Gamism vs Simulated Gamism
stefoid:
After some thought, I dont think the PC death thing should be an issue, except maybe if you are playing with a fully sim priority where you want to model exactly what would happen.
If you want to be playing a gamist game where the challenge and significant player decisions revolve around strategy and tactics? In those types of games, its the thrill of design, strategy and execution that is fun. You dont really need the threat of the character to die in that situation, merely winning/not winning is enough.
If you want to play a narrativist style game, think of movies and books -- in movies/books the 'PCs' dont die, right? They get into mortal danger, they get knocked out, they get into cliffhangers, they get injured to some extent or another, but we the audience know that despite being hit with an atomic bomb on the top of the head, somehow the protagonist(s) are going to survive and the movie is going to continue, unless of course its one of those movies where the hero dies in the last 10 minutes.
But if its done well enough, we suspend our disbelief and we get stressed in a good way about the 'danger'. why is that? Partly because the spectacle I suppose. but mostly because in situations where the lives of the PCs are threatened, theres usually a lot of other stuff at stake besides the danger to the PC. Its the context of the danger that gives it drama, not the fact that the life of the PC is being pretend-threatened.
So you want to play in such a way that the players care about their character enough to worry that maybe, the character wont achieve whatever goal it is that he is willing to put himself in mortal danger for.
stefoid:
Quote from: Cliff H on February 26, 2011, 03:29:47 PM
However, he staunchly believes two things that lead him to his stated attitude:
1) There are certain things that belong solely in the GM's hands no matter what. Matters of life and death, for PC and NPC alike, are among those things. They should be decision made in secrets ("behind the shiled" was his term) and handed down. It's what a GM's authority exists for, so he says.
2) Rules that allow for easy character survival are fine, even preferred. But death rules, whatever they are, should be played, not circumnavigated. If you forever fudge rolls and rules so that the PCs never die, all sense of risk evaporates from the game and it becomes boring. So if you don't want to run a high mortality game, don't use high mortality rules, but once you pick a set of them, use them and don't cheat them.
So I pretty much think this player has a sim priority - he wants to know what really would happen, and as the GM you are the impartial physics of the world, so you tell him.
My own game, for instance, is aimed at a dramatic resolution style, so it doesnt have a character-death mechanic. Heres what I wrote about that:
If it worries you that mechanically, a honking big axe does the same amount of harm as a knife for example, then use the narrative to show why this is so. This game doesn’t have a mechanic to determine character death – contests continue until a character is out of the contest. For an unimportant NPC, that may mean that he was split in two by an axe blow, or had his throat slit with a dagger. Either way, he’s dead. For an important NPC or PC, it will probably mean he has been battered and bloodied by glancing, half-parried axe blows, or taken several shallow knife wounds. Either way, he’s out of the contest -- cinematic resolution style. Its about what the character can do, not the equipment. Use play descriptions to back this up. A play might consist of one murderous axe swing, or a sequence of lightning fast knife slashes. It doesn’t have to be blow by blow.
David Berg:
Hi Cliff,
I've been faced with similar situations. Here's how I look at 'em:
The players want their choices to matter. Specifically, they want to make some relevant choices in situations of danger, where it's at least easy to imagine or pretend that death is on the line.
The players also don't want to be losing characters all the time. Maybe they're attached to the ones they have; maybe making new ones takes too long.
My general solution is to use a system that makes death extremely unlikely (1 in 36 to 1 in 1000), but makes more acceptable consequences quite likely. Loss of gear, levels, looks, connections, abilities, friends, favorite color, etc. So, my decisions still determine my fate in terms of some stuff I care about; live or die just isn't one of them.
Hope this helps,
-David
Cliff H:
Quote from: David Berg on March 02, 2011, 02:06:52 PM
My general solution is to use a system that makes death extremely unlikely (1 in 36 to 1 in 1000), but makes more acceptable consequences quite likely. Loss of gear, levels, looks, connections, abilities, friends, favorite color, etc. So, my decisions still determine my fate in terms of some stuff I care about; live or die just isn't one of them.
How did this work for you? My mind mmediately flashes to D&D for a game that does this. Death isn't exactly unlikely, but once you hit a certain level it becomes something that's not likely permanent. At that point, things like equipment and level loss become the hard hitting challenges you face; death is surmountable through a number of means. It actually got to a point where an editor at Dragon asked me to rewrite a submission because it was too hard on gear and too easy on lives. He said people would rather die and start with a new character than suffer level loss or, especially, loss of gear.
I'll admit, I'm genuinely confused at this point. Said player states the risk of death should be something real, but he is always the first to start a fight, always pushes the odds, and never, ever takes a defensive action. He drops a lot, but doesn't want to die. Nor, however, does he want to take cover or dodge in a gunfight. I have a strong suspicion that this is a case of someone not actually knowing what he wants, and thus not articulating it. Has anyone out there found an effective method to get people who define themselves as "just players" to think a little deper about the hobby and what they're looking to get out of it? I've avoided theory talk with everyone so far, and the experiment that tops this thread was quite revealing (to everyone at the table). Anyone got an effective step 2 you've tried for yourself?
Callan S.:
Cliff, I think your trying to figure out how it works out. But it doesn't necessarily. You may simply have found a mild form of madness. To define that, it's having two compeating desires (one is 'real death' on the cards, the other is that character death is unacceptable (shown by his hiding the death chip) that can't both be forfilled, yet he's still gunning to have both of them. Before anyone gets their panties in a knot, I'm suggesting this as a possibility only and out of concern for Cliff - if you approach something as if it works when it's madness, your likely to catch it yourself as well, I estimate (and even if I'm wrong on that, I still act out of concern...by crom, I hate giving disclaimers...)
Anyway, I'd agree it's someone not knowing what they want, in the sense of not having given up one of two conflicting desires, when only one can be had. But that's not even a game talk thing - the capacity to identify conflicting desires then choose which desire is effectively 'put down' - well, it's not a skill taught in school, let's say. Ie, it's not common.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page