[RPG Theory] "He forgot that killing is supposed to be hard"

[stevekenson]

I was struck by this line from Hiro in last night's Heroes episode and the character's (completely understandable) reluctance to kill someone, even someone like Syler, in cold blood. I was also immediately struck by how completely un-dramatic such a scene would have been in an average RPG:

Ando's player: "You have to kill Syler now!"

Hiro's player: "Okay." (Dice clatter on the table) "Critical hit! Kickass!"

GM: sigh....

Apart from "it's all roleplaying" I wonder if there's a good mechanical way to reflect the dramatic build-up to an action where the drama is all in the decision to act rather than the action itself. Or is that imposing mechanics where they shouldn't go, dictating how characters act and react and disempowered the players?

Comments

[anaka.livejournal.com]

I think that it's a very indie sort of mechanic, where you would gain something for holding to your personal belief when it's inconvenient but lose for doing the thing that makes the plot go better. I dunno. It's difficult, because in the end, if your players want to play that sort of difficulty, they will, and if they don't, no mechanic in the world will really convince them.

[patricks.livejournal.com]

I think you could do it with a disad system tied to a plot point system. I.e., if Hiro has "Code vs. Killing" as a disad, then not killing Sylar gains him plot points, while killing Sylar forces him to spend plot points. So it's still all in the roleplaying, but the rules enforce making it a serious choice for Hiro's player - if he spends those plot points now to overcome his disad, he might not have them later to save New York City.

[uberdude.livejournal.com]

Well role-playing almost has to be a factor in governing that. If it's just pure mechanics, then it's Pacman.

I've found that this kind of quandary can usually be headed off at the pass by setting ground rules/understandings when folks are making characters and discussing their PC's motives and personalities.

In the past I've run into players who try the 'It's what my character would do' cop out. While it's sorta cheesy to 'build your RP around your stats/cheese, there is some responsibility to be laid at the feet of the GM.

A GM should make the moral/ethical themes of his campaign clear before the game starts. While some might feel it silly to spell it out, we've had lots of luck with specifying things like:
"No screwing over fellow players."
"Your characters should have reasons to work together."
"This is a heroic game, life is precious."
"There should be something in your character's motivations and personality that will call him to step up and do the right thing when the chips are down."
etc

A little direction like that can head off the nihilistic killers without a care PCs when they aren't wanted. One of the things we often do, especially in Superhero games, is to have the players 'build the person first' before 'building the super'. We want a solid background on who the person is and where they are coming from before we get into the stats and power points. The GM can work with the player to come up with an acceptable concept before time is spent on the powers/cheese.

Not all folks are being cheesy when their character's ideology or choices are counter to the themes of the game envisioned by the GM. Sometimes it's just a miscommunication. I have a buddy who LOVES gritty Marvel characters. I had forgotten that about him in my starry eyed hero worship of Captain Marvel like characters, so I was thrown when his PC got himself into a heroin addiction. I was confounded by this very unheroic character, while in his mind, his PC was 'making bad choices' in dealing with his invulnerability. He had spun a story in his head that invulnerability meant that he couldn't 'feel' anything and that the drugs were a misguided attempt to feel. He expected an angsty XMen like story around that. It took me a bit to realize that he wasn't just flouting the 'Justice League' larger than life four color feel I was going for.


There is also 'game karma' to be enforced. Actions have consequences and those can be used to demonstrate the Gandalf adage:

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

If someone is glib about whacking someone, there should be consequences. Friends might start to regard them with fear. It might be revealed that the deceased target was in fact possessed and not acting under his own will. Perhaps they were the only one who could have saved Aunt May Ethell from her mysterious cancer. and so on. The whole 'blasé about death/wrongdoing' thing gets clunky when governed strictly by mechanics IMO and might feel unjustly punitive or arbitrary to the players. It feels to me to be something that should be governed more by RP and its impact on others and the campaign world.

To Rule or Not to Rule

[jediwiker.livejournal.com]

It's all well and good to say "you should roleplay it," but that assumes that all of your players (or, at least, the ones directly involved in making the decision) are roleplayers, rather than power gamers, butt-kickers, or strategists. (Check out Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, if you aren't familiar with the distinction in these terms.)

Both Ars Magica and Pendragon have very workable systems for governing (notice I'm not saying "controlling") a character's actions. So, obviously, it is possible to assign rules to this sort of situation. (And perhaps even desirable.) And, in my experience, it can be even more dramatic than rolling the dice and saying "I hit."

Now, I'm not anti-roleplaying. I just don't think it should be the end-all/be-all of roleplaying games.

If it were, we wouldn't need dice.

JD

[tabrumj.livejournal.com]

In general I dislike any system that dictates how my character will behave. However, I have no issue with a system that tells me how my character should act, and then provides a cost if I want to deviate from that. I have never had any issue with Exalted's Virtue and Limit system and have felt that it adds a great deal to the thematic feel of the game.

On a different note, while watching the episode I remagined another scene if it were an RPG.
ST: You see Peter starting to loose control of Ted's power.
Claire's Player: I pull out my game and put a bullet through his head.
ST: You do what? Without any hesitation?
Claire's Player:Sure, I mean it's not like he won't regenerate after we dig the bullet out of his skull.

I think I prefer the real Heroes to any RPG equivalent.

[wudawasa.livejournal.com]

This sounds something like GURPS' mental disadvantages. Ultimately I don't care much for a built in "conscience" because it takes those decisions away from the players. To some degree I think the GM shares part of the responsibility if players have no empathy for NPCs. Traditionally RPGs have assumed that the ends justify the means. I've worked with this a lot over the years and have found that, for me, the best ways to get the PCs to respond in more realistic ways is to present them with realistic NPCs. Would you feel particularly comfortable around somebody who has no sense of remorse?

Of course the precise level of remorse depends a lot on your game. If an NPC bites the dust at almost every game session you can't expect the PCs to spend too much time discussing ethics. I haven't been watching Heroes but I assume Hiro doesn't kill somebody on a weekly basis.

[maliszew.livejournal.com]

Pendragon, my friend, Pendragon. All else is but a footnote.