Hello folks,

I suppose this is more of an "Actual NOT Played" thread, because I discuss a kind of actual play I've NOT ever found myself in, and I'm curious about this.

I've only ever played RPGs with, basically, 3 cliques my entire life as I've gone from elementary school to adulthood, and only ever encountered two types of roleplayers. These roleplayers could be classified as gamists and, I suppose, simulationists? The gamists have always been obvious; they pick the fighter classes, with a little dash of magic if it boosts their overall power, and tend to choose races with high Str mods. The simulationists, if that's what they are, have been interested in exploring setting and colour usually. *Even* in this case, all the players I've ever played with never made obviously self-harming choices for their characters. Almost like "gamists-lite", their end goal is to increase the character's power, though they're willing to not exert themselves so hard towards this goal if it means they can do a bit of exploration. I put myself in this latter category: When I get to play, I virtually always play wizards or spellcasters because, although I love the increase of power, I enjoy the aspect of finding creative solutions to the problems we encounter as opposed to the mindless "hack hack hack" of fighters.

Here's the crux: since visiting the Forge, I've become aware that there may be players who do take actions that are obviously harmful to their characters, for the sake of making the scene or the game more exciting. Although, hypothetically, I think I could find myself in a situation where I would want to do that, it's quite simply never come up. Furthermore, I'm convinced it's never happened in any of the games I've run or played.

Is this the fault of the system? Is it just the groups I'm playing with? Maybe it's a result of only ever having played games where there was a 1-1 relationship between player and character?

Daniel

So, first question: Is this really about different types of gamers, or is it actually about the practice of making decisions that are harmful to the specific character in service to making the scene more interesting?

Understand that the types of gamer you're talking about are the tried and true types. Narrativism was the new hotness in the indie scene for the longest time, but it was slow in infiltrating the traditional gaming scene as a concept. That isn't to say that the play preference wasn't there; Many massive-story-arc GMs were frustrated narrativists, trying to make the game about something, but feeling they didn't have that power as a player. I'm also a big proponent of the idea that it's been a strong motivation in many coherent free-form communities. However, making decisions in service to 'the story' isn't a purely narrativist concept.

Moving more toward the practice you're talking about, it can be for a few differing motivations. It can even be gamist under certain circumstances (specifically, where there is mechanical reward for harshing your own character). Specifically in the free-form communities, exploration of situation was a very good reason to do this. I allowed my young bardy-roguey character to lose a hand so that I could explore what it'd be like to play a dexterity-based character with only one hand. Now, there wasn't anything mechanical about this, because it was free-form, but it was definitely detrimental to the character. I also 'killed' a character to explore the theme of loss, though it turned out through magical means that he wasn't really dead.

I'm like you. I like my characters to improve in proficiency over time, but that's certainly not in opposition to self-authored adversity. In one of my perpetually in-development projects, player authorship of challenges is a big feature, though that's somewhat different than what you're talking about, I think. I assume you're talking specifically about making the tactically non-optimum decision in the fiction, or maybe in character choices (putting points into Teamster, for instance).

ShallowThoughts wrote: Is this the fault of the system? Is it just the groups I'm playing with? Maybe it's a result of only ever having played games where there was a 1-1 relationship between player and character?

Wolfen wrote: It can even be gamist under certain circumstances (specifically, where there is mechanical reward for harshing your own character).

Wolfen wrote:
So, first question: Is this really about different types of gamers, or is it actually about the practice of making decisions that are harmful to the specific character in service to making the scene more interesting?
...
Specifically in the free-form communities, exploration of situation was a very good reason to do this. I allowed my young bardy-roguey character to lose a hand so that I could explore what it'd be like to play a dexterity-based character with only one hand. Now, there wasn't anything mechanical about this, because it was free-form, but it was definitely detrimental to the character.
...
I assume you're talking specifically about making the tactically non-optimum decision in the fiction, or maybe in character choices (putting points into Teamster, for instance).

greyorm wrote:
This leads to ingrained responses like "my guy" syndrome and "turtle" behavior, where the player becomes super-protective of the character and their own ability to have a real impact on the game because of the way the games they have been a part of have been run and are expected to be run, so they never do anything that might remotely give the GM an opening to "attack" them.
...
But all of that is traditional gamer culture--they didn't sound any different than any other traditional gaming group I've played with or hung out with and swapped gaming stories with over the past two-and-a-half decades I've been playing--and I think its a good part of the reason you see that behavior you're commenting on of players never harming their own character or putting themselves in a position to have their effectiveness injured or pride or input punished/demeaned.

System does have a bit to do with that, I think, in that many traditional systems only reward you for growing more mechanically powerful and for tactical/strategic thinking in overcoming obstacles, neither of which is served by injuring or penalizing your own character during play (especially given that the GM is already doing that "for" you) -- and also not by providing any rewards for developing an interesting narrative and exploring human issues complete with rising action and (narratively-fortunate) setbacks, especially in that environment (where overcoming obstacles and clever tactical thinking or puzzle-solving is the point of play).

greyorm wrote:
Tying that back to Daniel's question, I think one of the reasons you don't see players hurting their own characters in traditional gaming is because there is a large element of Gamism therein, and there's nothing in the game play itself--not as a point of esteem or envy between the people at the table, and ignoring as toothless any systemic attempts to add those things like Flaws and such mechanics--that rewards such behavior, so the players don't even think of doing it.

ShallowThoughts wrote:
Why would one need to be rewarded for doing what one enjoys? Hypothetically, the fun of the activity should itself be the reward.

Hi Daniel,

Here's a thread to add to this discussion, specifically my dialogue with Marshall Burns on the third page (but it's good to read the whole thing): Interview with Vincent and me. I talk about why the phobia about character death was cemented so deeply in role-playing culture and design during the 1970s.

I do think the issue boils down to the long-held, long-valued, uncritically-retained notion that if my guy dies, I lose/u] and I have to stop playing. Even the patch-fixes to repair it are still problems insofar as that notion is assumed to be a problem to start with.

Decoupling character death from those two things is a real jolt. It can be done a couple of ways. Sometimes the character's death is part and parcel (and here I speak of the rules) with finishing, which is not the same as losing/quitting. You can find this in my games Trollbabe and Sorcerer, and in games influenced by them like Dogs in the Vineyard. Other times the rules permit the player to contribute exactly as he or she had before. This first showed up in The Mountain Witch based on my playtesting-advice to the author, it also shows up in Grey Ranks based partly on dialogue with me, and as I see it, it takes on its fullest form in my Spione, as well as in Zombie Cinema which is strongly influenced by Spione.

I'm not claiming that this decoupling is a golden key that all games have to have or be "bad." But it's worth considering in full.

Best, Ron

Damned internet.

John, by and large, said what I typed up in a post earlier. He just said it more concisely.

The fact that what we sit down at a table to do is a game shouldn't be ignored. Every game has things that can be sussed out as win conditions, if you're looking for them. If character effectiveness is obviously the means to those win conditions, then it would be losing behavior to disadvantage yourself in effectiveness. In this way, both your fighter friend and your thief friend are 'gamist'. They've just picked out different win conditions. Fighter dude believes that if the bad guys are dead, it's a win. Thief dude believes that if you have to resort to the direct brute-force approach, it's a loss.

to answer your question to me specifically, Marius (my roguish bard) was compensated for the loss of his hand. He lost some naivete, got a little bit tougher from enduring the pain, and gained a well of strength to draw upon by having to overcome the hardship. He grew in ways that were important in that community. Eventually, he even grew in proficiency, but that's another story. Had I a mechanical penalty, I would have expected it to be balanced out in a similar fashion as I described, or had some sort of meta-balance, such as a merits and flaws system. Were the loss of the hand a mechanical result of my actions in play, and didn't come with balances, I would have accepted that as I would anything else. If the character became unfun to play though, I probably would have retired him appropriately (possibly with another brashly brave assault on superior odds).

It comes down to how you interface with the game and fiction. If player effectiveness is your vehicle, you don't hurt that. If player effectiveness is only one option, or merely color, then it becomes a fair target for harmful decisions. The Riddle of Steel is an example that comes to mind. The main part of the game is crunchy simulation of physics and causality, but the beating heart is the Spiritual Attributes, which can, when pounding out loud and hard, make your character's stats nearly meaningless. What are a couple deep stab wounds when the six-fingered man is before you? You can make dramatic negative choices when it doesn't hinder your ability to contribute in a fun and meaningful manner.

8-O  .. woah, bzing! Great points, John and Ron .. I asked for a crumb of food for thought, and that's a feast. Muchas Gracias both.

Wolfen wrote:
The fact that what we sit down at a table to do is a game shouldn't be ignored. Every game has things that can be sussed out as win conditions, if you're looking for them.

Wolfen wrote:
If the character became unfun to play though, I probably would have retired him appropriately (possibly with another brashly brave assault on superior odds).
...
What are a couple deep stab wounds when the six-fingered man is before you? You can make dramatic negative choices when it doesn't hinder your ability to contribute in a fun and meaningful manner.

ShallowThoughts wrote: ...but I'd hesitate to jump to all games; how about collaborative story-telling? Mad-Libs? Games like that "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" show on television? (Gawd I loved that show..) This is where is gets interesting .. games that HAVE no win condition but are fun anyway.

Indeed. I think this sums it up nicely. In traditional games, your ability to contribute diminishes as you lose power (or don't keep pace in power with the other players).

::points to Raven, then touches the tip of his nose::

Right in one. That's why I said that every game has things that can be sussed out as win conditions. Figured out. Determined. It's not always stated, or obvious. Ya just gotta look. Sometimes, the stated game rules will tell you that there is no win or lose. Frankly, from my perspective, that's bullshit. If you can't determine a win condition, it's not a game. But that's a whole 'nother discussion. Raven threw out the obvious win conditions for your examples though, so I got nothin' there.

I think that's a good summary, too. But don't think about it in purely mechanical trade-offs, there are subtle social and creative trade-offs as well that can cause the same situation.

Wolfen wrote: See now here's where I'm scratching my head

Speaking as an experienced observer of these threads, not as iron-fisted moderator, I suggest that the issue of win conditions is veering into a new and not necessarily helpful direction. The word "win" means very different things to different people. Everyone's posted something interesting and made arguable points, but my usual views about actual play as a communication-touchstone are kicking in.

The real issue, and now I guess I am moving into moderator mode, is for Daniel: based on your last post, the thread has at least shined some light on your initial question. Unless you really have some remaining issue with that question's content, it's probably time to let it be a done (or "won") thread. Alternately, with the new light on the subject, I know that I'd like to see an account from you of a play-experience in which character death illustrates exactly the viewpoint from which you posed the question.

Best, Ron

Hey Ron,

Ron wrote: Decoupling character death from those two things is a real jolt. It can be done a couple of ways. Sometimes the character's death is part and parcel (and here I speak of the rules) with finishing, which is not the same as losing/quitting. You can find this in my games Trollbabe and Sorcerer, and in games influenced by them like Dogs in the Vineyard. Other times the rules permit the player to contribute exactly as he or she had before. This first showed up in The Mountain Witch based on my playtesting-advice to the author, it also shows up in Grey Ranks based partly on dialogue with me, and as I see it, it takes on its fullest form in my Spione, as well as in Zombie Cinema which is strongly influenced by Spione.

Hey Daniel,

The Olden Days

So, I can think back to AD&D 2nd edition and some kits were just better than others.  One kit got you an extra skill, another got you extra skills and a giant tiger to ride.  And sometimes folks chose the shittier kit to tag on to their class because it fit the character.  This was seen as a sub-optimal choice but good role-playing.  We kinda gave each other an attaboy for doing it and then whooped and cheered at how cool our giant tigers were while Joe Role-Play had his extra skill and meaningful color.

I can think back to Champions too, where you had, let's say, 250 points to spend and 50 more points if you took 50 additional disadvantages.  Of course you took the 50 more points and had a dependent child and were hunted by the super-powered mob.  Those 50 points went a LONG way towards making your character optimal and useful in play and plus, it is cool to be hunted by the mob and have a kid to take care of when you are not super-heroing.

And Now

Now, thinking to how I enjoy playing now, let's say with Burning Wheel, which of all the games I own, is the one I keep coming back to the most in the past 5 years or so.

In that game, I put myself in a rough spot and give myself Beliefs that will create drama.  When I create a Burning Wheel character through the lifepath system, I squeeze every resource point I can.  I have seen players say things like, "Well, I really wanted X skill, so I guess my mercenary captain spent some time as a Freebooter and that is cool; it changes him a bit but it works for me and adds a fun dimension to the character."

So, nowadays, I like to create a competent character and put him in a cool situation (orcs whose horde was destroyed and are now stuck behind enemy lines in elven territory, bastard whose father is attempting to usurp the young king, hostages from the steppe nomads whose family was killed by the current reigning khan) and then play like hell, fight like a tiger to get what my character wants on his Beliefs.

I think also to Sorcerer, where the GM and the player make the player's starting demon together and I notice the system-savvy players watching how many powers we add on, being careful as to how powerful that demon becomes.  They don't want to get too deep in the hole.  Then their kickers put them in the hole and the system asks them how far are they willing to go to get out of it or to even rise above that hole and rule the roost.

So, to answer your question, I think system has a whole lot to do with it, as does the vibe at the table.  At some tables, making a less than optimal 3e or 4e character would just be seen as dumb.  At others, its an attaboy and some table respect.

I'm kinda done with attaboys.  Lately, I want a system that let's me fight tooth and nail against a shitty situation that me and my friends created.

Hope that makes sense.

Hello,

I'm with Ron's moderation that the thread shouldn't go in the "what is fun" direction. (I'd be glad to debate it in another thread somewhere but it feels hideously opinion-heavy. I love debates like that but maybe too messy for a Forge forum.)

As for my own play experiences..

It's mostly been a vague feeling I've had during the course of my RPGing "career". That said, the issue has come to the forefront very recently for me, because I began playing in a campaign where the moons aligned, and I saw an opportunity to play one of the underdog races for the first time. (You know them: goblin, kobold, gnoll, etc. etc.) I've always wanted to play an underdog race for the roleplaying opportunities: misunderstood, trying to survive in a land of bigots etc. etc. I never have, however, because the AD&D 2nd Edition evil races SUCKED. Furthermore, since the upgrade to D&D v3/3.5, I've spent most time DMing, and those times I wasn't a DM, these races weren't appropriate for the campaign. Now, in this recent campaign, I'm both a player, the evil races are an appropriate race (because they fit the world and aren't killed on sight necessarily),  and the Goblin race in particular is actually fairly decent, powerwise, especially as a thief.

The above line of thinking just goes towards what the whole post is about. I only chose to play a Goblin because I didn't feel it to be underpowered.. but I think I'd have played one LONG ago if "something" wasn't in the way, I've never been sure what. (That whole discussion of the entanglement of "losing the game" with character death may be the key.. or maybe I'm just greedy  :D )

Paka wrote:
So, to answer your question, I think system has a whole lot to do with it, as does the vibe at the table.  At some tables, making a less than optimal 3e or 4e character would just be seen as dumb.  At others, its an attaboy and some table respect.

I think it is important for everyone playing a game to be clear on the definitions of roll playing games vs. story telling games or at the very least, have some idea that there are different ways to play, but we will all be playing by this one certain one.

A story teller player that is willing to dick his own character out of the fun of playing him that way can strait up ruin a game by taking a scene that should have been won and over and turning it into a circus. Players that are trying to, "win the game," are a major problem when the DM is trying to rail road them along a certain story. All the rail roading tricks (limited character knowledge, one advantageous, obvious path, the threat of powerful NPCs, DMPCs), won't make a player that is trying to win happy with the game.

A lot of conflict just comes from people not being clear and honest about what they expect. I recently had a come to Jesus meeting with a couple of my gamers where I told them if they made and rped characters that couldn't approach a fire fight and the legal ramification's correctly, their characters would simply die and they would be fucked into making new ones.

Paka wrote: ...and 50 more points if you took 50 additional disadvantages. 

It makes sense, at least for some of the Disadvantages. Champions point build system tended to be looked as a means to achieve victory in in game conflicts. You paid point for capacity. There are certain thigns that can't emulated by taking a low rating in something, such as taking damage from something that doesn't hurt others, or multiplying others effects on you (not the same as halving your defense against their abilities).

All the interesting complications didn't make sense, though there was an effort to have known limits or requirements on a PCs behavior to get tossed a bone. It's all nice when the hearo stop to keep an innocent from getting hurt, but between the competitive nature of "tradfitional play" in Champions and the direction of comics in the late 80s and the 90s, you couldn't just say it was expected, it needed to be balanced in somehow.

I personally favor the idea that any complication you take only matters when it comes up, and so it's an exchange of defining your character and the things you want to see for some small reward.

I've blown up, entrapped, and gotten my characters gutted over and over. Its a lot of fun. My roommate hardly has a character who can function usefully in combat, let alone survive without help, and ALWAYS gets everybody into trouble/killed.

It seems normal to us. I'll never forget you, Toshi...

Mind you, other players can't seem to understand it; it works best with a group of like-minded people.