Continued Play as a goal

[Marco]

A msg I saw on another board got me thinking. The post said words to the effect of "PC's should never die--setbacks are fine. Take all the gear. But don't kill them."

I also read the Actual Play T&T thread about characters dying off and there being a "stable."

I realized my goal, when confronted with a potentially high death-count game, becomes not-to-die.

I stop caring if the group (really) succeeds. I don't really care about overcoming challenges (per-se)--but I want to be around for the whole session. I don't do this in a sullen maner. I'll make a character who can realistically be played cautiously (not a front-line fighter) and try to play as "smart" as possible--if that means running for it when things look bad (carrying fallen comrades if possible) fine.

But I'm not interested in winning on the game's terms. Puzzles and traps are interesting perhaphs but engaged if I think I *have* to--and then only to the most minimal extent as I try to determine whether or not they'll kill me.

Now, looking at Continued Play as a goal, if I (hypothetically) in a Sorceror game decide I'm *not* risking humanity--because while I want to see how the cool story progresses, I also want to be relevant to the table at the end of the night, it might drive a very different play-style than one might otherwise expect of the mechanics (I'm not that familiar with Sorceror, so maybe I'm off base there).

In a hard-core dungeon-hack game where I could be klled and wind up playing a 1st level character along for the ride with 10th-level bad-asses I'd be avoiding as much step-on up and as much competition as I could. So I'm not sure this is traditional gamist play.

I'm not sure what GNS mode it's in--but I did realize I played that way the last time a GM I didn't know real well, ran a Savage World's game (I made the toughest character I could and played cautiously as I tried to figure out how tough I was in the system). In a sense, it's kinda exploration of the GM's *implementation* of system (are the spikes poisoned? or do they just do damage?)

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I'd just call this conservative Gamism. I mean, you are informed by the system that Death is a loss. So you play within that framework. If you applied this to Sorcerer, you'd merely allow yourself to go down to one Humanity, but never risk losing another point at that level, waiting instead to go up another.

But because that's entirely player controled (you can't lose humanity accidentally), there's very little to it. In that way, the mechanic itself supports Narrativism because it's not any challenge at all itself. Instead it just becomes something for the player to decide upon.

So in Sorcerer, you go along as long as you want, and only risk going to Zero Humanity when it would be dramatically cool to lose the character.

Similarly, if you could never lose that last HP in D&D unless you wanted to risk it, you wouldn't worry about losing your character ever, and it would promote Narrativism much more strongly.

Mike

[Marco]

I'm not sayin' I'd lose it accidentally (in the Sorceror case)--I'm saying that at a certain point my wish to keep engaging in the activity in a compelling fashion (not starting a new character half way into play) would over-ride my story concerns.

I'm not saying I'd always do this--just that I've felt the tendency come up. So if I understand this right and I'm at 1 humanity and I have a chacne to lose it--which I think makes for a cool story and is in character ... and I don't because while I'm willing to lose my objectives, possessions, character's freedom, etc.--I'm not willing to stop playing.

I would place this at the step-on-up level (meta-game), which I guess would be gamism--but it's a special case of a terminal condition, that interested me.

I guess I'm pointing out that in the case of a terminal condition there could be an over-ride that's not normally present in a gamer's play.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I dunno. Sounds Narrativist to me. I mean, why would you want to continue playing Sorcerer, unless the story was still compelling? That is, you must be able to see that there's something interesting beyond the potential of the value of "going out" at the current decision, to merit not making the decision to risk it. In any case, it's not a tactical decision, so there's no challenge. "Losing everything", as in your example, is a very Narrativist decision, and certainly not a "tactically sound" choice.

This seems to be like those earlier claims that decisions can be made on an entirely social basis. But the reason you're giving is that you still see some reason to play. And given that Sorcerer doesn't present you with Tactical challenges of any significant measure, there must be another reason to continue.

As I've said before, playing with the mechanics in a way that produces story in the Narrativist definition is Narrativist, no matter how much playing with the numbers seems like a Gamist activity. Step-on-up refers to addrssing tactical challenges. Taking steps to move towards story is Narrativist.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Kind of a broad brush, don't you think, Mike? I'd be hesitant to sling around GNS labels without a much more concrete and specific account of play. Especially since Marco spends a lot of time playing "story as context" rather than "make story through decisions."

Marco, based on your description in your first post, I agree with Mike's comment about conservative Gamist play, but after that, the posts start getting more abstract and too vague for me to deal with.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Kind of a broad brush, don't you think, Mike?

Well, that's me all over, isn't it?

But I'd agree that it's not going to be easy to say. More importantly, I'm not really sure what the pertinence of it is. What does it matter what mode this represents?

Marco, if you could shed some light on the reason for the concern, perhaps we could make more headway.

Mike

[Marco]

Dunno. Maybe this belongs in the GNS section--although I put it in RPG Theory originally because I found it dealing more with terminal nodes of play and how they shape decision making than a GNS mode in particular.

The reason to stay in a game rather than go out is this:

If I go out, the game stops. Let's say I'm loving it. It might be a 9 outta 10--but if I kick it up a notch to 10 by dying (say, the "makes-the-best-story-choice") then I have 4 hours to watch everyone else while they complete the story line. I *can* start a new one and interleve but I see that as patently second best.

So I decide not to risk death. That's a switch to Gamist play? In order to keep going?

This is clearly a meta-game concern and it might be Conservative Gamism. In a minimize winning chances to minimize losing sort of way ...

But I think my point is that when facing a terminal condition (death ... or winning, really) the effect can be very powerful (maybe singularly so)--enough to override other concerns.

Maybe not much of an observation, but there it is.
-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I think its a fairly interesting observation. And I agree that I got off on a tangent with the GNS stuff. I'd still contend that Sorcerer would tend to put things into a Narrativist cast, but that's neither here nor there.

This does relate somewhat to the recent threads on splitting the party, however. That is, I think that if a designer wants to avoid Death being seen as such a big deterrent to these sorts of decisions, that he has to do some of the things that we discussed in terms of what keeps players happy when they're not in the current scene.

That is, if that 4 hours is really boring to me as a player, then yes, that's going to affect my decision making. So we have to make them less boring.

So how do yo do that (assuming that you want to combat it at all; it's also probably just as valid to leave this alone, but that's another subject)? Well, for one, only play four hour sessions or less. That way, unless the PC dies in the first four minutes, there'll be something less than four hours to watch through. Teh shorter the sessions, the less of a problem this is.

Have the player play NPCs after they die. They have to be aware that this is an option before hand. But if the system you're playing with allows for players to play NPCs regularly, then they might not see Death as an end to play, so much as a change. For example, in Universalis, character death is never a big deal in tems of participation, you just play another one (assuming that's not the end of the game).

Measures such as these might go a long way to making death seem less of a problem, and could lead to less "careful" play, I think.

Mike

[Marco]

Our horror adventure Season of Worms was built around this question (each player gets 2 characters at the outset. One is killed in the second act and then their other charater gets a chance to save the day).

A few thoughts: I don't mind 4 hours of sitting out with a couple of other guys so long as I know I'll get 4 hrs of personal time later (i.e. the party is split and the GM has decided to do an 8hr marathon or something). I'm cool with watching a few videos or whatever.

But it really sucks to just lose time. And going from being a tight-knit member of a team to "the new guy" kinda sucks too.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

Ron is certainly right that there's insufficient evidence for a solid conclusion here; but I also think Mike's pretty close to the target.

Looking at the D&D-style examples, you're in a game in which you've got a good chance to get killed, and you don't want your character to get killed. So you play him cautiously. That strikes me as terribly realistic; but it also strikes me as a gamist decision: I don't want the game to beat me yet, so I'm going to take precautions to prevent that from happening. I play some characters as cautious (and even when I play bold characters, I personally am cautious in my choices), but I do so in gamist play contexts where my goal is to survive and meet the real challenges of the game with a minimum of risk.

In fact, I'd say that risk minimization was a key indicator of gamist play.

But what of Sorcerer? Here you go out if your humanity drops below one. It's sudden, abrupt, terminal. Yet it's entirely in your hands. Now it's that you can make choices that will raise your humanity, or you can take the risk that it might go down again, and you're out.

It would appear that there is a sort of risk minimization here; but how do you minimize risk in this context? Your character chooses not to take the risk, not to do the thing that's potentially going to cost his soul. It is a moment of pure narrativist tension. There is every reason in the world for the character to decide not to take that step, and that decision can be every bit as dramatic at this moment. That is, we, the observers, know that if he turns to his demon to solve this problem it might well be the end of him; he recognizes that he is becoming too reliant on that demon. He makes the choice to solve the problem another way, and to do some things that will restore his humanity. He repents, at least for the moment, and begins to put his life back on the straight and narrow. We all know--probably even he knows--that he will be back to that demon eventually. The temptation is too great, the return too enticing. For the moment, though, disaster is averted.

The decision is made from the character's perspective.

In the gamist situation, the decision was made not to take a risk of physical injury and death, not to undertake a challenge that might be fatal. In the narrativist situation, it was not a decision about a challenge, but a decision about a moral or personal choice. There is no challenge involved in it; the decision is story. That the player wants to extend the story by keeping the character viable doesn't mean he's trying to avoid the challenge; it means he's having the character make the moral decisions that keep him morally interesting a bit longer.

You could have good simulationist reasons for wanting to stay alive, too. After all, I would like to stay alive; that seems realistic to me.

So it's not entirely conclusive, but I think Mike is probably on the money here.

--M. J. Young

[Marco]

Kind of a broad brush, don't you think, Mike?

Well, that's me all over, isn't it?

But I'd agree that it's not going to be easy to say. More importantly, I'm not really sure what the pertinence of it is. What does it matter what mode this represents?

Marco, if you could shed some light on the reason for the concern, perhaps we could make more headway.

Mike

I think what my observation boils down to is this:

Terminal conditions, whether a win or a loss, shift the game into gamist play for me. My perspective warps around the terminal condition and other factors become less important.

I disagree with MJ that the decision to gamble a last point of Humanity would necessiarly be a Narrativist or Simulationist one.

If it's in character to gamble it--and I don't because I don't wanna sit out, I'm making essentially a Gamist (but I think that's a weak description for it) decision instead of a Simulationist one.

If I personally feel that gambling the point would make the finest story but (again) would rather take a somewhat lesser story for continued play, then, again the decision becomes Gamist.

Terminal conditions are, for me, a pretty strong determinant factor. I suspect for other people too.

-Marco

[Thomas Tamblyn]

I'm agreeing with Marco a lot here.  If I'm enjoying a game I don't want to stop playing.  If my character is dead I cannot play.  Seems simple to me.

As to what it means GNS-wise... I'm not well schooled in these things but my desire to avoid the death of my character seems to involve a fourth axis (but one that wouldn't come up in game design).  

Social -
A choice based on the nature of the group playing the game - in this case the fact that I don't want to just sit and watch, or maybe that I've grown too attached to the character.  Another example, when you don't do something because it would piss off the friend that you're playing with.

[Comte]

There is something that I am missing here.  Why is it that the play is sitting out for the rest of the game session just because he died?  If that happened to me I would be sevearly annoyed.  

I mean lets look at it like this, I just did something increadbly in charecter and heroic.  As a result my charecter died because of this act of bravery.  So because I played my charecter correctly I don't get to play for the rest of the game session?  I am capable of some failrly large leaps of logic but that just dosn't do it for me.  If anything I would have the player make a new charecter and I would also give him some fairly hefty rewards for roleplaying so well.  When he finnished I would put him back into the game as fast and as most conveintly possible.  Forceing the player to wait untill the next game session to play again would be a rather harsh punishment when instead the charecter deserves a reward for exemplerary role play.  I mean the way I always ran it was you are out untill you can make a new charecter and I can put you back in.  

Is there something I am not understanding?  It sounds like the fear could be resolved by just letting him back in the game once the charecter is compleated.  This way he is still relevent by the end of the night, there is no 4 hours of thumb twiddling, and everyone I ever knew always allowed you to make new charecters at comparable levels.

[ScottM]

There is something that I am missing here.  Why is it that the play is sitting out for the rest of the game session just because he died?  If that happened to me I would be severely annoyed...

Well, the flip side (for me and my group), is that character generation is boring for the other players whose characters have not died.  If GM input is required, then everyone else's story is held up.  If it isn't, then you're acting alone, instead of being involved with everyone else socially.  [It usually works out that way physically too... person making character goes off to another room/ table/ etc. to do the math, etc.  with fewer distractions- so they can return more quickly.]

Plus, an additional character thrown in immediately usually feels pushed/ rushed.  When you make a character initially, you usually discuss with everyone who you're making, how the roles will work together, common backstory, etc.  You don't get to do that when you make another character, unless the whole game screeches to a halt while you design your new character (so that you can discuss with everyone else).  In a class type system, a single character's death probably means that the same role will need to be filled- so you don't even get to experiment with a very different character.  Marco's comment "... going from being a tight-knit member of a team to "the new guy" kinda sucks too," is another 'penalty' that discourages me.

Instant characters won't have background hooks or anything else, either, unless it's a simplistic one (I'm your wife's brother, she sent me to find you... or whatever the 'get involved immediately' hook is).  Sure, other stuff might be added later... but backstory after a character is turned in or actually played is less compelling.

I think it can work, particularly if you plan for it.  It might be best to make a 'backup character' sometime before the first significant chance of death, just to minimize the downtime associated with death.  Other suggestions made to Ron in the recent Tunnels and Trolls thread: [Tunnels & Trolls] Half-elves are poncy nancy-boys might work.

I agree with Marco that what keeps me as a player involved is going to be a temptation that will probably override other concerns, including more dramatic play.  Ron's call for a practical alternative to "play ends" conditions in the Gamism essay seems to mirror the concern.  I'm interested in seeing what we can come up with as solutions.  [I admit that I dislike controlling multiple characters, so I'm hoping for something other than the stable as a solution. ]

-Scott

[Comte]

Solutions, well I only have one at the moment, it is the one I use and it has been fairly effective the past.  The only time it screwed up was my fault.  Before I begin I discussed player death with the players/  MOstly because this topic came up.  They agreed that they would except minor railroading on my part to get them back into the game rather than them being forced to wait untill next game sessions.  They brought up the point that just because we stop roleplaying for the evening dosn't mean that we will stop at such a point in time where it would be apropriate to bring in a new charecter anyway.  That and most of the time through the game session we don't have time to play get to know the new guy anyway.  

So the ways I've made it work is usualy in campain desighn.  In most games it will work under the assumption that the player charecters are not the only ones working twords a patrtuclar item of goal .  Take little fears for example, they may not be the only children looking for thier lost brothers and they are not the only children who decided to travel to closet land looking for freinds.  In fact often times you could use the new player as an additional plot hook, for example I'll help you if you help me sort of thing.  This also works well in many many diffrent types or roleplaying games.  Especialy when you start the scene off with a combat, the new player's former freinds all dead, and him holding onto something that is vitaly important to whatever it is the main group is doing.  This way while you may have forced the players into an unessisay combat, you have also given the players something for participating in the railroading experience.  I find that by giving the players something valuable that they can use they hold it against you less, especily the player who you moved the game around so he can get back in.  Once the player is in and aclimated you can hand the ball back to the players.  

I have found that they ask questions, and talk in charecter in such a way that it will cause the new charecter to develope much more fully than if he sat down to write it himself.  

In other options, this is more of a variation on the theme actualy.  Once the player is finnished we call a soda break so I can lok over the sheet and do my best to make sure he will be up to speed with the rest of the group.  Once he dose that I'd pull him aside ask he wants to do the above thing or if he want to be the former employer of a villian who is on the run.  I of course let him pick the villian (we always have at least 3) and give him special knowlage of the villian's organization and internal structure.  Once that is done the new player will swoop in after the break explain himself, and how he is on the run.  One fight with lackys latter...or perhaps the villian himself and it works.  I've found this to be a very fun way to bring a player into the fold.  It is also highly logical, the new player botched some unrelated mission, he is now being hunted, it is best to just join the ranks of the people who have the best chance at taking him down.  

This next one works paticularly well in horror settings.  The player dies, as soon as the new charecter is ready the group receives a strange garbled phone call from the old charecters home.  When they arrive they find the new charecter, wet, naked, and shivering on the carpet floor.  He has a full set of memories and his own idenetiy.  The only thing he dosn't remeber is why he's there.  Obersvant players will notice that his body is scarred in the same place that the old charecter died from.  From here the game session proceeds.  That was an increadbly fun thing to do.  There are others, but most of them follow along the lines of that last example where you have something snazzy cooked up for whomever dies next.  Is that rail roading, sure it is.  No doubt about it.  But I also asked if it was okay first, in a round about way that reveiled nothing.  I just said I came up with a neat story arch that could come into effect the next time someone died, do you want to give it a try.  Well I hope that helped.