Over in this thread here :

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6753

QuoteJames McMurray wrote:
Scaring the players with metagame threats is a lazy man's alternative to scaring the characters with in game threats.

Now I find this very interesting. Truth be told although I have had some issues with metagame threats it does seem to be the most effective way of "scaring" the players and by doing so their characters. So folks, what do you think of metagame threats and are your ingame threats as effective as the meta threats. (Also, let's try not to make this a, "So if you know your player was abused then you'll use it in the game" kind of thread)

Regards,
David R

I ... don't see the dividing line here.

An in-game threat is a threat to take away some fictional resource that the players are attached to (i.e. their character's lives) when that threat is interpreted as danger in the fiction.

A meta-game threat is a threat to take away some fictional resource that the players are attached to (i.e. their character's lives) when that threat is interpreted as danger at the gaming table.

Suppose I say "The spectre reaches for you, and you feel your vigor, your experience ... the very essence of who you are and what you've accomplished ... becoming grey and pale and meaningless."  That could be some pretty scary shit, in-fiction!  Naturally, the mechanics would back that up with some level-draining (just as the mechanics back up the fiction of "being pierced by dozens of spears" with the loss of the character), but if the players are paying attention to the fictional elements of the threat then it's no longer a meta-game threat ... is it?

Seems to me that it's all in the eye of the beholder.  Yes, people tend to interpret level-drains in a meta way, and bloodshed in an in-fiction way, because the fictional elements of bloodshed are easier (and more fun!) to envision ... but does that mean that they're fundamentally different things?

Yes, fundamentally whatever is frightening the players should also frighten their characters.

The problem is that all too often, the players don't let themselves get frightened about things that should absolutely scare their Characters shitless, because they know for meta-reasons that they need not be afraid.

So a horde of small creatures armed with sharp knives charging at the PCs in a dark corridor, which should be scaring the crap out of them, becomes "Its no problem we can take them because they're only 1/2 hit die each!"

The gigantic red dragon the PCs have never seen before in their lives that's about to swoop down at them becomes "don't worry, I have rapid shot, and jim over there can cast lightning bolt, since its a red dragon it'll affect him (don't use fireball). meanwhile bill needs to get ready to backstab, as long as two of us are on either side of him you'll ALWAYS be able to count as flanking so you'll get to "suprise attack" him over and over again, which will give you +4d6 to damage each time... that means we should defeat this Young Adult Red Dragon in... just a sec... 5 rounds.
What's that, Ted? Oh, your fighter took the "Extra Special Favoured Enemies: Dragon" feat, even though the character never met a dragon in his life before? Cool! That means we'll beat him in... 3 rounds, maybe 4 if the dragon kills the halfling in Round 2; oh yeah, Joe get your scroll of raise dead ready". (cue to sound of the average GM tearing off his own pubes in frustration)

THAT, sir, is the real problem, not the few precious moments where the GM actually has something to scare his players with, be it meta or otherwise.

RPGPundit

This might be a good time to link to John Tynes' old essay, Up Against the Wall, Motherfucker!  John may have had some good ideas in his time, but this essay includes a couple of the most messed up GM tactics I can think of.  Hey, maybe it's satire, though.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditTHAT, sir, is the real problem, not the few precious moments where the GM actually has something to scare his players with, be it meta or otherwise.

Players feeling capable because they've got the strategic situation well in hand ... is the problem?

I have a great affection for getting a party together and proving to the ghosties and ghoulies and long-legged beasties that they don't stand a chance against small-squad tactics and careful resource management.  Where's the problem?

Complacency.

Quote from: One Horse TownComplacency.

Hey, you want me (in my squad-tactics mode) to sit up and pay attention, the procedure is very simple:  Provide a real, credible threat.

Don't tell me "Oh, you should fake being irrationally scared of a horde of kobolds ... uh ... because I say so, and I think it would be better roleplaying!"  'cuz, fuck man, I know the danger that the kobold horde poses, and it's not much.

Now if you have that same horde of kobolds sniping from cover, then retreating further into a complex ... that might well make me start to sweat.  "Why the hell didn't we come equipped with a Cloudkill scroll?  These fuckers are going to nickel-and-dime us to death with guerrilla tactics."

The cure to complacency is not to tell people "Well, pretend that it's a challenge!"  The solution is to provide them with a real challenge.

Hey Tony, i ain't told you anything, my old mucker. I just typed one word. I'm kinda impressed i didn't have to get my,"Do they speak English in What?" quote out though.

It's a catch 22 though,mate. Stop complacency by giving credible IC threats, when many of the IC threats that Pundit has been talking about have been watered down. Yep, there's some OOC knowledge involved in computing what is a credible threat, but should there be?

Quote from: TonyLBHey, you want me (in my squad-tactics mode) to sit up and pay attention, the procedure is very simple:  Provide a real, credible threat.

Don't tell me "Oh, you should fake being irrationally scared of a horde of kobolds ... uh ... because I say so, and I think it would be better roleplaying!"  'cuz, fuck man, I know the danger that the kobold horde poses, and it's not much.

Now if you have that same horde of kobolds sniping from cover, then retreating further into a complex ... that might well make me start to sweat.  "Why the hell didn't we come equipped with a Cloudkill scroll?  These fuckers are going to nickel-and-dime us to death with guerrilla tactics."

The cure to complacency is not to tell people "Well, pretend that it's a challenge!"  The solution is to provide them with a real challenge.

You may have started out this thread with typical obtuseness, but this right here, this is pure gold.

Once you wander into leveldrain and instadeath territory, you've wandered into DM Ex Machina type shit.  It strikes me as vindictive, and birthed in swinery, the players aren't responding the way you want them, so you force your hand with cheap attacks instead of real effort.

You want a credible threat, give me a goddamn credible threat, don't just toss heavy handed metagame gimmicks at it and hope they'll make the real problem go away.  

I frankly don't see level drain and insta-death as all that removed in spirit from "Rocks fall, everyone dies."

Quote from: J ArcaneI frankly don't see level drain and insta-death as all that removed in spirit from "Rocks fall, everyone dies."

i see your point, but how many times have the rocks fallen on your characters?  quite a bit, i think, based on yer frequency of the quote. . . . :haw:

sometimes there are absolutes in life, why not in gaming?  if a character as a pedestrian got hit by an 18-wheeler, no powers etc., would you bother rolling for damage?  or do they get turned to paint/salsa automatically?   likewise bad re-entry/gas giant refuelling, and so forth.  you get my drift.

Quote from: beeberi see your point, but how many times have the rocks fallen on your characters?  quite a bit, i think, based on yer frequency of the quote. . . . :haw:

Level drain and instadeath don't occur all that often in my games either, if at all.  Of the three GMs in my last group, I think one of them used insta-death once, and never did it again because everyone hated it and thought it was cheap.  

Quotesometimes there are absolutes in life, why not in gaming?  if a character as a pedestrian got hit by an 18-wheeler, no powers etc., would you bother rolling for damage?  or do they get turned to paint/salsa automatically?   likewise bad re-entry/gas giant refuelling, and so forth.  you get my drift.

If you think games about getting hit by cars are terribly exciting, you're free to enjoy them, but don't expect me to join in your game.

You're missing the point.  This is a game, not real life, and we don't have to include the freak accidents if we don't want to.  

I think it's boring as hell, and kills character investment, when you make death that cheap.  If death is the high cost of living, then I damn well want to get my money's worth.

Quote from: TonyLBHey, you want me (in my squad-tactics mode) to sit up and pay attention, the procedure is very simple:  Provide a real, credible threat.

Don't tell me "Oh, you should fake being irrationally scared of a horde of kobolds ... uh ... because I say so, and I think it would be better roleplaying!"  'cuz, fuck man, I know the danger that the kobold horde poses, and it's not much.

Now if you have that same horde of kobolds sniping from cover, then retreating further into a complex ... that might well make me start to sweat.  "Why the hell didn't we come equipped with a Cloudkill scroll?  These fuckers are going to nickel-and-dime us to death with guerrilla tactics."

The cure to complacency is not to tell people "Well, pretend that it's a challenge!"  The solution is to provide them with a real challenge.

I agree with this completely.

On credible threats, any enounter can be a credible threat if the GM puts some effort into crafting the encounter. It can be as simple as having the intelligent monsters use missile weapons to support their melee fighters.

As for the characters being scared by threats in game, that is a problem with the players role-playing their characters. Fear comes from a source in the character's past, and it is something which should be role-played (not covered by a game mechanic) since each particular fear will be related specifically to each player character - and that is just too individual an aspect to really govern. You can encourage good role-playing through a reward system, but you can't force good role-playing on a player.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, fundamentally whatever is frightening the players should also frighten their characters.

The problem is that all too often, the players don't let themselves get frightened about things that should absolutely scare their Characters shitless, because they know for meta-reasons that they need not be afraid.

This is true. If you feel the need to scare someone and the players aren't the type to roleplay fear (or perhaps you just haven't found what the characters fear yet), you'll have to resort to meta-threats to do it.

Quote from: James McMurrayThis is true. If you feel the need to scare someone and the players aren't the type to roleplay fear (or perhaps you just haven't found what the characters fear yet), you'll have to resort to meta-threats to do it.

. . . or you could realize that maybe the players don't want to play that way, and not try to force them to bend to your will.