D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[pemerton]

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. T

<snip>

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 don't follow why risk has to equate to risk of death. What about other sorts of risk that inhere in physical altercation - eg being injured, or blinded, or maimed, or . . .?

As my posts have indicated, I also think that there can be tension-generating risks that are not inherent but rather are contextual consequences of a particular conflict - eg that if a NPC is not physically defeated or impeded in some way, then they will do <some or other bad/undesirable thing>.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

Right, there are non combat RPGs. So, why do people insist on making all combat characters in nearly all combat games, and then say "Oh I want to play some other way"?

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.

Of course, the vast majority of players consider "PC capture" to be Railroading and Bad. And few players have their PCs 'driven off.....they get the Pc killed first.

And how far do you go with "capture"? Do the PCs loose all their stuff? ALL of their stuff? When the PCs are "driven away" do they drop or loose anything?

 

[pemerton]

why do people insist on making all combat characters in nearly all combat games, and then say "Oh I want to play some other way"?

I don't know which people you are saying do this. It's not something that I've experienced.

the vast majority of players consider "PC capture" to be Railroading and Bad. And few players have their PCs 'driven off.....they get the Pc killed first.

And how far do you go with "capture"? Do the PCs loose all their stuff? ALL of their stuff? When the PCs are "driven away" do they drop or loose anything?

I posted links to examples upthread - not from D&D play, but from Torchbearer 2e - that provide examples:

I sprang my twist: a group of Orcs was coming down a narrow way that continued upwards from the top of the stair - a narrow way that the PCs had not noticed - and was attacking the PCs, to drive them off.

The Orcs and PCs started out with equal dispositions - 9 hp each - but my cunning scripting, together with the Orcs' helmets and shields that let them absorb damage, and also the PCs inability to help one another properly (due to being Afraid), meant that the Orcs were victorious in this conflict: the PCs were, indeed, driven off. But I owed a significant compromise, as the Orcs had lost all but 3 hp by the end of the conflict, and so I agreed to the the player's suggestion that they were able to fall back into the tunnel. This did mean, though, that Fea-bella had to leave behind her half-moon glaive, of which she had been disarmed by the Orcs during the fight.

as they were about to head upstairs the Gnolls got the drop on them, initiating a Capture conflict, not actually wanting to take them prisoner again, but wanting their loot back!

The Gnolls won this conflict in two volleys, but the PCs did earn a compromise, and we agreed that the Gnolls would be happy with their cash and jewel loot, plus Golin's (damaged) plate armour, which he was not wearing (on account of its being damaged). But the PCs could keep their mundane stuff.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Only if there's no consequence to the combat outside the situation of the PCs. That doesn't fit most combats in any game I've ever been in except occasional wandering encounters during the early days.

(And I'm not going to hold conflating me with someone else that shares some common views in the thread; everyone does that one sooner or later).

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.

And that can either be true of not. If the consequences outside of it are significant enough, personal survival pales.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Okay.

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

And I think when it comes up, its much more common than you seem to think it is.

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

Then perhaps reassess that my argument means I'm hostile to games with lethal risk to characters and stop jumping to conclusions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Nowadays I far more often see folks rally around the idea that PCs shouldn't ever be in danger of dying.

That's true. But they don't seem to suggest people doing the opposite are playing lesser games for the most part, and I see plenty of that from people who consider a game with lethality necessary.

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.

I'd argue most of the people who want that aren't going to play in most horror games anyway.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I don't follow why risk has to equate to risk of death. What about other sorts of risk that inhere in physical altercation - eg being injured, or blinded, or maimed, or . . .?

Well, I was kind of restricting my thought process to D&D like combat where the PC is a bag of HP that is just as fully functional at full HP as they are with only a single HP remaining. In systems where other forms of injury are possible, then that obviously adds to the tension, thought it is still less than loss of life. Especially if injury is backed up mechanically, as most players dislike mechanical penalties due to injury, especially if they are permanent.

As my posts have indicated, I also think that there can be tension-generating risks that are not inherent but rather are contextual consequences of a particular conflict - eg that if a NPC is not physically defeated or impeded in some way, then they will do <some or other bad/undesirable thing>.

That is something that could be divorced from the actual combat though. In which case the blow by blow of the combat still lacks risk and tension as it is often nothing more than a "clock" of a sort, meant only to be a time constraint.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Right, there are non combat RPGs. So, why do people insist on making all combat characters in nearly all combat games, and then say "Oh I want to play some other way"?

This is one of my main disconnects with the whole immortal PC who wants to routinely engage in combat...why? I guess people find doing math for an hour or two to be a much more interesting and engaging experience than I do.

Of course, the vast majority of players consider "PC capture" to be Railroading and Bad. And few players have their PCs 'driven off.....they get the Pc killed first.

Seems far more common than players that will flee a combat or surrender in the hopes of living to fight another day. Perhaps more people should discuss those outcomes before a campaign to see if they can be more readily included in games.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Because then you can do things that aren't about survival, but instead about achieving other goals. That's...literally what makes Superman an interesting character. His story is a firefighter's story, not a warrior's story. Against any Kryptonian with actual combat experience, he straight-up loses almost all of the time. (It's worth noting that he almost always defeats such opponents with trickery, technology, or weakness exploitation.) Where he shines is when he's put in a situation where he has to grapple with lots of variables in order to save as many people as possible. That ceases to be a hard binary, and instead opens a huge space of possible results.

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.

Sure it is. You just have to care about things that aren't PC death in order to have "smart and clever person with no weapon" matter. Because when the only thing the player cares about is whether their own character lives or dies, they will stop caring about being a "smart and clever person with no weapon". Because a smart and clever person with no weapon doesn't survive the way a smart and clever person with a weapon would.

When you run your game with all of the focus pointed at <survival is an extreme challenge>, you are specifically selecting for players who will not want to play "smart and clever person with no weapon". Because a smart and clever person with no weapon will just die. A lot. Over and over and over again, in fact. The smart and clever person WITH a weapon, on the other hand, is significantly more likely to survive. Your brutal "Hard Fun" campaign style specifically selects for players who view the world through a lens of needing to fight--specifically fight, as in kill their enemies--for every possible advantage they can get. It is the very brutality of your game which makes this happen.

It's a simple hierarchy-of-needs thing. People aren't going to care about highfalutin principles or self-actualization when they're worried they won't physically survive the day. You expressly describe your game as being one that puts players into a "paranoid" state. And yes, I am using quotes there because you have specifically said this previously: "I agree that as a standard PCs should be paranoid and take repercussions." Paranoia prevents people from getting to the point where they care about being a "smart and clever person with no weapon".

When you actually develop stakes and contexts that your players care about, for their own reasons, not simply because survival of their PC is involved, being a "smart and clever person with no weapon" actually becomes a valid space to consider.

 

[zarionofarabel]

And that can either be true of not. If the consequences outside of it are significant enough, personal survival pales.

I have yet to play in a game where the consequence outside of surviving the combat encounter makes survival pale in comparison. Whatever the consequence is, it can be dealt with afterwards. Even if it's a "life goes on" situation. After all, if my PC is dead, there can be no "life goes on" situation.