Necessary Risk

[Buddha Nature]

Is risk a necessary part of the roleplaying experience?  This is a question I have been grappling with for a bit now.  What I mean by this is whether or not all players in an RPG must feel as though there is some kind of risk involved in the actions of their characters--from the epic idea (will I live or die) to the mediocre (will I jump over this gap).  Would players be interested in a game where some of their actions are predetermined?  I have been toying around with an idea where a GM gives a brief outline of what he wants to happen in a scene and then lets the players play it out.

This would not be the extreme form of railroading because players could add their own parts to the "plot" via actions and dialog - just certain "landmarks" would have to be met in the scene before moving onto another.  Beyond that - GM "powers" would cycle around.

Now the question I am getting at really focuses on the movement towards and at these landmarks--would there be enough interest to players to play, even though the outcome of certain events is already set in stone?  If so, would there even need to be any kind of resolution system involved?

-Shane

[AV]

That very idea I am trying out tomorrow.

I wondered if it would work. I am currently GMing a game of my own creation. Basic Fantasy stuff with a different system and mood of play.

Currently the players are awaiting the approval to meet Lord Barmel. This guy is kinda weird. In fact he is very weird. He has strange unexplained visions. When he has these visions the people that they are about have dreams of a strange nature the next time that they sleep.

The characters are going to be the point of this vision. Then when they have their dreams Lord Barmel is there to ask them about their dreams.

They play characters in their dreams that I made up as a sort of Piece of their inner person coming out through their dreams. I made up these characters based on what I had seen them play for the last three sessions and of what I can gather from their character sheets.

Anyways, what I want to happen is to have them read through what hapened and use what is on the second character sheet and tell the story as they saw it in their dream. I think it works the best this way because it gives the player the chance to bend the truth a little though staying with the story. They are more or less forced to follow a set pattern, but based on the prerequisite pattern of all those involved being have a similar dream the others can know if that person is lying.

It's late and I am really tired so I hope this makes some sense.

I will surely post the results on thursday.

[Simon W]

This is something along the lines of what I am going to try with John Laviolette's 24-hour game Troubadours of Verticaille. The idea is to find some suitable song lyrics (Steeleye Span, Jethro Tull, Wishbone Ash, Fairport Convention etc) and present the lyrics to the players, explaining that the lyrics are the basis of the session. Haven't quite figured out the nitty gritty of how it works, not sure that I need to - just see how it develops I suppose.

Gideon
http://www.geocities.com/simonwashbourne/Beyond_Belief.html

[Le Joueur]

I, for one, am not sure what you mean.  Can you have suspence, unpredictability, or intrigue without "necessary risk?"  Is the sensation of "necessary risk" the same as being curious enough about the unknown to 'do something?'

It's not clear whether you're asking if the gamemaster can define the whole scene in general terms to the players, including the conclusion, and the players will enjoy playing it out, even though they know the ending.  That's a tough question by itself; I think at the heart of whether or not to railroad (insecurity over the potential lack of quality in an unpredictable game leads to railroading).  How much fun is it to play if you know how each conflict will resolve?

I'm not sure what you're asking, can you clarify?

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

Part of this depends on the definitions of the terms. If you use the "official" definition of Railroading, that being that the Force being used is non-consensual, and against the social contract, then, no, your proposal isn't Railroading per se. But you are advocating the use of a lot of Force. Enough that some players won't like it (and yes, they will use the term Railroad to indicate that dislike).

We've speculated that players can enjoy the entire range of Force. Given that most don't mind sitting through movies, it's not hard to see how they could play such a game with even the most minimal interaction and enjoy it. The problem is that most people expect to have more control than this in an RPG. It's traditional. As such, when applying this criteria, they may be dissapointed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that RPGs may even be intuitive to an extent, and this level of participation voids that intuitive expectation. But these are just expectations.

What it comes down to is ensuring that the players are all on-board with the level of participation that they'll have before hand. If play is described to them well, such that they know that their influence is limited, and they understand this without prejudice from prior play, then, yes, some can and will enjoy such a game.

How many people will find this level of participation suitable? Well, actually, what you describe sounds not too different from how a lot of Call of Cthulhu play occurs. So I think you have a shot. Just be prepared for a lot of potnetial prejudice.

Again, however, if you make the control levels up-front (even better, make them mechanical), then I think it'll work at least on a Social Contract level.

Mike

[ADGBoss]

I would like to address Risk a bit.  I am unsure how Risk, the idea that a character is putting something, money - life - prestige, inter-relates with the GM's use of Force? Are you saying that the players pushing the action and getting to Point b from point A is riskier then allowing the GM to get them there?

I do not think that Risk is at the center or even inherent in an RPG design except as it relates to Conflict. I do think that Conflict, in its basic androgynous form that can relate to civilized debates or outright Kung Fu, is at the center of all Role Playing.

Why do I play? Well to test my wits in an environment that is full of possible Conflicts. So in any Conflict there is risk.  So I would say an RPG without RISK, remember this does not mean death just some sort of risk of failure, would not be very enjoyable to play.  

Thats my perspective on the situation.

Sean
ADGBoss

[damion]

I too would like to know more what you mean.
 
I think some 'newness' is necessary for gaming, ie. I would not want to play a game that was exacly like the last time I played it.  

To expound:

1)The conclusion may be preordained, but the path to it isn't, thus discovering the path is interesting. An example would be replaying a
computer game with a differnt charachter. You take a new path to the same end.


2)I've seen people replay computer games, to try to get a better score for example, so gamism can  be a modivation, ie. the uncertenity is if you can do better.  


3)People can re-watch a movie, but he modiviation is to extract more detail the second time around, i.e. the detail is new. I'm not sure this coudl be applied to a RPG, as more detail that doesn't affect game play isn't really the point, except in really hardcore Exploration of Setting. And if the new details do affect play, your reverting to case 1 or 2.

Is this what you meant?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I think what I need in order to participate in this thread is a better understanding of:

Risk to What?

All sorts of things are risky, at all levels of play. At the Social Contract (real human) level, there are all sorts of agreements and assumptions that may be at risk, as well as self-esteem. We can also talk about creative risks, which I suppose might include a GNS-level thing (as GNS = creative agenda). Then there are risks to characters' resources, to their continued fictional existence, to their imaginary circumstances and relationships ...

I'm pretty sure that if we leave this up for grabs, that the discussion will be opaque to me. Shane, can you help?

Best,
Ron

[ADGBoss]

Is risk a necessary part of the roleplaying experience?  This is a question I have been grappling with for a bit now.  What I mean by this is whether or not all players in an RPG must feel as though there is some kind of risk involved in the actions of their characters--from the epic idea (will I live or die) to the mediocre (will I jump over this gap).  Would players be interested in a game where some of their actions are predetermined?

-Shane

I think this is supposed to mean Risk to Character.  Either mortality, sanity, or property.  

To be simplisitc about it, if there is no Risk I think you have nothing more then story hour.  In fact I wopuld go as far to say that without Risk, without a choice that to some degree tests the intellect you really do not have a game at all. Which is not to say that Role Playing without risk is bad or for wimps etc... nothing of the sort.  I just do not think Risk can be avoided altogether.  

Sean
ADGBoss

[Mike Holmes]

Well, Collaborative Mechanical Story Hour in the case of some published gam..oh, wait...entertainment systems.

Mike

[ADGBoss]

Well, Collaborative Mechanical Story Hour in the case of some published gam..oh, wait...entertainment systems.

Mike

Well mechanics could be nothing more then a talking stick.  Without emotional involvement AND the the risk or possibility of failure, its not a game, in my opinion. Humans are gamists at heart and regardless of how they decide to go about the creative process (GNS interests) they are still there to... test themselves intellectually and creatively.  

Sean
ADGBoss

[Lance D. Allen]

Yanno, this discussion reminds me of a discussion we had way, way back about what makes a game.

I was expounding (sorta) on Free-form roleplaying, which is totally cooperation based. In a way, it's much like what Shane mentions. There's no risk, as everything is based on consent. Nothing happens to my character that I don't want to happen.

When we do "scenes" It's less free-form, as we'd agree to an overall goal before beginning to play, but the exact details are worked out in play.

Is it fun? Definitely. Especially when you're "on" that night, and the scene comes out with much foreshadowing, irony, and feeling that all participants just feel drained and in awe.

But is it a game? My argument was that it was not. There was no "risk", no set mechanics for advancement or punishment. It might be argued that there are mechanics, but they're more a form of social contract than rules. The rules can be broken with the consent and trust of other players, with the entire goal being to either make a good scene (either pre-set or impromptu) and to have fun.

I'm not sure if I've contributed to this topic or not, but I hope I did in some small way.

[Buddha Nature]

I, for one, am not sure what you mean.  Can you have suspence, unpredictability, or intrigue without "necessary risk?"  Is the sensation of "necessary risk" the same as being curious enough about the unknown to 'do something?'

It's not clear whether you're asking if the gamemaster can define the whole scene in general terms to the players, including the conclusion, and the players will enjoy playing it out, even though they know the ending.  That's a tough question by itself; I think at the heart of whether or not to railroad (insecurity over the potential lack of quality in an unpredictable game leads to railroading).  How much fun is it to play if you know how each conflict will resolve?

I'm not sure what you're asking, can you clarify?

Sorry, it was late and I was tired so I probably was less than lucid.  My quandry is as to whether or not people would want to play a game where the outcome of certain events has already been decided for them previously.  For example what if in this game the GM told the player(s) that in this scene he envisioned two PC's having an argument in front of an NPC about which land to travel to and having the NPC suggest that they head toward one land over the other. (Odd example I know) So then the players would then be able to pretty much set up the scene and do whatever else they wanted in the scene as long as an argument occured and the NPC did his piece.  Is this something that would work do you think?

Along similar lines, what if during said scene the argument came to a brawl--do you think there would _have_ to be some kind of mechanic for the resolution of said fight?  Or do you think it could be left up to the players themselves? The GM? Some kind of group vote?

Maybe I am just looking to push the line between Freeform and "standard" RPG's, but it is something I have been thinking about.

-Shane

[Buddha Nature]

Part of this depends on the definitions of the terms. If you use the "official" definition of Railroading, that being that the Force being used is non-consensual, and against the social contract, then, no, your proposal isn't Railroading per se. But you are advocating the use of a lot of Force. Enough that some players won't like it (and yes, they will use the term Railroad to indicate that dislike).

No, this would be consensual through both the Social Contract and mechanically.

We've speculated that players can enjoy the entire range of Force. Given that most don't mind sitting through movies, it's not hard to see how they could play such a game with even the most minimal interaction and enjoy it. The problem is that most people expect to have more control than this in an RPG. It's traditional. As such, when applying this criteria, they may be dissapointed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that RPGs may even be intuitive to an extent, and this level of participation voids that intuitive expectation. But these are just expectations.

Now what about plays?  People enjoy performing in plays--a format where the words and actions are prescribed, but that the performance is not.  I would not be advocating any Force of such strength.  As I said it would only be through "landmarks," points within a scene that would need to be reached before ending the scene.  They would, I think, be necessarily vague--or at least to an extent.

What it comes down to is ensuring that the players are all on-board with the level of participation that they'll have before hand. If play is described to them well, such that they know that their influence is limited, and they understand this without prejudice from prior play, then, yes, some can and will enjoy such a game.

No, I totally understand this - that it would have to be through mutual consent, but here is another what if: What if said "landmarking" was in the hands of all players--if this ability cycled about the players throughout the game?

How many people will find this level of participation suitable? Well, actually, what you describe sounds not too different from how a lot of Call of Cthulhu play occurs. So I think you have a shot. Just be prepared for a lot of potnetial prejudice.

I thought about five minutes after I posted - as my friends say "If you are playing CoC and you don't end up dead or a drooling idiot at the end you are doing something wrong."  With CoC there is an up front understanding that in the end you are going to "lose."  But still people love the game - hell I play it every chance I get.  But I think there is a difference between CoC and what I am talking about.  In CoC the end of the character/adventure/campaign is basically prescribed, most of the play is not (minus the whole idea of a pre-plotted adventure :) ).  In this theoretical game the end would be open, but some of the play would not be (probably more open than a pre-plotted adventure though).

Does this go against what an RPG is?

-Shane

[Buddha Nature]

Risk to What?

All sorts of things are risky, at all levels of play. At the Social Contract (real human) level, there are all sorts of agreements and assumptions that may be at risk, as well as self-esteem. We can also talk about creative risks, which I suppose might include a GNS-level thing (as GNS = creative agenda). Then there are risks to characters' resources, to their continued fictional existence, to their imaginary circumstances and relationships ...

I think I am slamming together a few different questions here and it is just muddling things, let me see if I can unentangle them and maybe even answer a few for myself.  For it to be an RPG do results of a character's actions have to ever be in doubt?  Is it a matter of occurence?  If the resolution of any action they take is not in doubt is it still a game?  For example (although it does fall into many categories other than RPG) in Universalis the actions of the characters are, for the most part, never in doubt--even with a Challenge they are barely in doubt.  Only in the realm of the Complication is the outcome ever in doubt.  Would a Universalis game still be fun if zero Complications occurred?

The above point dovetails into ADGBoss' idea--that it is not an RPG w/o Conflict.  Does it cease to be an RPG if, even though Exploration is occuring, if the players (even if their characters are fighting one another) do not disagree on the outcome?  Could a game where the characters were Gods on earth, all of equal power, work?  There might be conflict in the story, but the outcome is for all practical purposes already known - the character will do what it wants to do.

Maybe I need more clarification on Conflict, not sure.  Maybe I am falling too far into the realm of collaborative storytelling?

-Shane