Suspense in RPGs

[Les Moore]

Dudes and Master Gamers, can't we all just get along?

 

[Umbran]

My admittedly repeated mistake proceeding from the assumption that the dictionary definitions of words are those understood by people using English to communicate with.

Oh, come on, dude. Really?

If I wrote:

"Here is hoping you avoid the other oft-repeated mistake of posting a highly condescending, passive-aggressive, and rude manner that leads to moderators posting in colored text to remind folks that if they cannot discuss things in a polite manner, they should walk away from the discussion."

That woudn't put you in a good mood to actually listen to me, would it? Of course not. You're setting yourself up for more conflict, rather than actually resolving or just avoiding the conflict. So, you know, how about not doing that? Thanks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My admittedly repeated mistake proceeding from the assumption that the dictionary definitions of words are those understood by people using English to communicate with.

Here's a few more:

Definition of combat
1 : a fight or contest between individuals or groups
2 : conflict, controversy
3 : active fighting in a war : action ·casualties suffered in combat


But, more seriously, "Combat" has it's own range and nuances of meaning in our hobby. It can be outright rules jargon, but, at least, it should reasonably be understood to mean anything pertaining to the combat rules/resolution/play in an RPG.

Many RPGs have Combat rules that make it quite hard for a PC to die, and fairly convenient for them to avoid killing. Even the most popular RPG of all time, D&D, currently has very generous 'death save' rules, healing, &c, that make combat far from lethal after 1st level or so, and makes it pretty easy (declare after the fact with any melee attack) to KO rather than kill.

And with good, gamist, reasons, too. If there were an appreciable risk of PC death in every, or even most combats, few PCs would rise even to the levels were Raise Dead becomes practacble. It's just statistics. Even a 5% risk of PC death per 'hard' combat would have more than half of 5e D&D PCs dead by level 4, for instance (there's just a lot of combats to earn the neccesary exp to level up).

Heck, even a 1% chance of death per combat would statistically work out to half of PCs dying before 10th level. Most campaigns, that doesn't seem to happen, so I don't think that the risk of death is generally that meaningful in RPG combats.

Now, maybe you're right and it's a smoke & mirrors thing - the /perception/ of the risk of death is there to provide drama, though the reality isn't meaningful. That's not unfair: it's not like any of it's real to begin with, what's one more layer of illusion or imagination?

 

[Emerikol]

I think in my games the players do try options other than immediate enemy destruction. I'll also admit they will run more than they will talk but they do talk sometimes. In my games there is no guarantee that the monster you face is beatable for a fair challenge. Also a loud battle will often lead to additional allies coming into the battle on the side of your enemies so stealth is important.

I try to map out the "plans" of the bad guys ahead of time so that I'm not influenced by the PCs and their planning. I like to see a good plan work. If the PCs are able to turn a hard encounter into an easy one because of cleverness that is a good thing. It's fun. It doesn't happen every time though of course.

 

[Les Moore]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I also encourage teamwork.

 

[Caliburn101]

Your rude, condescending tone that reeking of one-true-wayism you have been repeatedly called out for using for starters. Or maybe comments like this:
Were we not supposed to bask in awe at your experience and expertise as you toot your own horn?

Theirs or yours?

Perhaps if you want people to be receptive to the sagacity of your arguments, you should work on your tone and how you are coming across here because you are clearly not making much headway and possibly quite the opposite. Of course, you could continue insulting their intelligence or talking down to other posters while insisting thing that you have done no wrong and are in the right, but I don't foresee much progress on this forum should you choose that path.

Thanks.

 

[Caliburn101]

Here's a few more:

Definition of combat
1 : a fight or contest between individuals or groups
2 : conflict, controversy
3 : active fighting in a war : action ·casualties suffered in combat


But, more seriously, "Combat" has it's own range and nuances of meaning in our hobby. It can be outright rules jargon, but, at least, it should reasonably be understood to mean anything pertaining to the combat rules/resolution/play in an RPG.

Many RPGs have Combat rules that make it quite hard for a PC to die, and fairly convenient for them to avoid killing. Even the most popular RPG of all time, D&D, currently has very generous 'death save' rules, healing, &c, that make combat far from lethal after 1st level or so, and makes it pretty easy (declare after the fact with any melee attack) to KO rather than kill.

And with good, gamist, reasons, too. If there were an appreciable risk of PC death in every, or even most combats, few PCs would rise even to the levels were Raise Dead becomes practacble. It's just statistics. Even a 5% risk of PC death per 'hard' combat would have more than half of 5e D&D PCs dead by level 4, for instance (there's just a lot of combats to earn the neccesary exp to level up).

Heck, even a 1% chance of death per combat would statistically work out to half of PCs dying before 10th level. Most campaigns, that doesn't seem to happen, so I don't think that the risk of death is generally that meaningful in RPG combats.

Now, maybe you're right and it's a smoke & mirrors thing - the /perception/ of the risk of death is there to provide drama, though the reality isn't meaningful. That's not unfair: it's not like any of it's real to begin with, what's one more layer of illusion or imagination?

Mostly fair points, but I never characterised the risk of PC death as 'appreciable' (see bolded above) - I was clear that it should not be trivialised by the equivalent of script immunity, or drama in such scenes would be lost.

That is of course something of a balancing act, and D&D has used TL and CR to try and codify it (if rather poorly at higher levels). Many games do not do so at all and rely upon the GM's judgement. I am not and have indeed have never advocated 'do or die' risks in every combat, merely that death, as predominantly the point of combat in rpgs should always have some possibility of PC death - albeit not in bar-room brawl, joust or zero-g laser tag competition et al.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mostly fair points, but I never characterised the risk of PC death as 'appreciable' (see bolded above) - I was clear that it should not be trivialised by the equivalent of script immunity, or drama in such scenes would be lost.

What should it be trivialized by, then?

Even at 1% chance of croaking in each combat, half of 5e characters'll've died at least once before reaching 10th level. Raise Dead willl likely be availble in time for some of 'em, and then become a regular feature.

Risk of Death when Death is just a condition that can be removed isn't quite all it's cracked up to be, either, is it?

That is of course something of a balancing act, and D&D has used TL and CR to try and codify it (if rather poorly at higher levels). Many games do not do so at all and rely upon the GM's judgement. I am not and have indeed have never advocated 'do or die' risks in every combat, merely that death, as predominantly the point of combat in rpgs should always have some possibility of PC death - albeit not in bar-room brawl, joust or zero-g laser tag competition et al.

Death is the point of combat in an RPG, if the setting/genre/adventure calls for it, and the players are down with it (non-lethal options generally being there if you want to use 'em, even if it may be contrary to genre, a player can swim upstream if he wants). Since there are RPGs that manage to be fun & have drama without consistently (or even occassionally) making death the point of combat, I can't agree with your generalization.

I quite like the OP's idea of suspense as being what happens between the set-up of conflict and the likely genre-consistent (even 'predictable') climax & resolution thereof. It's more broadly applicable than just x% chance of failure (or death), and potentially a lot more interesting.

It also fits in the with indie ideas of 'the reward for winning is to continue playing' and 'playing to find out what happens' as well as with more old-school (I can say that now, since it goes back to the 90s!) storytelling ideals.

 

[Caliburn101]

What should it be trivialized by, then?

Even at 1% chance of croaking in each combat, half of 5e characters'll've died at least once before reaching 10th level. Raise Dead willl likely be availble in time for some of 'em, and then become a regular feature.

Risk of Death when Death is just a condition that can be removed isn't quite all it's cracked up to be, either, is it?

Death is the point of combat in an RPG, if the setting/genre/adventure calls for it, and the players are down with it (non-lethal options generally being there if you want to use 'em, even if it may be contrary to genre, a player can swim upstream if he wants). Since there are RPGs that manage to be fun & have drama without consistently (or even occassionally) making death the point of combat, I can't agree with your generalization.

I quite like the OP's idea of suspense as being what happens between the set-up of conflict and the likely genre-consistent (even 'predictable') climax & resolution thereof. It's more broadly applicable than just x% chance of failure (or death), and potentially a lot more interesting.

It also fits in the with indie ideas of 'the reward for winning is to continue playing' and 'playing to find out what happens' as well as with more old-school (I can say that now, since it goes back to the 90s!) storytelling ideals.

The thread is not just about D&D though, and of course the trivialisation of a great deal of the threatening content by around 12th level onwards means many people don't play past this level. D&D still to this day has superhero levels of power creep.

All of that other stuff is valid suspense material, but as I have said, rpgs are commonly combat heavy, and combat, like other forms of challenge in the game should not be trivial and without the chance of failure for the PCs or it loses suspense.

Of course if there is an rpg campaign without any combat, then the point is moot, but I cannot say I've ever encountered one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The thread is not just about D&D though, and of course the trivialisation of a great deal of the threatening content by around 12th level onwards means many people don't play past this level.

D&D is a just a current example, since you were wanting to focus on what's generally going on out there, and it's by far the most popular game, people are generally sitting down and having RPG combats in D&D. Rather a lot of them, based on the exp it takes to level up, and even a non-trivial chance of death in each combat mounts quickly.

(Besides, when I used Champions! as an example, you cried 'corner case.' Sorry, it was a /really/ popular game in my area in the 80s & 90s.)

All of that other stuff is valid suspense material, but as I have said, rpgs are commonly combat heavy, and combat, like other forms of challenge in the game should not be trivial and without the chance of failure for the PCs or it loses suspense.

That's just it, chance of failure, alone, doesn't produce suspense (it might only produce frustration, or just end the 'story' in an unsatisfying, un-suspensful way), and 'certainty' (whether via system bias or genre convention) of success doesn't eliminate it, because suspense can still exist in getting to that success & in the prices paid to get there.