Unmaking

[Certified]

Through the course of their carrier your hero has archived many great deeds but, one tragedy lingered in their shadow. A villain claiming to have been created by the character's actions, has in their insanity found a way to create a temporal anomaly.

 

The anomaly upon its birth destroyed its creator and the lab it was spawned from. The villain and his lab ware both incinerated by the energy release of it's creation.The anomaly has begun causing temporal shifts, moving things back and forth through the timeline. As a result paradox waves have started to shift the world around the hero as the timeline is rewritten. Only the hero and the anomaly seem to be immune to the changes created by the paradox waves.

 

There is no apparent way to destroy or nullify the anomaly. The anomaly seems to destroy anything entering it directly by removing it completely from the time stream. Only the hero retains any memories they may have had of whatever entered the anomaly. A theory is presented that should the hero enter the anomaly directly the villain would never have turned to a life of crime and the anomaly would have never been created. However, all of their other previous deeds would be undone. Should the anomaly stay unchecked the paradox waves will continue to grow stronger, each shift becoming more drastic.

 

It is unclear how long the anomaly can exist before dissipating naturally or what changes to the timeline will linger if and when it fades. The paradox waves have begun to fundamentally alter the evolution of the world and the anomaly itself may create a paradox that cannot be corrected in the time stream. This may cause the timeline to collapse completely. The final effects of the anomaly are unknown and as the waves continue to worsen the hero is left with only one theory on how to undo the chaos of the anomaly.

 

What Would Your Character Do?

[assault]

Re: Unmaking

 

My character would ask to have the situation explained in English.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Unmaking

 

The short version: I flip the table and punch the GM.

 

See, this is one of those scenarios where every answer sucks horribly, both IC and OOC. There's basically only four possible outcomes here:

 

1. I jump into the rift, negating myself and my enemy. . . and every good deed or heroic act I've ever done. Thus, in every way except those related to the particular nemesis, the world is now a crappier place.

 

2. As above, except the world is more or less the same. IOW, being a hero, or even being alive, had *no meaningful effect on the world at all*. It literally didn't matter whether you lived or died.

 

3. As above, except the world is now a better place. IOW, everything you ever did, irrespective of intentions, had only ever made the world worse than it could have been, and everyone should be glad your now erased.

 

4. You *don't* jump in. As the scenario is written, this means the world gets destroyed, basically. And it all happened because you weren't willing to take one of the above three horrible options. . . and thus acts as a coercive element forcing the above.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Unmaking

 

I think I'm with Metaphysician on this one.

 

Would my character sacrifice her life to save Earth from destruction? Absolutely. But as the player of that character, I'd resent the Hell out of any GM who pulled something like that on her. I'd probably stop playing in that GM's campaign.

[Tungsten Shephard]

Re: Unmaking

 

The short version: I flip the table and punch the GM.

 

See, this is one of those scenarios where every answer sucks horribly, both IC and OOC. There's basically only four possible outcomes here:

 

1. I jump into the rift, negating myself and my enemy. . . and every good deed or heroic act I've ever done. Thus, in every way except those related to the particular nemesis, the world is now a crappier place.

 

2. As above, except the world is more or less the same. IOW, being a hero, or even being alive, had *no meaningful effect on the world at all*. It literally didn't matter whether you lived or died.

 

3. As above, except the world is now a better place. IOW, everything you ever did, irrespective of intentions, had only ever made the world worse than it could have been, and everyone should be glad your now erased.

 

4. You *don't* jump in. As the scenario is written, this means the world gets destroyed, basically. And it all happened because you weren't willing to take one of the above three horrible options. . . and thus acts as a coercive element forcing the above.

 

The above is quoted for truth.

 

 

I've had this experience from a G.M. once.

I have never played in his game since for good reason, he was a jerk for doing it. Forced paradox, situations suck for players IMO.

 

I'd also like to add I ended up loosing a character I had loved playing for 10 years over it as he (GM) still played through the paradox. Makes me mad just thinking about it. .....

 

Paradox

[Zed-F]

Re: Unmaking

 

So, you want I should have my character feed the villain's father and/or mother to the anomaly? That should destroy it as well.

 

There should always be more than one reasonable answer to a conundrum, it's just whether the PCs can think of and/or implement one of the more optimal solutions. I don't object to making them have to think a bit to figure it out, but ultimately the idea is to craft a good story, and one the players will have enjoyed participating in. This one doesn't sound all that great on the latter score.

[jtelson]

Re: Unmaking

 

As a GM, the only time I consider the no win scenario; really the only the sacrifice of a player will save the world scenario, is when a player has asked to change characters. Then we discuss how they would like their current character removed from the group. (There are dozens of options for removing a character this type of thing would be just one)

So I guess conspiritorially would be, for me, the only way to run this type of situation. Which means the player going into the hole knows it, accepts it and agreed to it going into the game.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Unmaking

 

So' date=' you want I should have my character feed the villain's father and/or mother to the anomaly? That should destroy it as well.[/quote']Throwing an innocent third party into the anomaly would be just as - if not more - morally objectionable than the character sacrificing him or herself.

 

There should always be more than one reasonable answer to a conundrum, it's just whether the PCs can think of and/or implement one of the more optimal solutions. I don't object to making them have to think a bit to figure it out, but ultimately the idea is to craft a good story, and one the players will have enjoyed participating in. This one doesn't sound all that great on the latter score.

I agree completely.

[hfergus]

Re: Unmaking

 

Normally, I would consider this a "quit the campaign and never play with the Gm again" offense, however.... Olorin would "take the gloves off". He'd travel back in time to stop the villian before the anamoly was created. No anamoly, everything good he did is still in force. I normally would not do something so scenario bending, but this just asks for it. If the Gm fusses, I'd say "It solves the problem within your restraints and Olorins abilities. If you don't like it, I'll leave." If this is what the Gm had in mind knowing what Olorin could do, I'd put it in the catergory of "Olorin is not happy about this, but it's not the first time" category and play on. Since I can keep what I know and what my character knows separate, a word form the Gm in advance along the lines of "Olorin is going to have to do something he hates, any problem?" would have solved the problem. And yes, I would have agreed. Olorin can't get everything he wants.

[Certified]

Re: Unmaking

 

As I see the pitchforks and torches being handed out I guess I should post some background on this thread. Most of the WWYCD threads seem to be a thought exercise not something that would apply to most if any campaign. With notable exceptions. The scenario above is not something that could ever really go into a campaign without some major prep work in the standing campaign setting and what possible outcomes there might be. Moreover, as it has been mentioned the GM would likely need to do more than just tip his hand just to see if the scenario is even playable.

 

That said, it is still unlikely to be viable in a standard gaming environment due to the unavoidable time restraints of normal game play. The question was inspired from a literary work and I posted it here because there is no time limit to answer, people can take as much time as needed to try to devise a solution outside the one readily presented. Gaming is about story crafting, both from the GM and the Players. In the vacuum of insert this into your character's life I can see how it can seem like there is only one possible outcome. However, what was hoped for was more of how to avoid this double edged death trap. Anyway, hopefully this sheds some light on how I came up with this one.

[OddHat]

Re: Unmaking

 

From my characters pov: Most of my characters would look for possible third options. Any would be willing to sacrifice themselves to save the world, but in the cases of several (Style, Flesh Gordon) having their entire lives erased would end up destroying the world anyway.

 

From a Game pov: I'm with Meta and Treb on this. If my character were put in a position where he had to die to save the world, I might be OK with it, depending on circumstances; a heroic death has been the point of several of my favorites. In my current campaign, one player has requested a specific heroic death for his character, and since I like the story arc I plan to provide the opportunity.

 

However, if the GM basically said "Your character's entire existence is erased, and all of his adventures meant nothing; the world would have been better off without him", I'd stop gaming with that GM. It's an OK short story concept (though too angsty for my tastes); as a game scenario, I'd feel that the campaign had been pointless. Having the GM sit there arguing that it was a brilliant deconstruction of the idea of the superhero wouldn't help.

 

And all of that said, some GMs, players or groups might get a kick out of such a campaign. Lots of chances to emote and talk about how "true" heroism is sacrifice and self abnegation. YMMV and all that.

[OddHat]

Re: Unmaking

 

That said, it is still unlikely to be viable in a standard gaming environment due to the unavoidable time restraints of normal game play. The question was inspired from a literary work and I posted it here because there is no time limit to answer, people can take as much time as needed to try to devise a solution outside the one readily presented. Gaming is about story crafting, both from the GM and the Players. In the vacuum of insert this into your character's life I can see how it can seem like there is only one possible outcome. However, what was hoped for was more of how to avoid this double edged death trap. Anyway, hopefully this sheds some light on how I came up with this one.

 

To cut the knot, you'd need a character with either time travel powers of his own, contacts with time travel powers, or contacts with the rubber science background to solve a rubber science problem. Possible solutions that don't involve erasing the character would include going back and preventing the anomaly, building gear that allowed repair or containment of the anomally, or having the character sacrifice himself after making sure that an analog would step in and take his place in the time stream (the Time Trapper's Superboy / Valor solution).

 

What source inspired this? Has a Lathe of Heaven feel, or one of the DC Crisis / LOSH stories.

[Certified]

Re: Unmaking

 

What source inspired this? Has a Lathe of Heaven feel, or one of the DC Crisis / LOSH stories.

 

A Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury.

[OddHat]

Re: Unmaking

 

A Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury.

 

I remember that one. Good story, but tough to translate into a super-heroic setting.

[Tungsten Shephard]

Re: Unmaking

 

As a GM, the only time I consider the no win scenario

 

STOP

STOP RIGHT THERE..

 

There should never be a no win scenario. Even if that player agrees that its ok to kill his character it leaves a bad impression with the other players. I've had 3 no win scenario's, two with the same GM. It hurt our friendship, his friendship with the other players. He was telling a good story, but the other players held a grudge for years after words.

 

This brings up another question.

When is it O.K. for a GM to kill a PC?

 

My reply to this is, "Never, but sometimes crap just happens."

[jtelson]

Re: Unmaking

 

STOP

STOP RIGHT THERE..

 

There should never be a no win scenario. Even if that player agrees that its ok to kill his character it leaves a bad impression with the other players. I've had 3 no win scenario's, two with the same GM. It hurt our friendship, his friendship with the other players. He was telling a good story, but the other players held a grudge for years after words.

 

This brings up another question.

When is it O.K. for a GM to kill a PC?

 

My reply to this is, "Never, but sometimes crap just happens."

 

I think I won't stop right there, I think I'll finish the thought

 

...really the only the sacrifice of a player will save the world scenario, is when a player has asked to change characters. Then we discuss how they would like their current character removed from the group. (There are dozens of options for removing a character this type of thing would be just one)

 

and no it wouldn't leave a bad impression on the other players. My players know that if something like that happened there was an agreement either for the character to die or that the character is coming back (Radiation Accident).

 

When is it ok for a GM to kill a PC? When the PC's player wants the character killed.

Sometimes a situation put together by the GM kills a character, but that's not the same thing.

[Tungsten Shephard]

Re: Unmaking

 

and no it wouldn't leave a bad impression on the other players.

 

I understand the face value logic of your argument but oddly enough it did leave a bad impression for my group of players for years. It also resulted in an unnecessary death of another PC who tried to save the sacrificial character from dying. The GM and the other player did not inform the group that the sacrificial character in question was in fact going to die and agreed upon the event ahead of time. Even afterwards the potential hostility that can occur by mistakes on either side is never worth the effort IMO.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understood the fullness of the posters thought before I posted the word STOP.

 

Furthermore, yes, I have a strong bias for my response but this is after a debate that spawned for several years. Do what you want for your games but I truly believe that little good comes from a paradox resulting in a PC death. Mistakes happen even if the predetermined result is the death of a PC with that players full approval.

[Clonus]

Re: Unmaking

 

Hanh? This situation is inherently self-contradictory. The perpetrator has already been retroactively removed from reality. I don't see any reason why retroactively removing myself from reality would make a difference if that didn't. But yeah, Riptide has a time machine in his garage so trying to go back in time and abort this even seems like a better option then just trusting the anomaly to go away if he plays human sacrifice. The Wizard of Oz Incorporated would use treknobabble to make it go away.

[jtelson]

Re: Unmaking

 

I understand the face value logic of your argument but oddly enough it did leave a bad impression for my group of players for years. It also resulted in an unnecessary death of another PC who tried to save the sacrificial character from dying. The GM and the other player did not inform the group that the sacrificial character in question was in fact going to die and agreed upon the event ahead of time. Even afterwards the potential hostility that can occur by mistakes on either side is never worth the effort IMO.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understood the fullness of the posters thought before I posted the word STOP.

 

Furthermore, yes, I have a strong bias for my response but this is after a debate that spawned for several years. Do what you want for your games but I truly believe that little good comes from a paradox resulting in a PC death. Mistakes happen even if the predetermined result is the death of a PC with that players full approval.

 

It comes down to communication, trust and understanding your players.

 

If your players are likely to hold a grudge based on something that happens in a game (which is really the subject of a different conversation) then the least you need to do is exercise caution, which would generally involve communicating with them about upcoming arcs that they would be sensitive towards.

 

Eventually, assuming reasonable participants, the need for that level of communication goes away because they should come to trust that you're not going to do anything arbitrary that will set them off without the affected player's consent.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Unmaking

 

I read these, and assume the GM is presenting a false dilemma for me to solve. The two possible answers the character would go for

 

1) Travelling in time to when the triggering event happening and stopping the anomly from being created, which would then undo everything it has changed.

 

2) With changes in timestream, find a place where the anomoly is, and lead it to itself, and let it consume itself thus fixing the timestream.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Unmaking

 

Hmm... most of my char's would dislike this, as would I for most of them. However, I've got one who's interesting.

 

Outsider: "Lemme get this straight. I jump in, and I never existed. This thing goes away.

 

"SIGN ME UP!"

 

"I was *never born*! My whore of a mother was never hired by my uncle, never sacrified to the Kings of Edom, I never happened. My family and the Council never had to decide to let me live... never had to doubt that choice every time I fouled up... and Dr. Destroyer never found out that I might be able to summon a being that can give him immortality and come around to slaughter everybody I know and love. Best of all, I can never accidentally bring about the apocalypse!"

 

And he would have to be physically restrained from taking a header into it....

[Chronosnight]

Re: Unmaking

 

When is it O.K. for a GM to kill a PC?

 

It's never ok for a GM to kill a PC, thats the job of the dice

[Metaphysician]

Re: Unmaking

 

It's never ok for a GM to kill a PC' date=' thats the job of the dice [/quote']

 

I would slightly disagree. Circumstances where it is okay to kill a PC:

 

1. With the players consent, as part of his own dramatic conclusion. In other words, if intentionally initiated *by* the player. ( this requires that the rest of the players know OOC, too )

 

2. If, when given every reasonable opportunity to be aware of the dangers of his planned course of action, the PC still insists on doing something suicidally stupid. Not heroically brave, but incomprehensibly dumb. I also include here cases where a character breaks the campaign premise in such a way as to threaten the continuance of the game and the fun of the other players ( like, say, a superhero PC in a superhero game randomly deciding to start offing innocent bystanders, and then attack the police who come along ).

 

3. If the hero, knowingly on the part of the player, takes an extraordinary risk, and the dice don't end up panning out.

 

Thats in rough order of acceptance. If the players wants his character to die in a noble sacrifice, then thats fine ( though you should put extra effort into making sure that sacrifice is meaningful ). On the other hand, while bad luck in a high stakes situation is an *acceptable* reason for character death, you really should put every reasonable effort into making sure that luck alone won't kill a PC.

 

Bad dice luck, in a situation where the PC is not knowingly in danger, and where the circumstances are not dramatically important, is *not* a good reason to kill off a PC.

[Badger]

Re: Unmaking

 

For the scenario:

 

 

Badger- This is confusing. Goes home to take a nap, and figures it will all have been a dream when he wakes up

 

 

Frosty Bob- This is confusing to him, too. Goes to the local bar to get liquored up.

 

[Shoutybloke]

Re: Unmaking

 

 

There should never be a no win scenario.

 

I disagree. Properly handled, the no-win scenario is the ultimate test of heroism.

There's a reason Starfleet uses the Kobayashi Maru and Ravenswood uses the Damocles scenario.