was familiar with from his days as a rookie.

Check that. He was part of them. Let's just say he had a Training Day relationship with this (unknown to him at the time) demon touched captain. As part of their team, he had beaten to death a young street urchin and framed an innocent police officer.

For the past two seasons he was trying to find a way to bring them down. He had not told any of the other players about his past. It was interesting. He had built up a rep for being such a good guy and the last thing he wants to do, is expose this group and himself.

There was two aspects to this game. The first, a one on one session with him, gathering evidence and making sure the pcs found it. And the second, his comrades deciphering the various clues he had strewn about and acting on them leading to a showdown with some really pissed of half demons in a deserted steel mill.

Throughout the game he was passing notes, to his ideological opposite - the player who was/is his dark half. Before the big showdown, much to the dismay of the other players she leaves the group. Apparently the notes were telephatic clues to his whereabouts and they should take care of the mess here as she was going to see him. Although they wanted her there - she was the best fighter, they told her to go.

So, while this ultra violent fight - and shit, was it violent ...I mean, I've run some violent games for this campaign, but this was VIOLENT...she and deadboy were talking in the kitchen. By the time, the fight was over with one player losing an eye and the others pretty busted up, I join  the two of them in the kitchen. Deadboy sets, the scene for me. He is in his rookie uniform(tight fitting) sitting in the subway train he used to patrol  back in the day(His body is obviously shutting down). They ask me if I want to know what had transpired, and I said no, just let me hear the last words between the two of you.

She : You should have told us (I suspect it's some of the secrets he had discovered), we could have helped.

Pause

       : I've got to go now. I don't want to leave...

He cuts her off

He : I think, I'm just going to sit here for a while.

So, the adventure ends with this player having the death he wanted the most, something out of Collateral. (No big showdown, just a quiet, lonely death on a moving train with oblivous passengers)

A couple of things.

1 - Because of what happened in the city, the pcs have to leave Dodge. Not a problem, they have some leads to follow up, and even though, I envisoned this to be an urban campaign, a tour of the country side would do the group good. I'm looking forward to establishing a 70's small town feel on the game and besides, Supernatural type diversions is a good thing :D

2 - Deadboy's new character looks promising. This player only plays good guy types, but this character although good, is exhibiting a wicked sense of humour, a first for this player.

3 - One of the best roleplaying session - from all -I ever had with this group. For this adventure it seems they were all deep immersion players. Very cool.

So, that's it. Sorry for the long post and thanks for all the invaluable ideas.

Regards,
David R

Heh.. when you talked about the corrupt cop angle, I flashed to... god, what was it called 'Deep Blue' I think?  Where Kurt Russel basically implodes at the end of the movie, taking down just about everyone with him!

Wrong movie I guess, but the Collateral reference was pretty cool too, still it would have been nice to:

A: find out what went on between those two characters

B: Have his final scene help resolve the fight with the big bad in some way.




But that's my take. Sounds like everyone involved had an awesome time of it, so Kudos to you!:chestram:

Quote from: SpikeHeh.. when you talked about the corrupt cop angle, I flashed to... god, what was it called 'Deep Blue' I think?  Where Kurt Russel basically implodes at the end of the movie, taking down just about everyone with him!

Hmm, that was a cool movie, but I think he wanted to go for something lowkey, something elegiac (my favourite word :D )...a kind of urban legend-y way to go, just like in Collateral...(Did you hear about the dead cop they found on the train....he was just sitting there...)

QuoteA: find out what went on between those two characters

You, know this is what all the other players wanted to know, and the player who was with him is keeping mum - which I suppose is the point. She knows a couple of things about the campaign, it sorta of adds to the mystery.

QuoteB: Have his final scene help resolve the fight with the big bad in some way.

Honestly it was totally up to him. I always have these storylines unconnected to the main plot of the campaign. I think to him, resolving his storyline was the way to go.

QuoteBut that's my take. Sounds like everyone involved had an awesome time of it, so Kudos to you!:chestram:

It was sooo friggin' great :D

Regards,
David R

That's awesome, Davd R. I gotta take GMing lessons from you!

Thanks for the write up.  Makes me glad that I decided to throw out that half-formed idea that you ran with instead of trying to form it into something more specific, which would have been something in a quite different direction.  Very interesting direction you and the player took things in.  As writers say, ideas are cheap.  It's what you do with them that counts.

Quote from: David R1 - Because of what happened in the city, the pcs have to leave Dodge. Not a problem, they have some leads to follow up, and even though, I envisoned this to be an urban campaign, a tour of the country side would do the group good. I'm looking forward to establishing a 70's small town feel on the game and besides, Supernatural type diversions is a good thing :D

You could do some very interesting things with the whole Dukes of Hazzard, Sheriff Lobo theme, especially if you play the corrupt officials seriously (Sheriff Lobo was originally pretty serious) instead of for laughs -- or maybe play them for dark laughs.  There are some other relentless sheriff sources from that period, including the movies Convoy and Smokey and the Bandit.  Break out your 70s CB Lingo book and you could also do a rolling game based around trucks and truckers ala BJ and the Bear (a veritable cornucopia of 70s cliches including Vietnam Vet, truck driver, local corruption, hot women, animal companion, etc., which, again, started out more seriously than it ended up).

Quote from: David R3 - One of the best roleplaying session - from all -I ever had with this group. For this adventure it seems they were all deep immersion players. Very cool.

Were they happy with how it turned out?  Are they going to expect you to pull off a session like this every time a character has to die? ;)

Just gotta apologize if my last post came across a little critque like.  One thing I always have to keep in mind in my GMing is that what I think is cool is not necessarily what the player thinks is cool, and its his character.

So, while my idea of an ending would have been awesome, it lacked the solemn dignity and, well I guess completeness of the players ending. He wouldn't have found my ending nearly as awesome.

Besides, you still got the awesome showdown with the rest of the party, so you had the best of both worlds!

Quote from: John MorrowYou could do some very interesting things with the whole Dukes of Hazzard, Sheriff Lobo theme, especially if you play the corrupt officials seriously (Sheriff Lobo was originally pretty serious) instead of for laughs -- or maybe play them for dark laughs.  There are some other relentless sheriff sources from that period, including the movies Convoy and Smokey and the Bandit.  Break out your 70s CB Lingo book and you could also do a rolling game based around trucks and truckers ala BJ and the Bear (a veritable cornucopia of 70s cliches including Vietnam Vet, truck driver, local corruption, hot women, animal companion, etc., which, again, started out more seriously than it ended up).

Good ideas John. Well as far as the whole chase motif goes, they are aware that two extremely feared Fed agents have been assigned to bring them in...think Stockyard Channing and Scott Glenn :D

This season, has them tracking an extremely radical student union - the unholy mating of the crew from 12 Monkeys and The Bader Mein Hoff.

QuoteWere they happy with how it turned out?  Are they going to expect you to pull off a session like this every time a character has to die? ;)

I think they were happy that I consulted them. Nah, they know this is a one off solution. The good thing is, we've decided to deal with issues that crop up on a case by case basis.

JimBob. You don't need lessons. I don't know...I'm watching your thread with immense curiosity. I don't have anything constructive to contribute except to reiterate that I think it's a people thing....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RJimBob. You don't need lessons. I don't know...I'm watching your thread with immense curiosity. I don't have anything constructive to contribute except to reiterate that I think it's a people thing....

Everyone needs lessons, because roleplaying itself is a "people thing", and there's an infinite variety of people. So we always have something more to learn. And GMing itself requires the most "people skills" of anyone in the game group, because the GM often finds themselves acting as a moderator at the player-payer and player-GM level, as well as at the player-character or character-character level. A game can survive a player or two being a bit clueless about people, or a player or two having a conflict; it's much harder for it to survive a GM being clueless, or a player-GM conflict.

You had a difficult situation, and handled it well (everyone ended up happy); I had a difficult situation, and handled it badly (everyone ended up miserable). So obviously I can learn from you!

Plus, you don't know if I'm a good GM not needing lessons until you play under me :p

Quote from: JimBobOzEveryone needs lessons, because roleplaying itself is a "people thing", and there's an infinite variety of people. So we always have something more to learn. And GMing itself requires the most "people skills" of anyone in the game group, because the GM often finds themselves acting as a moderator at the player-payer and player-GM level, as well as at the player-character or character-character level. A game can survive a player or two being a bit clueless about people, or a player or two having a conflict; it's much harder for it to survive a GM being clueless, or a player-GM conflict.

You had a difficult situation, and handled it well (everyone ended up happy); I had a difficult situation, and handled it badly (everyone ended up miserable). So obviously I can learn from you!

I get where you're going with this, but I really did not mean people skills. Now, it's obvious that there is/was some hostility between the player and you. IME people skills is only effective when folks actually enjoy each others company or are forced to cooperate, the former being friendship the latter various professional/working dynamics. Now off course people skills is also relevent to total strangers....the point being strangers have no feelings towards you one way or another.

The game...your game imploding , IMO was because you and this player did not get along. It may not have started this way, but somewhere along the way, something happened. No amount of people skills would have helped ,I think. You could have made Solomon like calls - which IMO you didn't - but still it would not have made much of a difference.

The things is, throughout this thread I kept on reminding folks, that this problem with my players was not something that we couldn't overcome. Our friendship was never in jeopardy because of the game. The people skills involved was just listening to folks and presenting interesting ideas that they might find workable. Now I'm sure, things would have been different if one or more of the players didn't like me for some reason.

So, people skills are great, but if the player and you are not getting on, it really would not make much of a difference.

Regards,
David R

That is all true. Nonetheless, people skills can, even if they don't solve a problem, anticipate or alleviate it. Some you see the shit coming and dodge it, or only go knee-deep instead of neck-deep.

And GMing skills, while they include people skills, also include other things like description ("white room combat problem"), sensing what'll be most fun and interesting for the group at this moment, and so on.

I still say I've a lot to learn about all those things ;)

I finally got around to reading your follow up, and it sounds like it was a rockfest! :toast: :bow: Having a very short, definative borrowed-time type situation is something that I'll keep in mind in the future.

So do you think in time the whole story will come out about what transpired? I know if I was another player at the table it'd be driving me crazy too. :p  It's a fine, subjective line between cool mystery and irritatingly obtuse due to a lack of info.  With the later it feels sort of like a book that everyone tells me is great but that I've never gotten to read. But then I'm a curious type. *shrug*

P.S.  I've thought about the original question posted in this thread for a while now. I've come to the conclusion that I've never had/seen a "linchpin" in play. It has always worked out there was some redundancy of any vital information between characters within a short period of time OR there was a direct logical path for another character to gain the information. Do you see this often, or is it just the type of atmosphere in this genre with these characters where you have this kind of issolation of infomation?

Quote from: blakkieSo do you think in time the whole story will come out about what transpired?  

Yes, but I think it's something that should come out during the game between the players themselves.

QuoteDo you see this often, or is it just the type of atmosphere in this genre with these characters where you have this kind of issolation of infomation?

I think more of the latter. This player went out of his way to really engage with the setting. The other players were more interested at the task/goals at hand rather than going around poking their noses where it didn't belong :D

Regards,
David R