My PC's Destiny

[Phantom Lamb]

As DMs in a semi-permanent roleplay environment, we have to find a balance between story and fun. In pen and paper style roleplay, you can give a lot of attention to singular characters and give both consequences and rewards for their efforts.

In a larger video game environment, it's not so simple. Some players prefer to have full guidance over their character's destiny. Some prefer the permanence of having a character they know will always be there and will always gain things, somewhat akin to MMOs.

So my question for the public is: where do you find yourself in this balance? Would you mind if DMs dolled out permanent consequences and rewards for your characters, including major alignment shifts, blessings from gods, loss of a limb, jailing, political positions, etc.? How comfortable do you feel with DMs tweaking your character's future?



Before voting, bear in mind:

• Consequences and rewards go hand in hand with risk.
  One doesn't come without the other.
• We will never operate on either full extreme.
  DMs and PCs will always have some influence over destinies.

[Product of Void]

Always best to discuss things before ever altering a charactor. Communication removes 90% of the problems.

I have had event (elsewere) were my charactor has been jailed which would seem to be a rather minor and quick thing (until a month later)

Much like my wife once had a charactor involved with a yanti event in nwn1. only to have the dm quit before it was completed, meaning her charactor was perminantly altered unless another dm took the event.

A thing i often ponder is how do you Punish the charactor without Punishing the player.


A long time ago in nwn1 I once told a player to never darken my door again. That was due to them starting rp that would have MAJOR effects on my charactor without ever discussing it with me.

On a pervious nwn2 server I did have a charactor hold a political possition, which was alot of fun. Might prove more intresting here seeing would get some dm help.

[Xeesheava]

DMs can freely give rewards / consequences to my character for his actions.

As much I want to command my character destiny, I can't force the DMs to do what I want if the situation turns bad to me. I like the Hardcore RP.

[Rhifox]

I prefer anything and everything, personally. If I'm totally in charge of what happens to my character so nothing bad ever happens when it logically should, then I don't feel immersed. IC actions should equal IC consequences.

[Peridan]

I'd agree with Rhifox. I think fate should play a major portion of what happens in the valley, and DM's should decide to permanently do things to characters when they choose actions that have potentially life altering consequences. The reason I like the server is because it isn't a MMO, and I think sticking to that would create the greatest storytelling environment.

[Fezzik]

I have no problems with dolling out consequences for pc actions as long as it's done both ways. For the good and bad decisions. As long as the lines of communication are open both ways, there shouldn't be a problem.

Although at the time I wasn't to happy with Cybil loosing her kids at that moment (technically there is still one out there that needs to be "saved"), it turned out to be a very good rp experience. And when she lost Lawful points because of the thing that resulted in the kids (go read her initial journals ), I went "Huh?"... and it was explained to me simply, and effectively.

For some people it's been ages since they played PnP DnD.... I stopped after they started the 2nd edition and went to GURPS, so it's been a while since I've had to deal with Law/Choas/Good/Evil, except in NWN and NWN2. And the little refresher course, and explanation at the time was very helpful.

[Lanemeyer]

DMs can freely give rewards / consequences to my character for his actions.

I also like the hardcore style. Though I am not so good with the rules and FR lore, once I do not have the books, so, a DM support is also welcome in that case.

[Kaeldorn]

Abstaining from the vote, because I'm for a mix of these two:

I like DM involvement and react to what's presented to me accordingly, but I don't want to risk anything major.

Some things here and there are nice story elements, but I want a lot of influence over what happens to my PC.

Should be: "I like DM involvement and react to what's presented to me accordingly, but I want a lot of influence over what happens to my PC." for me

Essentially, I want my own imagination to play a big part in my characters' stories, and I like to have at least some influence in major things happening to them. The comparison to an MMO-style experience is really unfair, because the gameplay aspect of those is just about cooperation and gaining power.

Not wanting one's character to die or be permanently maimed without having done anything to bring it upon oneself is perfectly reasonable in my eyes. It's personal attachment to one's own creation. Whether such an event makes for good story is not only up to the DM but also to the players. The DM is more of a general setting operative; they lay the basis and create plots to make the world go round. Though at the same time it's important to realize that in D&D, the players are as much story-tellers as the DM's are. Or at least they should be, they just do it from one character's perspective.

It may sound contradicting, but at the same time I agree that the feeling something is at stake intensifies the experience. I merely think that one-way tickets to the afterlife should never be given unless the player knows what he's getting into. Sometimes, it's just better to enter an (OOC) dialogue with the player to see what he thinks. There are other ways to create negative consequence. Conscience, principles, loyalty and love/friendship aren't used enough to pressure players into making hard decisions as I've already brought up once before. Trying to create dilemmas in that area can be just as impactful as threat of maiming/death. If someone decides to sacrifice himself for a cause, that's a beautiful death. Someone getting captured and permanently executed by whatever enemy with none of the player's own influence on the outcome whatsoever is not.

This dialogue option should also be considered when it comes to cases of interpreting a character's motivations/alignment. I've had a few times when I didn't agree with it that my characters' reasonings were basically filled in with whatever a DM's first perception was. When in doubt, allow a player to explain. Else the same flawed ideas of a character's motivations just take root and it's annoying to immediately notice this in future happenings.

[Verrath]

I vote the first for the simple reason that Actions need to have consequences and drastic actions should have drastic consequences (both good and bad as Fezzik pointed out)... I fully agree that death/permanent damage/mental damage is an option IF the character is played in a reckless way. But also that great rewards MIGHT come from great risk.

Although if the consequences seem too far fetched, it can be anti-climactic.
"Rocks Fall, everyone Dies" is not fun.


All in all, as has been said before - Communication between DMs and players makes all the difference.

[TheBlankStare]

Kaeldorn states things very eloquently. I've played in many PnP games and it all comes down to communication. If the DMs don't give clues (and obvious ones at that) about potential consequences to certain actions that's pretty lame. At the same time, if players don't pay attention to said clues that's their own fault too.

I'm pretty sure most of us like to have our characters accomplish things. DnD is a game of heroic adventure and the characters that we play and inhabit the world with are all extraordinary in some way. (Some might say insane though.) The risks that they take on a daily basis are far beyond what normal people are going to even consider attempting. So when something big and dangerous is looming on the horizon and it happens to be a cut above your "average" foe that definitely needs to be made pretty clear.

[Machiavelli]

"Rocks Fall, everyone Dies" is not fun.

Not for you maybe.

[Kangleton]

I think a few things need to be stated on this subject, and Kaeldorn has already stated one of them well enough in saying:

Conscience, principles, loyalty and love/friendship aren't used enough to pressure players into making hard decisions as I've already brought up once before. Trying to create dilemmas in that area can be just as impactful as threat of maiming/death.

With this I agree wholeheartedly. There should be more to a risk vs reward setup than simply the risk of death and dying; no further RP is stimulated by one's own death. Should a friend or lover suffer, however, or a moral integrity be thrown into question, that is a fantastic device for character development and future plot-lines.

What has so far been unstated though, is that there's more to a consequences and rewards than just taking risk - I don't think that I should only be rewarded richly for putting my life on the line. Almost every character I've ever played is a plotter or schemer, and if one of them managed to come up with the proverbial 'master plan', being very logical and careful to remain out of harm's way, I think that deserves reward as well.

If I manage to manipulate 3 people to do something on my behalf, that's as much a success as having done it myself. I don't think my reward should be questioned simply because I didn't find myself an inch away from death, myself. In this regard, I would like things to work a little more on the basis of what makes sense.

If success makes sense, DM's shouldn't have much of a right to just impede it for no other reason than to make it fail, or because they aren't satisfied with the way the character did it. Unless rules were broken, I think a PC should be able to suffer both consequence and reward in accordance with what would logically come about as a result of their actions.

If I come up with an absolutely brilliant freaking plan to kill an NPC or steal a certain object, I don't believe the plan should fail on account of the NPC being "plot specific" or the object being "too powerful for players to have". These are OOC reasons to impede IC actions, and it makes the world feel a little static, in addition to making players feel like much of the world is off-limits, which isn't the feeling most people shoot for when in a fantasy setting.

If an NPC is too vital to die, he shouldn't be put in a situation where a PC could logically, within reason, kill him. If an object is too powerful for players to have, it too shouldn't be found in circumstances where taking it is at all possible.

To me, whatever can be imagined, and whatever can logically and realistically come about as a result of an action, is perfectly legitimate.

I vote liberal.

[Machiavelli]

If I come up with an absolutely brilliant freaking plan to kill an NPC or steal a certain object, I don't believe the plan should fail on account of the NPC being "plot specific" or the object being "too powerful for players to have". These are OOC reasons to impede IC actions, and it makes the world feel a little static, in addition to making players feel like much of the world is off-limits, which isn't the feeling most people shoot for when in a fantasy setting.

If an NPC is too vital to die, he shouldn't be put in a situation where a PC could logically, within reason, kill him. If an object is too powerful for players to have, it too shouldn't be found in circumstances where taking it is at all possible.

This is all very well, but then we'd have to seal up a whole load of NPCs inside magical bubbles and never let you see or speak to them. That would be boring. Sometimes we're going to shut people down for OOC reasons, no matter how awesome the plan. I don't like doing it, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

[Product of Void]

effecting the world or removing an NPC is something you have to discuss with staff of any world. I once made the mistake of taking out a NPC that was part of an ongoing story in a story on a nwn1 server. It did not go well.

Though on a previous nwn2 server I discussed taking out a NPC, and was able to get a chance due to the dm okaying it.

Its like a wise man once said "A PW is for everyone's fun not just one person". SO if you decide to take out a npc it needs to be for everyones fun not just your own.

Limits are set so we get along, and good staff will give suggestions of what you CAN do verses just saying NO.

If I can get back IG, I would like to run a few ideas past dms to try. Hopefully they do not cost my charactor more fingers...hehe.

[Azulfae]

I think a key point of D&D that can become lost in the online environment when there are many players to juggle is that DM's are very much in control of a PC's destiny.

When you make your PC you can have a completely empty mind to what they will become and what decisions they will make and you might say to yourself, "With this one i'm just gonna go with what the DM's throw at me." This only becomes a dissapointment when the DM's don't throw anything at you.

You might make a PC with an increadible backlstory and a lot of focus in some aspect of their RP and where you intend for them to develope and what they become and achieve. This can go completely wrong if the DM's don't give you specific opportunities to fulfil those goals or create that story for your PC.

Whatever you play, DM attention is very neccessary. Players who never get DM attention will become eventually unsatisfied with the game.

I think the results so far show that players in general just love to give an answer to the fact that the DM's might give them some options and attention at all is great.

In NWN1 I played a PC with a self created destiny, a very complex one. I did get DM attention and unfortunatley they did not quite channel that destiny into what I was trying to achieve and infact re-railed me into a destiny they wanted that was similar but not my vision. I completely suicided the character when really he should have entered his defining moment. I wasn't getting what I had wanted and it made the PC unplayable for me.

What a horrendous mistake and wonderful lesson I learned from playing that PC.

I think the DM's involved might have learned something to with regards to what this post is addressing as a topic.

That said, as players it's good to have some goals but just make a good character and have some basic ideas of who they are and where they are going. Let the DM's know and then roll with the punches. DM intervention is always gonna be fun if you have the right mindset. (And the DM isn't a total jerk, Sundren's are all great btw )

DM's, if you care about player satisfaction that pretty much is enough whatever you do.