Isn't it kind of cheating to post here?

[ST]

The game does have winner and losers.

That's your game. Others may vary. Some of us are running games without character death or, uhm, modules.

They're not better or worse than your games -- playing as a form of intellectual challenge is fun -- but it's not the only way to play a role-playing game.

 

[Jdvn1]

There are acceptions of course

Yes, we can all accept exceptions.

 

[der_kluge]

I think Mark_j has it - it's a game. So, people looking for advice are simply looking for help with the game. A lot it is tactical advice. And not everyone is very good with tactics and strategy. I'm not. A lot of people seek plot ideas, and campaign advice as well, which is also perfectly valid, since these forums can offer a lot of help in those areas.

But the other Mark is also right. It has happened in the past where someone wanted us to solve an in-game riddle for them because they couldn't figure it out. Most people didn't really want to help, because most felt it would detract from their game playing experience if they got outside assistance.

 

[Crothian]

That's your game. Others may vary. Some of us are running games without character death or, uhm, modules.

They're not better or worse than your games -- playing as a form of intellectual challenge is fun -- but it's not the only way to play a role-playing game.

I don't think you are understanding. Modules are just adventures, what you do in a session. Use a pre made or not, you are still running some kind of plot. Death is not the only way to fail, you could run a political base game with no fighting but the characters can still fail.

Or are you saying there is no chance of character failure in your game?

 

[mark_j]

The game does have winner and losers. If I die in a campaign, I have obviously lost. If I succeed and get through an adventure or module, I have won. It is just the game doesn't have to stop after that victory, I can keep going.

Well, ok. I guess playing primarily OAD&D, where character death is much more common IMHO, has effected my opinion on the matter of winning and losing while playing a P&P RPG. If someone take the "video game" approach to their play, then winning and losing is a definate possibility, I guess (video game approach = amass power and keep character alive as long as possible in order to amass power). Realize that I am not insinuating that you play in such a manner, just giving an example of someone who would consider D&D a game to be "won".

Heck, when one of our characters dies, we cast Raise Dead and get back to having fun. If the character is too low level/too poor to be raised, then we roll up a new one and get back to having fun. It's not that we don't get attached to characters, because we do. We just only become attached to the ones that survive low levels.

 

[Barak]

I see many more DMs asking for "help" than players anyway. Are they cheating too?

 

[Jdvn1]

I see many more DMs asking for "help" than players anyway. Are they cheating too?

Yes! We're all cheaters!

 

[eris404]

The game does have winner and losers. If I die in a campaign, I have obviously lost. If I succeed and get through an adventure or module, I have won. It is just the game doesn't have to stop after that victory, I can keep going.

But in the same vein, even if one character dies, you can always make another and continue playing - or, if the means are available, you can have the character resurrected/restored. Of course, there are exceptions to this, too.

But back to the original question, I guess I don't have a problem with these sorts of discussions here most of the time. In game, the characters are supposed to be knowledgeable and good at what they do, so the discussion of tactics out of game sort of simulates that. When I get the chance to DM, I tend to root for the PCs. That doesn't mean I don't try to challenge them, but I hope I am good sport and generous when they are clever, have done their homework and do well. But, the players in my group are far cleverer than I am, so I tend to need the help more than they do.

The only time when these discussions bother me (and this applies to both DMs and players who post here) is when they seem overtly mean-spirited. If we can believe the posters, there are some grossly unfair DMs out there and some devious players, too. It's not my business how someone plays their game, but I certainly won't read it about it.

 

[Crothian]

I see many more DMs asking for "help" than players anyway. Are they cheating too?

Some of them that are asking how to defeat their players are, some others though are really just seeking help in improving their game.

 

[ST]

Or are you saying there is no chance of character failure in your game?

Nah. I'm a dirty hippie, but I'm not *that* out there.

My take is that suspense isn't really in "will they make it", but "how much will it cost?" I tune in every week to watch 24, and I'm on the edge of my seat, even though I know Jack Bauer's not going to die. It's all about the sacrifices you're willing to make to get what you want.

So in the games I run, yeah, I suppose it's pretty likely to "not fail", but at what cost? I had a PC in my last campaign ultimately succeed at his original goal at the cost of becoming a drug addict and abandoning the one woman who loved him. Did he succeed, or fail? Would he have been better off if he'd backed down and kept his girlfriend and his health? I dunno. Have to ask the player.

Either way, though, it wouldn't have been cheating for him to talk about it on the Internet, because there's no right answer.

But I've played in puzzle-style games, too, where we didn't do that kind of thing. It just depends on what you're in the mood for. But "will he die or not" is the least interesting kind of suspense for me personally. If they don't die, okay, next challenge -- if they do, new character. I'd rather see the character go through highs and lows but stay alive and in play.