The Problem of Losing

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-02-11 07:34:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

Although I agree with you in concept, I've had trouble (especially with my latest gaming group) of players really, really not liking "losing." Or setbacks in general. I was running a superheroes game recently, and when someone got KOed in a fight, or the villain got away (both of which are genre appropriate), there was widespread grumbling to the point that the campaign finally fell apart.

I think there's a widespread change in the way people treat "cheating" of various sorts. The prevalence of cheat codes and other cheese tactics in electronic games have been widely accepted, despite the grumps of old-school purists (like me, too...). And it's not restricted to the youngsters, I think we can see in our current US political process that the concepts of "fair play" and a "clean win" have been wildly distorted from their original levels.

Although the history of RPGing also is to blame for this in gaming. In most RPGs, all "conflict" is lethal armed conflict in which there are two end states - win or die. This naturally produces a "win by any means" mentality. Now, ideally you could "train" a group, using the methods found in your article, to be better about that - but I just wanted to point out there are other social pressures that are working against it.

Ernest

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by walt c at 2005-02-11 07:58:48
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks for your comments!

I think the main thing is to make sure you maintain the illusion of failure. So long as the players don't think you're fudging, the illusion of an earned victory is maintained. The problem stems from making it obvious.

"Okay, the troll lord swings his war axe of mondo damage at you and....oooh a critical hit <followed by a wince as the GM rolls the damage dice>. What's that? Your 10th level paladin only has 5 hit points left? Really? Oh......um, wow. The Troll Lord only did...uh...3 hit points of damage. Lucky break."

Walt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Samhaine at 2005-02-11 08:33:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

I generally mitigate the need to fudge instant-death by instituting a hero points mechanic. Spend the hero point and you're out of the fight but not dying. It seems to work out better than fudging, while still allowing a level of safety.

Last weekend I ran a D&D game with 1st level, quite squishy, characters. The rogue had already been smushed previously, and spent his available hero point to save himself. The second time he was smushed he was out of points, and was slowly bleeding out. Luckily the ranger was able to get to him in time and use her hero point to help save him, but I don't think there was any doubt that it was a close shave. He probably won't be quite as cavalier about assuming that his enemies can be bated with the same obvious ploy, repeatedly, in the future, and neither does he expect the hero points to be avaliable in all situations. In all, it turned out rather well :) .

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ian Sokoliwski at 2005-02-11 10:27:45
Converted from Phorums BB System

Early on in a campaign (if I'm starting, say, a 1st level D&D game), I'm willing to let characters die pretty easily, 'cause they are pretty fragile. And it can be downright funny ('I guess you spent too long playing 15th level Paladins, 'cause your 1st level fighter just got sliced up by that puny skeleton'). And nobody is too attached (generally) to their characters. Yet.

Later on, as the story progresses, I'm much more likely to treat character death as a major event (as it would be in a more traditional story, especially a serialized one as gaming campaigns can closely resemble), and really only kill folks off for a good reason.

For the most part, I'm a big believer in 'zero hit points means you're unconcious and bleeding to death - hope someone can bind those wounds in time', which generally gets the game moving in a different direction. What had been a quest for treasure has suddenly become a race for survival, and the other players try their level best to get the heck outta that situation to help their fallen comrade.

While I'm not a big fan of killing PC's indiscriminately, I'm quite willing to have them lose a limb or some other permanent reminder to their folly. Generally, this results in 'losing' being more of a story event rather than 'great, now I gotta write up a new character'. I fully encourage players to flee a combat situation in which they are losing; in fact, I also encourage it in my NPC's (I figure if half of a team of bad guys gets wiped out, the other half just might pull up stakes and move on...perhaps to return again with reinforcements).

I guess some of this also comes down to the definition of role-playing being used. In a more character interaction and development sorta game, you really only lose if you don't make an interesting character, if you don't participate fully in investigations/conversations/that-sorta-thing. Also, if you (as the GM) are trying to tell an interesting story, it may not be in your own interest to permit the PC's to get killed off or miss a major clue. If you do, you may be said to have 'lost' that game yourself...

(okay, now I'm just getting wierd)

I think the important point to get across is that actions have consequences. If you get into a fight, you may get hurt or die. Or at least have some sort of major setback. Rather than all the characters dying, perhaps they were just knocked unconcious and, later, they wake up finding the baddies stole all their stuff, locked them up in a jail cell, or something equally unpleasant. But not necessarily fatal. There are always alternatives for a clever GM who doesn't want to wipe out his adventuring parties.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-02-11 11:14:28
Converted from Phorums BB System

Right, but you miss my point. I see a lot of players that DON'T want the illusion of failure. In that game, the PCs would always win the day - they'd defeat the bad guy, save the innocents, whatever - but lack of total success (some members KOed, villain escaping) made them unhappy. They felt "powerless" and disliked the campaign. And I'm not dealing with 15 year old thrill junkies here, this was a group of 30 year old professionals with a wide range of gaming experience.

And the more I look around, the more I don't think this is unique. I personally agree with the "without chance of defeat, victory isn't sweet" theory, but I caution that an increasing number of people do not, both inside and outside of gaming.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by waltc at 2005-02-12 07:28:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ernest,

Thanks for your comments!

Maybe I haven't made myself as clear as I could have.

By "illusion of failure," I simply mean that the players need to feel that their choices matter. In other words, it's okay for you to work behind the scenes to ensure a total victory, as long as the players don't realize you're doing it.

Otherwise, why bother rolling dice at all?

Walt