Death, Dying and Entitlements.

[Raven Crowking]

I fully accept that a player's expectation to not die is a playstyle choice; that does not prevent it from also being related to a sense of entitlement.

Railroading is a playstyle choice.

Killing all of the PCs fiendishly is a playstyle choice.

"It's a playstyle choice" doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that the choice itself cannot be examined. Playstyle choices can always be considered "good" for those who choose them, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be examined in a broader context.

For example, creating fiendishly difficult situation after unrelenting fiendishly difficult situation is a playstyle choice, but it is one that has rammifications for the hobby as a whole if widely adapted. One can easily see how it might appeal to a certain type of GM. One can even see how the challenge would appeal to a certain type of player. But is it good for the hobby as a whole? Are we allowed to ask that question?

PC death is similar. We all agree that both allowing for PC death, and not allowing for PC death, for letting PC deaths be random, or for only letting PC deaths be planned and agreed upon, are all playstyle choices. They may always be considered "good" for those who choose them. They also have rammifications upon the hobby depending upon how prevelant those choices are.

If a player comes to a new game, assuming that his PC can die due to poor choices he makes in game, but the GM is of the "no to unplanned death" school, what rammifications does that have for the game?

If a player comes to a new game, assuming that his PC will not die due to poor choices he makes in game, but the GM is of the "yes to unplanned death" school, what rammifications does that have for the game?

(In both cases, apart from the obvious rammification that "Communication is Good, and More Communication is Better"!)

There is much of interest in the question, which cannot all be answered by "It's just a playstyle choice" or (worse yet) "Your playstyle is bad".


RC

 

[S'mon]

Can't speak for other low-fatality types, but I do write my own adventures. That way it's easier to account for things like "the only defender is a companion character" or "not a lot of AOE powers in this group, probably a bad idea to overuse swarms"...


...That's true. I admit that I don't see that; my players are reasonably prudent, and linear dungeons aren't a huge portion of the game. But us low-lethality types, many of us don't extend plot protection to cover being thoroughly rash. If the players have misinterpreted a threat level, it's a cause for minor concern -- because it's on the DM to accurately convey risk -- but if someone climbs up on a safety rail and then jumps off, you don't have to save them from that.

Ethan, taking my gargoyle example, what do you do if the bad guys (enemy House, say) have planned an ambush for the PCs, which you have designed to be beatable by the entire group, but as it turns out only 1 or 2 PCs go into the ambush, making it overwhelming? I'm guessing you would have the PCs captured alive? Or would you nerf the enemy group to make them beatable?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That's true. I admit that I don't see that; my players are reasonably prudent, and linear dungeons aren't a huge portion of the game. But us low-lethality types, many of us don't extend plot protection to cover being thoroughly rash. If the players have misinterpreted a threat level, it's a cause for minor concern -- because it's on the DM to accurately convey risk -- but if someone climbs up on a safety rail and then jumps off, you don't have to save them from that.

I give out a ton of information, all the time. Being prudent in a fantasy game I run is making at least some effort to pay attention to that information--or at least a fellow player who has payed attention to it.

I won't bail anyone out--short of situations where I think I have done a poor job of communicating. And even then, I'll do the minimum bailing out. We are low lethal because the players know that I won't bail them out. It leads to a certain mix of bold and careful that gets the job done.

It helps that we have no problems with the occasional "cake walk" encounter. Or rather, we'll have sand box encounters, many of which are not much of a threat, taken in insolation. I have found that encounters that would otherwise be somewhat weak sauce are suitable nerve-wracking when you run in a zero fudge environment. The nervousness that the disadvantaged foes might get lucky adds spice. The nervousness that you'll never know for sure how the pace might go, adds more.

Uncertainity is the biggest fear inducing tool in my toolbox. Even knowing that the statistics of the game world are in favor of the PCs over time, the uncertainity that this time might be an exception--is forceful.

 

[Barastrondo]

For example, creating fiendishly difficult situation after unrelenting fiendishly difficult situation is a playstyle choice, but it is one that has rammifications for the hobby as a whole if widely adapted. One can easily see how it might appeal to a certain type of GM. One can even see how the challenge would appeal to a certain type of player. But is it good for the hobby as a whole? Are we allowed to ask that question?

Certainly people are allowed to ask the question. But potential answers may require a few grains of salt. Sometimes people's opinions of what is "good for the hobby as a whole" can be intertwined with "this encourages gamers to do things I would not want them to do in my game," and they're not the same thing. Entitlement as an issue tends to arise from that conflation: the idea that "if I don't like this, it's bad for everyone," which seems to have more of its roots in "it's bad for me, because I might have to play with someone else who plays this way someday."

Heck, I'm not sure that there's any sort of consensus on what "good for the hobby" actually is. For example, I'd consider it good for the hobby that there are a lot of options out there, that people can play everything from fantasy to steampunk, highly romantic to viciously gritty. But it can be argued that fewer options are good for the hobby, because when everyone plays the same few games recruiting new players is easier, and therefore there's quicker cross-pollination between groups.

Personally, I think the best things for the hobby aren't specific playstyles or genres or rules sets, but more of a general emphasis on open-mindedness and communication. Like you say, it's an obvious ramification, but I think it's more than that. With these two ideals, you get the benefit of tons of options for play, and unfamiliarity or lack of a "common tongue" are easily overcome. The question of entitlement would also tend to evaporate, as a plus.

Ethan, taking my gargoyle example, what do you do if the bad guys (enemy House, say) have planned an ambush for the PCs, which you have designed to be beatable by the entire group, but as it turns out only 1 or 2 PCs go into the ambush, making it overwhelming? I'm guessing you would have the PCs captured alive? Or would you nerf the enemy group to make them beatable?

In the case of an enemy House, almost certainly "take prisoners," because that's damnably entertaining. You have potential escape scenes, or even (depending on player whim) I could have the rest of the group try to rescue them next week, with the captured character(s)' player(s) playing a one-shot stand-in. Plus, if the PCs are captured you can have some good dialogue with an enemy, establishing more personality at a point other than the battlefield. I would be unlikely to nerf the enemy group, but to be honest I can see areas where it could make sense within context. For instance, if some of the ambush party has reason to believe that all four PCs should be here, the logical reaction might be "Oh crap, where are the other two? You men take these two out, we're going after the rest of them to make sure they aren't trying to encircle us or notify the watch."

That said, I should note as a caveat that I've gotten used to PC groups that are built on shifting sand, as it's not infrequent that a player can't make a game but we play anyway. So I use a lot of tricks to keep the challenge constant without punishing the group because Real Life got in the way; I really don't believe in turning a tough fight into a TPK because somebody's out for medical reasons or something similarly unavoidable. So among other things, published adventures rarely meet my needs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sifting through opinions always requires a few grains of salt.

Well, in my opinion, anyway!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Heck, I'm not sure that there's any sort of consensus on what "good for the hobby" actually is. For example, I'd consider it good for the hobby that there are a lot of options out there, that people can play everything from fantasy to steampunk, highly romantic to viciously gritty. But it can be argued that fewer options are good for the hobby, because when everyone plays the same few games recruiting new players is easier, and therefore there's quicker cross-pollination between groups.

And I'd say that your second point was also an argument for having more options being good for the hobby. When everyone plays the same few game, it is easier to recruit new players, but also a lot easier to recruit someone who isn't compatible with your current group. Self-selecting via preferred options serves as a highly useful filter.

At least, that's the way I see it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I suspect that's one of those things that now video games simply do better.

I'd hesitate to say that. Lots of video games have a very low "lethality" (anything with a save point; anything with a quick re-spawn)...they're not made so you can loose, they're made so you can keep playing.

In an RPG, you always have more things to try: but since the GM is always subjective to some extent, that "accomplishment" is always going to be harder to get in one group than it is in another. The computer, on the other hand, is pretty objective. You get to level 100 in Diablo on Hardcore mode, it's pretty easy to tell you've done a lot of work (in the form of play). There is no option to start at 5th level, or 10th, or whatever. There are still ways to cheat, of course, but if you want to earn it fair and square you always know that the computer doesn't care whether you succeed or not. It impartially gives the encounters it's programmed to hand out, runs the numbers, shows you the results, and then posts your score to the leaderboards where you can compare your rating with everyone else.

True, but what happens when you die in Diablo?

You re-spawn, and try again, as if nothing happened.

That's not a very dramatic punishment for death. It rewards luck, skill, and ability, sure, but it rewards patience and dedication even more than that. It's about the time you invest in it. That's not very possible in any tabletop game -- you can't really just re-start and try again, in part because you play it with people, in part because tabletop games are made in discrete play chunks, with a beginning and an ending designed to take place over the course of a couple of hours. Once you die in Diablo, you go try again. Once you loose in Poker, you go do something else (at least until later that day).

Don't get me wrong, RPGs can still be a source of that sense of achievement. But I suspect that everything that RPGs do better than computer games is based on their subjective nature, the ability to adapt to living people and their ideas. For one group, 5th level is a hard-earned accomplishment because their GM's really tough; for another, it's where you start a game because that power level suits the image people have in mind. For me personally that's all feature, no bug.

I'd agree that RPGs need to play to their strengths. Though I don't think "levels are earned" and "narrative play" are necessarily incompatible. Instead of seeing level advancement as a parallel to the narrative, see it as one type of advancing your character. You gain more abilities (class powers/feats/whatever), more powerful abilities (levels), and affect the storyline (Lets call these things Victories?), all of which are measured in different ways. Your "more powerful abilities" are perhaps fewer, more far between, and more potent.

It's not something I'm really advocating at the moment, it's just something I think is an interesting idea. If the response to "Death is too common!" is to say "Death is supposed to be rare in our narrative game!", then I think the real work that needs to be done to make happy those into the game end of things is to quantify that narrative. Make it so there are actual rules in place for fail or succeed at a story. That'll give real teeth to the idea that there are plot penalties, even if there are not character penalties. I think that's a worthy thing for D&D to develop.

 

[Barastrondo]

And I'd say that your second point was also an argument for having more options being good for the hobby. When everyone plays the same few game, it is easier to recruit new players, but also a lot easier to recruit someone who isn't compatible with your current group. Self-selecting via preferred options serves as a highly useful filter.

At least, that's the way I see it.

Heh heh. I will not balk at someone telling me they agree.

I'd hesitate to say that. Lots of video games have a very low "lethality" (anything with a save point; anything with a quick re-spawn)...they're not made so you can loose, they're made so you can keep playing.

That's true, but when it comes to tracking stats for comparison they've got a lot of options, not just for the hardcore ones.

True, but what happens when you die in Diablo?

You re-spawn, and try again, as if nothing happened.

That's why I said in Hardcore: because when you die in Diablo Hardcore, you lose your character. The same is true of other games where they delete your prior save as soon as you load it: you can stop playing at any time and save, but there is no "reload."

I'd agree that RPGs need to play to their strengths. Though I don't think "levels are earned" and "narrative play" are necessarily incompatible. Instead of seeing level advancement as a parallel to the narrative, see it as one type of advancing your character. You gain more abilities (class powers/feats/whatever), more powerful abilities (levels), and affect the storyline (Lets call these things Victories?), all of which are measured in different ways. Your "more powerful abilities" are perhaps fewer, more far between, and more potent.

It's an interesting thought. I'd be particularly interested in seeing if it could incorporate the idea of closure: in some ways, the epic destinies of 4e are the closest to mechanically representing the closure of a character arc I've ever seen.

It's not something I'm really advocating at the moment, it's just something I think is an interesting idea. If the response to "Death is too common!" is to say "Death is supposed to be rare in our narrative game!", then I think the real work that needs to be done to make happy those into the game end of things is to quantify that narrative. Make it so there are actual rules in place for fail or succeed at a story. That'll give real teeth to the idea that there are plot penalties, even if there are not character penalties. I think that's a worthy thing for D&D to develop.

I wonder. On the one side, it gives players who are ordinarily not that interested in narrative or character arcs a chance to focus on them; on the other, it adds a level of structure that might lock down character arcs into a desirable common pattern instead of them going any which way organically. Could be great for some groups, half a step back for others; but it'd definitely be interesting just to look at the implementation.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I wonder. On the one side, it gives players who are ordinarily not that interested in narrative or character arcs a chance to focus on them; on the other, it adds a level of structure that might lock down character arcs into a desirable common pattern instead of them going any which way organically. Could be great for some groups, half a step back for others; but it'd definitely be interesting just to look at the implementation.

I think good DMs will always, always, know how to shape the rules to the benefit of their games. Think of how XP is awarded now. Some groups like the mechanical boost and "high score" of getting awarded XP after each combat. Some groups prefer just to level up "whenever it's appropriate." I don't think we need to enforce a set of narrative rules with an iron fist, though I do think the game could benefit from a set of narrative rules to help guide the game. Epic Destinies are a good step for that. Add Heroic Origins (*cough*themes*cough*) and Paragon Development (*cough*paragon paths*cough*), and let them have a real impact on the adventures you play and the goals of your character, and you might start having people trying to "complete their Origin" with the same amount of dedication that they seek a high AC or a big attack bonus now.