Vacc Suits (continued)

[rust]

If the ref just "writes" them out of every tight spot things get boring, fast.

If the characters decided to get into the tight spot, or if it is otherwise the
result of one of their decisions, then I will surely not give them any script
immunity.

To return to the burning plane example, if the character was the pilot of
the plane and one of his decisions caused the fire, I wil not provide any
kind of escape hatch. He cooked the soup, he has to eat it.

But if the character was just a passenger on the plane, and had nothing
to do with the situation that caused the fire, I will indeed make sure that
he does not get killed. He will get more than enough opportunities to get
himself killed, I do not have to force one upon him.

 

[rust]

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where such unavoidable death and other situations where the players have no influence can come up if there is a social contract implied where the ref is not trying to set up such events.

My settings have a detailed timeline of background events that will happen
under any circumstances, no matter whether the characters are involved
in the events or even anywhere near it.

So, if my timeline says that Volcano A will erupt and destroy Settlement B
on Day C, this will happen. If the characters happen to be in this Settle-
ment B on Day C, for whatever reason, they may have a very bad time
and get seriously injured, but they will not get killed on this day because
of the volcano.

Edit.: Bad wording, what I mean is that they will not get killed by the vol-
cano.

 

[far-trader]

Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation rust. Last time I detailed a campaign to that degree was... longer than I care to recall More often I don't bother, in my experience the players would have found a way to be at Settlement X in an entirely different universe, one that even I didn't know existed in my (in the loosest sense) game, long before the volcano on Settlement B blew it's top

What they say about no plan survives initial contact with the enemy goes double for RPG Players. It's like they have a perverse extra sense that allows them to render anything the ref planned entirely moot before the game even begins, unless it's to the player's liking of course.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Quite a philosophical point, really.

Yes, indeed, and also a matter of the "social contract" between a referee
and the players. In our case the agreement is that characters can - and
will - die as the consequence of bad or unlucky player decisions, but not
as a result of "unavoidable death" situations or other situations the play-
ers cannot influence.

Interesting idea, I suppose all gaming groups develop some kind of implied contract, have you formally written one with your group!?

Seriously, it is a philosophical difference, and, as I take a perhaps more robust or uncaring point of view of the universe. The awareness amongst the players that their carefully thought through characters can be a in a certain amount of danger, especially if they do stupid things, is important in creating that sense of reality. Sometimes they may have to take risks, even after they have done all they can to stack the odds in their favour, and that, to me, is an important part of rpging, the "heroic" act carries a risk.

However, please don't get the wrong idea, I do not set up scenarios with the intent of killing characters, no character deaths in play for sometime (though 2 very close calls!)

Egil

 

[BP]

Hmmm... my players always seem to do what I planned. :?

As my plan is that they will do the unexpected!

Actually, when it comes to a plan, my approach is to let the players write the story to the milestone I have created - this is just like managing a meeting and keeping everyone on track. Some of that must include reverse-psychology and knowledge of what is motivating your players (perhaps vs. what they see as their PCs motivations). The Ref has all the power to 'make' things happen to his/her players - the real trick is to 'make' things happen with the players. That means the plan must take this into account - so my plans always involve conditionals... i.e. should the players choose X, Y, Z (...) or None of the Above. The last is one often missed by planners. Hence, my second statement in this post.

As to emergency vacc suits and grav belts - I'd treat those as 2 different beasts. The emergency suit has fewer options and should be easy enough to 'don' without a skill check, regardless of skill - at the expense of lacking the protection of a true vacc suit and thus possibly having skill checks in operation to avoid damage, etc. - where skill or lacking thereof should be taken into account).

The grav belt, as an emergency item? IMO, such would respond to a local gravity well - therefore, orientation of application would be irrelevant. Of course, depending on TL, control would be limited - i.e. the device would endeavor to maintain a 'safe' rate of descent, and allow for minimal navigation (vector, but perhaps not rate). Notable, like a life vest that keeps one's head above water regardless of forthcoming impact with a small boat or overwater projection, the 'emergency' grav belt's simplicity can result in potential mishaps...

As to the notion of - no skill, no can do approach mentioned earlier - that is not in the rules, quite the contrary. That is what the -3 DM is for. As a PC I expect to be able to attempt anything. Whether one succeeds is upto the Ref, one's own creativity of optimizing DMs and luck.

Exactly how a PC fails (and succeeds, of course), is up to the Ref.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Ah, but should they not have the skill in the first place to even attempt it? Shouldn't you as the ref set up a reasonable alternative? Like maybe the only way to escape is the NPC (who does know how to use a Grav Belt AND has one) offering to double them on their Grav Belt? And the PC is then indebted to the NPC for saving their life, cue introductions and request for help from NPC leading to adventure...

What if they were in a plane in trouble and instead of bailing out with a Grav Belt (maybe there isn't one aboard) they said they wanted to try to make an emergency landing in rough terrain? Wouldn't they need to know (have skill) in piloting the plane? Wouldn't it be more difficult than the normal flying of the properly operating plane landing at a proper airstrip? Shouldn't that require a roll?

IF the player were in such a situation through no fault of their own then sure I might even allow them to roleplay and not roll play. "You manage to pile the plane into the ground at a shallow angle, missing all the big trees that tear the wings off, and walk away from the crash with scrapes and bruises... " There are few situations where it should come up though, and referee fiat seems to be most of them (i.e. the players need to crash here so they find this).

Generally though, the people I've played with anyway, prefer a chance to role and roll their way out of trouble instead of referee fiat get of trouble free cards. If they fail they at least feel they had a shot, and if they succeed then they have another great war story to tell. If the ref just "writes" them out of every tight spot things get boring, fast.

Agreed, some the randomizing effect of dice adds, rather than takes away.

And sometimes the player has great war stories to tell about a character who doesn't make it, as well as those who do.

I wonder if our contract is to set up, and GM, enjoyable adventuring, entertainment rather than social responsibility to the players.

Egil

 

[rust]

Interesting idea, I suppose all gaming groups develop some kind of implied contract, have you formally written one with your group!?

No, no lawyers involved, it is just the result of several discussion we had
over the years. :lol:

As for character deaths, we had a few over the years, including a total
party kill when the helmsman of a submarine made a bad mistake and
rammed it into a mountain, and a kind of involuntary suicide when a
sailor who wanted to rescue a drowning diver was in such a hurry to
hand him an oxygen tank that he completely forgot that it is a very bad
idea to leave a submarine in a wetsuit in a depth of almost 600 meters.

 

[rinku]

My style is to plan various events, but be flexible on their timing and outcome. I tend to operate from a character-centric basis anyway, so the timing of things does depend a lot on what my various NPCs choose to do. However, I do use timetabled events as well. For example:

The communication lag of J-Drive also fascinates me. It's a really powerful tool if you choose to use it. In the session we ran last night, for example, the plot revolved around an epidemic. The first news of the problem was weeks old by the time they were commissioned, and it took 2 jumps to get to get there. Then they had to sift through various reports fed in to them from the Navy of varying age while investigating before having to make a choice about which planet of two they were going to go to next, which came down to the likely source (which was less critical in terms of immediate relief), or the less likely source (which was in dire need of relief). It all worked out as a very tense decision that they wrangled over.

Now, in THIS situation is was important to timetable, as the spread (or non-spread) of the infection had to be tracked. If the group had made certain choices or dithered, there were consequences. On the other hand, there was a whole subplot involving espionage I'd planned using NPCs that just didn't happen because the players chose not to really socialise with or investigate the NPC group. So the spies ended up just reporting to their bosses with the players blissfully ignorant about that.

I tend to be generous re player death. Stupid acts reap their consequences, but I'll typically give an escape option (even if it's simple surrender). Traveller combat has always been quite lethal and there is no direct reward for shooting things, so you should always consider your firefights.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Yep, famous or infamous ref question.

"What exactly is it you are going to do?" :twisted: