Action vs. Danger vs. Character complexity

[Robert Bohl]

Be it resolved that:

1.  Role Playing Games are almost always action stories, involving fighting and bodily peril.

2.  You want a sword to be able to kill someone.  Anyone.  Roland of Gilead can get his fingers chewed off by a lobstrosity and Tara can get capped by a stray bullet.  You want this lethality to make #1 matter (also, just for its own sake).

3.  You want interesting and complex characters that the players take the time to flesh out and make fully realized.

These three to a greater or lesser extent would appear to be in conflict with one another.  How do you balance them?

(note, I'm fairly a newbie here, so I would love it if local jargon were explained or contextualized a little if it came up in replies; I'm aware of The Forge's particular patois, just not familiar with it)

[Valamir]

Well, the key to good roleplaying is to give the player something to care about.  Note that this is very different from giving the CHARACTER something to care about.  Often times, a player will design a character to care about something the player is interested in, but sometimes they don't.  Alot of traditional RPG history has encouraged players to seperate themselves from their character and to get "into character" and the like, and often players have taken this to mean that as little as possible of the player's desires should creep into the character.  The player then will pretend to care about what the character cares about and thus play will move forward.

In reality...it usually doesn't work that way.  There are a few dedicated immersionists who can really project themselves into their character and "see the world through their eyes" and who enjoy doing so.  But for most players...trying to duplicate this just results in a character the player doesn't really give two rips about.


All of that is a long winded way of leading up to this:

Your #1 above presupposes that the only thing the player cares about is the continued existance of his character.  The reason I brought all of the above up, is because many times...that's all the player does care about, and this is a "bad thing".

If you are establishing situations that the players are really interested in participating in, then they will have desires for their character and for the resolution of that situation that go well beyond mere survival of the character.  In fact, most players will willingly and gleefully hose their own character far worse than any GM would dare to do if you get them in a situation that get the *player* really jazzed.

Thus I feel that your #1 above is symptomatic of play in which there is nothing for the players to care about other than survival and thus the game only has meaning and interest if (as per your #2) that survival is convincingly threatened.

If the only thing a player cares about is his characters life, then the only way to make the game interesting is to threaten that life.  However, if the player cares about other things (really cares about them...not just "supposed to care because they wrote it on their sheet)...then you can maintain interest by making those other things the focus of the conflict and that conflict may no longer be about action, fighting, and bodily peril.

The mistake most often made by GMs who try to move a session or two away from combat is to present a situation that doesn't involve combat...but also doesn't involve anything the players care about.  So now the players not only don't have anything new to care about...but they're not being challenged in the one thing they do...and so the session fizzles and the GM reluctantly goes back to combat declaring the "non combat" experience a failure.

In truth the only failure was the GM to engage the players interest.  This is the KEY KEY KEY that I can't emphasize enough.  Most RPing texts encourage the GM to engage the CHARACTER'S interest.  This is bollux.  It only works if the player's interest and the character's interests are the aligned*  After all, at the end of the day the character is just a piece of paper and its the player who has to be interested enough to play it.

Grab the players, not the characters.  Once you do that you find that the conflict between 1,2 and 3 above disappears entirely.



*Note: I said aligned here specifically to avoid saying "the same".  Having a character who is a necrophiliac does not require the player to be interested in necrophilia.  But it does require a player who's actually interested in telling stories involving necrophilia and exploring what that means for the character, the setting, the other characters, and indeed the other players at the table.  If not, its just a word on a page and won't make an effect hook to hang a story from.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Rob,

Welcome to the Forge!

These three to a greater or lesser extent would appear to be in conflict with one another. How do you balance them?

I only think they appear to be in conflict if looked at from a more traditional rpg perspective. It's really not too difficult to combine the three.

In the game I'm currently playtesting, a sword can kill anyone because the players set the difficulty for challenges themselves and because the players also may gain narration rights if they make the challenge difficult enough in comparison with their current resources.

The game, Doomchaser, is also all about putting your character in harm's way. The more danger you pursue, the greater the rewards system-wise. So, while you can try and shirk danger, it's not necessarily in your best interests to do so.

As for complex character background, I opted to not include that as a feature, at least not at the start of play. I personally enjoy filling out and discovering my character in play, so that's how I've arranged the system. There's no reason I couldn't have gone the other way though, with great character depth from the get go.

So, I don't think those three elements are in conflict at all. I think they can actually support each other with the proper design.

-Chris

*edited: because I left out an important "I".

[Robert Bohl]

First, I want to say I appreciate your response.  Focusing on the player rather than the character is something I think I've done subconsciously, but I'll be interested to come at these issues with it in the forefront of my brain and see what effect it has.

Thus I feel that your #1 above is symptomatic of play in which there is nothing for the players to care about other than survival and thus the game only has meaning and interest if (as per your #2) that survival is convincingly threatened.

I hear you, but I think that #1 is more descriptive than it is proscriptive.  That is, first of all, almost all RPGs are action stories.  There are exceptions to the rule, but the fact is that even among the most rarified air, it's still often a violent game.

Furthermore, I like action stories.  Not because of inertia, but because I find action interesting.  I don't want to throw away action, nor do my friends.  So given that, is there a way to balance all three things?

Perhaps you mean to suggest that danger be deemphasized?  That danger isn't as important as . . . something else?  Even in an action story?

[Robert Bohl]

As for complex character background, I opted to not include that as a feature, at least not at the start of play. I personally enjoy filling out and discovering my character in play, so that's how I've arranged the system.

I probably should've said, "complex characters," not necessarily their background.  Or even, "interesting characters."  That is to say we want to have people take the time to try to produce characters that are cool, but a dangerous environment can dissuade you from putting forth the effort to produce something cool, if his life is too easily forfeit.

The system you reference sounds interesting.  Greater rewards for increasing your danger.  I like that.  I often like to play agile urban trickster types, so no matter what the game, I am often making things more difficult for myself than they necessarily need to be.

[Valamir]

Perhaps you mean to suggest that danger be deemphasized? That danger isn't as important as . . . something else? Even in an action story?

Exactly.  Take the Three Musketeers.  In that story there's plenty of action...but survival and personal danger wasn't the issue, it just provided the color and flavor.  The important thing was saving the queens honor.  Thus an appropriate challenge to present them with was something that would prevent them from accomplishing this...regardless of whether it did or didn't threaten their personal saftey.

In an RPG you have the same issue...except...that "issue" becomes exponentially more difficult.  Because in a novel its easy for Dumas to write characters who are ready and willing to risk everything for the queen's honor.  Too often GMs will write a scenario with the simple assumption that "of course the characters are going to be interested in saving the queen's honor and of course the players are going to be interested in playing their character's accordingly...hook accomplished".

This is where they often fall down, however, and the first part of my post comes into play.  What a GM has to cope with that an author only has to indirectly (in terms of appealing to his audience after the fact) is that the *players* must be jazzed about the issue.  If they're not, if they're just going through the motions because otherwise there won't be a scenario to play, then really the only thing you have to grab them with is that personal peril issue.

If they are jazzed, then the GMs job becomes a snap.  The players will put themselves in peril for you.

[Robert Bohl]

In that story there's plenty of action...but survival and personal danger wasn't the issue, it just provided the color and flavor. The important thing was saving the queens honor.

Okay, but while you have The Three Musketeers on one hand, you have on the other plenty of horror or suspense tales that involve death as a serious risk.  How about George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series?  Really cool characters, lots of action and excitement, and serious danger for anyone.

Is that sort of thing just not possible in the random and participatory environment of a role playing game?

[Lxndr]

Even in Song of Ice and Fire, death is the means to larger goals (or the obstacle in the way of the larger goals).  And sometimes a person submits TO death because of the larger goal.

Death isn't "what's going on."  Survival and personal danger are the backdrop to the huge, world-spanning themes in Martin's work.

[Robert Bohl]

Even in Song of Ice and Fire, death is the means to larger goals (or the obstacle in the way of the larger goals).  And sometimes a person submits TO death because of the larger goal.

Excellent point.  I'm thinking about all the big, shocking deaths and they all had a purpose.  They were Martin communicating to us.

Although, I think in some cases it was to communicate that sometimes life is random and brutal.

[C. Edwards]

Is that sort of thing just not possible in the random and participatory environment of a role playing game?

I think that it's very possible. Particular if the system is focused on risk taking and heroic action. Also, giving the players some say into the "when and how" of how their characters go out never hurts.

-Chris

[Robert Bohl]

I think that it's very possible. Particular if the system is focused on risk taking and heroic action. Also, giving the players some say into the "when and how" of how their characters go out never hurts.

I've thought about stunting mechanics, and I quite like them generally speaking, but don't they, to some degree, take away the sense that that violence is sometimes unpredictable?

[Lxndr]

Not necessarily.  Stunt dice aren't a guaranteed reward.  But that's not the only way to give characters a when-and-how.

[Robert Bohl]

Not necessarily.  Stunt dice aren't a guaranteed reward.  But that's not the only way to give characters a when-and-how.

Are you talking about bidding events, and that sort of thing?  What strategies do you have in mind?

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi Rob,

On your number 3 - do you mean to include interesting and complex behavior by those charcaters as play continues?  Because that's where the real conflict occurs, right?  Players are either willing to put a bunch of work up-front into the character and then risk insta-death, or they're not.  

But if insta-death can "just happen" quickly and somewhat-randomly (an accurate model of many battlefields), the continued evolution of interest and complexity stops.  So many RPGs and/or RPG groups (not all, certainly, but many) have various ways of decreasing the risk of PC insta-death - luck points, GM-fiat, very cautious play, whatever.  That bothers some people - but yeah, the alternative can be problematic.  I can't find it at the moment, but somewhere on the web there's an excellent "simulation" of D-Day to play through - players create characters, and then experience things like "encounter machine gun nest - roll D6.  1,2,3 or 4 - you're dead."  As a regular thing, that doesn't sound too fun to me.

I find it interesting to wonder why it's OK to know in a 225-page Vietnam war novel (say) that the protagonist is unlikely to die on page 125, but it's a problem in an RPG.  Ralph points to one place - if ALL the players care about is survival, there's no interest unles that's at risk.  But I also think this ties in to your point 2 - about which I'll ask, what do you need to do to establish that a sword can kill anyone?  Bullets can kill anyone in our Vietnam novel - they're probably doing so all the time.  Yet, most of the time our protagonist is NOT going to be killed by gunfire on page 125.  No problem in the book when done well - isn't it also no problem in an RPG when done well?

Which leaves us to determine what "done well" means.  For which we may need specific examples - can you give a sample of a play experience where the interplay of the three things you mention resulted in an unstaisfying RPG experience for all/most involved?  Maybe that'd help - because there are many, MANY ways to answer that "what's done well?" question.

Gordon

PS: I'll add a WttF - Welcome to the Forge - even though Chris already gave you one.  No such thing as too much welcome, is there?

[Valamir]

It doesn't necessarily require special mechanics.  You CAN do it with special mechanics.  The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes are perhaps a prime example of this.  You roll more dice when fighting an opponent where an issue of crucial importance is on the line then you do when fighting an opponent in a fight which has no meaning.

But mechanics are not required (though I encourage mechanical reinforcement of play).  What's really required is situation.  Once you have the situation established that grabs the player the rest takes care of itself.  Its not a question of avoiding danger or deemphasizing it.  Its a question of giving the players something more important than their character's life (to them) to strive for.