Over on rpg.net there was a discussion about MMOs, and how companies behind them were moving from a balance of risk and reward to a pure reward model.

It occurs to me that's a path rpgs have already walked.

Back when I started out in the early 1980s, to get stuff in game you had to risk stuff in game.  Characters could die, characters were not necessarily anyone special, you became special by risking and winning.

Over time, not so much.  Nowadays increasingly characters start special, they start with the reward, and as the game goes on they get more reward because drama point mechanics, ubercharacters and challenge ratings help ensure that they are never really risking anything.  There is the illusion of risk, but no actual risk.

It strikes me as being linked to another design change.  Back in the early 1980s, playing in a cool setting was the hook.  You were a guy making a living in space (Traveller), a cowboy (Boot Hill), a social climbing musketeer (Flashing Blades) and so on.  You weren't anyone that special, but the world you were in was special.

Again, now, not so much.  The model now seems more Exaltedesque, in which the world may or may not be special but you sure as hell are.  I think White Wolf helped with this shift a lot, the White Wolf paradigm in many ways is that you are special, you are marked out for greatness.  The idea that you are nobody special until you prove you are, and maybe that you're just an ordinary guy in an interesting place, the dominant paradigm of the early 1980s, that's not really around so much now.

So, what causes it?  I think there is definitely a place for you are special, there is no special virtue in starting out crap in every game, but having every game increasingly having you as special loses something.  We have the reward, but not the risk.  

Thoughts?

I kinda don't agree. Or at least, I don't agree that risks and rewards must be absolutely quantified such that risk = permanent character death and reward = things gained as compensation for facing risk as defined above.

The issue is - in a serialized adventure type game - in order to create a successful experience for everyone playing (and a good game) you have to be able to allow for loss without totally ruining or ending the game. This is a succesful time-tested model. Every MMO (City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, etc) allows for some form of respawn if endangering the 'life' of a character or playing piece is one of the possible consequences of the game.  

Thus, things like resurrection/raise dead/re-spawn etc are good things.

The obvious RPG example is D&D, (with it's raise dead spells, but more importantly the -10 mechanic), but let's use another, newer RPG that has a similar rule.

In Faery's Tale: When you run out of Essence, your character falls into a magical sleep and can't be harmed while it regenerates. Then your'e back up in the next scene to try again.

This is important, I think. Yeah, even if it is unrealistic!

Risks should be real, but not permanent end states. And rewards should be rewards that actually satisfy and interest players.

What's wrong with rolling up a new character?

Faery Tale is a bit of a special case, it's designed in part with kids in mind and I wouldn't personally fancy telling little Timmy that his faery is dead and gone forever.

But in DnD, the ease of resurrection is one reason I don't play the game.  It's also almost unique to DnD, hardly any other games have the ease of resurrection that DnD does.  It's actually quite atypical in that.

For me the resurrection spoils the game partly because death is just a minor inconvenience, and partly because it makes the setting not make sense (the king is dead, oh, no, he's just been resurrected).

I certainly don't think resurrection in game is necessary for good gaming, I haven't played a game with that setup in over 20 years and I am hardly alone in that.

That said, death need not be the only risk by any means, but if you can't have a genuine setback then there is no genuine risk, and certainly for me something is lost then.

For me, easy resurrection is a game killer, if I can't retcon it out then I would play something else.  I suspect that's not actually that uncommon an attitude, the ease of resurrection is one of the most common complaints about DnD sometimes even from its fans.  One friend of mine who played it complained of a cartoon like quality intruding.  Certainly it doesn't much evoke fantasy fiction in which typically one guy coming back is a big deal indeed, not a matter of economics.

Quote from: Abyssal MawEvery MMO (City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, etc) allows for some form of respawn if endangering the 'life' of a character or playing piece is one of the possible consequences of the game.

This is actually one of the key reasons most MMOs don't interest me.  No risk, thus ultimately time spent playing is the most important factor over skill or anything else.  It rewards dull grinding over good play.

You, Sir, should indeed play Traveller.

QuoteWhat's wrong with rolling up a new character?

Any D&D player will tell you "I invested a lot of time and effort building my guy, I don't want to restart from scratch."

If the build stage isn't something you get into (or something your favorite game) than obviously, you probably won't see the point of some kind of respawn.

I also freely admit- respawning characters is totally, totally unrealistic. If realism is important to someone, then this will bug the hell out of them. I suspect that is kinda where you are coming from.  

So I don't blame you for disliking the concept, but I want to explain how managed risk (i.e respawn) appeals to so many people. I think there are several reasons players find respawn/resurrect/raise dead, etc to make for a good gaming situation.

1) If you're playing the same character from week to week in a long campaign, there's risk. Because even if you stay safe one week, you may be in trouble next week. The laws of probability are iron-clad. Sooner or later the dice go against you. This allows you to keep going without ending the game.

2) If your'e playing a game about dangerous situations where your character is in battle there is (again) more danger.

3) If your'e playing a game in which your character becomes more detailed and interesting over time as a consequence of playing, (levelling up or gaining build points or whatever) you want to keep him. You put a lot of work into that guy.  

4) If the game is played where characters usually form a team or group, the danger of one character death shutting down the game for everyone else is not good. There has to be some way to keep everyone together.

5) If the game involves ramping levels of intensity (ie, levels or build points or what-have-you) and one character dies, the replacement character may be at a disadvantage. This is not as fun as keeping the team together.

6) (Totally just my opinion) new character syndrome. You bring in the new character and the rest of the party isn't used to your new guy and has a hard time fitting him into the party in character.  I say this because I had it personally happen to one of my characters.

7) You start with one character type and you find him growing in an interesting way as he levels up or gets more build points. You are loathe to start anew when the way this character is developing mechanically is of interest in and of itself.

Quote from: BalbinusThis is actually one of the key reasons most MMOs don't interest me.  No risk, thus ultimately time spent playing is the most important factor over skill or anything else.  It rewards dull grinding over good play.

(this is off topic but I had to respond:)

There are games like Guild Wars that can kind of address such things. In Guild Wars- you can start out as the top level if you want to, or you are expected to reach the max level after experiencing abou 15-40% of the game. After that, it's all about using your skills together in various missions. Very little grinding, much more about managing and coordinating strategy and tactics using your skills like CCGs.

Quote from: BalbinusCharacters could die, characters were not necessarily anyone special, you became special by risking and winning.

Over time, not so much.  Nowadays increasingly characters start special, they start with the reward, and as the game goes on they get more reward because drama point mechanics, ubercharacters and challenge ratings help ensure that they are never really risking anything.  There is the illusion of risk, but no actual risk.

I agree - ironically, one of the most basic and effective risk-modeling (and excitement-generating) system-mechanics is the actual presence of risk for a character.  If, for example, combat is truly dangerous and even often deadly, then tension/interest/focus/pulse-pounding comes along with it.  The simple "my character may die, therefore I am very invested in gameplay," was what I cut my teeth on, too, and really why I got into the hobby in the first place.  Heroism as weighing duty/reward/whatever against almost-certain-death.  Or not, if you want to live another day.

As for special-ness, it becomes even more imperative that as characters grow and don the mantle of in-campaign legends (and become special), for combat, risk and, well, just "death" to remain present as real possibilities.  Otherwise, there's that not-so-fun sustained point the group reaches around mid-campaign when the dynamic changes from nail-biting adventure to this sort of post-coital power and goodie acquisition process. :shrug:

Quote from: Abyssal Maw(this is off topic but I had to respond:)

There are games like Guild Wars that can kind of address such things. In Guild Wars- you can start out as the top level if you want to, or you are expected to reach the max level after experiencing abou 15-40% of the game. After that, it's all about using your skills together in various missions. Very little grinding, much more about managing and coordinating strategy and tactics using your skills like CCGs.

Thanks for the tip, off topic or not I'll check it out.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw5) If the game involves ramping levels of intensity (ie, levels or build points or what-have-you) and one character dies, the replacement character may be at a disadvantage. This is not as fun as keeping the team together.

6) (Totally just my opinion) new character syndrome. You bring in the new character and the rest of the party isn't used to your new guy and has a hard time fitting him into the party in character.  I say this because I had it personally happen to one of my characters.

I think this is very much a GM question.  You can jigger most systems so that a new character coming in mid-game can be as advantageously tricked-out as the others.

Also, character deaths can be fantastic for games.  There's nothing tastier than a recurring villain that actually snuffed out a couple of your companions to stir up motivation.  

Quote from: ReimdallIf, for example, combat is truly dangerous and even often deadly, then tension/interest/focus/pulse-pounding comes along with it.  The simple "my character may die, therefore I am very invested in gameplay," was what I cut my teeth on, too, and really why I got into the hobby in the first place.

Yup, this is where I differ from Abyssal, the trouble with no risk is that I think it often leads to flabby games, if you'll eventually succeed whatever you do then nothing you do really matters.  If however a bad plan means your character could die, what you do really does matter.

Also, as you say, it generates tension.  When a while back a friend ran ODnD with gloves off, my guy got in a fight and it was one of the tensest I've been in in ages.  One good blow and my first level character was dead, I knew he wouldn't fudge, and though mechanically it wasn't that interesting the fact my character was genuinely fighting for his life made it exciting.

With restore points/resurrection, I will always succeed given enough time.  So I don't really care.  

And the thing is, until quite recently resurrections even in DnD were much rarer.  Back in the day when I played DnD you had to get fairly decent level (8th I think) before anyone had access to a raise dead spell and even then if bits were hacked off there wasn't much point in the raising.  Old style DnD was pretty deadly.

Quote from: ReimdallI think this is very much a GM question.  You can jigger most systems so that a new character coming in mid-game can be as advantageously tricked-out as the others.

Also, character deaths can be fantastic for games.  There's nothing tastier than a recurring villain that actually snuffed out a couple of your companions to stir up motivation.  

Agree about the power level thing. Your'e right.

I also see your point on character death- but I like to leave it up to the player. Like if one of my characters dies, I like making a new character just because I love making new characters.

But in my current game where I GM- when PCs die, they have to declare right then and there "do you want the party to try and raise you or do you want to come in and make a new guy"

I think either answer is ok, but I want to leave that up to the player.

Quote from: BalbinusAnd the thing is, until quite recently resurrections even in DnD were much rarer.  Back in the day when I played DnD you had to get fairly decent level (8th I think) before anyone had access to a raise dead spell and even then if bits were hacked off there wasn't much point in the raising.  Old style DnD was pretty deadly.

Yah, magical healing is kind of a bugaboo for me, too.  Especially, coming back to life. That sort of thing, if desired, should be major quest material, or at least a little bit more intense than going down the street to Ressurection-n-Go.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut in my current game where I GM- when PCs die, they have to declare right then and there "do you want the party to try and raise you or do you want to come in and make a new guy"

I see your point.  If the expectation from players is "I'm going to get a chance to re-boot," then destroying that expectation mid-game would be some Bad GM Behavior.

Real men play Harnmaster though. Real men, because Character Generation takes about one and a half hours, and he can be snuffed out by wound festering or bleeding through any serious wound.

I love it.