Your character died. Big deal.

[pemerton]

Especially seems Ron limit narrative play to "discussing" morality or ethics in the game, which constricts its meaning and makes others, "narrative-seeming" aspects work less well.

I don't think he limits it to discussing moral matters. But he does suggest that narrativist play must address moral or ethical matters. I agree that this is too narrow (eg Edwards seems not to have read Neitzche, who presents a plausible case for the difference of the aesthetically appealing from the moral), but that is a quibble with an excessively narrow conception on his part of literary or aesthetic merit. It is not an objection to the structure of GNS theory.

I think that it is hard for D&D to address what modern people would regard as moral matters, because D&D is mostly about brutal combat and most modern moral dillemas begin from some conception of the value of life and the wrongness of (much) killing (pre-4e alignment is a mostly unsuccessful attempt to try and stipulate by way of game mechanics that this dissonance does not exist - and is for that reason perhaps the most anti-narrativist of all traditional D&D mechanics). But D&D (and fantasy RPGs in general) can address ethical questions about the nature or purpose or worth of a certain sort of life, provided that the ethical is allowed to reach beyond the moral into the more purely aesthetic (in a Neitzchean sort of way, perhaps).

The example I remember is that a Star Wars game is "simulationist" if anger leads to the Dark Side, and good triumphs over evil, and narrative (but no longer really Star Wars) if you allow evil to triumph or anger (or the Dark Side) lead to good results.

That is probably too simplistic. But it is an obstacle for narrativist play if the issues of moral or aesthetic decision are already predetermined. In playing narrativist Star Wars, it would have to remain the case that anger leads to the Dark Side (this is a given for Star Wars), but Lucas's moral judgement about the wickedness of the Dark Side would have to be up for grabs during the course of play.

I haven't played "morally ambiguous" Star Wars, but I have GMed a game in which one PC sacrificed another on the altar of Hextor before going on to become an ally of Vecna in his quest to become Emperor. That PC prospered, while another PC who was an ex-slave, and was campaigning to free the slaves, and who lived a comparatively normal and non-sociopathic life, suffered many vicissitidues with ignoble consequences. I don't know if the player of the sociopath really thought that what his PC was doing was morally permissible, or constituted a good life, nor whether he personally shared the contempt and condescension towards the other PC that his PC displayed in the gameworld. But I do know that the game could not have worked if there were already mechanics in play that predetermined an answer to these questions about what constitutes an ethically viable life.

But this would mean that the "Death Flag" might be something you could find in both types of games - Simulationist or Narrativist, since the player in the "Anger leads to the Dark Side" Simulation game might not want his angry Jedi to die before he has turned to the Dark Side - and he might exactly choose to Raise the Death Flag in the scene where the character has the chance to redeem himself...

Agreed - although the "redemption" scene might well occur in a narrativist game. The death flag used in a simulationist game would typically be a way of nudging the game away from "purist-for-system" simulationism (of the RQ/RM/Traveller variety) and towards "high concept" or genre simulationism (of the Call of Cthulhu/Ars Magic variety) - the death flag would then support genre simulation by preventing certain sorts of genre-breaking events happening in the game.

A recurring criticism of GNS is that it distinguishes narrativism from high-concept/genre simulationism, but that in practice these two sorts of play travel closely together (eg both are concerned with the production of story). My own view is that Edwards is right to draw the distinction, because (as drawn by him) it turns on the crucial question of "whose story" or "whose thematic vision" - and genre simulation is primarily about retelling someone else's story and inhabiting the thematic vision that the original author has already predetermined.

But I readily admit that to identify this as the crucial question is already to adopt a certain aesthetic preference that not everyone may share - especially those who, like many fantasy RPGers, are fans of genre literature and film.

Maybe the only answer to this is to say - you play your games with your goals, I play them with mine.

Unfortunately, this might not settle the issue, because in the attempt to finding the perfect definition of role-playing games, we have to FIGHT TO THE DEATH* on whether MY GOAL IS BETTER THEN YOUR GOAL*, and I am not actually playing a "story-telling" or "acting" game instead of an role-playing game and which of these D&D has, should and will always be.

*) pardon my Cirnoismn

I did enjoy this particular post. Thanks.

 

[Ourph]

That just goes back to my first post of "This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net."

Or, you know, play the game however the heck you want, without getting permission first from ProfessorCirno.

 

[Glyfair]

However, it is also about putting more focus on the player's choices while removing the consequences of those choices unless, of course, the player also chooses the consequence. I.e., more improvesational story telling, less "game".

In a game I run where there is only death by player permission, I choose the consequence as the DM. The player doesn't.

I'll also note that in such games, it's not so much a "do you want to die" question that comes up in all possible death situations. The assumption is that PCs won't die in the game. However, the player can decide that it is proper for their character to die for the best dramatic effect on the campaign.

Han Solo dying in "the Empire Strikes Back" in order to have Luke see the possible consequences of the his fight against the Empire would be appropriate dramatically, for some. Han dying because Greedo critical hit in the first scene of "A New Hope" wouldn't.

 

[Delta]

Take a game like poker...

Save or Die would be akin to adding a card into the poker deck that says "fold now."

While it might be interesting for a bit, overall it doesn't really add to the player's invlvement of the game. There's nothing the player can really do to account for it, aside from hope he doesn't get dealt the card. Even if he's got all his math down, knows all the strategies in the world, and could be considered the "best" poker player, drawing the fold now card invalidates all that. Blam... sucker!

Since there isn't a way to really compensate for it, it just kind of sits there as a thing the player just hopes doesn't happen and the player feels kind of cheated when it does. All that time and energy spent becoming a better player is pointless.

I'd be wiling to bet that the majority of gamers out there prefer the game to challenge their ability to play it, and not just determine their level of luck...

I'm going to disagree with this analogy. Honest question: Do you actually play poker? I can't tell one way or the other.

(1) Luck is inherently a part of poker. There's a phrase called "bad beat" for when a poker player does everything correct, was ahead in the hand, and still gets beaten anyway. It's specifically a mark of a good poker player that they can emotionally take a "bad beat" and deal with it. (IMO it's actually the most interesting thing about the game!)

Bad beat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(2) It seems like the best analogy is whole poker match = character life; one hand = one encounter; folding = running away; busting out of chips = death. Then a "fold now card" would be = "you must run away from encounter", which I suppose is not that different from a fear effect. It would take a "you instantly lose all your chips" card = instant death.

(3) Of course, the equivalent to automatically losing your hand is just when an opposing player gets an unbeatable hand and you don't know about it. Of course, that's called "drawing dead" and it definitely happens; it's one of the recognized categories of "bad beats", having a strong hand clobbered by an even stronger hand (see link). And again, professional players play with that risk all the time, and some of us think it's the most interesting mental challenge about the game.

So then it's really just a question of how frequently you wind up "drawing dead" against a "monster hand". And poker has engineered that to happen maybe at least a few times on any night of poker play.

 

[pemerton]

I think the TV comparison is a really bad one. You watch TV, you don't play it. You have no control over the TV show. At no point in time do your feelings matter in the context of that show, nor can you do any action to change things the way they are. Watching TV is, well, watching it - you just sit there and listen/watch what other people are doing, without any input or output from yourself. That just goes back to my first post of "This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net."

One question - why is the only alternative to watching TV (which someone else wrote) rolling dice to see what happens (which is still something that someone/thing else wrote). What's wrong with wanting to do some of the writing oneself? Or as part of a group of fellow players?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think I already mentioned a... "variant" Death Flag mechanic - Torgs "Martyr" card. A player that got this card in a game of Torg would be allowed to either turn it in after play for a possibility (something like a mix of Action Point and Experience Point, or like a Shadowrun (pre 4E) Karma Dice) - or he can play it and have his character sacrifice himself, for the benefit of his comrades or his characters (or players) goals.

It's not exactly a Death Flag mechanic, because you can still die by "normal" means in Torg (and even unnormal - Torg allows skills like "Trick", "Maneuver", "Test of Wills", "Taunt", "Intimidate" to create a deadly effect, though this is hard to achieve). But it has a similar goal - the player wants to ensure his characters death is meaningful. "Game Tactically", it is a great card to use in any scenario that might lead to a TPK (thought you won't find the card too often).

The Death Flag mechanic gives a little more control - you can only die (but you're not even guaranteed to die) if you raise the flag. But it assumes that there will be situations where you want to raise the flag.

For example, if you don't like the idea of the Tarrasque tramping the party down and then destroying your home town, or if you don't like the idea of being stranded with very limited resources in the middle of a dungeon, you can raise your Death Flag, get a mechanical benefit, and possibly get out. Or you die, avoiding the undeserired outcome of the scenario.

 

[Fenes]

"Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds. Either you have SoD spells in your campaign, or you haven't. But just tweaking the odds doesn't change the game in a fundamental way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds. Either you have SoD spells in your campaign, or you haven't. But just tweaking the odds doesn't change the game in a fundamental way.

It depends. If "Save Save Save or Die" and it works like "ROll Perception, Roll Initiative, Roll Save vs Death", it's just different odds.

If it's "Save" "every party member can try something to get you out of the situation" "Save or Die", it is more than that - you can react to the situation. In 3E, the Wizard might cast a Dispel Magic or Break Enchantment spell to get you out (depending on the effect), a Cleric could cast a "Death Ward" (if a death effect). In 4E, a character might give you a potion that allows you to make a save with a bonus, or use a power to grant you a bonus to your next save, or anything like that.
There is not a guarantee for success, but you can at least make a conscious choice that can affect your chances.

 

[AndrewRogue]

"Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds. Either you have SoD spells in your campaign, or you haven't. But just tweaking the odds doesn't change the game in a fundamental way.

I think the Bodak does the best job of demonstrating the difference.

3.X Bodak, you can flat out get caught by a death gaze walking into a room and die.

4th, the Bodak has to catch you with its attack first to Weaken you, and then a second attack to drop you to zero. This gives you, the PC, quite a bit of room to deal with the problem comparatively. You have a window of action in which you can do something meaningful, unlike the 3.X version wherein you either die or don't (preparations not withstanding).

The Save, Save, Save or Die method gives you more space in which you can react and take your own fate (or your allies' fates) into your hands.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Again, I'm not trying to attack the playing style, and I apologize if it seems that way. I simply cannot wrap my head around why a person would be so adamant about the whole death thing.

Really? It’s the easiest thing for me to wrap my head around - people are different!

Example? Some folk think Budweiser is a good and tasty beer, others think you can’t beat a pint of Ruddles.

There are two conclusions you could draw from this. First: Budweiser drinkers (or Ruddles drinkers dependoing on your POV) are wrong. Second: people are different and like different things, neither is wrong. (I hope that’s cleared things up for you).

This ain't no writer's workshop; if all you want to do is tell stories about yourself, go to fanfiction.net.

I don’t think that anyone wants to tell stories about themselves. Telling stories about the adventures of a character they have carefully and lovingly created, that’s a different matter entirely. Some folks (like me) think that that’s what role-playing games are for. Are you saying they’re wrong?