The bystander safety trope and your game

[phoenix240]

A recent discussion of Civil War brought up the civilian safety trope that's generally assumed to some degree in comics. That is that superhuman battles rarely if ever inflict that sort of casualties you'd assume they would given the destruction they entail. The character might fire plasma bolts and exchange blows that could (and some times do) level buildings but bystanders aren't endangered or hurt unless its a specific plot point (say to give the hero an opportunity to be heroic or provide a villain with a distraction, for instance). Otherwise fortune favors the heroes and no one is hurt or killed in their pitched battles (or its not mentioned). Of course, there is a matter of degree, its not a binary trope. I can be played at different levels, some comics even ignore it. For example the Hulk is said to have caused numerous deaths in his rampages (with different rectons at different tmes).

 

 

In your campaign do you play with trope and if so, to what level? Do you expect players to reign it in around civilians or can they act freely? For my games I like the players to at least role play some caution, watching their shots, trying to clear crowds, etc. If they do I generally assume things go their way for the most part barring things like Unluck.

[wrestlinggeek]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

For me, it depends on the type of game. If it's a more "realistic," modern age game, then yeah, bystanders are in danger. Of course, in a world where superhuman battles are a common occuranc, most people are smart enough to get under cover when the nuclear-powered fists start flying. In a more Silver Age-style game, it's never even a consideration. Bystanders are just never endangered unless it' a specific plot point.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

I like threatening the innocent. Makes the Players think. Makes every battle more challengin, but you have to be consistant.

 

 

Cheers

 

 

QM

[Enforcer84]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

Doesn't come into question unless it's a plot device or the players bring it up.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

I usually stay away from casualties caused by collateral damage in most campaigns unless endangering innocent lives are an important plot element in the adventure.

[Bloodstone]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

If they are at least somehwat careful and mindful of their surroundings, I'll usually let the heroes save everyone with a little bit of effort. Things usually just sort work out in favor of the good guys from time to time. Keeps the angst down.

 

However, I don't protect my players from the consequences of recklessness, stupidity or bad decisssions either.

 

We had one player nearly kill a bunch of innocent bystanders though carlessness once, so I'll ocassionaly reference the "bus full of nuns and orphans" as a warning...

 

Usually I find if the body count is low, it's all the more impactful when a death does occur. I've played in more than one game where the body count was high and observed that the players usually became numb to it all very quickly.

[Zen Archer]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

In the games I've played, it's never come up.

 

In the games I've run, I've brought the issue up. The players were too smart to endanger innocents in any case.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

The broken window theory applies, but also the problem of diminishing returns.

 

Once the (putative) heroes track record is tarnished by collateral civilian casualties that they are on the hook for...what's two or three more? And what are you going to do about it? Derail the campaign to play out the logical consequences, hand wave it away, something in the middle? You as the GM decide how impactful it is, but conversely if you make it too impactful your campaign can grind to a halt or diverge into an entirely different tone. Tricky business.

 

On the other hand, if you manage to artfully dangle the possibility of collateral civilian casualties without ever actually crossing the line it will eventually grow tiresome / taken for granted / pro forma / irritating. Also tricky business.

 

I recommend a light touch. Bring it up when it is useful, conveniently contrive it out of the picture otherwise.

[Badger]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

A reverse situation that could play out would be: What if the hero gets flack over collateral damage and an accidental death or 2. And another powerful villain shows up? The overly heroic might still go out to fight, but I could see a hero getting beat enough PR wise that they would be a bit 2nd guess why bother? It'll just cause me trouble. (or an Iron Age minded hero might say: You complain every time I make a mistake, let see what you normals do vs. Mr. Hiroshima, see if the results are better)

 

I guess my point is, it might be best to leave save the innocents during battle for special times, because if you play it too real, the PCs might be skittish to leave the cave.

 

And of course, the one possible thing with Batman-Joker. Why doesnt Batman pursue Joker at all cost, you save one now (maybe) but you know as long as Joker lives he'll be back next Tuesday to kill 20 more. (Note: Of course, this might be a case of writer's challenging cvk WAY too far)

[Balabanto]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

I make a point of it based on the city the heroes are in. In New York, they come and watch. In other cities, maybe not so much.

[Orion]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

I prefer to enforce reality as much as possible. Bystanders will run if they know what's going on, but they often do not. If the PCs are not careful, people will get hurt, and it will affect their reputation. But, I tend to create storylines in which the PC's actions are better described as SWAT or military in nature, not "heroes", and the bad guys regularly act more like terrorists or violent gangs. In any battle, the bad guys typically get the blame if something bad happens in a sort of good samaritan rule. There's always some tv station or magazine that tries to make it the PCs fault, but the public generally takes the PCs side until it is shown they are too careless.

 

If the players specifically request that civilian deaths be kept to a minimum, or state that they don't want to have to deal with the issue of bystander safety at all, I'll go along, but it isn't my default.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

I have worked enough crime scenes to know Lookie Loos have no sense of self preservation.

 

Lots of people freeze in a war zone and they have trained for it.

 

(Uptight Upright Citizens) U2Cs sometime even fight back.

[Enforcer84]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

A reverse situation that could play out would be: What if the hero gets flack over collateral damage and an accidental death or 2. And another powerful villain shows up? The overly heroic might still go out to fight, but I could see a hero getting beat enough PR wise that they would be a bit 2nd guess why bother? It'll just cause me trouble. (or an Iron Age minded hero might say: You complain every time I make a mistake, let see what you normals do vs. Mr. Hiroshima, see if the results are better)

 

I guess my point is, it might be best to leave save the innocents during battle for special times, because if you play it too real, the PCs might be skittish to leave the cave.

 

And of course, the one possible thing with Batman-Joker. Why doesnt Batman pursue Joker at all cost, you save one now (maybe) but you know as long as Joker lives he'll be back next Tuesday to kill 20 more. (Note: Of course, this might be a case of writer's challenging cvk WAY too far)

 

And if the joker goes bye bye there goes their bread and butter for years.

[Zen Archer]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

And if the joker goes bye bye there goes their bread and butter for years.

 

Pretty much.

 

Besides, the real question isn't why Batman doesn't kill the Joker, it's why Gotham City doesn't change its death penalty laws. Same answer, just a better question IMO. But I'm digressing.

[Christopher]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

And of course' date=' the one possible thing with Batman-Joker. Why doesnt Batman pursue Joker at all cost, you save one now (maybe) but you know as long as Joker lives he'll be back next Tuesday to kill 20 more. (Note: Of course, this might be a case of writer's challenging cvk WAY too far)[/quote']

A suprisingly simple reason:

If he's dead, he is dead. Then he couldn't come up ever again (until the next retcon). One reason all Superheroes have CvK, is so that the writers don't have to invent new villains all the time

 

Vigilantees (that succeed at killing ther foes) only work out so long, because they go through foes "too fast".

[Badger]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

A suprisingly simple reason:

If he's dead, he is dead. Then he couldn't come up ever again (until the next retcon). One reason all Superheroes have CvK, is so that the writers don't have to invent new villains all the time

 

Vigilantees (that succeed at killing ther foes) only work out so long, because they go through foes "too fast".

 

I'm metagaming a bit, guys.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: The bystander safety trope and your game

 

I tend to run games where the PC team is sanctioned, and has the support of local LE and other agencies for things like cordoning off the area of operation, so civilian casualties aren't typically a side issue in an encounter. However, I like to run saving the civilians and helping out in various non-super battle type emergencies as well. It helps the PCs feel heroic and reminds them that they're part of a community that they serve.