Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6479479" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Sorry to be almost a week later in getting back to these.  For sure.  I think anyone interested in designing a game should have this question among the top two or three on their list of to-dos.  If you create a game system without deep consideration for precisely what sort of behavior you want to encourage from your players, and thus what sort of action declarations are likely to come up in play, its likely that some tension between play agenda and the actual outcomes that spin out of play procedures will arise.  Some folks call that a feature.  I'll call it a bug.  Muddled genre and disunity twixt the players' expectations and what the system actually produces are never a good thing imo.Certainly one way to do it and the FATE model delivers on its promise well.Agreed.  Those are the systems I had in mind (and Dogs in the Vineyard).Well, its certainly relevant, its just not the only target that you have to pin down and hit the bullseye on.  The other targets mentioned in this thread are all very relevant as well.  And certainly your statement above, of which I've advocated the same plenty a time before, is another aspect of the mix.  If you make your game about brutal survival and every campaign loss is utterly punitive to your ability to play the game at all, then don't be surprised when players spend all their resources to hedge against campaign losses!One quick example of handling the issue of campaign losses (which has been mentioned in the thread) is how my 4e games are organized:1)  While my combats are quite difficult (n + 2 or more for standard, budget-wise), perhaps only 1/3 of the total conflicts in my game happen to be combat.  Since 2/3 of my conflicts are noncombat, my players make deep investments in a thematic suite of noncombat abilities such that campaign wins are much more likely in noncombat conflict resolution.2)  Beyond campaign losses, my noncombat conflicts charge PCs Healing Surges for micro-losses and everyone for macro-losses (sometimes 2 surges).  If its a "perilous journey" or "oregon trail attrition" or "find the temple of templedom in the swamp of swampty-do (love that place by the way...especially this time of year)", and the PCs suffer a campaign loss, then the PCs will have to repeat the conflict.   That can create a pretty severe spiral, especially coupled with the denial of Extended Rests.3)  2 feeds back onto 1.4)  From a narrative perspective, noncombat campaign losses suck.Ok, I'm off to see The Hobbit with my nephew (and am preparing for disappointment as the journey to Lonely Mountain and Smaug has always been the meat of the story for me)!</blockquote>

Verification