Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5374452" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem with Failure=Death is that the player never has to deal with the consequences of failure.&nbsp; After all, if failure=death, then every living character in a campaign has never failed.Take a simple scenario.&nbsp; The party takes up the challenge to defend a town against some large force bearing down on the town.&nbsp; The party needs to accomplish a number of tasks in order to make the town strong enough to resist the force.&nbsp; None of these tasks need to be lethal - could be things like trying to improve constructions, training local levies, contacting neighbouring factions to lend aid.&nbsp; But, if the party fails at enough of these (for any number of reasons - poor execution, lack of time, whatever), the invading force will destroy the town.Now, say that the PC's decide to stand the walls to defend the town.&nbsp; It's a suicide mission, since the PC's failed in their efforts to strengthen the town, but, they figure they'll stand up anyway.&nbsp; Invading force overwhelms the town and the PC's go down - the invading force is just that strong.Now, you could let things lie there.&nbsp; TPK.&nbsp; Roll up new group.Or, you could have the PC's awaken, lying some ways from the battleground where a friendly NPC had dragged them under the cover of the battle.&nbsp; Now they have to deal with the aftermath of the events and the knowledge that that aftermath is primarily their own fault.To me, that's a much better way to draw the players into the game.&nbsp; They can't just ignore or blow off the consequences and roll up their next character.&nbsp; This is a great way to explore the character and give depth to that character.Not that it's the only way.&nbsp; Too true.&nbsp; You could go the other way and let them be dead.&nbsp; Fair enough.&nbsp; In a game which primarily focuses on the world and not the characters, I can see this being the way to go.&nbsp; After all, in such a game, the character is relatively secondary.&nbsp; But, in a character driven game, where the exploration of the character is important, where developing that character's personality and history is more imporant than exploring the setting, then I think it's much better to use the second option.It's all about getting what you want out of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5374452, member: 22779"] The problem with Failure=Death is that the player never has to deal with the consequences of failure. After all, if failure=death, then every living character in a campaign has never failed. Take a simple scenario. The party takes up the challenge to defend a town against some large force bearing down on the town. The party needs to accomplish a number of tasks in order to make the town strong enough to resist the force. None of these tasks need to be lethal - could be things like trying to improve constructions, training local levies, contacting neighbouring factions to lend aid. But, if the party fails at enough of these (for any number of reasons - poor execution, lack of time, whatever), the invading force will destroy the town. Now, say that the PC's decide to stand the walls to defend the town. It's a suicide mission, since the PC's failed in their efforts to strengthen the town, but, they figure they'll stand up anyway. Invading force overwhelms the town and the PC's go down - the invading force is just that strong. Now, you could let things lie there. TPK. Roll up new group. Or, you could have the PC's awaken, lying some ways from the battleground where a friendly NPC had dragged them under the cover of the battle. Now they have to deal with the aftermath of the events and the knowledge that that aftermath is primarily their own fault. To me, that's a much better way to draw the players into the game. They can't just ignore or blow off the consequences and roll up their next character. This is a great way to explore the character and give depth to that character. Not that it's the only way. Too true. You could go the other way and let them be dead. Fair enough. In a game which primarily focuses on the world and not the characters, I can see this being the way to go. After all, in such a game, the character is relatively secondary. But, in a character driven game, where the exploration of the character is important, where developing that character's personality and history is more imporant than exploring the setting, then I think it's much better to use the second option. It's all about getting what you want out of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification