Borgstrom is still a Moron, but this thread is about my Law

[RPGPundit]

You'll notice I didn't actually delete anyone's post; I just wanted a thread that was more conversation about the idea of making your PCs suffer as a vehicle to growth, and less about the Swine showing up to defend Borgstrom and Nobilis and attack/derail the thread at every turn.

RPGPundit

[David R]

Players are MORE entertained, not less, when their characters suffer through difficult challenges and get screwed over.  One of the brilliant parts of Wujcik's DMing advice in Amber can be boiled down to "don't kill off your player's characters; just make the characters wish they were dead".

Put them up against nearly-impossible odds, make them face opponents that are clearly more than something that they could just beat the shit out of with pure force of arms, make the characters go through suffering at the hands of a villain they will later sincerely hate, all of this makes for way better play than the "mollycoddling" of making them face safe opponents that they know they will end up beating; and WAY better play than the mollycoddling of giving them what they think would make them cool.

See Pundit, to my mind this is the main problem with your law. It assumes that all players are solely motivated by pain or the threat of pain. That everything has to be a struggle. In my experience you don't need to do this shit, to get the players to feel all you are describing in the above.

Sometimes all you need to do is, present them with  sets of options of varying degrees of detrimental consequences. Players will feel for their characters and/or the setting, if it's something they think is worth fighting for.

That's what I think the job of a GM is. Facilitating that discovery within their characters of that something worth fighting for. You don't need to be a bad ass mofo to do it. You just have to pay attention to your players.

Regards,
David R

[mythusmage]

Dave, what pain? A challenge doesn't have to be painful, it only needs to be challenging. Yes, it does hurt when you fail, it can hurt when you face the challenge, but the challenge doesn't necessarily have to hurt.

The real pain where challenge is concerned lies in refusing to face a challenge, under the belief that overcoming a challenge has to hurt. It has to be painful. The question I have for you is; does it have to hurt? Do facing, and overcoming, challenges have to be painful? Why can't they be a pleasure instead?

Ever watch a small kid climbing up a slide? He fails, he falls, he barks his elbows and skins his knees. He gets back up and tries again until he finally succeeds. And when he's standing at the top of the slide he crows his victory. Then he goes and tries it again, and keeps trying it until he can do it consistently without fail. Then he finds something else to do.

The real pain lies in refusing a challenge because you might fail, for you will never know if you could have suceeded or not. The real shame lies not in failure, but in never allowing yourself to fail.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Dave, what pain? A challenge doesn't have to be painful, it only needs to be challenging. Yes, it does hurt when you fail, it can hurt when you face the challenge, but the challenge doesn't necessarily have to hurt.

The real pain where challenge is concerned lies in refusing to face a challenge, under the belief that overcoming a challenge has to hurt. It has to be painful. The question I have for you is; does it have to hurt? Do facing, and overcoming, challenges have to be painful? Why can't they be a pleasure instead?

Ever watch a small kid climbing up a slide? He fails, he falls, he barks his elbows and skins his knees. He gets back up and tries again until he finally succeeds. And when he's standing at the top of the slide he crows his victory. Then he goes and tries it again, and keeps trying it until he can do it consistently without fail. Then he finds something else to do.

The real pain lies in refusing a challenge because you might fail, for you will never know if you could have suceeded or not. The real shame lies not in failure, but in never allowing yourself to fail.

I agree with mythusmage.

Go figure.

[David R]

Dave, what pain? A challenge doesn't have to be painful, it only needs to be challenging. Yes, it does hurt when you fail, it can hurt when you face the challenge, but the challenge doesn't necessarily have to hurt.

The real pain where challenge is concerned lies in refusing to face a challenge, under the belief that overcoming a challenge has to hurt. It has to be painful. The question I have for you is; does it have to hurt? Do facing, and overcoming, challenges have to be painful? Why can't they be a pleasure instead?

See mythus, this I can relate to. My use of the word pain is what I got from reading the Pundit's law. There is a world of difference from what you describe - which is kind of what I  mean when I say presenting options with varying degrees of detrimental consequences -  and what the Pundit was describing. (It could have something to do with the way how the Pundit describes his law)

The answer to your question is off course yes. There can be pleasure instead of pain. Pleasure in succeeding and all that (This is what you are talking about right ?) . And also ( strangely) there can be pleasure in failing - not carrying out an action because it may cause (or the pc thinks it may cause) more damage

I'll give you an example of the latter (please bear with my war story ) In the season ending of my Hunter campaign, one of my players realised that allowing his  (npc)daughter to live with a woman whom he despised and had caused him great professional problems and personal safety because he and the other players realized that the girl was better of in the care of this woman than with him. Throughout the time she was with this woman she was more cheerful and was doing well in school and in other aspects of her life. This woman really loved the child although she hated this particular pc. The child meant everything to this pc.

Now there were a couple of possible ways for the pc to have dealt with this situation. Amongst them was a very good option of violence and lies which would have remained unknown to his daughter and gotten her back. He chose not to do it. In a way he kind of failed. He suffered a consequence  - he lost something that was very precious to him...even though it was in his power to get her back.

This was immensly funfor the players. It did not involve the overt heavy handed mindset, that the Pundit's law seems to involve. It was quiet. Not that there is anything wrong with loud, I'm all for loud when the situation demands it

There is a whole range of challenges, conflict whatever. Most times GMs don't have to make the pcs snatch victory out of the jaws of death or make them feel as though death would be a sweet release, you can run a succesful game and know that your players will keep coming back, if you just take the time to understand what motivates their characters or them.

The GM is there to make life hell for the players and they'll love him/her for it is a style of play that just does not interest me anymore. It takes too much work and really the best hells are the kinds the players create for themselves, I'm just there to help them out with this endevour. And folks still want me to keep running games

Regards,
David R

[The Yann Waters]

You'll notice I didn't actually delete anyone's post; I just wanted a thread that was more conversation about the idea of making your PCs suffer as a vehicle to growth, and less about the Swine showing up to defend Borgstrom and Nobilis and attack/derail the thread at every turn.

But you see, it should be obvious that you misnamed your law and based this thread on a false premise, because...

Put them up against nearly-impossible odds, make them face opponents that are clearly more than something that they could just beat the shit out of with pure force of arms, make the characters go through suffering at the hands of a villain they will later sincerely hate, all of this makes for way better play than the "mollycoddling" of making them face safe opponents that they know they will end up beating; and WAY better play than the mollycoddling of giving them what they think would make them cool.

...With that, you just described Nobilis. The challenges must naturally enough be scaled to the abilities of the characters: what this means that those enemies and rivals will be far from "safe" to the PCs and lethal to anyone they might care about, and that they cannot defeat an immortal Warmain or solve a magically corrupted international crisis through brute strength.

[GRIM]

Never a simple 'No.'

'Yes... but...' is always better.

[Settembrini]

The Swine-Axiom:

Playing without risk to your character ins wankery.

[Christmas Ape]

The Swine-Axiom:

Playing without risk to your character is wankery.

For my purposes, agreed.

Corollary to the Swine Axiom: "Risk" encompasses many more options than "physical harm or death".

[The Yann Waters]

Corollary to the Swine Axiom: "Risk" encompasses many more options than "physical harm or death".

Oh, definitely.

[Settembrini]

many more options than "physical harm or death".

Though they are the easiest.

[Maddman]

Though they are the easiest.

True, though working alone I don't find them all that effective.  I mean if you do kill someone's character it's not like they have to go home.  They can make another one.  Threaten their life or goals or things they care about (Preferably all three at the same time) and you'll really get them into the game.

[Settembrini]

Threaten their life or goals or things they care about (Preferably all three at the same time) and you'll really get them into the game.

That´s the essence of a good game. But if the threats are hollow, so is the game.

[Balbinus]

I struggle to discuss a premise the title of which seems to me a pointless attack on someone for no particular reason.

[Christmas Ape]

Oh, I thought "Your law is badly named" was the too-obvious answer.