Your character died. Big deal.

[Mallus]

You said "Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that.

Yes I did. Because it isn't.

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.

In our death-lite D&D campaign, the mechanics still produce all the "real" in-game dangers that all-options-on 3.5e can produce. We just ignore (or edit out through various means) the lethal results. This works for my players because they "pretend the fake dangers are real".

That's the heart of the matter. The specific rule set or mechanics used is irrelevant. We could be playing GURPS, Hero, Traveler, etc.

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.

My wife would strenuously object to that!

"Story" is what happens after the fact.

The events in an RPG generate a story.

So what do you call a story that's in the process of being written?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

But, again, what if it isn't raised? What if the GM establishes Goldfinger's "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die." and the player does nothing but sit back because he knows something will happen to save him. Has the death-flag mechanic delivered the kind of story you are looking for?

IMHO, and IME, the mechanics determine win conditions, and the mechanics determine what the players have available to meet those win conditions. If the player can't think of anything to save Bond, he simply isn't going to raise the Death Flag. In fact, I can think of no reason whatsoever that would compel a player to raise the Death Flag under the circumstances described. That would, quite simply, be the easiest way to fail to meet the win conditions of the game.

Main characters don't die often in Doctor Who, but they do die. Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Adric, K-9 Mark III (replaced by K-9 Mark IV), Dr. Grace Holloway (raised), Chang Lee (raised), "Captain Jack Harkness" (later raised & killed multiple times), possibly Peri (do you believe the Matrix or the Master?). In my game, when a time lord regenerated, another player took that character over, so it meant that "dying" removed your ability to play that character, even if the character went on.

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.)

This doesn't require a Death Flag mechanic.

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.

You can emulate survival-guaranteed with survival-optional. You just lower the threshold of danger. Make your PCs 10th level and their opponents 1st level. Give those opponents means to thwart the PCs that don't rely on combat prowess.

I don't believe you can emulate survival-optional nearly as well with survival-guaranteed. In fact, I believe it to be a stretch to say that you can emulate it at all.

The thrill is created from the question: "Do I succeed at my characters goals" not just "Do I survive".

This thrill is not limited to survival-guaranteed gaming. "Survival-optional" doesn't mean "You gonna die, horribly and soon!"

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.

And it has little to do with the point you were trying to make.

Yes I did. Because it isn't.

In our death-lite D&D campaign, the mechanics still produce all the "real" in-game dangers that all-options-on 3.5e can produce. We just ignore (or edit out through various means) the lethal results. This works for my players because they "pretend the fake dangers are real".

I have a set inclusive of all whole numbers 1-10.

You have a set inclusive of all whole numbers 1-10, but you decided to remove 8-10.

You then claim that your set is as large as mine.

Hopefully, you understand why I am not convinced.


RC

 

[Hussar]

But, again, what if it isn't raised? What if the GM establishes Goldfinger's "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die." and the player does nothing but sit back because he knows something will happen to save him. Has the death-flag mechanic delivered the kind of story you are looking for?

But, now we're right back to lack of communication. The Player is deliberately short circuiting the system. The player hasn't bought into the system.

IMHO, and IME, the mechanics determine win conditions, and the mechanics determine what the players have available to meet those win conditions. If the player can't think of anything to save Bond, he simply isn't going to raise the Death Flag. In fact, I can think of no reason whatsoever that would compel a player to raise the Death Flag under the circumstances described. That would, quite simply, be the easiest way to fail to meet the win conditions of the game.

Not everyone plays to "win".

Main characters don't die often in Doctor Who, but they do die. Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Adric, K-9 Mark III (replaced by K-9 Mark IV), Dr. Grace Holloway (raised), Chang Lee (raised), "Captain Jack Harkness" (later raised & killed multiple times), possibly Peri (do you believe the Matrix or the Master?). In my game, when a time lord regenerated, another player took that character over, so it meant that "dying" removed your ability to play that character, even if the character went on.

Funnily enough, the original Doctor Who game went a different route. Made combat so intensely lethal that you'd have to be suicidal to try.

This doesn't require a Death Flag mechanic.

No one has said that death flag mechanics are a requirement. Just that death flag mechanics are one possible mechanic to use.

You can emulate survival-guaranteed with survival-optional. You just lower the threshold of danger. Make your PCs 10th level and their opponents 1st level. Give those opponents means to thwart the PCs that don't rely on combat prowess.

I don't believe you can emulate survival-optional nearly as well with survival-guaranteed. In fact, I believe it to be a stretch to say that you can emulate it at all.

{quote]The thrill is created from the question: "Do I succeed at my characters goals" not just "Do I survive".

This thrill is not limited to survival-guaranteed gaming. "Survival-optional" doesn't mean "You gonna die, horribly and soon!" [/quote]

But, save or die certainly does.

/snip for snark

I have a set inclusive of all whole numbers 1-10.

You have a set inclusive of all whole numbers 1-10, but you decided to remove 8-10.

You then claim that your set is as large as mine.

Hopefully, you understand why I am not convinced.


RC

Closer to you have a set of 1-1000 and choose to remove 1000 and 999. Sure, the set is smaller, but, the amount smaller is pretty minor and easily ignored.

 

[Hussar]

Really, I think we likely agree more than disagree. Lowering lethality doesn't seem to be an issue, it's only the point of removing death from the table that RC seems to have an issue with.

That entirely comes down to playstyle really. Some games, it would make no sense to have a death flag mechanic. That's 100% true. Other games, I could see it nicely. Particularly genre games like Bond or Dr Who.

 

[pemerton]

If the player can't think of anything to save Bond, he simply isn't going to raise the Death Flag.

For which players is this true? Not those playing death flag games.

But, again, what if it isn't raised? What if the GM establishes Goldfinger's "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die." and the player does nothing but sit back because he knows something will happen to save him. Has the death-flag mechanic delivered the kind of story you are looking for?

No, because the player is not playing the game as it is intended to be played. There is no point playing a death-flag game with Monty Haul and Friends. Equally, those who enjoy death-flag games probably don't want to play 1st ed AD&D in its traditional form.

IMHO, and IME, the mechanics determine win conditions, and the mechanics determine what the players have available to meet those win conditions.

So if the win conditions are "tell a thematically satisfying story" then the death flag mechanics help determine what resources the players have available. (Or did you mean "resources the PCs have available"?)

You can emulate survival-guaranteed with survival-optional. You just lower the threshold of danger.

As Mustrum said, you can also have your PC not leave home to adventure. For most people who are actually playing a fantasy RPG that is not going to provide a thematically satisfying story.

 

[pemerton]

Really, I think we likely agree more than disagree. Lowering lethality doesn't seem to be an issue, it's only the point of removing death from the table that RC seems to have an issue with.

Normally I (more-or-less) agree with you, Hussar, but on this occasion I don't. RC seems to be either denying that non-purist-for-system 1st ed AD&D play is possible, or alternatively denying that it is satisfying. Of course it may not be satisfying for him, but that biographical point was known to most of the participants in this thread before the thread started. But I find it pretty outrageous to assert that it is objectively inferior RPGing.

It's as if no one ever actually played a satisfying game of OGL Conan (which has a death-flag mechanic), or HARP (which has a similar Fate Point mechanic), or any of the myriad other games in which PC death is not what is at stake during play.

 

[Umbran]

Really, I think we likely agree more than disagree. Lowering lethality doesn't seem to be an issue, it's only the point of removing death from the table that RC seems to have an issue with.

Well, there has to be a line somewhere, doesn't there? At some point lowering lethality removes death from the table as a practical matter, even if it doesn't completely do so in theory. So, where does the line fall, and why.

And, we can then discuss the difference between the cases of the party knowing it, and not knowing it. I have, in fact, run a game where no PC could die - it was part of the world metaphysic. But, I didn't tell them that. Played by the normal rules, two of the PCs would have kicked the bucket, but in manners such that still, the players remained ignorant that they've been saved.

Is this different than removing lethality such that the players know it has been done?

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, because the player is not playing the game as it is intended to be played. There is no point playing a death-flag game with Monty Haul and Friends. Equally, those who enjoy death-flag games probably don't want to play 1st ed AD&D in its traditional form.

Right.

I've seen people make a similar argument about Dread. In Dread, resolution takes the form of a pull from a Jenga tower. If you successfully pull, you succeed. If you don't pull, you fail. If the tower falls, you die. You can refuse to pull at any time, which guarantees that you fail at that action, but at least you don't die.

Critics say "But you can ensure your survival, just by never ever attempting a pull!"

Someone swings an axe at you. Pull to avoid? No way! Whatever the penalty for failing to avoid the axe, it can't be as bad as dying!

And sure... you could play the game that way, and ensure your survival. But why would you!? If that's the attitude you bring to the table, you're playing the wrong game.

If someone sits down at a Death Flag game thinking "Aha! If I never raise the flag, I can never die!", they're at the wrong table.

-Hyp.

 

[Hussar]

Well, there has to be a line somewhere, doesn't there? At some point lowering lethality removes death from the table as a practical matter, even if it doesn't completely do so in theory. So, where does the line fall, and why.

And, we can then discuss the difference between the cases of the party knowing it, and not knowing it. I have, in fact, run a game where no PC could die - it was part of the world metaphysic. But, I didn't tell them that. Played by the normal rules, two of the PCs would have kicked the bucket, but in manners such that still, the players remained ignorant that they've been saved.

Is this different than removing lethality such that the players know it has been done?

This occured to me this morning as well.

Lots of DM's fudge things. It's fairly common at a number of tables. Is this not the same thing as a Death Flag rule, just with the DM making the decision? Personally, I dislike the idea of fudging rolls, and, since I make almost all my rolls in the open now, it would be very difficult.

However, a Death Flag mechanic, in an appropriately themed game, would allow me to make all my rolls in the open, but allow the player to have a very limited control of fudging that was traditionally reserved for DM's. Is this a bad thing?

Like I said, it's completely dependent on the game you want to run. In a sandbox exploration survival game, I would never dream of using this. In a quest based campaign where the individual characters actually matter to the story (PC is playing the descendant of the deposed king - return him to the throne, for example), I could see this being very much in keeping with what I want.

In my current Savage Tide game, I allow the PC's to spend all their Action Points to turn any lethal attack into leaving them at -9 and stable. This makes death very difficult, but, not impossible. After all, if they happen to be taking a bath in lava at the time, they still die next round.

This is pretty close to a death flag mechanic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Normally I (more-or-less) agree with you, Hussar, but on this occasion I don't.

Strangely enough, normally I (more-or-less) disagree with Hussar, but this time he is correct.


RC