D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, the truth is, I'm not going to be onboard arguments on either side here that says there's no tension in superhero combats (which are almost always about something beyond personal survival, and where sometimes personal survival is distinctly secondary), or at the other end there's no point and commitment to combats in survival horror (where, like it says on the tin, personal survival is the biggest part of the point in the exercise usually). I just see arguments in favor of one a lot more often than the other because of the heritage of the hobby.

 

[soviet]

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.

Doesn't this underline the importance and resonance of non-lethal consequences? The characters aren't just 'Yolo, I'm still alive so nothing else matters'.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I mean, the truth is, I'm not going to be onboard arguments on either side here that says there's no tension in superhero combats (which are almost always about something beyond personal survival, and where sometimes personal survival is distinctly secondary), or at the other end there's no point and commitment to combats in survival horror (where, like it says on the tin, personal survival is the biggest part of the point in the exercise usually). I just see arguments in favor of one a lot more often than the other because of the heritage of the hobby.

this reminds me of conversations about people who think superman stories are inherently going to be boring because he's invincible and super strong, but writing for superman isn't about if he can beat the bad guy into submission, we all know he can brute force his way through all his enemies and physical obstacles, but what makes superman stories interesting is the moral choices and dilemmas he's put into, the lines he won't cross and costs he won't accept to achieve his goals.

the same logic applies for PCs.

 

[bloodtide]

this reminds me of conversations about people who think superman stories are inherently going to be boring because he's invincible and super strong, but writing for superman isn't about if he can beat the bad guy into submission, we all know he can brute force his way through all his enemies and physical obstacles, but what makes superman stories interesting is the moral choices and dilemmas he's put into, the lines he won't cross and costs he won't accept to achieve his goals.

the same logic applies for PCs.

The problem here is you have a powerful all combat person...like Superman, who then just does stuff that is not based on all powerful combat. So, why even HAVE all the all powerful combat abilities?

This is the big problem with PCs in nearly all RPGs: they are all combat. The idea of just being a "smart and clever" person with no weapon is not even considered.

 

[zarionofarabel]

And?

Uh...okay. Guess I value being alive and my ability to do things. If you don't, that sucks, and you have my sympathies.

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

Perhaps. It would depend on the situation. If the goal is removed from the combat encounter, then only by surviving would the PC be able to take further action to achieve said goal.

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.

Like I said, it's what I experience in a game where my PC is immortal. Outside of the combat there may be tension associated with other aspects of the narrative, but the combat itself produces no tension as there is no risk involved. The playing out of the combat feels empty, and nothing more than "filler" and a waste of time. The combat could easily be skipped and the tension over the other aspect of the narrative would remain.

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.

Perhaps I did, sorry. I also never said there can't be tension in a game with deathless combat. I said I don't experience tension in combat, in a game where PCs can't die, as there is no inherent risk in engaging in combat.

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.

That's why I posted, because I disagree that a game is narrow or shallow if it includes lethal combat. I find having lethal combat greatly increases the scope of the experience and adds a lot more tension to the experience.

 

[zarionofarabel]

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.

Okay.

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.

Yeah, I don't think someone sacrificing themselves is as common a thing as you seem to think it is.

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.

Oh I am quite familiar with RQ, and lots of other games where combat is highly lethal.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I mean, the truth is, I'm not going to be onboard arguments on either side here that says there's no tension in superhero combats (which are almost always about something beyond personal survival, and where sometimes personal survival is distinctly secondary), or at the other end there's no point and commitment to combats in survival horror (where, like it says on the tin, personal survival is the biggest part of the point in the exercise usually). I just see arguments in favor of one a lot more often than the other because of the heritage of the hobby.

Nowadays I far more often see folks rally around the idea that PCs shouldn't ever be in danger of dying. At least not without express player permission. A side effect of the changing fan base of the hobby I guess. So many YT videos about how PCs should be immortal, or houserules to make dying pretty much impossible. Newer players like plot armor I guess. Which is something I definitely don't want in a game as it removes one of the most effective tension building aspects. Like survival horror. Would an Alien game or a Delta Green game, or a Call Of Cthulhu game be as tense and fun if the PCs can't die? My vote is probably not.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Doesn't this underline the importance and resonance of non-lethal consequences? The characters aren't just 'Yolo, I'm still alive so nothing else matters'.

I think it highlights the tension inherent in potentially lethal consequences. It's more like "Try really hard to not die, so I can still possess the ability to even deal with non-lethal consequences." Cause if I do die, then I lose the ability to do anything.

 

[zarionofarabel]

this reminds me of conversations about people who think superman stories are inherently going to be boring because he's invincible and super strong, but writing for superman isn't about if he can beat the bad guy into submission, we all know he can brute force his way through all his enemies and physical obstacles, but what makes superman stories interesting is the moral choices and dilemmas he's put into, the lines he won't cross and costs he won't accept to achieve his goals.

It's funny you say that, because I do generally find superhero movies to be pretty boring. Yes they have interesting conflicts outside of combat, but a fair portion of supers movies is combat that is, in the end, completely inconsequential. If you skipped over the inconsequential combat in your average supers movie they would probably have a run time of 30-45 minutes. Combat in most supers movies is nothing but filler and an excuse to show of some CGI special effects.

the same logic applies for PCs.

Only if the PCs are supposed to be analogous to superheroes.

 

[pemerton]

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

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.

But we're not talking about what is an end for, or what is valuable to, a sapient being. We're talking about what makes for satisfying or engaging game play, as per this post upthread:

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.

Setting aside the question of one poster's personal taste, there is still a "structural" or design issue here, which is: how can a RPG introduce tension into the resolution of a physical altercation or conflict, without making it about character survival? I don't think it answer this question to point out that there are things beyond the character's own survival that a character might care about. I think that what answers the question is to show how a player can be defeated in combat, without their PC being killed. Because this is what shows that the combat is worth the time and attention that is required to actually play it out.

Upthread I gave examples like being captured, or driven off. Another is when there is some sort of "clock" in the combat - eg, if the PCs don't defeat the NPC within a certain time, then the NPC will do <some bad/undesirable thing>. Stop the ritual or stop the sacrifice are examples of this, which I used in 4e D&D play.

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.

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.

Again, I think it's about the relationship between playing through the combat and the possibility of defeat. In that sense, it is self-centred: the player's play of their PC is about their engagement with the game.

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.

There's no reason why, in a RPG, combat has to be structured so that the only fictional colour that can be applied to defeat is PC death.