D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[MichaelSomething]

Now I regret my last post.
Here's an example of doing something worst to a character then killing them...

628 Every Parent's Worst Nightmare - Giant in the Playground Games

www.giantitp.com

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now I regret my last post.
Here's an example of doing something worst to a character then killing them...

628 Every Parent's Worst Nightmare - Giant in the Playground Games

www.giantitp.com

Indeed.

The flaw inherent in the "survival value is all-important" argument is that it has forgotten that survival is, always, merely a means to an end, at least for a sapient being.

"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself.... It has no survival value; rather, it is one of those things which give value to survival." (C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, emphasis added.)

I had always, even from a very young age, bristled at any argument which based itself on "well you HAVE to survive, everything else can be taken care of after that". But that isn't true. Sometimes, we cannot bear to live with being the kind of person who would choose survival over some other thing. Even if that other thing is a fruitless effort. It is necessary to pursue those things which give value to survival, not just pursuing survival itself.

Putting everyone through the same meatgrinder and hoping you'll get anyone who comes out thinking "Yes, this means I need to care" is straight-up shooting yourself in the foot. That doesn't mean folks need to go all the way to the kind of thing I do. But it does mean that if one is striving for players who are invested, who care about the experience they're having...they need to give the players a reason to care.

"Survive" isn't a reason to care. It needs the things that give value to survival. Otherwise, it's just a brief, lame joke.

 

[soviet]

Everyone I've ever loved has been killed. My home is in ruins and everything I fought for has been lost. My reputation is gone and my name is a joke. My magic has been burned out and my limbs were chopped off. I'm trapped in this dungeon for the rest of my days, with only maggoty bread to eat and stale water to drink. Every day is a nightmare of shivering cold and dysentery. I'm alone and unloved and every ambition has failed. Still... at least I'm not dead.

 

[bloodtide]

Only because in most media they're not going to let a real failure happen. That doesn't have anything to do with what the actual stakes are.

I find this to be the real problem. Most gamers are overloaded with "most media" and it's very, very, very soft depiction of non-failure.

To me, this still seems to involve a bit of a non-sequitur - because a physical altercation can involve meaningful stakes other than fatality.

If the game has a story plot that the players care about, then you always have the overall stakes of failure for that. But just in the microcosm of combat, the only stakes are character death. Nothing else really matters.

And with no character death, why even have hit points and combat? Why even play an action adventure game?

I haven't done a lot of superhero RPGing, but in the first session of Marvel Heroic RP that I GMed, there was a pretty interesting fight between War Machine (PC) and Titanium Man (NPC):
It's a while ago now, but at least as I remember it this was reasonably tense and exciting - not because War Machine was in danger of being killed, but because he was unable to defeat Titanium Man, which was his goal.

Super Hero games are not made for any sort of death. How often do characters die in comic books? Not often

 

[Thomas Shey]

I do. Those are consequences in addition to potential loss of life. Combat in my games usually has multiple consequences, one of which is always potential loss of life.

Point is, I think it requires a certain self-centered view of what you're playing for for character survival to be the main one.

For you. I feel differently. Sorry that me feeling differently is a problem for you. It is what it is, and I can't change the fact that I find deathless combat boring and pointless. That's just my personal subjective emotional experience.

its not a problem in other people's games. Its a problem when they project it on their expectations in the hobby as a whole.

Deathless combat for me is just a "filler" scene in an action or supers movie. It's a complete waste of time to play through. It's something that could easily be narrated or decided with a roll or two, and the game can move on to more interesting things. Again, sorry that my inability to feel tension during a combat encounter, that I know my PC will survive no matter what, bothers you. It is what it is. You not liking it, or failing to grasp that not everyone feels the way you do about things, sounds like a you problem.

I absolutely grasp people do feel that way. I think its harmful to the hobby as a whole when that turns into the default assumption, and I'm not going to hesitate to say so.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I find this to be the real problem. Most gamers are overloaded with "most media" and it's very, very, very soft depiction of non-failure.

That's an issue with most people not wanting to really engage with the consequences of failure, and is just as true whatever those consequences are. And honestly, RPGs are a leisure time activity; if people don't feel like dealing with heavy negative consequences in that that's their choice.

But that's orthogonal to what kind of consequences are significant. If my failure in-character has had his family or home time get destroyed, that's going to have as much more more impact than whether he survived.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Point is, I think it requires a certain self-centered view of what you're playing for for character survival to be the main one.

Of course it's self-centered. I can't do anything if I'm dead! Same goes for my PC. If my PC dies, they are unable to continue doing things. Perhaps that's the reason why I find deathless combat to be so pointless. Without the motivation to remain alive, combat feels like an empty endeavor, as it is too far divorced from reality for me to be able to form an emotional investment.

its not a problem in other people's games. Its a problem when they project it on their expectations in the hobby as a whole.

I never proposed that it should be adopted as a universal. You are the one projecting your expectation that everyone should be on board with deathless combat, or that having deathless combat is somehow better than combat wherein a PC may die. You are the one who stated that games where a PC can die are somehow flawed, and that players that like those kinds of games are shallow and fickle. I never once said that folks that like deathless combat are doing it wrong. I merely stated my preference, and why I have said preferences.

I absolutely grasp people do feel that way. I think its harmful to the hobby as a whole when that turns into the default assumption, and I'm not going to hesitate to say so.

I think it's harmful to declare that players who don't find deathless combat enjoyable are narrow minded, fickle, or shallow. It smells alot like "one true wayism" to my ears. Which is something I will never hesitate to rally against. Sorry if you don't like it when people state opinions that you don't agree with, but that's a reality of life.

 

[zarionofarabel]

That's an issue with most people not wanting to really engage with the consequences of failure, and is just as true whatever those consequences are. And honestly, RPGs are a leisure time activity; if people don't feel like dealing with heavy negative consequences in that that's their choice.

Obviously. There is a whole subgenre of TTRPGs that don't deal with anything heavy. That's the whole point of those games, to just have super happy fun time. That also doesn't mean that people who enjoy the opposite are somehow doing it wrong. The hobby includes a diverse array of people, with diverse wants and expectations. Just because folks don't like or want what you like or want out of a game, doesn't mean they are shallow or fickle or having badwrongfun!

But that's orthogonal to what kind of consequences are significant. If my failure in-character has had his family or home time get destroyed, that's going to have as much more more impact than whether he survived.

Yet there is a whole subgenre of fiction centered on characters who have "lost everything" and yet survived. They deal with the idea of "life going on" even after tragedy and loss. They are quite often some of the most heartfelt and uplifting stories you can imagine. Honestly, I think the world would be a frighteningly different place if survival was as low on the list of people's priorities as you seem to think it should be. Sorry that some of us have no issue with dealing with those kinds of ideas in our games. We enjoy it. If you don't, that's fine, don't have those kinds of things in your games. Accept the fact that not everyone likes what you like, or wants their games to be just like your games. I for one would probably hate participating in a game you were running, as I would be likely to find alot of my session time occupied by things that I find boring and pointless. Just like you probably wouldn't like participating in a game I'm running because there is no guarantee that your PC will get a satisfying story arc, or even survive long enough to complete said story arc. Lucky for both of us that no one has the ability to force us to play a certain way!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Of course it's self-centered. I can't do anything if I'm dead!

And?

Same goes for my PC. If my PC dies, they are unable to continue doing things.

But they could have gotten what mattered to them done before dying. Unless all that really matters to them in the end is surviving.

I never proposed that it should be adopted as a universal. You are the one projecting your expectation that everyone should be on board with deathless combat, or that having deathless combat is somehow better than combat wherein a PC may die.

I haven't suggested its better; what I have suggested and stick to is that if games without death in combat can't produce tension, then in the end, the only thing mattering to the player is there character survival, and yeah, I think that's a really narrow view of what the combat (and game as a whole) is about in the first place. So, yeah, I'm critical of that.

You are the one who stated that games where a PC can die are somehow flawed, and that players that like those kinds of games are shallow and fickle. I never once said that folks that like deathless combat are doing it wrong. I merely stated my preference, and why I have said preferences.

Really? Point at the message where I said the first part of that first sentence. I may have in practice said that if you can't get value out of games that don't have that your view of games is shallow, but those are not the same thing. They're not connected points, and the only way I think you can have connected them with me is if you've conflated me and another poster critical of your view that there's no tension without death. What I've said is you don't need death for there to be tension and stakes, and I think a view where you do has tunnel vision; I've said nothing about having death as part of the stakes being bad.

I think it's harmful to declare that players who don't find deathless combat enjoyable are narrow minded, fickle, or shallow. It smells alot like "one true wayism" to my ears. Which is something I will never hesitate to rally against. Sorry if you don't like it when people state opinions that you don't agree with, but that's a reality of life.

I also don't have to let it pass and not say I don't think its a narrow, and yeah, if you like, kind of shallow view. Don't want responses to opinions, don't post them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yet there is a whole subgenre of fiction centered on characters who have "lost everything" and yet survived.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but--so? That doesn't mean the impact on the player is any less. In some cases it can be more.

They deal with the idea of "life going on" even after tragedy and loss. They are quite often some of the most heartfelt and uplifting stories you can imagine. Honestly, I think the world would be a frighteningly different place if survival was as low on the list of people's priorities as you seem to think it should be.

I don't think its as high on the priority of people as you do as-is, or people wouldn't die for their friends, their country or a principal as often as they do. Most people are just fortunate in that the situation doesn't come up. But RPG characters, like ficitional character, aren't most people.

Sorry that some of us have no issue with dealing with those kinds of ideas in our games. We enjoy it. If you don't, that's fine, don't have those kinds of things in your games. Accept the fact that not everyone likes what you like, or wants their games to be just like your games. I for one would probably hate participating in a game you were running, as I would be likely to find alot of my session time occupied by things that I find boring and pointless. Just like you probably wouldn't like participating in a game I'm running because there is no guarantee that your PC will get a satisfying story arc, or even survive long enough to complete said story arc. Lucky for both of us that no one has the ability to force us to play a certain way!

You're again jumping to a conclusion. I spent half my gaming career playing or running RuneQuest. Ask people who are familiar with it how hard it is to die in RuneQuest sometime.