Challenges other than the probability of death, right?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniSo you also value escapism more than facing a challenge?

In many cases, people do.  Let me ask you this.  Can you enjoy spending 2 hours watching a movie even though you have no control over the story and there is now challenge to you in watching it?  If so, then what is the point of watching a movie to you?

As I said: All values we´re talking about here are to be understood in a gaming context.
Movies have nothing to do with games.

Quote from: SettembriniAs I said: All values we´re talking about here are to be understood in a gaming context.
Movies have nothing to do with games.

Wrong.  You asked, "So you also value escapism more than facing a challenge?"  You seem to find it hard to believe that people might be gaming just for escapism.  Plenty of people do, including plenty of casual gamers who want the GM to hand them everything on a silver platter in the dining car that's traveling down a railroaded adventure.  Why would anyone want to play a game like that?  For the same reason people enjoy watching movies or reading books, as opposed to the reason why they play chess or poker.  It's pure escapism.  And before you ask, "Then why not watch a movie or read a book?" that's the same as asking a person looking at the game as a challenge, "Then why not just play chess or Advanced Squad Leader?"  Clearly, there is some aspect of the form of the role-playing game that appeals to people, just as some people prefer books to movies or vice versa.  An you are ultimately going to get no deeper understanding how someone's preferences on that sort of matter differ from your own than you'll get trying to understand why someone else enjoys eating a food that you hate.  It's an aesthetic taste issue at that point.

QuoteClearly, there is some aspect of the form of the role-playing game that appeals to people, just as some people prefer books to movies or vice versa.

I´m not saying heavy escapist gaming isn´t fun.

And right, that sort of "gaming" is way more like watching a movie.

It has even some very good things a movie doesn´t have:

Ritualized reception of the source material with strong emotional investment. It´s a feel good circle of people close to each other. EDIT: And needs effort from everyone. It´s a whole craft unto itself.

But:

It´s pointless to discuss RPGs without making that clear. If I´m complaining about the loss of strategy and the prevalence of reactive tactics nowadays, it´s of no use whatsoever if someone from the "collective reception and creation of genre-text and emotion-traders" comes along.

Quote from: SettembriniIt´s pointless to discuss RPGs without making that clear. If I´m complaining about the loss of strategy and the prevalence of reactive tactics nowadays, it´s of no use whatsoever if someone from the "collective reception and creation of genre-text and emotion-traders" comes along.

Correct.  But your problem is not their problem and by stating it as a problem in the hobby rather than a personal problem that you are having, you are inviting them to tell you, "That's not a problem."  So try describing it as a problem that you are having and something that you don't like instead of suggesting that it's a problem in a more objective sense and something everyone should be worried about.

QuoteBut your problem is not their problem and by stating it as a problem in the hobby rather than a personal problem that you are having, you are inviting them to tell you, "That's not a problem." So try describing it as a problem that you are having and something that you don't like instead of suggesting that it's a problem in a more objective sense and something everyone should be worried about.

Actually, that´s the insight I had.
You are right.
But inquire yourself: Isn´t it happening all the time? Isn´t that the major fuck up of internet discourse?

BTW, if I´m talking to or assuming people having the same morale values, it´s useful communication.

Quote from: SettembriniBut inquire yourself: Isn´t it happening all the time? Isn´t that the major fuck up of internet discourse?

Absolutely.  But that doesn't mean that you need to contribute to it.

Quote from: SettembriniBTW, if I´m talking to or assuming people having the same morale values, it´s useful communication.

No, because unless you understand and acknowledge the different assumptions involved, all you get is people shouting past each other which is, in my opinion, pretty useless and makes both parties look pretty bad.

What you need to remember is that the audience for a debate in a public forum isn't simply the person you are arguing with.  There are often lots of lurkers who never get involved.  They are the people who consider both sides fairly and the people who can have their minds changed.  If you sound like an unreasonable jerk, they'll treat your arguments accordingly.  When you are in an argument with someone else, imagine yourself standing in front of a crowd of strangers watching your opponent and you and consider how you look to them, not just your opponent.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m still not getting it, so I poke you with my Hot Needle of Inquiry until I understand it.

'Cause poking with hot needles is so conducive to fostering understanding in discourse.:rolleyes:

i'm going to leave aside the Escapism issue, because I think it's crowding out the earlier point: that roleplaying without unintentional death on the table is not the same as roleplaying without challenge.

It's pretty damn hard to have this conversation though. When every response is greeted with something like this:

Quote from: SettembriniSo you want to emulate heroic myths?

What is the enjoyment you get out of that?
You dwell in a fantasy world without achievement, total escapism?

You don´t want to be bothered with a close scrutiny of your performance?

Is it that?

. . .it's damn near impossible to have sustained dialogue. Every post is greeted with an excluded-middle, straw-man, parody of the point, or just plain assumes a point that's not there, such as "Emulate heroic myths=dwell in a fantasy world without achievment, total escapism."

But I'm going to give it a shot: When death isn't at stake (except when you want it to be at stake), then about anything else can be. You can make a character as miserable as fucking Job, kill his family, turn his wife against him, give him pustulant boils, and have his friends come by to bitch him out. You can make the fucker wish he was dead. But unless the player decrees it, no death. I played a brief HQ game on IRC in which Mike Holmes, als o a player, failed nearly every roll. What we enjoyed was the agonizing over the poor soul's setbacks, anticipating his eventual triumph.

To be sure, this isn't "challenge" as a strategic element in the games you like to play, but speaking of negative consequences for the characters in the fiction, it's there. The good it does, when I "favor the players according to the time they invested in the game and the character" is that allows consequences without sacrificing the character itself, often consequences that would rarely happen if death was on the table. In that HQ game, my character got smashed around by a huge golem while covering everyone else's escape. I awoke alone in a magical prison. If we'd been plaing a more mainstream system, I'd probably just be dead, perhaps with a colorful Rolemaster critical as my epitath. HQ allowed me to keep on playing the character, to strive to see his goals come to fruition, to play through real setbacks to those goals, without throwing away all the hard work and emotional investment for some dumb golem.

I hope that clarifies what people get out of this kind of play, and how it's far from "making it easy for the characters."

Peace,
-Joel

I started this, so I´ll be around to honour your contributions, in spite  of my new resolution.

Well, in your example, there still is no player skill involved. Only an emotional back and forth. Totally different, ain´t it?

You say yourself:

QuoteTo be sure, this isn't "challenge" as a strategic element in the games you like to play, but speaking of negative consequences for the characters in the fiction, it's there.

True enough; as you noted, I acknowledged as much.

That is, there's no player tactical skill involved in playing this way. There's still all manner of player choice, and skill at making the choices that will take the story in the direction you'd like is important. That's why a description like "world without achievement, total escapism" is so unsatisfying. There's a snide pedantic sense in which it's true, but a deeper sense in which it's not.

Your thread title promises to treat on games that make it easy for the characters. I and others have been trying to demonstrate that this is a false characterization. A game like HQ does not make it "easy for the characters," and at least some players are able to fully invest in the PCs and feel the pressure of risk and danger with death off the table. The other players and I didn't think, "hey, let's make trouble at the Magic University, who cares if there's golem guards, tralalalala!" The process went more like, "Oh no, here's a situation we can't ignore, we've got to do something, even though we'll be in deep trouble with the wizards and stuck inside their university (plus not get what we came there to achieve)," followed closely by "Oh shit! A golem guard! Run for your lives!!!"

So if we're going to discuss that, fine. If we're going to constantly shift the ground of discussion, then for all I care you can go back to your strategic withdrawel from Threads about Games you Don't Like, and pretend it's the Big, Bad Language Barrier.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: John MorrowYou seem to find it hard to believe that people might be gaming just for escapism.  Plenty of people do, including plenty of casual gamers who want the GM to hand them everything on a silver platter in the dining car that's traveling down a railroaded adventure.  Why would anyone want to play a game like that?  For the same reason people enjoy watching movies or reading books, as opposed to the reason why they play chess or poker.  It's pure escapism.

I think the problem occurs when people at the table understand the activity differently:  RPG as passive escapism, like a book -vs- RPG as active gaming, like chess.  If everyone understands what's going on and is happy with it, then there's no problem.   When people don't all agree on the nature of the activity you have individuals unhappy with being railroaded, illusionism and dice fudging, or on the other side being unhappy with character death, power gamers, and so on.

Almost like people had different...agendas....

QuoteThere's still all manner of player choice, and skill at making the choices that will take the story in the direction you'd like is important. That's why a description like "world without achievement, total escapism" is so unsatisfying. There's a snide pedantic sense in which it's true, but a deeper sense in which it's not.

- Any RPG needs some skills to be succesful
- Those skills differ widely
- The "snide pedantic" was deliberate to rouse a staunch defense and explanation of the values/merits/process of collective production of text.

QuoteThe other players and I didn't think, "hey, let's make trouble at the Magic University, who cares if there's golem guards, tralalalala!" The process went more like, "Oh no, here's a situation we can't ignore, we've got to do something, even though we'll be in deep trouble with the wizards and stuck inside their university (plus not get what we came there to achieve)," followed closely by "Oh shit! A golem guard! Run for your lives!!!"

That sounds to me like you have a problem that has to be solved by the players at the table. That´s a challenge [in the way of intellectual problem solving], isn´t it?
Now, I´m pretty sure without consequences for not solving the problem, it becomes meaningless (if the players can see through this).

So, I´d say, it´s not important [at this stage] what your resolution system is. To me it sounds like  you use in-game plausability to judge success.

For this you still need a well defined problem, and ressources. And the solution will rather not be neccessarily dramatic.

Problem solving and ressource management can take many guises, but they are most likely not dramatic or a good read, unless you fudge and nudge.
If story development prevails, the meaning of the problem solving is diminished, no?

I cannot see those two go together well, unless you have sub-systems and "open-ended" situations that are framed by particapatory "cut-scenes".

Dungeon Magazine Adventure Paths work like that. Much railroading between fights and riddles. You have to "unlock" the next story part with skill. Works really well, and is actually very popular amalgam of several otherwise conflicting needs (part of Exalted´s success?). Now, if you also want the combats & riddles & problems to be stylish & dramatically structured, it turns into, well a one sided affair of dubious taste.
This amalgam also is very dependent on the DM to incorporate the changes brought about by "open-ended" situations into the story part. Thusly, most strategic level challenges are next to impossible to model.

A loss for me, but not many seem to like strategic challenges. but the tactics are still there, as they seem to be in your example.

Quote from: SettembriniProblem solving and ressource management can take many guises, but they are most likely not dramatic or a good read, unless you fudge and nudge.

Why not?

You seem to assume that the battlefield must be something distinct and independent of the drama:  the drama is about personality elements, but the tactics must be enacted on a battleground of bushes, elevations and lines of sight.

If, by contrast, you enact the tactics on a battleground that is made of hopes and fears and consequences, then the strategies that take advantage of the battlefield and the rules of the game may well always be the same as the good story-telling.

In Dogs in the Vineyard, one of the major strategic questions is "Do I escalate this conflict to a level of greater violence, both giving myself more resources and putting other people (and, indirectly, myself) at greater risk?"  It's a choice I've seen people mull on numerous occasions:  "Is this conflict important enough to take that step?  If I make this step, can I win the battle before the consequences bite me too hard, or does the opponent have enough emotional resources to keep fighting me?"  They make decisions on that which are strategic and thematic at the same time.  The strategic decision and the thematic decision are the same decision.  Same-same.

So, if that's the way game-play is proceeding, your dichotomy of "Story-telling must kill the tactics, and tactics must kill the story-telling" really doesn't exist.  See?