After a vacation of a lot of mostly non-RPG-gaming, I was thinking about the frequency of losing in RPGs. In board and card games, players lose a lot - like 75% of the time in a four-player. However, the games are still fun. Even in a cooperative game like Eldritch Horror or Shadows Over Camelot, it's common for there to be a more than 50% loss rate.

Even for old-school sandbox or Call of Cthulhu, my experience is that's kind of a lot. Characters may be hurt or die over the course of things, but it is definitely uncommon for an adventure to end with the PCs outright losing - such as running away with the mission unaccomplished and/or the main bad guy alive and triumphant. That's even built into many module series from the old days - where the next module can only be gotten to if the players succeed in the main mission.

It's been on my mind since in a number of times in my current beer-and-pretzels-y D&D5 campaign, we've teetered on the edge of TPK rather than just backing off and giving up the mission.  We tend to mock the tendency of PCs to charge off to their death rather than run away - but I think this is pushed by GMs just as much as players. GMs and module designers don't expect or deal well with having the PCs go away without finishing.

Anyone have experience with a high loss rate that was still fun? Were there things that it needed to help keep things upbeat?

Alternately, what do you think might make a high loss rate still fun to play, hypothetically?

For card games and board games still being fun despite a high loss rate, it's because they're short games that you pack up and can forget about, and it's just as easy to start a brand new game from a clean slate.

For RPGs, you deal with the consequences for a long time, and when you get TPK'd that's a lot of time down the drain.

Now, some people might be fine with that too since the process of playing the game and roleplaying itself may be a reward as opposed to the success or defeat of the character.

As for myself, I haven't decided. Some say high lethality helps games become immersive, others say it just encourages players to think of their characters as disposable stat blocks.

Depends on game premise & chargen length. Like, Paranoia is geared for lots of death. But other campaigns want to last longer and have the option for a different grade & urgency of stakes, like a more social, explorational sandbox. And then there's those 2+ hour chargen "lovingly overcrafted" nightmares — the last thing you want is kill another whole gaming session on flipping through books and integrated backstory.

edit: I want to run a Crusade/Jihad campaign filled with mass combat battles and espionage. Pick a side, scribble up your character, go on an actual war campaign, try to find personal meaning and survive. It'd have to be a fast chargen affair, like 3d6 straight down.

In games like Call of Cthulhu or most superhero games you could argue that the players are on the losing side for most of the adventure in that while the investigation is in progress the bad guys are a few steps ahead of the players characters who are scrambling trying to catch up.

Also the notion of the players winning in the end is an artifact of the fact that the adventure often ends at the point the characters win. Say the villain's scheme involves doing A,B and C and the characters try to stop the villain at each stage, if the characters win at stage A, the adventure will tend to end there, stages B and C never happen. If the villain wins stage a the events move on to stage B. If the characters win at stage B the adventure tends to end there with the heroes winning.

Of course this analysis does not extend to all genres.

Speaking of "losing," this reminds me an alignment question I had.

In modern D&D, you can change your alignment, no problem. In old D&D, you got hit with a level punishment. Why? Was there some sort of flavorful justification for it like the character being confused and disoriented with his place in the world now, or was it just about enforcing rigid adherence to the alignment?

Was this kind of "losing" considered fun and necessary for the old alignment system, or is everybody just glad to be rid of it?

Looking at the rules for most games I play/run it seems like a fair amount of failure is to be expected if the PCs actually go out and engage the world and try to do anything interesting... unless the GM is pulling punches. I've played with GMs like that and I did not enjoy it.
I'm also not that interested in multi-year campaigns or power progression... but I certainly don't feel like my PCs is 'disposable'... even in a DCC 'funnel'.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809847For RPGs, you deal with the consequences for a long time, and when you get TPK'd that's a lot of time down the drain.

I just can't see it that way... that somehow I've wasted time playing something I enjoyed just because the character failed his mission or got killed. For me it's the journey, not the destination.
But then, I'm generally not big on character 'builds' or power progression/zero to hero type play... or stuff with really involved PC generation.

Quote from: Simlasa;809857Looking at the rules for most games I play/run it seems like a fair amount of failure is to be expected if the PCs actually go out and engage the world and try to do anything interesting... unless the GM is pulling punches. I've played with GMs like that and I did not enjoy it.

I just can't see it that way... that somehow I've wasted time playing something I enjoyed just because the character failed his mission or got killed. For me it's the journey, not the destination.
But then, I'm generally not big on character 'builds' or power progression/zero to hero type play... or stuff with really involved PC generation.

I agree, but that's just how I've seen it presented when people talk about avoiding TPKs as DMs. Usually they fudge up a way for the party to survive, but get captured and thrown in jail, or get crippled, or have their objective fail and the setting impacted negatively instead. In some ways that's even worse than dying because you get stuck with the consequences instead of just rolling up again.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809858In some ways that's even worse than dying because you get stuck with the consequences instead of just rolling up again.

Yes, and that's why I generally prefer it to death; death is too much of a "get out of consequences free" card. I'd rather the characters have to see what happened because of their failure, and deal with that.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809858Usually they fudge up a way for the party to survive, but get captured and thrown in jail, or get crippled, or have their objective fail and the setting impacted negatively instead. In some ways that's even worse than dying because you get stuck with the consequences instead of just rolling up again.

I'm not equating failure with death/TPK... death is just one form it can take. But for the failure to matter it ought to sting somewhat... something should be lost.
We didn't get back to the town in time to stop massacre... we didn't stop the cultists from handing over our daughters to the Deep Ones so they suffered a 'fate worse than death'... Ming the Merciless got away and murdered our favorite cabin boy on his way to the transporter.
From what I've experienced the GMs who won't kill PCs don't seem to like harsh consequences either... so 'failure' ends up being a minor inconvenience, hand-waved away... a 'do-over'.

Quote from: Ladybird;809860Yes, and that's why I generally prefer it to death; death is too much of a "get out of consequences free" card. I'd rather the characters have to see what happened because of their failure, and deal with that.

I actually had a player ragequit the game because of that once.

They got into an unwinnable battle, lost a limb, and got downed. So instead of killing him, I had the bad guy take his best weapons and the leave him for dead.

I thought it would be a good quest hook for them to pursue revenge against this bad guy since it was personal now, but he wanted to just roll up a new character. When I said no, he went apeshit and quit.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809862I actually had a player ragequit the game because of that once.

I've seen similar. For some Players the equipment IS the character.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809862I actually had a player ragequit the game because of that once.

They got into an unwinnable battle, lost a limb, and got downed. So instead of killing him, I had the bad guy take his best weapons and the leave him for dead.

I thought it would be a good quest hook for them to pursue revenge against this bad guy since it was personal now, but he wanted to just roll up a new character. When I said no, he went apeshit and quit.

My WFRP character has been "slightly possessed" by a demonic sword for a while; I've had a blast playing it. I'm fully aware the sword is evil, but as far as he's concerned, it's saved his life more often than the rest of the party. He can trust the sword. The elf? Not so much.

In our last session, his arm got crippled in a fight with the rest of the party and some elven mages, who told him his sword was evil and tried to take it from him. It's very likely he's going to lose his arm, realise what he's been doing, and go Slayer.

I can't wait. I'm really looking forward to it. It's gonna be a blast.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809862I actually had a player ragequit the game because of that once.

I think it comes from a sense of entitlement that they get to play the character they crafted and built up, rather than one they see as hobbled by the GM.

The original question is also interesting re the other recent threads on Fate. Fate assumes you will have a number of failures on your way to victory, and that does seem to be a mental stumbling block for many players of more traditional dungeon oriented games.

I think there are two factors at play, at least:

• An over use of the 'save the world' trope - if you fail, everything is lost so the game is usually rigged to promote success in the end. This bleeds down into requiring success in the medium and short term goals that build up to saving the world in the end.
• A common style of play where the game is about politics and manoeuvre as much or more than action adventure. In those kinds of games, death is a bigger impact as you can create another PC but you struggle to credibly insert them back into the social and political network which the game hangs on.

I'm sure there is also a significant block of players who are short on prep time so they make use of modules and the like (I know I fit in that category) and modules are typically designed so you can use as much as possible of it. If you spend money on a module where the party solves the adventure in the first scene, gets mostly wiped out 25% of the way through or some such you might feel short changed. In more home-build play these things are less of an issue in my experience (a friend has more prep time than me and his adventures are consequently much more free wheeling).

Good points raised all around. There are indeed various expectations of loss from players - some'd rather prefer to lose a character entirely, than play a one they consider "gimped." I myself'd rather prefer to play a character without an arm, than loose him to death - while his alive, the story continues, and well, there's a cool story about loosing an arm he can pass down to new characters he meets, a warning perhaps or such. I'm more than glad to oblige the players who dislike playing weakened characters with a sword to the face.

There are indeed also degrees of loss - if the campaign, as noted, is about saving the world, failing means it's game over for everything. If an adventure's focused on saving the village, running away is a viable option. It has been talked a lot why players will usually refuse to cut their losses - from the influence of video games and saves, to the influence of railroady GMs. Ultimately, I'd myself propose a simple solution I think might work - tell the players up front "Feel free to let go of any "quest" in the middle of it, if you think you'll loose more than you can earn. I'll not pull punches." It helps if you have a reputation as a tough GM.

Quote from: Ladybird;809868My WFRP character has been "slightly possessed" by a demonic sword for a while; I've had a blast playing it. I'm fully aware the sword is evil, but as far as he's concerned, it's saved his life more often than the rest of the party. He can trust the sword. The elf? Not so much.

In our last session, his arm got crippled in a fight with the rest of the party and some elven mages, who told him his sword was evil and tried to take it from him. It's very likely he's going to lose his arm, realise what he's been doing, and go Slayer.

I can't wait. I'm really looking forward to it. It's gonna be a blast.

I can relate to that. The first magical sword my character in Warhammer got...he gave back to the family of a knight it belonged to. And then went back to search for the half - vampire mistress that has been haunting his dreams.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809862I actually had a player ragequit the game because of that once.

I never understand people who do this sort of thing.