The Problem with RPGs (Long Rant)

[JonSetanta]

1202087988[/unixtime]]Aeris dies

WHAT? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Ice9]

accept the RPG as a cleverly arranged conspiracy

It is a conspiracy - a conspiracy to appeal to more than one type of player, so you actually have a chance at getting a group together.

Sure, if you're swimming in players and DMs, feel free to use a system customized for exactly the experience you want, and only people who share that desire will play it. But if the only group you can form includes a mix of people with different tastes, a system that combines those things with mixed success is better than the perfectly tailored system with no players.

And honestly, 99% of everything in life is jury-rigged, held together with masking tape, fudged, or otherwise sacrifices purity of form for expedience. RPGs can work quite well if you don't expect them to be perfect, and are willing to twist things a bit when required.

[RandomCasualty]

1202082677[/unixtime]]
- Skill-testing doesn't have to involve protagonist death.

This is probably the strongest objection, but most RPG systems do not embrace this solution. We'll call it the RC-FF solution.

Yeah that's pretty much my point in a sentence. pretty much the only problem that we have seems to be PCs making new characters. It's okay for PCs to "lose", they just can't die. Han Solo can get encased in carbonite and Luke can get his hand chopped off and forced to retreat. James Bond can get captured.

We're fine with all that stuff happening. We just don't want PC characters to die. So while your character's life can suck, he can't get killed.

Fix that problem and it seems that all the issues are resolved, since all the problems seem to revolve around combats killing off PCs.

[Cynic]

1202095983[/unixtime]]

1202082677[/unixtime]]
- Skill-testing doesn't have to involve protagonist death.

This is probably the strongest objection, but most RPG systems do not embrace this solution. We'll call it the RC-FF solution.

Yeah that's pretty much my point in a sentence. pretty much the only problem that we have seems to be PCs making new characters. It's okay for PCs to "lose", they just can't die. Han Solo can get encased in carbonite and Luke can get his hand chopped off and forced to retreat. James Bond can get captured.

We're fine with all that stuff happening. We just don't want PC characters to die. So while your character's life can suck, he can't get killed.

Fix that problem and it seems that all the issues are resolved, since all the problems seem to revolve around combats killing off PCs.

Well, can you blame the attitude of players not wanting their character to die?

Most often, it's the creation of a concept that often happens over many, many man-hours. To lose all of that very quickly can be disheartening.

But it's not the only thing that is disheartening.

When you lose said character and come back into the game, you have to walk that fine line of being a completely new character with completely new tendencies and philosophies.

But what happens?

Most often, players pick up a similar character.

How does the joke go?

Human barbarian dies and as the other players are looking at the corpse, an exact replica of said human barbarian walks up to them and says, "Hey, guys, have you seen my twin brother, he looks exactly like -- oh my god!!!!" and consequently joins the group.

~
While this extreme doesn't really happen ooften, there is a strange dichotomy where you have a character that is somewhat similar to the one you played previously.

Another problem is that, often players who have died and come in with a new character have to remember what part of the knowledge gained is from the dead-pally's background and what part of the knowledge is from the current-monk.

It's frustrating. D&D addressed this in a way that they thought would solve the problem but just makes it a completely different problem. You, in essence, don't stay dead. It used to be that no one in comics stayed dead, but now it's that no one in d&D stays dead.

~

We take the aspect of resurrection in d&D and it's really one-sided.

A player maybe resurrected numerous times and the dm can't really say much about it.

But if a dm brings back many different npc roles back after death, it'll become a boring recurring theme.

---

err, enough a rant, I suppose.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

rapanui:

No, you cannot. Besides the amazing amount of stupidly broken shit (and I've been disregarding that for the duration of this argument) running the game by the book would result in a narrative that goes something like this:

You seem to be wandering in your discussion somewhat and it makes it difficult to keep up. You sometimes are talking about RPG's in general and D&D in particular. To be clear, I am not stating that D&D is not deeply flawed from a rules standpoint. I am stating that a balanced rules system which includes a mechanic for failure, and death, is not at odds with enjoyable storytelling.

Players 1 to 4 generate characters. Every few game sessions, one of the players fails a saving throw and has to replace his character. A little less often, but still fairly often, the entire party gets killed while facing a challenge that according to the rules is level appropriate (but actually isn't).

That can happen in D&D. It doesn't have to. A DM has a lot of control over the chances of a player death occurring arbitrarily or not. If he wants a CR 8 encounter he can choose a Bodak or he can choose a Dire Tiger.

My personal preference on the matter: If I had a choice I wouldn't want player death to occur because you rolled too low on one save or die with no possibility to defend yourself. I would want player death to be the result of insufficient tactics, a string of extremely poor die rolls, or a save or die that you could influence (or a combination of those three). For example, with a Medusa's gaze attack, you can avert your gaze. That is a good save or die attack, it forces a tactical choice.

That's not a narrative of any kind, that's just plain stupid. It's not heroic storytelling, it's just wargaming with some BS pretense in the background.

It seems that the pc's rate of death is much more of an issue for you than how they die. I'm getting the feeling that as long as they completed their narrative, it wouldn't matter nearly as much if they died to a SoD soon afterwards.

So you know, there are groups that play like that. Although I haven't played such a game, I'm not certain it wouldn't be fun for a while. For example, if one campaign had a setting focused around an Assassin's guild, and their need to kill one creature/person at the head of an organization, you could just go through the guild, picking a new Assassin every time one died on their mission.

They do. I see it all the time. GMs often rule off-the-cuff in order to keep the game running and cool shit happening. I am not making this comment based on an isolated incident, just go and read the WotC forum about campaign stories and the like. (If you want your eyes to bleed that is.)

So a lot of WotC posters make unexpected house rules on the fly? Yeah, that's called bullshit DMing. That isn't a good argument that "The vast number of rules presented in an RPG are completely unnecessary"

Why are you RPGing? Is it for the sake of your character, or the sake of showing off how awesome you are at coming up with good plans and tactics? Both? You cannot have both. The latter implies a broken choppy narrative punctuated by character death. The former implies that skill-testing takes a back seat.

Both. Challenge in a RPG doesn't necessitate that you always die when you fail. Death is just one option, and there must always be a real threat.

Again, most games use rules that do encourage insignificant deaths.

They don't have to. You are making a blanket statement that storytelling and tactical challenge are incompatible. You then say that most games have insignificant deaths. Well, doesn't that mean that a game can have good storytelling, tactical challenges and non insignificant character deaths?

Sorry if I'm starting to sound defensive, but I'm kinda getting the feeling here that you guys think I'm insulting the way you game. That's not the case. I'm simply making general points about the deeper root problems where most RPG issues come from.

Np. As I said in my last paragraph, they are not root problems. They are just common ones.

[Crissa]

Letsee... Skill tests that don't involve death... But loss is okay. Then don't force the players to make balance checks over the sarlacc?

I mean, duh, if you don't want death involved, don't put deathly hallows in your storybook realm.

-Crissa

[K]

The most DnD show on TV that I can think of is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and that chick dies like three times.

Stargate is very DnD, and just about every character has died at least once.

Here's the thing: death is not the worse thing that can happen.

Maybe you get turned into a vampire, and chances of getting your character back the way you conceived of him are several levels off. What do you do? Well, usually he "dies" by going evil and being killed, and you make a new character. Maybe runs off and then he comes back several levels later all emo and human with a debt to pay off.

Maybe you make a bad deal with a demon prince and he imprisons your 4th level character in Hell. Guess what? Your character is dead in all the important ways.

Heck, old school DnD let limbs get chopped off, and sometimes when you regrew them demon limbs appeared. Maybe you got reincarnated as a kobold and suddenly being a fighter looked really crappy. Maybe your Noble PC just lost his castle because he killed the king, and nothing is ever going to be the same again even if he gets a new castle.

Lots of things can retire a character, and that is where the fear comes in. Heck, whole campaigns can be retired when the Dread Prince really does burn the city that you've spent the campaign building up and then to add insult to injury he reanimated the people as charred stick undead.

As a tactician, death is an inconvenience. As an RPer, death has to fit into the story.

The compromise?

The real fear is not death, but in losing a piece of your character; its worse than death. Heck, the most cruel thing I've ever done as DM was to break the magic Spell Storing sword of a Spellsword character because I though he'd retreat after a few Sundering hits on his precious sword that he constantly talked about and he couldn't imagine I'd let the rules and dice break his iconic sword. He shattered right with the sword.

Losing a piece of your character is why Energy Drain used to be the most feared attack in DnD. I personally think it should make a comeback in some form.

[RandomCasualty]

1202111376[/unixtime]]
The real fear is not death, but in losing a piece of your character; its worse than death.

Yeah, I agree.

[rapanui]

K, that's a very good point and I definitely agree. My argument is now extended to include severe character-warping events, not just death. I've never level-drained anyone in my RPGs because I don't know anyone that find that fun.

Sphere said:
"I am stating that a balanced rules system which includes a mechanic for failure, and death, is not at odds with enjoyable storytelling."

Ah, OK. I think we're getting somewhere. I guess the problem in my argument is that I'm making several assumptions about what kind of game people want to play. I'm drawing from a lot of anecdotal experience and maybe my experiences do not match up with what happens at a lot of tables.

Let me do a quick poll here (everyone is free to answer):

1. Have you ever had a character be killed (or be level-drained or imprisoned or something equally heninous) that partly destroyed your ideas about where the character was going?

2. Have you ever had a GM be more merciful towards a character because the GM liked the character concept?

3. Have you ever, as GM, fudged a roll that would have otherwise killed a character?

4. On average, what percentage of game sessions do you think involve some level of bending or outright ignoring the written rules of the game?

5. Have you ever had a character killed only to roll up another character that was very similar t the first one?

6. Would you agree or disagree with the statement that "people project themselves into their characters"?

7. If yes to above, would you agree that the vast majority of fantasy roleplaying involves a high degree of escapism, and that most people do not want their projected characters to die or suffer related heinous fates without their explicit approval?

8. In a typical campaign, how much of your character's fate is determined by GM whim and railroading?

9. In campaigns you have played, how often have subpar character been given special equipment designed by the GM specifically to help them catch up with more min/maxxed characters?

10. How important do you think skill-testing is to the pen and paper roleplaying experience? Are tabletop tactics one of the prime reasons to game, or is it secondary? Do you think most gamers would agree with your response?

11. How often do gaming groups disband due to disputes over in-game matters?


If some of the questions seem leading... well, that's on purpose. You can ignore whichever ones you like or don't think can answer accurately.

[RandomCasualty]

1202156835[/unixtime]]
1. Have you ever had a character be killed (or be level-drained or imprisoned or something equally heninous) that partly destroyed your ideas about where the character was going?

Yep.

2. Have you ever had a GM be more merciful towards a character because the GM liked the character concept?

I can't be sure, but probably.

3. Have you ever, as GM, fudged a roll that would have otherwise killed a character?

Yes.

4. On average, what percentage of game sessions do you think involve some level of bending or outright ignoring the written rules of the game?

When I DM I'd say maybe 5%. Depends on the campaign really though. Sometimes i run strict by the book campaigns, other times, I have campaigns that have a lot of special hidden rules and arbitrary rulings.

5. Have you ever had a character killed only to roll up another character that was very similar t the first one?

Nope. If my character concept dies, I pretty much don't want to start over again, because as far as I'm concerned, I'm playing the same character, and he was a failure.

6. Would you agree or disagree with the statement that "people project themselves into their characters"?

7. If yes to above, would you agree that the vast majority of fantasy roleplaying involves a high degree of escapism, and that most people do not want their projected characters to die or suffer related heinous fates without their explicit approval?

I agree with 6. As for 7, I feel that PCs want some fear of failure. It's no fun if you feel like you have absolute power. While they don't want to fail, they want to at least have the feeling their character is at risk. It's much like a rollercoaster IMO, it projects that fear of being in danger without actually putting you at risk.

8. In a typical campaign, how much of your character's fate is determined by GM whim and railroading?

Well given that most of the times when I play others' campaigns it's playing a module. I'd say a great deal of the time. You don't pick the quest, and the story is pretty much set in stone.

When I DM, it's much different though.

9. In campaigns you have played, how often have subpar character been given special equipment designed by the GM specifically to help them catch up with more min/maxxed characters?

When I DM I sometimes do that, though more often, I just tweak the rules to rebalance the weaker character. I haven't seen any other DM I play with use this method though, or even give out items.

10. How important do you think skill-testing is to the pen and paper roleplaying experience? Are tabletop tactics one of the prime reasons to game, or is it secondary? Do you think most gamers would agree with your response?

I would say secondary. The basic advantage of tactical gaming is that it makes combats more interesting. you never want combats to turn into "OK my turn... rolll, ok your turn... roll" You want people's combat decisions to matter in somewhat of a non-arbitrary way, and the only way to do that is a well detailed combat system.

11. How often do gaming groups disband due to disputes over in-game matters?

I haven't seen it too often. Most of the time games disband because the DM has to quit, or the players lose interest. I really haven't seen many disband over PC/DM feuds, unless the game was just horrible to begin with. Most of the time it's just some annoying PC who gets kicked out of the group and the rest of the game goes on.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

rapanui:

I am not sure where the questions are leading, but I'll answer them regardless.

1. Have you ever had a character be killed (or be level-drained or imprisoned or something equally heninous) that partly destroyed your ideas about where the character was going?

Yes. Although any dramatic unexpected event can "destroy your ideas about where the character was going."

2. Have you ever had a GM be more merciful towards a character because the GM liked the character concept?

No.

3. Have you ever, as GM, fudged a roll that would have otherwise killed a character?

Yes. (In my defense, it was at the 2000 3e Gencon and my first time DMing)

4. On average, what percentage of game sessions do you think involve some level of bending or outright ignoring the written rules of the game?

100%. We use houserules (Though I think all groups do, so I don't understand the point of the question...)

5. Have you ever had a character killed only to roll up another character that was very similar t the first one?

No.

6. Would you agree or disagree with the statement that "people project themselves into their characters"?

Agree. (To some degree, most of the time.)

7. If yes to above, would you agree that the vast majority of fantasy roleplaying involves a high degree of escapism, and that most people do not want their projected characters to die or suffer related heinous fates without their explicit approval?

Yes. And yes.

(Edit: I agree with RC, the feeling of risk is more important)

8. In a typical campaign, how much of your character's fate is determined by GM whim and railroading?

The GM creates the world, the adventures, the npc's, etc. Players control their characters. I don't know how else to answer the question.

9. In campaigns you have played, how often have subpar character been given special equipment designed by the GM specifically to help them catch up with more min/maxxed characters?

Sometimes.

10. How important do you think skill-testing is to the pen and paper roleplaying experience? Are tabletop tactics one of the prime reasons to game, or is it secondary? Do you think most gamers would agree with your response?

Different games have different areas of focus. Different people have different expectations. In D&D, in my experience, tactics are as important as roleplaying. (moreso in some instances)

11. How often do gaming groups disband due to disputes over in-game matters?

Never.

[Orion]

1. Have you ever had a character be killed (or be level-drained or imprisoned or something equally heninous) that partly destroyed your ideas about where the character was going?

Not really. I did feel sad when my level one monk died, but I ended up loving the ranger I rolled after it.

2. Have you ever had a GM be more merciful towards a character because the GM liked the character concept?

Not so far as I know...

3. Have you ever, as GM, fudged a roll that would have otherwise killed a character?

Yes, but only when I had grossly underestimated how powerful the monsters were

4. On average, what percentage of game sessions do you think involve some level of bending or outright ignoring the written rules of the game?

Depends on how you count. If you mean deliberately fudging the rules to make thigns come out the way you want, 50%. If you mean ignoring rules that are too complicated or re-writing them from the beginning as the basis for the adventure, 100%.

5. Have you ever had a character killed only to roll up another character that was very similar t the first one?

No. Change completely every time.

6. Would you agree or disagree with the statement that "people project themselves into their characters"?

Certainly.

7. If yes to above, would you agree that the vast majority of fantasy roleplaying involves a high degree of escapism, and that most people do not want their projected characters to die or suffer related heinous fates without their explicit approval?

Hmm... I'm not sure. A heroic death is all right. A hilarious death is also tolerable if I didn't *love* the character.

8. In a typical campaign, how much of your character's fate is determined by GM whim and railroading?

Almost all of it, but the DM *should* be picking up on my desires...

9. In campaigns you have played, how often have subpar character been given special equipment designed by the GM specifically to help them catch up with more min/maxxed characters?

Always

10. How important do you think skill-testing is to the pen and paper roleplaying experience? Are tabletop tactics one of the prime reasons to game, or is it secondary? Do you think most gamers would agree with your response?

Skilltsting is a big part of the fun for me, though I work out that part by making lots of characters I never play...

11. How often do gaming groups disband due to disputes over in-game matters?

hasn't happened ot me yet...

[K]

1202156835[/unixtime]]K, that's a very good point and I definitely agree. My argument is now extended to include severe character-warping events, not just death. I've never level-drained anyone in my RPGs because I don't know anyone that find that fun.

Sphere said:
"I am stating that a balanced rules system which includes a mechanic for failure, and death, is not at odds with enjoyable storytelling."

Ah, OK. I think we're getting somewhere. I guess the problem in my argument is that I'm making several assumptions about what kind of game people want to play. I'm drawing from a lot of anecdotal experience and maybe my experiences do not match up with what happens at a lot of tables.

Let me do a quick poll here (everyone is free to answer):

1. Have you ever had a character be killed (or be level-drained or imprisoned or something equally heninous) that partly destroyed your ideas about where the character was going?

2. Have you ever had a GM be more merciful towards a character because the GM liked the character concept?

3. Have you ever, as GM, fudged a roll that would have otherwise killed a character?

4. On average, what percentage of game sessions do you think involve some level of bending or outright ignoring the written rules of the game?

5. Have you ever had a character killed only to roll up another character that was very similar t the first one?

6. Would you agree or disagree with the statement that "people project themselves into their characters"?

7. If yes to above, would you agree that the vast majority of fantasy roleplaying involves a high degree of escapism, and that most people do not want their projected characters to die or suffer related heinous fates without their explicit approval?

8. In a typical campaign, how much of your character's fate is determined by GM whim and railroading?

9. In campaigns you have played, how often have subpar character been given special equipment designed by the GM specifically to help them catch up with more min/maxxed characters?

10. How important do you think skill-testing is to the pen and paper roleplaying experience? Are tabletop tactics one of the prime reasons to game, or is it secondary? Do you think most gamers would agree with your response?

11. How often do gaming groups disband due to disputes over in-game matters?


If some of the questions seem leading... well, that's on purpose. You can ignore whichever ones you like or don't think can answer accurately.

1. Helm of Alignment changing on a 2e Cleric of a specific god from Dieties and Demigods (Thoth or Osiris or something). Yeh, so I lost my neato cleric/wizard multiclass that came from that god who I could no longer worship, and the DM basically made me become Cleric/Wizard Dual class.

Basically I rolled with it.

Also, another time I was playing a custom class made from the 2e DMG "make you own class" section and I was a wild elf with a 19 Strength, and a demilich ate my soul and I failed the save to repossess my own body. I did end up with the dwarfs body that also had a 19 Str from Wishes, so that began the one and only time I played a dwarf.

Yeh, when its part of the story I really don't mind too much.

Crissa also got killed in one of Frank's games and I turned her into a vampire because we didn't have resurrection in the setting, but I did have a cursed object that turned corpses into vampires. She went from a horse girl to a vampire riding a ghost wolf that fed off my blood when things got dicey.

In the same game, I took a PrC that let me handle cursed objects and I got characters burned into my hand from the Black Scroll that causes diseases and I also picked up the family sword of the Emperor that mind-controlled people into thinking you are the rightful heir. I was contemplating either:

A. Becoming the Emperor by UMDing the sword and taking an Emperor PrC, or
B. Taking a Black Scroll PrC that activated the characters burned into my hand.

Either option looked awesome.

2. The only time I've had a DM be merciful was when the rolls boned me when I was doing some average thing.

I was once swimming for treasure in some partially sunken ruins and I failed a drowning check. The DM let me wash up on shore with a permanent loss of a Con point.

Also the above demilich repossession thing was a DM mercy thing.

3. Nope. I roll the dice in the open.

4. The game is not designed well enough to handle most fantasy stories, so every game thats good involves a custom item or spell or ritual that makes the plot work at all, and often people toss in DM Special monsters to fit their setting or story.

So basically all.

5. I only play Roguey Mages or Magey Rogues. The few clerics and fighters I've played ended up with lots of magic and sneaky sneaky.

6. My characters tend to be tall, blondish, and have blue eyes. I also am tall, blondish, and have blue eyes. Draw your own conclusions.

7. I've died in dumb ways and dramatic ways, and never been Raised. Thats life. I only get upset when its a dumb rule that gets me.

8. Most DMs railroad to a degree. Thats called "the plot."

The only thing that cheeses me is the villain who escapes with 1-10 HPs, taking his treasure with him. That really pisses me off.

9. As a PC I've given subpar fellow characters my share of the magic equipment just make them less subpar. Its no different as a DM.

10. I'm a tactical player, and I've been commended for that because it means that I help the party win when the DM has stacked the deck against us because he's a dumbass.

Some players resent the fact that I tend to ask them not to do things that will get them or me killed. I don't play with those guys long.

11. Roleplayers tend to be a shifty and nomadic bunch, so I've seen games end due to schedule conflicts, laziness, and desire to play another game.

I have left games because I didn't like the players or their play style. Some people want to talk out a plan for three days of sessions and then do an adventure on the fourth session, and I can't stand that. I can get four adventures out in that timeframe, and that makes me happier.

Some people are just tools in-game, and that also kills it for me.

[Yahzi]

let tactical skill, the dice, and roleplaying create the story together as you go along

I agree.

What makes RPGs different is that the interactions of the players and the dice makes the story.

Even tactical skill has to be there, to generate the feeling of accomplishment and success. The trick is to present tactical challenges your players can handle.

[Crissa]

Hey, I screwed up, my character died. So I made a bid for a couple of the undead types that were in the campaign.

Normally, when a character dies, we try to find an in-story reason for them to come back, or an alternate character for the player to play. Sometimes that means fleshing out the torch-carrier. Sometimes the PCs aren't the ones to survive. But that's why we have dice.

But the setting itself is what totally controls the lethality of the game. If you don't like lethal challenges - don't put them in. Create non-lethal loss conditions. It's up to you to do so, not the game system.

-Crissa

[rapanui]

OK, what I'm seeing here is that basically no one agrees with my conclusion. Which is fine I guess, maybe I was assuming too much about what kinds of games people want to play.

Just to be perfectly clear though:

You guys seem to be saying that there's no contradiction between the two goals of role-playing (tactics/storytelling): It's perfectly fine to play a game where the protagonists can have chance-based heinous or lethal things happen to them.

Furthermore, it seems to me that most of you are saying the following:

1. It doesn't matter if the rules or tactics undermine the story the player is trying to tell because part of roleplaying is putting up with whatever the dice and DM-determined plot say happens to your character.

2. It doesn't matter if the need for story undermines the tactics, because the tactical tests are there only to create a feeling of excitement to battles and stuff.


OK. If you guys think there's no problem with those two things, then I'll shut the hell up about it at this point.

(The pseudo-poll is still open though, I find the answers very informative.)

[Crissa]

The challenge of roleplaying a game is the dice.

Otherwise it's just playing pretend.

-Crissa

[SphereOfFeetMan]

rapanui:

Furthermore, it seems to me that most of you are saying the following:

1. It doesn't matter if the rules or tactics undermine the story the player is trying to tell because part of roleplaying is putting up with whatever the dice and DM-determined plot say happens to your character.

2. It doesn't matter if the need for story undermines the tactics, because the tactical tests are there only to create a feeling of excitement to battles and stuff.

Kinda. I look at it in a slightly different way though.

For example, if I had a character who was adventuring to achieve some goal five levels from now, I don't view those five levels of playing as an unnecessary risky obstacle that could potentially ruin my characters story of completing his goal. Instead, I view the moment by moment roleplaying and tactical skill-testing as the story. That's the game for me.

[rapanui]

Crissa: dice are not a challenge. They are a tool for randomization. You could argue that the point of good character design is to work against this randomization (much like the goal of a good Magic deck is to minimize the impact of the random aspect) but that would be debating semantics. The dice are not the challenge: the numbers written on all the pieces of paper the GM carries around are the challenge.

And there are many players that would argue that the real challenge is to portray a character convincingly and memorably. (Or am I assuming too much again?)



Sphere said:
"For example, if I had a character who was adventuring to achieve some goal five levels from now, I don't view those five levels of playing as an unnecessary risky obstacle that could potentially ruin my characters story of completing his goal. Instead, I view the moment by moment roleplaying and tactical skill-testing as the story. That's the game for me."


Let's say you're playing a game called Greek Hero d20, and you roll up a new character. You name him "Perzeeus" (kinda even sounds Greek). You've talked to the GM about what kind of challenges you'd like Perseus to face and you both agree on the general tone of the campaign as an epic hero thing (much like say, D&D).

So, you're playing, and your dude does some pretty neat stuff, like get some phat loot from some deities, trick a bunch of old hags and finally kill a Medusa.

So, you get to the BBEG... it turns out some wacky guy chained his hot daughter to a rock and a monster was gonna eat her. You're all ready to take names and chew bubble gum. So you duke it out with this beast for a while when...

GM: *rolls a few dice* Uhhh...
You: What is it?
GM: Um, what's your armor class.
You: 24, why?
GM: OK. *rolls more dice* Umm....
You: What?
GM: What are your current HP?
You: 52
GM: OK, GG, you die.
YOU: WTF?!?!!
GM: Crit hit. You're dead. Splat. Gone.

So, that could be many game sessions over because you did the heroic in-character thing of trying to fight the sea monster. Two scenarios can happen:

1. DM packs his crap up, and you sit there wondering what the hell you just spent 20+ hours of your existence doing.

2. DM bangs his hand hard against the table, tipping the die over.
DM: "My mistake. That's a 15, not a 20. You just get hit for 20 points." You scratch your head wondering what the hell you're even doing rolling dice.


So, yeah, obviously there are a lot of problems with that example... to the point where I may be accused of building a straw man argument: The GM miscalculated the strength of the monster or the impact of critical hit rules. "Perzeeus" didn't have a party backing him up, etc.

And I'm also assuming a lot about the player's emotional response.

Maybe you think that's a good story. An awesome greek dude who dies valiantly fighting a sea monster who after flossing his teeth with your character's entrails, eats the hot chick anyway.

(You might make comparisons to the battle of Thermopylae, but Leonidas wasn't aided by gods and the character originally set out to die valiantly.)

It seems to me that either the tone of the campaign is betrayed, or the integrity and necessity of the rules is undercut in the above example. That's it. That's my point. And I think it applies to many RPGs, even survival horror like Call of Cthulhu. You don't want to get offed by some random cultist who gets a crit... you want to be driven insane in by dark forces, and maybe have your character come up later as recurring antagonist.


One final thought. I was thinking about how I would counter my own argument, and I thought that one good way of justifying tactical rules in a cooperative storytelling environment is so that the game doesn't instantly degenerate into "cops and robbers" or "4 mean beating each other with sticks in the backyard". You use them as an outline about what can happen and what cannot happen. Then you throw them in the garbage when the GM screws up or the dice threaten to ruin a good story. Still, something feel wrong to me about that.


OK. NOW this is a rant.

[RandomCasualty]

1202281946[/unixtime]]The challenge of roleplaying a game is the dice.

Otherwise it's just playing pretend.

Well no, dice aren't really a challenge, they're just a means of randomization. And sometimes randomization is good and sometimes it's bad.

The "game" part is about making decisions to affect the outcome. Whether you're contemplating raise, call or fold or you're figuring out whether to open the strange bronze door or continue on the path you're currently on, the essence of playing a game is players making meaningful choices. The one thing that's so horrible about railroading is that it deprives players of choices, or otherwise makes those choices not matter.

The challenge of a game lies in the decision making.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

rapanui:

1. DM packs his crap up, and you sit there wondering what the hell you just spent 20+ hours of your existence doing.

...Playing a game? It sounds like because the game ended that way you think the previous 20+ hours were wasted. I don't agree.

...and you both agree on the general tone of the campaign...

If the rules put the PC in a situation where you die, and both the player and the DM don't want death as a possible outcome, then it is a fault of the game.

2. DM bangs his hand hard against the table, tipping the die over.
DM: "My mistake. That's a 15, not a 20. You just get hit for 20 points." You scratch your head wondering what the hell you're even doing rolling dice.

It seems to me that either the tone of the campaign is betrayed, or the integrity and necessity of the rules is undercut in the above example. That's it. That's my point.

From what I can gather you are stating one of two things:

1. The rules are not reflecting the game I want to play.

or

2. The campaign's "tone" is one that puts the fear of death in the mind of the player, but it can't actually happen because the Dm will "fudge" it. You then make the statement that either the tone or the rules are betrayed. If this is the case, then those particular game preferences are incompatible. Nothing more.

[Crissa]

That doesn't sound like the fault of the game, but the player and GM.

Why was death an option if you didn't want it to be?

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1202301055[/unixtime]]That doesn't sound like the fault of the game, but the player and GM.

Why was death an option if you didn't want it to be?

As stated before, people want the fear of death and want it to be a possibility but really don't want it to happen to their character.

It's irrational but that's pretty much how people want the RPG to play out.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Death has a number of issues in RPGs:

1) Don't Let Me Go Out Like A Punk
If characters are going to die, their players want those deaths to be cool, or to mean something. Getting killed to prove how badass the villain is is for redshirts. Giving your life so your buddies can escape is for heroes. This sort of thing is the basis for a lot of indie RPGs, where players tend to have a lot of influence over how and when their characters die.

2) I'd Like To Play, Please
If you have no pieces on the board, you aren't playing the game. RPGs aren't the worst spectator sport (that would be bowls), but they're also not the best.

I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones that spring to mind.

[rapanui]

RC, excellent observation. Your point is a subset of what I'm getting at. I've felt the exact contradiction as a player before. I want my character to be doing stuff that feels cool and risky, but if he actually dies/gets crippled I can feel several things:

1. I'm a dumb-ass and just proved how stupid I am.

2. This sucks, because I really liked my character and I had envisioned a better demise for him.

3. My GM just hosed me because he didn't like the character.

4. The rules suck. (Often the case, and not actually pertinent to what I'm trying to get at, although it may be related... players often gripe a rules that are 'realistic' but not much fun)

I could live with #1 if I was playing a wargame, chess or MTG, because that's kind of the point. To understand how to play, and get better. But I'm not doing that, I'm trying to be involved in cooperative epic storytelling. So, 1 just compounds my frustration with 2, and 4. ( 3 is just kind of antisocial paranoia, but it can also be a direct consequence of this)


Crissa said:

"That doesn't sound like the fault of the game, but the player and GM.
Why was death an option if you didn't want it to be?"

How many groups do you think actually first get together and decide whether or not the characters in the campaign are going to be mortal?

In my experience that number has been pretty low. They simply say something like "V:TM at my place tonight. I'm only allowing Camerilla-aligned characters... blah blah blah..." but no mention of the issues we're discussing here.

Most game systems simply assume that yes, they are in fact mortal and not privy to any special rules. Most game systems even explicitly state you should roll up a new character, which almost invalidates the idea of discussing this aspect of the game with the group before starting the campaign.