Suspense in RPGs

I believe in these director stance games, Caliburn, there is never any suspense per se but there is anticipation of what the other players will do. This is akin to writing a novel where one person writes to a point and then stops mid sentence and another person starts writing. The story goes around the room from player to player. Obviously in an rpg, they've got it down where all the players are affecting the fiction every turn.

No doubt from our perspectives that wouldn't even be what we've always thought of as roleplaying. It would be alien. It exists though I am not making this up. It's just an entirely different style of play. I don't think it's for me but it has it's adherents.

Goalposts and Strawmen: A Play in Three Acts

Caliburn: It is a fact that a game without dice is a game where you only get to choose 100% success or 100% failure.

Me: I just played in a game with no dice where you get to choose something between success and a little bit of failure, all the way to failure, but with a little bit of success.

Caliburn: Yeah, but you can't possibly have found that satisfying.

Me: Yes, I found it satisfying.

Caliburn: Yeah, but it's not popular.

Me: But we weren't talking about whether or not it was popular?

Caliburn: And two Youtube D&D guys said they like D&D more.

Me: Yes?

Caliburn: So you're saying that me and the Youtube guys and everyone else who doesn't like your game are wrong?!

Me: Whowhat?

-fin-

What are you even arguing? I never said that diceless games were superior to dice-full games. I never stated what my personal preference was between them (I don't have one). I never suggested that people should prefer diceless, or that dicey games shouldn't be or aren't as popular. I never said that diceless games can't have the same kinds of results as a diced game.

I'm not sure what you're asking with regards to all those actions, but I'll try to take a swing at what a player might decide a result would look like in a pass to fail spectrum.

* You pick up the sword, but the shopkeeper notices you trying to steal it.

* You try to pick up the sword, but your opponent is faster and gets between you and it and tells you to yield.

* You successfully open the lock, but you trigger a trap.

* You fail to open the lock, but you know where you saw the key that would fit this lock.

* You chat with the barman, and even though you learn where the Duke is holding your friends captive, you don't notice the pickpocket making off with your coin pouch.

* You spot the thief, but she spots you too and your hopes of an ambush are dashed.

Do any of these answer your question?

Emerikol said:

I believe in these director stance games, Caliburn, there is never any suspense per se but there is anticipation of what the other players will do. This is akin to writing a novel where one person writes to a point and then stops mid sentence and another person starts writing. The story goes around the room from player to player.

Click to expand...

Sometimes when talking about RPGs it's helpful to actually talk about RPGs rather than just make stuff up.

From Ron Edwards:


From Eero Tuovinen:


I don't know the game that [MENTION=55178]Nytmare[/MENTION] referred to (The Quiet Year) other than from the website link, but I had a look at the PDFs for the free Deep Forest variant. It uses a random card draw to drive both complications and narration, and has rules that structure what sorts of narration are permitted or not.

It's doesn't look like conch-passing to me.

(There's also this puzzle: in the context of playing a game which focuses primarily on narration of shared fiction, what is the difference between suspense and anticipation of what another will do? It's not intuitive to me.)

(Edit: fixed typo in Eero's name.)

Caliburn101 said:

Do you have any evidence of it's relative popularity, or is it niche to the point other such games have been? I remember playing one rpg without dice (Amber) which was ok - if it was a little like a long, long LARP session with no action scenes, and another was a tabletop board game. The tabletop boardgame (the original Civilisation) was rather more engaging in my opinion despite having battles in it.

As I argued, I think it is clear that exceptions really do not prove the rule - whether they are interesting examples or not. Randomisation next to a chance of success and failure is overwhelmingly mainstream and here to stay, especially in combat. Ask any casino craps table operator why human psychology will always make that the go-to game mechanic and they can give you a pretty straight answer.

We love gambling, and the chance of losing everything excites a primitive part of humanity's brain.

There is no choice based system that can provide that, and indeed, if no dice are used, they cannot throw up an extreme result that throws the plot and narrative in a surprising and unanticipated direction.

To cite some populist sources of the excitement to be had with such normal mechanics, both the Matthew Mercer and Joe Manganiello have publically stated that the dice providing such surprises is one of the great attractions of D&D for them.

I have to agree with them.

Click to expand...

Some people like gambling. Some people avoid gambling. Most are in the middle somewhere.

Being far closer to the "avoid" side of the spectrum, IMO gambling isn't the universal sales point you portray above. Over the decades I've been involved with RPGs, it's clear to me that some people love taking risks, while others are risk-adverse and keep looking for the safer, lower-risk path.

It's important for GMs to be aware of this because trying to force risk adverse players into taking lots of risks is probably a mistake, as they likely won't enjoy it, and that's not where their skills lie. Conversely, not providing risk-fans with opportunities for risk will probably bore them and have them wander off to find risk elsewhere.

One fallacy is that higher risk should provide higher reward. That's not necessarily true in the real world, and IMO there's even less chance of that in a gameworld, (unless it's written into the gameset being used, or provided by houserules). All too often I've seen players take dumb risks in the hope of greater rewards that are all in their heads, and not anywhere in the rules or on the table, and haven't been negotiated beforehand.

Fortunately, it's possible to dial the amount of risk within a game up and down, and even allow different levels of risk to different players.

Aenghus said:

Primarily unless the players want suspense in their game, attempting to create it may be a lot more difficult. Players who are primarily target or objective driven, whether that's hack and slash, loot, spotlight grabbing etc may not want suspense because suspense is often about the unknown and unknown variables increase the chance of failure. Players who want to succeed in game probably try to minimise the number of unknowns in the game and reduce suspense.

Click to expand...

I agree with your points. So this is just me adding a nuance.

There are two types of target driven groups..
1. Those that always want to win and want to look good doing it. The process of being victorious over their enemies is enjoyable. If you make things hard for them, they aren't happy.

2. Those that want to work hard to achieve their goals and if they get it easy it's unsatisfying. And when I say "work hard", I mean the group using their wits and strategic planning to out smart enemies.


Gygax in teaching DMs in the DMG 1e had this sort of group because what he taught in that book was how to handle a #2 sort of group. I've since learned that there are more varieties than this one type. I've also noticed in newer editions of D&D that the presumed type of group has swung a bit in the direction of #1.

Still good points and each group likely falls on a scale between extreme #1 and extreme #2.

Nytmare said:

Goalposts and Strawmen: A Play in Three Acts

Caliburn: It is a fact that a game without dice is a game where you only get to choose 100% success or 100% failure.

Me: I just played in a game with no dice where you get to choose something between success and a little bit of failure, all the way to failure, but with a little bit of success.

Caliburn: Yeah, but you can't possibly have found that satisfying.

Me: Yes, I found it satisfying.

Caliburn: Yeah, but it's not popular.

Me: But we weren't talking about whether or not it was popular?

Caliburn: And two Youtube D&D guys said they like D&D more.

Me: Yes?

Caliburn: So you're saying that me and the Youtube guys and everyone else who doesn't like your game are wrong?!

Me: Whowhat?

-fin-

What are you even arguing? I never said that diceless games were superior to dice-full games. I never stated what my personal preference was between them (I don't have one). I never suggested that people should prefer diceless, or that dicey games shouldn't be or aren't as popular. I never said that diceless games can't have the same kinds of results as a diced game.

I'm not sure what you're asking with regards to all those actions, but I'll try to take a swing at what a player might decide a result would look like in a pass to fail spectrum.

* You pick up the sword, but the shopkeeper notices you trying to steal it.

* You try to pick up the sword, but your opponent is faster and gets between you and it and tells you to yield.

* You successfully open the lock, but you trigger a trap.

* You fail to open the lock, but you know where you saw the key that would fit this lock.

* You chat with the barman, and even though you learn where the Duke is holding your friends captive, you don't notice the pickpocket making off with your coin pouch.

* You spot the thief, but she spots you too and your hopes of an ambush are dashed.

Do any of these answer your question?

Click to expand...

No - they only answer a question you have fabricated by design or mistake as passed off as my position on the issue.

What I actually said was that all choice-based mechanics lead to a choice of failure or success - you make it seem as if it has to be ONE HUNDREN PERCENT SUCCESS or ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FAILURE. I emphasise the 100% in text for you there to make it clear where my argument has been fundamentally misrepresented in your post.

I never said degrees of success were not possible or not desirable. I did not make such a black and white statement. I would hope that you have made the mistake of thinking that all choices resulting success or failure means that all failures are utterly wretched and all successes are utter triumphs. That is in no way what I said.

As for the rest of what you said, including all the examples you gave of degrees of success and narrative consequences, as it was all predicated on your erroneous opening statement they serve no purpose in relation to the argument, except to illustrate my point relevant to the second bolded text section above where you actually agree with me - openly admitting that all the examples are examples of pass or fail - precisely what I was saying all along!

So you see, you can state that all choices will be either pass or fail without making these extreme 100% versions of the same. You just did it in your own post!

This thread was about suspense in rpgs and as combat is a large part of rpgs, the suspense of not knowing where you will win is a big part of that. None of your examples provide that specific suspense as no surprise is involved. The actor chooses whether they succeed or not and the GM narrates the follow on consequences by choosing them. That's effectively writing a novel as cooperative author's - a form of cooperative storytelling, not roleplaying as it is most widely practiced. Emerikol in his #161 post clarifies that well.

I suggest you look at permerton's post #163 quoting Ron Edwards and Eero Tuovinen who speak perfectly eloquently on the shortcomings of what you are talking about in the context of suspense. Do you think that Ron and Eero are somehow telling other people that they are gaming 'wrong', or are they just stating what is very well known already?

The vast majority games have randomisation mechanics because the vast majority of players prefer them, and that the alternatives that exist whilst no less valid forms of storytelling entertainment have never, despite various incarnations, been anything other than niche games precisely because they are not the preferred mode of gaming. Likewise, combat is very common in rpgs and narrative combat, or combat with no chance of death (where, as it is so very commonly the point of combat) would be dull, and lacking suspense. That's my opinion, clearly stated, repeatedly, and I am far from the only one to hold it.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they think what you do with your own game is wrong.

pemerton said:

(There's also this puzzle: in the context of playing a game which focuses primarily on narration of shared fiction, what is the difference between suspense and anticipation of what another will do? It's not intuitive to me.)

Click to expand...

Beat me to it.

Does this possibly fall back to an offshoot of the argument about die rolling vs DM fiat?

Caliburn101 said:

This thread was about suspense in rpgs and as combat is a large part of rpgs, the suspense of not knowing where you will win is a big part of that.

Click to expand...

I think this is overstated.

Given that most RPGing is D&D, and that most, or at least a fair chunk of most, D&D play involves combat, what you say is true from the point of view of a census. But it's not true from the point of view of varieties of RPGs and RPGing.

I have been running a Classic Traveller game on-and-off for the past year or so. It's something like 7 or 8 sessions in. There was no combat in the first two sessions, which involved the PCs meeting a patron, going on a mission, doing some trading en route, collecting intelligence, disrupting an organisation, and planning a mission out onto the surface of a barren world. The third session involved combat - there was an assault on an enemy outpost. The fourth session involved the PCs being fired upon by an orbiting starship as they tried to return from said outpost to a city in their ATVs, but the PCs weren't fighting - they were driving, hacking communications, negotiating their attackers, interrogating their prisoners, etc. The fifth session mostly involved exploring an alien world - there was no fighting. The sixth and seventh sessions involved another assualt, starting with starship combat and then interpersonal combat.

I don't think what I've described is particularly atypical for Traveller, which has fairly robust resolution mechanics for quite a lot of stuff besides fighting.

And I think lack of suspense about winning combats is overstated even in relation to D&D. Given the importance so many D&D players seem to post on combat as a cause of resource attrition, I think many combats do not generate uncertainty about whether or not the PCs will win, as opposed to uncertainty about what resources might be consumed in the process.

Nytmare said:

Beat me to it.

Does this possibly fall back to an offshoot of the argument about die rolling vs DM fiat?

Click to expand...

What have you got in mind?

pemerton said:

I think this is overstated.

Given that most RPGing is D&D, and that most, or at least a fair chunk of most, D&D play involves combat, what you say is true from the point of view of a census. But it's not true from the point of view of varieties of RPGs and RPGing.

I have been running a Classic Traveller game on-and-off for the past year or so. It's something like 7 or 8 sessions in. There was no combat in the first two sessions, which involved the PCs meeting a patron, going on a mission, doing some trading en route, collecting intelligence, disrupting an organisation, and planning a mission out onto the surface of a barren world. The third session involved combat - there was an assault on an enemy outpost. The fourth session involved the PCs being fired upon by an orbiting starship as they tried to return from said outpost to a city in their ATVs, but the PCs weren't fighting - they were driving, hacking communications, negotiating their attackers, interrogating their prisoners, etc. The fifth session mostly involved exploring an alien world - there was no fighting. The sixth and seventh sessions involved another assualt, starting with starship combat and then interpersonal combat.

I don't think what I've described is particularly atypical for Traveller, which has fairly robust resolution mechanics for quite a lot of stuff besides fighting.

And I think lack of suspense about winning combats is overstated even in relation to D&D. Given the importance so many D&D players seem to post on combat as a cause of resource attrition, I think many combats do not generate uncertainty about whether or not the PCs will win, as opposed to uncertainty about what resources might be consumed in the process.

Click to expand...

Yes, all good stuff. But I was referring to the most played rpgs and most rpgs in fact - not all - and certainly not things such as Traveller, Cthulhu etc. But randomisation and not knowing how challenges will turn out is a big part of those too - san checks when encountering a Mi Go victim's body, piloting checks in an asteroid field.

Combat is just a common go-to example, not the whole point and taken as a whole, not overstated if you see that I have not referred to it exclusively.