Quote from: Ravenswing;693765No, we really don't.

Steel doesn't start to deform below 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.  A great long while before that armor deformed to the point of breakdown, the poor bastard inside would be charcoal.

Or maybe he can withstand higher temperatures than you because he's Saint fucking George. Crazy shit like that.

Ok:


i) A thief steals a PC's major magic item
This is fine if used rarely and as a reasonable result of events in the setting, such as a pc pissing off a thieves guild.


ii) A PC gets affected by charm/hypnosis/mind control
Fine if not used too often.


iii) The party pass through a gateway enchanted by Mordenkeinen's Disjunction
Fine, although some clues to the danger might be a good idea.


iv) the DM forces AD&D item saves as per DMG after the party are hit by dragon fire
Seems a good way to make Dragons scary.

v) The party interfere with a temple of XX and as a result get hit with a Geas/Quest
Fine if they interfere and draw the ire of a god, but should be rare.

vi) A player allows his PC to slip out of character a little and the DM imposes an alignment change which robs them of class powers
Classic Paladin that might be appropriate, but I normally never tell a player how to roleplay their character, and I have alignment be a result of actions and intent, not the originator of such.


vii) The aforementioned Helm of alignment change (just for completeness)
Fine as long as the dm is not being an asshat. Also, Characters might use the helm on others knowing what it can do.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693716So the Alignment thread has wandered into the territory of character protagonism.

Alignment that acts as limit to play I guess might always do that but in this case we were discussing changes in alignment as a result of interacting with the game world (or the GM bing a dick and putting in a helmet of alignment change depending on your religious affiliations).

I was suprised by some reactions as to be whatever happens in the game world is well the game world so all legitimate.

So was wondering about people's general opinion of the following levels of 'deprotagonisation'

i) A thief steals a PC's major magic item

I allow players to 'invest XP into magic items they use. The in-game explanation for this is that they are investing a bit of their soul into an item, as they bond with it more, a sort of minor form of natural magic that lies behind mementos and keepsakes - its also why the weapons of famous ancient warrior over time become magical, as wielders invest constantly in the item or as legends around the weapons grow.

Runes can then be used to manipulate this stored magical energy.

The metagame effect of this is that the amount invested sets the likelihood on a %roll, that the item will be taken in any given situation or, if it is unavoidably taken ( if the character is stripped and thrown into prison), then it ensures the item will be recovered as soon as the character escapes ( the item 'calls to its owner, like the One Ring).

I find most of my players like this rule and are satisfied with it even when temporarily deprived f their favourute toy.

Quoteii) A PaC gets affected by charm/hypnosis/mind control

Fair game, used moderately. Saving throws should be given liberally. Its just one of those 'don't abuse it' things. But its a staple of the genre, all fantasy genres actually. Personally I don't hardly ever use it on PCs because I find it boring. I want them to play thier characters, not to put on a puppet show.

Quoteiii) The party pass through a gateway enchanted by Mordenkeinen's Disjunction

Well, hopefully they showered afterwards...



Seriously, I have no idea what that is.

Quoteiv) the DM forces AD&D item saves as per DMG after the party are hit by dragon fire

Sounds reasonable. I tend to treat dragonfire as magical in my games, in that it can only be stopped by magic items made for that purpose ( like a shield of dragonscales). Otherwise, the character who doesn't manage to get out of the way is pretty much instant roast coffee, including thier items.

I'm not a killer GM, but a badass Dragon should be badass imo. Clever players will come up with a better strategy than 'run right at it and hope my AC holds up.

Quotev) The party interfere with a temple of XX and as a result get hit with a Geas/Quest

How is that depritagonizing? Sounds like proprotagonizing to me.

Quotevi) A player allows his PC to slip out of character a little and the DM imposes an alignment change which robs them of class powers

Too situation specific to make a judgement on.

Quotevii) The aforementioned Helm of alignment change (just for completeness)

Pffft...gay.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;693744The story of Saint George would be far more interesting to me if indeed his arms and armor could be slagged by dragon fire.

AD&D is closer to Beowulf than to St George & the Dragon, anyway.

Items only have to save if the wearer first fails their save, which at high level is usually 1 in 20 times.

The only time I've used a Helm of Opposite Alignment was when some good NPCs captured a Chaotic Evil PC and used it to turn him good. I don't think I'd use it in game now, nor would I use Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity and similar character-altering cursed items.

A PC can change Alignment if played out of Alignment, but I generally don't penalise it. If a supposedly LG PC Cleric acts Chaotic Evil I'd likely say that an evil entity takes over granting their spells. The player won't necessarily even know that their PC's alignment has changed.

Interesting discussion on Dragons foot on item saves here - http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=62222

Generally opinion is only go it when the item is specifically targetted or when its an unusual case.

The whoel Dragon fire comes up as does crushing blow from a giant.

Again feeling is if the PC fails a dragon breath save  they need to make saves for all, some or none of their equipment depending on the DM.

Again I don't think I would bother. An 8th level party in a fight with a medium sized young adult red dragon will take what c 36 (9hd 4 points per HD)  points of damge from a dragon breath attack that will kill the wizard and the thief leave the cleric and the fighter pretty messed up. they will fail their saves, not on a 1 as suggested but on a 13 (F - 12; T - 15; C - 13; MU - 13) and to then roll for all their items seems a little harsh

Quote from: Old Geezer;693747No.  It is "what the game is about."

D&D is a resource management game.  

It certainly can be played that way, but sounds really fucking boring to me. But then I find everything relating to gear and loot extremely tedious and adding nothing fun to the game.

If I wanted a resource management game I'd play Torchbearer

Quote from: jibbajibba;693716So the Alignment thread has wandered into the territory of character protagonism.

I have come to the conclusion that "deprotagonism" and "protagonism" aren't necessarily helpful terms, at least not in the way they are commonly used. In some games you really do want to feel like your characters are the protagonists of a story, or placed at the fulcrum of fate such that their decisions can shape the destiny of the world. In other games your characters are low-life scum and you want it that way. Crying "deprotagonism" all the time blurs the issue, and there seems to be a lot of needless confusion about where the line is drawn between enabling protagonism and rolling over and being a doormat for the PCs (in a way which would spoil the players' fun as well as yours, because many players want to be challenged IC or OOC).

I think the key is recognising that "protagonism" is one type of interactivity that a game can focus on, and when people complain about "deprotagonism" what they're really saying is "I'm being prevented from interacting with the game on the level I want to interact with it". I've written elsewhere about this idea, but basically the unique selling point of tabletop RPGs isn't just the extent of the interaction they offer, but also the fact that they can be adapted to offer a bunch of distinct and different types of interaction, and if a game doesn't offer the flavour of interaction you're craving (or worse, doesn't offer the flavour of interaction the GM or rules promised), you're going to feel dissatisfied.

People who say "I hate being deprotagonised!" are really saying that they expect to be able to interact with the gameworld through the medium of a PC who, if not powerful, at least makes decisions which have profound consequences for the course of the game (or the "plot", if you look at RPGs that way). And when player 1 says "that's totally deprotagonising!" and player 2 says "nuh-uh, it's not", sometimes one will be correct and the other won't be, but equally in a lot of the more borderline cases they'll both be right to a certain extent, in the sense that the incident in question shuts down a type of interactivity or player agency which is important to player 1 but which player 2 is happy to take or leave.

Quote from: Warthur;693814I have come to the conclusion that "deprotagonism" and "protagonism" aren't necessarily helpful terms, at least not in the way they are commonly used. In some games you really do want to feel like your characters are the protagonists of a story, or placed at the fulcrum of fate such that their decisions can shape the destiny of the world. In other games your characters are low-life scum and you want it that way. Crying "deprotagonism" all the time blurs the issue, and there seems to be a lot of needless confusion about where the line is drawn between enabling protagonism and rolling over and being a doormat for the PCs (in a way which would spoil the players' fun as well as yours, because many players want to be challenged IC or OOC).

I think the key is recognising that "protagonism" is one type of interactivity that a game can focus on, and when people complain about "deprotagonism" what they're really saying is "I'm being prevented from interacting with the game on the level I want to interact with it". I've written elsewhere about this idea, but basically the unique selling point of tabletop RPGs isn't just the extent of the interaction they offer, but also the fact that they can be adapted to offer a bunch of distinct and different types of interaction, and if a game doesn't offer the flavour of interaction you're craving (or worse, doesn't offer the flavour of interaction the GM or rules promised), you're going to feel dissatisfied.

People who say "I hate being deprotagonised!" are really saying that they expect to be able to interact with the gameworld through the medium of a PC who, if not powerful, at least makes decisions which have profound consequences for the course of the game (or the "plot", if you look at RPGs that way). And when player 1 says "that's totally deprotagonising!" and player 2 says "nuh-uh, it's not", sometimes one will be correct and the other won't be, but equally in a lot of the more borderline cases they'll both be right to a certain extent, in the sense that the incident in question shuts down a type of interactivity or player agency which is important to player 1 but which player 2 is happy to take or leave.

I only used the term because it came up on the other thread.

The main thrust there was more about players not being able to play the character they want/planned to play as opposed to levels of power.

No one actually ever said they wanted to be able to be able to change the world or have great power just that certain actions restricted their chance to play the guy they wanted to play.

My position was one of suprise really becasue the guy I want to play is the guy that I created and if shit happens to him through play that makes me want to play him more not less as he becomes more intertesting and richer as a character.

Making up an Evil knight is okay making up a paladin who through a terrible curse becomes an evil knight is probably more interesting.

Quote from: Bill;693767I thought items saved when the character failed his save, or have I been doing this wrong for 25 years?

Thats how I have always run things. If the character makes the save I assume the stuff is fine too. On a failed save, the items need to be checked.

Having gear get trashed, then finding new stuff is all part of the game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693821Thats how I have always run things. If the character makes the save I assume the stuff is fine too. On a failed save, the items need to be checked.

Having gear get trashed, then finding new stuff is all part of the game.

Same here.

Deprotagonizing - When a WHFRP Protagonist switches careers to Beggar.

Quote from: TristramEvans;693829Deprotagonizing - When a WHFRP Protagonist switches careers to Beggar.

Threadwinnah!!!!  

Quote from: jibbajibba;693820Making up an Evil knight is okay making up a paladin who through a terrible curse becomes an evil knight is probably more interesting.

In my specific case, an alignment shift is pretty much the worst thing you could do to me.  The thing is, I could play an evil character.  On rare occassions, I do (usually Lawful Evil).  There can be fun there.  But for me a big part of the appeal of RPGs is heroic fantasy.  In the news I'm bombarded with stories of families being killed by a parent in a muder-suicide; I hear about women kept prisoner for years in a sex dungeon; I hear about football players gang raping a teenager and the town becoming divided over whether the players should be held accountable.  

I have my fill of evil on a daily basis.  When I play D&D, I want to strike a blow against evil.  At least, usually.  

With all of your questions the focus should be on 'why do you play RPGs'.  If you play RPGs just to accumulate power for your character, the loss of items might be 'unacceptable'.  

I'm most interested in experiencing the world through the character's perceptions.  Anything that fundamentally changes the character requires my agreement if you expect me to continue playing the character.  Equipment is, by definition, not part of the character.  

But if you're going to require item saves, it's best if you're consistent.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693838With all of your questions the focus should be on 'why do you play RPGs'.  If you play RPGs just to accumulate power for your character, the loss of items might be 'unacceptable'.  

I don't think one automatically means the other. When I began playing D&D    the goal of play was to amass wealth and power and trying to survive. XP for GP was a big driving force in this type of play.

Magical items got lost, and destroyed and new ones were found. It was just part of the game. Even death was not 'unacceptable'. It happened, you rolled up a new character and kept playing.

The whole idea that your characters were something special and nothing bad could permenantly happen to them didn't occur to us. A dead character was like going bankrupt in Monopoly. The difference was that in D&D if your thimble went bankrupt, you could generate an iron, and keep playing in the same ongoing game.