The Problem with RPGs (Long Rant)

[Voss]

Right. Death is expected. Whining about it just sounds like whining... not some nonexistent disparity between skill and narration, or whatever weird shit that was.

As for 1-4
1. yes.
2. Crap. I broke a nail. Ah, well. 5 seconds later, I'm not all that broken up about it.
3. Yeah, paranoia. And not the fun kind with clones.
4. Do they? Or is this just an excuse for more whining? Because even when they do, is it really the suckage that kills you?

[rapanui]

Death is not expected at random when I'm trying to tell an epic story about a badass. Leonidas dies AFTER he wounds Xerxes, not by a random crit hit from Mook #5.

You seem to be on the side of "RPGs are skill testing". If that's so, fine, but you don't seem to get how upsetting #2 is to someone that has been crafting a character for many, many sessions.

You may play to roll dice and outflank the opposition, but some people play for escapism.

[Crissa]

All of them, I'd expect, when you set out the setting.

Are you persuading bunnies or fighting zombie hordes? It's all up to the setting. Sure, Pirates! seems pretty deadly, but the worst thing that happens to a player character is losing their ship and crew and having to start over again. Was the loss condition created?

Sure there are death and dying rules in the game system. And sometimes they're not useful to 'just die'. But if you're traipsing on a rope across spikes or a raging torrent is entirely up to the setting. What happens once you've been knocked out by the zombies - do they eat brains or cart you to the plant-king? That's all setting.

So yeah, I rather expect that sort of thing up front.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

I'm inclined to call the whole thing the "RPG paradox", because there are opposing premises at work when you talk about the escapism principle.

First, we want to play cinematic heroes. Cinematic heroes are people who take risks. They're people who beat the odds. The threat of death is very real. Most of the time, the odds are against them. They're Kyle Reece against the Terminator or John McClane against an entire building full of terrorists. And they have to feel like they can die. Without the threat of death, these characters lose their heroism and instead are prone to do stupid stuff like walk into explosions and stuff just because they know they won't die.

So in many cases having plot immunity that you as a player know about tends to ruin the experience. Nobody is going to get especially excited when they kill the cyberdemon with god mode turned on. You may blow off some steam at finally nailing that fucker, but you don't especially feel heroic or like you've actually accomplished much.

Of course, while players want the threat of death, they really don't want to actually die. In many ways some PCs want thier DMs to fudge rolls, but they don't want to ever know about it. They want to go on thinking about the time they heroically defied the odds and came out victorious. And the rules have to be there to tell them that yes, they can die, they can fail. Because that makes the victory all the more exciting. So long as the PCs think they beat the odds, that's all that really matters.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Rapa, I have a question, and I'm being serious here, I want to be sure you don't think I'm being snarky.

Have you ever had a positive experience with Character Death? A situation where, once the dice have settled you said "Man, that was AWESOME!", for any reason?

-Desdan

[Voss]

1202369651[/unixtime]]Death is not expected at random when I'm trying to tell an epic story about a badass. Leonidas dies AFTER he wounds Xerxes, not by a random crit hit from Mook #5.

Except... playing an RPG, that generally isn't what you're doing. You're part of a group playing a game, your ego isn't getting a personal blowjob from the DM.

You seem to be on the side of "RPGs are skill testing". If that's so, fine, but you don't seem to get how upsetting #2 is to someone that has been crafting a character for many, many sessions.

You may play to roll dice and outflank the opposition, but some people play for escapism.

Feel free to assume whatever random crap you want about me. I'm not really on a side, because its a fairly inane argument. 2 pages of whining that the game developers, DM and (by implication) other players aren't fluffing your sense of self-worth enough just seemed like a little much.

Its a game. It isn't a novel, a movie or a play. It doesn't follow the same rules of drama, which is largely to the good, since the standard cliches of drama make for boring games. What you want is better accomplished by not playing and just writing a self-insertion piece of fanfic.

[tzor]

1202369651[/unixtime]]Death is not expected at random when I'm trying to tell an epic story about a badass. Leonidas dies AFTER he wounds Xerxes, not by a random crit hit from Mook #5.

King Harold Godwinson killed by a critical hit to the eye from Saxon Archer Mook #6483. This not only made the history "books" it made it into a tapestry. How can that not be epic?

(And this is why folks I never allowed that roll two 20's in a row and you auto kill the victim optional rule from the 3E DMG. 400 Mook archers can kill anyone in a round, guarenteed.)

[Fwib]

I thought that was three 20s in a row? [edit]I played in a 2e game at GenCon UK 2007 where our paladin rolled three twenties in a row against a giant he was trying to subdue - the DM ruled he killed him outright, which caused the paladin moral qualms [/edit]

Anyway, wouldn't the damage from 400 archer mooks attacking one person fairly reliably kill them, auto-death-crit or no? (depending on the precise definition of mook, and the level and defences of the attackee, of course)

[angelfromanotherpin]

1202419067[/unixtime]]Anyway, wouldn't the damage from 400 archer mooks attacking one person fairly reliably kill them, auto-death-crit or no? (depending on the precise definition of mook, and the level and defences of the attackee, of course)

No.

[rapanui]

Voss, take your ad hominem shit elsewhere. I'm trying to get to the root of something I feel is a real problem and you're not adding anything constructive. Sphere obviously disagrees with me, but he's managed to keep it civil.

You're right: it is a game. But it's a game where a fair percentage of the time things get fudged for the sake of a narrative, in which case, it isn't really a game at all.


RC gets it and has stated it perhaps more elegantly than I have.


Desdan:
I've had characters die due to stupid rules, I've had characters die due to shit play on my part, and I've had characters die because the GM was being obtuse.

I've only once had a character be "forcibly retired" in a fashion that I felt was narrative-justified: he basically got recruited by the bad guys.
I told the GM: "He's a bad guy now, the character sheet is yours" and played a different character.

Tzor:
I don't know how "epic" that is, but I will grant that occasionally, cool characters get taken out by mooks, or in less-than-dignified ways, like Paris shooting Achilles in the heel.

[Crissa]

And that, tzor, is why we need abstraction for Epic ^-^

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

But Voss has a good point.

Fluff is not an oppositional force unless YOU petulantly demand that it become one.

And rules are not an oppositional force unless YOU foolishly use the wrong rules.

And yet here you are insisting page after page that rules and fluff are an oppositional conundrum and damnit someone better do something about it because its unfairly killing your characters and your "cool stories".

You want someone to remove all these damned rules so you can use your own unrestrained fluff without any input from other players or forces beyond your own megalomania.

It's like declaring Noughts and Crosses to be unplayable because you want to play as Triangles and demanding that be changed mid (or post) game, even though you initially refused the option of playing Noughts and Triangles instead.

It's utterly inane.

[JonSetanta]

1202419067[/unixtime]]Anyway, wouldn't the damage from 400 archer mooks attacking one person fairly reliably kill them, auto-death-crit or no? (depending on the precise definition of mook, and the level and defences of the attackee, of course)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002 ... ]Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
Depends on whether or not the Epic target lets the arrows hit them.

[angelfromanotherpin]

1202424292[/unixtime]]I don't know how "epic" that is, but I will grant that occasionally, cool characters get taken out by mooks, or in less-than-dignified ways, like Paris shooting Achilles in the heel.

In some versions it's Paris who takes him down. In other versions, it's Apollo, taking revenge for a son of his whom Achilles killed; which is a considerably more poetic death.

[K]

I think the problem that most people have with dying is that they want to be THE HERO rather than A HERO.

THE HERO is the hero of most novels and video games. He may have companions or not, but the story begins and ends with him. The Wishsong of Shannara is not a story if the girl with the Wishsong dies, Spellfire ends if the girl with spellfire gets eaten by a dracolich, and aren't even allowed to play Baldur's Gate anymore if the Bhaalspawn character dies under kobold arrows. This is also the hero of the movie Conan the Barbarian, and if he permanently dies at any time before the final fight the movie ends (you'll note that he does get resurrected so the movie can keep going).

A HERO is the hero of a few stories and most games. It assumes that while each hero is a special and awesome person, an individual member can die and people can move on with the plot. This is the second Conan movie called Conan the Destroyer. In that movie we see that while Conan plays a vital role, the story really could continue if Conan developed a fatal case of the runs. Maybe Mabuto gets seduced by the Amazon and he fights the reborn god at the end, or the thief calls his "cousins" into the fray and the reborn god dies to their arrows enchanted by the wizard. Bringing someone back from the dead in this movie would just be a detour from the plot.

-------------

The key problem is that people that want a tactics game are happy being a A HERO, and RPers want the be THE HERO. These are fundamentally different positions, and tabletop gaming in a group really only has a place for A HERO. Sure, you can play Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights and be the THE HERO in a DnD setting, but once you play in a group you have to live with the fact that you are just A HERO. As A HERO your story, while compelling, takes a back seat to the overall plot.

Personally, I've never had a problem with being A HERO. In the world of A HERO, you are not the only hero in the world. Elminster and Mordenkainen might actually be in your world and be as powerful as all get out and your story still has meaning because if you don't defeat the Lich King then someone else might do it later, but not until after the Shire of Meadowheart has been turned into the Death Mire Swamp and the half-folk corrupted into cannibal undead.

[JonSetanta]

And that, folks, is yet another Epic statement from K.
Double respect for the Conan reference.

[PhoneLobster]

The problem with trying to play as "The Hero" however is not a Fundamental clash with "skill testing" and rules.

It's a fundamental clash with the need to play as part of a group of players.

It's the greedy desire to determine everything based on your whims and to discount all other input.

You can write up a set of rules that support your desire to be "The Hero" (ones that always let you, and you specifically, win), you can even have engaging skill testing rules for your being 'The Hero".

It'd be a bunch of bullshit that no one other than "The Hero" would ever play, but there is no fundamental conflict between rules and being "The Hero".

But other players, other inputs on the "story" those are fundamentally in conflict with that role or goal. Even with the removal of all strategic, tactical or skill based rules the second there is ANY means of input from another player then the concept of "The Hero" is DEAD.

Even if you remove defeat by skill test there will ALWAYS be the threat of defeat by another players input. Unless you simply remove their input.

Removing the supposed rules based "impediment" to playing "The Hero" hits a pretty basic dead end pretty damn fast, its as simple as "Bang, you're dead!" "No, Bang, YOU'RE dead!" "Naaah, you are" "No YOU are" etc...

And if you might recall that was what brought about rules in the first place. The need to punch this bullshit "The Hero" concept in the face for the greater good of the rest of the players and the continuation of the game.

It's not a conflict between evil abstract rules winning and you losing. Its a situation where if you can never lose none of the other players can ever take a turn at winning.

[jseah]

I'm new to the forum and one clicky got me from another thread.

I read the whole thread, quickly though so I might have missed something.

That said, I would like to say that many people have made good points, especially 'K' not too long ago.

However, I do think that you can use the group dynamic to solve the "The Hero" conflict with rules. As an example, this was my experience playing Shaiya over the past week...

[anecdote
Me and six other players were trying hard to kill a particular boss (Asmo) and we were at the recommended level to do it. However, we did keep dying over and over again. And as you know that MMOs respawn you when you die, we could try again... and again.

The tactical challenge forced us to develop new tactics to overcome Asmo. Although we had to try 6 times, when we finally did it, it was great! I made many friends then and we're a guild now...

I remember one of the times the boss nearly died and we were going to win when the boss AoEed us for critical damage. That sucked badly, but we tried again. And again...
/anecdote] =P

Perhaps the conflict can be solved by using the save state/load state solution. With an xp penalty to use. Overcoming the challenge with additional information is no problem. Most players wouldn't really mind. "After all, we died right? So it was too hard. Now let's try to use what we learned to make it easier. "


When I first start playing D&D, my group was all new. They got me to be GM and I remember nearly killing them all in the first combat scene. Instead of fudging dice, I fudged tactics. Instead of focusing on the wizard (me) and cleric, I had the 10 or so kobolds spread their fire among the party. I had them use the withdraw action when threatened and forgo shooting. My group learned that and pinned them against the wall...

We still agree my first session was the best run scenario. Its really hard to kill someone when you don't want to...

[CatharzGodfoot]

Rapanui: It sounds like one of your biggest problems with RPGs is that "mooks" can make critical hits. There's a really simple solution to that problem.

[Josh_Kablack]

From the assumptions being made about lethality, it seems to me like maybe some of you ought to try a couple game systems other than D&D. Other games can be either much more lethal (Rolemaster), much less lethal (Champions, Feng Shui) or completely non-lethal (Toon).

All of these systems can presumably provide both narratives and skill tests, so the paradigmatic conflict of the nature of RPGs is really completely independent of the lethality of a given system, and a lot of you have just spent 4 pages missing the entire point.

[Voss]

Or, perhaps, its possible to disagree with the fundamental premise, and not miss the point at all.

[Bigode]

"a lot" != "all"

[rapanui]

K, while you are correct and that undoubtedly describes a dichotomy in the kinds of players that will join a game, my point is that sometimes the need for skill testing makes it difficult to be "a hero", let alone "the hero".

Josh, perhaps you could provide a few examples from other game systems. Perhaps I am mistaken, but there doesn't seem to be much skill-testing in Toon: in fact the guidelines for the game encourage the player to "act before you think". This makes it more of a storytelling exercise with dice thrown in for unexpected plot twists rather than as an element to make battles exciting. Again, not having played it, I may be assuming too much.

[Username17]

In Toon you have to make a skill check to successfully read the label on a can. If you fail the check, you misread the label and hijinks ensue. That's the entire point of the game. You fail. At stuff. Constantly.

It's a game about being the protagonist in a children's cartoon. It's not lethal because even being "blown up" just leaves you blackened and smoking. But success and failure happen to you in roughly equal measures and that's fine.

-Username17

[rapanui]

Interestingly, Toon then serves to support my point (somewhat, maybe, arguably).

The narrative the players are creating are never disrupted by the skill checks because the failures are constructive with respect to the protagonists (the cartoon characters). The game is thus biased completely in favor of narrative-creation, with the underlying mechanics being rather pointless in terms of skill-testing (but work towards enhancing the narrative towards the unexpected). Toon resolves the contradiction I'm talking about because it's a game where the mechanics are the fluff, in a sense.

You're never going to use a grid map while playing this, I suspect.

Warren Spector designed it too, and I *heart* Warren Spector for Deus Ex.