Should the players always win?
- Thread starter Hairfoot
- Start date
Kahuna Burger
First Post
In this more descriptive poll I would vote 3 with a leaning towards 2.Yair said:So, let's suggest alternate polls. Here's mine:
"Should the characters always achieve their goals, regardless of opposition?"
1. Yes. We fail enough in real life.
2. Almost, the characters should succeed in reasonable goals.
3. Almost, the characters should succeed in reasonable broad goals (even if they lose the battle, they shouldn't lose the war that is the focus of the campaign).
4. No, the characters should have a chance to succeed and a chance to fail at everything. Let the dice roll and fall where they may.
5. No, the characters should succeed or fail according to what makes a better story. Dice and even carefully laid out plans shouldn't wreck the storyline and drama.
6. No, the characters should always lose!
I'm in the colaborative storytelling vein of rpging and as long as my players are on the same page I work with them to create a challanging but successful overall story.
elmuthalleth
First Post
I think in a good campaign the palyers should have a fair chance to always save the day , but sometimes for bad luck , bad strategy or simply destiny , they lose . But I think the damage it should be somehow undone .
In my finishe campaign , the PCs failed to recover a piece of an artifact , because the evil guys destroyed it in a Cthulhu summoning ritual ( I have the Old ones in my D&D campaign ) .
They had to complete a difficult quest to find a method to restore the artifact and this had long term ripercussions in the campaign , which led to a extreme sacrifice of one PC .
In my finishe campaign , the PCs failed to recover a piece of an artifact , because the evil guys destroyed it in a Cthulhu summoning ritual ( I have the Old ones in my D&D campaign ) .
They had to complete a difficult quest to find a method to restore the artifact and this had long term ripercussions in the campaign , which led to a extreme sacrifice of one PC .
Henry
Autoexreginated
The poll doesn't *quite* represent me. 
I run games so that the PC's have about a 60 to 70% chance of success, all things being equal. This means that the only things that tank them are either REALLY stupid choices (taking on something they REALLY aren't prepped for), or having a protracted series of really bad dice rolls. Under most circumstances, if they play reasonably smart, they will probably win.
Why do I do this? Because it's not as fun if you lose more than you win. If you only manage to be cool, hip, and successful one game out of three, it's somewhat frustrating for the people at the table who come to blow off steam, or get away from a grinding weekend. If they win two out of three endeavors, then theyfeel like champs, they feel like they accomplish something, and they still have the threat of failure to spur them on. I still challenge them, but there's always an ace they can pull out to give them a fighting edge.
It's part of the DM "know your audience", and mine in part come to kick butt and play a fun character, so I gear it for them.
Their next adventure stands to be a very tough one, and they need to use every ounce of their cunning and resources in order to not either die, or retreat with tail between legs. Their biggest advantage right now is choosing time and place for their mission to begin. I wish them luck.
I run games so that the PC's have about a 60 to 70% chance of success, all things being equal. This means that the only things that tank them are either REALLY stupid choices (taking on something they REALLY aren't prepped for), or having a protracted series of really bad dice rolls. Under most circumstances, if they play reasonably smart, they will probably win.
Why do I do this? Because it's not as fun if you lose more than you win. If you only manage to be cool, hip, and successful one game out of three, it's somewhat frustrating for the people at the table who come to blow off steam, or get away from a grinding weekend. If they win two out of three endeavors, then theyfeel like champs, they feel like they accomplish something, and they still have the threat of failure to spur them on. I still challenge them, but there's always an ace they can pull out to give them a fighting edge.
It's part of the DM "know your audience", and mine in part come to kick butt and play a fun character, so I gear it for them.
Their next adventure stands to be a very tough one, and they need to use every ounce of their cunning and resources in order to not either die, or retreat with tail between legs. Their biggest advantage right now is choosing time and place for their mission to begin. I wish them luck.
Kahuna Burger
First Post
OK, just saying, but I think you've misrepresented the content of the poster's comments. He said nothing about running a game specificly so that players cannot lose. He said that many people can thoroughly enjoy a game in which the PCs never lose. They aren't the same thing.Hairfoot said:
Talking about "the player's can't lose" always brings up the specter of the 1st level PC charging the Great Red Wyrm and the DM having to "let" him win rather than paying the price of his stupidity. That is not the same thing as a maturely played campaign of reasonable tactics and the DM not trying to screw his players, where at the end of the day the PCs have made it through without a major defeat. The latter being something many players could enjoy. Not everyone needs a good TPK once in a while to maintain their willing suspension of disbelief.
There's a big difference between "players don't lose" and "players can't lose."
Lord Mhoram
Hero
I voted yes.
But that is mostly due to the fact that in many games losing=death. I game to spend years playing the same character, getting to know them inside and having them grow in abilities and personality.* I don't play soleyfor the tactical aspects of winning and losing the encounter. If the character dies then I lose what I want in the game.
In other genres, such as superhero (my most common played genre) losing does not equal death, just failure. In those cases, sure because it doesn't end the character, and as a matter of fact leads to great character story options.
* the last three campaings I was in / ran all lasted at least 8 years.
But that is mostly due to the fact that in many games losing=death. I game to spend years playing the same character, getting to know them inside and having them grow in abilities and personality.* I don't play soleyfor the tactical aspects of winning and losing the encounter. If the character dies then I lose what I want in the game.
In other genres, such as superhero (my most common played genre) losing does not equal death, just failure. In those cases, sure because it doesn't end the character, and as a matter of fact leads to great character story options.
* the last three campaings I was in / ran all lasted at least 8 years.
Last edited:
kigmatzomat
Legend
Failure is always a possibility and should be. The players may have no credible chance to win a particular encounter (I'm thinking of a 6th level party who lipped off to a Pit Fiend because they thought he was an illusion) but what the heck, they can get smart when backed into corners.
Someone
Adventurer
There´s no problem on the PCs always winning, even if the DM arranges things to make they win (for plot reasons, maybe) as long as the players have the illusion of the possibility of failure. The possibility (or illusion thereof) must be as big as you can, without paralizing the players with doubt.
Closely related (I think I read if in the L5R screen booklet, and is a truth as big as a temple) is that players want to win, but want to have a hard time doing so. Look at the Die Hard movies: McClane always kill the bad guys, but invariably finishes every movie bashed, beaten, burned, bleeding, and wearing only a dirty t-shirt and torn pants. That (not literally) is what the players want.
Closely related (I think I read if in the L5R screen booklet, and is a truth as big as a temple) is that players want to win, but want to have a hard time doing so. Look at the Die Hard movies: McClane always kill the bad guys, but invariably finishes every movie bashed, beaten, burned, bleeding, and wearing only a dirty t-shirt and torn pants. That (not literally) is what the players want.
sniffles
First Post
I wouldn't say the PCs should always win, but they should win most of the time. It shouldn't be easy or without cost, but I think the reason most people play RPGs is to be the heroes, and the usual definition of hero is someone who comes out on top in the end.
But every player is different, so what works for me may not work for everyone.
But every player is different, so what works for me may not work for everyone.
