It occured to me that a complaint I hear sometimes against TROS is that the most intereasting part of it's system, the combat system, is wasted because players playing it safe won't want to engage in it due to the risk involved.

There's a similar phenomenom with Sorcerer. The rules for dealing with demons are by far the most intereasting of the game, but for players to be creative with it, they would have to put character survival on the line due to the humanity-draining aspect. This leads to some players trying their hardest to ignore and move away from sorcery in order to insure character survival.

I'm wondering if there could be something you could extrapolate out of the design goals of these games from that, such as: If you're not willing to risk character survival during any part of the game, the game isn't being played right.

Actually, I'd say it is being played perfectly. Combat might be interesting but it is risky business. Dealing with Demons is even more risky. Without the risk, where would the premise of the game be? It might still exist but it wouldn't be nearly as powerful if the risk factor were reduced. The consequences have to be severe otherwise you lose the "Live by the sword. Die by the sword." and the "Dealing with Demons always ends badly." feel to the games.

Andrew

I think that if you play TROS without fighting people or Sorcerer without binding demons, then you're bunkering. Those activities are risky, yes, but they're also intended to be a major focus of play, and a player who's avoiding them probably has a mismatch of creative agenda from the rest of the group.

Don't forget also that the fact these activities are difficult and dangerous is sort of a carrot and stick to encourage other things. For TROS, you don't really want to fight unless you can get bonus dice from your Spiritual Attributes, which means you tend to only fight for things that are truly important to your character. For Sorcerer, the mechanics for receiving bonus dice mean you're encouraged to describe your actions in a dramatic fashion and have a plan of action so that you can roll over successes. (Okay, in Sorcerer bonus dice don't improve your Humanity rolls, but they can help ensure the risk wasn't in vain.)

I think the reason these activities are so risky is to bring the difference between how these games are supposed to be played and how a lot of traditional RPGs are played into stark relief. A player who bunkers (by which I mean they make character survival a larger concern than anything else, including achieving something) can sort of get away with it in, say, D&D, but in one of these games it may be more immediately observable as behavior that doesn't fit the game.

If you play TRoS or Sorcerer without ever fighting or binding demons, then I'd agree that's right funny play. But you could play either with reluctant types and have nailbiting tension over the question whether they're going to get through a situation without combat/magic. And since it's the rules on combat resp. binding demons that cause that tension, you are using those rules.

It's just as valid to play a character that rushes in where angels fear to tread as it is to play one that has to dragged every step of the way to damnation.

SR
--

"I think to die would be an awfully big adventure...."

I'm of the opinion that saving the life of the PC is just another preference, maybe even a technique or piece of ephemera. The character may be the tool by which the player explores, faces challenge, or addresses premise, but I think it's pretty obvious that a) one can do all these things through the death of the character, and b) you can always get another one relatively easily.

Of course we get attached to characters. Once we've got a character that's assisting in fulfilling our preferred agenda mix and otherwise fulfilling a role in the group, a character we identify with, or find interesting, or otherwise beneficial to the game, sure, we want to keep him around.

But when I see reviews that say "combat is too deadly" or "binding is too dangerous", I have to ask... what's at risk? The "life" of a fictional character? That bit of ego we've invested in them? Compared to the thrills of exploration, challenge and story, that looks pretty poor to me.

What TROS combat and Sorceror binding say to me is that every TROS combat and every Sorceror binding is going to be dramatic and interesting to every creative agenda. Just as knowing you are to die in the morning focuses the mind wonderfully, so does playing through a sequence in which the character is at some serious risk.

If we start worrying too much about saving the life of our characters, we're just gonna end up like Marcy in Dark Dungeons...

Also, in narrativist terms, as Rob says, you can certainly address premise through avoiding perilous situations (otherwise premises such as "Is it worth risking your life for the ones you love" become a pretty straightforward yes), and you can certainly explore through avoiding perilous situations, but what you usually can't do is Step On Up by avoiding peril (unless cowardice is worse than death in the game).

Could this be where the "failures" of Sorceror and TRoS lie? From a gamist perspective, you'd need to approach them from a pretty hard core standpoint, or they're "too tough" for lightweight gamism.

I think I see your angle.

Chief Brody find the remains of the shark attack victem on the beach. He attempt to do his job to protect the public safety, but is met by opposition from the town counsel because they tend to frown on closing the beaches in a resort town in summer. He says, screw this crap, and goes back to New York City. Jaws doesn't happen.

Luke Skywalker says, screw being a jedi knight. I'm a farmer, not a space hero. Even after his aunt and uncle are killed he says "Well, guess I'm running the farm now" Star Wars doesn't happen.

Or, more accurately, they happen but without those characters. I think a line between character and player needs to be drawn more darkly. The player should experience what the character is going through. This is why we watch movie, read book, play RPGs. But the player should also want to see the character in difficult situations. Otherwise the game doesn't happen. Or it happens without their character and, therefore, that player.

Perhaps even more importantly, Brody doesn't go back to NY, nor Luke to the farm, because that's not who they are. They're characters designed to address premise, or at least get into trouble.

Games can either address this at character design stage (the kicker is your friend) or in the contract for the game (The trollbabe can do anything except walk away).

Or they can not address this at all, as long as the players are comfortable with the chance of the "adventure" fizzling out.

As for drawing a line... hey, I know I watched Buffy to see what hell Joss Wheedon had put the folks through that week, and I feel the same way about those wacky CIA kids in ALIAS. I stopped watching Lois & Clark when the "big issue" was wedding preparations. I read and watch my drama to see folks I care about being put through hell, not nice folks having nice stuff happen to them (well, not without going through hell first...).

I read and watch comedy to see folks I don't like being put through hell...

Same for my PC's. I want drama, drama is struggle. I don't find mid-high level D&D combat to be struggle, usually until the end encounter of the session with the big set piece.

So... from what I'm reading here, I have a question.

Is the approach to the game of intending to put their character at risk for dramatic and emotional effect... is that Nar play? (Not the only kind of Nar play, but a good general example of it?)

If so, I think this helps clarify the CAs a bit... but if not, then I'm more confused than ever.

Example: Risk (defined as risk to the fictional existence of the player-character.)

Gamist: It is about taking only the most calculated Risk, with minimum cost for most gain, intending to "win."

Narrativist: It is about experiencing Risk in a visceral, emotional way... so that the Risk is the catalyst for drama and meaning in a story.

Simulationist: Risk simply is. Your character may or may not die, and there may or may not be a sense of loss, but it is simply one element of "let's see what happens" in a game.

Does this make sense, or am I way off base here?

For narrativism, it's not about _experiencing_ risk - that would be a simulationist approach - it's about risk making player choices meaningful. The higher the risk, the more significant the choice.

From a GNS perspective, I'd think Risk (considered strictly as an element of the shared imagined space, as opposed to what is "risked" by the participants as actual people) would simply be a tool (a Technique? set of Techniques?). You'd ask "what is this tool being used for in the domain of the participants (as opposed to within the game world)?"

If the answer was to enhance Challenge/Step on Up ("win", in that very broad sense), it would be supporting Gamism. Since a foundational principle of Gamism is that the participants themselves always have a little something (social/personal esteem - something) at risk [EDIT to add AS REAL PEOPLE] during play, this one is pretty easy to see.

If it supports the address of Premise by the particpants - it's helping Nar happen. There's a couple of ways I can see this working: 1) Various levels of risk can be part of the "answer" to a premise - by changing character behavior based on risk factors, a player can make a statement about the premise (e.g., When is killing justified? When the risk is X, not when it's Y); and 2) By creating risk in the shared imagined space, the opportunity to make a statement about Premise is heightened.

If it's part of building The Dream - because, say, risk is deemed to be required given the situation being explored, or because the participants find that confronting risk heightens their sense of engagement with the imagined world (and is not then used for any other priority), we're using the tool of Risk to support a Sim agenda.

At least, that's how I see it - Risk as a very neutral tool, and the question is not what the tool looks like in-game, but rather what it is being used for by the participants. Hope that clarifies something,

Gordon
(For another Nar take on why risk matters, I think I saw someone quote/paraphrase Henry James recently - "What is character but the determination of incident? What is incident but the illustration of character?" Depending on how you think about "incident" (I think of it as Situation, basically, in GNS terms), you might think of it as almost synonomous with risk - something has to be at stake. "Something" is pretty broad, and some people may not consider "inconsequential" decisions to truly involve risk, but for Nar purposes I suspect every incident is an opportunity to address Premise.)

pete_darby wrote: Perhaps even more importantly, Brody doesn't go back to NY, nor Luke to the farm, because that's not who they are.

Pete, I think you're right, but I think you sort of missed the point.

The point is that whether or not it makes any sense, some players really do value the lives of their characters very highly, and become what we in real life call risk-averse: they don't want to take chances, because they might lose their character.

I recall entering an ongoing campaign that was run pretty loose by the referee. One of the players had been around a long time. He'd lost a lot of characters, and he'd retired one or two. Now he had a fourth level ranger--and the guy never left the inn. He didn't want to lose this character, and it was a jungle out there, with death waiting around every corner. I think the player had become a bit paranoid, and his character reflected this. The player soon thereafter stopped coming to the games, and his character became a fixture in the inn, run by the referee.

Sure, losing a character shouldn't be a big thing. Sometimes it is. That's one of the things that appeals to some people about Multiverser--you're not going to lose your character. It appeals to some other people in the opposite direction--you don't have to treat the PCs with kid gloves, because it doesn't matter if they get killed. That's an important side of it. A lot of games are run with kid gloves, because the referees are afraid to take the chance of killing the PCs for fear of the reaction of the players or the disruption to the game. This is a very real phenomenon in gaming, and merely saying that people take their characters too seriously doesn't alter the fact that they do.

The answer has to be that the game offers something to the player that is worth risking the life of the character. If it doesn't, you wind up with players folding in on themselves and becoming entrenched in their safety systems. If it does, you draw them out and they take the chance, and hopefully do so again when they see how enjoyable it is to face the risk.

Or else you soften the risk, so that character death is not the same thing anymore, and doesn't mean you've lost the character.

--M. J. Young

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Luke Skywalker says, screw being a jedi knight. I'm a farmer, not a space hero. Even after his aunt and uncle are killed he says "Well, guess I'm running the farm now" Star Wars doesn't happen.

Perhaps Rob, but your sense of story is coloring your vision. There have been several movies and novels which begin with the protagonist failing in some way. Along Came a Spider: A sting operation Alex Cross is running goes badly and a policewoman is killed. The result, catching the "spider" is a form of redemption for him that this is what he should be doing with his life and he can move on. Cliffhanger: Stallone's character tries to save a friend, his best friend's girlfriend, but she slips from his fingers and falls to her death. The rest of the movie, this motivates him to do what he does.

But we're talking about a style of play that at every turn the drama is defused. Luke Skywalker becomes a farmer. The stormtroopers come back shouting we're looking for two droid. Luke says "Why sure, here are the droids you're looking for. Take them. I am a loyal citizen of the Empire. By the way, the old guy is Obi Wan Kenobi the Jedi knight long thought to be dead. You might want to take him in for questioning."

This sort of play puzzles me, really. Why play an adventure game if you're going to avoid adventure at every turn? I just don't get it although I have played this way way too often and it may be part of the reason I am angry and bitter over my hobby.

MJ:

Yes, after all I said, my preferred systems tend towards the low ranges of character mortality (pace Paranoia). I guess it's my narrativist tendencies showing, that whether the character's choosing life or death, the choice means something, and that the player is still involved to see the consequences of that choice, the payoff, whatever that choice is. Since most games revolve around a degree of character indentification, if the PC's dead, the player is "out of the game", and doesn't get involved with the creamy goodness resulting from the choice if death is the choice.

Jack:

This sort of play puzzles me, really. Why play an adventure game if you're going to avoid adventure at every turn? I just don't get it although I have played this way way too often and it may be part of the reason I am angry and bitter over my hobby.

In our games, Neil and I try to run our characters as if they were living, breathing people. Putting yourself in harm's way is the perview of the desperate, the stupid, the adrenline junkies and the unfortunate.

In other words, we believe that being an adventurer... there definitely has to be something wrong with you. If just that you are often unlucky. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Most soldiers do NOT go and court death. They work hard to avoid it. It is why I can't stand dungeon crawls. It makes absolutely no sense to me. If I have the skill set of a professional soldier or crafty mage, I can get work that doesn't have such a high attrition.

So, in our games, the GM must really provide justification and situations that makes the PC go "Okay, got to do something and get this done". That is why my game is very poltical, very geo-power oriented. Adventure happens as Policy is carried out. It is why Neil operates in SuperHeroes.... you gotta be a bit nuts and driven to put on spandex and go out there and fight crime!

So, it is not MY aversion to Risk that might cause my PC to avoid danger. It is the PC. To me, putting the PC in danger IS fun. It makes for good story, especially if there is really good justifications and motivations zinging around. But sometimes a PC speaks on their own behalf.

I know that GNS states that there is no difference between PC and Player. But this is where I and GNS part company. I do think there is a difference. I THINK and FEEL different when playing different characters. Quite similar to thinking in another language compared to your native language.

Not that I relish losing beloved characters. But it is that challenge of keeping them alive and keeping their stories going that makes some of the fun for me.

Storn wrote:
So, in our games, the GM must really provide justification and situations that makes the PC go "Okay, got to do something and get this done".

pete_darby wrote: If it's as a player, is it becuase character death excludes you as a player from play to an extent that you tactically play it safe to remain in the game, while that tactical decision frustrates the expression of your other expectations of play?

Alan wrote:
Have the players also made efforts to provide justification and suggest situations that would motivate their characters to adventure?

Jack,
Thanks for clarifying. I completely agree that hiding in the wings all the time wouldn't be my idea of a good game either. As you say, if you want play to be about something other than `what would you die for', then character death should be mostly removed from the game. I sometimes wonder if the English-speaking world doesn't have a terrible psychological handicap here in that the word used to describe `what makes a story go' is conflict, which makes everybody think of armed conflict. The direct translation of the Dutch word is tension: if it makes you tense, it works. You can be tense about whether or not parties A and B will kiss (Moonlighting); I'm currently running a game where everybody is all worked up about a single flower, and so on. Anything that makes you uncertain about a part of the future of the game that you care about will work.

SR
--

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

pete_darby wrote: If it's as a player, is it becuase character death excludes you as a player from play to an extent that you tactically play it safe to remain in the game, while that tactical decision frustrates the expression of your other expectations of play?

AS a player...and that's a good argument to remove character death from the equation if it really is beside the point.

pete_darby wrote:

Or, you can ensure that character death doesn't exclude the player from subsequent play

pete_darby wrote: But that brings with it an enforced slip to author / director stance, and a dsitancing from identification with the character that may be undesirable.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I don't think that stnce really equates into distance from the character. People watch movies or read books all the time and they are indeed in "audience stance" since all they can do is passively absorb the film or novel, yet they still develop a strong empathy with the characters. I think stance is misleadingly beside the point when it comes to distance from character.

Storn wrote: I know that GNS states that there is no difference between PC and Player. But this is where I and GNS part company. I do think there is a difference. I THINK and FEEL different when playing different characters. Quite similar to thinking in another language compared to your native language.

And although I can say, "Slade would not do that," what I mean is, "If I made Slade do that, he would cease to be the character I want him to be; and what I want him to be is more important to me than whether he does this thing at this moment."

A successful adventure can bring down a few thousand in a week

M. J. Young wrote: I can get so into my characters' thoughts that I take Myers-Briggs tests as them and come out in completely different personality types.