Have the setting, need a system
ADGBoss:
Quote
I don't want the PC's to have to shun combat, because their scared to death of loosing their characters, but I want them to have a healthy respect for it.
You know I have been through that thought process myself and I considered, and rejected, it this morning as I was re-reading the thread. You cannot dictate how they are going to feel.
Players Run From Puppies & Charge Dragons*
It does not matter how realistic or lethal a game system is (and by game system I will include GM Fiat and its affects on the rules) player reaction will be dictated by their approach to their characters. So I would suggest that you choose a level of realism that is along the lines of what you want to run as a GM and feel comfortable with. Then let them react to it however they will react.
I think Callan has a point in his concept of resources being lost. While I think hit points and spells used are still resources, whether the end result is lethal or not, players are generally more afraid of losing their precious +2 sword than living or dying, mainly because health is often the easiest resource to replenish.
*There is an old Mac game from the late 1980s that was graphical. It was an adventure game and one of the creatures was a Cute Puppy. The Cute Puppy had one power: It soiled your armor. I cannot for the life of me remember the name of the game though.
contracycle:
Quote from: stefoid on July 21, 2011, 04:28:11 PM
In most fiction the tension of conflict comes from "will the character achieve what their fighting for", not will they survive the fight... Fighting for nothing more than survival is inherently boring - there has to be something more at stake in a fight, even for survival fiction.
Couldn't disagree more, in both respects. Saw Steven Segal vehicle Under Siege the other day; this is clearly full of fight scenes that have no greater purpose than survival. I'm sure there are many, many others. There may be some greater purtpose overall, but it is often not the case, IME, that the fighting is merely an obstacle in another goal. Or you could look at the famous matrix bullet-time scene, shot in loving slow-mo and lingering on every detail, even though the audience had no reason to think the characters were in any real danger. The whole final act of Predator is one long fight with no goal beyond survival.
So in most media, it seems to me, fighting is fun in and of itself, and is not merely an obstacle to a greater end.
Callan S.:
Quote
players are generally more afraid of losing their precious +2 sword than living or dying, mainly because health is often the easiest resource to replenish.
Totally agree!
Generally it's the resources the player themselves had to put in, at the very least, time and patience, that become the most precious. Hit point! Pah, you get them for free for just making a character. But +2 swords! You can't just get one of them! Scarcity = value.
However, design wise I've never been able to really figure out how to handle the first game where the players, from having just started, obviously wont have any hard won resources. Everything they have will be a freebie.
Then again, sometimes I think this is why character creation takes so damn long in alot of traditional games - it's actually putting the player through the rigours of making a character that is the initial stake of play. You can even hear that said pretty much explicitly on the rifts forums where people say they don't want the character they just spent two hours making, to die.
FrozenViking:
An interesting point is raised: Death isn't necessarily the "worst" that can happen to the characters. I remember years ago when we had the powerful characters in an AD&D game, the worst thing the GM did to us, was to overwhelm us and take our gear away. The rings, wands, +2 swords, armors, etc. all went away and we were devastated. It felt like we were starting all over again, even if we hadn't lost our characters.
What's crystallized now is that the deadliness of combat or the "realistic feel" isn't as important as to have the characters feel like they stand to lose something from not succeeding. Whether it be an objective, object, person, etc. As such I still think the system you use is still important, because if the system we use makes the characters invulnerable or the opposite (where any hit can kill them), then it also impedes proper roleplaying.
Of course as a GM I'm just as guilty as the next GM for fudging the dice if I desire a different outcome, if I think it will add drama or an interesting twist to the story. I pretty much let the story unfold with as little dice rolling as possible, but ask the players to roll, when something important is happening, where failure could have serious consequences. They can script what they would like to happen and then I play along if I like it, and add and subtract where I think it fits.
I am however a fan of preparing properly for each session, so that I have a rough outline of what could happen, so that I can improvise around that and respond to the characters actions.
stefoid:
Quote from: contracycle on July 22, 2011, 08:30:40 AM
Quote from: stefoid on July 21, 2011, 04:28:11 PM
In most fiction the tension of conflict comes from "will the character achieve what their fighting for", not will they survive the fight... Fighting for nothing more than survival is inherently boring - there has to be something more at stake in a fight, even for survival fiction.
Couldn't disagree more, in both respects. Saw Steven Segal vehicle Under Siege the other day; this is clearly full of fight scenes that have no greater purpose than survival. I'm sure there are many, many others. There may be some greater purtpose overall, but it is often not the case, IME, that the fighting is merely an obstacle in another goal. Or you could look at the famous matrix bullet-time scene, shot in loving slow-mo and lingering on every detail, even though the audience had no reason to think the characters were in any real danger. The whole final act of Predator is one long fight with no goal beyond survival.
So in most media, it seems to me, fighting is fun in and of itself, and is not merely an obstacle to a greater end.
I said most fiction. Obviously that doesn't include crappy martial arts movies that are basically the equivalent of D&D - we're here to fight and the fiction is optional. Even in survival fiction, the character will have a plan, and for the protagonist, when that character is in conflict we know they wont die. But will they execute each part of the plan successfully, or have to go to plan B? Thats what is effectively at stake. NPCs are a different matter, they can be killed off in droves.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page