Grittiness and Lethality in Game Combat vs in Read-Only Fiction

[Micah Sweet]

The rest of the genre, as in, the books that have conclusions? That's actually very gamey of him - his series fizzled out like a lot of campaigns do!


That doesn't have to be the case. I'd much rather be playing in a story than something that's very obviously a game when the GM says, "um, yeah. Er, you come upon the town of . . . hang on, let me roll for it . . ."

For my part, if I wanted to play in a story I'd play a game mechanically intended to be played that way. For all their lip service to the contrary in some cases, D&D-style games have never been that IMO.

 

[Umbran]

The rest of the genre, as in, the books that have conclusions?

I get you. But, no, he was explicitly trying to "teach a lesson" about how heroes don't always win, and such. Very pretentious of him, to be honest.

That's actually very gamey of him - his series fizzled out like a lot of campaigns do!

Well, guess what? Before GoT, GRRM was perhaps best known for editing the "Wild Cards" anthology series, which was, in fact, based on a long-running campaign of Chaosium's Superworld RPG that GRRM ran in which many of the anthology authors played in.

 

[Bohandas]

Well, guess what? Before GoT, GRRM was perhaps best known for editing the "Wild Cards" anthology series, which was, in fact, based on a long-running campaign of Chaosium's Superworld RPG that GRRM ran in which many of the anthology authors played in.

More than for 1000 Worlds and the Githyanki?

 

[GrimCo]

Unlike PCs in games, literary characters have special feature called- Plot Armor. It's hard to make series and sell sequel books if you kill of protagonists ( there are some exceptions, like ASOIF, but i would argue that there aren't any protagonists in it in classical sense).

Also, in fiction, author has complete control of what happens to main characters. In games, there is always element of luck. You roll very bad, DM rolls exceptionally well, things happen ( seen it happen, whole party never rolled higher than 10 in couple of rounds, DM rolled 3 crits in a row, 3/4 PC-s are down in 2 rounds). While protagonist dead from random encounter 3 chapters into the story makes not so good story to read, in games, that happens, 2 sessions in, string of bad rolls, tpk or near tpk happens.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

As others have said, literary fiction isn't rpg's and vice versa. Me, I'm happy that there are many different systems and play styles re mortality and wounds. From current D&D's practical immortality to WFRP4e where you can die from goblin rot in your toe caused by not changing socks often enough while adventuring in a swamp.

Edit: I hate that the fantastic Old World setting is paired with an over crunchy and weird system, but darn do I love the disease and infection chapters

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unlike PCs in games, literary characters have special feature called- Plot Armor. It's hard to make series and sell sequel books if you kill of protagonists ( there are some exceptions, like ASOIF, but i would argue that there aren't any protagonists in it in classical sense).

Also, in fiction, author has complete control of what happens to main characters. In games, there is always element of luck. You roll very bad, DM rolls exceptionally well, things happen ( seen it happen, whole party never rolled higher than 10 in couple of rounds, DM rolled 3 crits in a row, 3/4 PC-s are down in 2 rounds). While protagonist dead from random encounter 3 chapters into the story makes not so good story to read, in games, that happens, 2 sessions in, string of bad rolls, tpk or near tpk happens.

There seem to be a number of tables and players that treat PCs as if they have the same kind of plot armor characters in stories have.

This is why I resist the description of gaming as any kind of storytelling. Stories need characters to live and events to occur in a narratively satisfying way, and the harder that idea is pushed, the less real the experience feels to me and the less agency the players have to make choices for their PCs.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why yes, D&D and most RPGs are terrible at emulating fiction. We know. It’s almost like they’re designed as squad-based wargames instead of storytelling games.

Just because you can force roleplaying onto chess doesn’t mean chess is an RPG. Likewise, just because you can crudely force what’s extruded from an RPG into the rough shape of a story doesn’t mean most RPGs are storytelling engines.

What ends up happening more often than not for a lot of people (myself included) is us just holding onto the "wargame" exceedingly loosely-- not treating the round-by-round actions of the wargame to be an actual representation of the "reality" within the story that is worth us keeping. Rather, the wargame fights are just that-- pieces of gameplay-- that we participate in because the D&D combat game engine can be fun in and of itself, but which we don't really care what the specifics are for most of it as we move forward with our stories.

I mean I know for me in the Pathfinder game I am playing in... 95% of the fights we've gotten into have not had any lasting impression or result in our campaign-- other than just us not dying and thus the campaign could continue. And even for those 5% of combats that have had a lasting imprint on the campaign... it hasn't been the entire combat's blow-by-blow action that we've remembered... it's been that one or two very specific moments in the combat that changed or highlighted events in the campaign's story. So as I've said many times (to many people's chagrin, LOL)... the game itself doesn't matter (for a lot of us), merely the moments and results of the "wargame" do.

At the end of the day... I think for most of us D&D would never be considered the optimal "game engine" to use in order to generate the story results people like me are usually looking for. But because it's the game we've always used, the game we have the most supplies for, the most experience using, and the intimate knowledge of how to just ignore or forget the parts we ultimately don't care about... we just keep using D&D anyway. And it's never been a big deal that we always end up using the "wrong tool" for the job.

 

[Theory of Games]

I submit that this is a low, low, low injury rate, compared to that typically seen in a tabletop game that covers the same amount of adventuring, run under either D&D rules or under some alternative rule set having about the same degree of crunch in its mechanics.

"... Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in (he author's opinion an absurd effort a! best considering the topic]). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS A DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity." - AD&D 1st Edition Dungeon-Master's Guide

It's a perk of the D&D system that it isn't trying to be anything other than a game. People will say it's a combat-simulator or it's a superhero-simulator and they're wrong. D&D isn't trying to simulate reality or a specific fantasy genre. It's a generic fantasy roleplaying game.

Fictional characters in stories like LotR and Conan have "plot armor" protecting them and there are many more narrative ttrpgs that simulate that kind of experience.

 

[GobHag]

Unlike PCs in games, literary characters have special feature called- Plot Armor. It's hard to make series and sell sequel books if you kill of protagonists ( there are some exceptions, like ASOIF, but i would argue that there aren't any protagonists in it in classical sense).

Also, in fiction, author has complete control of what happens to main characters. In games, there is always element of luck. You roll very bad, DM rolls exceptionally well, things happen ( seen it happen, whole party never rolled higher than 10 in couple of rounds, DM rolled 3 crits in a row, 3/4 PC-s are down in 2 rounds). While protagonist dead from random encounter 3 chapters into the story makes not so good story to read, in games, that happens, 2 sessions in, string of bad rolls, tpk or near tpk happens.

Does it have to though? You could have the game rules literally say 'Your character can't die unless you choose to, they suffer narrative setbacks instead'

Or I dunno, a lives system.

Or literally retcon a TPK or death.

Or have the game and table 'carefully'(or even loudly say) make sure that players aren't dying.

Neither players nor DMs are disallowed to make the fictional world as something that reflects reality's indifference.

 

[GrimCo]

Yes, you could have rules like that. But then combat becomes trivial thing. You know your character can't die unless you choose to. But without risk of PC death, you can be more gung ho and trigger happy cause you know, no matter what, even if you lose combat, you live to fight another day. For me at least, that tones down danger of violence, and turns it from life or death situation to sports.

You can do what ever you like. If table is ok and people are having fun, it's all that matters. I played few Window campaigns. Combat is descriptive and 90% of time resolved without any dice, you and GM describe what happens, you move on. It felt just meh.