Player vs. Character

[Trebuchet]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

It's tough to have sympathy for a GM who pounds PC's into the dirt (or just kills them) whenever they make a tactical error' date=' then complains that his players overanalyze, or don't take risks, isn't it?[/quote']It is for me. I don't think many GMs actually do things like that, but there's probably a few bad eggs out there. Any GM who penalizes his players because their characters do something heroic but risky (as opposed to simply foolhardy) isn't doing a very good job IMO. I'm not saying there should be no negative repercussions due to taking such risks, but I think it's fair to be certain the player understands the possible downside if he fails (and that it might be almost certain failure). If players are never rewarded, even in terms of a good dramatic situation, for taking heroic risks then they simply won't take them. That's only human nature.

 

People (and PCs in a game) take risks for a perceived possible benefit; to themself or to others. Whether that's to save themselves, profit themselves, fulfill a personal code of conduct, or some other less tangible benefit will help determine whether that risk gets taken. But if the results are always negative then there is no percentage in taking the risk in the first place, and people won't take them. The PCs in a game are supposed to be the heroes of the piece. Who wants to play Indiana Jones if Short Round or Miriam Ravenwood either saves the day every time or gets killed despite what Doctor Jones does? There is a lot of maneuver room between those two extremes. As a GM I would fault Dr. Jones only for not trying to save Short Round; not because the rescue attempt failed.

[Guest C--]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

It is for me. I don't think many GMs actually do things like that, but there's probably a few bad eggs out there. Any GM who penalizes his players because their characters do something heroic but risky (as opposed to simply foolhardy) isn't doing a very good job IMO. I'm not saying there should be no negative repercussions due to taking such risks, but I think it's fair to be certain the player understands the possible downside if he fails (and that it might be almost certain failure). If players are never rewarded, even in terms of a good dramatic situation, for taking heroic risks then they simply won't take them. That's only human nature.

 

People (and PCs in a game) take risks for a perceived possible benefit; to themself or to others. Whether that's to save themselves, profit themselves, fulfill a personal code of conduct, or some other less tangible benefit will help determine whether that risk gets taken. But if the results are always negative then there is no percentage in taking the risk in the first place, and people won't take them. The PCs in a game are supposed to be the heroes of the piece. Who wants to play Indiana Jones if Short Round or Miriam Ravenwood either saves the day every time or gets killed despite what Doctor Jones does? There is a lot of maneuver room between those two extremes. As a GM I would fault Dr. Jones only for not trying to save Short Round; not because the rescue attempt failed.

 

Dead Short Round? Woo-hoo! Sign me up!

[ZootSoot]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Damn, I've never heard it explained better than that.

 

I always tried to reward the players who would play in a heroic style. They were rewarded with XP, but also I fudged rolls, ad-libbed rules, and tailored the villains reactions as necessary so the players could pull it off.

 

Personally, the "story" was much more important for myself and my players than strict adherence to the rules. Many times the "heroic" endeavor oftentimes succeeded, whereas the well thought out tactical endeavor did not.

 

 

I understand that impulse, but it repulses me because it makes the heroic behavior the tactical behavior. If you take away the risk of failure then you make my successes without value. I prefer to let the dice fall where they will.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I understand that impulse' date=' but it repulses me because it makes the heroic behavior the tactical behavior. If you take away the risk of failure then you make my successes without value. I prefer to let the dice fall where they will.[/quote']I don't think that automatically follows. The heroic behavior obviously can be the tactical behavior, but it won't necessarily be such. Rescuing normals (or opponents, for that matter) or other heroic actions often puts one in a worse tactical situation. Spider-Man in SM2 certainly didn't help his tactical situation vis-à-vis his fight with Doctor Octopus when he exhausted himself literally to the point of unconsciousness stopping the runaway elevated train. It was heroic precisely because it put him at a severe disadvantage when Octopus returned, just as it was genre for Dr. Octopus not to kill him immediately but to drag him off somewhere to be killed. (A deathtrap would also have been genre.)

 

While I understand the need for randomization, I never let the dice alone dictate to me how the action will occur. They're my tool, not vice versa. We're telling interactive fiction here; the rules and dice merely provide a reasonably solid framework to hang the story on. If you think that puts me more in the narrativist school rather than the gamist camp, mea culpa. But I see no reason a compromise position can't be reached somewhere along the nar-game continuity.

 

BTW, nice to see you back, Zoot.

[Kristopher]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

My thought is that quite often, the "heroic" thing to do isn't, because the tactical thing to do also has the best chance of saving the most people, winning the battle, etc.

[Guest C--]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

My thought is that quite often' date=' the "heroic" thing to do isn't, because the tactical thing to do also has the best chance of saving the most people, winning the battle, etc.[/quote']

 

Then my thought would be that you aren't putting enough pressure on your players. If they have time to sit around and think up battle plans, they've got too much time, and they don't need superpowers.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Well, a couple of things that occur to me as I flip through this thread ...

 

It should depend on the character and his/her Psych Limits, for the most part, whether or not they choose to rush in or make a plan, and on the circumstances surrounding the situation. Some heroes are renowned for coming up with complex plans on a moment's notice (Cyclops, Reed Richards, Batman), while some simply bull their way in (Wolverine, The Thing, Supergirl). Now, even in these broad groups, there are times when the thinkers act without planning, and the tanks realize they need to think first (representing various Ego rolls and modifiers thereof). Other Psych Lims will affect these actions (Code vs Killing/Protective of Innocents, for example), as will circumstances.

 

For my part, I've tended to move away from playing characters that act before thinking, as have most of my gaming group, regardless of the game. We like to out-think and out-strategize more than simply out-power, as we have more fun doing so.

 

As far as there has to be real risk, one of the things that I most like about the HERO system as compared to most other systems is that it's easier (in general, at least) to knock someone out before killing them. In D&D and many other games 'defeat' means death; in HERO, you get knocked out and either left to awaken to the media in your face, or get captured. You were still defeated, you still lost; but death isn't a requirement. I actually prefer, as a GM, the relative lack of lethality in HERO, as I think it makes you think more about RPing the character when it can last several months/years, instead of games like D&D and Cyberpunk where if you've lost, you're dead ("why put a lot of thought into a character that's only going to live three hours?"). When the death is everywhere and omnipresent, it ceases to have impact, IMHO; it works better as a 'looming possibility', not a once-a-game certainty.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

When the death is everywhere and omnipresent' date=' it ceases to have impact, IMHO; it works better as a 'looming possibility', not a once-a-game certainty.[/quote']

 

Totally agree. "Looming" threat is all it takes. If my players were to stop a second, and actually go back and look at the last 17 plus years and figure out how many characters had ACTUALLY been killed... I think they'd be surprised. The point being, that when I laid out the parameters of my game over time... and I explained that death is possible... in many ways, that was enough. I have a lot of "F" players (in Myers-Briggs terms) and it took me a while to figure this out... but their emotional response to the mere POSSIBILITY (no matter how slight) of death has done more to set the tone of my campaign than anything I did as GM or that actually happened in the game. The threat is SO much worse in their own heads than in the reality of the game. In the past, this could be a problem, in that I had to remind them that "Hey... trust me... have I really every whacked any character 'just because'?"

 

In the end... it isn't a "prevalence of death" I want in my game... but a study of "ramifications of supers and superviolence" of which death is just one facet.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Totally agree. "Looming" threat is all it takes. If my players were to stop a second, and actually go back and look at the last 17 plus years and figure out how many characters had ACTUALLY been killed... I think they'd be surprised. The point being, that when I laid out the parameters of my game over time... and I explained that death is possible... in many ways, that was enough. I have a lot of "F" players (in Myers-Briggs terms) and it took me a while to figure this out... but their emotional response to the mere POSSIBILITY (no matter how slight) of death has done more to set the tone of my campaign than anything I did as GM or that actually happened in the game. The threat is SO much worse in their own heads than in the reality of the game. In the past, this could be a problem, in that I had to remind them that "Hey... trust me... have I really every whacked any character 'just because'?"

 

In the end... it isn't a "prevalence of death" I want in my game... but a study of "ramifications of supers and superviolence" of which death is just one facet.

I agree 100%. The threat of death is often more than enough to provide a feeling of danger and accomplishment, even if actual death is rare. I think it's the same factor that makes people climb mountains and hang glide. Roleplaying lethally dangerous situations is an adrenalin rush for geeks and other couch potatoes.

[Vondy]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I understand that impulse' date=' but it repulses me because it makes the heroic behavior the tactical behavior. If you take away the risk of failure then you make my successes without value. [/quote']

 

Just like in the comics...

 

In my game its understood that critical plot junctures and climactic battles are more dangerous gloves-off scenes than ho-hum building the story chain-of-events scenes.