Suspense in RPGs

[pemerton]

Negotiation will only realistically happen when a) one side knows it cannot win and tries negotiation as a plan B, or b) both sides realize the cost of continuing (or starting) battle will be too high.

Or when one or both sides regard negotiation as demanded by honour or morality or custom. Or when one or both sides think they are better talkers than fighters. Or when one or both sides believe negotiation is more likely to deliver desirable results.

Aragorn negotiates with Sauron's armies, once Sauron has been defeated, because that is what will serve Gondor's interests, and what is fitting for an honourable king who rules justly rather than by force and terror.

Combat, which is very, very usually lethal for someone involved it (NPCs mainly of course unless you are playing Paranoia) is dull if the players understand that their PCs cannot die.

It's pretty standard for a player in Burning Wheel to keep at least 1 persona point in reserve to ensure that his/her PC won't die if a mortal wound is suffered. This doesn't make combat dull.

In RPGs like BW, RM and RQ, it is also quite common for combat to end with one participant alive but hors de combat due to wounds suffered.

So a PC being unable to die is not tantamount to a PC being unable to lose.

 

[Caliburn101]

It's pretty standard for a player in Burning Wheel to keep at least 1 persona point in reserve to ensure that his/her PC won't die if a mortal wound is suffered. This doesn't make combat dull.

In RPGs like BW, RM and RQ, it is also quite common for combat to end with one participant alive but hors de combat due to wounds suffered.

So a PC being unable to die is not tantamount to a PC being unable to lose.

I never said it was. I also never said that death should occur regularly - encounters the PCs should win, or survive should be the norm for a campaign game.

But that was not what the thread or my posts are about - it's 'chance of' vs 'no chance of' and the players understanding there is no chance of PC death that makes combat, where killing is so frequently the point, dull.

As I have said, sit down at any rpg table and killing the enemy is in the vast majority of cases, the point of combat. This is what happens - it just usually happens to the bad guys.

Where it isn't the point, or doesn't happen is a much rarer occurrence, and everyone here, as much as one accepts that all other forms of challenge can be dramatic in their own way, knows that's what happens most of the time.

D&D is the most popular game, even though this thread isn't just about D&D, and I defy anyone to claim that combat in D&D doesn't end in death, with no chance whatsoever of PCs being killed.

As for d100 RQ - I've played every version, and it is and always has been far more lethal than D&D in terms of getting killed.

 

[Caliburn101]

D&D is a just a current example, since you were wanting to focus on what's generally going on out there, and it's by far the most popular game, people are generally sitting down and having RPG combats in D&D. Rather a lot of them, based on the exp it takes to level up, and even a non-trivial chance of death in each combat mounts quickly.

(Besides, when I used Champions! as an example, you cried 'corner case.' Sorry, it was a /really/ popular game in my area in the 80s & 90s.)

That's just it, chance of failure, alone, doesn't produce suspense (it might only produce frustration, or just end the 'story' in an unsatisfying, un-suspensful way), and 'certainty' (whether via system bias or genre convention) of success doesn't eliminate it, because suspense can still exist in getting to that success & in the prices paid to get there.

I never claimed otherwise.

But death is the aimed-at end point of most combats. Most challenges in a game like D&D as you want to focus on that (I have previously been told by a respondent that it isn't the only game btw) are combat based, ergo death it is the most common risk of failure factor.

I haven't at any point said that other forms of failure or other forms of challenge are dull, and I am being told repeatedly that I have somehow stated it, so let's not revisit this misconception.

Champions, and in fact all superhero roleplay games are not mainstream examples to use due to relative rarity of people playing them, and style of game further cuts that down. Some will play it more cartoonish, with no appreciable risk of death, and some won't.

So a superhero game without any chance of PC death is a corner case when we look at the wide sweep of rpgs and rank the most popular. This may have been different in the 1980s, although I didn't personally witness that, but I was by default talking about the present.

On your point about failure 'might only produce frustration etc.' I challenge think about this. Imagine a game (or actually run it) where there are no dice rolls and thus every chance of failure a dice roll represents is therefore always a success, or always a failure (those are your two choices if you take chance of failure out of the equation) and tell me if you really think that makes for a satisfying experience?

Chance of failure is central to rpgs, and the very, very few who I recall tries to use a non-random based resolution methodology have never been popular.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I never claimed otherwise.

Y'know, I'm starting to think you never claimed anything.

 

[pemerton]

Classic D&D has many action declarations that are auto-successes - eg I cast Transmute Muck to Rock, assuming the character is a magic user of sufficient level who has memorised that spell.

But a lot of people describe that as "creative casting", not "dull".

 

[Emerikol]

For me, if you are playing a traditional swords and sorcery style game, then death is definitely one of the stakes. I mean how would the character if he really existed feel about it? He'd be worried about death a lot I think. For me that says it all because I want player character unity to the degree I can get it.

Now, on the flip side, there are a whole lot of things in life worth pursuing besides the avoidance of death. In fact a few are worth risking death. I know if someone were threatening my loved ones I would assuredly risk my life to save them. So it seems crazy to say the only stake is death. The stakes for me are identical to the stakes that actual character would have if he really existed in such a fantasy world. At least that is the goal.

And death only really means the end of your character during the first five or six levels. After that, you will pay and perhaps your character will suffer but the party will find a way to get you raised.

I want my games to be about good play. Good preparation, good strategy, and good tactics are all important to success. I want parties that exhibit such characteristics to survive more often and those that don't to survive less often.

I really don't see the argument here between everyone. Most games have death as a possibility. Most games also have a lot of other stakes besides death.

 

[Lanefan]

Classic D&D has many action declarations that are auto-successes - eg I cast Transmute Muck to Rock, assuming the character is a magic user of sufficient level who has memorised that spell.

But a lot of people describe that as "creative casting", not "dull".

Muck to Rock?

In a safe situation where the caster has time and a clear view, yeah, that's pretty much an auto-success. But in any situation where the caster is under any sort of duress there's the risk of interruption (a bigger issue in early D&D than in the recent versions) and, at least if I'm the DM, a roll to aim or place the spell where you want it to go; so no guaranteed success at all.

 

[billd91]

Classic D&D has many action declarations that are auto-successes - eg I cast Transmute Muck to Rock, assuming the character is a magic user of sufficient level who has memorised that spell.

But a lot of people describe that as "creative casting", not "dull".

The creativity or dullness depends on why and where you're casting that transmute rock to mud spell. The fact that, barring interruption, it successfully turns rock into mud without an additional die roll strikes me as being far less important.

 

[Caliburn101]

Y'know, I'm starting to think you never claimed anything.

It would appear (although I am not 100% clear on how) you have assumed too much about what I have said, and worked from that assumption rather than the actual statements. If that's down to a lack of clarity on my part, then that's on me, but having had a quick review of my responses, I honestly don't see where I claimed what you imply I did.

By all means point it out if I have missed it, or if you would prefer, we can leave the discussion here.

 

[Caliburn101]

Classic D&D has many action declarations that are auto-successes - eg I cast Transmute Muck to Rock, assuming the character is a magic user of sufficient level who has memorised that spell.

But a lot of people describe that as "creative casting", not "dull".

Actions, sure, but not many of of them are without risk to carry out in combat (casting spells has a range and so do your enemies ranged weapons and spells that casting the spell may have put you within). Nor does using a spell which is automatically successful (in most cases) mean you cannot lose and suffer some kind of loss.

I don't think therefore that the comparison is a robust one.