Li Shenron
Legend
This is true. If a gaming group pretends always the super-heroic campaign, then it has to win, or die super-heroically.
Victories and No Defeats in D&D
This is true. If a gaming group pretends always the super-heroic campaign, then it has to win, or die super-heroically.
SensoryThought
First Post
The problem with many pcs (and I have one like this), is that they have a 'fight to the death mentality.
The one time I threw a high level enemy way above the party level, one pc (a revenant) fought to -40hp before dying. Two pcs had fled, another KO'd while retreating - the revenant just took a 'my character never backs down' approach.
I think if pcs feel more powerful than all threats in the world because they know the DM will never throw an unbalanced encounter their way, then this negatively affects the ability of the DM to create tension in the story. (I equally believe in throwing easy challenges to the pcs that celebrate their uber-ness at times).
The one time I threw a high level enemy way above the party level, one pc (a revenant) fought to -40hp before dying. Two pcs had fled, another KO'd while retreating - the revenant just took a 'my character never backs down' approach.
I think if pcs feel more powerful than all threats in the world because they know the DM will never throw an unbalanced encounter their way, then this negatively affects the ability of the DM to create tension in the story. (I equally believe in throwing easy challenges to the pcs that celebrate their uber-ness at times).
Last edited:
KesselZero
First Post
I run a sandbox campaign, and I warned my players at the beginning that they'd run into things way above their pay grade. That didn't stop them from literally leaping aboard the first ship they came across despite it being packed with foes (the PCs are pirates) and expecting to get a win. Instead, the warden was killed almost immediately since he was alone and surrounded by enemies (which he assumed were minions, since there were lots of them), and the party only survived because I was very, very generous in how I let a few dice rolls shape the story. Nevertheless, it took a couple of battles like that to drill it into their heads: not everything will be perfectly balanced to let you win. I think that mindset is very hard to overcome once you fall into it, and it's definitely been fostered by 3e and 4e.
To this day, "They're probably just minions!" is the official motto of the party, and they're very, very wary before picking a fight with anybody they run into on the high seas.
To this day, "They're probably just minions!" is the official motto of the party, and they're very, very wary before picking a fight with anybody they run into on the high seas.
I agree to an extent. I'd also argue that the DM and PCs are mutually creating a story, and that too-powerful opponents restrict player choice; they create a railroad by directing the players in certain directions. In a sandbox campaign I'd argue that a good DM makes that choice work in some way.
As the exams before your post illustrates: there was an option not available to the PCs. If it was a sandbox campaign, then jumping on the pirate ship or descending I to the volcano should be equally viable options. Making one viable and one not. That's taking your railroad and claiming it's a sandbox.
All that said, I utterly disagree that sandbox and railroad are anything more than silly buzzwords. A good DM will use elements of both, and will never use either word.
Radiating Gnome
Adventurer
I think it's very dangerous to make too much of comparisons between the types of stories that appear in fiction and the ones we can develop for our D&D campaigns. The differences are far bigger than just a difference in win/loss ratio, etc.
Look at the motivations of characters -- how many fictional characters are deeply driven by their need to improve their skills and loot the corpses of their kills? And how many RPG characters are motivated in real, complex ways by Love, Duty, Honor, etc? (You may have that written into your character's background, but is that _really_ what drives him? Odds are it's a lot more about loot, XP, and just plain "winning").
Fiction and gaming are closely related -- and a DM can find all kinds of inspiration and ideas in fiction, but at the end of the day he's spinning a campaign, not a novel, and the two are different enough that comparisons like this one are not all that fruitful.
Having said that, I know there are game systems that make much more of character backstory, motivation, and so on. Game systems designed specifically to recreate fiction (like Dresden files RPG (powered by Fate), or any of the Cortex games, and so on) get closer to the mark than D&D does -- and I have a lot less experience with those games than I do with D&D, but it appears to me that those motivational elements become tools for gamesmanship as much as they do true motivators.
So, anyway, back to the original topic -- those sorts of "defeats" are often important storytelling moments because they give the bad guys some time to walk around on center stage. Even if they're minor villains, like the Trolls, they defeat the main characters, strut around on center stage, reveal something like their plan or their motivation or some other bit of story -- then the protagonist has an opportunity to turn defeat into victory. But in gaming, time when the PCs are not on center stage is bad time, not interesting time for the players. It's time when they're sitting back and watching the DM create story for them, and not working together with the DM to build the story.
I don't know about your players, but that's usually when mine decide to go take a trip to the toilet.
-rg
Look at the motivations of characters -- how many fictional characters are deeply driven by their need to improve their skills and loot the corpses of their kills? And how many RPG characters are motivated in real, complex ways by Love, Duty, Honor, etc? (You may have that written into your character's background, but is that _really_ what drives him? Odds are it's a lot more about loot, XP, and just plain "winning").
Fiction and gaming are closely related -- and a DM can find all kinds of inspiration and ideas in fiction, but at the end of the day he's spinning a campaign, not a novel, and the two are different enough that comparisons like this one are not all that fruitful.
Having said that, I know there are game systems that make much more of character backstory, motivation, and so on. Game systems designed specifically to recreate fiction (like Dresden files RPG (powered by Fate), or any of the Cortex games, and so on) get closer to the mark than D&D does -- and I have a lot less experience with those games than I do with D&D, but it appears to me that those motivational elements become tools for gamesmanship as much as they do true motivators.
So, anyway, back to the original topic -- those sorts of "defeats" are often important storytelling moments because they give the bad guys some time to walk around on center stage. Even if they're minor villains, like the Trolls, they defeat the main characters, strut around on center stage, reveal something like their plan or their motivation or some other bit of story -- then the protagonist has an opportunity to turn defeat into victory. But in gaming, time when the PCs are not on center stage is bad time, not interesting time for the players. It's time when they're sitting back and watching the DM create story for them, and not working together with the DM to build the story.
I don't know about your players, but that's usually when mine decide to go take a trip to the toilet.
-rg
I think some more mechanical support for inducing and resolving defeats would be a good idea.
Prisoners and standoffs. Some support for a Mexican standoff or where one party stops the knife just before slashing a throat open. This would allow the DM to dynamically turn the encounter from a fight into a hostage negotiation. Currently the DM has no mechanics for this so it usually feels like railroading or deus ex machina.
Retreats and chases. This goes both ways, either the PCs may need to retreat in defeat or letting the enemy flee may effectively be a defeat. The rules should be simple and interesting, but the main point is that the players need to have a better idea of how likely they are to escape. Now it's so ad hoc that they never know if its automatic or almost impossible.
Uncertainty in dying. Now it's a given that a character who goes down will live after one spell or potion, so there's little tension. Often you even know how many rounds he will last. If you could no nothing about it in combat and didn't know whether you have one round or one minute, just suspecting the fight will last for a few rounds could make retreat preferable.
Prisoners and standoffs. Some support for a Mexican standoff or where one party stops the knife just before slashing a throat open. This would allow the DM to dynamically turn the encounter from a fight into a hostage negotiation. Currently the DM has no mechanics for this so it usually feels like railroading or deus ex machina.
Retreats and chases. This goes both ways, either the PCs may need to retreat in defeat or letting the enemy flee may effectively be a defeat. The rules should be simple and interesting, but the main point is that the players need to have a better idea of how likely they are to escape. Now it's so ad hoc that they never know if its automatic or almost impossible.
Uncertainty in dying. Now it's a given that a character who goes down will live after one spell or potion, so there's little tension. Often you even know how many rounds he will last. If you could no nothing about it in combat and didn't know whether you have one round or one minute, just suspecting the fight will last for a few rounds could make retreat preferable.
Aenghus
Explorer
There are some consequences to winning or losing a fight that also end the campaign, and I'm not talking about the ultimate BBEG encounter here.
If too many PCs die, the campaign may lose interest in continuing the campaign. If too many PCs get crippled or level-drained or all their magic items are lost, they may lose interest in the campaign or no longer be a match for their enemies in the campaign - in earlier editions ability was often so tied to magic items that losing them without replacement meant that appropriate foes now become overwhelming, and the party has too many high level enemies for survival to be realistic.
There is also the D&D prisoner dilemma. Many campaigns handwave what happens to prisoners, to avoid the messy business of deciding what to do w ith them - executing them is pretty cold-blooded, bringing them along is generally impractical and letting them go often doesn't make sense. So most referees avoid the whole issue by assuming the opponents all die or flee when the party is out in the middle of nowhere.
But what the party does with prisoners has a real bearing on their attitude to the possibility of surrender. If they torture and execute prisoners without a qualm, they are unlikely to surrender. If the party are good guys fighting double dyed black hat villians, they are unlikely to surrender, though they may be coerced into doing so by threats to others. Surrender is more likely in greyer campaigns where everyone is just a little bit dirty , chanign sides is a real option and negotiation is always possible.
So I find the best defeats in a RPG context revolve around external plot points the players value - friendly NPCs, property, Maguffins, trade, treaties, wars etc . The point having something to lose that doesn't impact on the players and PCs ability to effectively continue the campaign.
Obviously, some groups want death and destruction rained down upon them (and intend to reply in kind), and will cheerfully start a new party when the previous one is TPKed. There are other groups that won't bounce back from a TPK, or even serious casualties. This is simply a matter of taste.
It's important to know the players involved, and not push them to their breaking points, whatever they may be. And accusations of puny players are not relevant, if a certain referee style blows up the game, it's not the right game style for that group.
If too many PCs die, the campaign may lose interest in continuing the campaign. If too many PCs get crippled or level-drained or all their magic items are lost, they may lose interest in the campaign or no longer be a match for their enemies in the campaign - in earlier editions ability was often so tied to magic items that losing them without replacement meant that appropriate foes now become overwhelming, and the party has too many high level enemies for survival to be realistic.
There is also the D&D prisoner dilemma. Many campaigns handwave what happens to prisoners, to avoid the messy business of deciding what to do w ith them - executing them is pretty cold-blooded, bringing them along is generally impractical and letting them go often doesn't make sense. So most referees avoid the whole issue by assuming the opponents all die or flee when the party is out in the middle of nowhere.
But what the party does with prisoners has a real bearing on their attitude to the possibility of surrender. If they torture and execute prisoners without a qualm, they are unlikely to surrender. If the party are good guys fighting double dyed black hat villians, they are unlikely to surrender, though they may be coerced into doing so by threats to others. Surrender is more likely in greyer campaigns where everyone is just a little bit dirty , chanign sides is a real option and negotiation is always possible.
So I find the best defeats in a RPG context revolve around external plot points the players value - friendly NPCs, property, Maguffins, trade, treaties, wars etc . The point having something to lose that doesn't impact on the players and PCs ability to effectively continue the campaign.
Obviously, some groups want death and destruction rained down upon them (and intend to reply in kind), and will cheerfully start a new party when the previous one is TPKed. There are other groups that won't bounce back from a TPK, or even serious casualties. This is simply a matter of taste.
It's important to know the players involved, and not push them to their breaking points, whatever they may be. And accusations of puny players are not relevant, if a certain referee style blows up the game, it's not the right game style for that group.
Last edited:
KesselZero
First Post
Hm, I disagree. Buzzword or no, part of the "sandbox" playstyle is that some options will be more or less dangerous than others. A well-run game should give the players information about their various options so they can make meaningful choices; perhaps they want to clear out low-level challenges first, perhaps they want to face level-appropriate challenges, or perhaps they want to take on tougher challenges in the hopes of reaping more reward. A well-made sandbox should also include multiple options at each level of difficulty, so the players don't only have one option that's level-appropriate at any point.
In addition, getting defeated by a challenge the first time makes beating it later all the sweeter. In my pirate-ship example, the party was around level 2. Now they're around level 5, and if they decide to take on a ship full of foes again, they'll have a much easier time of it, since the enemy ship doesn't level up with them. I expect this will be extremely satisfying for my players when it happens, since getting nearly TPKed is a story they're always talking about at the table.
Ultimately, I think that having only level-appropriate options can be as restrictive as railroading, though of course in a different way. If the volcano and the pirate ship are both perfectly-balanced challenges, then the two choices are basically the same, outside of flavor. This removes meaningful player choice about the risk/reward balance they want to take on, and therefore doesn't reward thoughtful play. It also (for me, at least) pulls me out of the immersion if the volcano increases in difficulty as the party levels up so that it'll be an appropriate challenge whenever they decide to tackle it.
the Jester
Legend
Damn, once again I have to wave my giant red "THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR SOME PLAYSTYLES" flag.
Some games, the pcs have lots of "defeats" if you define a defeat as anything other than a total victory.
Fleeing, but surviving?
Fighting to the last?
Being taken prisoner?
Defeating the monsters, only to find that their buddies already ran off with the McGuffin?
I think the assumption in the thread is only partially true.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
The structure of any drama basically needs to be
win
loose
win
loose
win
loose
win
loose
win...
You can get fancy, and talk about which wins and loses need to be bigger or smaller...(some bigs early on, then about 2/3rds of the way through, then at the very end...) and various symmetries or asymmetries in the structure, but this is pretty much how it goes.
For an adventure story like the hobbit, the huge challenge is to have loses that don't derail the story. This is kinda hard (and harder now that we have seen this all so much before, but I digress).
In the game, loss mostly happens in an encounter, or maybe around it. As noted above, the adventurers as a group hardly lost, as, again it would derail the story.
In any case, it would be nice if there were more alternatives to the never ending series of death matches.
win
loose
win
loose
win
loose
win
loose
win...
You can get fancy, and talk about which wins and loses need to be bigger or smaller...(some bigs early on, then about 2/3rds of the way through, then at the very end...) and various symmetries or asymmetries in the structure, but this is pretty much how it goes.
For an adventure story like the hobbit, the huge challenge is to have loses that don't derail the story. This is kinda hard (and harder now that we have seen this all so much before, but I digress).
In the game, loss mostly happens in an encounter, or maybe around it. As noted above, the adventurers as a group hardly lost, as, again it would derail the story.
In any case, it would be nice if there were more alternatives to the never ending series of death matches.
Similar Threads
