Why do we play these games?

[atpollard]

I suppose after grilling you guys so much I ought to talk about where I'm coming from on game design soon.

How soon is "soon"?

[Leitz]

Hi. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Happy to! I've had this mindset for a while, but explaining it helps clarify and solidify; fun stuff!

If the game is just about randomly rolled characters going through random encounters and collecting random amounts of treasure then why should we not use the DMG's random dungeon tables, roll up a random party, and game alone? Doesn't that get boring after a bit?

So, this is a strawman argument honestly. I didn't say everything at all times should be randomly determined.

And I never said everything was preordained, either. So now we have two straw peeps setting aside their differences and looking at us like we're idiots. I'm used to it, though, and will press on.

Stories about people (in a very loose definition) who face challenges and setbacks. We hope they succeed, but the path is difficult and fraught with danger.

Except they can never die unexpectedly. In your stories, the stakes are never life and death. So they are fraught with danger that is not particularly dangerous.

And no less a storyteller than Cormac McCarthy said, “If it doesn't concern life and death, it's not interesting."

Likewise, Robert E. Howard: "Only the promise of death makes life worth living."

So you bring out the strawman allegation and then use "appeal to authority"? Nice... Have you considered that Conan didn't die but REH popped his own cork when he was 30? Have you considered that many books (like Conan) are part of a collection, which wouldn't be possible if the main characters always died? If you're going to accuse of one logical fallacy and then use another, can you pick something that works?

I'm inclined to agree. I mean, I have plenty of boring, low stakes "danger" in real life. Marrying my sweetheart. Buying a house. Living a life. So I don't need lots of low-stakes stuff in my fantasies or fantasy games.

Who said anything about low stakes? Keeping in mind that REH's main character didn't live up to the quote but there are Conan stories, movies, and even an RPG. Have you considered some games, like Champions, make death really difficult to achieve yet the games are very popular? I like Jack Reacher stories, there are almost 30 books, two movies, and I think they're filming the third season of the show.

It's a binary choice with a continuum of options; pure randomness, or not. "Not" is intentionality, and you can swing that sweet chariot to completely unrandom, which you seem to assume I do, or you can have something between the two which is where I live.

In a story centric game the DM sets the world and the tone, the players bring their character concepts, and together everyone weaves a fantastic tapestry that can be hung up on the (internet) wall and admired for years to come.

But that can also be done in games that have actual danger.

Without life-and-death stakes, or any random story elements, the above sounds like a clockwork story. Again, have you ever tried that?

Thanks again!

You asked: "Without life-and-death stakes, or any random story elements,", but this is where you seem to misunderstand your own argument. Just because I have some intentionality in the game doesn't preclude randomness nor life and death stakes. I'm actually not sure any longer if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with someone else. Would you mind restating the discussion we're having as you see it? That might help clarify.

To answer your question, as you've asked it twice: I've done various cooperative writing "things", but find role-playing games to have participants that are more creative and more able to roll with challenges.

[Rex]

Hi. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

If the game is just about randomly rolled characters going through random encounters and collecting random amounts of treasure then why should we not use the DMG's random dungeon tables, roll up a random party, and game alone? Doesn't that get boring after a bit?

So, this is a strawman argument honestly. I didn't say everything at all times should be randomly determined.

Stories about people (in a very loose definition) who face challenges and setbacks. We hope they succeed, but the path is difficult and fraught with danger.

Except they can never die unexpectedly. In your stories, the stakes are never life and death. So they are fraught with danger that is not particularly dangerous.

And no less a storyteller than Cormac McCarthy said, “If it doesn't concern life and death, it's not interesting."

Likewise, Robert E. Howard: "Only the promise of death makes life worth living."

I'm inclined to agree. I mean, I have plenty of boring, low stakes "danger" in real life. Marrying my sweetheart. Buying a house. Living a life. So I don't need lots of low-stakes stuff in my fantasies or fantasy games.

In a story centric game the DM sets the world and the tone, the players bring their character concepts, and together everyone weaves a fantastic tapestry that can be hung up on the (internet) wall and admired for years to come.

But that can also be done in games that have actual danger.

Without life-and-death stakes, or any random story elements, the above sounds like a clockwork story. Again, have you ever tried that?

Thanks again!

I agree with Inferno on this. If there is no risk of death, the game just doesn't interest me.

Grand stories are fine. One of my players became a baron, settled down, had a family the whole deal. But there was always the risk of death any time he went into combat and he went into combat. Several times he was scary close to death. When we talk about that campaign he never mentions settling down, being a baron, or having kids. But dam sure he mentions killing the bandit Frodi in a legendary duel that left him near death. Such is the stuff of legends.

[atpollard]

“Risk of death” is actually an interesting concept. I have a limited selection of games to draw from, mostly lots of different editions and clones of Traveller and D&D. The statistical risk of death is much more real in Traveller Combat than in D&D combat, yet very few Traveller games are combat centric. I can remember exactly ONE strictly Mercenary Traveller game in 40 years of playing (I was a player, not the GM).

With D&D, HP typically exceed damage in any given round, so the choice to continue or break off is available to the player the majority of the time. Then there is a built in buffer of DEATH isn’t really death until -10 hp. Then, even if the result is tragic … the game has Raise Dead and Resurrection magic available to convert “totally dead” to “mostly dead” [per Miracle Max]. So for D&D, it is the THREAT of POSSIBLE death more than the absolute risk of ACTUAL death that one encounters in each round of combat.

It may be different for other specific rule systems, but those were my observations with D&D and Traveller. (Most people were far more fearful of creatures that could drain a level or two). [Cloudkill against a Level 1-3 party being the exception … that was REAL fear: win initiative or the entire party is dead with no saving throw - but that was the exception rather than the rule.]

[Rex]

In the case I mentioned the rules system was HarnMaster. The combat system in HarnMaster is more lethal than any edition of D&D and probably Traveler too. You can die in combat and from infection afterwards. Lose a limb or eye, yup. Suffer brain damage, yup. Healing, even the divine and magical sort is slower and less effective. That said, I have lost plenty of characters playing variants of D&D too. Last weekend playing Hyperborea (a 1e variant) the group lost their 5th level cleric fighting a stone golem guarding a tomb. They have enough funds saved away so will probably be able to get him resurrected but if so it will leave them with no reserves for the next time. Undead that drain levels are rightly feared too as they should be.

[Leitz]

Maybe we're at a place to "agree to disagree"? Here are some things that drive me.



When I roll up a character, how are they substantially different than any other collection of similar stats?

Wargames have units with different capabilitites; attack, defense, movement. Some have special movement like airborne units, others have morale bonuses for elite units. If character creation is rolling up stats, picking a class, buying basic supplies, and maybe choosing spells, how are they different from a military unit counter on a board? I spend hours thinking about how that character is different from any other character with the same stats and class? What is their personality? Who or what do they care about? What makes them a character? If they aren't a significantly developed character, what role am I playing?


What if death isn't the worst thing that can happen to the character?

If the character has things that are important to them, what happens when those things are threatened? A character may be able to resist torture and be willing to die before giving up the secret formula. What if they got a phone call from evil people at the character's house, with the spouse and children? What if the caller promised to let the character hear each child scream as they were tortured? How long would the character resist?

I probably frustrated atpollard more than once when I ran a game for him.

Things took a randomly rolled turn in the first encounter; he was being recruited into a mercenary unit and through no fault of his the recruiter rolled a reaction of 2 (on 2d6). Which is very bad, so what to do? Toss out the game and have him create another character? Keep the character but ditch the mercenary unit; go with him being a pole dancer at a men's club?

He had an interesting character that he wanted to play, so I came up with another NPC to connect him to the unit in a different way. She was cute, but I had no real plans besides getting him to the unit. His character started to like her, and that connection became central to the game. I'm not sure what atpollard remembers about the game, or what words he may or may not have used in frustration, but here are some things I recall from 2015-2018:

- turning down a tryst because he knew the girl viewed herself poorly.
- seeing her shot and going down in a firefight.
- dreaming of their big white house together.
- meeting her husband.
- realizing that his potential father-in-law was a bad man trying to do his best for his daughters.
- realizing that one of his friends would risk her life to protect him.
- realizing that even though the PC was an accomplished sniper, killing the husband was a bad plan.
- working for the husband since it kept his lady alive.
- knowing that due to sabotage his lady's warship went into battle too early, facing 4:1 odds.
- being fully responsible for 312 newly freed and barely alive slaves while sitting between two fleets that are patriotically inclined to destroy each other.

[Inferno]

Would you mind restating the discussion we're having as you see it? That might help clarify.

Sure thing. Here goes:

Who said anything about low stakes?

Honestly, I thought you did. You said you didn't want your characters to die unexpectedly:

I spend too much time building a character for a single dice roll to destroy hours of work.

If your characters can't die unexpectedly, the stakes are not life and death. I guess I'm of the same mind as McCarthy and Howard and others: stakes that are lower than life and death just aren't interesting to me. Without a true threat of death, the challenge and the sense of achievement are greatly reduced. If I'm never in real danger, it's like playing a game you can never lose. That gets boring fast, for me. No risk, no reward. No guts, no glory.

Also, I've chosen adventure and horror genres for my escapism in order to simulate things I don't experience in real life. Whereas your examples of marrying, buying a house, living a life, etc would fit the genre of a drama, a soap opera or a romcom. I already get lots of that lower stakes stuff in real life. I can't escape real life with more real life. For me, it would be like roleplaying Bilbo in the years before Gandalf knocked on his door.

Finally, I asked about clockwork storybooks because it sounds like what you're looking for: creativity, storytelling, a social component, interaction with others, a shared world, being able to display your writing online... all without combat dice, and the threat they represent to your narrative.

So, returning to this...

I spend too much time building a character for a single dice roll to destroy hours of work.

Do you avoid combat in your games? Or do you avoid resolving combat with dice?
If the latter, how *do* you resolve combat?

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

[Scott308]

If your characters can't die unexpectedly, the stakes are not life and death. I guess I'm of the same mind as McCarthy and Howard and others: stakes that are lower than life and death just aren't interesting to me. Without a true threat of death, the challenge and the sense of achievement are greatly reduced. If I'm never in real danger, it's like playing a game you can never lose. That gets boring fast, for me. No risk, no reward. No guts, no glory.

Dying unexpectedly and not having a threat of death are completely different things. Dying unexpectedly would be more along the lines of, "You make your way toward the cave entrance, attempting to be as quiet as you can in order to not alert the goblins of your presence. As you are coordinating your entry, you realize the fighter, who just made the climb up the side of the mountain in full armor and carrying extra gear, is sweating profusely, his skin ashen. He starts rubbing his chest, complaining about a sudden sharp pain when he collapses. You quickly tend to him, but he is no longer breathing. He is dead." Getting inside the cave and dying in combat is not dying unexpectedly, yet there is still risk of death. It is no fun when your character dies but there seems to be nothing you could do to avoid it.

Here's a perfect example. Ogre Mage and Hotgoblin can back me up on this- they were at the table when it happened. The three of us met at the first Gamehole (well, OM and HG knew each other before that), along with another friend we made named Tom, playing in Frank Mentzer's Saturday night game.

We got together again at Gary Con, the first time for the four of us, and again got into Frank's Saturday night game. Frank Mentzer, if you don't know, wrote BECMI. He's an old school DM. So, we start going through this swamp, and Tom is playing a dwarf. It's hard going for the shorter characters, but his dwarf has Boots of Levitating, so he ties a rope around himself and activates the boots, having one of the other PCs tie the other end to their saddle, and he floats along like a balloon, being pulled by the horse. A few minutes after he starts doing this, Frank asks Tom to roll a d20, so Tom does. Frank confers with Tom quietly for a few moments (he might have had him step away from the table to talk, I don't remember), then continues with the game.

We're traveling for a while, and about 30 minutes after Tom rolled the die, we hear a splash behind us. The dwarf has dropped his shield. Well, turns out, once he levitated, he was above the vegetation so a catoblepas saw him, but more importantly, the dwarf saw the catoblepas. The die Tom rolled was a save vs death for the catoblepas' death gaze...which he failed, so for the last half hour we'd been dragging around this floating corpse and we had no idea. Probably wouldn't have known for a while yet if Frank hadn't made us check on the dwarf by having equipment fall into the water.

So, we're about an hour into the game and Tom has been "playing" a dead character for a good chunk of it. He really didn't get much opportunity to do anything yet. But, we're high enough level characters that the cleric can cast Raise Dead. The only problem is that we need to find a safe place to do that, and that's not easy to do. The adventure was called "Death in the Swamp" for a reason, after all. Anyway, about an hour later, we finally get an opportunity where we have space and aren't in combat, so the cleric casts the spell. The dwarf had a CON of 17, so there was a 98% chance of making his Resurrection Survival Roll. The dice hit the table- 00! Totally and irreversibly dead!

This was the Saturday night game from a special guest, which was a hard ticket to get. He was playing with a group of friends. Tom's highly anticipated four hour convention game consisted of him mostly sitting next to Frank and looking things up occasionally, but mostly just spectating. That is what happens when death can occur unexpectedly. It was not fun. It wasn't even really game-related. We never knew exactly what happened until Frank told us after the game. His character might as well have just had a heart attack and dropped dead. It would have been almost as relevant or able to be anticipated as what actually did occur.

[Inferno]

Dying unexpectedly and not having a threat of death are completely different things.

Hey Scott!
Good to see you.

I agree with you. I think this may be semantics. By "unexpectedly," I meant a threat of death that is out of the player's control.

Leitz may well choose to have his PC die, if it fits his narrative. I was trying to describe a situation where unplanned PC death may occur. So I landed on "unexpectedly," which was a less than perfect choice of words.

[Scott308]

I know my characters have done stupid things, so if they die as a result, I pretty much expect it. If my character gets into a fight or puts themselves in a dangerous situation and bad consequences follow, well, again, that's ok. And depending on the game, just playing the game may be enough to put your character into a dangerous situation. A few years ago, we played as soldiers in-country during the Vietnam War, which was in and of itself a deadly situation. But it fit the game. As soldiers, we knew that we could be killed at any time and we may never even know it was happening until the bomb went off, killing the point man who missed the tripwire.

For most games, something that comes out of the blue and kills your character with no way to prepare for or avoid it- that's not what I sign up for. Nobody wants "Rocks fall, you die." I know your games have a (well-deserved) reputation for being deadly, but it never feels like there was absolutely nothing I could have done to avoid it. Actually, that's not true. There were a number of times where there really was no way for us to avoid death, because it was a plot point, like when we were torn apart by werewolves but then came back as lycanthropes ourselves. Yes, we died, but death was only temporary and it presented us with new problems to solve and opportunities to roleplay. As long as it's something I can potentially avoid, or it's a plot device that moves the story along, I'm ok if I don't avoid character death. When it feels random or capricious, I'm out.

[Leitz]

A Facebook Funny that showed up today:

DND allows you to play out even the most impossible fantasies, such as:
- speaking multiple languages
- travelling with friends
- having money
- being charismatic
- having a chance at seduction
- getting a long rest
- waking up completely healthy

[dmw71]

[SterlingBlake]

A Facebook Funny that showed up today

I realize that's meant as a joke, but it does end up highlighting some of the differences between our reasons for playing these sorts of games.

A couple of days ago this far-more-eloquent-than-I-could-manage version of my take on my intentions when playing the game showed up: http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... aming.html

[Leitz]

A Facebook Funny that showed up today

I realize that's meant as a joke, but it does end up highlighting some of the differences between our reasons for playing these sorts of games.

A couple of days ago this far-more-eloquent-than-I-could-manage version of my take on my intentions when playing the game showed up: http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... aming.html

While eloquent, opinionated, overly verbose, and laughable, it was at least well written. For that I give due respect.

The crux of the matter is simple, the last sentence in his first paragraph exposes his bias and ends the validity of his argument: "You see, I wanted to end any confusion over how I (as a designer) intended my games to be played."

A game is a product and he can sell it or give it away, totally up to him. His intentions are codified in the rules and explanations, and as they are his creation he can include whatever intentions he wants. However, once the product is given to the customer, the author's intentions, opinions, desires, et al have no value. The customer can play their game the way they want. They can bask in the author's intentions or they can totally ignore them. They can fit the game to their group's players and personalities however they see fit.

Because you recommended it, I tried to give the article an honest read. However, disgust overtook me before the blue edition cover. I'm sorry, it's just pointless. Yes, the author can have their game style, we as a community are happy to give them that right. However, we as a community expect the same in return. Authors aren't all knowing, they have limited time, limited page count, and their own preferences to balance. The players, as customers, are the final arbiter of what is best for them.

I want everyone to play whatever style of game they like and as I intimated earlier, I'm happy to agree to disagree on style preferences. This is a fun thread, but it has gotten long enough that I'm asked things I've already answered and people are responding to statements that I haven't made.

Thank you for recognizing the humor in what I posted! To be honest, teenage me would say it's a bit too accurate to be funny. Current me chuckles, though, so it's all good.

[SterlingBlake]

Thanks, Leitz. I think you're right; everything has had been said and everyone had said it.

I appreciate you giving the author a read. I quite like what he has to say, but I won't rebut your commentary because, as you say, I think we're done with this thread. I appreciate your good humor and attitude on a subject which might have easily turned adversarial if any of us lacked sufficient sportsmanship to keep it somewhat academic.

Cheers!

[atpollard]

A Facebook Funny that showed up today

I realize that's meant as a joke, but it does end up highlighting some of the differences between our reasons for playing these sorts of games.

A couple of days ago this far-more-eloquent-than-I-could-manage version of my take on my intentions when playing the game showed up: http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... aming.html

One simple and direct question related to the article and its stated purpose for “Classic Adventure Games” (which you claim is why YOU play) …

Have you ever played a character from level 1 to level 20 in a campaign as the article implies is the “goal” of the game players and designers?

[Rex]

A Facebook Funny that showed up today

I realize that's meant as a joke, but it does end up highlighting some of the differences between our reasons for playing these sorts of games.

A couple of days ago this far-more-eloquent-than-I-could-manage version of my take on my intentions when playing the game showed up: http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... aming.html

One simple and direct question related to the article and its stated purpose for “Classic Adventure Games” (which you claim is why YOU play) …

Have you ever played a character from level 1 to level 20 in a campaign as the article implies is the “goal” of the game players and designers?

I think E. Gary Gygax qualifies as one of the 2 game designers and in his campaigns and his characters the highest level ever played was 14th. Not Sure about Dave Arneson's Blackmoore campaign but I doubt many if any ever made 20th level.

[atpollard]

One simple and direct question related to the article and its stated purpose for “Classic Adventure Games” (which you claim is why YOU play) …

Have you ever played a character from level 1 to level 20 in a campaign as the article implies is the “goal” of the game players and designers?

I think E. Gary Gygax qualifies as one of the 2 game designers and in his campaigns and his characters the highest level ever played was 14th. Not Sure about Dave Arneson's Blackmoore campaign but I doubt many if any ever made 20th level.

If you read the blog … which I only reference because SterlingBlake claims it describes why he plays … the premise is that CAG (Classic Adventure Games) have as their goal a sustained campaign from Level 1 to Level (VERY HIGH) with the Companion and Immortal books of the “Basic” rules an attempt to add that to a system less suitable (too simplified) to sustain the LONG CAMPAIGN needed.

In THAT spirit, I was simply wondering whether the idea of adventuring from Level 1 to Level 20 (Companion territory) in a single campaign was an actual “reality” or more of an idealized “hypothetical possibility”. Frankly, my observation on PbP games is that the concept of LEVEL ADVANCEMENT is largely a wasted “theoretical possibility” given the duration of PbP games on US (and other places). The actual attrition rate is far too high (in games and players).

So I was just looking for data from the world beyond PbP.

So the question is not “what is the highest level played”, but “what is the highest level reached from level 1 in a single campaign”. Saving a pet character to transfer from game to game is not what the blog was describing. Rolling a mid-level character and playing through the GDQ module series is not what the blog was describing. I am just curious if the blog describes a reality or an ideal fantasy.

[SterlingBlake]

A Facebook Funny that showed up today

I realize that's meant as a joke, but it does end up highlighting some of the differences between our reasons for playing these sorts of games.

A couple of days ago this far-more-eloquent-than-I-could-manage version of my take on my intentions when playing the game showed up: http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... aming.html

One simple and direct question related to the article and its stated purpose for “Classic Adventure Games” (which you claim is why YOU play) …

Have you ever played a character from level 1 to level 20 in a campaign as the article implies is the “goal” of the game players and designers?

No, not to 20th, only into the low teens. It is my goal as a player to advance my character to name level as quickly as possible in order to enter the "domain" phase of play then camp out there for the long term. I'm not particularly interested in higher level "adventures." The article I pointed to does not imply the goal of playing the game is not to reach 20th level (or 29th as the AD&D PH provides details for), but explicitly states the goal:

the overall objective/goal of fantasy adventure gaming is long term campaign play...sustained play in an enduring fantasy environment, created by the DM and impacted by the players.

(The blog author's emphases.)

[atpollard]

No, not to 20th, only into the low teens. It is my goal as a player to advance my character to name level as quickly as possible in order to enter the "domain" phase of play then camp out there for the long term. I'm not particularly interested in higher level "adventures." The article I pointed to does not imply the goal of playing the game is not to reach 20th level (or 29th as the AD&D PH provides details for), but explicitly states the goal:

the overall objective/goal of fantasy adventure gaming is long term campaign play...sustained play in an enduring fantasy environment, created by the DM and impacted by the players.

(The blog author's emphases.)

Thank you for the response.

I just selected 20 out of thin air to have a specific number greater than name level [probably subconsciously influenced by the die … 12 is too low and 100 is too high].

If I could ask a follow up question based on curiosity spurred by your answer …

You state that you get to name level “as quickly as possible” and are not interest in “higher level ‘adventures’” (implying no “Dungeon Crawl” type “adventures”). Since you “camp out” in the domain phase of the game, not ‘adventuring’, what sort of things DO you do on an extended campaign basis? In other words, what did you rush through adventuring to finally get to DO for the long term?

(It would seem to imply that you enjoy a form of “world building” - or at least ‘domain building’ - as your preferred style of “fun”.)