When facing death: PCs and their worst fears

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:39 pm

The following assumes any of the genres that PCs winning is meant to be possible without the DM fudging, and the existance of finite (but renewable) resources such as the Buffy RPG's Drama Points (do not count their use into your answer, please.)

Note: "Bad" tactics basically mean "acting without any tactics or any judgment".

Using the wrong tactic for the situation is generally not going to be enough to kill you unless it is horrifically wrong, like "charge with my lance" at a group of guys with pikes and guns.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:44 pm

In sure that what PCs fear depends on the PC. If you're Anya, you fear bunnies most.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:45 pm

People never knowingly use bad tactics.

It's just that the tactics they're using right now don't fit the current fight. Unless of course, the PCs know everything about their enemy, at which point they can run, win or die, and it's only about luck at that point.

Also, I'm not voting on this.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:45 pm

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I understand the question, but that's probably because I stopped reading the "healing surges" thread about fifteen pages ago. Could I ask for clarification of the topic?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:46 pm

No doubt. But I'd like to know how those threats are supposed to be taken, and "as 50-50 if you use bad tactics" doesn't do justice to them.

Judging Eagle: Right, but we can say "charging at the dragon with banner flying" is bad tactics in the Shrekverse.

Gelare: Yes.

::waits.::

I said you could ask, not that I'd answer. </Arcanum reference>

But seriously, as opposed to for cheap jokes, the list of options in the poll are things that Big Damn Heroes face and under the right circumstances (which may or may not include, for instance, "an army of our own") beat.

However, they're also all capable of beating big damn heroes. So how much should you be afraid of them? Are we dealing with "Hordes are not too hard if you aren't exposing yourself too much (and if you do, we have drama points in the system), but Big Bosses are going to kill you?" (LotR), "The Wilderness and bad tactics are your worst enemy." (Star Wars, imo)?

How do these rank? Is there anything else that we ensured the system has drama points to limit the amount of (but not eliminate the possibility of) major character death?

Since there's no point having them (drama points) in a game where all of these (the poll options) are only going to kill you "if your GM is a dick".

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:47 pm

There's no such thing as bad tactics. Only mistaken tactics.

People never knowingly make bad choices. They just make bad choices, and realize later that they made a mistake.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:48 pm

"Willfull stupidity" will kill you faster than a critical hit from a gatling laser.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:59 pm

Judging__Eagle wrote:There's no such thing as bad tactics. Only mistaken tactics.

People never knowingly make bad choices. They just make bad choices, and realize later that they made a mistake.

I remember an idiot at WotC saying their druid did a mounted spear charge and fought from that, because it was funnier than always doing things right. So much for roleplaying, I guess.

Not voting either, though.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:04 am

I think "No Tactics" would actually be a better poll option than "Bad Tactics". Nobody intentionally uses bad tactics unless they're trying to be "wacky" or roleplaying a suicidal character - in either case, how deadly the system makes it is the least of your problems.

But "No Tactics" is an factor. How much difference in success should there be between:
A) Researching dragon weaknesses, stocking up on appropriate supplies, making a battle plan, sneaking up on the dragon, and executing precision tactical maneuvers.
B) Walking up the dragon's cave, shouting "Attack!", running in, attacking with no attempt at tactics.

And note that in some cases, B might be a perfectly reasonable solution - fighting weak and/or easily intimidated foes, for instance.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:14 am

Fair enough point, I'll change the wording if I can.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:27 am

What do you mean by "willful stupidity"? An example would be helpful. Heck, an example of each of the voting options would be helpful.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:33 am

"I shoot myself in the head so that when the dragon eats me it gets lead poisoning." is willful stupidity.

Big bosses, bad tactics: You use the wrong tactic, or a high risk tactic, vs. a big boss.

Big bosses, not bad tactics: You need -good- tactics (aiming for his weaknesses extra hard).

Big bosses: Big bosses are just plain deadly. Period. Good tactics aren't going to help all that much, though they may help beat -him-, you're still in a bad way when you fight one.

Hordes: Being grossly outnumbered sucks. Sure, one orc isn't a problem and six isn't a serious challenge, but sixty will swarm you to death.

Dangerous wilderness: Try not to get caught in blizzards. Or run out of water in the middle of the desert.

Bad tactics in a standard fight: A normal, average, typical fight is perfectly capable of killing you if you screw up. Don't screw up.

Yes, #3 and #4 are similar. The main difference is that #3 is assuming more dead bosses than parties of PCs (though not necessarily than individual PCs)

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:46 am

Okay. Now I need to understand the question.

Are you asking what pisses me off the most or what is the least fun or what do I think is most likely to occur?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:38 am

"What do you think should be the most threatening (most likely to lead to PC death if your PC does die)?"

Should you be worried about the wilderness? The big boss? Making a bad tactical decision? Lots of (weaker) enemies?

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:42 am

Oh. That's easy. Willful stupidity. Being incredibly stupid should always kill you.

shau · Post by **shau** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:45 am

Neeeek wrote:Oh. That's easy. Willful stupidity. Being incredibly stupid should always kill you.

Agreed. Deliberately attempting suicide should be the easiest way to die.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:45 am

Naturally. But what about the others?

"Rank the following" would be a tad more formal, but I would like to hear what you (and anyone else answering) think of them.

A game where the only way to die is deliberate stupidity is extremely riskfree. That may be too much.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:11 am

I agree that willful stupidity should always be the deadliest thing to a PC...and it compounds any other dangers you may encounter. So a horde may be a moderate threat, but horde + stupidity = dead PC.

That being said, some of these categories are a little counterintuitive. Of course a Big Boss is more dangerous when the party uses bad/mistake tactis than when they use good tactics. Anyway, I ranked the options from most dangerousest to least dangerousest, IMO. I am assuming D&D or a similar fantasy RPG.

Willful stupidity (the ultimate PC-killer, no matter what the situation)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Big bosses when using bad tactics (unusual danger + wrong tactics = pain)
-
Big bosses when not using bad tactics
Big bosses (I'm not certain how these categories are different...are you implying that tactics don't matter in one case? tactics always matter)
-
Hordes (The Dark Lord's armies should never rarely be more dangerous than the Dark Lord himself)
-

Bad tactics in standard fights (I rank this slightly higher than "dangerous wilderness" simply because the wilderness is only passively trying to kill me. These may be reversed depending on the relative threats of the wilderness and the enemies)
-
Dangerous wilderness (Challenging, yes. Worse than active opposition: not unless you're playing a very unusual game. Could be interesting, though).

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:16 am

Big bosses when not using bad tactics implies that good tactics will shove the playing field in your advantage, big bosses (period) imply that big bosses are going to have things that can readily kill you in many, many different ways. Good tactics increase your odds of doing it to them, but there's always "capable of killing you with something else"...you can't eliminate their options.

Yeah, its justified after the fact, it made sense when I set up the poll for some reason.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:31 am

whole thread

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:39 am

If you have nothing productive to say, then please stay out.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:46 am

Elennsar wrote:Big bosses when not using bad tactics implies that good tactics will shove the playing field in your advantage, big bosses (period) imply that big bosses are going to have things that can readily kill you in many, many different ways. Good tactics increase your odds of doing it to them, but there's always "capable of killing you with something else"...you can't eliminate their options.

Mmm...I don't buy it. "Good tactics" should give you a better chance against anything...if it's just "Big Boss, period, no matter what tactics you use," then you're saying tactics don't matter. That sounds awfully random or arbitrary...neither of which I like.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:59 am

Well, do good tactics make a whole hell of a lot of difference against the Balrog?

If I could rewrite the poll, I would, but that is the thought.

Mainly, "Are big bosses supposed to be a major threat even with good tactics (with "lack of" meaning "-certain- doom") or not?"

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:08 am

Shooting yourself in the head is actually really good tactics in a game like... Multiverser. Successfully blowing your brains (or whatever) out would require will checks, a shooting checks, then a check to see if you survivied; the BB gun might not do it, the check required after shooting yourself with say, a Multi-Cogan would require checking to see if you blasted out one or more neighbouring blocks before your head was vaporized.

Of course Multiverser is a game about continual characters going from place to place after each death. So, defend a castle from zombies one day; work as an Ixian Suboid assembling Holtzmann Fold-space drive engines the next.

In any case, for players to use surreal tactics, the tactics must be ones that have no chance of ever having worked before.

It's like how Frank described Chaos vs Law. Chaos isn't as likely to jump in the river as cross the bridge, nor is Chaos likely to pull out a clown horn to confront an enemy instead of a dagger (in D&D at least, some game systems could very well have Clown Horn assaults and Soda Bottle retaliations, and that's fine, D&D is a pretty lethal game, so the dagger is the expected item for most people).

The river jumper and the clown-horn user aren't chaotic, they're being surreal.

Unless their answer is always "I jump" or "I draw my clown horn", they're not insane; the player is just creating a surreal character.

Now, for bad tactics vs poorly chosen ones vs willful stupidity/surrealism.

Surrealism is an escape from escapism. Which is fine, but it's magical tea party and doesn't fit into the scope of what I'm talking about.

A poorly chosen tactic could be the character doing something that has worked, or could work. Ordering the knights to charge in a spear-head at the goblin horde is one thing, since they scatter like chaff. Doing the same against stronger creatures, or tougher/faster creatures might result in many more knights dying.

A bad tactic is what? Doing something that you are pretty sure won't work, and never has worked?

I don't understand that.

I can see it happening, the results of machine guns and trench warfare on turn of the century tactics in WWI was a good show of bad tactics; but only after it had been shown that it didn't work. Up until that point, those sort of tactics were decent.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:12 am

The point is, when they weren't decent, people got killed (in larger numbers). Should PCs be worried about that, or should making good tactical choices not be a big issue?

And the fact there are games where shooting yourself in the head is a good tactic is really irrelevant to the fact the 99.99~% that aren't, which is the context of refering to it as a bad idea.

The Gaming Den

When facing death: PCs and their worst fears

Which is the worst, and how serious are the others?

When facing death: PCs and their worst fears