Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9756990" data-attributes="member: 42582">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: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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification