On the Importance of Mortality

[Raven Crowking]

Come to Philadelphia. You'll encounter at least two...

Funny. I thought that death was possible in your current game. Whose games are you talking about?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, saying that every game can be used for training =/= that every game can be used to train every thing. It is perfectly valid to say that Soul Calibre trains the player (or can be used to train the player) without saying it does (or can) train the player to be a nunchuk-wielding Elvis impersonator......just as US Army Basic Training trained me for several things, none of which included singing "Blue Suede Shoes".


RC

 

[Mallus]

Funny. I thought that death was possible in your current game. Whose games are you talking about?

Mine and shilsen's. For all intents and purposes, permanent PC death is off the table in both games, though it's not completely accurate to say PC death is impossible.

BTW, saying that every game can be used for training =/= that every game can be used to train every thing.

Right. But saying D&D can train you for real, high-stress, life-threatening situations, they kind of situations where one has the opportunity to display real courage and heroism, is still ridiculous.

Unless, of course, said saying was said in jest...

 

[Jack7]

As to heroism... a PC is heroic because they choose to stand up to evil, knowing that it may cost their life, when nobody else will. It is their choices, not their abilities, that makes them heroes.

Well said, Brother.

I submit that you can't train toward heroism without putting yourself in actual danger. Sitting around a table with dice, minis and a half-full bag of Doritos cannot in any meaningful way prepare you for real risk.

Of course you can. Tactical training, that is in this case and sense, mental training, is just as important as physical training, obstacle courses, combat training, etc.

However your larger point is also true.
Imagined dangers, or training ones for that matter, are not a real replacement for the facing of real physical dangers, but that comes with actual life experience, not training. All training, no matter how realistic, is after all, not like real life if one is truly honest about it.

So even in the most realistic of physical training, one really knows that training is training. Just practice. But just because training and practice are not the real things does not mean there is no, or even little value to, training and practice. You become better through practice, assuming your practice routine is a good one (and not faulty), and you do not become better at that for which you never train.

I'm not however suggesting gaming is experience for heroism (only real experience is), or will make heroes of pencil necked math geeks or college kids (then again there is no real reason a pencil necked math geek or a college kid can't be heroic) merely that it can be training for heroism, and for other things for that matter.

For instance many things go into heroism. Cleverness, determination, tactical capabilities, logistical assessment, best uses of resources, moral choices, etc. Heroism is not just fighting and self-sacrifice, though fighting and actual physical struggle are often the most easily recognizable end result(s) of heroism. It is the action that you see, but physical struggle is far from the only component of heroism.

It's like athletics and sports in that sense. To be good at football you must learn plays, as well as run them. As a matter of fact, unless you first learn them, you cannot run them. Many aspects of heroism are as much psychological and mental, even spiritual at times, as physical. But when you watch a play being run one tends to forget all of the training; physical, mental, and psychological that led up to the play. You see the play and recognize it as good and successful, or bad and a failure, but one tends to forget that beneath the play lie all the implications of how the play came to be in the first place.

So yes, you are correct, static games of a table top nature cannot allow you to realistically train for any sense of real physical danger (then again being tagged as shot or dead in a live wargame is very different from being shot at or nearly killed in combat), but they can be valuable, depending on how used, to train for many of the mental, psychological, mechanical, and logistical elements of which heroic actions are composed. But if you don't believe heroism is as mum about attitude and will and mental focus as it is physical danger, then try being brave and heroic without that focus, without that command over your own faculties and psyche. So both aspects, the ability to endure physical danger and hardship, which comes with physical training to some respect, and the will to focus on mission and overcome your own fears, which comes with mental training and practice, are absolutely necessary to your best efforts in most anything you do in life. And D&D can also be used as a training tool for any number of skills and abilities, not just heroism, I merely mentioned heroism because that was what the game was originally concerned with, in general, heroism. D&D could also be used a s a training tool for business matters, negotiating, politics, forensics, investigation, teaching tactical and strategic skills, studying myth and archaeology, teaching languages, etc. to greater or lesser effect, depending on how it is employed. Then again so could almost any other role playing game. And probably many video and computer games. And I'm sure many other games could be employed maybe more effectively for one end or another, but my first experience with role playing games was with D&D and its precursor games, and so it remains to me a sort of sentimental favorite.

But I didn't really wanna turn this into a thread about that, because it is not my thread, and it is really about mortality, not utility.

Doritos though can be extremely dangerous. I've seen the extra spicy kind dipped in red jalapeno sauce reduce one fella almost to tears. It was eventually okay, we fed him some Coors and a big slab of cheddar cheese and he revived to zero hit points. It was touch and go for awhile though.

If you meant that in dead seriousness, I'm afraid that you've just lost all of your credibility. Your argument that games are training is seriously contradicted by reality on several easily observable levels.

I was being facetious. Just teasing with Mallus a little. I know nothing about Soul Calibur, to tell you the truth, other than the fact that they mis-spelled calibre.

 

[Mallus]

D&D could also be used a s a training tool for business matters, negotiating, politics, forensics, investigation, teaching tactical and strategic skills, studying myth and archaeology, teaching languages, etc. to greater or lesser effect, depending on how it is employed.

See, I agree with all this. But I'm still convinced that a game with no real stakes can't teach you anything about making high-stakes, implicitly ethical/moral decisions.

Doritos though can be extremely dangerous/

Oh sure. I've seen the Cool Ranch and damage done, particularly to the waistlines of my fellow gamers (apologies to both Neil Young and my fellow gamers).

I know nothing about Soul Calibur, to tell you the truth, other than the fact that they mis-spelled calibre.

It's not misspelled. It's perfectly good Engrish.

 

[Reynard]

One can certainly have the game focused on other risks in the campaign world -- loss of standing, vulnerability of allies, and so on. But combat should have the risk of PC death.

Right. The consequence of failure is directly related to what is being risked. If characters are risking their lives -- whether for the greater good or for simple fortune and glory -- then their lives are the cost of failure. If you are playing a mercantile campaign, however, then things like wealth and reputation are at risk and combat isn't likely to figure into it (until a rival sends an assassin after you, but that's a different discussion).

In most D&D adventures, what's at risk is the character's life and limb. There may be other things at risk too -- the life of the princess sacrificed to the dragon, the fate of the nation as the orc horde bears down, etc... -- but if part of the PCs' method of dealing with the larger threat includes fighting things, then by definition they've put themselves, their lives, at risk to achieve their goals. Without that risk being real, they aren't really being heroic in taking the actions they do.

 

[jdrakeh]

. . just as US Army Basic Training trained me for several things, none of which included singing "Blue Suede Shoes".

Well, in fairness, the Army's Basic Training has no parallels to Soul Calibre worth mentioning. Basic Training isn't a game by design -- it's training by design. The comparison that you're making isn't valid, though I do see what you're getting at.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Mine and shilsen's. For all intents and purposes, permanent PC death is off the table in both games, though it's not completely accurate to say PC death is impossible.

The idea, AFAICT, is that, given a chance of PC mortality between 1 and 10, 0 isn't a viable option. And, as your game has PC mortality, it isn't 0.

Right. But saying D&D can train you for real, high-stress, life-threatening situations, they kind of situations where one has the opportunity to display real courage and heroism, is still ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as you might think. In many sports, for example, atheletes visualize what they want to achieve as part of their training. This visualization has demonstrable, and measureable, results on performance. Likewise, some studies have indicated that people routinely die of non-lethal injuries, presumably because they thought they were lethal.

Going through scenarios in which you must determine, say, where an ambush is likely might actually aid you in avoiding an ambush in real life (such as in the military). Fostering a "never give up" attitude might allow you to survive injuries that would otherwise kill you simply because you gave up. Certainly, even a basic working knowledge of tactics (including learning to seek tactical advantage), resource management, and how to indirectly attack someone....all core D&D skills from OD&D to 3e....is better than no knowledge at all in a survival situation.

D&D won't teach you how to swing a sword. It might teach you not to walk down dark alleys, though, and it might teach you to at least be aware of potential escape routes. It might teach you to be wary of being backed into a corner. It might teach you to better protect your home (by knowing what your thief would do to get in, you might take steps to prevent just that....I know someone who did exactly this). It might teach you not to get in over your head when there is little to gain. It might teach you not to keep your food in the tent in the wilderness. Certainly D&D can teach you many classic cons -- how to spot and avoid them.

In fact, the more your success is dictated by player choice (rather than die rolls), the more the game can teach in a practical sense.

As someone who has run games for people with social disabilities, I know that D&D can be used as a training tool to help others become more confident, and more aware of what is going on in the subtext of social situations.

 

[Jack7]

See, I agree with all this. But I'm still convinced that a game with no real stakes can't teach you anything about making high-stakes, implicitly ethical/moral decisions.

And that's your right, and I wouldn't take it from ya.
Not without proper training, anyhow.

But I'm not convinced that; business matters, negotiating, politics, forensics, investigation, tactical and strategic skills, aren't high stakes, implicitly ethical/moral matters. Or maybe it's just that people should try playing em as if they were a little more often.

That's a story for another day though, I suspect.

It's not misspelled. It's perfectly good Engrish.

It's funny - cause it's true.

Well folks, I gotta bug.
See ya later and engoy yourselves.

 

[Reynard]

Out of curiosity, for people like Mallus that thing death is either more trouble than it is worth or actively ruins the fun of the game, what do you do when play results in character death, whether it is a random criticasl against a PC or a player's decision that results directly in the character's untimely demise?