Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[Umbran]

I completely appreciate this, and I love Savage Worlds for it. While I can't always scene frame exploration perfectly, Savage Worlds makes it easy to avoid low-stakes fights, for the simple reason that there is always, ALWAYS the chance a PC will die.

Problem: "someone can always die" is not necessarily what makes the situation high stakes.

The problem here is that "high stakes" is a gambling term, where there's usually only one thing at stake: money. The only question is how much money is at stake. And there's this idea that the person who is willing to bet more of that one stake is somehow more badass a gambler. And, lastly, we get the idea that "character life/death" is the ultimate level of this stake, and has the same value for everybody.

When, really, that's not the situation at all.

The stake at hand is not Hit Points, necessarily. It is, "what the player cares about," which may or may not be hit points. And, the character as a continuing thing may *not* have the same value for all people, making the risk of the character a much higher stake for some than for others. And, in the meantime, with all this focus on whether the character lives, we may miss the opportunity to make stakes out of other things the player cares about.

And that is all assuming that "threat to a stake" is really the desired way to get a player to feel something.

 

[tomBitonti]

Problem: "someone can always die" is not necessarily what makes the situation high stakes.

The problem here is that "high stakes" is a gambling term, where there's usually only one thing at stake: money. The only question is how much money is at stake. And there's this idea that the person who is willing to bet more of that one stake is somehow more badass a gambler. And, lastly, we get the idea that "character life/death" is the ultimate level of this stake, and has the same value for everybody.

Additional text omitted.

I think "high stakes" captures a sense of value and risk, which seems about right. Players may not be gambling, in a narrow sense, but they are risking something of value (their player health) for a chance of a reward. But I don't think "stakes" or "high stakes" are restricted to money stakes.

Where I'm seeing a breakdown is when there is only a possibility of loss. In a high stakes game, one expects there to be a possible reward that matches the stake involved. If a hallway can have a pit trip filled with green slime, it had better also possibly lead to a room with a player's death worth of treasure.

Another breakdown is that if this were really the circumstance -- roll d6; on a 1, you fall into a pit trap and probably die; on a 6, you find a treasure room; on a 2-5, its a simple hallway with nothing special -- then there isn't enough player involvement. Some folks are OK with this type of scenario, but I personally don't find it to be very interesting. There isn't hardly any story, and no tension except at the moment of the die roll.

Thx!

TomB

Postscript:

Definitions of "stake", not including the variations of "a wooden stick":

a sum of money or something else of value gambled on the outcome of a risky game or venture.

a share or interest in a business, situation, or system.

prize money, especially in horse racing.

a horse race in which all the owners of the racehorses running contribute to the prize money.

a situation involving competition in a specified area.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Additional text omitted.

I think "high stakes" captures a sense of value and risk, which seems about right. Players may not be gambling, in a narrow sense, but they are risking something of value (their player health) for a chance of a reward. But I don't think "stakes" or "high stakes" are restricted to money stakes.

Where I'm seeing a breakdown is when there is only a possibility of loss. In a high stakes game, one expects there to be a possible reward that matches the stake involved. If a hallway can have a pit trip filled with green slime, it had better also possibly lead to a room with a player's death worth of treasure.

Another breakdown is that if this were really the circumstance -- roll d6; on a 1, you fall into a pit trap and probably die; on a 6, you find a treasure room; on a 2-5, its a simple hallway with nothing special -- then there isn't enough player involvement. Some folks are OK with this type of scenario, but I personally don't find it to be very interesting. There isn't hardly any story, and no tension except at the moment of the die roll.

Thx!

TomB

Postscript:

Definitions of "stake", not including the variations of "a wooden stick":

a sum of money or something else of value gambled on the outcome of a risky game or venture.

a share or interest in a business, situation, or system.

prize money, especially in horse racing.

a horse race in which all the owners of the racehorses running contribute to the prize money.

a situation involving competition in a specified area.

I think we are getting lost in the gambling analogy here. It isn't actual gambling. The point isn't to have high stakes along with a potential for high reward (though with gambling really it is high risk stakes, low odds of big payout). The point is the excitement many of us experience in a game where death is on the table as a real possibility. How possible is going to vary from group to group and system to system (in some instances you'll find its as great as the 1 in 6 roll you point out, in others it is isn't going to be nearly so high).

For me, I want to be able to assess the situation and have some ability to gauge risk, then decide if I want to take a chance on something. That won't be the same in every instance. Sometimes there is simply a really lethal trap that isn't obvious for example.

Obviously this is a play style thing. not everyone wants character death to be a real risk in the game (and that is totally fine). I think what many of us are pointing out is that taking death off the table has somehow become common wisdom but there is a lot to be gained in terms of excitement and fun, if you are willing to put it on the table. I used to be the kind of GM who shielded players and worked to evade character death, but I'll tell you, there is nothing like the look in a group of player's eyes when they trigger a lethal trap and realize the GM isn't going soft. It creates a genuine spark in the game that I just don't see with other stakes (not saying other peoples experiences are the same as mine, just I personally have observed what Zak has observed).

In my case I tend to be a very fair GM. It isn't about outwitting the players or taking away their characters. I am always open to ruling disputes and will happily take back rulings that were not well considered. Sometimes this lulls my players into a sense of false security and they forget I allow characters to die when the dice say they do. So I've seen that look of "this is just temporary right? Do I really need to roll up a new character". There is usually a little bit of discomfort at first when people realize how my games work. But I think in the end, the players tend to realize that discomfort is worth the gain of having death be a real threat, because heroics matter so much more if there really was a risk of that blade trap taking your head off.

 

[Zak S]

It's pretty simple:

It's not money, it's not really about "character health" or
hit points", death-as-stake is based on a simple assumption:

If you are playing with a character, you like that character and you would like to continue playing with that character. And if you have made some progress with it, you want to keep that progress.

While not universal (nothing's universal), those are EXTREMELY common feelings.

PC death means those two things are taken away.

A character is, essentially, a kind of way to play the game. Playing the game as a 10th level thief is different than playing it as a 1st level wizard, or even a first level thief, or even a different 10th level thief. A certain game or kind of game (one you presumably enjoyed, since D&D isn't compulsory) is threatened when the character's death is threatened. If you fail, you'll have to start playing the game with a new character--i.e. in a slightly new, different way.

So long as we can assume the player likes the game they chose to play and the way they chose to play it (not big assumptions) we can assume their potential disappearance is a big deal. Maybe not the only big deal and maybe a kind of big deal they are not emotionally equipped to want to see threatened, but a big deal.

 

[Umbran]

I think "high stakes" captures a sense of value and risk, which seems about right. Players may not be gambling, in a narrow sense, but they are risking something of value (their player health) for a chance of a reward. But I don't think "stakes" or "high stakes" are restricted to money stakes.

I think you are missing my point, and in so doing, demonstrating it for me.

You are correct, that in the real world, gambling isn't always for money. But, really, how many other stakes do we gamble for that don't equate to money? In the end, the overwhelmingly most common case is that there's really only one thing at stake - money.

So, look at your own phrasing - "they are risking something of value (their player health)".

See that? Only one potential thing at stake - the PC's health. Hit Points are money.

I'm suggesting, as many have before me, that this is narrow. While common, it is *limiting* when every time "high stakes" come up, that we are only thinking about the PC's continued existence.

 

[tomBitonti]

I have felt risk over non-player health. For example, when a player sells a magic item for a huge discount, when said item had a huge value to other party members. But I agree, the game is mostly the players risking their player's health for rewards of advancement, treasure, and achieving heroic goals, in a mix which depends on the particular player. Or, the games that I've ever played in. Others may have different experiences. And I agree, player health ties directly to the possibility of player death.

In 3E and earlier, accumulated hit point loss would eventually lead to death (and possibly quite quickly, considering the danger of critical). I lost two characters in one dungeon to unlucky crits. Heavy picks are brutal! 4E modified that somewhat, adding death saving throws. I am thinking, 4E rather took away much of the link between hit points and death.

Thx!

TomB

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you are playing with a character, you like that character and you would like to continue playing with that character. And if you have made some progress with it, you want to keep that progress.

I'm not sure if that all necessarily follows.

I mean, I can play a character and like that character, but not want to continue playing that character. I can even like a character and like playing that character, but not want to continue playing that character. I've retired a character in the past because I felt that the world was too dangerous to explore, and I would rather player a character I liked less, since it meant my favorite character could stay safe in town.

The health and well-being of the character, within the world, was more important to me than my being able to play the character.

 

[innerdude]

Play agenda certainly alters the level of perceived risk and investment.

• Losing a character for a gamist means they lost. It's a reflection that they played "poorly," which can be disheartening, I suppose, but gamists are probably the easiest to appease, because give them a new character of equivalent strength and they can step-on-up immediately. The challenge of doing "better" with their new character can almost be cathartic and reinvigorating to a gamist.
• Losing a character to a simulationist is slightly worse, because the character inhabited a "realized space" in the fiction which can be difficult to rebuild. But assuming the character death followed a substantiated cause/effect tree in the game world, and makes sense within context, it's generally met with disappointment but acceptance. "Based on circumstances of the fiction, this was a probable, maybe even expected outcome."
• A narrativist will struggle the most, because losing a character strips away the ability of the player to interact with the themes and conflicts going on in the campaign. You simply can't drop in a new character to the milieu and have them pick up right where the last character left off, because the player's means of interacting the fiction has changed--even if you build an identical character mechanically.

Ultimately "death" as fictional stakes is most relevant when the fiction is at stake. If you're a player who doesn't try to push the fiction in directions beyond murderhobo-ing, losing a character is less a cause for distress. As soon as you view your character as being involved in the fiction beyond mere murderhobo-ing, then EVERYTHING at stake becomes interesting.

When the player has some investment in the outcome for the character in the fiction, death means unrealized potential for the character. The player never gets to see the fate of the character play out, or experience a character's "growth" within the fiction.

It's sort of like dating; every romantic relationship typically has one of two endings---long-term commitment or breakup. Same thing with PCs. Either a PC dies, or lives long enough in the fiction to become an NPC. (Obviously I'm ignoring the obvious third option, "The campaign died out due to real life game group circumstances." In this case the PC just remains in limbo. If the group/campaign never picks up again, it's the functional equivalent of the character dying.)

 

[Zak S]

Saerlorn:

I mean, I can play a character and like that character, but not want to continue playing that character.

I addressed that situation in an earlier comment. Which is why I phrased it as a "usually". Vincent Baker has said that in Apoc World the ideal is to eventually write the character out in a satisfactory way.

Inerdude:

Losing a character for a gamist means they lost.

I think you trying to shoehorn this into GNS language means you're missing the forest for the tiny tiny copse of people who fit these categories.

To cite a very simple example:

If you're a player who doesn't try to push the fiction in directions beyond murderhobo-ing, losing a character is less a cause for distress.

Incorrect: if you like murderhoboing with your 6the level barbarian you are going to be distressed when you die and have to start over with a 1st level character.

As soon as you view your character as being involved in the fiction beyond mere murderhobo-ing, then EVERYTHING at stake becomes interesting.

This seems confused:

Death is an interesting STAKE in this model because it's NOT an interesting outcome.

As soon as you go "What's interesting? That should be the stake" you missed the point. The outcome for someone interested in death-as-stake is either:

-you keep playing with that character (interesting, to be sought)
-you stop and make a new character(boring, irritating etc.)

If you're interested in aLL the narrative twists and turns of a characters life, NOTHING is at stake for the player because _all outcomes are interesting_. It's an interesting story--which is part of a good game--but it doesn't have the tension of risk--which some people like.


An ideal stake (in terms of creating tension for the player) is one where one of the outcomes is dull or otherwise feels like a punishment to be avoided.

 

[innerdude]

Hmmm, your point about murderhoboing is well taken; a level 6 murderhobo is certainly a more effective murderhobo than a level 1 one.

I don't think I was trying to say there wasn't a stake in character death. I think players always have a stake in their character dying.

I suppose what I was trying to get at is that the stake that's most difficult to repair, or duplicate, or re-insert into the game world is the character's dramatic stakes. Yeah, losing the functional component can suck, especially if you start characters at a lower level. And this may be felt more keenly if your particular interest is gamist/Gygaxian skilled play. But that's by far the easiest hurdle to cross to get back into the scope of play---"Don't start my new character at a lower level, and give me equivalent magic items."

The player with the most invested in the fiction surrounding the character has the most to lose.

• Death means a less effective mechanical character.
• Death means the loss of time / sunk cost of improving the mechanical effectiveness of the character.
• AND death means loss of fictional positioning, based on the time spent playing the character.

Ultimately, there's really only 3 possible outcomes for any conflict scene in an RPG for any given player----

1. Success, and the ability to continue to act in the current character role
2. Failure, and the ability to continue to act in the current character role
3. Failure, with no ability to act in the current role.

There's usually only two ways to invoke Outcome #3 --- death, or an agreement between player and GM that the former PC is now an NPC.

(Technically there is a fourth option, "Success with no ability to continue to act in the current role," but that's generally reserved solely for the "end" of a campaign.)

I guess I'm trying to sort out in my head what you're really getting at here, Zak.