On the Value of Uncertainty

[Mallus]

I think group decisions like "PCs won't die unless the player approves" are simply ways of mitigating uncertainty on the part of the DM and/or players, strictly for the purpose of ensuring that random outcomes don't disrupt some overall goal or "story". While I don't like that style of play and tend to see "tory" as an outcome, rather than an intent, of D&D play...

I think you're overlooking a very simple reason why players might want PC death taken off the table: they like playing their current PC's. The campaign is more enjoyable experienced through and with them.

It doesn't imply that there's a predetermined story or any grand design. This describes my current campaign.

 

[Mallus]

I have been gifted, I suppose, with a group of players who tend to become intimately invested in their characters.

While I'd hesitate to use the word 'intimate' in a conversation about D&D... I'm right there with you in having players that are invested in their characters.

Which is why I don't require them to switch to new characters if they fail to overcome an obstacle. I try to find other ways to enforce meaningful consequences.

 

[Mallus]

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.

While I can't deny that random and semi-random chargen can be a blast, that having your imagination nudged by random die rolls can really get your creative juices flowing, my experiences are pretty much the opposite.

The best characters I've made were designed, and the very best was built using M&M2e, an effects based point-buy system with no random element.

Basically, I think interesting characters are the result of inspiration, which certainly could come from random die rolls, but they're by no means required.

 

[apoptosis]

While I'd hesitate to use the word 'intimate' in a conversation about D&D... I'm right there with you in having players that are invested in their characters.

Which is why I don't require them to switch to new characters if they fail to overcome an obstacle. I try to find other ways to enforce meaningful consequences.

Generally i think the group really needs to decide before the game, what the game is about.

A game about life and death heroism somewhat requires the risk of death (of course this is a continuum). At the same time it is definitely true that death might not be the worst thing that can happen.

This is of course true of any bad effects though. Some players don't want any change to the character they have imagined except beneficial changes (this includes changes to the characters money, equipment, cohorts etc.)

IMHO Uncertainty is only really useful as a dramatic device if failure results in bad things for the character or things the character cares about (not necessarily the player).

On the other hand, I also think that 'bad things' should just be beginnings for new stories and dramatic events.

I dont think i am expressing this well...come back to it when i have more time.

 

[Mallus]

Generally i think the group really needs to decide before the game, what the game is about.

I think that a group can decide what the game is about at any time, so long as there are open lines of communication.

A game about life and death heroism somewhat requires the risk of death (of course this is a continuum).

Serial adventure film/television/fiction doesn't place their protagonists in any real jeopardy (well, no fiction creates 'real' jeopardy, but you know what I mean). Captain Kirk or Jack Bauer will survive to the end of the episode. Ditto James Bond and Spiderman. And yet most people would describe these various entertainments as being about 'life-and-death heroism'.

At the same time it is definitely true that death might not be the worst thing that can happen.

Some players don't want any change to the character they have imagined except beneficial changes (this includes changes to the characters money, equipment, cohorts etc.)

I draw the line here. There has to be some meaningful consequences for failure. If a player won't accept any form of loss, I can't and won't work with them.

On the other hand, I also think that 'bad things' should just be beginnings for new stories and dramatic events.

Me too. Each failure is an opening for the DM to begin a new and exciting story.

 

[apoptosis]

Serial adventure film/television/fiction doesn't place their protagonists in any real jeopardy (well, no fiction creates 'real' jeopardy, but you know what I mean). Captain Kirk or Jack Bauer will survive to the end of the episode. Ditto James Bond and Spiderman. And yet most people would describe these various entertainments as being about 'life-and-death heroism'.

I guess i really don't see these entertainments as life-and-death heroism. It is at best an illusion of life-and-death with varying degrees of success. It is also life and death for possibly other characters just not the main character (eg Tara in buffy)

i see GRR martins stories as life-and-death heroism as you are never sure who will survive.

Games of course are not quite analogous to fiction given that uncertainty principle.

But if your players are looking for the thrill of escaping death, then the illuison of it can be shallow. As i said this is limited to a game where the threat of living and dying is part of the fiction, and this is still a continuum (easy to die vs much harder to die)

 

[Reynard]

Basically, I think interesting characters are the result of inspiration, which certainly could come from random die rolls, but they're by no means required.

The benefit of randomness in character generation, I think, is that it forces the player to consider aspects of the character that he hadn't and/or wouldn't have if allowed to create exactly the character he wanted in the first place. It's a rare thing for people to really think about their PCs' flaws or even unusual strengths. IME, most D&D characters made with point buy tend toward the cliche -- not because players aren't creative, but because a) many of our influences are media based so we're drawing from the same pool all the time, abd b) there's issues of optimum choices in the system, which are ultimately just based on the preferred cliches of the designers. Random stats aren't just "inspiring", through the game system they force a player to think outside their usual comfort zone/box. As they are doing so, they are justifying stats and the like, creating depth. This leads very quickly to asking questions about how the character got that way, whether from a herditary/cultural perspective or a life experience perspective.

Of course, uncertainty in charcter generation can have greater or less consequences in play based upon the level of uncertainty in play. In a tightly designed system where the math is all worked out and there are issues of shaky balance, high or low scores can have drastic effects. If the math isn't so tight and the characters stats are not as integral to play balance, or if play balance is understated or nearly nonexistent, then the consequences are less. I think an unintentional, emergent element of 1E and 2E, with stats only providing significant bonuses or penalties at the extreme ends of the curve, is that you can get more caracter out of the character without suffering mechanical consequences. There's little mechanical difference between a 9 or a 13 strength, for example, but those numbers can provide the player with character elements that they might not have considered before.

 

[Reynard]

I think you're overlooking a very simple reason why players might want PC death taken off the table: they like playing their current PC's. The campaign is more enjoyable experienced through and with them.

You're right, and I shouldn't have used the word "strictly" (this is why I like discussing this stuff in "essay format" -- I very often pick the wrong word when making quick posts, but that's neither here nor there).

However, IMO, playrs enjoying their current PCs *and* death still being on the table promotes a style of play I enjoy interacting with: players take care and act if not realistically, then at least plausibly. "Adventuring is dangerous business" is a mantra of mine, and when players and their characters recognize this and are motivated to avoid untimely deaths, the game is much more interesting and entertaining for me. Players who care about their characters tend to do less rushing in with all guns blazing and more planning and alternatives to combat. And when a character does fall, it is automatically meaningful, no "only during dramatically appropriate moments" required.

 

[apoptosis]

However, IMO, playrs enjoying their current PCs *and* death still being on the table promotes a style of play I enjoy interacting with: players take care and act if not realistically, then at least plausibly. "Adventuring is dangerous business" is a mantra of mine, and when players and their characters recognize this and are motivated to avoid untimely deaths, the game is much more interesting and entertaining for me. Players who care about their characters tend to do less rushing in with all guns blazing and more planning and alternatives to combat. And when a character does fall, it is automatically meaningful, no "only during dramatically appropriate moments" required.

I like players to make plausible decisions that their characters would make which can be very different than what players would make. Too often i see groups tend to basically act the same way time after time. Their characters might have idiosyncrasies that develop but the actual decision making is basically the same between characters.

I prefer when players have their characters make plausibly bad decisions that really cause the drama and tension to escalate. This does not mean outrageously stupid decisions that just wreck the story but decisions that would seem to benefit the characters goals and motives but from an outsiders perspectives is obviously a less than rational decision.

I particularly like games that give you mechanical awards for making bad choices that are in line with the characters goals and motives but that really end up ratcheting up the drama.

(A probably very bad) Example. In a game of sorcerer, my character's true love was his mistress who was the brothel madam (the brothel house itself was my characters demon). His mistress died and he then with the help of his demon used necromancy to have her spirit possess his wife so that his lost love would still be alive.

I knew that doing that would cause my character all sorts of adverse issues and it was tactically a stupid thing to do. But it also started a series of dramatic events. In many steps during the story my character made other 'bad' choices that led to more adverse consequences with all of these choices being made knowinging that they would bite me in the butt.

 

[Stalker0]

The last section of this thread has gotten caught up a bit with uncertainty as it effects the lives of characters. But that is only one aspect of the game...though in most cases certainly a prominent one.

A group of players and Dm could all decide the characters don't die. Whenever they are "killed" they are knocked unconscious or imprisoned or whatever. However, this group hasn't eliminated failure, they have just redefined it.

And failure is what is all about. A hero is a story CANNOT fail, not if the writer chooses. Take a Star Wars novel for example, we all know that in the end the characters will succeed. Sure he goes through his trials and tribulations, but we all smile knowing it will be alright at the end.

In a DND game, even if the players can't die, they can still fail. The country could be ruined, the world could be invaded, the players could simply not accomplish what they set out to achieve. That to me is the critical aspect, I think the main one Reynard was highlighting.