(Champions/Hero) Stakes before Sim...

[Valamir]

I think the reason it comes off in many AP posts as a "roll and done" is because most of the time we focus on procedural elements and the reactions of the players around the table, and don't fully explain or recount the action of the fiction or the moment to moment flow of play. However, I know that in my games stakes and conflicts have led to more character acting and immersion – not less.

Plus there's generally nothing more boring than reading pages and pages of "and then my guy said..." stuff so alot of the actual roleplaying thats going on gets edited out.  Combine that with this site being fairly focused on identifying how game mechanics impact the actual behavior of players at the table and that puts a definite slant on what gets emphasized in the actual play write-ups as well.

I've certainly never been in a game which simply went: Stakes, Roll, Next.   Even in Universalis which mechanically is about as metagame focused as possible there is alot of roleplaying going on around the table.

[Lance D. Allen]

Neil,

I think I'm also seeing the disconnect between you and Storn.

What Stakes do, in Storn's view (I think) and in many others as well, is lets the players know what's being risked.

Win: Vampire's gone, and we cheer!

Lose: Vampire goes after our families?? Holy crap, we really don't want to lose this one. We're really, really interested in not losing this one, because it's our families at stake, man! Instant increase in player investment when they know what's at risk, and they care about it. They still don't know what's going to happen, but they're a lot more interested in finding out.

And here's disconnect two, as I see it; I reiterate, again, that stakes are not pass/fail. They don't set up rewards or punishment, they set up situations. Situations require all sorts of more roleplaying and investment. A little bit of narration isn't going to cut it when you've got a new situation. It's not pre-scripting, it's bangs and kickers. Everything is just as uncertain as it was before, the only difference is that the players have the situation set up for them, so no time is wasted on dull kicking around trying to figure out what to do next.

Also, stakes shouldn't be used for everything, but they should be more frequent than climax scenes and full sessions. Here's a somewhat overdone example...
Also crossposted with Valamir; I agree with what he says totally.

Situation: Your buddy's out and bleeding, and you've used up all of your tricks. The vampire is going for your buddy to finish him off.
Stakes: If you manage to stop the vampire from getting your buddy, he's gonna go after you, and you're not much better off. If you don't stop him, your buddy may end up being a night-stalking bloodsucker too!

Option 1: I stop him!
Situation: Oh crap, now he's after me, I'm boned!
Stakes: I can grab my buddy and run, but he said earlier in the fight that he knew where my mother lived, and he'll go after her. If I try to fight him, we could both end up dead, or worse!

Option 2: I can't stop him!
Situation: Oh, this isn't good. My buddy's a vampire now too, and is struggling to control himself!
Stakes: I can just grab him and run (I still can't take out the elder) and hope he can control his urges long enough to figure a way out of this, or I can do the best thing I can, and stake my buddy now while he's still too weak to attack me back. Oh, the angst!

As Valamir points out, there's often more than one choice, so I'm oversimplifying a bit as well. The stakes don't necessarily have to be cut and dried, unless you're playing a conflict-res system that says that the stakes cannot change once the conflict has begun. The idea, especially as a bolt-on thing, is to give an idea of what is at risk and increase player investment while setting up another interesting situation. Not every moment of Roleplaying can be high tension, nor should it (at least, that's my view) but bangs and situation-creating-situation helps keep things moving and allows the tension to be maintained and built when you need it to be.

In the end, if you still cannot wrap your head around using stakes, then simply.. Don't. It's a tool, not a rule, and should be used the best you decide to improve your gaming experience.

Crossposted with Brand, I think his example supports what I'm trying to say, at least somewhat. Especially note his last point; Actual Play isn't always the best gauge of the intricacies of the play at the table, as it's usually more of an overview with impressions and questions.

[RDU Neil]

Cross posting with others...

Valamir... thanks for the Game of Thrones example.  While I would have preferred Theon becoming shark-food (I love those books and hate that character) what you described does make sense to me... but also goes counter to the way much of the "win/lose" dynamic has been stated in other threads.  Your stakes are not "win/lose" but "win/win" for the player who is interested in both outcomes... plus your Stakes are open... guidelines... which a lot of others have posted as "wrong" because they see stakes as contractual with "either X or Y and you can't change them after they've been agreed upon."


Wolfen:  I do agree that clarifying what is at stake is a good thing... making some intent more clear... we've done that for years in our games without a mechanic or rule for it... but again it is the win/lose bit that bugs me.  If either option is "cool" for the player, even though the character has to be role played to think it's bad... that is one thing... but if you truly want to win/lose... then the PLAYER has to lose.  The PLAYER has to be disappointed and pissed off because losing sucks.  Losing is losing.  In the vampire example, losing is not "Oh cool, now I get to role play trying to save my family" losing is "That's it, you lost.  Character is dead.  Your last ignominious end is having your spleen eaten while you are still alive.  Nobody is saved, you FAILED!"   

Basically, if stakes are truly a gamble... then the PLAYER has to feel bad when they lose... otherwise it is not a gamble, it is simply clarifying some player desires for things they'd like to see happen. 


Another example... just to clarify my concern on stakes lessening the fun...

Example:  In combat, one character was fighting the villain with whom he turned out to have a genetic connection.  He'd learned this and dreaded what it meant about his future.  The villain kept coming after him because he was now a personal threat.  The PLAYER, not just the character, became desperate in the big battle, when the villain just kept getting up and coming after him again and again... so that when the moment came where the villain was down... the PC went over the top.  Attacked the body... totally immolated the villain in desperation... the PLAYER was desperate and tense and emotionally tied to the moment just like the character...

... and then after it was over... the player was like "Oh my god.... what have I done?  I was  hero... but I totally lost it.  I crossed the line and didn't even realize it!  This changes everything!"   It actually took weeks for the repercussions to sink in with the player... and it was a brilliant and campaign altering moment.  It happened because we let things play out in a moment by moment, task resolution, inside the skin of the charater moment... with GREAT uncertainty about what would happen.

Stakes would have utterly destroyed this.  If we'd had a metagame moment where I said, "Ok... you want to utterly destroy your foe... if you fail... or if you succeed, but..." it was possible we could have hashed out BEFORE HAND this exact ending... but it would have been greatly reduced in impact.  The power of the moment came from the PLAYER and the character really, emotionally feeling the impact of their actions... instead of a cold, abstract, calculated... "Hmmm ok, doing that would mean I cross the line so we'll then have scenes of contrition and soul searching afterwards."  

One moment was an epiphany... but Stakes would have turned it into just another scripted scene.  I would like to see how knowing the outcome either way would enhance the thrill of play because it seems to abstract and distance the player from the moment.  The thrill of success comes because the uncertainty of absolute failure also exists.

[RDU Neil]

Whoops.. Brand, not Valamir.  I gave out the wrong credits there.  Three cross-posts confused me.

[Lance D. Allen]

Two things:

WHY in the world should a player ever feel bad during roleplaying? I mean, occasionally it happens, but this is a condition to be avoided. Roleplaying is supposed to be fun (and a big finger to alla youse freaks who think otherwise!) and fun SHOULD include the agony of uncertainty and even failure. Sometimes the characters have to die. But the player should never, ever leave a session feeling BAD. The following is the sort of thing you should expect to see when a character dies, IMO.

"Man, I'm so bummed! My character got totally pasted, but wow, was it an awesome scene. One more point of damage and I'd have taken out the villain, but at least I weakened him enough for your character to finish him off. The last part where everyone gathered around my character as he died.. Man, I almost cried. I can't wait to see what happens next!"

Basically, the way I see it, there shouldn't really be any such thing as the player losing. So long as the player has fun, is interested in the game, and has some memorable scenes to take home, it is and should be win/win.

Second thing, I want to point out again that explicitly setting stakes is, for the most part, a tool, not a rule, again barring games that specifically say otherwise. You shouldn't always pause to set stakes. Especially because, and this is important, there are ALWAYS stakes. Whenever there's an important decision to make, there's a "win" condition and a "lose" condition. The only difference is whether or not it's explicit. Sometimes, it's better when it's explicit, and sometimes it's not. Even in games like Dogs, where the stakes are set up ahead of time, the details will end up with extremely strong situations. Frex, my character Br. Thaddeus had alla these dice for gunfighting. But he'd never killed anyone. He sentenced a few people to death over the course of our play, and he felt somewhat bad about that, even though he knew it was the right thing, but he'd never shot and killed anyone. I was totally waiting for this to happen. I *wanted* it to happen. BUT under no circumstances would I have allowed the stakes to be "Does Thaddeus shoot and kill this person." Had my GM suggested it, I would have rejected it and suggested something else.. Because I'd be playing to the hilt to never have to kill, so that when it did happen, it would be unexpected and I'd be able to react and roleplay on the fly.

In your example, the stakes were there, if not explicit.

Situation: The villain just keeps coming for you, again and again.
Stakes: If you don't defeat him, he'll just keep coming. The connection between you means that he has to. If you do defeat him decisively, you can end it, finally.

Notice that there's nothing that says "annihilate him completely". The player knew what was at stake; The villain continuing to come for him or not. He did what seemed best in the moment to win those stakes, answering the question "What is it worth?" decisively, but then opening himself up for self-doubt later. It may not have been conscious, pre-determined or explicit, but the stakes were there.

[Tommi Brander]

WHY in the world should a player ever feel bad during roleplaying? I mean, occasionally it happens, but this is a condition to be avoided. Roleplaying is supposed to be fun (and a big finger to alla youse freaks who think otherwise!) and fun SHOULD include the agony of uncertainty and even failure. Sometimes the characters have to die. But the player should never, ever leave a session feeling BAD. The following is the sort of thing you should expect to see when a character dies, IMO.

"Man, I'm so bummed! My character got totally pasted, but wow, was it an awesome scene. One more point of damage and I'd have taken out the villain, but at least I weakened him enough for your character to finish him off. The last part where everyone gathered around my character as he died.. Man, I almost cried. I can't wait to see what happens next!"

Basically, the way I see it, there shouldn't really be any such thing as the player losing. So long as the player has fun, is interested in the game, and has some memorable scenes to take home, it is and should be win/win.

This is worth repeating.


As for Neil, maybe you dislike director/author stance? One player of mine does. He doesn't want to control things beyond his character.
Do you play immersively?

[xenopulse]

Hi Neil,

Let me focus on one aspect of your response here:

if you truly want to win/lose... then the PLAYER has to lose.  The PLAYER has to be disappointed and pissed off because losing sucks.

So basically you want to gamble with the player's enjoyment of the game. That's interesting. In your perfect game, players would frequently be pissed off and be unhappy about losing (because if they never lost, the risk of the gamble would disappear). Do I get that right? That's what I get from your statement that win/win stakes are flat, so let me know if I'm misreading you here. In short, your game sees anti-fun as a necessary element to get maximum fun moments at other times (maybe like in sports where people get really upset when they lose; players and fans alike).

Now, I've played that way, in fact, my current old-school hardcore Gamist AD&D 2e group plays this way. You know what that does to me? It disconnects me from my character. Immersion, or emotional involvement or whatever we may call it, is dramatically reduced after a few times of being pissed off. Why? Because I don't want to get angry over a game. It's an unpleasant feeling. My investment in my characters since my first one died has sunk intensely. I don't actually care anymore. My character could get maimed or killed tomorrow, and I'd smile and roll up a new one, because my investment in the character is close to zero. It becomes a pawn for winning in certain circumstances, but I won't get involved enough that it'll ruin my fun.

So, I think there is a difference in play styles and personalities. From my viewpoint and personal experience, I enjoy stakes where I can live happily with both outcomes. I will still prefer one outcome and fight hard for it, be sure of that, and there's excitement in trying to get my way. But I'd rather have "preferred/still cool" outcome choices rather than let myself get upset more and more until I stop caring.

In summary, I can see where you're coming from and why the possibility of being mad at an outcome on a player level can be more exciting to you (like a very involved sports fan is at hir favorite team's loss), but it's not everyone's cup of tea, and it doesn't mean that having two acceptable outcomes to a stake makes the resolution completely unexciting.

(Cross-posted with others)

[RDU Neil]

Crioss posted

Two things:

WHY in the world should a player ever feel bad during roleplaying? I mean, occasionally it happens, but this is a condition to be avoided. Roleplaying is supposed to be fun (and a big finger to alla youse freaks who think otherwise!) and fun SHOULD include the agony of uncertainty and even failure. Sometimes the characters have to die. But the player should never, ever leave a session feeling BAD. The following is the sort of thing you should expect to see when a character dies, IMO.

"Man, I'm so bummed! My character got totally pasted, but wow, was it an awesome scene. One more point of damage and I'd have taken out the villain, but at least I weakened him enough for your character to finish him off. The last part where everyone gathered around my character as he died.. Man, I almost cried. I can't wait to see what happens next!"

Basically, the way I see it, there shouldn't really be any such thing as the player losing. So long as the player has fun, is interested in the game, and has some memorable scenes to take home, it is and should be win/win.

I can  agree with this... but then you aren't gambling... there are no real stakes... this isn't win/lose... so let's not use that language.  If stakes are really "Let's cooperate in setting the likely branches of plot and story that could come out of this scene" great.  But that is not gambling... and stakes is the wrong word, IMO.

On the other hand... I do think some parts of gaming should un-fun... because "fun" happens by struggling through those times and coming out better in the end.  You know... "Take out the trash!  Hard work builds character!"   Well... building character takes on a whole new meaning here.  Think about it from a story point of view.  To use the Game of Thrones example... in the books, reading the sudden and horrible end of Eddard Stark and feeling that emotional horror and being upset... that is not "fun" but it makes the story powerful... and when Tywin Lannister gets a bellyful of quarel on the toilet... there is true joy in his demise, because you suffered before.  You can't know joy without knowing depression... you can't have fun unless things suck sometimes, too.

Notice that there's nothing that says "annihilate him completely". The player knew what was at stake; The villain continuing to come for him or not. He did what seemed best in the moment to win those stakes, answering the question "What is it worth?" decisively, but then opening himself up for self-doubt later. It may not have been conscious, pre-determined or explicit, but the stakes were there.

Exactly... the stakse were unconscious... and when they were realized in the aftermath, that made them poignant and powerful... rather than simply an educated study in risk management with known quantities.  

Now, I have seen players immobilized by risk.  The uncertainty paralyzes them, or the dread of losing is so great that it ruins the entire experience.  In the same way we discuss "How can a person be a better GM?" this is one of those areas where I would say, "Here is where a person can be a better player.  Learn to take risk.  Learn to accept some disappointment.  This is just a game... the loss isn't truly real... if you can't handle the death of a character, how are you going to handle real life?"

Role playing, like story telling and such, are integral to self development and growth of the individual.  They are not just games to pass the time.  For that I have Magic and video games and such.  Role Playing is deep stuff (even the most superficial "kill the vampire" scenario)... and some time deep stuff is not pleasant.  (All, IMO, of course.)

[RDU Neil]

As for Neil, maybe you dislike director/author stance? One player of mine does. He doesn't want to control things beyond his character.
Do you play immersively?

I almost never play. I'm most often the GM.  I'm always objective and distanced because I have to envision the big picture and all ramifications.  My enjoyment comes in seeing the players immersed and emotionally involved and when they have those epiphanies of "Man... that was SO worth it!  All the suffering for that moment when we really got the bad guy!"

This moves into my next post... so...

[RDU Neil]

Hi Neil,

Let me focus on one aspect of your response here:

So basically you want to gamble with the player's enjoyment of the game. That's interesting. In your perfect game, players would frequently be pissed off and be unhappy about losing (because if they never lost, the risk of the gamble would disappear). Do I get that right? That's what I get from your statement that win/win stakes are flat, so let me know if I'm misreading you here. In short, your game sees anti-fun as a necessary element to get maximum fun moments at other times (maybe like in sports where people get really upset when they lose; players and fans alike).

I'm not saying RPGs have to be this way... I'm saying that gambling and stakes really mean this, and if we don't mean this... don't use the terms win/lose and gamble.  I don't like gambling... I don't like losing.  Can I aford to lose 5 bucks at a nickel game of poker, sure... but I don't enjoy losing, so I don't play such games.  Not that the risk was too much... but any loss is humiliating, and the success/win isn't worth the humiliation.  To really "care about the outcome" doesn't that mean you have to risk an outcome that totally sucks?  If you have "prefererd/still cool" then the emotional investment isn't there.

Now, I've played that way, in fact, my current old-school hardcore Gamist AD&D 2e group plays this way. You know what that does to me? It disconnects me from my character. Immersion, or emotional involvement or whatever we may call it, is dramatically reduced after a few times of being pissed off. Why? Because I don't want to get angry over a game. It's an unpleasant feeling. My investment in my characters since my first one died has sunk intensely. I don't actually care anymore. My character could get maimed or killed tomorrow, and I'd smile and roll up a new one, because my investment in the character is close to zero. It becomes a pawn for winning in certain circumstances, but I won't get involved enough that it'll ruin my fun.

So, I think there is a difference in play styles and personalities. From my viewpoint and personal experience, I enjoy stakes where I can live happily with both outcomes. I will still prefer one outcome and fight hard for it, be sure of that, and there's excitement in trying to get my way. But I'd rather have "preferred/still cool" outcome choices rather than let myself get upset more and more until I stop caring.

In summary, I can see where you're coming from and why the possibility of being mad at an outcome on a player level can be more exciting to you (like a very involved sports fan is at hir favorite team's loss), but it's not everyone's cup of tea, and it doesn't mean that having two acceptable outcomes to a stake makes the resolution completely unexciting.

(Cross-posted with others)

And I'm not sure I expect others to be mad and angry... but to tell the truth, I do want others to learn to handle disappointment.  To find that happy medium of "bummed I died, but that was a cool scene!" is exactly what I'm after... but maybe my play experience is different.  I see players get so caught up in their character that even a minor set back is the end of the world and the go off and sulk or hate the game... and I think stake settings is a way for them to avoid learning how to live with disappointment.  I actually DO want to encourage a certain level of objectivity... so that they feel the pain... but bounce back quickly, learning to work with adversity to build something greater rather than minimizing risk and adversity.  Build a better story by suffering loss.   No pain no gain, if you want a cliche.  That which does not kill me makes me stronger?  Get knocked down, but I get up again? 

I guess fun isn't always the right word... but "real" might be.  If things are always positive and good... it doesn't seem "real" to me and thus THAT is when I lose interest.  You have to suffer a bit for things to be real... not the character suffer, but the player as well.  Not a lot... you learn to objectify and distance yourself enough not to be miserable, but you still feel the pain enough to keep you caring.

[RDU Neil]

I wanted to get this a bit more back on topic..

Wolfen posted...

Situation: Your buddy's out and bleeding, and you've used up all of your tricks. The vampire is going for your buddy to finish him off.
Stakes: If you manage to stop the vampire from getting your buddy, he's gonna go after you, and you're not much better off. If you don't stop him, your buddy may end up being a night-stalking bloodsucker too!

Option 1: I stop him!
Situation: Oh crap, now he's after me, I'm boned!
Stakes: I can grab my buddy and run, but he said earlier in the fight that he knew where my mother lived, and he'll go after her. If I try to fight him, we could both end up dead, or worse!

Option 2: I can't stop him!
Situation: Oh, this isn't good. My buddy's a vampire now too, and is struggling to control himself!
Stakes: I can just grab him and run (I still can't take out the elder) and hope he can control his urges long enough to figure a way out of this, or I can do the best thing I can, and stake my buddy now while he's still too weak to attack me back. Oh, the angst!

Now.. THIS use of stakes I can totally grok with... but it really seems to be to still be very GM generated.  The GM is essentially saying, "A Metagame moment:  Here is how I see the scenario playing out in different so you guys are all fully on board with where I'm thinking."

This does NOT seem to be "Player: I want X" so "GM: Ok, you risk Y"   That is very different, IMO. 

The first example fits right in with our play style... could even allow for "This is how I see it as GM, what are YOU guys thinking as the players" to get more of a cooperative bent to it. 

The second option is frought with possible scale issues, bad feelings when someone doesn't accept the stakes, digging in the heels with "I think X should happen and I don't care if you disagree!" and all kinds of stuff.  Primarily, if a GM is asked for X and X just ain't gonna happen... no way, no how... then the player is going to feel rail roaded no matter what.  The same player that gets upset when things don't play out like they wanted are going to get upset and sulk when the GM refuses to accept the stakes.  How does this really help the situation?

So if the first example is stakes?  I got no problem with that, and it wouldn't be a vast change in play style... just some more explicit  elements that could enhance game play.

If the second (and maybe I'm the only one seeing these as very different things) I see limited use at best, and a LOT of room for game dysfunction/break down.

[droog]

And I'm not sure I expect others to be mad and angry... but to tell the truth, I do want others to learn to handle disappointment.  To find that happy medium of "bummed I died, but that was a cool scene!" is exactly what I'm after... but maybe my play experience is different.  I see players get so caught up in their character that even a minor set back is the end of the world and the go off and sulk or hate the game... and I think stake settings is a way for them to avoid learning how to live with disappointment.  I actually DO want to encourage a certain level of objectivity... so that they feel the pain... but bounce back quickly, learning to work with adversity to build something greater rather than minimizing risk and adversity.  Build a better story by suffering loss.   No pain no gain, if you want a cliche.  That which does not kill me makes me stronger?  Get knocked down, but I get up again? 

I guess fun isn't always the right word... but "real" might be.  If things are always positive and good... it doesn't seem "real" to me and thus THAT is when I lose interest.  You have to suffer a bit for things to be real... not the character suffer, but the player as well.  Not a lot... you learn to objectify and distance yourself enough not to be miserable, but you still feel the pain enough to keep you caring.

To what extent do you feel that this view comes from your being most often the GM? Do the other players share this view?

[Brand_Robins]

Replies:

Neil, you're right that my last example was a little softer than what a lot of other people are talking about. So lets try another example.

Primetime Adventures game, setup something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The Hunter is trying to stop a truck full of demons from getting into the city and doing mass mischief. We play back and forth the Hunter tracking down the truck and catching it just outside the city, barreling down a mountain road at 65mph. The Hunter's player says "I want to stop the truck and kill every single demon on board -- and I'm going to do it Indiana Jones style, leaping onto the truck, climbing about, having fights." I respond, "Cool, if you win they get stopped. If you lose you get your ass kicked, you get dumped bleeding in the road, and they all make it into the city before anyone else has a chance to stop them."

At that point we go to conflict resolution -- which in PTA is one play of the cards to determine who wins and who loses. About 1 minute later we know that the player lost. (Lost bad, I monkey stomped him.) At that point we know what is going to happen -- but it hasn't happened yet. We just know where we have to get to. We actually spend the next 15 minutes playing it out, with the hunter leaping from car to truck and climbing about and gettind dumped below the truck and clinging onto the undercarriage and getting shot three times and killing a half-dozen demons, and then getting shot with a shotgun at close range and blown off the back of the truck. It was all crazy, fast action with everyone in the group tossing in things like "and then the guy should try to shoot him, but get kicked right through the wall of the truck so that the freaking Toys R Us backwards R goes falling down the mountain!"

Similar things happen in our social scenes. We get to crisis, and figure out who is going to win and who is going to get to narrate -- but then we all play it out as a group with the person that won having final say over what can and can't get into reality. (Basically the winning player gets to do with the rest of the scene what the GM would normally do -- recasting and renarrating people's statements, telling them they can or can't do that, etc.)

This type of resolution does lose the "blow by blow" tension -- but that's because its set up to determine the outcome of conflicts not tasks. Other games that use stakes (Dogs in the Vineyard, HeroQuest, The Shadows of Yesterday) all can still use the stakes and the blow by blow. Either way you can still roleplay out and describe lots and lots of stuff. The only real difference is that you know before you start what it takes to win, what it takes to lose, and what happens (in general, if not specific) if both happen.

Now, for a different issue. A lot of people here are focused on the "fun win, fun loss" element of things. I am too. Lots of us are very focused on cooperation, fun on all sides, and playing nice. However, this doesn't mean that you have to set up stakes that make people happy about losing. A lot of other folks on the Forge don't play nice like that.

TonyLB should be the one explaining this, but he and his group have sometimes used stakes setting as a way to bone each other. He once described it in terms something like, "I figure out what the player wants for the character, then make it as hard for them to get it as I can. I take everything they want, and try to take it away from them." He'll also frequently say things like "When setting stakes as a GM make the stakes for the characters losing things that SUCK." The reason this is functional play, and not Tony being an ass, is because of stakes and contested mechanics (and because he is targeting the character for the suck, and not the player).

If a GM just FUBARS you all the time when you have no ability to know what is coming, or to stop it, then it's the old railroad again. However, if you can say, "If I win this roll then I get X" and negotiate fairly the "if I lose this roll then I lose Y" so that Y is something that sucks but does not ruin the game for you, and the GM has to live with the results of the roll like anyone else, then suddenly you can get into a position where you can push and push back HARD and still have the game come out fair. Games like Capes and Polaris, as a matter of fact, work very well when played like this.

So there are times when using stakes can let you push harder than any other time. If you can get the players to agree to the stakes, knowing what happens when they lose, then they have to take it if they lose. It was their call, and now they've blown it. This is in direct contrast to a game where the players don't know what they are risking, don't know what it will take to win or lose or what will happen if they do, and then get (rightfully) pissed when the GM herds them into a corner of invisible walls and crushes them with the toe of his boot.

[Brand_Robins]

Now.. THIS use of stakes I can totally grok with... but it really seems to be to still be very GM generated.  The GM is essentially saying, "A Metagame moment:  Here is how I see the scenario playing out in different so you guys are all fully on board with where I'm thinking."

This does NOT seem to be "Player: I want X" so "GM: Ok, you risk Y"   That is very different, IMO.

You can do both of these, depending on your group. Setting stakes does not imply that the GM cannot use force.

However, the difference between stakes and non-stakes games is often that the players have the ability to negotiate, back out, figure a different way, or whatever before they commit and get in over their heads rather than after.

Consider the difference in these two situations:

A. Player: We want to go kill the dragon.
    GM: Okay, but if you fail the dragon will burn the whole village except one person and tell that person to go to the city and tell everyone there it was your fault that the dragon killed everyone.
    Player: Fuck that!

B. Player: We want to go kill the dragon.
    GM: Okay, you go. Fight!
    Player: Oh shit, I lost! I guess he kills me.
    GM: No. He lets you live, but he goes and burns the whole village except one person and tell that person to go to the city and tell everyone there it was your fault that the dragon killed everyone.
    Player: Fuck that!

In A the player can still not go kill the dragon, can try to get the stakes set to something else -- either by OOC negotiation or IC actions that the GM agrees would nulify those stakes ("what if we disgusie ourselves as agents of Evilland? That way if we bone it the Dragon takes vengeance on evilland instead...."), or can accept them knowing what they are setting themselves up for if they fail. How they do that depends a lot on the social contract of the group. (I would negotiate it with them. Hard Ass GMs might be like "If you don't like it, don't do it or do it differently. Your current plan has those stakes, take or leave.")

In B the players have already done it, not realizing that was the outcome of their loss all along, and now the GM and the players are probably pissed. Or, even if not, the players are now trying to negotiate the GM down to something they find acceptable for a loss condition after they have lost.

Can players use stakes setting to stall game, pout, and throw fits? Sure -- but they can do that in non-stakes situations too. It is, however, usually rarer in stakes set games because the players are working together to figure out what is going on so that there aren't big surprises and so that they can get the stakes they want rather than those the GM assumes.

[TonyLB]

TonyLB should be the one explaining this, but he and his group have sometimes used stakes setting as a way to bone each other. He once described it in terms something like, "I figure out what the player wants for the character, then make it as hard for them to get it as I can. I take everything they want, and try to take it away from them." He'll also frequently say things like "When setting stakes as a GM make the stakes for the characters losing things that SUCK." The reason this is functional play, and not Tony being an ass, is because of stakes and contested mechanics (and because he is targeting the character for the suck, and not the player).

Not really.  I totally go after the players.

An example that has been repeated (in demonstration games) so often that I have laminated cards with these stakes printed on them:  I play Major Victory, self-righteous defender of justice.  Some poor sap plays the Iron Brain, angry, bitter villain.  We take maybe ten seconds getting into character ("Curse you, Major Victory!  At last I will have my revenge!") and then I introduce the first stakes:  "If I win this then I prove that Justice will always lead .... to Victory!"

For the full effect you have to imagine it with me looking the other guy square in the face, giving an easy, arrogant grin and flashing the "V for Victory" sign with my fingers.  This is totally "I will make your character a pathetic loser, and you can't stop me!" territory. 

The other player reliably responds by taking a deep breath, glaring at me as if I'd just pissed on their dog, and then looking through the set of pre-printed stakes that they can offer in response.  They get an evil grin, and they chuckle, and that is how I know that they have flipped to "Humiliate Major Victory."  They play it and I take a deep breath and respond "Oh, that is never going to happen!" and away we go.  Lots of very heated dice rolls ensue as we pursue those goals.

So I really like stakes where winning is good and losing sucks.  I think they make for fun, intense conflict (and they encourage, as you say "Bummer, I died, but it was cool" scenes).  And they work really well with explicit conflict resolution.  And ... I don't really know whether I'm saying stuff that's obvious or revealing, so I'll stop here and wait for feedback.