Death of Player Characters

[Celebrim]

This. Of course, this is exacerbated by the fact that the most popular RPG around is a derivation of a war game and the entire system is geared towards combat. Whatever players’ expectations, it seems utterly contradictory that people would play this game with the thought that character death is off the table, or be limited to rare, non-random occasions. And yet, that seems to be the case for a great many people.

While there is a broad range of play styles that D&D can accommodate, I question whether a significant number of players would prefer something other than D&D that is not based on combat.

This actually goes off on a tangent. I have argued elsewhere that it's not only not coincidental that RPG play focuses around combat, but that it is almost impossible for any sort of crunchy social RPG to focus on anything else. This is because combat has some unique features that makes it particularly well suited for social play and simulated play and achieving verisimilitude and almost any other sort of problem-solving results in a game with limited choices and limited opportunities for cooperation.

Typically games that try to get away from combat as a focus of play run into the problem that the resulting game is most fun for a single player or at most a small number of players. And again, this is another potential tangent, but in my opinion not enough focus in RPG design theory is focused on the fact that the type of play you can have at the table heavily depends on the number of participants. The sort of play that some designers promote as ideal, in fact can't be supported by the for example one to two dozen participants sometimes seen in the early days of RPG play, or even the 5-8 players you might see at many modern D&D tables. If your experience running RPGs is for 1-3 players, the techniques and styles of play you expect many not be transferable.

 

[bloodtide]

If this is a personality flaw it's an awfully common one; I think it's better just regarded as a preference.

It sure is a common quirk.

In short, the real problem with player death is participants in an RPG often have complex expectations and desires that conflict with each other, and the more participants you add to the RPG, the more of a potential problem this becomes.

I see the real problem is that most players don't want a challenge. Most would happily play a video game on 'god mode' and then walk around and say they "beat the game" and not mention the mode part. Like the player you meet at most game stores that will say "my PC is so coll he killed one of every color dragon"......sounds "cool", but they don't mention the part where they got free attacks, bonus dragonslayer damage from nowhere and the dragon did not breathe, use magic or fly.

 

[Celebrim]

I see the real problem is that most players don't want a challenge.

Challenge is a common aesthetic of play, but it's not actually directly related to chance of failure. I grant that the possibility of failure is necessary for challenge, but because of the way trad RPGs play with heavy reliance on dice and on arbitrary GM arbitration, you can have a whole lot of character deaths and never support the aesthetic of challenge at all.

As for what most players want, it's almost always necessary to state this as "most players I've encountered" since the spectrum of players out there is beyond your ability to evaluate. My experience is that the vast majority of players want a challenge, and only a minority are happy with fantasy as an aesthetic of play without challenge, such as your hypothetical player who has killed every color dragon.

I'd caution you to avoid assuming that there is one right way to play. Different tables enjoy different aesthetics of play. One of the best tables I played at had relatively high fantasy aesthetic support to the point that it would have struck me as a 'Monte Hall' based on my prior aesthetics and experience, but which made up for its number inflation and high power levels by having strong agency and strong narratives. Showcasing the PC as fantasy superhero was part of the conscious decision of that table.

And even at that player, we really only had one player who I thought had a dysfunctional relationship to challenge aesthetics and no one who didn't want to be challenged.

 

[bloodtide]

, such as your hypothetical player who has killed every color dragon.

Sadly, Danny is an all too real person....

I'd caution you to avoid assuming that there is one right way to play. Different tables enjoy different aesthetics of play. One of the best tables I played at had relatively high fantasy aesthetic support to the point that it would have struck me as a 'Monte Hall' based on my prior aesthetics and experience, but which made up for its number inflation and high power levels by having strong agency and strong narratives. Showcasing the PC as fantasy superhero was part of the conscious decision of that table.

Well, it is a bit trickily here when so many people say they want to play a game, but only after they modify it's basic rules. Then are you even playing the game?

I use bumper bowling as the classic example. A bowl on a normal adult lane and get an average score. The other person uses the bumper lane (for little kids) and then dances around as they got a very high score. And the guy that was bumper bowling will say he was "just bowling".

If your not going to have random character death: then why even have AC, HP and all the combat rules?

And even at that player, we really only had one player who I thought had a dysfunctional relationship to challenge aesthetics and no one who didn't want to be challenged.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, it is a bit trickily here when so many people say they want to play a game, but only after they modify it's basic rules. Then are you even playing the game?

Yes, they are. Rules may be modified for a large number of reasons, but they are still all playing "D&D". But modifying the rules is least of the issues. One group may be fighting three drunk kobolds as a typical 1st level encounter and another 8 orc berserkers with great axes. Neither group is doing it wrong. Likewise, one group may have a DM that is a great story teller but sucks at playing chess or any other tactical game, while another group may have a DM that is the most ruthless SOB DM for squeezing every ounce of potential difficulty from the playing pieces he his provided with and ruthlessly plays his monsters with the aim of "winning" or at least maximizing how hard the players find the fight.

I use bumper bowling as the classic example. A bowl on a normal adult lane and get an average score. The other person uses the bumper lane (for little kids) and then dances around as they got a very high score. And the guy that was bumper bowling will say he was "just bowling".

Unlike bowling, RPGs don't keep score and aren't objective tests of skill. Even played as tournament scenario it's very hard to have an objective winner because every table has a different referee. Treating an RPG as if it had objective score and that the score at one table could be compared to the score at another player, as if "I have a 30th level character" had any objective meaning is I think border line dysfunctional at least within the RPG community as a whole if you want to be a good "citizen" of multiple tables.

If your not going to have random character death: then why even have AC, HP and all the combat rules?

From the perspective of your focus on challenge, the question isn't really that I think but rather, "If you are going to have random character death, then how can you say you are supporting challenge?"

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I have argued elsewhere that it's not only not coincidental that RPG play focuses around combat, but that it is almost impossible for any sort of crunchy social RPG to focus on anything else. This is because combat has some unique features that makes it particularly well suited for social play and simulated play and achieving verisimilitude on almost any other sort of problem-solving results in a game with limited choices and limited opportunities for cooperation.

So, I read this carefully, because I’ve played and run many games which did not focus on combat. Hillfolk (DramaSystem) is the most obvious example of an RPG which does not focus on combat and works well for many people. But the enormous cadre of Call of Cthulhu players for whom combat is often a minor aspect of the game and is absolutely not the focus for most players, is a well-known example.

But then you add a number of qualifiers. Listing them, I think your argument is that if a system posses the following characteristics, if will focus on combat:

• It is a crunchy social RPG
• The game must have limited choices
• It is intended to be simulationist
• It must have limited opportunities for cooperation.

I don’t think I disagree with you because such a limiting set of requirements is not satisfied by any game I can think of! But the examples of Call of Cthulhu show that games do exist that do not focus on combat and are:

• Appealing to many people
• Medium crunch
• Simulate genre and social characteristics rather than physics
• Have plenty of opportunities for interaction

 

[Celebrim]

I haven't played Hillfolk. Honestly, I don't really have any desire to either.

However, the reasons for my qualifiers was primarily to exclude games where the primary focus of play was just "make believe" and they largely had no system to speak of, or where the game was basically designed for just a single player.

But the enormous cadre of Call of Cthulhu players for whom combat is often a minor aspect of the game and is absolutely not the focus for most players, is a well-known example.

Provide some Call of Cthulhu examples that aren't one shots where combat is absolutely not the focus of the game? I've ran a bunch of CoC.

I have no idea where you developed your thesis about what I was saying from and why you added so much to what I was saying, but I was talking about social cooperative games that aim for simulation end up focusing around combat because combat is one of the few things a group can do together where everyone can contribute meaningfully, and everyone can make meaningful nonrepetitive choices to overcome a problem. For example, if you have a stealth challenge then it's not necessarily the case that the large group working together becomes stealthier. Or if you have a social challenge then it's not necessarily the case that the large group working together becomes more functional in a social setting or more convincing. Often it's best to let the most social character available complete the social challenge without interference from the more socially clumsy. Or if the challenge is to say build a building or complete some no combat task, then yes perhaps the more hands you have to chip in the better, but for many participants the challenge is simply tedium - throwing the same dice every turn with no meaningful decisions to make. Those sorts of competency tests even if they require multiple characters working together often lack choices because tactics are about the intersection of terrain and weapons, and well competency tests typically lack tactics. Combat on the other hand is one of the few things you can simulate where more actors is better and where what each actor chooses to do can change from round to round in a meaningful manner.

 

[Committed Hero]

From the perspective of your focus on challenge, the question isn't really that I think but rather, "If you are going to have random character death, then how can you say you are supporting challenge?"

There can be more endstates to an encounter than victory or death.

 

[Mr. Lahey]

This actually goes off on a tangent. I have argued elsewhere that it's not only not coincidental that RPG play focuses around combat, but that it is almost impossible for any sort of crunchy social RPG to focus on anything else. This is because combat has some unique features that makes it particularly well suited for social play and simulated play and achieving verisimilitude on almost any other sort of problem-solving results in a game with limited choices and limited opportunities for cooperation

I admit I have not played social-focused games like Hillfolk, but the thing about RPG combat is that, most of us have no idea about nor have ever been in that kind of hand to hand group combat with swords and spells. Other than positioning our figures, it is based on die rolls within the parameters of the system.

On the other hand, with any social interaction there is a much fuzzier line between what we do as players (I.e. talking with NPCs and each other) versus game mechanics - do we convince the guard to let us pass because our eloquence swayed the GM, or did we just say something lame and then just roll well?

Again, never played a game focused on the social, so there’s a lot I’ve never experienced myself.

 

[Celebrim]

There can be more endstates to an encounter than victory or death.

Sure, but what does that have to do with what you are quoting?