Victories and No Defeats in D&D

[Radiating Gnome]

TerraDave, that sort of Robert McKee-esque structure for story is a good framework to keep in mind, but even McKee doesn't suggest that all of those wins and losses are on the same scale all the time. He also talks about the same sort of Win/lose or +/- within scenes -- line by line dialog going +/-/+/- and so on. And he points out that those wins and losses can and should be on different axies in the story -- so, you may win by killing the enemy king, but you lose because to do so you had to break an oath and that broken oath will have other consequences for you.

McKee is really talking about keeping energy and power moving by always making sure that the narrative is moving, that things are always changing, etc. Too many losses, and the story is punishing. To many wins, and it's dull.

To apply that to an RPG, you need to think about establishing more than one axis on which to define +/-. So, your PCs may win every single battle against the orc brigands they face, but there are other things going on in the story that supply the "-" between those encounters. Something like this:

-The PCs are pursuing a band of Orc Brigands trying to rescue a merchant's daughter
-They find the location where the girl's carriage was attacked, and pick up the trail (+)
-They follow the trail into the woods and find strips of her garments in the underbrush, some stained with blood (-)
-They encounter a rear-guard of orcs and defeat them (+)
-The orcs they killed each had a lock of the girl's hair on a string of trophies around her neck (-)
-The Pcs follow the trail to the orc hideout (+)
-They can hear her screams coming from deep in the cave (-)
-They attack the Orcs outside the cave and defeat them (+)
-The orcs did raise an alarm and now the orcs inside know someone is coming (-)
-The PCs charge in and defeat the orcs (+)
-They find the girl, badly beaten and abused (-)
-They return her to her father (+)

Notice how every time the PCs do something they succeed, and yet the story flows back and forth between + and - ? It's a little strained, maybe -- and in a narrative you can get a bit more variety out of things because it's easier for the story to absorb a moment when the protagonist does not succeed.

But still, the give and take here makes the story a LOT more interesting, even though, because of the nature of the game we're using to tell this story, the PCs always (or nearly always) succeed when they attempt something.

-rg

(If you're not familiar with Robert McKee, he's a screenwriting teacher -- and his book "[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Story-Substance-Structure-Principles-Screenwriting/dp/0060391685/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331148892&sr=8-1"]Story[/ame]" is a great exploration of how stories are constructed).

(EDIT: TerraDave, after hitting submit and rereading your post and then mine I see that you did mention "you can get fancy, and talk about which wins and losses need to be bigger or smaller..." and I may have mis-represented what you said. Sorry about that, didn't mean to offend. I think, though that it's vital to make those distinctions -- not "fancy", but necessary.)

 

[TerraDave]

Thats an interesting application: winning the fights but loosing something else.

There is also the truly ironic event: win and loose at the same time...but I don't think that is supposed to be common...and especially not in RPGs.

Actually, an aside but also somewhat to the point, if you listen to the director commentaries on the LoTR films, one thing they mention multiple times is the reason they altered the story here or there is to put in more reversals (as they term them).

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Don't tell my players it isn't common.

 

[BobTheNob]

Im of a mind that potential fatality must eixst, but wow is it hard.

If you are talking about the kinda potential fatality that comes from bad rolling in a normalized encounter, well, I want that. There must be SOME feeling of risk involved in getting into a fight, some degree of fear. Even all things being equal, "kicking in the door and charging" should not be option no.1 on every parties "how do we do this" list.

When playing 4e the flatmate of the guy who's house we played at used to observe the game (knowing nothing about RPG's) and he was curious what happened when someone died. No-one had. It got to a point where it was a running joke with him because no-one ever did. The players knew the tactics and contingencies and 4e was kinda "soft" in this regard, so no matter how hard I tried as a DM to create challenge, it never manifest in anything more than someone going unconscious.

As the independent observer put it "Whats the point?"

As to killer encounters (i.e. encounters well beyond the characters capabilities) these should only happen when the players knowing opt into them or do nothing to avoid them when they had the opportunities to do so.

Any way you look at it, fear must exist. I dont like that its the domain of SOD spells and creature abilities. If anything, I want SOD's expanded to allow martial attacks that are SOD, and for the very real possibility that fate and fortune could go against you even in a trivial scenario.

 

[am181d]

One of my objections to the way that D&D adventures are normally structured is that I don't buy AT ALL that 99% of all bad guys would fight to the death. If you're a bandit and a band of adventurers are mowing through your crew, are you going to keep fighting and die too or are you going to run? Even dumb animals are likely to take the hint and run away.

By the same token, most players are TERRIBLE about knowing when to retreat or surrender. I see this as related. If DM's provide examples of enemies that will retreat or surrender when things turn against them, then players will be more likely to think to do the same.

I will concede that part of this is down to how the rules are structured. It is REALLY hard to run away if you don't have a movement or concealment-based spell or magic item. It'd almost be MORE realistic to collapse everything down to an "Escape" roll, where if you roll well enough you're able to escape to no further harm...

 

[triqui]

In The Hobbit, the party of dwarves seems to lose more fights than it wins.

The dwarves are taken prisoner by the trolls.
The dwarves flee from the giants in the Misty Mountains.
The dwarves are taken prisoner by the goblins of the Misty Mountains.
The dwarves are treed by a group of worgs and wolves.
The dwarves are trapped in webs by giant spiders.
The dwarves are imprisoned by wood elves.
...

Conan wins fights in his stories, but he also loses quite a few, including some big ones. He is enslaved several times.

We could go on and on regarding fictional heroes and the victories and defeats of their stories.

Yet D&D tends not to have victories and defeats from combat results, only victories. Capture either happens because it was a railroad (you are automatically captured) or you failed and its game over. Part of this is because we're used to modules/organized play that don't list options such as running away from a fight, being captured, etc. because the module assumes that the PCs always win.

Part of it is becouse the modules assume PC win. But I think there are other stuff that is also important. Conan loses his equipment half the time he is enslaved. PC live for their gear. They love their magic items. In some cases, the magic items ARE the PC.

To be able to win and lose, PC first need to be able to live without magic items. And getting loot is a basic part of DD. I'm not very confident to see a change in that.

 

[pemerton]

D&D tends not to have victories and defeats from combat results, only victories. Capture either happens because it was a railroad (you are automatically captured) or you failed and its game over.

Terrific post.

Gotta keep in mind, those "losses" were mostly story points, so sure, in a heavily narrated game it's reasonable to include losses.

But most of those are story losses. The character is railroaded into a protected environment until they can recover or escape.

That's one of the differences between a game and a work of fiction - one relies on the actions of the players judged by the DM (and usually random chance), while the other is completely controlled by the author.

I don't agree with this. It's possible for a game to make room for, and even encourage, losses of the sort the OP talks about without requiring railroading. It's about the action resolution mechanics, in combination with the advice on adjudicating them.

To a large extent, this is just a game style issue.

<snip>

beyond suggesting that recalibration, there's really not anything more the rules can do.

I very strongly disagree with this. What counts as success, failure, game-ending failure, etc is hugely dependent on the mechanics and processes of action resolution. Playstyle can be a factor, but mechanics and adjudication are key.

The problem with D&D is that it doesn't have many good ways to lose without a TPK. If the characters defeat all their enemies, but two characters die, it is still a win. Retreat is generally rather hard and can be a murky area in the rules.

<snip>

There is no doubt that a good group can overcome a lot of this through some creativity, but it would help if the rules didn't assume so readily that any given fight will involve both sides fighting until one side is completely defeated. Better rules for disengaging from a fight and widening the gap between "defeated at 0 HP" and "dead" would help a lot.

I agree with this. It illustrates exactly what those features of D&D action resolution adjudication and mechanics are that tend to push against "losses" of the sort the OP mentioned (and I put "losses" in inverted commas because from the point of view of the players, as opposed to the PCs, these aren't necessarily losses - they still get to play their PCs engaged in exciting adventures).

I think some more mechanical support for inducing and resolving defeats would be a good idea.

Prisoners and standoffs.

<snip>

Currently the DM has no mechanics for this so it usually feels like railroading or deus ex machina.

Retreats and chases.

<snip>

Now it's so ad hoc that they never know if its automatic or almost impossible.

Uncertainty in dying.

Good identification of areas where the mechanics could be strengthened.

In the game, loss mostly happens in an encounter, or maybe around it.

Good point, and shows how mechanics (I'm thinking especially of 4e mechanics) can support story structure.

With that said, it's perfectly okay for a DM to turn a TPK into simply being captured, IMHO.

Perhaps this is a lesson for DMs and players alike. And it speaks to the notion of hit points as combat capability.

<snip>

Of course, if hit points are meat, you're going to die. But if instead they simply represent combat capability, then 0 hp means "unconscious" not dead. You could wake up hours later, bereft of equipment and left for dead. And really, really itching to get even.

Is that DM fudging? Sure, maybe. But who would complain?

In 4e it's not even fudging - 0 hp = unconscious is explicity permitted in the rules. That's one thing I like about 4e - and I have done exactly what JohnSnow described, having the defeated PCs captured by goblins.

I take the view that if the party fights until their all unconscious, the DM should absolutely show no mercy. Fight to that point, and you're dead.

Why?

 

[pemerton]

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.

That's a bit like saying that the choice to eat a four-cheese pasta, or a curry laksa, is bacially the same outside of flavour (both are starches smothered in fat). I mean, it's true (or near enough), but the flavour's a pretty big part of the whole enterprise.

(The reason it's not complletely true is because the two options might involve different elements of the action resolution mechanics - eg a skill challenge one way, a combat the other way - and this is not just a difference of flavour - the players might be better at one than the other, for example.)

This removes meaningful player choice about the risk/reward balance they want to take on, and therefore doesn't reward thoughtful play.

There are other dimensions of thoughtfulness beside balancing risks against rewards.

 

[Starfox]

A problem here is that from a gamist or "combat as sport" perspective, an uneven fight is less interesting than an even one. If a fight takes 2 hours to play out, we want those 2 hours to be interesting and fun - chasing kobolds is not fun for high-level heroes, and being chased by a dragon has its charm, but many players find it disheartening.

Another issue here is that it can be very hard to judge the danger level of an encounter in a game that is not a stimulation - those 10 ragamuffins could be 1st level minions or 10th level monks, there is no sure way to tell. All this encourages an attitude among the players to trust the DM and assume all challenges are level appropriate. And, as others have said, once combat is engaged, it is often hard to break off, especially against a superior foe.


On to a new subject

The win/loose structure described above reminds me very much of MMOs. The MMO I have played the most, City of Heroes have many story lines that progress like that. Others progress differently; the PCs must win each mission in order to proceed, but the story as written seems to indicate the villains succeeded with their objectives anyway - perhaps another group of villains did? But to call this "defeat" is kind of silly in a way - the PCs are not defeated, even if their interests are. The players actually constantly win, as these "defeats" are merely the motivations that set them up for further success.

I have no easy answers here, I am just making reflections.

 

[TerraDave]

...

The win/loose structure described above reminds me very much of MMOs. The MMO I have played the most, City of Heroes have many story lines that progress like that. Others progress differently; the PCs must win each mission in order to proceed, but the story as written seems to indicate the villains succeeded with their objectives anyway - perhaps another group of villains did? But to call this "defeat" is kind of silly in a way - the PCs are not defeated, even if their interests are. The players actually constantly win, as these "defeats" are merely the motivations that set them up for further success.

I have no easy answers here, I am just making reflections.

Not to belabor this, but everything works like that. Too much win (up) or too much loose (down) gets boring, and surprisingly fast to a jaded audience. Again, the trick is to maintain the string of the plot through your reversals (or gains if the end result is tragic).

In others genres, this has also become difficult. Romance. Boy meets girl, and then for a few hours or hundreds of pages, they are somehow kept apart. In this day and age, the social and life complications that might do that are just not as obvious as they use to be.