• COMING SOON! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General "Hot Take": Fear is a bad motivator

Anyways, before I derail the thread even worse:

Player elimination on boardgames isn't really comparable to character death in DnD. For DnD the real question is "how long before you can get back into the game?" which varies a lot between games - even within a single edition.

The conventional wisdom here is: the longer it takes to get back into the game, the more it sucks to be removed from play. And since character death =/= character loss, it can be shorter than making a new character. And there are other variables (ie how stupid <-> satisfying you felt the death was) which can vary a lot as well.
Well, I will not be sucked further into this microscopic minutia. To each their own as D&D allows. That said, patience is also a virtue except for the entitled. Adios.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

payn

Adventurer
Well, Monopoly is rank 20,535 out of 20,542 ranked games on BoardGameGeek, so calling that a paragon of good design doesn't seem like a strong argument. It's better than The Game of Life (rank 20,536), so I guess it's not the worst.


But I'll abstain on Diplomacy. I've never played it and it's ranked 614 (top 3% of all games), so either the mechanic is used well or the game's so good one flaw isn't worth mentioning.

(Although the most recent review I could find notes that "You need 7 players who are simultaneously ruthless and congenial, are willing to sacrifice half a day and are okay with practically guaranteed player elimination." Not an endorsement of the mechanic.)

The best way to play diplomacy is online and taking turns every 24 hours. The rules are quite simple. Its the table talk and forming alliances and breaking them that makes Diplomacy a game all in it's own.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Anyways, before I derail the thread even worse:

Player elimination on boardgames isn't really comparable to character death in DnD. For DnD the real question is "how long before you can get back into the game?" which varies a lot between games - even within a single edition.
Even between two tables, in fact.

If there's a hench or a party NPC the dead PC's player can take over for the interim then the "get back into the game" time is near zero.
The conventional wisdom here is: the longer it takes to get back into the game, the more it sucks to be removed from play. And since character death =/= character loss, it can be shorter than making a new character. And there are other variables (ie how stupid <-> satisfying you felt the death was) which can vary a lot as well.
Not just death. In 1e one failed save vs Hold Person at the start of a combat can end the evening early for anyone. Sitting out and watching for a bit now and then is just an accepted - and acceptable - part of the game.
 

So... time and time again, it has been noted that death is not the only possible consequence.

If what you are here to do is to beat the same old strawman drum, and say, "BUT I LIKE DEATH!!!" I really think you should go find a thread in which you can take some constructive part.
I'm not jumping to anyone's defense here, but this is a real phenomenon that's been going on for a while:

Publishers and Producers often push creators to 'up the stakes', wanting to always go for maximum effect in terms of audience reaction. As death is the ultimate stake, that's the lever they demand creators always pull regardless of how appropriate it is for the story being told. This is why for long time in action and superhero movies the bad guy ALWAYS dies. The fight was always to the death because there is no other stake the creators were allowed to use. This is also rooted in the older decency codes like the Hayes code, which demands evil be 'punished'.

This has had two distinct effects in popular culture:

1) Incoming creators are shaped by the media they consume. They've learned the advice 'when in doubt, kill a character'--again whether or not it's a good idea or fits the story. This has gone so far that that even genres like sweet romance have been filled with corpses of late. Not usually main characters, but then... Nicholas Sparks.

2) Audiences have been trained to expect and even demand death. It is the way the story is supposed to go after all. Especially in comics, where people will literally decide big events had no lasting effect if someone doesn't die. Remember back in Avengers where people were mad a certain character died not because his death was a tired trick to pull the audience's heart strings -- but because he wasn't 'important' enough?

Which is a very long way of saying that 'BUT I LIKE DEATH' is not a heartening response... it's hardly unexpected and is pretty understandable. Hollywood and New York have been working since the 80's to make sure we love and crave death in media. Because it's so cheap and easy. Easier than good or thoughtful writing.

And really, what is a DM to do when their players have thus been trained to think a story means nothing without maximum over-stakes?
 

I recently had a discussion with a friend about horror movies that seems to fit here. Basically, I understand modern horror movies and why they tend to depend on jump scares and gore, but I don't like them. And the reason is that for a lot of people, the tension of expecting a jump scare, and the release of the shock of one happening is gratifying. Being scared in a safe environment is fun for them. For me and a lot of others, it's just... stressful. I don't enjoy it. It leaves me feeling bad and burnt out.
This is absolutely 100% applicable, yes. I have the same response to horror films. I am arguing against the idea that a "horror-film-like" mentality is the best means to achieve an enjoyable D&D experience, and especially that if such a mentality is removed, the game inherently becomes un-fun or pointless--which people have absolutely already made in this thread. I will, however, note that I don't think ALL "tension" is bad. Horror relies on a particular kind of tension and uncertainty, but there are others.

I think it's a good reaction to the belief that Old School play is an inherently better play style and that new school is coddling and therefore lesser.
Thank you, genuinely. Because that is exactly what I'm railing at. The notion that it's only when you have the "thrill of death" that anything can ever matter.

Then it's a badwrongfun reaction to a different thread which is also a badwrongfun reaction? We on the two wrongs make a right road now?
I'm not the one claiming that the only way for D&D to ever be enjoyable to anyone is if it's always a tense, one-wrong-move-and-you-lose-everything experience. Others in this thread straight-up have. Who's badwrongfun arguing, in that instance?

I included an all-caps YMMV disclaimer. I'm not sure what more I can do besides abandoning critique of arguments entirely, which seems an excessive response.

Wow: I dunno. Sunshine and rainbows are great but if I am playing D&D much of the thrill is the fear of and avoidance of some sort of loss.
Genuinely trying not to go straight into the salt zone here: You have incorrectly assumed that the only form of thrill comes from fear, and that the only form of loss is character death. I am saying that loss can be a host of other things, and that tension can arise from wanting to protect/nurture the things that excite you (enthusiasm) or that you have come to love (affection). I am very specifically arguing against the idea that ONLY death counts as loss and ONLY fear counts as thrill.

If you know you can win every fight without a consequence does the fight matter?
I feel very frustrated that you have misunderstood my argument in this way, as this is a very uncharitable reading of what I said. I am doubly frustrated because I tried very hard to explicitly state that this knowledge ISN'T a thing in my games. You DON'T know if you'll succeed or not. You DON'T know if you'll be able to protect the things you love or advance the things that excite you. I just don't include random, purposeless, irrevocable death. Perhaps the character does die, but Gets Sent Back, Gandalf-style--with a literal deadline and more questions than answers. Perhaps a valued NPC sacrifices their life to save them, and now the party must quest to resurrect them or honor their sacrifice in some way. All sorts of costs exist, and many of them are much more engaging than "your character is dead, everything they might have cared about or achieved is now dust in the wind. Try again? Y/N"

I don’t like the narrative approach much and prefer some level of emergent play.
This would be a key difference between us, then. While I absolutely value emergent play (it's part of why I have forced myself to NOT prepare very much, to NOT hammer everything down, to rely pretty heavily on improvisation and adaptation), I'm interested in the stories of my players' characters. I want to see where they go--the ups and downs, the costs and rewards, the agonizing over difficult moral decisions, the righteous vengeance and the wise forgiveness. It's like having my own personal character-driven TV show. I don't want to hand things to my players on mithril platters, but I don't want them fearful that everything they've built will go up in a puff of smoke because of a couple bad die rolls. My players are skittish enough as it is.

the oh s**t moments are memorable. In the days level drains were watched things but we also usually had a chance to adventure and find a cleric to help which of itself was fun derived from loss.
Oh, I absolutely agree that "oh s**t moments" are memorable! Our party has absolutely had plenty of them. They just didn't include character deaths as a consequence. As one example, when the party exhumed the bodies of two individuals stricken by the Song of Thorns, a memetic virus and spirit of chaos and primal savagery. They performed an autopsy on them, and realized that the Song--despite being a spirit--literally transforms its victims into pre-sapient animals, modifying bone structure, muscle, brain tissue, the works. One of our players is an anthropologist by training, and was EXTREMELY disturbed by these revelations; it was an "oh shit, this thing is NASTY and SERIOUS" moment, despite involving zero danger to anyone in the party personally. They could see how terrible this could be if it wasn't contained or destroyed.

I love enthusiasm, however its something I feel game and adventure design has been very hit and miss on.
Agreed.

The Paizo adventure paths do a good job on both the character options and adventure campaigns. Its great to not only see options tailored to the campaign, but also included in the modules to assist the GM. I say a good job, but not a great one. I think this is a space that is ripe for the next gaming design breakout. Or, maybe that's just where my hopes lay.
I may have problems with Paizo and PF, but I can agree with this. It's a struggle to find a way to make "contextual" options that can be shared across an entire system, which sounds like a contradiction. I, too, hope that we'll see more development on that front. I think 13th Age's Backgrounds and OUTs are good starting points for new design ideas in this space.

At the table, the GM often has a lot of responsibility to make sure the enthusiasm comes alive.
Also agreed.

Affection is reactive for sure. It can be a very difficult element to cultivate at the table for both GM and players. I've seen GMs put a lot of love into a cute cuddly NPC only to have the players take a giant dook on it. A GM has to understand that the players wont bite on every hook, and sometimes you have to follow their lead. This can take you to really fun places and its memorable for sure, but it can also kill a GMs enthusiasm dead if the players hate their ideas.
It's a careful dance. I have personally been very lucky, in that my players have responded much more positively than I ever dared hope to several NPCs I've introduced. Part of it is just that those NPCs are actually useful to the party, but part is also that the players were On Board for two of them being in a relationship. I've found a big part of setting the stage for player affection (for my group, at least) is just to show NPCs being relatable people with a skill to offer, and saving the "help us plz" for after a baseline rapport comes up. Offering a little witty humor now and then also helps! :p

I think the enthusiasm is a lot stronger of a motivating element than affection. Affection is just so difficult to think about in a tangible way like enthusiasm or even fear. Fear has long held its position as a motivator because its so tangible. It's baked right into the rules and its conditions are clearly spelled out. Every adventure module hits the fear factors, not so much the enthusiasm or affection points. Though, as adventure design grows and changes, maybe these intangible items can become a stronger motivation factor as folks learn to utilize them better at their tables?
Perhaps. I've actually found affection to be an extremely strong motivator in my group, mostly because the party is really good at finding communities that look to them for leadership and guidance, and the player(s) in question have zero problem with getting on board. For example, our party tiefling has taken multiple actions I would not have expected, due to deeply caring about people to whom he has a familial and/or philosophical connection. He became half-devil (as opposed to merely a tiefling) due to wanting to save a group of people who had collectively made a protect-us-from-horrible-things bargain with his (yet-to-be-determined) devilish ancestor, siphoning off their devilish essence, even though he HATES how manipulative and bastardly devils can be and wants nothing to do with them personally.

What you describe as "outright encouraging paranoia" is not D&D. It's, well, Paranoia.
I mean, I literally quoted a person who used that exact word. And I have seen plenty of others, here and elsewhere on the internet, who either used that exact word, or said things functionally equivalent to it (something like "if the player isn't constantly in fear of

Describing character death as "losing their ability to participate" is a false equivalency of epic proportions. Does your DM kick you out of the group if your PC dies? I doubt it.
Perhaps I did not specify finely enough. I have absolutely seen (and been) a player having to sit out for 2-3 sessions or more, because there weren't henchmen around to step up or it didn't make sense to find a replacement yet. If that isn't losing your ability to participate, I don't know what is. And, as noted, I have had multiple people tell me that that's the whole point of character death--costing the player their participation in the game. ZakS, for example, explicitly said that to me on another forum, a long while back.

I simply do not believe that you have been told, recently, on this very forum, that either of the above are true.
As I said, I literally quoted Lanefan, who explicitly used the word "paranoia" to describe the feeling players should have. If that isn't explicitly doing that, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't thing you can cleave off fear of resource attrition from fear of death or even fear of random death just so can call badwrongfun on @Lanefan for defending the existence dcc funnel style funnel type games. 5e did exactly that and we et damage beyond zero goes away no foul into the maxhp sized absorb shield , healing word & similar abilities to make yoyo healing backed up by tiny hut guaranteed successful rests asthe most optimum style of play while the pieces needed to support other styles are lacking & not at all trivial to simply retroactively attach to a system that fights it on so many differing levels of edge cases & one off abilities.
I'm honestly not entirely sure what you're saying here, Tetrasodium. Also, I made this a General D&D thread since I didn't specifically mean to discuss 5e alone.

Your looking at the paintball with dr Manhattan analogy vaporizing the incoming paintballs for his team healing word style the wrong way by focusing on just the chance of injury during a normal game and ignoring how removing the chance of loss changes the game. Simply saying that the gm should find some other set of stakes to compensate for the severe design problem as has been suggested in this thread is an flatly admitting how difficult it is for the gm to do so fight after fight after fight by lacking specificity.
As above: I emphatically DO NOT wish to remove loss from the game. But "chance of injury" is not at all the same as "chance of loss," and a key part of my argument is that a lot of people, for a very long time, have been equating those two in a D&D context. Equating "your character may, and indeed almost certainly will, suffer loss, hardship, and difficulty" with "your character is at a very real risk of irrevocable (or at least not short-term resolvable) death basically all the time" is exactly the problem. The two are NOT one-to-one equivalent.

"What does a player do during the rest of the session when their character dies?" is another completely legitimate and valuable discussion that is highly unlikely to happen with the introduction OP provided.
My experience, particularly with OSR things, has been that a player whose character dies does nothing (except make jokes and comment on the state of play) for the rest of that session. And possibly for multiple sessions thereafter. Hence why I said what I said.

In Diplomacy if you're knocked out of the game as any country (which is the purpose), you are out. Same in Monopoly, the Game of Life, etc. If people want a narrative fiction-building approach without challenges and uncertainty or, gosh, even death for daring to be an "Adventurer"
Mr. Kuntz, I genuinely respect your contributions to gaming, but again, I feel very frustrated by this severe misinterpretation of what I said. I understand that you are mostly choosing to disengage with the thread, so if you do not wish to respond to this post, I would not hold it against you. But I emphatically reject the notion that I am advocating anything that lacks "challenges and uncertainty." Yes, I am saying that (character) death is severely over-emphasized as a potential cost. It frustrates me greatly that saying that gets transmuted into "oh, so you want a game where the players just succeed at everything they do, every time, always?"

I completely agree with you that an "Adventurer" that never experienced challenge or uncertainty would not deserve the title! I'm not saying that that is what should happen in any game. (I mean, if a group really wants that, more power to them I suppose, but it's definitely not for me.) I'm saying that the culture of D&D has falsely treated "death, particularly the ever-present threat of character permadeath" as being the ONLY form of loss, of "challenges and uncertainty," and that I think the hobby as a whole--but obviously not every single individual table--would be better-served by emphasizing a wider spectrum of losses, challenges, uncertainties, by considering other motivators besides fear (and very specifically the fear of character death).

Is an RPG a game or not? If so there are winners and losers, monsters die by the thousands under your immersed PC's spells and melee.
I was told it is not possible to "win" D&D. Would you disagree? If you agree, does that mean D&D isn't a game? You can certainly lose, in lots of ways. I find losing-by-character-death is highly overvalued, and other forms of losing are often neglected or forgotten.

It impacts it all the same, one cannot suggest changes to the game without studying the impact on the entire system. The parts in this instance effect the whole. Others have made this point as well.
Completely agreed. When making changes to a game, you have to expect the unexpected. Consequences almost always spiral out from a change, and sometimes what seems like a small tweak has vast impact. Focusing challenge, hardship, loss, and uncertainty away from character death requires effort to keep things exciting and engaging. I have found that effort is not a burden, though, and its rewards are rich.

No. I remove hard-loss — you can't lose my game. Your character, on the other hand, will lose a ton of stuff, important and personal. They will lose their heirloom sword, the vessel of their ancestors' spirits. They will lose their grimmoir, their Magnum Opus, all the research and breakthroughs they made to understand the greater laws of magic. They will lose their families, their sons and their lovers. Oh God will they lose.
This, definitely. Though in my case, I run a world which is bright, but under threat: less "points of light" in a vast tapestry of darkness, and more...light and darkness about equal in influence, currently, but the latter poised to destroy the former....unless heroes rise to make a difference. Inattention and neglect can be just as dangerous as failure, because dark forces are surging back into power. It is not really possible for darkness to totally snuff out light, but things might suck for just as long as they've generally not sucked very much (that is, centuries to millennia, depending on the severity).

I'm not particularly interested in testing, whether the players can beat the game, and as a player, I can't say that I feel any importance in the fact that my character has survived the Tomb of Horrors. What I am interested in is seeing how characters would react to hardships, how would they change and develop.
Agreed. Character death (that isn't reversed) permanently ends change and development. Hence, when I do consider death as a consequence, I prepare for making it yet another journey. The journey ends when we as a group decide it ends, but there's no guarantee the course will be easy, nor that it will go even remotely as planned, nor that the party will even get to where they originally planned to go. Those are all sources of challenge, loss, and uncertainty that are much more interesting to me than cutting the thread and ending a character--and I think they would be more interesting to other groups out there too, if more DMs considered something other than "your character died" as the weapon of first and last resort in terms of creating tension and hardship for the characters.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I return... AGAIN.. to the OP. This is about fear of death as motivation.
The title of the thread would suggest it's about fear in general as a motivator, with the OP using death as merely exhibit A of something to fear.
So... time and time again, it has been noted that death is not the only possible consequence.

If what you are here to do is to beat the same old strawman drum, and say, "BUT I LIKE DEATH!!!" I really think you should go find a thread in which you can take some constructive part.
First, what on earth is wrong with saying "I like death in the game" if that's how one feels?

Second, how - particuarly given your quoted take above that the thread's about fear of death - can saying death is OK be off topic or not germaine?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Genuinely trying not to go straight into the salt zone here: You have incorrectly assumed that the only form of thrill comes from fear, and that the only form of loss is character death. I am saying that loss can be a host of other things, and that tension can arise from wanting to protect/nurture the things that excite you (enthusiasm) or that you have come to love (affection). I am very specifically arguing against the idea that ONLY death counts as loss and ONLY fear counts as thrill.
This actually brings up a tangential point that's probably worth noting here: as the editions have gone by the hard-loss conditions other than death have generally been either nerfed ot eliminated from the game, leaving death as all there is. Consider; in 0e and 1e that beyond just simple death you faced the possibility of:

level loss (partially repairable, at great cost to the PC)
much more frequent magic item destruction (from AoE damage, rust monsters, etc.)
petrification (repairable at slight but significant risk to the PC)
sometimes-massive aging effects and resulting gain/loss of stats (repairable only if you happened to find the right potion)
polymorph-other permanently turning you (including your mind!) into a rabbit or salmon or earthworm

So, compare 5e*:

Level loss - completely gone. This is the big one.
Item destruction - very rare if ever.
Petrification - still there but much easier to resist (need to fail a series of saves rather than just one).
Aging effect - ghosts can still do this but it's not as easy.
Polymorph - nerfed significantly.

* - if there's examples of these in any post-initial releases I don't know of them, and am all ears.
 

This is absolutely 100% applicable, yes. I have the same response to horror films. I am arguing against the idea that a "horror-film-like" mentality is the best means to achieve an enjoyable D&D experience, and especially that if such a mentality is removed, the game inherently becomes un-fun or pointless--which people have absolutely already made in this thread. I will, however, note that I don't think ALL "tension" is bad. Horror relies on a particular kind of tension and uncertainty, but there are others.


Thank you, genuinely. Because that is exactly what I'm railing at. The notion that it's only when you have the "thrill of death" that anything can ever matter.


I'm not the one claiming that the only way for D&D to ever be enjoyable to anyone is if it's always a tense, one-wrong-move-and-you-lose-everything experience. Others in this thread straight-up have. Who's badwrongfun arguing, in that instance?

I included an all-caps YMMV disclaimer. I'm not sure what more I can do besides abandoning critique of arguments entirely, which seems an excessive response.


Genuinely trying not to go straight into the salt zone here: You have incorrectly assumed that the only form of thrill comes from fear, and that the only form of loss is character death. I am saying that loss can be a host of other things, and that tension can arise from wanting to protect/nurture the things that excite you (enthusiasm) or that you have come to love (affection). I am very specifically arguing against the idea that ONLY death counts as loss and ONLY fear counts as thrill.


I feel very frustrated that you have misunderstood my argument in this way, as this is a very uncharitable reading of what I said. I am doubly frustrated because I tried very hard to explicitly state that this knowledge ISN'T a thing in my games. You DON'T know if you'll succeed or not. You DON'T know if you'll be able to protect the things you love or advance the things that excite you. I just don't include random, purposeless, irrevocable death. Perhaps the character does die, but Gets Sent Back, Gandalf-style--with a literal deadline and more questions than answers. Perhaps a valued NPC sacrifices their life to save them, and now the party must quest to resurrect them or honor their sacrifice in some way. All sorts of costs exist, and many of them are much more engaging than "your character is dead, everything they might have cared about or achieved is now dust in the wind. Try again? Y/N"


This would be a key difference between us, then. While I absolutely value emergent play (it's part of why I have forced myself to NOT prepare very much, to NOT hammer everything down, to rely pretty heavily on improvisation and adaptation), I'm interested in the stories of my players' characters. I want to see where they go--the ups and downs, the costs and rewards, the agonizing over difficult moral decisions, the righteous vengeance and the wise forgiveness. It's like having my own personal character-driven TV show. I don't want to hand things to my players on mithril platters, but I don't want them fearful that everything they've built will go up in a puff of smoke because of a couple bad die rolls. My players are skittish enough as it is.


Oh, I absolutely agree that "oh s**t moments" are memorable! Our party has absolutely had plenty of them. They just didn't include character deaths as a consequence. As one example, when the party exhumed the bodies of two individuals stricken by the Song of Thorns, a memetic virus and spirit of chaos and primal savagery. They performed an autopsy on them, and realized that the Song--despite being a spirit--literally transforms its victims into pre-sapient animals, modifying bone structure, muscle, brain tissue, the works. One of our players is an anthropologist by training, and was EXTREMELY disturbed by these revelations; it was an "oh shit, this thing is NASTY and SERIOUS" moment, despite involving zero danger to anyone in the party personally. They could see how terrible this could be if it wasn't contained or destroyed.


Agreed.


I may have problems with Paizo and PF, but I can agree with this. It's a struggle to find a way to make "contextual" options that can be shared across an entire system, which sounds like a contradiction. I, too, hope that we'll see more development on that front. I think 13th Age's Backgrounds and OUTs are good starting points for new design ideas in this space.


Also agreed.


It's a careful dance. I have personally been very lucky, in that my players have responded much more positively than I ever dared hope to several NPCs I've introduced. Part of it is just that those NPCs are actually useful to the party, but part is also that the players were On Board for two of them being in a relationship. I've found a big part of setting the stage for player affection (for my group, at least) is just to show NPCs being relatable people with a skill to offer, and saving the "help us plz" for after a baseline rapport comes up. Offering a little witty humor now and then also helps! :p


Perhaps. I've actually found affection to be an extremely strong motivator in my group, mostly because the party is really good at finding communities that look to them for leadership and guidance, and the player(s) in question have zero problem with getting on board. For example, our party tiefling has taken multiple actions I would not have expected, due to deeply caring about people to whom he has a familial and/or philosophical connection. He became half-devil (as opposed to merely a tiefling) due to wanting to save a group of people who had collectively made a protect-us-from-horrible-things bargain with his (yet-to-be-determined) devilish ancestor, siphoning off their devilish essence, even though he HATES how manipulative and bastardly devils can be and wants nothing to do with them personally.


I mean, I literally quoted a person who used that exact word. And I have seen plenty of others, here and elsewhere on the internet, who either used that exact word, or said things functionally equivalent to it (something like "if the player isn't constantly in fear of


Perhaps I did not specify finely enough. I have absolutely seen (and been) a player having to sit out for 2-3 sessions or more, because there weren't henchmen around to step up or it didn't make sense to find a replacement yet. If that isn't losing your ability to participate, I don't know what is. And, as noted, I have had multiple people tell me that that's the whole point of character death--costing the player their participation in the game. ZakS, for example, explicitly said that to me on another forum, a long while back.


As I said, I literally quoted Lanefan, who explicitly used the word "paranoia" to describe the feeling players should have. If that isn't explicitly doing that, I don't know what to tell you.


I'm honestly not entirely sure what you're saying here, Tetrasodium. Also, I made this a General D&D thread since I didn't specifically mean to discuss 5e alone.


As above: I emphatically DO NOT wish to remove loss from the game. But "chance of injury" is not at all the same as "chance of loss," and a key part of my argument is that a lot of people, for a very long time, have been equating those two in a D&D context. Equating "your character may, and indeed almost certainly will, suffer loss, hardship, and difficulty" with "your character is at a very real risk of irrevocable (or at least not short-term resolvable) death basically all the time" is exactly the problem. The two are NOT one-to-one equivalent.


My experience, particularly with OSR things, has been that a player whose character dies does nothing (except make jokes and comment on the state of play) for the rest of that session. And possibly for multiple sessions thereafter. Hence why I said what I said.


Mr. Kuntz, I genuinely respect your contributions to gaming, but again, I feel very frustrated by this severe misinterpretation of what I said. I understand that you are mostly choosing to disengage with the thread, so if you do not wish to respond to this post, I would not hold it against you. But I emphatically reject the notion that I am advocating anything that lacks "challenges and uncertainty." Yes, I am saying that (character) death is severely over-emphasized as a potential cost. It frustrates me greatly that saying that gets transmuted into "oh, so you want a game where the players just succeed at everything they do, every time, always?"

I completely agree with you that an "Adventurer" that never experienced challenge or uncertainty would not deserve the title! I'm not saying that that is what should happen in any game. (I mean, if a group really wants that, more power to them I suppose, but it's definitely not for me.) I'm saying that the culture of D&D has falsely treated "death, particularly the ever-present threat of character permadeath" as being the ONLY form of loss, of "challenges and uncertainty," and that I think the hobby as a whole--but obviously not every single individual table--would be better-served by emphasizing a wider spectrum of losses, challenges, uncertainties, by considering other motivators besides fear (and very specifically the fear of character death).


I was told it is not possible to "win" D&D. Would you disagree? If you agree, does that mean D&D isn't a game? You can certainly lose, in lots of ways. I find losing-by-character-death is highly overvalued, and other forms of losing are often neglected or forgotten.


Completely agreed. When making changes to a game, you have to expect the unexpected. Consequences almost always spiral out from a change, and sometimes what seems like a small tweak has vast impact. Focusing challenge, hardship, loss, and uncertainty away from character death requires effort to keep things exciting and engaging. I have found that effort is not a burden, though, and its rewards are rich.


This, definitely. Though in my case, I run a world which is bright, but under threat: less "points of light" in a vast tapestry of darkness, and more...light and darkness about equal in influence, currently, but the latter poised to destroy the former....unless heroes rise to make a difference. Inattention and neglect can be just as dangerous as failure, because dark forces are surging back into power. It is not really possible for darkness to totally snuff out light, but things might suck for just as long as they've generally not sucked very much (that is, centuries to millennia, depending on the severity).


Agreed. Character death (that isn't reversed) permanently ends change and development. Hence, when I do consider death as a consequence, I prepare for making it yet another journey. The journey ends when we as a group decide it ends, but there's no guarantee the course will be easy, nor that it will go even remotely as planned, nor that the party will even get to where they originally planned to go. Those are all sources of challenge, loss, and uncertainty that are much more interesting to me than cutting the thread and ending a character--and I think they would be more interesting to other groups out there too, if more DMs considered something other than "your character died" as the weapon of first and last resort in terms of creating tension and hardship for the characters.
I have stated repeatedly that RPGs will and must incorporate differing POVs. I contest that having fear as a motivation be excluded from this as "Bollocks", for I don't believe it exists to begin with as players know that the game has hit points, saving throws and the like and that they are "battling" evil with the purpose of "possibly" defeating it. There is no guarantee as this remains to chance (thus answering your question yes, I do believe it is a game, for it involves chance and contest). Now, if you mean giving your players a sense of security through your actions as a DM to guarantee a neutral space in which to conduct fair exchanges (in the "game"), then I'd agree, but I'd also add this, if that were the case: Isn't this the mandamus for DM's anyway??

There is also the aspect of misinterpretation going on here, and there are so many wave lengths competing in this thread, compelling one to adduce that the Old School philosophy we established in the playtests is still in force even within the more confined and rooted aspects of the current system. What I see is variance here; and thus a definitive topic this is not. It is a specialized POV and as witnessed by those others who posted here, and as well as it should be.

IOW, whatever you do to manage your fun to its end is right not because of consensus (with the fanfare of Bollocks leading the charge towards that end, intentionally or not) but because of you and your group's POV. Thus I see the whole as more specifically positional rather than as broadly topical with results as noted.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I return... AGAIN.. to the OP. This is about fear of death as motivation.

As you reach the top of the first hill of a roller coaster, and go over that drop, yes there's a thrill. Nobody's saying that isn't there, or isn't fun.

That's separate from what it actually gets people to do, if anything.



So... time and time again, it has been noted that death is not the only possible consequence.

If what you are here to do is to beat the same old strawman drum, and say, "BUT I LIKE DEATH!!!" I really think you should go find a thread in which you can take some constructive part.
I might be misunderstanding your point, but it seems like your saying @Warpiglet-7's statement is so unrelated to the OP' point that it deserves to be called out on that front
1618269532750.png

Death is a specific quantified "loss" & the player does not actually need to die in order for fear of that specific risk to provide reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way that makes efforts to avoid that loss. If @Warpiglet-7's quoted point is not relevant to "fear as a motivation" is the discussion just being narrowed down to "good point op" or "I disagree but the scope of discussion is too narrow to discuss why?" What people do in response to a given motivation is critical to discussing if a given motivation is a net gain positive component or a "bad" net loss to the game.


This actually brings up a tangential point that's probably worth noting here: as the editions have gone by the hard-loss conditions other than death have generally been either nerfed ot eliminated from the game, leaving death as all there is. Consider; in 0e and 1e that beyond just simple death you faced the possibility of:

level loss (partially repairable, at great cost to the PC)
much more frequent magic item destruction (from AoE damage, rust monsters, etc.)
petrification (repairable at slight but significant risk to the PC)
sometimes-massive aging effects and resulting gain/loss of stats (repairable only if you happened to find the right potion)
polymorph-other permanently turning you (including your mind!) into a rabbit or salmon or earthworm

So, compare 5e*:

Level loss - completely gone. This is the big one.
Item destruction - very rare if ever.
Petrification - still there but much easier to resist (need to fail a series of saves rather than just one).
Aging effect - ghosts can still do this but it's not as easy.
Polymorph - nerfed significantly.

* - if there's examples of these in any post-initial releases I don't know of them, and am all ears.
Attribute damage was a thing for a while too
 

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
I return... AGAIN.. to the OP. This is about fear of death as motivation.

As you reach the top of the first hill of a roller coaster, and go over that drop, yes there's a thrill. Nobody's saying that isn't there, or isn't fun.

That's separate from what it actually gets people to do, if anything.



So... time and time again, it has been noted that death is not the only possible consequence.

If what you are here to do is to beat the same old strawman drum, and say, "BUT I LIKE DEATH!!!" I really think you should go find a thread in which you can take some constructive part.
For real?

I also mention losing treasure and levels. Are those verboten too?

have the conversation you want in an echo chamber. Enjoy!
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No. I remove hard-loss — you can't lose my game.

Your character, on the other hand, will lose a ton of stuff, important and personal. They will lose their heirloom sword, the vessel of their ancestors' spirits. They will lose their grimmoir, their Magnum Opus, all the research and breakthroughs they made to understand the greater laws of magic. They will lose their families, their sons and their lovers.

Oh God will they lose. The cruel world will chew them and spit them out, forever changed, and more often than not, changed to the worse.
You can do your worst, though, and I'm still going to win.
I don't see anything wrong with participation medals — the real medals are the friends we made along the way or something.
They're an illusion of competence that can mislead those who receive them into thinking that they are better at something than they are.
I'm not particularly interested in testing, whether the players can beat the game, and as a player, I can't say that I feel any importance in the fact that my character has survived the Tomb of Horrors.

What I am interested in is seeing how characters would react to hardships, how would they change and develop.
That all applies to games with PC death in them, though. A game with PC death in it doesn't have to focus on beating the game. And you can still see how characters would react to hardships and how they would develop. You'll get a more accurate reading, actually, since the fear of death will alter how a PC approaches a situation, and a player who doesn't fear PC death will rarely roleplay that as well as he would if he knows that he can lose his character.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Well, Monopoly is rank 20,535 out of 20,542 ranked games on BoardGameGeek, so calling that a paragon of good design doesn't seem like a strong argument. It's better than The Game of Life (rank 20,536), so I guess it's not the worst.


But I'll abstain on Diplomacy. I've never played it and it's ranked 614 (top 3% of all games), so either the mechanic is used well or the game's so good one flaw isn't worth mentioning.

(Although the most recent review I could find notes that "You need 7 players who are simultaneously ruthless and congenial, are willing to sacrifice half a day and are okay with practically guaranteed player elimination." Not an endorsement of the mechanic.)

Monopoly is the best selling board game of all time.
 


HJFudge

Explorer
My 2 cents here:

If there is no loss state, then there is no way to 'win'. In tabletop games I play, it is very possible to lose the campaign. The two hard loss states I have usually are TPK and severe failure to stop the bad-guy. I inform everyone of this during session 0. Everyone knows its possible to lose. We have had campaign losses before. I'd say about 1/3rd of the campaigns Ive played or ran have ended due to a Loss State. Note: We don't stop playing, we just start a new campaign. We as players do not lose out on game night or game time! Someone almost always has a campaign idea waiting in the wings to be tried out :)

I do not enjoy games where it is impossible to lose. Where whilst I may face minor setbacks or obstacles or loss, if I cannot truly LOSE the game then my choices feel empty. After all, any choice at all leads to an eventual victory in some form or another.

That said, this fear of losing is NOT what motivates me when I play or my players. Fear of loss might be in there for the characters, as in they fear being unable to save the world, losing their loved ones, whatever...but there are plenty of other motivators throughout the game that drive the party. These usually involve greed of one form or another. Getting that next level, or that next power, or that next item. Often it is also revenge for previous losses incurred that motivate the player. That long time NPC who burnt down our parties castle...we're gonna make him pay!

But again, if a game cannot be lost, I see no point in playing. If I wanted that, theres a book right there I can just read it. The end is known from the beginning and no decisions are of actual consequence except for one: The decision to just not play. There can be no triumph without real risk of losing the game.

For me, anyway.


EDIT: To be very clear, losing items, losing levels, losing prestige, losing abilities...these are all not true losses since they can be gained back simply by playing more. Nothing is LOST, they are only temporarily gone without. Only with a real negative end-state to the campaign and a risk of that negative end-state being reached is there actual LOSS in any sense for the PCs.
 
Last edited:

I do not enjoy games where it is impossible to lose. Where whilst I may face minor setbacks or obstacles or loss, if I cannot truly LOSE the game then my choices feel empty. After all, any choice at all leads to an eventual victory in some form or another.
Alright. Let's pick this apart some, then.

Is death the only form of loss you would consider permanent?

I argue that there are other forms of loss, and threat, with permanent effects, that while they might be interpretable as being focused on fear, any fear involved is a side, a byproduct. I've given various examples, but here's some in brief form:
Beloved NPC is hurt, killed, or corrupted
Personal goal becomes impossible (e.g. "become a professor at Strixhaven" is nixed if Strixhaven is destroyed)
Sophie's Choice (e.g. "if I save my mother, my nemesis will destroy the only evidence of his crimes")
What You Are in the Dark scenario (you could kill the rightful heir and become king...but can you live with the guilt?)
Agonizing over what to do (from the game I run: "Do I take an evil power to help someone I love, or have them keep it to avoid temptation?")
Imminent danger that may come to pass for others (e.g. a plague strikes your home city, if you succeed it's cured, if you fail many will die)
Tragic/painful sacrifice (your initial attack failed...but if you break the staff of power you worked SO hard to get, you might kill the BBEG)

None of these require that the character die, and they aren't really about fear, but rather about deciding what you value most, about deciding where your affections lie, or about seeing the things you're enthusiastic for suffer. In many cases, there's little or nothing that can be done to reverse the damage; you might rebuild from it, but whatever you build will be a new thing taking the old thing's place, not a sweet and simple resurrection of the old. Even if you redeem your beloved NPC friend, they'll never be quite the same, and they'll have to regain the trust of others. Even if you do manage to find a cure for the plague a year later, there's no way you can resurrect all of its victims, and the proverbial scars it will leave on the people and the land will linger for generations. If you fought hard to earn the crown, having to abdicate in order to save the people of your country from war could be a horribly devastating loss, even though all it does is remove a title from your name.

These, to my mind, are much more interesting losses than "your character dies." Obviously, that won't apply to everyone. But I have definitely seen, here and elsewhere, a trend toward saying that the ONLY loss that ever truly matters is character death, and everything else is unimportant. There's even a degree to which your own post can be read that way!
 

HJFudge

Explorer
To put simply: no death is not the only form of permanent loss. As I mentioned in my previous post, a negative campaign end state also represents a permanent loss and this does not have to equal the characters die. The characters can fail in such a way that for the campaign and there quest there is no recovery.

An actual play example. The heroes caught wind of the big bads plan to steal a powerful artifact. So they went to stop his forces. No one died but they did not end up getting to the place in time. They failed and the plot moved forward. A couple adventures later they found out the big bad was going to use that artifact to create the world engine, a horrific device that would put the world under a cloud of darkness and allow him to raise the dead as his slaves. The characters attempted to stop this creation but ended up choosing to abandon the task when word their home kingdom was under attack. They reasoned they'd stop it before it was activated. No one died but that quest failed.

They stopped the invasion of their home kingdom and then went back to stop the big bad from deploying the world engine. A couple died this time, a series of tough battles leading to a climactic duel with the big bad. They had x rounds to somehow stop the big bad from activating the world engine. They failed.

Thus was the world covered in darkness. The heroes were dead or captured and the land suffered for an age.

Campaign loss. But a gripping tale. Death happened but the loss was not due to that but the repeated failures to stop the big bads plans. If they had chosen differently at several points they would have had different outcomes and may have stopped the evil at several points but alas.

In this example it was the choices made that led to loss, ultimately. Later we had a follow on campaign in that same world called "from the ashes" with different characters set in the future, mankind was on the edge of extinction and this party's quest was to find a mythical portal to a new world, one free of darkness.
 

loverdrive

Makin' cool stuff
Publisher
In Diplomacy if you're knocked out of the game as any country (which is the purpose), you are out. Same in Monopoly, the Game of Life, etc. If people want a narrative fiction-building approach without challenges and uncertainty or, gosh, even death for daring to be an "Adventurer" (Poor Magellan, he should have been a surveyor of estates rather than of the Earth) even when the current rules are favorable to their constant gain and guardianship, then what's the worth or reason in even referring to it as a "game"? Why go through theatrics of the mind when all the results are the same positive outcomes? Who's fooling who in this scenario? I find this whole topic, forgive me, rather bizarre from not only a designer's view but from a reality based reasoning. Is an RPG a game or not? If so there are winners and losers, monsters die by the thousands under your immersed PC's spells and melee. But it's still a game and thus you are still a target for those who you haven't killed, and the DM is the fair arbiter in this bi-lateral exchange of who, what, where, when, why and how. "Yo Goliath! Meet David's Stone!"
Defining a game as "having winners and losers" sounds like super weird. By that definition, most videogames ain't games, as you can't lose. Dwarf Fortress, then, is also not a game, because you can't win.

That all applies to games with PC death in them, though. A game with PC death in it doesn't have to focus on beating the game. And you can still see how characters would react to hardships and how they would develop. You'll get a more accurate reading, actually, since the fear of death will alter how a PC approaches a situation, and a player who doesn't fear PC death will rarely roleplay that as well as he would if he knows that he can lose his character.
I doubt that I'd get a more accurate reading, since being afraid for one's life and being afraid for a fictional character aren't exactly comparable things.

And the thing is, I don't want players feel like they're risking anything. After all, why the hell a player should be afraid of losing their character, if the player and the character are on the opposite sides of the barricades?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I doubt that I'd get a more accurate reading, since being afraid for one's life and being afraid for a fictional character aren't exactly comparable things.
It wouldn't mirror real life, but it would be more accurate than without it as a possibility.
And the thing is, I don't want players feel like they're risking anything. After all, why the hell a player should be afraid of losing their character, if the player and the character are on the opposite sides of the barricades?
Afraid is the wrong word for a lot of us. Feel like I'm taking a risk with my PC's life sometimes? Yes. Afraid of losing the character? No. Losing a character sucks, but playing without that risk would suck more for me.
 

Defining a game as "having winners and losers" sounds like super weird. By that definition, most videogames ain't games, as you can't lose. Dwarf Fortress, then, is also not a game, because you can't win.
OT a bit, but I am not consigning games to the dustbin of history due to some social experiment. This is what (below), in part, is eradicated through the objection of win-lose, contest,competition; and with it goes critical thinking, social and scientific leaps (Game Theory, Play Theory, Economic Theory. et al) progress and learning advantage advances through these that are noted as fact, not feelings. I embrace the past that forwarded us to the present It is part and parcel of over 2,000 years of human endeavor in this area and I will not toss it to a ditch, and its thousands of examples and billions of adherents and designers. Good day.

CARD GANES





Game NamePlayersDeck Used
1000 Blank White Cards3+Unique
3-5-8352
304436
400452
5002-633-63
662-420-24

A[edit | edit source]


Game NamePlayersDeck Used
All Fours2-852
All Fives2-352
Agram2-731-35
Apples to Apples4-10Unique

B[edit | edit source]


Game NamePlayersDeck Used
Baccarat2+6-8 x 52
Barbu
Bartok
Blackjack
Bezique
Bourre
Briscola

C[edit | edit source]



D[edit | edit source]



E[edit | edit source]



F[edit | edit source]



G[edit | edit source]



H[edit | edit source]



I[edit | edit source]



J[edit | edit source]



K[edit | edit source]



L[edit | edit source]



M[edit | edit source]



N[edit | edit source]


  • Napoleon (or Nap) – trick-taking game with auction, based on whist, variable number of players
  • Nertz
  • Nines – three-handed whist variant

O[edit | edit source]



P[edit | edit source]



Q[edit | edit source]



R[edit | edit source]



S[edit | edit source]


Samba (4 to 6 players)



T[edit | edit source]



U[edit | edit source]



V[edit | edit source]



W[edit | edit source]



X[edit | edit source]



Y[edit | edit source]



Z[edit | edit source]


Žandari





MINIATURE WARGAMES (and RPGs by extension)


Wargamers and designers[edit]








Little Wars, by H. G. Wells (1913).


  • H.G. Wells – Known as the "Father of Miniature Wargaming" and author of the miniature wargaming classic Little Wars.[35]
  • Jack Scruby – The "Father of Modern Miniature Wargaming".[36] Popularized modern miniature wargaming and organized perhaps the first miniatures convention in 1956. Jack Scruby was also a manufacturer of military miniatures whose efforts led to a rebirth of the miniature wargaming hobby in the late 1950s.
  • Gary Gygax – Co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons and a number of miniature wargames.
  • Dave Arneson – Co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons
  • MAR Barker -Creator of Tekumel: Empire of the Petal Throne, professor, linguist, and author.
  • Peter Cushing -Actor, and star of films.
  • Duke Seifried – Sculptor of over 10,000 miniatures, one of the earliest American miniature manufacturers: Heritage, Custom Cast, Der Kreigspielers Napoleonic, and Fantastiques Fantasy Figures.
  • Bruce Rea Taylor - Designer of the Firefly, Challenger, Corps Commander andKorps Commander rules.
  • Charles Grant – Author and founder member of the UK wargaming scene in the 1960s. Helped popularize miniature wargaming.
  • Donald Featherstone – A respected military historian,[37] introduced to the hobby in 1955.[38] Since then, he was one of the most prolific authors on the subject, and very influential in the development of the hobby.
  • Fletcher Pratt – Science fiction writer (often in collaboration with L. Sprague de Camp) and originator of a popular set of rules for naval miniature wargaming.
  • Kevin Cabai-Armor Officer and wagamer- Kevin has used in many years in the Armor Branch to write a number of highly realistic and yet playable rules sets. His first Jagdpanzer- cover mechanized combat in World War II. The game was first seen at major conventions in 1985. It has been through a revised 2nd edition and is widely available. Sand Oil and Blood- was co-authored, with Marty Fenelon. It was the modern warfare version of tank combat. Already in the works to be published during Desert Shield, it was released 30 days after Desert Storm. Finally Mekong- A rule set covering Riverine Warfare in Viet Nam. Again co-authored with Marty Fenelon, it was picked up and sold by GHQ.
  • Terry Wise- Historian and writer- many Osprey publications to his credit along with the seminal "Introduction to Battlegaming" of 1969. Published rules for Ancients, Pike and Shot and American Civil wargaming that are fast, fun and easy to use.
  • Walter ("Wally") Simon – One of the original founders of the Historical Miniature Gaming Society. First President of HMGS and Organizer of the Potomac Wargamers, publisher of the PW Review.
  • Dick Bryant – Co-founder with Wally Simon of HMGS and editor since 1969 ofThe Courier Miniature Wargaming Magazine. His editorial in that magazine castigating GAMA for choosing cardboard counters as "The Best New Historical Miniature" started the search for an organization that supported and promulgated the hobby of Historical Miniature Wargaming that resulted in the "Meeting in Wally's Basement" that was the initialization of HMGS.
  • David Waxtel – Publisher of over 20 sets of rules, and supplement books.
  • George Gush – Noted for A Guide to Wargaming (1980) as well as the WRG Renaissance Rules
  • John Hill – Known for his classic Squad Leader and other Avalon Hill board games, also the author of the popular Johnny Reb miniatures rules.
  • Raymond ("Ray") James Jackson – Author of Classic Napoleonics, an "Old School" set of miniature wargame rules which have been in existence since 1961. Chairman and CEO of both HMGS-West and the War Gaming Society. A miniature wargamer since 1958.
  • Frank Chadwick – Author of the Command Decision and Volley & Bayonet rules,Space: 1889 and Traveller, and co-founder of Game Designers' Workshop.
  • Gene McCoy – Founder of the Wargamers Digest magazine and creator of theWargamers Digest WW2 Rules game framework.
  • Phil Barker – Founder of the Wargames Research Group, and inventor of the De Bellis Antiquitatis game series.
  • Arty Conliffe – Designer of Armati, Crossfire, Spearhead, Shako and Tacticarules.
  • Bob Jones – Founder of Piquet and designer of the Piquet wargame series.
  • Brigadier Peter Young, DSO, MC – Highly decorated World War II commandoleader, commander of the 9th Regiment of the Arab Legion, founder of the Sealed Knot English Civil War reenactment society, Reader of Military History atSandhurst, author of several books on military history, also author of Charge! Or How to Play Wargames and The War Game: Ten Great Battles Recreated from History.
  • Phil Dunn – Founder of the Naval Wargames Society and author of Sea Battle Games.
  • John McEwan – Creator of the first science fiction ground combat miniatures game Starguard! in 1974 along with over 200 figures and models for this game.
  • Tony Bath – Author and veteran wargamer, founding member of the Society of Ancients, best known as umpire of one of the longest running and well known of all wargames campaigns, set in the fictional land of Hyboria.
  • David Manley – Author of many sets of naval rules including Action Stations, Fire When Ready, Iron and Fire, Bulldogs Away, and Form Line of Battle, as well as numerous articles and technical papers on naval wargaming, history, and warship design.
  • Scott Mingus – founder of the international Johnny Reb Gaming Society and one of the world's most prolific authors of American Civil War scenario books.
  • Neville Dickinson – One of the original members of the UK wargaming scene and founder of Miniature Figurines, the first firm in the UK to popularize metal miniatures.
  • Larry Brom - designer of The Sword and The Flame, one of the most popular colonial era wargames.
  • Andy Chambers – Known for his work in rules design and revision for Games Workshop Inc. and Mongoose Publishing. Notable games he helped develop include Warhammer 40,000 and Starship Troopers: The Miniatures Game.
  • Bryan Ansell - Creator of Laserburn, Rules with No Name, co-creator/co-author of Warhammer, author Warhammer 40,000 and a host of other game credits. Associated primarily with Games Workshop and Citade Miniatures, also Asgard Miniatures
  • Rick Priestley – co-creator/co-author of Warhammer, author Warhammer 40,000 and a host of other game credits. Associated primarily with Games Workshop and Citadel but earlier work included co-authoring the seminal fantasy wargame rulebook Reaper.
  • Rusty Gronewold – Lead designer with Tactical Command Games, has developed many different miniature games, such as Stellar Fire, Legions Unleashed, Conflict 2000, Stellar Conflicts & Uprisings, Gunslingers & Desperados, Pirates & Buccaneers just to name a few.
  • Paddy Griffith - Military historian and founder of Wargame Developments, he devised and ran the first Megagames as well as many experimental wargames that were designed to give military historians a greater insight into how battles and campaigns were actually fought. Many of his wargames posed ethical and moral dilemmas for the players and challenged orthodox thinking.
  • Alessio Cavatore - Writer of many popular rulesets. Famous for his work with Games Workshop, Mantic and Warlord.
  • Lorenzo Giusti - One of the most popular Fantasy Football sculptors with over 800 figures and models for these kind of games, founder and owner of Greebo Games

Tile Based Games



Commercial games[edit]



Games using non-rectangular tiles[edit]



Board games[edit]



Sports Games





Vast Majority of contest oriented and//or competition sports AND their electronic counterparts (Like Madden Football, etc.)





Play (Traditional Activity Games) Vast Majority





Tag games[edit]



Hiding games[edit]



Games with equipment[edit]



Jumping games[edit]



Memory games[edit]



Parlour games[edit]



Hand games[edit]



Other traditional children's games[edit]



Mod Edit: Added the spoiler block, because that block of stuff was waaaay too long for whatever point is was making ~Umbran
 
Last edited by a moderator:


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top