Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;810182Wouldn't it let players avoid consequences of their actions though if they just get rid of their new character and start from a new slate every time something happens they don't like? That's why.

I don't see it like that. As I said before, I wouldn't stop playing a maimed or dispossessed character, but I respect that other people may feel differently. If the player prefers to pass on the dramatic chances the character offers, is up to him or her.

QuoteOr like, making a new character that's identical to the old one with a slightly different name or something.

I don't usually allow that. Different characters must be different in some way. But anyway, with most systems is really difficult to obtain that, specially if random chargen is involved.

QuoteAlthough to be fair, if this was a normal D&D campaign it would be another thing entirely. In this case we were playing an Amber style Throne War type game where it was PvP and we had a set number of participants -- bringing in a fresh new character is like getting a second life, so to speak, which is why I didn't let them make a brand new character and they knew this going in.

Fair enough. Then I would probably rule the same.

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.

I actually come closer to your view on it, though our GM usually allows the players to choose. Which is a bit more fair, and I'd do it too. We're gearing up to end the campaign and start up a new one, switching from Pathfinder to Iron Kingdoms RPG, and I get the impressions that the IKRPG GM may be fine with us just rolling up new characters if they die (it's a lot more perma-lethal than PF).

We also are running Edge of the Empire RPG, and I think the GM for that may be more willing to let us have the option of either dying or new character making, but EotE is also more perma-lethal.

Ragequitting is a bit extreme though. He should have tried to convince you first. (It's the getting so upset that bothers me, not the quitting.)

Edit: Losing or not losing in an RPG is also a bit tough to call. In PF, we've had a few defeats on the order of "this thing is too tough and is running us roughshod! Let's retreat!" Which is a loss, but we tend to go under the theory of "what do we do next time?"

In IKRPG or EotE, the loss can be different, e.g. "you lost your safehouse" or "your business partner is screwing you over." Which is fine, and it's story development, so you figure out how to respond to it and keep the story moving.
In our group that may be a bit hard because our group isn't really good at getting together and planning. But that's how group roleplayers are - herding cats.

Quote from: CRKrueger;810143Hmm, to be fair, do you think your large percentage of one-shots/tournament games may skew that a bit?

Absolutely!

Its one of the reasons I only sorta-miss having a regular crew attached to a long term campaign. Even players who are predisposed to becoming whiny bitches can usually hold their shit together for 4 to 6 hours.

But since I've seen too much whiny bitch/entitlement behavior even at one-shot events (FLGS, cons, or friends of friends at home games), I make sure I preface all my games with "trigger warnings" about my GM style, aka my villains will strive against you, my monsters want to eat you, the gods may fuck with you* and the dice will do what they will.



* My "the gods may fuck with you" speech is important for when I run Mazes & Minotaurs because I portray the Greek Pantheon as superpowered teenage drama queens just a couple steps more rational than the Computer from Paranoia. Except for poor Athena who got cursed with wisdom.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;810182Wouldn't it let players avoid consequences of their actions though if they just get rid of their new character and start from a new slate every time something happens they don't like? That's why.

Or like, making a new character that's identical to the old one with a slightly different name or something.

For most RPGs, you'd be losing all of the advancement the previous character had: if not experience/levels, then at least knowledge, connections to NPCs, belongings (even if the new character inherits from the old, charge a stiff inheritance tax in whatever form). I prefer advancement in my RPGs and some measure of random character generation (neither is really an Amber thing?).

QuoteAlthough to be fair, if this was a normal D&D campaign it would be another thing entirely. In this case we were playing an Amber style Throne War type game where it was PvP and we had a set number of participants -- bringing in a fresh new character is like getting a second life, so to speak, which is why I didn't let them make a brand new character and they knew this going in.

What would you have done if the character had died? From the player's point of view, the character motivated by his loss that excited you may have just looked like keeping the game going at that player's expense. Sort of like being the player who goes bankrupt in Monopoly but has to keep playing on and on with no property when the game is expected to last another 12 weeks. A PvP game where one player's character becomes non-viable needs some kind of exit strategy.

The getting angry part is bad. I won't defend that, no matter the circumstances; he should have just quit without drama if that's where it was going. And you should probably be glad he quit; consciously or not, he probably would have trashed the game from then on if he'd continued.

I don't expect my characters to have no setbacks; I played a D&D character for four sessions or so who was missing one arm.  His Illusionist skills were mostly useless as were some of his Thief skills. But that was my choice (a regenerated arm was likely, whether he sat at home while I played another character or not), and it was a cooperative game so the other characters took up the slack (and he was perhaps as good without an arm as the substitute character would have been with two or more arms).

Quote from: dbm;810174That isn't "rage quitting" to me, that's shaking hands and going separate ways. I was responding to the concept of someone throwing a tantrum as their shiny got dented.

We've just heard from the DM. The player is probably on some forum somewhere saying the DM threw a tantrum and insisted he play a crippled character.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;810299We've just heard from the DM. The player is probably on some forum somewhere saying the DM threw a tantrum and insisted he play a crippled character.

I actually gave the player numerous chances to try and pick things back up -- like allying with one of three different powerful factions who could help them out. But it felt more like the player (who fancies themselves a writer) had some sort of literary arc planned out in their mind and got frustrated when it was disrupted by the consequences of their decision.

It was almost like a bad relationship, really. I bent over backwards over and over and over to try and accommodate them but they always threw it back in my face. So when they finally quit it was kind of a relief and the rest of the group was happy too.

You're right though, that player thinks it was all my fault.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;810299We've just heard from the DM. The player is probably on some forum somewhere saying the DM threw a tantrum and insisted he play a crippled character.

Sure. I'm commenting on the behaviour, not judging the person. I think we've probably all seen it, or know someone who has (think about that ).

Quote from: jhkim;809844Anyone 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?

Yeah, I like high loss rates.  To me, the questions are "how high of a loss rate", "why do they lose", and "how severe of a loss".

A loss where you couldn't do anything isn't much fun.  Losing a character every week isn't much fun.  Losing every single time isn't much fun.

Frequently escaping with your lives, while the bad guys get to advance their agenda, making your lives even more difficult but not impossible?  That can be a shitload of fun, especially if it's because of bad planning or bad luck or even not wanting to sacrifice enough for the win.

Exactly, as said in other threads. Getting killed in a fight or to a trap that could be found is one thing.

Getting killed by a trap that there is no warning at all is there is a totally different matter. Or being first level and the DM rolls on the random wilderness table and gets a dragon and just has it attack rather than using the reaction chance or any other sort of thought to mitigation.

Quote from: jhkim;809844Anyone 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?

i think a better way to approach this issue might be using different terms than absolutes like "win" and "loss". i would prefer looking at the problem as a ratio of achievements and failures. a game can still be fun as long as the ratio doesn't tipp too badly towards failure. the tipping point will of course be different for every group. achieving something at great cost can be fun, but i doubt many players enjoy having the feeling of never really accomplishing anything.

as long as you win some, it's fun to lose some.

Quote from: jhkim;810069

• The stakes can't be all-or-nothing.
  
• The stakes still need to be meaningful.
  
• Failures don't have to be absolute.
  
• Have lots of different goals actively in play.
  

i think this list sums up some good ideas that help keeping the ratio balanced. especially #4.

Interestingly, my group found that DnD 4e balanced things very well on a knife edge in terms of tension and risk of failure. We regularly came through encounters by the skin of our teeth, with only a fraction of HP remaining and significant resources expended.

I hypothesise that, whilst it's unpopular with some people, resetting to "almost full" after each encounter makes it much easier to make every encounter challenging in its own right; whilst retaining some kind of higher level attrition (healing surges, daily powers, consumable magic items) that has an impact in the longer term means that something tangible is at stake.

The problem with a traditional (non-4e) DnD attrition model is that the first encounter of the day pretty much has to be a cake-walk if there is to be a second, third etc. encounter that same day. 4e did get past that, and you could be on your knees at the end of the first encounter (fearing imminent loss, to keep it relevant) whilst having the ability to bounce back and come at a second encounter and have a similar roller coaster for every encounter. And they were roller coasters, in my personal experience, with lots of tense results.

So DnD 4e allowed you to mostly fail all day, to mangle a quote.

Quote from: dbm;810654The problem with a traditional (non-4e) DnD attrition model is that the first encounter of the day pretty much has to be a cake-walk if there is to be a second, third etc. encounter that same day. 4e did get past that, and you could be on your knees at the end of the first encounter (fearing imminent loss, to keep it relevant) whilst having the ability to bounce back and come at a second encounter and have a similar roller coaster for every encounter. And they were roller coasters, in my personal experience, with lots of tense results.

It's not a cake walk if you've lost resources that were vital to later objectives; the outcome in doubt is what it cost to win, not whether you're going to win. And the good treasure is usually with the later objectives. Bad luck or bad planning in OD&D could lead you to having to make "save or die" saving throws -- if you pass them, you're still good for the next encounter -- not to mention critical hits (admittedly a house rule) that make any encounter risky without necessarily consuming resources since they usually don't happen. And some older games distinguished fatigue (recovered after each encounter) and wounds (which persisted).

I won't go so far as to point out that roller coasters are just railroads that present an illusion of danger*, because I do like a mix of resource recovery from short rests and long rests and resources you can't access during encounters like rituals and hit dice.

*But I do like writing roller coasters are just railroads that present an illusion of danger, so I'm going to write it** again. Just don't take it personally.

**"it" being roller coasters are just railroads that present an illusion of danger. "I have said it thrice:" :teehee:

Quote from: rawma;810681It's not a cake walk if you've lost resources that were vital to later objectives

The problem with that, I would suggest, is that it's very hard for players to work out that kind of relationship and cause and effect are very far apart.  Based on my experience I would also suggest that a daily attrition rate is very much a cerebral challenge where as we found the encounter attrition model was much more of an emotional challenge.  By that I mean we weren't thinking about whether we would run out of resources later on, but worrying about whether we will die in the next couple of rounds.

QuoteI won't go so far as to point out that roller coasters are just railroads that present an illusion of danger*

You have obviously never been on the 'Mouse Trap' in Blackpool, which has thrown cars off at least twice!

That is a disingenuous parallel, even if it is amusing, as it wasn't a foregone conclusion that we would succeed, and party members did get put down and killed from time to time.  My point is we had to do everything we could (and there are some very, very skilled players round our table) to scrape a victory.  If we hadn't been playing hard people would have died regularly.  That (i.e. potentially every encounter being able to challenge immediately) is extremely unlikely to happen in a game which only has 'daily' or consumable resources like DnD for most of its history.

Quote from: dbm;810692The problem with that, I would suggest, is that it's very hard for players to work out that kind of relationship and cause and effect are very far apart.  Based on my experience I would also suggest that a daily attrition rate is very much a cerebral challenge where as we found the encounter attrition model was much more of an emotional challenge.  By that I mean we weren't thinking about whether we would run out of resources later on, but worrying about whether we will die in the next couple of rounds.

The problem I have with that is that if the risk of dying is always there, every encounter, then it's either a fake risk (nearly zero) or you don't get many encounters or the party would have died already.

The tracking of resources isn't that big a challenge if it's the big stuff: the wish scroll, the wizard's best spells, the fighter's HPs, etc; the stuff you (try to) save for major objectives (usually the early encounters in a single adventure are wandering monsters or guards and the later things have more treasure and more meaning to events in the world). I agree that if it all hinges on using arrows 5.3% too fast then it's sort of a tenuous thing. But people mostly don't track arrows and common spell components and so on.

QuoteThat is a disingenuous parallel,

Which is why I said I wouldn't go that far.

Quoteeven if it is amusing

Which is why I said it anyway, three times.

I'm not saying every single fight was on a knife edge; the GMs did mix in some lower risk challenges to change the pace and keep things fresh. But every encounter could be challenging in an immediate sense if you wanted it that way. And the majority were tough.  

But the main thrust of my point was that it's a mechanism where you can regularly feel like you are 'losing' but still pull things back.

Another interesting mechanism is the 13th Age Escalation dice which means that you always start off feeling like you are under powered in a combat encounter but by the third round the balance starts to shift and you begin to get the upper hand. Again, it make you sweat in every combat encounter.