Quote from: two_fishes;360689But rpgs often attempt to emulate movies, and replicate some of the experience of watching a movie at the game table. Many rpg players want to build the sort of dramatic tension and payoff at the table that they find in their favorite fiction. A discussion of how fiction builds tension or the "rules" of drama and genre is valid for those games.

RPGs emulate settings, and setting conventions. They emulate WORLDS, in other words, not story.
You can't emulate story, specifically because of things mentioned here: if you did, you'd stop having a Roleplaying game.
Which is of course what the people at the Forge do: they put "Story" above all else, including "game". So they're no longer playing a game, they're engaged in a storytelling exercise. That's fine, but that's inherently NOT a roleplaying game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: beejazz;360803But Indiana Jones movies and superhero movies make the "death is not an issue" obvious NOT because they are action movies but because they are single-protagonist action movies... like Kill Bill or something.

Exactly.

If you want to correctly correlate movies to RPGs, use ensemble action movies.

The Untouchables, Red Dawn, The Dirty Dozen, The Wild Bunch, Aliens, A Bridge Too Far, Saving Private Ryan, etc.  Ensemble action movies are full of protagonist deaths.

So it seems that what we're talking about when we say "rules that get in the way", is rules that break the effective sense of emulation. You fall 200 ft and take 43 points of damage, and walk it off because you're 15th level. You jump on a grenade and take 3D6 and laugh your ass off.

Of course, some times, the rules do cover these eventualities (the D20 system has the "anything doing 50 points of damage in one blow is death" rule, you also have the coup de grace rules; Palladium has the "point blank head and heart tables", etc).
Other times, they're totally absent.

But the point is that what you need for this is simple: The GAME MASTER.  When the rules go wrong, or there are none to be had, that's where the Game Master steps in, with his authority, to set things right again. And another reason why the GM's authority must not be questioned.

Arrogant Game Designers, naive players, and Swine who think that the rules must be put in control over the GM and not the other way around have either not really played very much or are too stupid to remember that no game accounts for every eventuality. The RPG is a game that demands an arbiter, and that he be given absolute power.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;360812So it seems that what we're talking about when we say "rules that get in the way", is rules that break the effective sense of emulation.

Which varies from person to person because it's not based on reality, but a subjective view of reality. So it doesn't really matter what the rules are or what reality is actually like - you can always find someone who will go "Bwuh?!?" over some resolution.

Quote from: RPGPundit;360812But the point is that what you need for this is simple: The GAME MASTER.  When the rules go wrong, or there are none to be had, that's where the Game Master steps in, with his authority, to set things right again.

That's no better - you're just replacing one "Bwuh?!?" engine with another "Bwuh?!?" engine. Unless the GM is somehow able to match all the participants' preconceptions about reality, someone at some point will go "Bwuh?!?" The difference between having a pre-written set of rules as an authority figure and having a GM as one is that the GM won't ever be the one going "Bwuh?!?"

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;360702Character death in a movie makes for a more powerful story that is being told. In a similar fashion, character risk which includes the possibility of character death makes for a more powerful role-playing experience for the Player due to the stakes involved.

true, but if used poorly, character death can also cheapen stories, rip the rug out from under the viewer, or be a sleazy attempt to add a false sense of depth to poorly written stories.

QuoteKyle is right, RPGs and movies are not equal. However some very easily understood similarities can be made between the two different types of entertainment.

Except that he seems to dismiss or ignore that story creation is often a very high priority for players. I've talked to many players, including some very traditional players, who value the story produced by the game to be the most important product of their play. In these cases, I'm going to continue to assert that discussion of narrative techniques for creating drama and tension are totally valid.

QuoteI think you are trying to prove that the potential for character death in a RPG should not be considered by GMs as a risk or stake to be raised in play.

no, i'm not trying to prove that at all. character death can be a totally valid, fun, meaningful stake to put into play. what i am suggesting is that there is sometimes a disconnect between the way that rules are implemented and what the players are actually trying to achieve with their play. I believe this is actually to the point of the OP--where do rules interefere with role-playing?

Quote from: RPGPundit;360808Which is of course what the people at the Forge do: they put "Story" above all else, including "game". So they're no longer playing a game, they're engaged in a storytelling exercise. That's fine, but that's inherently NOT a roleplaying game.

It's really just a question of priorities. What go on around the table at a "storygame" and at a "roleplaying game" are so overwhelmingly similar that insisting on a difference in terms is small-minded and pedantic. And to get frothy at the mouth about it and demand that the former group be ejected from your special little club is just being an asshole, you small-minded, pedantic asshole.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;360718We normally go with chocolate... [snip] ...and lemonade and so on.

Together?  You, sir, are a brute.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPundit;360808So they're no longer playing a game, they're engaged in a storytelling exercise. That's fine, but that's inherently NOT a roleplaying game.

I'm not a "storygamer", but I've had my hand at games that games that put storytelling on par with, or ahead of randomisation, and I simply have to say that your statement above is a fatuous exercise in gerrymandering.  I'm loathe to explore this topic again, but it's worth noting that "roleplaying games" is an over-arching category that encompasses more than the adversarial* and/or randomised games that most people here** prefer.

!i!

[*And I intend "adversarial" in the most positive sense, but in contradistinction to cooperative roleplaying, or "storytelling".]
[**Myself included.]

Quote from: Seanchai;360825Which varies from person to person because it's not based on reality, but a subjective view of reality. So it doesn't really matter what the rules are or what reality is actually like - you can always find someone who will go "Bwuh?!?" over some resolution.



That's no better - you're just replacing one "Bwuh?!?" engine with another "Bwuh?!?" engine. Unless the GM is somehow able to match all the participants' preconceptions about reality, someone at some point will go "Bwuh?!?" The difference between having a pre-written set of rules as an authority figure and having a GM as one is that the GM won't ever be the one going "Bwuh?!?"

Seanchai

I disagree. The GM can be consulted, and can work with the players to arrive at an agreeable method of resolution based on the in-game circumstances, which is one of their jobs.

Quote from: two_fishes;360827true, but if used poorly, character death can also cheapen stories, rip the rug out from under the viewer, or be a sleazy attempt to add a false sense of depth to poorly written stories.

Good thing most of us aren't trying to write stories then.

QuoteExcept that he seems to dismiss or ignore that story creation is often a very high priority for players. I've talked to many players, including some very traditional players, who value the story produced by the game to be the most important product of their play. In these cases, I'm going to continue to assert that discussion of narrative techniques for creating drama and tension are totally valid.

Then you have way too much time on your hands apparently. I've never actually met anyone in person who valued "the story" over just getting together and gaming with fellow geeks. We value the experience... but then any experience can be turned into a "story", and requires little to no thought to "narrative techniques".

Quoteno, i'm not trying to prove that at all. character death can be a totally valid, fun, meaningful stake to put into play. what i am suggesting is that there is sometimes a disconnect between the way that rules are implemented and what the players are actually trying to achieve with their play. I believe this is actually to the point of the OP--where do rules interefere with role-playing?

I agree with you here, which IMO is why there are many different sets of rules and types of games.

If we put the S word aside, which only helps fueling useless flamewars, we can have a productive discussion here. Two_fishes say that sometimes a system will cause character deaths (PC or NPC) and that may "get in the way" of roleplaying for some players, or at least break their fun. He might have something here, not just some Forge leper or sth.

Some systems implement fate/hero points that give PCs a chance to escape a lethal accident. One might see two objectives in action here:
A - save a player the frustration of loosing a character, having to create another and all the drama at the table that might have happened
B - give a chance (to who exactly?) to keep the plot going undisturbed when a specific character death would have undermined it

I don't think B was the general intent of this type of rule. After all the player might not use available hero points because he/she is fine with the character dying right there. Still I've seen enough times GMs fudge the deathly consequences of a scene to know that even trad' players may have narrative motivations sometimes. It might be because the character is crucial for next scene or the campaign revolves around her or whatever.

I think fudging isn't seen as a huge issue around here. It doesn't have to be. But it would be fair to say that "it gets in the way" for a few players (whatever political branch of the hobby they align with). So if a game system manages to minimize the need for fudging (and there might be many more reasons for fudging that I didn't explore) maybe it manages to not "get in the way" of roleplaying?

Quote from: boulet;360839If we put the S word aside, which only helps fueling useless flamewars, we can have a productive discussion here. Two_fishes say that sometimes a system will cause character deaths (PC or NPC) and that may "get in the way" of roleplaying for some players, or at least break their fun. He might have something here, not just some Forge leper or sth.

Some systems implement fate/hero points that give PCs a chance to escape a lethal accident. One might see two objectives in action here:
A - save a player the frustration of loosing a character, having to create another and all the drama at the table that might have happened
B - give a chance (to who exactly?) to keep the plot going undisturbed when a specific character death would have undermined it

I don't think B was the general intent of this type of rule. After all the player might not use available hero points because he/she is fine with the character dying right there. Still I've seen enough times GMs fudge the deathly consequences of a scene to know that even trad' players may have narrative motivations sometimes. It might be because the character is crucial for next scene or the campaign revolves around her or whatever.

I think fudging isn't seen as a huge issue around here. It doesn't have to be. But it would be fair to say that "it gets in the way" for a few players (whatever political branch of the hobby they align with). So if a game system manages to minimize the need for fudging (and there might be many more reasons for fudging that I didn't explore) maybe it manages to not "get in the way" of roleplaying?

I guess I see it differently. I'm with the folks that say not dieing or at the very least being taken out of the action (permanently for all intents and purposes) after falling on a grenade would get in the way of my roleplaying. I've thrown a real life live frag grenade, and they are very impressive. If folks who can make vehicles that travel faster than the speed of light and swords with blades made out of laser can't construct an effective grenade then the premise has completely lost me. For me and apparently the folks I've gamed with, character death doesn't get in the way of roleplaying... what does is when the rules are so out of touch with the imagined world they are meant to allow me as a player to interact with that they interfere with my ability to imagine viewing the fictional world as my character would. I end up thinking more about the rules of the game than the world I want to be imagining. I hate that.

Some sort of "action" or "hero" points aren't a bad thing in and of themselves, but their lack has never interfered with my roleplaying, and if they promote outcomes that make no sense to me in the context of the imagined world we're trying to game in then they can get in the way just as much as anything else, IMO.

P.S. If I ever play d20 Star Wars again, I think I'm going to make a techie with the ability and desire to design and construct an actual useful grenade and market it to the empire and become rich.

Thanks for your input Sigmund. I was trying to get away from the grenade anecdote here though. I more or less sided with the "grenades on the belly should kill" camp anyway.

Quote from: boulet;360850Thanks for your input Sigmund. I was trying to get away from the grenade anecdote here though. I more or less sided with the "grenades on the belly should kill" camp anyway.

Ok. Ignore the first paragraph of my reply then.

Quote from: Sigmund;360836The GM can be consulted, and can work with the players to arrive at an agreeable method of resolution based on the in-game circumstances, which is one of their jobs.

I agree that the GM can certainly do that and many do. However, assuming by default that GMs as a whole will - particularly in a GM as God climate - is off base. Often times, such as the grenade example or one I previously posted about how fast bears can move, they don't give a damn what players want or think is "realistic."

Seanchai