Suggestion Usage for PC Violence Limit in Plots

[Rizzo]

Based of @Yuuki ‘s idea, this is a plot/GM level application of the player drop-down struct for PCs.

With a player able to determine whether the GM is able to apply damage to a PC we have a potential loophole for abuse… literal plot armor.
Suppose Alastair Belmont was to perform his legendary antics with “No harm” selected. Immediately it wouldn’t be cool anymore. Seriously, what threat did the enemies he conquered even pose to him? It instantly ceases to matter seeing as the GM was literally FORCED to let him win without any real challenge.

If “Injuries Only” is selected at least there is the ability for players to be beaten by the opposition reenabling the GM to challenge players but with no REAL consequence for failure. In other words, of course they survived, the GM wasn’t ALLOWED to hurt them. That crap wouldn’t fly for a Valhallen character as their plots are hardcore.

My suggestion:
PCs with “No Harm” selected should be barred from combat encounters. If unexpectedly encountering combat those players should be given the chance to flee. ANY player that engages in combat will immediately forfeit their player right to the GM in regards to any damage assigned in the scenario when WILLFULLY engaging in combat as opposed to fleeing.

 

[Rizzo]

Addendum:
I also believe that moving forward GMs should be able to specify a minimum Harm Limit that reflects the amount and expectation of combat in different roles.
IE; engineering PCs can be Injury Only, but Infantry must have Injury and Death.

 

[Wes]

GMs aren't forced to do anything or take any character. The harm limit preference is simply there for players to communicate their preferences easily. Plot GMs can simply list what the plot is like and what to expect in their plot description, which players should read before joining. For example "This is a gritty war plot where characters can die at random with a bad dice roll."

 

[Rizzo]

Ah, so the point in my addendum already exists. That satisfies me.
This thread might already be addressed and settled, unless there are any additional concerns from the other players regarding the GM in this. May we keep it live for a bit?

 

[Soban]

I do think that having GMs also put up the harm levels for their plots will be helpful in negotiating these things. These aren't hard and fast, but the starting point for expectations and conversations. Injury preference isn't something static and can change over time. For example, one might make a throwaway character, but that character might grow on them to the point where the player would really prefer if they didn't die. On the other hand, a character you thought might be a round for a long time reaches a point where death is the natural end of their character arc. This doesn't just go for players, but GMs as well.

As the previous suggestion was for the player's pages and this is for the plot pages. We should allow GMs to communicate their preferences easily as well.

 

[raz]

The RPG rating that most plots use already has a violence category. Wes rightfully pointed out that the previously implemented suggestion exists as a tool for GMs to gauge which players are comfortable with what level of harm, but that it doesn’t invalidate a GM’s ability to write consequences in RP. It’s a jumping off point for GMs to keep their RP moving without needing to DM specific players; they can ultimately still partywipe people if it’s an overall plot risk.

I think the intersection of these two things make what this suggestion seeks to implement moot. The concern itself is silly to me because the only instances I’ve historically seen of “plot armor” were applied to NPCs while the most accomplished warrior PCs have faced real struggle in RP.

 

[Yuuki]

@Wes having it in the description doesn’t let a new player see it in an automatically maintained struct generated table though for easy digestion