Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A Loser Is Yuo
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 7649685" data-attributes="member: 6688858"><p>Thanks for the compliment <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Well that's trivially true, so I don't think that's the point of this research. IIRC from the "Risk, Choice and Rationality" class I took a few years ago, the interesting result here is that people are risk-averse in the domain of gains, but risk-seeking in the domain of losses. e.g.</p><p></p><p>If you offer people a choice between $20 guaranteed and a 50% chance at $50, most people will take the $20.</p><p></p><p>but,</p><p></p><p>If you offer people a choice between a $20 <em>loss</em> guaranteed, and a 50% chance of a $50 loss, most people will take the gamble.</p><p></p><p>Basically, when people are winning, they tend to want to "take the money and run", but when people are losing, they find it difficult to "cut their losses".</p><p></p><p>Classic start-over-at-level-1 D&D challenges the players to deal with risk in a measured, at least fairly rational way as part of its gamist/challenge-the-player agenda, which I like, but it's true that it can lead to some emotional situations. A few years ago I was running a houseruled Castles & Crusades game where the players had a finite amount of fate points they could use to add a d6 bonus to any d20 roll. One PC slipped into negative HP and was down to -9 before another PC reached them to make a stabilize check. They had only one chance to save the dying PC, but the player chose to try to make the roll without using a fate point. They failed it, which caused the player of the dead PC to end the session in anger, and the two players had to talk it over OOG before we could play again.</p><p></p><p>Last year in my 1e game, the same player that gambled on the stabilize roll (he tends to play risky) liked to scout out new dungeon areas in advance of the rest of the party with his character. The scout role and payoff were never formally agreed upon, but the rule seemed to be that if he found a magic item while scouting ahead he would have first choice to keep it, or at least a stronger argument over it. Early on he died twice, once bitten by a poisonous snake down a well and once eaten by ghouls. He was upset and kind of embarrassed so I actually had to coax him back into the game. Later he found a ring of invisibility and a ring of elemental command:air, and he moved up a few levels on the assassination chart, so he became more effective as a scout and I think started getting the better of that deal (although the half-orc Fighter with 18/70-something Str, battle axe & shield +2, and plate armor was still the most impressive character).</p><p></p><p>Anyways, if a game avoids or downplays the possibility of player loss in some aspect because it works against drama/narrative cohesion (e.g. killing off the protagonist all the time), then I can understand how that would be valuable to people who prefer a more story-based than challenge-based type of game. If I don't see how it would be important to story-based play and it feels like the designer is just working from the premise that "frustration = bad" then I'm going to be more critical.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 7649685, member: 6688858"] Thanks for the compliment :) Well that's trivially true, so I don't think that's the point of this research. IIRC from the "Risk, Choice and Rationality" class I took a few years ago, the interesting result here is that people are risk-averse in the domain of gains, but risk-seeking in the domain of losses. e.g. If you offer people a choice between $20 guaranteed and a 50% chance at $50, most people will take the $20. but, If you offer people a choice between a $20 [I]loss[/I] guaranteed, and a 50% chance of a $50 loss, most people will take the gamble. Basically, when people are winning, they tend to want to "take the money and run", but when people are losing, they find it difficult to "cut their losses". Classic start-over-at-level-1 D&D challenges the players to deal with risk in a measured, at least fairly rational way as part of its gamist/challenge-the-player agenda, which I like, but it's true that it can lead to some emotional situations. A few years ago I was running a houseruled Castles & Crusades game where the players had a finite amount of fate points they could use to add a d6 bonus to any d20 roll. One PC slipped into negative HP and was down to -9 before another PC reached them to make a stabilize check. They had only one chance to save the dying PC, but the player chose to try to make the roll without using a fate point. They failed it, which caused the player of the dead PC to end the session in anger, and the two players had to talk it over OOG before we could play again. Last year in my 1e game, the same player that gambled on the stabilize roll (he tends to play risky) liked to scout out new dungeon areas in advance of the rest of the party with his character. The scout role and payoff were never formally agreed upon, but the rule seemed to be that if he found a magic item while scouting ahead he would have first choice to keep it, or at least a stronger argument over it. Early on he died twice, once bitten by a poisonous snake down a well and once eaten by ghouls. He was upset and kind of embarrassed so I actually had to coax him back into the game. Later he found a ring of invisibility and a ring of elemental command:air, and he moved up a few levels on the assassination chart, so he became more effective as a scout and I think started getting the better of that deal (although the half-orc Fighter with 18/70-something Str, battle axe & shield +2, and plate armor was still the most impressive character). Anyways, if a game avoids or downplays the possibility of player loss in some aspect because it works against drama/narrative cohesion (e.g. killing off the protagonist all the time), then I can understand how that would be valuable to people who prefer a more story-based than challenge-based type of game. If I don't see how it would be important to story-based play and it feels like the designer is just working from the premise that "frustration = bad" then I'm going to be more critical. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A Loser Is Yuo
Top