Your character died. Big deal.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hardly. The difference is sizeable, perhaps, but it is easier (IMHO) to believe in a universe without monsters that can paralyze human-sized prey than to believe in a universe where you don't die unless you really, really want to. It is easier to suspend disbelief in the paralysis-proof game than the death-proof one.

I think one of the fundamental difference is: The "Death Flag" is not creating a universe where you can't die. It's creating a story in where your character doesn't die without the "author" agreeing with the possibility.
In the world, there is nothing preventing you from dying. But the story told about this world - and told through the game - doesn't involve your characters death until the point where the players wanted it to.

Most games do not have rules that tell us when a PC is angry, falls in love or wants to recite a poem. This is left as decision for the player. In a Death Flag game, the decision to die is also up to the player. Yes, that is a step far further then the aforementioned example, but it's still a similar principle. (And realistically speaking, how further is it? People in the real world don't get to decide when the fall in love, yet player can decide this about their characters!)

Then why have dice or mechanics? Why not just tie a towel around your shoulders and pretend to fight imaginary monsters?

Because there is more to RPGs then just the story-telling. But sometimes the story-telling is more important then the other aspects. Role-Playing Games are a unique mix of several aspects. Different people just prioritize different aspects - and don't expect this priorities to be always the same for the same person, either.

The answer I gave is upthread.

Since I missed it the first time, I am not sure I am not lazy enough to miss it the second time...

Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should allow the players to have their PCs experience the same risk that Bond does.

Some games would try to have the PCs experience the same risks Bond does. Some games would try to have the players experience the same stories Bond does.

And some people want a mix of both. If a game would really create the same risks Bonds has, the way you'd played Bond would look very different on how he looks on screen.

An example for such experiences my players told me about was Call of Cthulhu - either play resulted in no longer being invested in your PC, or being invested enough that you tried to get the biggest guns and most effective combat abilities so you at least had a slight chance to survive the horrors.
If you'd expect a "regular" horror game where the characters are unaware of the horrors until they are confronted with them, and worry more about running away then shooting, this creates a disconnect between what you desired from the story and atmosphere and what using the rules as a model for the fictional reality leads you to play.

In a way, CoC is the opposite end of the narrative spectrum here - we don't expect characters to survive or keep their sanity - we actually fully expect them to die horribly or end in an asylum - or both, and feeling nearly helpless against the horrors of this world (or the world beyond). Using the "simulation" of the world though, we end with paranoid characters armed with heavy weapons acting very violently... (well, at least we got the insanity part right - but what happened to the reporter that just ends up babbling some incoherent thoughts?)

Because lava bathing highlights the problem with survival-guaranteed mechanics, whereas the problem with SoD is, IMHO, the universal one with all rules: if DM and player are not communicating well, the rules cannot save you.

Medusas and Bodaks without a warning or context are very similar! The DM didn't communicate the risk that could have allowed the PCs to figure out a counter-measure. In a "Death Flag" game, a DM apparently hasn't communicated that he doesn't expect the players to make unreasonable actions (or didn't define "unreasonable" well enough for them to get it.)

And this errors in both cases can stem from the rulebooks not explaining its mechanic well enough.
"If you use save or die, remember that the PCs are expected to have at least some chance to predict the danger and create a protection against it. Of course, the chance and the difficulty depends on your estimation of the players and their characters abilities."
"If you use the Death Flag, all players should remember to act reasonably and avoid situations that shouldn't leave another end result as the characters death. Of course, reasonable depends on a mix of common sense and the group preference and can thus vary for different groups."

Suddenly, Save or Die doesn't look like such a bad mechanic too me, if it comes with this big qualifier. There would probably "more" to it - I wouldn't, for example, give a Medusa a Challenge Rating usable in a combat encounter, but a level for its "Quest" difficulty, or any other rating that helps me using it effectively inside an adventure, and not just in an encounter.

 

[Hussar]

Some people think that a good James Bond RPG should allow the players to have their PCs experience the same risk that Bond does.

This came up in the Mundane/Fantastic thread too. The problem here is that if you have PC's experience the same risks that Bond does while maintaining a real world chance of failure, then your PC's have zero survivability. When you try to jump your car over the river, you die. Car's don't jump rivers. ((at least not without some SERIOUS set up beforehand - and they certainly don't drive away afterwards. There's a reason they went through something like a couple of dozen General Lee cars every Dukes of Hazard episode)) When you try to fight the shark off with a knife, you die. When you try to wrestle someone out of their parachute while plummeting to the ground, you die. On and on.

Bond is a perfect example of why you need to mitigate the chances of death in order to make a good game. If you want to play a spy game with realistic chances of death, then Bond is NOT the inspiration you should start with. In order to do Bond as a game, you have to have mechanics in place that allow you to mitigate lethality.

And, oh look, the Bond game does in fact HAVE mechanics to mitigate death. Hero points back in the 80's.

 

[Hussar]

Suddenly, Save or Die doesn't look like such a bad mechanic too me, if it comes with this big qualifier. There would probably "more" to it - I wouldn't, for example, give a Medusa a Challenge Rating usable in a combat encounter, but a level for its "Quest" difficulty, or any other rating that helps me using it effectively inside an adventure, and not just in an encounter.

See, to me, this is the big problem.

The SoD mechanics force me as the DM to set up the monster in a completely different way than any other monster. I can drop an ogre into that orc strong hold and not even blink. No one would be terribly shocked, and, if the party meets it, they can either fight or run away.

But, if I use a medusa, suddenly I have to pretend that the medusa is mentally retarded (never cleans up after herself), that she stays in one place long enough that people learn about her, and I have to give ample opportunities to the players to learn all this. And, in addition, in order for the forewarning to be effective, I have to pretty much tell the players EXACTLY where the medusa is, because the durations of any protective magic mean that they cannot simply turn on their shields and go exploring. But, if they get caught without their protection on, it's no different than if I didn't warn them at all.

For me, it's just too much of a PITA.

And, one other thing. Since RC's bringing up older editions so often. Considering how many purely mundane monsters in 1e had SoD (snakes, spiders, etc), how exactly do you communicate to your players that there is a SoD monster in the area?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think one of the fundamental difference is: The "Death Flag" is not creating a universe where you can't die. It's creating a story in where your character doesn't die without the "author" agreeing with the possibility.

I did say "unless you really, really want to".

There have been a lot of threads about poor DMing, where the consensus has been that, if the DM wants to be an author, he should write instead of playing D&D. I see this as the flip side, personally. IMHO, the "story" arises out of what occurs in the game; it should not be foreordained.

YMMV, obviously.

Since I missed it the first time, I am not sure I am not lazy enough to miss it the second time...

I am not sure I am not lazy enough to go back through the thread, and then cut & paste, to give you a second time.

Some games would try to have the PCs experience the same risks Bond does. Some games would try to have the players experience the same stories Bond does.

I call that second category "movies" and "novels".

In a way, CoC is the opposite end of the narrative spectrum here - we don't expect characters to survive or keep their sanity - we actually fully expect them to die horribly or end in an asylum - or both, and feeling nearly helpless against the horrors of this world (or the world beyond). Using the "simulation" of the world though, we end with paranoid characters armed with heavy weapons acting very violently... (well, at least we got the insanity part right - but what happened to the reporter that just ends up babbling some incoherent thoughts?)

This is just a good example of how trying to force the game to match authorial control simply doesn't work.

And this errors in both cases can stem from the rulebooks not explaining its mechanic well enough.
"If you use save or die, remember that the PCs are expected to have at least some chance to predict the danger and create a protection against it. Of course, the chance and the difficulty depends on your estimation of the players and their characters abilities."

Here we agree. Of course, when D&D first appeared, it was imagined that it would spread virally. You would play under a good DM, learn how the rules worked and should work, and then (perhaps) you would DM yourself.

We all know, however, that this isn't the model today, and probably wasn't even the model three weeks after the game was released.

"If you use the Death Flag, all players should remember to act reasonably and avoid situations that shouldn't leave another end result as the characters death. Of course, reasonable depends on a mix of common sense and the group preference and can thus vary for different groups."

The rules of the game constrain player actions, IMHO. The role of the DM in the game makes the constraints on the DM different than the constraints on the players. Why should the players behave reasonably? It the players are avoiding incidents that should result in death anyway, why do you need to guarantee survival? What happened to the "death flag" being the means to allow the PCs to be unreasonable in their behaviour?

Suddenly, Save or Die doesn't look like such a bad mechanic too me, if it comes with this big qualifier.

Then we agree, to some degree at least, on this one point.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I did say "unless you really, really want to".

There have been a lot of threads about poor DMing, where the consensus has been that, if the DM wants to be an author, he should write instead of playing D&D. I see this as the flip side, personally. IMHO, the "story" arises out of what occurs in the game; it should not be foreordained.

The story isn't entirely prescripted, regardless of "Death Flags" or other narrative elements. You can't have everything. YOu still follow rules that limit your control on the story. The cleverness on how you use the rules, and how players and DM interact with each others define the outcome, and while you might select certain "themes" and enable certain outcomes, there is still a "unsafe" element.

In Torg, there were "subplot" cards like "Romance", "Connection", "Mistaken Identity", "Martyr". These cards were distributed at random - there wasn't even a guarantee you get a particular one. This random element alone meant that pure luck changed how the story told in the game would look like. And just because you had the card didn't mean you need to play it - maybe you never need a Connection to help you during the adventure. Or at the point you get the Romance card and play it, the DM doesn't have a suitable "target" and instead rewards you with a possibility. Maybe the group never gets into deep enough trouble to require a Martyr to get you out...

I am not sure I am not lazy enough to go back through the thread, and then cut & paste, to give you a second time.

I call that second category "movies" and "novels".

You might call them that, but your call would be wrong.

In an RPG that tries to recreate a certain feel and story, it is YOU that is making it possible. You are using rules that constrain your options. Random Chance and your skills in using the system affects the outcome of the story. It gives you a relationship to the resulting story that reading a novel or writing a novel doesn't give you. It is a unique experience that can't be replicated by becoming a novel writer or movie watcher or something like that. Only an RPG can give it you.

 

[Mallus]

... but it is easier (IMHO) to believe in a universe without monsters that can paralyze human-sized prey than to believe in a universe where you don't die unless you really, really want to.

This is just something we won't agree on. It's easy for me to believe in a universe where the protagonists don't die. It same kind of universe found in James Bond movies or episodes of Star Trek, the kind of universe typically found in serial adventure stories.

Perhaps I should have said this earlier, but I think of RPG's as fiction simulators. The universes being simulated (to the extent that they're being simulated at all) are the ones found in adventure stories. So where you find death-proof PC's harm believability, I find that they enhance it, because death-proof protagonists are a defining characteristic of the fictional worlds that (I believe) RPG's simulate.

Then why have dice or mechanics?

What point are you trying to make here? I state that same ability to suspend disbelief during a James Bond film w/r/t Bond being in jeopardy would work for PC's in death-lite games and your response is "why have a task resolution system at all?" I am confused.

 

[Delta]

Therefore, the Save aspect is strictly seen unnecessary and just a boon for those that weren't smart enough to figure the counter-measure out.

You are playing word games. Saves give the hero one more chance to keep fighting even if things go wrong. They're a good thing.

I wouldn't worry too much about this. I think it has less to do with "hyper-experts" or experience at all, but just different play styles. Some people might even enjoy both - but a system can affect which play style work better (and I dare say).

I have to worry about this (experience of new players vs. hyper-experts) because I'm in the habit of introducing first-time RPG players to my games. I see a stark difference in games which new players ask for more of (simulationist, player-challenging, death on the line), vs. the ones they ask for less of (narrativist, stat-challenging, more abstract plotty threats).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You are playing word games. Saves give the hero one more chance to keep fighting even if things go wrong. They're a good thing.

I see several drawbacks. For example - in which story of the Medusa does a hero survive her look without a counter-measure handy?
Oh, damn, there is the story word again...

I have to worry about this (experience of new players vs. hyper-experts) because I'm in the habit of introducing first-time RPG players to my games. I see a stark difference in games which new players ask for more of (simulationist, player-challenging, death on the line), vs. the ones they ask for less of (narrativist, stat-challenging, more abstract plotty threats).

I personally think most new players will probably accept either route. And they might do this all the time. It all depends on what the DM is good at. If you're good at creating the "simulation" game, with intricate dungeons and "mundane" resource management, a new player will probably find this very enjoyable. But when you're good at the narrative stuff and your beginning player gets the opportunity to basically "do what Conan does" and feels like he can take exactly the risks Conan could have taken, he will want more of that, too.
And I would say that any individual player might figure out he can enjoy either route - provided the group (with a certain priority the DM) are capable of making it work, too.

But I could also see getting eventually tired with this stuff. After going through another trap infested dungeon that needed careful navigation and water resource management, the players might in for something different. After another story-telling heavy adventure where the players explored the moral and ethical meaning of their character decisions, the players might like something different.

And to avoid "wanting something different", most groups will probably actually play a mix of styles.

For my group there needs to be a certain mix. We don't play Death Flag games. We played D&D 3.5 (wartssave and die and all), and are now playing 4E. I don't think we could play a game with so many narrative "non-combat" elements like Exalted or Storyteller games. I don't think most of the Indie games would work for us. But I also know that non one of us would want to go back to OD&D or AD&D (and now 3E).

My first experience with what "narrative" can mean - and how simple it can be - was in a Torg game. My newly created character had an add in Throwing Weapons, but owned no thrown weapons. I asked if I could see any stone lying around to throw at our enemy - the DM said something to the effect: "Sure there's a stone around if you need one!" No mechanic invoked or anything, just: "You know, just do it, if it makes sense to us!" But just because there was a stone to throw around didn't mean I didn't have to use the rules to resolve throwing it.

(narrativist, stat-challenging, more abstract plotty threats).

I don't think this is an adequate description. A narrativist game is still a game. The player has to use the mechanics to excercise his narrative control, which means he is challenged using the tools at the right time - when to spend his possibility points or play a Drama Card (if we're using Torg as an example). And in any scenes where you can't or don't want to use your narrative abilities, you face the same player-challenging problems as in the "simulationist" game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The story isn't entirely prescripted, regardless of "Death Flags" or other narrative elements.

No; it is just more prescripted.

When I was working on The Game of Rassilon, to create adventures in the Doctor Who universe, I had to devise a system where it was both possible to die, and where it was unlikely to die. I gave the players several methods to prevent PC death....but not ultimate carte blanche.

I could see a James Bond game working this way. As with Doctor Who, you want the bad guys to be able to get the drop and James and capture him. How else will he learn Goldfinger's plan? And, when Goldfinger has Bond strapped to a table with a laser beam inching towards his crotch, you want the player to have to do something so James survives.

Something other than just choosing not to allow Bond to die.

You can't have everything. But, IMHO, you can do better than "survival-guaranteed".

In Torg, there were "subplot" cards like "Romance", "Connection", "Mistaken Identity", "Martyr". These cards were distributed at random - there wasn't even a guarantee you get a particular one.

Sounds like a workable mechanic. Not "survival-guaranteed", I note.

In an RPG that tries to recreate a certain feel and story, it is YOU that is making it possible. You are using rules that constrain your options.

Also true when writing a novel.

Random Chance and your skills in using the system affects the outcome of the story. It gives you a relationship to the resulting story that reading a novel or writing a novel doesn't give you. It is a unique experience that can't be replicated by becoming a novel writer or movie watcher or something like that. Only an RPG can give it you.

And, if you remove random chance, or remove opposition to getting the outcome you want, doesn't it become more like a novel, and give you less of the experience that only an RPG can give you?

What point are you trying to make here? I state that same ability to suspend disbelief during a James Bond film w/r/t Bond being in jeopardy would work for PC's in death-lite games and your response is "why have a task resolution system at all?" I am confused.

No, Mallus. You said "Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that." But the need for dice and mechanics, the random chance and the opposition to your desires -- in effect, the "real" dangers presented by the system to thwart player will -- amply demonstrate that it is far more complicated than that. If it were not, you could just tie a towel around your shoulders and pretend to fight imaginary monsters, and have the same thrill of victory.

I see several drawbacks. For example - in which story of the Medusa does a hero survive her look without a counter-measure handy?
Oh, damn, there is the story word again...

"Story" is what happens after the fact.

The events in an RPG generate a story. The more that the story is generated prior to the events, the less meaning choices or events have.

But I could also see getting eventually tired with this stuff. After going through another trap infested dungeon that needed careful navigation and water resource management, the players might in for something different. After another story-telling heavy adventure where the players explored the moral and ethical meaning of their character decisions, the players might like something different.

Survival-non-guaranteed allows for both story-telling heavy adventures and adventures with a real need to be careful. It is, in fact, extremely easy to alter the danger levels in survival-non-guaranteed systems.

My first experience with what "narrative" can mean - and how simple it can be - was in a Torg game. My newly created character had an add in Throwing Weapons, but owned no thrown weapons. I asked if I could see any stone lying around to throw at our enemy - the DM said something to the effect: "Sure there's a stone around if you need one!" No mechanic invoked or anything, just: "You know, just do it, if it makes sense to us!" But just because there was a stone to throw around didn't mean I didn't have to use the rules to resolve throwing it.

Hmmm......not sure how this is any different from AD&D 1e, with the possible exception that a stone is a more effective weapon in Torg? I know of no adventure module, nor of any DM, who so fully catalogued the world that he could tell whether or not there was a stone lying around without relying on spur-of-the-moment fiat. Would you be surprised in an AD&D game if you were in a bar fight, and asked if there was a mug around to conk your opponent with -- only to discover that there was one! I wouldn't be.

I don't think this is an adequate description.

I think it is a false distinction.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No; it is just more prescripted.

When I was working on The Game of Rassilon, to create adventures in the Doctor Who universe, I had to devise a system where it was both possible to die, and where it was unlikely to die. I gave the players several methods to prevent PC death....but not ultimate carte blanche.

I could see a James Bond game working this way. As with Doctor Who, you want the bad guys to be able to get the drop and James and capture him. How else will he learn Goldfinger's plan? And, when Goldfinger has Bond strapped to a table with a laser beam inching towards his crotch, you want the player to have to do something so James survives.

Dropping James Bond or the Doctor is not forbidden. Just killing him. The laser beam scenario could be a point where "all bets are off" and the Death Flag is raised. Or there is a secondary stake - yes, you still get out if you fail your "Escape Artist" roll, but give your enemy enough time to succeed at a part of his plot. (And remember, villains do always succeed at something in Doctor Who or James Bond.)
Torg doesn't have a Death Flag, but there are Cards and Possibilities that would allow you to escape most situations (in fact, there is even a "Escape" Card that lets you autoamtically flee any encounterscene) - until the point where you have tried this too much, and are out of (suitable) cards and possibility points. (And overall, it succeeds very well at emulating "pulp", with Indiana Jones or The Mummy very often becoming our standard model to explain Torg

Also true when writing a novel.

Well, maybe the "you" was not clearly defined in this context. It was not just me "the writer", it was also "me, the protagonist".

And, if you remove random chance, or remove opposition to getting the outcome you want, doesn't it become more like a novel, and give you less of the experience that only an RPG can give you?

Not if the random chance fails at delivering the stories I enjoy. I don't want to just to experience/create any story that comes out, I have certain concepts in minds. This starts even without narrative mechanics - if I create a Monk character I have different expectations from the story then when I play a Sorcerer.

No, Mallus. You said "Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that." But the need for dice and mechanics, the random chance and the opposition to your desires -- in effect, the "real" dangers presented by the system to thwart player will -- amply demonstrate that it is far more complicated than that. If it were not, you could just tie a towel around your shoulders and pretend to fight imaginary monsters, and have the same thrill of victory.

I think Mallus works under the assumption that the random elements are already part of both concepts. The random elements still require you to pretend they mean anything.

"Story" is what happens after the fact.

The events in an RPG generate a story. The more that the story is generated prior to the events, the less meaning choices or events have.

I think generally the goal is to set a "theme". We want a story about a group of secret agents that - under daring risks - try to uncover the plot behind the assassination attempt on the prime minister. We want to avoid that the players avoid risks because... well, they are risky. SO we give them some advantage when doing something very risky, an incentive to risk things. And this advantage can be: "If you fail in the risky action, you won't die. But you still fail at it. So, if you want to jump onto the car you chase and you fail, you won't die on a failure or be severely injured - you're knocked out and the car escapes. The uncertainty is not "do I survive this madness?" but "do I succeed at it?"

The thrill is created from the question: "Do I succeed at my characters goals" not just "Do I survive". The appeal of this is particularly - if all I wanted was to survive, I would just say the character stays at home, never going on an adventure. But that's not enough.

Hmmm......not sure how this is any different from AD&D 1e, with the possible exception that a stone is a more effective weapon in Torg? I know of no adventure module, nor of any DM, who so fully catalogued the world that he could tell whether or not there was a stone lying around without relying on spur-of-the-moment fiat. Would you be surprised in an AD&D game if you were in a bar fight, and asked if there was a mug around to conk your opponent with -- only to discover that there was one! I wouldn't be.

It was something I hadn't, at that point, ever thought about. I haven't been playing that long then. But the idea that it could just be there because I needed it was new to me. It was something I had never thought about till that point in my role-playing experience. It was, of course, when I had little experience with RPGs.