On the Importance of Mortality

[Raven Crowking]

But the "stakes" are a product of player investment in their characters, not by whether or not the fictional situations they're in are life-and-death.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe that what you are saying is completely true. Yes, if the players aren't invested, then no matter what the game stakes are, the outcome doesn't matter. However, given that the players are equally invested, a game in which the game stakes are higher is going to have higher stakes than one that does not.

Given the following situations:

(A) Low player investment, high game stakes
(B) Low player investment, low game stakes
(C) High player investement, high game stakes
(D) High player investment, low game stakes​

it is hard to argue that (B) has the lowest stakes overall, and (C) the highest. The questions may be, I guess, (1) Are you able to have high player investement with high game stakes? and (2) Do you want high stakes?

With respect to (2), I submit that, while one may not want high game stakes at all times (indeed, this would create its own form of boredom, reducing player investment), player investment is actually increased within a paradigm in which the game stakes are occasionally raised, and in which they are not always told when the raise will occur. This submission, if accepted, also answers (1).

As far as I am concerned, a real chance of failure, and real consequences for that failure, define what is "high stakes". While there are certainly high stakes other than death -- and, indeed, some stakes might be even higher, such as the destruction of the campaign world itself -- I would have a real difficulty with suspension of disbelief/game investement in a world in which even the most foolish choices led to survival.


RC

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Oh sure, there are some challenges that are tantamount to suicide, and in those cases I'd inform my players of that fact. I'd say something like "Wouldn't you rather take a nice dip in lava?". Again, we all work together to keep the game playable.

The point wasn't that the enemy was SO far out of their league, but rather that he wouldn't be the kind to let mortal enemies live. Sometimes the challenge isn't tantamount to suicide per se, maybe the PCs even have a ~75% chance of winning, but the PCs tactics are flawed, something goes wrong, things get worse, and they have to flee leaving some behind. You see how that's different than suicide? When facing a great evil, heroic PCs may indeed go into a fight where it is very likely that one or more of them will fall.

I'm good at creating antagonists with believable motivations beyond "Kill them all!". It's not so hard.

Again, not my point. Even if the villain's primary motivation isn't "Kill them all!," that's still a sound and logical response to people who have broken into your home trying to kill you (especially when you ARE the law). It is foolish to let such enemies live, since you know they're only going to try again. The BBEG's motivations might be "Complete this artifact," "Take over this kingdom," "Avenge myself upon this person," or whatever. But the specific response to "Hmm, I seem to have people who have broken into my home, defeated most of my wards, slain many of my guards, and actually injured me" should be something definitive that will make sure these would-be assassins won't get another chance. You see how that's different than his motivations being "Kill them all!"?

Even with death-lite mechanics, if a) you have a chance of being defeated, and b) defeated but not dead means you might be captured, and c) BBEGs make sure that those who tried to assassinate them never get another chance, then you'll still end up with dead PCs.

I'm guessing that, in addition to death-lite mechanics, c) is where you change things.

 

[Reynard]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe that what you are saying is completely true. Yes, if the players aren't invested, then no matter what the game stakes are, the outcome doesn't matter. However, given that the players are equally invested, a game in which the game stakes are higher is going to have higher stakes than one that does not.

In my experience, players who are heavily invested in their characters, have "character stories" and otherwise engage the game world are exactly the kinds of players for whom the possibility of death matters. It is a motivating factor -- not dying, I mean -- because the players *do not want* their character to die. Therefore, they take steps to avoid it -- stacking the deck in their favor, assessing situations and challenges before they commit to them and overall playing a character like a person who doesn't want to just throw his/her life away. This creates a better gaming experience for everyone at the table, IMO. And if that player's character dies and they are upset, that is a good thing -- it means they were emotionally invested in the game enough to give a damn.

Again, this isn't about putting notches in your DM screen or anything like that. it is about making a better gaming experience. I appreciate that some people don't want to have to go through all the effort of either rolling up a new character or getting a character raise, but, in my games at least, "tough noogies". I think the argument that creating a new character is a pain has merit, expecially in 3E when there is so much to consider; the argument that the player has to sit out for the rest of the night or the next sessionbecause the DM can't be bothered to come up with a plausible reason why the new PC can't get into the action quickly does not have merit. Even worse is the idea that play has to suddenly stop and everyone has to go home because one character bit it.

 

[Mallus]

Therefore, they take steps to avoid it -- stacking the deck in their favor, assessing situations and challenges before they commit to them and overall playing a character like a person who doesn't want to just throw his/her life away.

Which runs contrary to campaigns based around "fast-paced, high-spirited, swashbuckling, pedal-to-the-floor adventure". Personally, I'm done with playing some sort of pseudo-medieval mercenary/actuary. I had enough of that in 1e.

This creates a better gaming experience for everyone at the table, IMO.

Only for certain styles of play.

And if that player's character dies and they are upset, that is a good thing...

Then what?

I think the argument that creating a new character is a pain has merit, expecially in 3E when there is so much to consider; the argument that the player has to sit out for the rest of the night or the next session because the DM can't be bothered to come up with a plausible reason why the new PC can't get into the action quickly does not have merit. Even worse is the idea that play has to suddenly stop and everyone has to go home because one character bit it.

Fortunately, none of those have been my argument.

New characters introduced mid-campaign lack any real connection to established game narrative. They have no shared history. They are perforce less entangled with the story. Sure, you can write a backstory in, but we all know how that stacks up against actual play.

 

[Reynard]

New characters introduced mid-campaign lack any real connection to established game narrative. They have no shared history. They are perforce less entangled with the story. Sure, you can write a backstory in, but we all know how that stacks up against actual play.

How long is that an issue? A session? Two? If it is more than that, neither the DM nor the player are making the effort to get the new character "entangled".

 

[Mallus]

How long is that an issue? A session? Two?

Depends on the player and the complexity of the campaign.

I'm not suggesting that it's particularly hard to get new PC's involved, just that new characters entering into an established game cannot have the same level of connection to the characters/events that lay the groundwork for everything happening in the game. And I see no significant benefit in removing said connections via PC death when I have a plenty of other meaningful, interesting, even high-stakes consequences to play with.

In the end it's been my experience that replacement characters are almost never as interesting (and their players as engaged) as original characters. Much like with any other form of narrative entertainment, swapping protagonists mid-stream usually doesn't make the story better.

If it is more than that, neither the DM nor the player are making the effort to get the new character "entangled".

Being a wee bit judgmental, eh?

 

[Reynard]

Being a wee bit judgmental, eh?

Maybe a little, I suppose. But the fact is that players are responsible for their own fun and assuming they desire to continue in the game, it is incumbent on them to get engaged. Likewise, the DM is responsible for helping that happen.

 

[Raven Crowking]

New characters introduced mid-campaign lack any real connection to established game narrative. They have no shared history. They are perforce less entangled with the story. Sure, you can write a backstory in, but we all know how that stacks up against actual play.

That isn't necessarily true.

In a game like bog-standard 3.x, where characters go from 1 to 20 over the course of a game year or two, then that can surely be a problem. In a game where the pace is slower...or even where there are breaks between major arcs....PCs can have relationships, children, etc. They can create & develop a stable of interconnected characters so that, when someone falls, his lover, or brother, or daughter, or friend is ready to stand in and take his place. If characters are rotated already in parts of the game (i.e., you play Erac in Adventure A, and Erac's Cousin in Adventure B, then go back to Erac for Adventure C), this can be especially strong. Where death is a temporary setback, it could well be that Erac's Cousin is only there to help bring Erac to the Temple of Life, after which he again becomes a supporting character.

(This is not unlike Lando in The Return of the Jedi, btw, acting as a sort of stand-in for Han Solo when Han can't be there.)

RC

 

[Varianor Abroad]

In the end it's been my experience that replacement characters are almost never as interesting (and their players as engaged) as original characters. Much like with any other form of narrative entertainment, swapping protagonists mid-stream usually doesn't make the story better.

I've seen players swap characters mid-stream both involuntarily and voluntarily. The story gets worse if the removed character was the linchpin or centerpiece of the story, because now you have to explain why they aren't there. However, if the story isn't dependant upon one specific PC, a new character can introduce a cool and different dynamic. It's been done well a couple times.

 

[Fenes]

It comes down to this: For some, higher stakes means more fun (in moderation I think - I doubt all those who want consequences and risk and so on would play a game where they would be required to pay 100 Dollar per character death, even though this would be an even greater risk, and therefore greater fun according to that logic). Others know that for them, character death, even the threat of it, ruins a game.

It's like trying to persuade someone who likes/dislikes a certain dish that it is the best/worst dish - taste differs for people.