Quote from: PencilBoy99;1134202What do all of you do, particularly on the fly, to make things seem challenging, unexpected, and earned?

Random charts.

Seriously. I just roll everything up. It might be easy, it might be hard, they might get no loot, they might get a lot. Whatever the dice say.

When I just judge or decide what should turn up, it's always pretty mediocre. When I roll everything up, the dice surprise me - and then the players do. Gygax put all those charts in the DMG for a reason.

i think i understand what you are saying and it may be an outgrowth of the system you use and how it sets up flow-of-play. I use D6 system, which is largely derived from the old star wars game, and even though I don't think the Space/Fantasy/Adventure books actually mention it, I use the flow laid out in the star wars game that birthed these 3 books.

Adventures are episodes which are broken down into scenes; scenes are typically comprised of encounters, which can devolve into rounds.

A scene can be doomed from the start as an overall failure for the PC side, with the option of minor victories that mitigate what would be greater losses. Think of the battle of Hoth, the empire is going to win unless the GM is down with altering the timeline, so the question becomes how much of the rebel personel and equipment can the players get to saftey before vader enters echo base. A scene can actually be devoid of an encounter beyond some decisions made and non-combat skills rolled. Command skill rolls to quickly get people aboard transports, a decision to load or abandon the power converters in favor of cramming in more infantry etc.

A scene in D6 often involves some in-character roleplay, banter with npcs, general course of action decision making and perhaps some non-combat rolls. A scene can describe the alley they are bartering in with shady merchants for spare parts and maybe include a roll to swindle steal or intimidate. Scenes are often broken down into encounters as well like i just described, but do not collapse into combat rounds unless things go poorly.

A scene can be as simple as the bbeg's army rolling up weak defenders and burning the village, with players getting to make a few decisions about what their characters can do in that and maybe some skill checks. Or a scene might be made of a series of encounters that present problems (how to get past security fence, how to disable security systems, how to transport valuable commodity) that can "go poorly" and devolves into combat rounds (you tripped the fence alarm with your crappy roll, guards in 3...2...1...).

If you use this sort of flow structure you can give players pre-determined hard times tough choices and mandated bloody noses, with the question of how hard or bloody being up to their decision making and dice rolls.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1135779That's always been the biggest load of bullshit imaginable.  The idea that "consequences" that allow the player to go on are harsher than death is silly.  It's absolutely no coincidence that the people who always throw this one out are narrative roleplayers.

In RPGs you roleplay a character.  If you're not playing a tournament scenario, there is no endgame, no win state unless you retire the character.  The point is Roleplaying that character.  Consequences let you continue to play that character with MORE DRAMA!  A lost loved one, Oh the Humanity!  Characters fucked up, looking for revenge, spurred on by tragedy and bearing scars...those are the roles people love to play, because they're full of emotion.

But, the narrative roleplayers would have us believe that fucking up that character, giving them those scars, giving them that emotion is worse than not ever being able to play the character because they're dead.  The whole reason they WANT consequences is that drama, they want those scars, they want that emotion.

The very idea that death is better is ludicrous on its face.  Always has been, always will be.

I probably would not play my character if he has been crippled.  I would rather just ship him off to Ye Olde Tavern to retire and roll up a fresh new character.

I have a hundred different characters that I could be playing instead.

Quote from: Shasarak;1135786I probably would not play my character if he has been crippled.  I would rather just ship him off to Ye Olde Tavern to retire and roll up a fresh new character.

I have a hundred different characters that I could be playing instead.

Yeah, but permanent disability isn't what we're talking about here, that's a bit of a strawman.

Look at what Itachi pointed to...

• A dear NPC lost/hurt/kidnapped
• a hideout blown
• a rival faction getting stronger
• a valued possession damaged or corrupted
• being forced to do something against one's principles.

These are things harsher than death?  Gimme a friggin' break.  Itachi's chompin' at the bit to take his character down these roads.  The only caveat is, it must be a road he chooses.  That's why nearly all the succeed-but consequences of PbtA games are player-chosen.  They're not consequences at all.  Failure would be an actual consequence.  Let's call it what it really is...Success with the chance for you to choose what dramatic opportunity you get to roleplay your character through next.

CRKrueger is right. Harsher is not the right word. interesting is. Consequences the players can't control (or "Yes.. but" as The Exploited put) can make the game interesting, specially so when the group is smart/powerful enough or likes to play safe, and stays in control most of the time, as it takes the control out of them.

Some games have the concept built-in the resolution, as the OP notes, but it's easy to make it work in other games too: just make the rolls more difficult/set higher target numbers, and if the PCs fail, let them succeed anyway if it was a narrow miss but with a complication. Also, you can just throw a bargain their way from time to time "A narrow miss, what a shame... you know what, you may succeed if you leave behind those rations/healing potions/helmet".

It is all about complex boolean instructions: "Yes/no, but/and, with/except/between..."

If it is just a day trip where you punch your ticket and get your souvenir, well yes, that is unsatisfying. The question then is knowing your audience and reading them on how they like to struggle before they win -- and whether they care about playing out the denouement ramifications or just want the happy ending off into the sunset. People come in varieties; listen about a few of their favorite media and lightly emulate some of them. Some like serials more than movies, some like melodramas as series, others sitcom picaresques, some like vignettes... all helps shape how long to ride the tension, to tease out the antici...pation.

Shoot 'em up action guy wants guns a'blazin' combat ride, heist/survivalist wants explore & social prep scenes before a mop up guns a'blazin', drama queen wants feelings in hallways and a cathartic mortal wound while guns a'blazin', and so on.

Opaopajr just nailed it, IMO!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1135811The only caveat is, it must be a road he chooses. That's why nearly all the succeed-but consequences of PbtA games are player-chosen.

In PbtA this is shared among GM and players. Usually player chooses when it's a player move, and GM chooses when it's a GM move. Even then, there are exceptions (Act under Fire is a player one and the GM sets the complications). Anyway, it's very easy to change it and let the GM pick everything in case the group prefers that way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1135811Yeah, but permanent disability isn't what we're talking about here, that's a bit of a strawman.

Look at what Itachi pointed to...

• A dear NPC lost/hurt/kidnapped
• a hideout blown
• a rival faction getting stronger
• a valued possession damaged or corrupted
• being forced to do something against one's principles.

These are things harsher than death?  Gimme a friggin' break.

uhh... Newsflash... Its been known a long long time that hitting the players characters STUFF can and will have a big impact. Especially if the players through the characters worked hard to get that stuff. There were articles on this way back in Dragon even on various ways to do this. These things can be harsher than losing the character itself.Same with NPCs and locations.

But.

This only works on players who put more value on their characters stuff than the character. Its going to have little or no impact on a player who swaps gear and discards stuff without a second thought.  Or who treat NPCs or places as just transient things.

Personally Im somewhere in between. I tend to have my characters hang onto certain items even when better might be had simply because this was my fist magic item or the getting of the thing was so memorable. Other stuff I swap out as needed. Though usually I prefer to look for ways of just improving what I have if can.  I've also gone to alot of trouble to save NPCs that had become part of the group.

Quote from: Omega;1135829uhh... Newsflash... Its been known a long long time that hitting the players characters STUFF can and will have a big impact. Especially if the players through the characters worked hard to get that stuff. There were articles on this way back in Dragon even on various ways to do this. These things can be harsher than losing the character itself.Same with NPCs and locations.

But.

This only works on players who put more value on their characters stuff than the character. Its going to have little or no impact on a player who swaps gear and discards stuff without a second thought.  Or who treat NPCs or places as just transient things.

Personally Im somewhere in between. I tend to have my characters hang onto certain items even when better might be had simply because this was my fist magic item or the getting of the thing was so memorable. Other stuff I swap out as needed. Though usually I prefer to look for ways of just improving what I have if can.  I've also gone to alot of trouble to save NPCs that had become part of the group.

Makes sense. For a player who just shops whatever seems functional from a list, with little attachment involved, this won't work. But a player who creates a family sword with some story behind will feel the pain when it's stolen.

I think it works better for games where the PCs are grounded somehow and not just drifting vagabonds. In Beyond the Wall for eg. PCs have relatives, a community, history together. Same for Pendragon, Apocalypse World. Even in Shadowrun the group may share a safehouse in a neighbourhood with a history and liked NPCs. This is the ideal setup for it.

It could work for drifting vagabonds too, only its harder. Quick idea: pick one gear the player shopped, just one, and ask: "Draw it". When he does it, say "Nice, now NAME it". There, instant attachment.
Now you can stole it.

I suggest as a minor trick to ramp up tension that you watch what the players do that is pushing the edge of the rules and/or the tone of the game.  If you've got strong preferences about a particular thing, then you need to convey those as the GM and enforce what you convey.  For example, if you have paladins and expect the paladin to act like a paladin, then everyone needs to know roughly where you draw the line.  Nothing out of the ordinary about that.

Where this pays off as a tension technique is when you don't have strong preferences.  The tone the players set with their characters is the tone of the overall world when dealing with them.  The classic example of course is the party that never takes prisoners and gets a rep, probably gets slaughtered as soon as they are captured by someone who sees no other useful outcome.  

One of my stock answers when the players have a dispute among themselves about whether a technique is kosher or not:  "Do you want your characters to live in a world where that is the way to handle it?"  More often than not, the players don't agree with each other. Instant tension that they then keep up themselves.  All I have to do is let it happen.  Even if they do agree, they now have a collective worry--no matter which way they decide.  It may not look like this answers your original question.  But what it does is cause the players to think about restraining themselves as part of playing their characters.  This makes succeeding feel more difficult, and when they do succeed despite this "handicap" they feel as if they have achieved something.   (This technique also works for minor rules arguments, though that's neither here nor there on this topic.)

Perma killed a PC today.
Certainly made the survivors take notice!

Running The Halls of Tizun Thane and the party decided to ignore the warnings and fight a Night Thing. One PC decided to chase a Night Thing into the woods where it made short work of her.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1135811Yeah, but permanent disability isn't what we're talking about here, that's a bit of a strawman.

How is having your character crippled "a bit of a strawman"?

You were the one claiming that there is nothing worse then having your character killed, and when I give you one thing suddenly that is a strawman.

Meh.

There is one thing worse than having your character killed, and that's your not being able to actively participate in the game session. That's why players hate it so much if their character is imprisoned or crippled. But you can do that with character death, too - you get one character per campaign, once your character dies, you're no longer playing in this campaign. A bit like an actor in a tv series. Works best for short campaigns, of course.

Thats something missing from later versions of D&D. Near death and death death recovery times. Especially AD&D where going to 0 or negative HP and being revived left the character barely able to walk and unable to fight.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1135918There is one thing worse than having your character killed, and that's your not being able to actively participate in the game session. That's why players hate it so much if their character is imprisoned or crippled. But you can do that with character death, too - you get one character per campaign, once your character dies, you're no longer playing in this campaign. A bit like an actor in a tv series. Works best for short campaigns, of course.

My humble 2 cents: A cripple is good when it keeps the game interesting in some way, be it by imposing some manageable handicap, or by opening new story avenues. So a crippled warrior who becomes invalid for life is obviously bad, but a warrior who loses his arm for his arch-enemy and after a long time of training comes back as the famed "one-armed wolf", or Sekiro, is cool and interesting.