Character Plot Armour - Where Do YOU Draw the Line?

[Iye Khara]

...yeah, I honestly couldn't think of a better title than that.

Well, to the issue at hand. Allow me to set forth a hypothetical situation. Which I will not claim to be or not be involved in. :v

You play a character in an RP who holds a position of considerable power and authority. As it happens, another character, who is supposed to be a subordinate in a way to your character, is flaunting your character's authority and constantly jeering at your character and in essence warranting some punishment. Your character, as it also happens, is kinda insane and rather a brutal sadist. In character, your character's natural responce is to outright kill the character--with one catch. Just so happens you're not allowed to kill other characters without permission--because of their plot armour as PCs. It's 'godmodding', and the RPer of said character obviously isn't letting your character kill theirs, but continues to do things that your character, acting IC, would kill them for. What do you do? Doing anything BUT killing the character as punishment, which is what you, as your character's designer, KNOW they would do, would be contrary to your character's personality and purpose.

It applies to other hypothetical situations as well. How far are you willing to sacrifice your own character's intended personality in order to accommodate the RP? My personal belief is that you shouldn't have to at all. If another character does something they know is going to have consequences, they should have to live with it, or get a warning saying "No, really, if you do that, my character's going to kill yours" and give them a chance to correct it.

Anyway, my computer spontaneously started typing ridiculously slow, so I guess thats the end of my post. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts.

[dealing with it]

Moved this to RPG Design. Thanks.

[Iye Khara]

Sorry. I saw similar discussion in the 'Discussion and Debates' forums, so I figured this also belonged there. Brain derp on my part. :v

[Marionette]

It depends on the game and the players. That's all I can say. Games can operate on what I'll call the consent model and the automatic damage model. In the consent model, your character cannot be permanently, seriously harmed or killed without your permission. In the automatic damage model, you take whatever damage occurs regardless. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, especially depending upon the game medium. The consent model does not work very well in traditional tabletop games. There's already an ordered way for resolving conflicts and measuring damages, and everyone has agreed that this is the way conflicts will be resolved, so you can't just say, "But I don't want that critical hit to damage my character severely." It was rolled for fair and square.

The problem is, freeform games don't have that. It's just a bunch of people talking. You can't unequivocally say, "That definitely hit your character and definitely caused them this much damage." outside of really tightly constructed circumstances. These games simply operate on the honor system, expecting the players to be fair and realistic about what hits they do and don't take. Never taking damage is as much a form of godmoding as always causing it, and the consent model is not an excuse for ignoring ICA = ICC. It is not a get out of jail free card to waive all unpleasant consequences simply because you don't like them.

That said, having your character "outright" kill another is going to be godmoding in most cases. An attempt is not; stating that you have killed their character without giving them to ability to react to your actions generally is. Not being allowed to attempt to do something that's IC for you is something I find problematic, but not being allowed to simply inject a character death is something I totally get.

It also has to do with simply coming at it from a different mindset. Different players value different things. I'll quote Ewen Cluney (from Yarurki Zero Games) here: "I wonder if the fact that some people have expressed concern over that sort of thing [character safety] is a difference in subcultures... I suspect that relatively few indie RPG types would be too concerned about character safety, whereas from what I’ve heard of the freeform RP scene it’s of paramount importance to some people." If it's not something you like, find like-minded players (and they are out there; I've seen them), but you'll have to accept that it is one standard of play in the freeform community.

[Tea]

Perhaps the obvious answer to this presumed scenario is, "Ask the Player of the offensive character for permission to kill, maim, or attempt to kill that character." This kind of scenario is exactly why GameMasters should watch over games and role-plays. If the Player of the offended character receives permission, then they go ahead. If they do not, the GameMaster is informed. If there is no GameMaster then the Player should likely leave because the other Players are compromising the integrity of the character concept.

As I mentioned: Maim. With conversation comes discourse and with discourse comes creativity. Just because one character attempts to kill, or murder, another character does not mean that the attempt automatically succeeds. Deep and honest discussion between two players in this kind of situation is the best medicine that I can recommend if no GameMaster is present. Most GameMasters will consent to an idea of two players say, "We talked about the situation and came up with this."

For myself, personally, I do not normally role-play such unstable characters. When I do, I take great care to protect the creative freedom of the other players as much as possible while still expressing the character that I designed.

At the very least the person who was role-playing the offended character could say, "I'm sorry guys, but I have to leave. My character wouldn't do what you're talking about so I'll chat with y'all later. Have fun, Oserspay."

[ViceVersus]

Sorry. I saw similar discussion in the 'Discussion and Debates' forums, so I figured this also belonged there. Brain derp on my part. :v

The Discussion & Debate forum is for discussion/etc about stuff not related to writing or roleplaying; real-world issues, that sort of thing. If you've got something to talk about with designing a roleplay, or talking about content within it, then it belongs here!

Now, to talk about your problem - this takes a lot of conferring with the other GM in your roleplay. This should just be a general stand-by for everything!

You did a good job of explaining the characteristics of your players. Remember, if you're in a roleplaying world, you control the fringes. What if the other person's character has family or friends? You could kill a wife, a child, an associate, that sort of thing. It establishes the twisted demeanor of your character, and in a way is more disgusting since now the other character has to live with this thing that happened to him.

I wouldn't fight to kill the character. Then where does your story go? Definitely mess with something that you can allude to being important to him. In a way, that's almost more twisted. Then you have your retaliation, and then your other player still has their character!

Hope that made sense .. and hope that helps!

-VV

[shadowty]

I believe it is the gm who should decide whether a player is godmoding by making their character untouchable or making their character instant kill/ harm others.
Thing is characters should also be vulnerable when facing npc , not just player characters, if it makes sense and fits in the story.
Also it has to make sense with the background the gm set for that role-play.

[Kestrel]

An attempt is not; stating that you have killed their character without giving them to ability to react to your actions generally is.

'tis really that simple. You can't godmode a kill but your character can attempt a kill.

However you should take notice that if the other PC doesn't want to yield and neither does your character... One of them is going to have to die. The GM in this case will often either stop the fight completely or rule it in your opponent's favour, because you started the fight. That is perfectly fine. A GM's job is to keep the game running and often times this means following a plot. The overall plot will always be more important than your character as an individual. If your character is disruptive to this plot for whatever reason, GM-decisions will not be in your favour and you should be willing to deal with that.

Also note that many GM's and players alike are not very good/comfortable at dealing with these sort of situations. Be considerate of that.

It applies to other hypothetical situations as well. How far are you willing to sacrifice your own character's intended personality in order to accommodate the RP? My personal belief is that you shouldn't have to at all. If another character does something they know is going to have consequences, they should have to live with it, or get a warning saying "No, really, if you do that, my character's going to kill yours" and give them a chance to correct it.

This however I have a major problem with. Your character shouldn't compensate for other characters but they should for your character? That's bullshit and you know it, man.

[shadowty]

I say it doesn't matter who started it as long as the result makes sence IC it's perfectly fine.

[Eyeris]

An interesting quandary.

The plot armor works both ways... The plot armor is keeping YOU from killing the underling, but also keeping the underling from having to being underling-y.

I have to ask why the other person is not acting 'properly'. If everyone in the world knows that insubordination = death... why is that character not afraid of death? OR are they also kind of unstable and reckless? In which case... why are they working for you in the first place?

If both role-players are strong, the unexpected dynamic can be used to forward the plot. (When in power, not everyone obeys as they should... thus why consequences exist.) Will their be a confrontation/split of alliance/power shift within the empire? It depends on why your character is in control, and what they are willing to do to maintain it, and also why the other character is rebellious, and how far their character is willing to take it.

What else has your character tried to keep theirs in check? Have they been spoken to? (by yourself or other PC or NPC) I do not think either player needs to act occ in order to progress this subplot, perhaps it can be an rp opportunity.

Also to consider, how much tension is this causing OOC. If there is raging ooc from either party, then I would ask the DM to help out.

Is this theoretical or a real situation you are experiencing?