Raven Crowking
First Post
Interesting post, Reynard!
On the Value of Uncertainty
Irda Ranger
First Post
Die roll. No question. The polyhedrals are the defining element of an RPG (even if they're calculated by a computer). EGG sought out and collected random-result generators specifically to take the DM out of the decision loop.
As for Reynard's OP, it's a good taste of what makes a pen & paper RPG what it is. Also, if you examine the different levels of uncertainty you'll understand why (barring a real A.I. that can replace a DM) no computer RPG will ever replace D&D. Consider the difference between Combat Uncertainty and Story Uncertainty. Computer RPGs (whether solo like Baldur's Gate or MMO like WoW) only have Combat Uncertainty. Your character can win or lose a fight, but he can't change how the story unfolds (much). At most you'll have 3-4 "alternative endings." From a story point of view, playing BG and WoW are almost as passive as watching The Dark Knight.
Couldn't agree more. See my sig. The DM who wants to "tell a story" should write a novel. Telling a story is not what D&D is for. D&D is a game that has multiple participants while a story-telling situation is by its nature a one-way medium.
Again, I couldn't agree more. To add my two cents though, I want to stress that keeping the die result is very important to avoid the death-spiral of PC vs. DM competitive gaming.
D&D is a game; therefore you need (1) winning/losing*, and (2) fun. To have winning/losing you need to have competition, but if everyone's going to relax and have fun the PCs need to trust that the DM isn't trying to "screw" them (which it's very easy for him to do, if he's a jerk). Therefore it's very important to keep it clear that the PCs are not playing vs. the DM but rather playing vs. the monsters & mayhem in the campaign world; the DM is just the medium through which the story is told, and an impartial one. If the DM starts fudging rolls (whether "for" the PCs or "against" them) he ceases to be impartial. Further, fudging rolls "for" the PCs is almost as harmful as going the other way, since even if losing is impossible, so is winning. It's not a win if the DM hands it to you.
*And by winning/losing, I mean by accomplishing the goals the quest has set up, whether clearing the Keep, rescuing the Princess or whatever.
This is precisely the kind of uncertainty that exists in my campaigns. Loss is certainly possible, so there are consequences for failure, but death is more-or-less off the table.
Let me ask you this: how much "true tension" exists in a game where, upon the death of your character, you immediately come back as another character on or around the same level of power?
Note that I'm not disagreeing with the notion that the possibility of PC death can ramp up tension. I'm merely suggesting that it's a little more complex that "PC death = more tension". There's also the question of player investment in their PC, which is a critical part of creating tension.
Last edited:
Both elements, dice and "role playing", are equally valuable, but not necessarily in the same situations or at the same time. Some in game circumstances benefit from one or the other or a combination of the two, largely dependent on the preference of the participants.
For example, I prefer not to use dice to determine the outcome of most kinds of interactions with NPCs -- Diplomacy checks, if you will. This is an area of the game where not only do I feel that player/DM negotiation works better, I also happen to enjoy it more. Being able to play act, ham it up and engage the players is one of my favorite things about DMing. I will occassionally call for some sort of roll during the process, but usually only to push me one way or the other if I'm on the fence regarding how the NPC(s) will react.
On the other hand, dice rule in combat and the only kind of negotiating the players can do is engaging tactics and/or the environment. I don't like "stunts" -- situation where cool descriptions give players bonuses on rolls. Rather, the description should come after the roll. "I am going to swing at the orc." *clatter* "I hit." *clatter* "A crit!" *clatter* "Holy crap! With a single stroke of my sword I cleave him in twain, spraying his innards all over his fellows and howl like a mad wolf!" Some games and/or playstyles suggest that last sentence should go first and provide the player with a bonus on his roll to accomplish it. There's a number of reasons I don't like this, not the least of which is that no amount of cool description can eliminate the uncertainty of the dice.
Then there are in-play situations that work best wiuth a combination of using dice and role playing to determine the outcome. Though no longer in vogue, "operational play" is a well known example: the characters are exploring a dangerous environment such asa dungeon, negotiating with the DM via the depth of their descriptions of their actions, and the DM determines what sorts of rolls to call for, when and at what level of difficulty based on that negotiation. Searching for traps and secret doors are the most obvious examples, but, in general, "old school" style exploration is best served, IMO, by a marriage of mechanics and negotiation.
There's also the question of what brings more changes, PC death, or other outcomes.
If you lose half the PCs in the fight against the evil invading army, but they get replaced by new PCs, and the fight goes on, is that a big change? Compared to the party getting captured, sold into slavery, and now faces an entirely different campaign set on a) escaping b) dealing with the region's dangers they are now in and c) maybe return to their home?
I recently got over my old notes from 2E, when we started a campaign we're still running today. In one of the early adventures, we found a powerful magical sword. In the next adventure, a few failed saves happened and the sword went poof. That was the sword of the dales, and so the adventure linked by it never happened.
A few fights that were lost ended with the party sold to Calimshan, and the focus of the campaign changed from battling threats such as orcs in the North to dealing with Arabian Adventures.
I feel there's too much fixation on "if the lives are not on the line there is not risk", even though many players continue the same story, just with new characters, sometimes even after a TPK.
If you lose half the PCs in the fight against the evil invading army, but they get replaced by new PCs, and the fight goes on, is that a big change? Compared to the party getting captured, sold into slavery, and now faces an entirely different campaign set on a) escaping b) dealing with the region's dangers they are now in and c) maybe return to their home?
I recently got over my old notes from 2E, when we started a campaign we're still running today. In one of the early adventures, we found a powerful magical sword. In the next adventure, a few failed saves happened and the sword went poof. That was the sword of the dales, and so the adventure linked by it never happened.
A few fights that were lost ended with the party sold to Calimshan, and the focus of the campaign changed from battling threats such as orcs in the North to dealing with Arabian Adventures.
I feel there's too much fixation on "if the lives are not on the line there is not risk", even though many players continue the same story, just with new characters, sometimes even after a TPK.
Orryn Emrys
Explorer
I have been gifted, I suppose, with a group of players who tend to become intimately invested in their characters. The majority of them focus on the development and personal growth and emotional experiences they share with their characters over any statistics on the page. They watch them learn and change with the organic nature of the game, focus on the things that drive them, what they desire or fear... And, upon occasion, they watch them fall before their enemies.
On those rare occasions when PCs have died in the past, there has never truly been an end to the mourning. So, in answer to your question, I have yet to see the writing up of a new character to replace an old one in any of my campaigns taken lightly, though we make a conscious effort to also be enthusiastic about the new opportunities and challenges presented to us.
Frankly, despite the unavoidable elements that support the practice within the structure of the game, I have always looked upon anything which somehow cheapens the life or death of a character with suspicion and distaste. Even resurrection magic in my campaign is treated with a certain solemnity, and characters who have died and returned from the dead are usually never quite the same....
Orryn Emrys
Explorer
I clearly support a gaming style which allows for the risk of character death, but a fair share of the challenges presented in my games are certainly not life-or-death scenarios, but are no less tragic for the loss. Of course, my games frequently include elements of political intrigue, power struggles, religious agendas, a criminal underworld, diplomacy, betrayal, personal sacrifice, epic quests, protecting and/or saving the lives of others, laying one's life on the line, fighting for a cause, dark goings-on, responsibility for one's actions, love and hate and everything that goes with it, trying to make the world/city/town/slum a better place, etcetera...
You know... fun stuff. The greater the risk, the greater the reward.
Joshua Randall
Legend
Great post.
Tangentially related (and bear with me here), I recently finished reading Dr Midnight's "Tales of the Knights of the Silver Quill", which is a D&D story hour. What made it particulary interesting to me is the amount of (apparent) uncertainty introduced into the story by the frequent deaths of the PCs.
For example, early in the story, a particular PC swears a vow of vengeance against an enemy NPC who killed the PC's mentor. But,
, that act lacks any particular meaning in the story as a whole. The story might have been completely different if
; perhaps he would have gone on to
, leading to many adventures -- adventures that did not, in fact, ever happen.
I'm fascinated by this sort of thing, the result of D&D's randomness. Once you embrace that randomness as a DM, it can lead to an entirely new way of preparing for and running the game. You need to be a lot more improvisational, able to react to whatever the dice (plus the players' decisions) cause to happen in the world.
Tangentially related (and bear with me here), I recently finished reading Dr Midnight's "Tales of the Knights of the Silver Quill", which is a D&D story hour. What made it particulary interesting to me is the amount of (apparent) uncertainty introduced into the story by the frequent deaths of the PCs.
For example, early in the story, a particular PC swears a vow of vengeance against an enemy NPC who killed the PC's mentor. But,
the PC is killed before he can take his revenge... and though the NPC is killed by the other PCs
the revenge-seeking PC had survived
root out the rest of the evil NPC's organization
I'm fascinated by this sort of thing, the result of D&D's randomness. Once you embrace that randomness as a DM, it can lead to an entirely new way of preparing for and running the game. You need to be a lot more improvisational, able to react to whatever the dice (plus the players' decisions) cause to happen in the world.
Let's move away from issues of character death for a moment, since it tends to take control over a discussion and that's not really the subject at hand.
Before Hrothwulf became a patch of vermillion on white, he must have been created. In D&D, there's a continuum of randomness to intentional design in character creation. At one end, there's nearly complete random generation, and at the other is nearly purely intentional design. (I say nearly in both cases because, if nothing else, there are limits on the possibilities, both random and intentional.)
In the former instance, Hrothwulf's player took up 3d6 and rolled them in order, and perhaps used a "lifepath" style set of tables to determine background, culture and other character elements. When the last die had finally come to rest, the player was left with a collection of information that resulted in Hrothwulf, the nordic, axe-wielding barbarian warrior. Even using this random method, however, there were likely elements the player chose, even if those choices were limited and informed by the random results.
In the latter instance, the player came to the table with Hrothwulf already formed in his mind and set down to intentionally design that character within the framework of the character generation rules. Even with the most permissive of DM's and the largest library of options, Hrothwuld would likely end up only an approximation of the character in the player's mind.
For my part, I generally prefer character generation closer to the random side of this continuum, but not without some degree of player choice and methods by which completely debilitating or versimilitude breaking results can be mitigated. I like to roll stats (whether as a player myself or as a DM) in the order they appear on the character sheet (but with 4d6-L or similarly aboive average system) and roll random backgrounds/social status/etc... At this point, you've got the character's birth circumstances -- stuff we don't get to pick ourselves -- and from there you can build a character you want to play. IME, this random foundation results in not only more well rounded, interesting characters but usually ends up adding to the campaign as a whole by extension.
I think this is particularly true in 1E and 2E, where the choices available to the players are affected by the results of their rolls during chargen. Once a player was dead set on a druid in 2E but did not roll high enough and ended up creating a character that had wanted to be a druid but was rejected. this colored the character's entire outlook on life and adventure and added depth and interesting story possibilities -- all of which would have been lost if I had simply said, "Okay, switch Strength and Charisma so you can play a druid."
Before Hrothwulf became a patch of vermillion on white, he must have been created. In D&D, there's a continuum of randomness to intentional design in character creation. At one end, there's nearly complete random generation, and at the other is nearly purely intentional design. (I say nearly in both cases because, if nothing else, there are limits on the possibilities, both random and intentional.)
In the former instance, Hrothwulf's player took up 3d6 and rolled them in order, and perhaps used a "lifepath" style set of tables to determine background, culture and other character elements. When the last die had finally come to rest, the player was left with a collection of information that resulted in Hrothwulf, the nordic, axe-wielding barbarian warrior. Even using this random method, however, there were likely elements the player chose, even if those choices were limited and informed by the random results.
In the latter instance, the player came to the table with Hrothwulf already formed in his mind and set down to intentionally design that character within the framework of the character generation rules. Even with the most permissive of DM's and the largest library of options, Hrothwuld would likely end up only an approximation of the character in the player's mind.
For my part, I generally prefer character generation closer to the random side of this continuum, but not without some degree of player choice and methods by which completely debilitating or versimilitude breaking results can be mitigated. I like to roll stats (whether as a player myself or as a DM) in the order they appear on the character sheet (but with 4d6-L or similarly aboive average system) and roll random backgrounds/social status/etc... At this point, you've got the character's birth circumstances -- stuff we don't get to pick ourselves -- and from there you can build a character you want to play. IME, this random foundation results in not only more well rounded, interesting characters but usually ends up adding to the campaign as a whole by extension.
I think this is particularly true in 1E and 2E, where the choices available to the players are affected by the results of their rolls during chargen. Once a player was dead set on a druid in 2E but did not roll high enough and ended up creating a character that had wanted to be a druid but was rejected. this colored the character's entire outlook on life and adventure and added depth and interesting story possibilities -- all of which would have been lost if I had simply said, "Okay, switch Strength and Charisma so you can play a druid."
Similar Threads
