Plot Immunity

[Mike Holmes]

Brand had an interesting thought in another thread about deer hunting. I wanted to expand on it in a new thread. He said, that instead of having "Kill a deer" as his goal for the contest, he'd have "Hunt Successfully" instead. That way, a success would mean that you had some number of dead deer. Seems cool, and avoids the problem of the extreme difficulty of actually killing a deer.

Now, what this seems to be is just a different framing of the conflict. That is, instead of saying that its about killing the deer, we say it's about hunting. But isn't that a slippery slope? I mean, what if a player tries to frame killing someone as performing assassination correctly?

Basically, the rules provide plot immunity to characters by making them only permenantly altered (dead) if/when somebody scores a complete success against them. This is an exception to the rule which states that in a contest that the winner gets his goal. If I'm trying to kill you, and get a Major Success, then I don't get my goal.

So, where does the plot immunity exception extend? Any and all killing? What if my goal is to cut off your arm only? Is killing of an animal exempt, or potentially exempt?

Are there any other ways to look at it than in terms of plot immunity? Is it a restriction on certain kinds of goals?

It seems to me that this an important job for the GM, but that it's been left to extrapolation to determine how the job is done. I mean, I can't fault the poster on the deer thread for assuming that you'd need a Complete Success - I'd probably require that, too, if Brand hadn't mentioned his idea. Maybe it's what the game warrants.

So what do you see as the guideline?

Mike

[Paganini]

I don't quite understand the problem, Mike. Maybe you could post a link to the parent thread so I could get the context?

[C. Edwards]

It seems to me that it's just one of those cases where the players want to expedite a part of the game action so as to spend time on things that interest them to a greater degree.

I can definitely see the same method used for assassination if the act isn't something the players wish to focus on or it isn't of primary dramatic importance.

As a GM I don't think I'd require a complete success to achieve the goal. I'd just alter the results as normal for varying degrees of success. Should the character fail badly enough, or the player decides to pursue the issue more deeply, I'd have complications resulting from lack of success creep into center stage.

-Chris

[C. Edwards]

Here's the link to the parent thread.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10594

-Chris

[Mike Holmes]

The parent thread isn't terribly relevant.

The question (no problems here) posed is what the guideline is for when you use the plot immunity effect to protect something from the normal results of a player succeeding at getting his goal. Normally, if I said I was going to kill Character A, I would succeed on any level of Success. But, because it's death on the line, I can only succeed with a Complete Success. When is it a good thing to use this, and when not?

Chris suggests that it's about proper framing of conflict, and I think I agree. But how can we state that? Is it just a "use your best judgement" thing? I'd like to see what support we can come up with from the rules for this interpretation, too.

Mike

[Scripty]

Mike:
I think it all depends on the importance of the scenario to what's happening. Surely, if the PC is squaring off against a major villain, you don't want to just kill him off for a Marginal Success.

If the PC is squaring off against a bunch of Mooks, however, a marginal success might drop one and send the rest running for cover, or regrouping/rethinking their attack.

Scott

[Mike Holmes]

I like how that sounds.

But is it supported by the material. I think, perhaps the best support may be in interpreting the Mass Combat rules. That is, if you lead a bunch of people in a war, and your side kills many, that's precedent for killing "mooks" without complete success.

Hmmm.

I just don't want to start talking about this method without knowing that the rules really do support it. That is, I don't want to seem like a rules revisionist spouting my own strained interpretation.

Mike

[lightcastle]

Chris suggests that it's about proper framing of conflict, and I think I agree. But how can we state that? Is it just a "use your best judgement" thing? I'd like to see what support we can come up with from the rules for this interpretation, too.

I think it needs to be established a bit before the conflict in question. It is a scene framing thing,

If the PC is squaring off against a bunch of Mooks, however, a marginal success might drop one and send the rest running for cover, or regrouping/rethinking their attack.

Exactly. To use an example from another genre, take the usual opening teaser for Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  Through the first few seasons, it would often open with a fight. These are not fights Buffy loses, they're a bunch of mook vampires or a single one. So if I was narrating this, I'd frame it as "stopping the vamps from getting out of the cemetary". It's a simple contest. Any victory and the vamp is dust. Losses mean they get away.  Since she almost certainly has a mastery advantage, there's no way she can ever have a complete defeat and be in risk of dying (although she can get messed up.)

In the case of the deer, what is the story point going on?  If all we're talking about is "the group needs food", pit it against some kind of general "how hard it is to get food".  If it is "hunting THIS deer" (for a ritual, for a lover, to prove your manhood, whatever) you run a contest against the deer proper.  (And that being dramatic, maybe you run an extended one.)

I think it's just story-based conflict choice.  Look at becoming or initiate or devotee, you don't need a complete victory to get in.  What works for the story?

As for the assassination issue, that depends. How crucial is that assassination to the story? Is is an important point?  I would absolutely not let a player reframe the conflict just to get an easier roll, that's a little too far. But if the assassination is to prove she's an effective assassin, so all she needs to do is show up with a body that can't be traced to her, I would let it be done that way. Success level would indicate either how impressive a target it was, or how cleanly she got away and how much she impressed her potential employer.  

If the test was a story point of "you must prove to us your loyalty by killing THAT man", then she's going to have to compete against that man in someway,  not "how hard is it to kill someone anonymously in this city".

That's how I see it, anyway.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I don't know, it seems to me that you are skirting around the issue somewhat. The real problem is that first the rules say that any success indicates that the character gets his goal, and then they say that killing another character is possible only on a complete success. The deer isn't relevant to this, and neither is the assassin. They are both examples of general situation versus definite individual, but that's easy to resolve the way you just did. In the general case the resistance is effectively the lowest survival skill of the weakest example individual, and that is what you get on a marginal success. No problems there.

As to the main question, I, too see it as problematic in some situations. It's certainly easiest to always when possible define the goals of the characters to not include killing, and then the rules work fine. The problem comes from when killing something specific is unavoidable. It's a major problem if killing Joe the neighbour is statistically harder than besting the chief's champion in arm-wrestling, just because killing requires the most optimal result possible.

I don't have the book here in Easter land, but let me give one uncanonical interpretation: the ban on killing is meant to ensure the survivability of player characters and other heroic individuals. When it's a mook or other insignificant individual one is killing it should be easy (except for possibly the moral component), though the GM may still institute the psychological flaws proposed in the rules.

The problem that remains is the decision about who is special and who isn't. This could be decided by simple GM fiat, so that when someone has more role in a story by getting killed than living he can be killed with any success. We can however go even more uncanonical and institute a new rule: whenever a character loses a conflict that would result in a permanent change (like death), the player can nullify the change by spending a hero point. It's assumed that the character tricked his opponent or escaped or just is so tough. This cannot be done if the win was a complete success.

The benefits of this change in rules are a multitude: it's a law of scenario design in HQ that really important characters tend to have at least one hero point, so this solution automatically tells us who is simply killable and who isn't. It also doesn't discriminate against mooks any more than the rules already do. Most importantly, it frees us from the near subconsicious, constant worrying about the type of goal a player is proposing: no need to think about whether a goal results in death, or if something is death-like permanent condition, or any of that hassle. If the loser doesn't have hero points he is fair game for permanent changes, and if he does have one, well, if he wants to nullify the permanent change, he can.

It should be noted that there is no canonical answer in the rule book as far as I know. I noted the discrepancy when first reading the book, but as far as I saw there was no solution.

It's also important that not killing is a strong setting element in Glorantha, it seems from the book. The GM is encouraged to institute repercussions for needless killing ranging from vendettas to psychological problems. From this viewpoint giving death immunity to all (non-foodsource) individuals is possibly defensible. I for one think that demanding a complete success and playing up the consequences relegates play to almost sunday-cartoon level of violence. It's doable, but I prefer to have other options at hand for other styles.

It should be noted that I would still keep to the idea of killing being a deliberate choice if instituting rules changes. This would mean that if a player declared simple victory as his goal, the opponents would largely live and escape. In the case of mooks it'd be mechanically identical with the intention of killing them (or most of them at least), as it should be. In the rules as they stand the assumption is that the killing is done as an automatic action after the conflict, but as long as the intentionality is preserved this change should pose no problem.

[Paganini]

Mike, as you know, I don't have the HQ book, so the exact text of the rules is unavailable. But, given my pervy-nar-monkey tendencies, I would be inclinded to apply that rule only to PCs. The players will decide which NPCs are important through their statements of goals.

[Bankuei]

Hi Mike,

I think this is one of those points where the book would have done well by giving a more solid example of Social Contract in play.  It seems to me that the idea of Plot Immunity from certain effects at certain results relies mostly upon the group.  I think any permanent change to a hero without the player's consent is problematic.

Although there are no written rules to support this, my take on it is that a permanent alteration to a player's character has a bigger effect on the player's experience in play than changes to any Narrator character will have on a GM, so heroes should receive that extra level of Plot Immunity.  

The way I've been handling it is during the initial set up of the conflict, is having a "Free and Clear" period in which Goals and possible Outcomes are negotiated.  For example, if a player wants their hero to kill the Dreaded Knight, and the Narrator makes it clear that failure will have permanent consequences, perhaps the player might negotiate to only fight the knight to a standstill, with lesser consequences for failure.

Unfortunately, this is one of those grey areas which could have benefited from some guidelines.

Chris

[lightcastle]

We can however go even more uncanonical and institute a new rule: whenever a character loses a conflict that would result in a permanent change (like death), the player can nullify the change by spending a hero point. It's assumed that the character tricked his opponent or escaped or just is so tough. This cannot be done if the win was a complete success.

I don't think this is actually a rule change, is it? I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but it sounds like you are saying a player can save his character from death with a hero point expenditure, not applicable in case of a complete loss.

But since spending a hero point bumps one level of success, that's already there, including in the case of a complete loss. They just bump it up one stage from the original result - preventing death.

I think any permanent change to a hero without the player's consent is problematic.

To some degree yes. Certainly any such move without them being aware of the possibility of the outcome.

And as for the rest of your post on social contract, I think that's absolutely right. Obviously you and the players have to have the same expectation of what's going on here.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I don't think this is actually a rule change, is it? I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but it sounds like you are saying a player can save his character from death with a hero point expenditure, not applicable in case of a complete loss.

But since spending a hero point bumps one level of success, that's already there, including in the case of a complete loss. They just bump it up one stage from the original result - preventing death.

Actually, I meant that the hero point would counter any such change, even if a lesser loss result would result in such. Remember that I'm talking about a variant where death can result from a minor loss if the goals are defined that way. Keeping this in mind, bumbing will only help if it gives the character a win.

In the normal case of death only on a complete loss the player can indeed avoid the death with normal bumbing, in both the canonical rules and this variant.

To recap, my suggestion is that death is entirely negotiable by the setting of goals. If a goal could result in death, as in a duel, then the GM could degree that it so does on some results. If the goal is killing someone, any success will always suffice, as is the case with all other situations. You only need a marginal success, although there might be further complications with such a little success. So death would be handled exactly like losing your purse, which is to my mind quite necessary to avoid all kinds of complications.

This wouldn't change the fact that a complete success could result specifically in death even in a case where it's not the goal, like with a non-lethal duel or general scrapping. This would work normally.

To counteract this added lethality, where any loss in any conflict could result in death if it would be logical, I instituted the rule earlier referenced: any character that happens to have a hero point handy can use it to stave of death. All the other concequences are unaffected, but the character crawls from under the bodies later. Thus the GM doesn't have the burden of deciding case-by-case if someone is killed with a less than complete success, as he can just consult his (presumably) earlier decision about how many hero points that character has. As only player characters and great heroes have hero points, this works out to the self-evident solution of allowing death-immunity only to important characters.

Hope I made myself clear this time.

[lightcastle]

To counteract this added lethality, where any loss in any conflict could result in death if it would be logical, I instituted the rule earlier referenced: any character that happens to have a hero point handy can use it to stave of death. All the other concequences are unaffected, but the character crawls from under the bodies later. Thus the GM doesn't have the burden of deciding case-by-case if someone is killed with a less than complete success, as he can just consult his (presumably) earlier decision about how many hero points that character has. As only player characters and great heroes have hero points, this works out to the self-evident solution of allowing death-immunity only to important characters.

Hope I made myself clear this time.

Clear as crystal. :)

That being said, I'm not sure I'd go that route, but it certainly is an internally-consistent way to handle the issue and wouldn't disrupt the game to any significant amount since it only gets called into play when it is wanted.

One more idea to add to the toolbox (even if I personally choose not to use it).

But I think in some way this goes back to social contract. You and your players have agreed to have this option open, and so it works for you. More and more of my questions about HQ seem to fall into "find what seems plausible and sensible to you and your players" -- which, of course, just makes sense.

[Mike Holmes]

I see a lot of support for the idea that it's OK to kill off any non-PC assuming that they don't have some special plot importance. And that makes sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm on that side in theory.

But the rules don't support it, in fact doing this leaves a sort of glaring problem. Which is, if I kill a lone NPC with, say, a Minor Success, then what do I do with the -10%? I mean, the consequences do leave you an out here in that they do say that consequences are something that the narrator "may" assign as a result of a contest.

But doesn't it seem odd that the same success that would kill a particular sort of NPC, might only result in a -1 to another? That's a huge difference in plot immunity.

Mike