Danger

It occurred to me this morning that one of the principal sources of tension in a game is from the sense of danger. And that it's this tension that adds such a wonderful drama to the game -- it's this very palpable sense of danger that drives the adventure and is a major defining moment for the characters.

Fights/Combat are one of the methods for creating this feeling of danger (if the threat of death is truely present).

Moreover, the threat of a fight can create an even greater tension. It captures both the implied danger of violence and the unknown circumstances that may tilt the situation toward or away from a fight.

In Vince's Murder Mystery Pirate Adventure this threat of violence was very imminent:
There was the constant, real threat of a mutiny
de Oto's pending death if he couldn't prove his innocence
There were many different sources for the threat that had to be unravelled as well as varied motivations -- each was from a person who was very capable of injuring the players.

The sense of danger can be created in lots of other ways too. Players always expect the worst -- these fears can be simply played upon with the insertion of a mystery . . . a man in brown robes perhaps, who haunts their footsteps. An animal who always seems to be nearby. A distinct noise -- footsteps, the sound of wind when there is none, the rustle of a bush, howling, a bell -- especially when such noises are accompanied by a similarly distinct event!

Often it is the unmanifested danger that looms largest!

Of course, there is also something to be said for being strapped naked to a narrow ledge while giant shark (men) swim below you, a spider (man) looms overhead and a wizard with his lethal plant buddy gloats over your imminent demise. Oh, yeah, and the barbarian gets knocked out. That is a situation that'll cause a real queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach.

I don't mind saying that Yuri was seriously weighing the benefits of becoming a batman. "Certain death or itty bitty chance of survival, what are we waiting for? Give me the wings!"

BobProbst said:

Fights/Combat are one of the methods for creating this feeling of danger (if the threat of death is truely present).

Click to expand...

BobProbst said:

It occurred to me this morning that one of the principal sources of tension in a game is from the sense of danger.

Click to expand...

That is a fundamental truth about any story, and is necessary for any story. The characters in the story must be risking something, or there is no story and there is no motivation. Of course, the risk does not always have to be life and limb; one could be risking friends, loved ones, freedom, belongings, sanity, friendships, relationships, fame, fortune, emotional stability, peace of mind, etc. A common thing to put into danger is a goal. The characters have a goal, so they must overcome obstacles to achieve the goal, and they risk not achieving the goal. Every story, in order to be successful, MUST have that sense of danger or risk.

I could put your characters and their ship on an island and could threaten the loss of that ship, which would motivate the characters to go on the adventure to hopefully keep their ship. They may lose it and regain it in a series of reversals, but that could be the underlying tension/conflict.

That is where high level DnD starts to fall apart. At some point in regular DnD, characters can put all sorts of wards, protections and other things on their belongings, cities, ships - so that nothing is risked. This makes the DM's job incredibly hard. How does one, on a week by week basis, continue to create that sense of danger/risk/failure? One thing that can be risked is the world as a whole, because that is the only thing that cannot be instantly protected. Mordenkainen's disjunction is a good spell because it creates a sense of risk with it. The DM has to strive ever harder to put things precious to the characters at risk in order to create the story.

I even put in unmanifested dangers (such as the black spires and spirits) as well to create a sense of risk or possible loss. Such is the world of story-telling! Unmanifested dangers are extremely powerful - and can be especially frustrating for players who feel a need to solve everything, therefore creating dramatic tension as they risk not being able to solve it.

Anyway, such danger is a fundamental truth about any RPG or story in general. Without conflict and the risk of something important to the characters, there is no story and there are no motivations.

I see...

I agree that danger is a necessary element in story telling. However, creating constant threats in a man's home is not necessary. You seem to discount the character's own inner drive to do things. You say that without a sense of danger, character's have no motivation, but this is not true. This style limits players. It puts them in a pre-conceived channel and makes it very difficult for them to get out. Whatever happened to letting characters come up with things to do for themselves, then placing obstacles and danger in their way?

The Roland group had lions to find, owls to find, problems in Alisander, Vampires to kill, empires to expand and much more. Creating danger in their city too just distracted from their main goals and their real motivations.

The way I see it, in 3rd edition, there are limitless foes to conquer and limitless battles to be won that have nothing to do with creating fear and danger where a man lives. A little of this goes a long way...

Ya, and players have to have a fundamental faith in the DM/GM/referee and his storytelling abilities, i.e. the ability to create that dramatic tension and to allow for an avenue of escape or victory. Bringing in a monster or trap that CAN kill a PC is easy, bringing in one that CAN'T kill them is also easy. Bringing in something that will give them a good battle or good puzzle and ALMOST kill them is difficult.

Because without that faith, and if players just believe that the GM is trying to kill them (which I think is a frequent flaw of new GMs) the game becomes either a contest (players vs. GM) or a frustration.

I think it becomes a problem in the game, when the players who have no trust in their DM have to overcome an obstacle. If they believe the game is rigged against them, they will have no confidence that there is an in-game solution. But if they believe the game is fundamentally fair and that the GM is committed to providing an enjoyable but tough adventure, players will be persuaded to continue looking for solutions -- an avenue of escape or victory -- rather than just giving up or lashing out in frustration.

Players who have faith in their GM may go as far as to invent escapes where none were intended by the GM. I mean, in a GM's plot an inescapable death trap could be the end result when the players botch the adventure so badly that there is no hope of survival. But players that have faith in their GM will continue to fight and struggle and try things until they actually figure out a way to escape. Their faith in the GM is such that they aren't willing to accept defeat, even though that might be what was intended, because they assume that the GM has left them an out if they can just find it. And of course the GM deserving of that faith will allow them to escape if their method is suitably ingenious, thereby further enforcing that faith. It feeds on itself.

There are signs that players have no faith in their DM. Arguing about the toughness of the monsters ("We're only first level characters, that is a CR 10 monster at least, there's no way we can beat it."), arguing about the rules ("Well, clearly that mage couldn't cast that spell at his level," or "There is no way that wall has a climb DC that high. It should be DC 20 instead of DC 30") arguing about the setting or the behavior of NPCs ("Well the Knights of the Blue Rose always leave their prisoners with a knife, so they can commit suicide rather than be eaten by fire ants.")

Really, it isn't so different than real-life in many ways. When we sit down to pay bills or work out a problem at work or what have you, succesful people approach problems assuming there is a solution to be found, if they just work hard enough at it. We don't know if this is a DC 10, a DC 20 or a DC 35 problem, just that it is something that must be solved if we are to succeed. So maybe succesful people have faith that the world works in a fair, orderly deciperhable way, while unsuccessful people think the world is inherently unfair, haphazard and random.

Or maybe I just failed my Knowledge: Philosophy check...

InzeladunMaster said:

Anyway, such danger is a fundamental truth about any RPG or story in general. Without conflict and the risk of something important to the characters, there is no story and there are no motivations.

Click to expand...

Mark van Dyk said:

The way I see it, in 3rd edition, there are limitless foes to conquer and limitless battles to be won that have nothing to do with creating fear and danger where a man lives. A little of this goes a long way...

Click to expand...

Yeah, but would a player care more about danger that happens in their home than danger that happens halfway across the world? Would players be more likely to have an emotional investment locally or far away? Which has more dramatic tension, a foolproof, impregnable fortress or a tenous situation that needs constant tending? I can think of lots of dramatic reasons to bring the tension home. A good GM should always be looking for the plot that tugs the hardest on the player's heartstrings.

Obviously, I don't know this particular situation you are referring to. But with 20+ years of experience playing/GMing, I can guess this this is a situation where your trust with the GM is lost, i.e. It doesn't sound like you have faith in your GM to tell a compelling, interesting, survivable story anymore.

Mark, why do you find it necessary to turn everything I say into a complaint about my game?

I am not discounting a man's inner drive. Even that is based on a sense of potential loss. If people think they will lose something (even if that is a loss of self-esteem or the loss of a personal goal), then they are motivated to act. Without conflict of some sort, whether internal or external, there is no story. That is all I am saying.

In support of my assertion, Jacqueline Lichtenberg for the WorldCrafters
Guild, the Professional Fiction Writing School, says that conflict equals story.

William Ellery Channing said that "The human spirit is to grow by conflict." Stories are usually about the growth of a human - thus conflict is required.

I stand by my comments.

What I am NOT saying is that I run perfect games or write perfect stories. I am sorry you took my post as such. I asked players, "What would you like to do for the next session?" and I would get answers like, "I don't know." "Whatever you like." "We could do X, Y, Z, or a thousand other things. Let's see what mood we are in then." I cannot plan a game like that. So I made up adventures the best way I knew how at the time. I am sorry they weren't up to your standards. Keep complaining and quitting; I am sure you will get somewhere.

That was good...

A thoughtful post, and true. This is why I thought I'd try my own hand at DMing for a while, and so far, I think everyone is having fun and trusts me. I am having a blast, a thing I never thought would happen as a DM. The way I am thinking about it, now, though, is that I can create the world I imagine as a DM where I could not as a player. The world will still have its evil and awfulness, but I can see the good guys I envisioned as a player existing in my world as strong and plausible, and they can exist in my imagination without constant fear for their survival!

It is funny that I was criticized for being so cautious as a player with my last character. Everyone blamed me for this, never once looking at the game mechanics or how things were run. Ironically, I was the only character to nearly reach epic level without dying. Cautious, or smart? I don't know...

I am not complaining...

I was only posting a thoughtful message which you perceive as complaining. You insult me with your "just keep quitting and complaining, I'm sure you will get somewhere" comment. I did quit. And now I have started my own campaign. It is fun. I got somewhere! I left Inzeladun! LOL

I am not complaining, Vince, just offering another viewpoint.

As I said

As I said. I AGREE that danger and conflict is necessary. This will go nowhere. I thought maybe we could discuss it without emotion and hurt feelings, but I guess we can not. I was just making an observation, Vince. There is no need for defensiveness. I agree with you on many points. I disagree with you on the application of some points. That's all.

And before I clutter up this board too, let me say that I will not discuss it further with you here. Perhaps we should talk in person some time? Anyway, I rest my case.