I'd argue that the tragic mode has about an even split between success and failure -- with only the final outcome guarunteed to end in destruction. Early and mid-story success is needed to make the final ending meaningful.

By contrast, comic mode can progress without a single protagonist success -- as the characters fail to escape "certain doom" time and time again only to escape at the last moment via mischance.

(Reply) (Thread)

And...I'd argue that more recent, more innovative systems have belied the last paragraph -- Feng Shui did have a less forgiving setback rating than its source narrative, true, but the "stakes-setting" systems allow exactly the setback level the players wish (since the players define the meaning of "success" and "failure" as needed), while Marvel Diceless and Nobilis have a close to 0 setback level (only exaustion or misjudgement will cause an action to fail).

(Reply) (Thread)

I'm parsing that second to last sentence, and coming up with the following interpretation:

"Books, movies, and TV operates under the assumption that the main characters will have an easy time overcoming their obstacles, compared to RPG's."

Is that what you meant to say? Because that hasn't been my experience at all... most GM's operate under the assumption that every obstacle the PC's encounter will be overcome on the first try.

(Reply) (Thread)

Our gaming group has talked about this somewhat and our conclusion has been that if people choose mechanics for a game system, it's because they like flirting with the chance of failure, but they don't want it to actually happen all the time.

I know plenty of folks who don't use rules systems at all in play, in some cases making characters with a system of rules they enjoy so that they have some idea of relative skill level, and in some cases not even doing that. It gives the GM complete control of the outcomes of the situations that evolve, and it typically reflects a strong limit on how likely it is that someone will fail.

Conversely, people who choose rules systems with a series of rolls or other randomized selectors for success in a given situation are more interested in finding out if their character succeeds or not. They pay closer attention to the rules that they use for a system and are less likely to over-rule a die roll about failure or success in anything but the most extreme circumstances.

At the same time, people don't play games because they want to fail. The standard response that I've gotten to the 'overpowering' of characters is that people play because they want to be above average. Most people feel like they have a lack of control in their lives, and so they use gaming to feel like they have some measure of it at least in their off hours. There are people on the other end of the spectrum, but it seems that since repeat failure is something that isn't on average thought of as fun, the systems' designers are just betting that GMs want their players to succeed more often than they fail.

So, it seems to me that an ideal rules set gives the GM a series of levels that they can choose for mechanical randomization of setbacks. Those who aren't going to use dice in their games anyway aren't going to bother in the first place, though they'll probably read them. The mid-line group wants some randomization and some narrative control. And then, the more random group is going to want lots of chances for the mechanics to effect their outcome. If there are optional rules that the more chance oriented group can add in to spice things up, while the other midline group can leave them out for speed or control, they'll all be happy.

(Reply) (Thread)

I think it may be a hangover from the age-old wargaming/boardgaming to RPG transition - Most RPG players have a high degree of attachement to whatever game tokens they have (hitpoints, magic weapons, money whatever) because in war/board games exhausting those token means losing the game - in a RPG, where winning and losing are either not possible or abstracted, these tokens still provide the player with the most tangible form of setback, but this doesn't neccesarily match up with the kind of narrative setback we see in film and tv or might want to emulate in a game.

(Reply) (Thread)

It seems to me that tension is generated in the source material is generated by the chance of 'way awful failure' and the perception of 'peril'. James Bond is never cut in half on Goldfinger's table, but we must, for a moment, belive that he might.

I believe that PC's should always keep in mind that the consequences of failure are very real, and should know that 'way awful failure' and death are built into the rule set, no matter how forgiving the source material should be. I try to keep the chances of these things happening to a minimum, but let people know that deadly, critical, failure is possible.

That aside, I've been playing a lot of console games lately, where the worst possible setback is having to try your level over again. It never dampens the fun, but I wonder if something like this could (or should) ever be used in an RPG setting?

(Reply) (Thread)

But if the player does fail catastrophically, you're suddenly no longer playing a James Bond adventure, you're playing Song of Ice and Fire. So are you saying that you just have to randomly sacrifice some adventures to preserve the right mindset in the other ones? Won't knowing that some adventures are going to break cause problems for the players trying to get into the right mindset?

I think for something like James Bond, it's better just to say "Ok, the life of the PCs is off the table, as is the fate of the world. On the other hand, that cute girl you've been dating since the first adventure, your boss, your house, your new car, maybe even your charming appearance*, those are all totally on the table and might get whacked if you screw up or get unlucky."

*This is only sort of on the table, since it might be part of the PC's competence to be good-looking, and PC competence is not on the table. I could see a rule where if the player screws up, the GM might say "ok, sorry, falling into that shark tank means you get ripped up -- lose 10 points from your physical stats, but you can shuffle them into something else" and the PC says "fine, I get a badass eyepatch and a hook hand instead, and I can't fire a gun in my left hand anymore but I can stab people with my hook."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I think for something like James Bond, it's better just to say "Ok, the life of the PCs is off the table, as is the fate of the world. On the other hand, that cute girl you've been dating since the first adventure, your boss, your house, your new car, maybe even your charming appearance*, those are all totally on the table and might get whacked if you screw up or get unlucky."

I like that as a mechanic. It sounds like a lot of fun. Still, I prefer that the players feel that the whole ball of wax is what's on the table. I also tend to run games where PC's can spend Fate chips, Hero Points or whatever, to make them feel responsible for saving their own character's collective bacon.

And yes, I've sacrificed a few adventures and even a whole game world once to keep the edginess of later games. Sucked, but it paid off later...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You want the players to FEEL that everything is on the table, but you can't actually HAVE everything on the table, or else at some point, you ARE going to have to take a character's life, or destroy the world, and at that point, the game has fundamentally changed in a way that the participants don't necessarily want.

So in a way, you kind of have to lie to them, wouldn't you agree?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, I have built mechanisms for total failure and death into my
games, but I tend to make it so the chances of such things actually
occuring is very small.

For example, in my Feng Shui game, I had players leaping from rooftop
to rooftop to get to an objective on time. The jump itself had a low
difficulty, and the damage from the fall was enough to possibly kill
you. The threat was very real, but it took a severely bad roll to
actually die.

Of course they all lived, but everyone at the table, myself included,
got a huge rush.

I try to put one such challenge into every scenario I run. It's only
gone bad once. =]

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It's a valid approach (I'd actually call it a gamist approach -- because it's about the real thrill of winning or losing), just not the only one. For myself, the appeal of a conflict resolution system (something relatively unimportant to me; I can happily go games and games without formal conflict or task resolution) is in uncertainty->tension->resolution. I don't have to know that something dire is possible; in fact, I'd rather not -know- the range of possible results; intstead, the tension is in not knowing what will happen next. Which is why, I guess, I don't need conflict resolution -- other players' actions usually provide uncertainty and tension just fine.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

And what did you do when it went bad? What happened to the game?

At what percentage chance of "total failure" does it stop being something that provides a rush?

10% per session? (something that'll happen a few times a year)
1% per session? (something that might happen in a few years of gaming)
0.1% per session? (something that might happen in a whole lifetime of gaming)
0.01% per session? (something that might happen to someone you know in a whole lifetime of gaming)
Less?

I know that in my case, if it only has a 1% chance of happening, it's not going to give me much of a rush. It won't get my attention.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I try to keep the chance of game-ruining failure under 10%, but talk dangers up so they seem much more threatening.

The situation that ruined one of my games, however, wasn't really life or death, but resulted in a failure to complete a job. It was a Mafia-like situation in the game "Underground". Success would have resulted in the players becoming "made-men" and would have gotten the campaign to a "Sopranos" like level, and the PC's would be big shots.

Instead, it resulted in ruined reps and left the characters "marked for death".

The game was salvagable, as it could have resumed in a different locale or something--but we just wound up boxing up the game and playing something else.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay, so instead of lying to them about whether or not total failure is actually on the table, you're lying to them about how big the danger is. It's just a matter of degree.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Eh, true dat, but I do like the fact that way awful failure could possibly happen. It's exiting to me as a GM to not even be 100% sure of the outcome. I like being on the edge of my seat along with the players.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This holds up the point to me that all challenge mechanics in RPGs, and what players and GMs contest over, is control of the narrative. Control of the narrative is what the prize is in gamist systems and what players are gambling over when they roll dice.

CB

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This is not true. When you make a to-hit roll in DnD, in many games, the DM narrates the effect of the hit. Why? Because only he knows how many HP the creature has.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Absolutely it is. What is the ultimate result of combat? Either the PC dies or the PC is victorious over the Orcs or whatever. Whoever wins the dicing+stats contests gets the result in the narrative that they desire (and the DM ostensibly desires to challenge the PCs and present a threat in D&D.) Winning of dice+stat contests in most RPGs enables players to gain control of the physical surround in most RPGs and, thus, the described narrative.

For example, if I roll to hit and succeed, the DM has to describe the effect of my action on the target. While he can embellish it however he likes, he still has to describe the fact that *I have wounded my target*, as per the game rules.

And I mean narrative in the larger sense of story and plotline.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The people who win the dice contests get the RESULT they want, but the NARRATION is, often, still in the hands of the GM. They get control of one binary decision (win/lose) and the GM decides HOW they win or lose.

That's a tremendous power. If you don't think it's powerful, give Trollbabe a try.

Trollbabe has a simple conflict-resolution mechanic. Set stakes, roll dice, winner gets the stakes and "loser" describes how those stakes are won... that puts REAL narrative control in the hands of the player (when he "loses") rather than the illusory power you're talking about.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hmm, I don't think this is the case at all. What I was thinking about was almost the exact opposite -- the players hand off control of the larger scope of the narrative so they can focus on making their characters as cool as possible. Obviously, you *can* have a system like the one I described where the PCs have real influence over the storyline, but it's not a requirement by any means. I think my current group would be totally happy to have this stuff used purely as a means for character development in a fixed storyline (I suppose this is sim), and I can easily imagine groups where, again, the PCs aren't fighting for control over the narrative, they're fighting to win the combat setpieces the GM creates based on the narrative.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Actually, as a playtester for the James Bond 007 RPG, I found it different from the movies because of running it for a group. With a group of PCs, well, no individual was completely indispensible. "The corridor starts filling with nerve gas. Too bad you decided not to bring the C4, eh?"

Okay, maybe I was a bastard as a GM. Took a while for the players to realize all the SMERSH agents were not just acting as security for the unstable Middle Eastern tyrant but were, in fact, the whole point of the exercise. When one of the players realized, "You mean the Russians gave plutonium to this madman just as a ruse to lure us?" it was priceless. Really sharpened the wits of the, well, survivors on future missions.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Would dramatic media be more concerned with the consequences of the action, distinct from what the person doing it considers success or failure?

(Reply) (Thread)

Here's a post I wrote after reading some interesting commentary on action movie scripting.

http://codrus.livejournal.com/107771.html

Short version: If an action movie fight scene/chase scene has nothing in it other than "heroes survive/villains die" then in most cases it is poorly written. I would argue that a RPG fight with a similar mindset is just as poorly executed.

For what it is worth, I think that a significant number of roleplaying activities shouldn't have a serious threat of death/outright failure. Someone else brought up James Bond already; if you are running the 'teaser' section of a James Bond story, the heroes probably shouldn't ever be in real danger. Your "win/lose" has to be based on something other than character death.

Another post that I wrote specifically talks about assigning "victory points" to different actions that the players take, and using it as the basis for future encounters/the final encounter.

http://codrus.livejournal.com/86942.html

(Reply) (Thread)

Oh yeah, the character's death shouldn't be the only thing on the line. I just happen to find it thrilling when characters risk losing their lives to accomplish something greater.

As for the James Bond thing, in the scene in Goldfinger, he was about to lose his manhood, and possibly his life if he didn't come up with something fast enough. Wouldn't that be fun in a RPG scenario? Set a stopwatch and give a player 30 seconds to come up with something or face laser castration. Heck even let him make a fast talk roll, and toss in a Fate chip if he chokes. I just think it's fun if the player has to actively save his character from harm.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

One thing a game system can do is allow failure states short of death. In particular, incapacitation or serious injury that reduces success chance can thwart a player without killing them.

I don't have the same appreciation for subtle and downbeat settings as Robin does, but there's still opportunity for victory of sorts in those settings, even if that victory is simply a matter of understanding or moral development on the part of the protagonist. Conversely, even in settings where characters have surrealistic levels of ability (e.g. Munchkin or Toon), real success is no longer about accomplishing objectives as it is about style (i.e. it's not the touchdown against the easy time that matters, it's the dance afterwards).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The results of failure in movies and on TV is usually more forgiving than what one can plausibly get away with in an RPG session, but I'm not convinced that failure is less common. After all, the general formula of screen-writing is to have your main characters strive and fail continuously for about 90 minutes then succeed in the last 10-20.

Even mysteries like The Thin Man (or Law and Order) have their failures -- follow a few red herrings and dead leads in between listening to Nick and Nora banter.

A couple major differences:

I need these characters back here next week for our next RPG session -- so let's generally try to avoid systems that are too unforgiving.

My players might accept death traps in James Bond as part of the mythology of Bond, but that'll get a groan from them if I use it in an RPG.

The chances of a GM actually capturing characters, without killing them or railroading them, is almost nil in an RPG. Players are ornery little buggers. Though, Johnathan Tweet posted a nice article on Kirkliness in RPGs that would be an interesting solution to this problem. Here's a link to that:

http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotgametry.html

(Reply) (Thread)

Skilled stakes-setting in conflict-resolution mechanic games can make capture a much more likely affair.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Reading JT's little article, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

That article is about stakes-setting.

"If I win this conflict, Kirk finds an opportunity to attempt to grab the phaser from the Klingon guard."

"Okay, if you fail, the guard's too alert and you decide not to."

"Agreed, let's roll dice."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Great example of how to mitigate risk and failure for characters. I will now consider this as a new 'gaming mode' in which they can play in 'safe mode' or 'full risk' such as hack and slash melee where depending on the turn of the dice, your character could die.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Generally, since the focus of RPGs and identification factor in RPGs is much tighter (in most visual media, there is still a space of the audience *as the audience* in terms of how the plot and media interact with the audience, as opposed to RPGs, where the player *is* the antagonist), the tolerance factor for extreme failure or success is much narrower. In a procedural, we are *not* the protagonist - we are witnessing the events of the story and outcomes to the protagonist. In an RPG, the immersion factor makes each success and failure much more visceral. And the gamist functions of most current RPGs "up the stakes" as it were in regards to how the player controls the flow of the narrative.

The very technological function of RPGs (player as part-controller of narrative outcome, 'simulation' of genre as opposed to observation, immersion factor) make the hobby a completey different animal than more traditionally passive forms of media - this lends RPG their appeal. Because of the changed power relationship in terms of who controls the outcome of the narrative, certain narrative forms simply can't function in RPGs, because they require a passive audience as their conceit.

CB

(Reply) (Thread)

I have run into this challenge several times in my fantasty campaigns. I draw on the fantasy tradition where the hero(es) must be broken down completely before s/he (they) overcome their flaw(s) and rise to the status of true hero. The strength of the hero is conveyed by the strength of his/her/their opposition.

However, I have on more than one occassion had major players quit or flip out over the 'bleakness' of the storyline. They just didn't have the huevos to see it through. As a player once said to me, "my character may be a hero, but I'm not. I want to have fun!"

So I switched to Feng Shui. :^))

(Reply) (Thread)

In my experience, that's generally not a failing of the player, but rather a failing of the trust relationship between player and GM.

And... that's not the only fantasy tradition, either. Fafhyrd and the Grey Mouser, for example, never go through that ordeal.

But in the end, if a given game isn't giving you what you want, by all means play a different game.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I agree with you that the trust relationship between player and GM is critical and in the cases I referred to it had broken down.

But when I refer to fantasy tradition I mean the origins, Gilgamesh, Pilgrim's Progress, etc. The quest archetypes. Fafhyrd and Grey Mouser don't constitute 'fantasy tradition' in the way I meant.

Totally agreed though with your last statement: vote with your feet, I say!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It's interesting that you put Gilgamesh and Pilgrim's Progress in the "Fantasy" genre... I would put those in the "Heroic Myth" category. Now that's not to say that Fantasy can't draw on the Hero's Journey (which is what you're talking about) but the Heroic Myth MUST do.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Question: when you're playing, are you playing to a) maximize the success and effectiveness of your character, b) emulate source material, or c) participate in the telling of a satisfying story?

Most RPG's are designed from an assumed basis of a), with special case rules for b), and GM advice for c) with precious little systemic support.

Tradiitonal narrative forms, of course, are constructed for c), with reality checking and genre conventions, tropes, etc as b) and a) funcitoning only as the internal motivation of the characters.

If you want c), you have to build games that make character effectiveness in terms of diagetic ability incidental, and make their issues the fundamental markers of gameplay. Like Capes, Primetime Adventures and, naturally, HeroQuest. Well, HQ the way I play it.

For more on the latest on where to go with killing the idea of character effectiveness, or even character success or failure being a marker of player enjoyment, Vincent over on www.lumpley.com isn't satisfied with killing off the GM, he's looking at killing off character ownership now. Looks fun.

(Reply) (Thread)

Killing off character ownership sounds like a terrible idea. I'm about to get in a fight in the wrong place, over an idea I'm still working out, so I'll leave it at that.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Excellent point Robin and team. I have been contemplating this for some time with a game I am trying to develop and have really enjoyed everyone’s insights – quite a thorny challenge.

How often should players succeed or fail? In the corporate world I have heard that sales managers use stretch quotas to encourage sales people to increase sales, and a rule of thumb I have heard discussed is 75%. Meaning that 75% of the time the reps should be able to achieve the new target. If lower then that people become demoralized and do not strive to achieve because it is a forgone conclusion that they will not succeed.

I think something like this is relevant to RPG. For example, DragonQuest (a game I greatly enjoy) has an excellent listing of critical failures that are described in great gory detail. I believe the chance for failure was 5%. And, the game was balanced with critical successes starting at 15% and increasing to deadly at 5%. So, in this system out of the total range of results, something noteworthy happens 25% of the time. When playing Shadow Run there is the rule of 6 where in some situations if you roll a 6 you can re roll that die – thus a 16% chance of significant success.

I completely agree that RPGers use movies as a point of reference, and have been keeping track of recent block buster movies that I think do a great job of telling a story, keeping you on the edge of your seat when the hero is dragged through all sorts of peril. The first movie I really recall doing a great job of this is DieHard. And James Cameron created Aliens with a theme of “15 miles of bad road”. Current successes (according to me) is the Matrix and Bourne Identity and Supremacy. In each of these movies I would suggest that the ‘drama’ and enjoyment comes from the seemingly normal person achieving extraordinary accomplishments when facing overwhelming odds. While they do not achieve a full success (ie kill the bad guys) immediately, there is a progression through tough tasks which the hero surprises us with their success and skill. I think that a fun and successful RPG game these days needs to facilitate situations where the hero can do something exciting.

Therefore, I think the times are changing for gamers, and that ‘heroic’ results and diminished levels of failure are now part of our social consciousness. Consider the impact of mass market PC/Web war games (such as Warcraft III) people are looking for more immediate results, and success. So perhaps the level of failure in successful/accepted/mass-market games will need to decline to be accepted by the mass market.

As has been indicated by several in the forum, players want to enjoy the game and succeed. But, part of the enjoyment comes from the avoidance of near failure – with a few ‘reality bites’ thrown in to keep it ‘real’.

My frustration with many RPGs I have played is that when you go up a level it typically does not have a large impact on the character. Some games do have tiers where ‘at level 3 you get an additional ability to ….’ which I think is a good way of managing the success/failure balance, but still the difference seems to be somewhat small. To me, this makes the attainment of a new level somewhat anticlimactic and encourages characters to continually strive for higher levels.

So, in the system I am trying to develop, I have decided to engineer 4 ways to balance success and failure: 1) bell curve dice convention = easy to relate to; 2) magnified difference between even 1 level of difference between opponents, 3) as your level increases you achieve higher levels of success with less effort (aka lower die rolls); 4) at low levels you have very high chance of failure so you really need to be more careful when using those skills.

(Reply) (Thread)