Quote from: two_fishes;360565I would argue that there is never any real threat that Bruce Willis is going to be seriously incapacitated in Die Hard, nor is Indiana Jones ever in any real danger in any of his movies and any reasonably intelligent fan of those movies, even fans going in to see the movies for the first time with no foreknowledge of the characters, know this in advance. The thrill comes from the continual raising of the stakes involved, the tease of the heroes and villains almost achieving their goals only to be repeatedly confronted with obstacles until the very end of the show, and watching the cleverness/heroics of the heroes and villians in circumventing the obstacles in their way. This sort of thing is difficult to create on the fly in table-top rpgs, so it is replaced with the more straightforward tactic of putting the characters in genuine (albeit fictional) risk to create tension.

Ahh, yes, figures the forgey gobbledygook would come out eventually.  I like that you were subtle about it, at least, more subtle than you were in that ass balls post you made in Pundy's "books suck" thread. I almost didn't notice the "raising the stakes" bit slipped in there.

Is everyone completely unaware of the existence of stories where the hero(s) doesn't live in the end?  And no, I don't accept your assumption that someone totally new to Die Hard would assume, based on what occurs on the screen, that McClane was going to make it out in the end, except on the most baldly cynical academic level.  It's one of the things that still makes Die Hard one of the most classic action films ever made.

I reject this myopic Forge/Storygames view that is so pervasive that no one should ever die in a story.

Quote from: J Arcane;360569Is everyone completely unaware of the existence of stories where the hero(s) doesn't live in the end?  

Just a partial list off the top of my head:

300
Gladiator
das Boot
Excalibur
Silent Running
Sparticus

Quote from: J Arcane;360569I almost didn't notice the "raising the stakes" bit slipped in there.

Sorry to bust in on your venom-spitting cobra impression, but in the context of discussing cinema, "raising the stakes" is a commonly used term. two_fishes even goes on to say that this aspect of cinema is difficult to translate to RPGs.  But don't let that stop you from having fun.

!i!

Quote from: J Arcane;360569Is everyone completely unaware of the existence of stories where the hero(s) doesn't live in the end?

Just a partial list off the top of my head:

300
Gladiator
das Boot
Excalibur
Silent Running
Sparticus

Quote from: J Arcane;360569I reject this myopic Forge/Storygames view that is so pervasive that no one should ever die in a story.

Actually, in each of the listed movies above, the story would have been much poorer if the hero did not die.

Quote from: J Arcane;360569Is everyone completely unaware of the existence of stories where the hero(s) doesn't live in the end?  And no, I don't accept your assumption that someone totally new to Die Hard would assume, based on what occurs on the screen, that McClane was going to make it out in the end, except on the most baldly cynical academic level.  It's one of the things that still makes Die Hard one of the most classic action films ever made.

I am aware that there are plenty of movies and fiction where the hero dies. But, man, if you walked into Die Hard thinking Bruce Willis might really die, or Raiders of the Lost Ark thinking there was a real chance that Indy would eat it, then I'm sorry, you're kinda dumb.

Quote from: two_fishes;360573I am aware that there are plenty of movies and fiction where the hero dies. But, man, if you walked into Die Hard thinking Bruce Willis might really die, or Raiders of the Lost Ark thinking there was a real chance that Indy would eat it, then I'm sorry, you're kinda dumb.

I could just as easily turn it around and inform you that you're an overly cynical ass who needs to shut the fuck up and watch the movie.

It is a sad thing to me that "suspension of disbelief" is these days a deliberately avoided concept for both creator and audience.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;360571Sorry to bust in on your venom-spitting cobra impression, but in the context of discussing cinema, "raising the stakes" is a commonly used term. two_fishes even goes on to say that this aspect of cinema is difficult to translate to RPGs.  But don't let that stop you from having fun.

!i!

Last I checked, we were still talking about a roleplaying game, and the only school of though I'm aware of that likes to sling such terms at them is that one.

That and he's pretty well made his allegiances known very, very well already.  

It's a cheap shot, I'll grant you that, but I'm only here for my own amusement, and cheap shots amuse me.

Quote from: jeff37923;360572Just a partial list off the top of my head:

300
Gladiator
das Boot
Excalibur
Silent Running
Sparticus



Actually, in each of the listed movies above, the story would have been much poorer if the hero did not die.

I would say that in each of those cases it was foreknown that the heroes were going to die before the movie even started (300, Excaliber, and Spartacus being especially prevalent examples of this) or it was clear that this was a pretty likely outcome before the movie was half-way through. (though I haven't seen Silent Running so I can't speak for that one.)

Quote from: two_fishes;360577I would say that in each of those cases it was foreknown that the heroes were going to die before the movie even started (300, Excaliber, and Spartacus being especially prevalent examples of this) or it was clear that this was a pretty likely outcome before the movie was half-way through. (though I haven't seen Silent Running so I can't speak for that one.)

You are sidestepping the point.

Would those movies have been as powerful or as successful if the heroes had not died? That is the underlying question.

And I would say that the movies would have been much weaker stories if the heroes had not died because of some kind of script immunity.

Quote from: J Arcane;360575I could just as easily turn it around and inform you that you're an overly cynical ass who needs to shut the fuck up and watch the movie.

Golly, I'm sorry if my knowledge of genre conventions bugs you. I did see Die Hard and it was pretty clear to me pretty early on that neither McClane nor his wife were in any real danger. It just wasn't that type of movie.

Quote from: J Arcane;360576Last I checked, we were still talking about a roleplaying game...

But his specific use of the term was in reference to two movies in particular, and popular action films in general, not RPGs.  Someone else broached the topic of cinema, not him. Whatever his allegiances may be, I think you were seeing conspiracy where there was none.  Just throwing this out there in the interest of fairness.

Carry on.

!i!

(P.S. I've most recently encountered the term "raising the stakes" in the latest edition of HeroQuest. The game has always been highly narrative, but Robin Laws has revised the game to much more purposely model cinema, which has divided the HQ fan community significantly.)

Quote from: jeff37923;360578You are sidestepping the point.

Would those movies have been as powerful or as successful if the heroes had not died? That is the underlying question.

And I would say that the movies would have been much weaker stories if the heroes had not died because of some kind of script immunity.

I'm not sidestepping the point, I merely pointing out that there lots of movies --lots-- where the death of the main character simply isn't actually at stake. RPGs often try to replicate the tension of those movies by actually putting the characters' lives at stake, but it's clearly a kind of short-cut to the way many movies actually build tension.

Yes there are movies where the hero dies, but I would like to point out that in each of the movies you listed (with the possible exception of das boot), the hero does not die without first acheiving his goal. So the real truth is that they do have plot immunity for as long as the plot is unfinished.

Quote from: J Arcane;360569Is everyone completely unaware of the existence of stories where the hero(s) doesn't live in the end?  

two_fishes didn't say anything about "in the end." He said, "I would argue that there is never any real threat that Bruce Willis is going to be seriously incapacitated in Die Hard..." In other words, we know that, yes, he might die in the end, but we also know that he, along with other action movie heroes, sure as hell won't die in the middle.

Seanchai

Quote from: two_fishes;360565I would argue that there is never any real threat that Bruce Willis is going to be seriously incapacitated in Die Hard, nor is Indiana Jones ever in any real danger in any of his movies and any reasonably intelligent fan of those movies, even fans going in to see the movies for the first time with no foreknowledge of the characters, know this in advance. The thrill comes from the continual raising of the stakes involved, the tease of the heroes and villains almost achieving their goals only to be repeatedly confronted with obstacles until the very end of the show, and watching the cleverness/heroics of the heroes and villians in circumventing the obstacles in their way. This sort of thing is difficult to create on the fly in table-top rpgs, so it is replaced with the more straightforward tactic of putting the characters in genuine (albeit fictional) risk to create tension.

I'm a bit surprised to read this -- it seems a bit of a facil analysis of both movies and table-top games.

To start with, there are plenty of movies that put characters at genuine risk during the movie.

I would point you to several of Quinten Tarantino's recent movies including Death Proof and Inglorius Basterds. In both of these movies kill off apparently significant characters at various points during the story.

Neither of these are examples of unconsidered film-making.

Likewise, why would you say that situations where excitement in games comes from raising the stakes in terms of fictional outcomes is difficult to do in table-top games?

I can think of several games I've run (or are running), where there's not serious risk of death to the characters and the tension comes from achieving or failing-to-achieve the character's goals as tensions escalate.

What are you basing your assumptions on? Are you (possibly) unfamiliar with movies where people get killed off without accomplishing their goals (Psycho would be another classic one)? As for table-top games, why do you have trouble escalating tension from things other than risk of death?

Cheers,
-E.

Well as far as "risk" goes I think the difference between movies and games is that in the latter, a character dying could happen anytime during the game  whereas in the former, it happens during the end, if at all. Of course we are talking about a specific type of "risk", character death. IME I think that's the only kind that matters to most gamers. I've run many games (using trad systems) where the risk of death was off the table and the tension came from escalating personal/character conflicts or player vs player conflicts.

Regards,
David R