Quote from: Gabriel2;831668I mentioned to him how people online felt that since there was no chance of my character getting killed, then there was nothing I had to lose in that scene, and there was no point in him GMing it.  He replied that it was a good thing those people didn't play in our games, and found their fun elsewhere...

yeah, well...duh.    I'd say its a good thing too.  Doesn't sound like my kind of game.

As far as your anecdote goes, all I can say is OK glad that worked out for you.  For myself, knocking one gun of four aimed at you doesn't seem like all that creative a solution, and it seems pretty unlikely that it would be successful.  As a player, I'd expect to have a reasonable chance of ending up dead in that situation.  I'd be inclined to surrender, and hope for an opportunity later to face a single baddie or 2 instead of 4 and to attempt an escape then against better odds.

Quote from: Gabriel2;831668Back to Arminius's comment about players abusing their script immunity...

Something happened recently in the game I play in that might have qualified for this.  I decided to ask my friend/GM what he had thought about the situation.

What happened was my character turned around to see four gunmen with M-16s trained on him.  Surrendering would have meant abandoning all my goals for the whole episode.  Ultimately, it would probably have led to my character being implanted with a mind control parasite, as well as other unpleasant things.  Despite all the guns, I didn't see surrender as a viable option.

My course of action was to knock the gun of the nearest gunman out of aim.  This caused him to fire wildly and the other gunmen to duck in order to avoid friendly fire.  I also tried to use the gunman I just attacked as cover against the other three.  Then I attempted my escape.  It succeeded, and my Dodge skill was good enough that I only got tagged by one bullet on my way out which luckily rolled low damage.

So, last night I asked the GM if he felt my actions were flaunting my script immunity.  He replied that the thought never occurred to him.  He told me that he just wanted to see how I'd deal with the gunmen.  In fact, he felt I took the hard way out.  See, the gunmen were all mind controlled by parasites, and I knew this.  I could have tried to use my assault rifle to blow them all away (they were unarmored).  Instead, I tried to find a solution where I didn't kill my attackers so they could be cured of the mental control later.  He felt that it was overall a good event which showed my character was trying to be heroic.  He didn't see it as out of character, or particularly reckless (no more reckless than anything in an action movie type thing).

I mentioned to him how people online felt that since there was no chance of my character getting killed, then there was nothing I had to lose in that scene, and there was no point in him GMing it.  He replied that it was a good thing those people didn't play in our games, and found their fun elsewhere.  He asked if I didn't feel there was anything at stake in that scene, and I replied that I definitely felt there were things at stake there.  He pointed out that I took a little extra time to come up with my course of action in that scene, and that I was clearly thinking, weighing my options, and taking it seriously.

So that's my anecdote.  That's the way we look at it and how it works for us.

I actually like this. The hard part is having players who see it the same way. Someone else who is powergaming or whatnot would just see it as an opportunity to be exploited. It requires the ability from the player to immerse himself in the situation and ignore the metagaming aspect of it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831573The problem I have with random death being possible is that players often end up treating characters as playing pieces, rather than caring about what happens in the adventures.

At that point, you may as well play monopoly, the effect ends up being the same (See we can all play that game.)  It's fine for a weekend dungeon crawl set up, where you do nothing but explore pits in the earth, but sometimes, people want something more out of a campaign.

And here's the thing, I never said that 'random' death isn't possible.  If the player decides that his character who fell into the trap of doom is dead, no ressurrection possible, I don't stop him.  I just leave it in my players hands.

The interesting thing about the hobby is people can put in what seems like diametrically opposed inputs and receive similar results.  All the things you say you enjoy about the less-lethal approach...
-Investment in Character
-Depth and meaning in a campaign
-Roleplaying and engagement
...all of those in my experience have always been increased with using a more lethal system and a hands-off approach to death.  It's really no surprise though, players who are more engaged by a cinematic system will be more engaged by a cinematic approach to death.  Players who are more engaged by a less cinematic more verisimilar system will be more engaged by that approach to death.

CRKruegar made two really good points that deserve repetition.

Quote from: CRKrueger;831689[P]layers who are more engaged by a cinematic system will be more engaged by a cinematic approach to death.  

Players who are more engaged by a less cinematic more verisimilar system will be more engaged by that approach to death.

This difference is also why some of these conversations about RPG death have a lot of people on both sides who just can't seem to grasp why the other side disagrees with them about roleplaying experiences.

Quote from: Bren;831719CRKruegar made two really good points that deserve repetition.

This difference is also why some of these conversations about RPG death have a lot of people on both sides who just can't seem to grasp why the other side disagrees with them about roleplaying experiences.

yeah, its really a pretty fundamental difference in the way we "see" the games...

Is this something innate to the player though or is it the way they were taught to play?

The issue here is that some people are coming off as their way is the only way to play.

And I want to reiterate that in my case at least it isn't, there's no right or wrong here to my eyes.

Personally, I've played where death can happen at any time, and randomly, and given the circle of players I've frequented (whom are all friends) one of two things occur, one they run away from everything, and given how some of the older games I used to play, that meant very little character progression.  Or they go all in, and risk everything to kill the enemy before they get killed by the enemy.

But if you put death into the player's hands (Again, in MY CIRCLE of gamers) they will do things like Gabriel2 did, because there's no chance of an action resulting in a quick, one shot death.  Be removing some of the risk, it opened up options that they normally would not have considered.

Again, if the player wanted to have his character die, I have no say in it.  It's what they want.

I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone how to play their games.  If you're having fun you're doing it right.  I'm just trying to explain why I like it a certain way.  I'm trying to shed light on the reasoning from my pov...that's all.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;831738Is this something innate to the player though or is it the way they were taught to play?

It does seem to be something fairly innate actually.  The psychological underpinnings of it might make for an interesting research paper.  

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;831738Is this something innate to the player though or is it the way they were taught to play?

Akin to the nature nurture problem I'd say.

It seems like some players are influenced by what game they learned, but that could just be a selection factor.

Most players who liked and played system X were innately predisposed to favor, or at least tolerate, the play experience that system X best or most easily supports. So even if predisposition was innate, it would still look like people were influence by their early gaming because most people for whom their early gaming was a not a good fit would go find some other hobby. Absent exposure to another style of play, they would not remain roleplayers.

It seems reasonable to assume that some people might like a different style that what they are playing better, but that they just haven't been exposed to a style that would be a better fit for them. Also comfort with system and not wanting to learn a new system without some compelling reason or good pitch seems very common amongst gamers. So I'd be surprised if what you were exposed to didn't have some influence on what you like or are willing to play.

Moreover a fair number of players don't seem to have an immensely strong preference for cinematic or realistic games. They are willing to go along with what the group likes or the GM runs. So if never exposed to an alternative style they just go with what the group does.

Also, it is useful to remember that the vast majority of players don't read, much less post in, online forums so the opinions you get are unlikely to be representative of gamers at large.

Gabriel2,

Reading your anecdote, I was thinking,

Okay, seems a bit improbable he could get away with that, but it's the kind of thing that happens in movies and it could work, especially as the idea was to act decisively and distract. I think a hero point or two would give a reasonable chance of success by providing some bonuses or rerolls. Or I wonder if the GM went with "rule of cool" and fudged it...

What? He knew going in there was no chance of dying? Sorry, not interested.

See, you weren't abusing the game reality or making it gonzo, but if I were playing under those terms, I'd feel completely outside the character and fully dependent on the "collaborative writing exercise" mode...but without the benefit of spitballing and without the suspense generated by some form of "hard" resolution. (I mean in Mythic you can collaboratively throw out ideas and then use the dice to see how they work out.)

I'm wondering how long you've gamed with this other person and how often you game with anyone else. Because I'll bet this style depends on a lot of trust, a huge amount of shared vision, and a lot of nonverbal communication.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;831440Having death on the table doesn't mean you are competing against the players. This and the inclusion of things to surprise alive doesn't take away RP. I am all for RPG and my sessions revolve heavily around it. What I want to avoid though is the sense that things are being scripted or that we know how they'll turn out (both for the GM and the players).

Same here. I want a plot to explore. I do not want a script I am locked into.

This is the thing some module haters overlook. Not all modules are a script you must follow.  

One of the bemusing things about the Hoard of the Dragon Queen module was the sheer number of complaints of players who walked into the start of it gunz-a-blazin and promptly got massacred by some kobolds.

Quote from: Arminius;831763I'm wondering how long you've gamed with this other person and how often you game with anyone else. Because I'll bet this style depends on a lot of trust, a huge amount of shared vision, and a lot of nonverbal communication.

Those are all good things though. If you don't have them at the table any form of game is going to fail.

True. And every group has its microculture. It just seems to me that "gaming dyads" sometimes develop which outsiders have a lot of trouble comprehending.

Quote from: Bren;831490Players who ignore guns because they think they are bullet proof "a wheellock pistol does 1d6+1 and my PC has 10 Lifeblood so I just charge him" annoy me. A lot. I avoid that behavior by trying not to play with those folks and by using rules like Honor+Intrigue, Call of Cthulhu, or heck even WEG D6 where point blank pistol shots can kill your PC.

Actually rushing the guy with the gun used to be pretty common in film and still gets used. Apparently it is also a valid combat tactic under certain circumstances.

And the wheelock example is probably valid. The ball probably wont kill you because your character knows just enough of how the things work to get outside of its effective kill point. What the player fails to think through is that sure they rushed the pistol and took 4 damage maybe. But now they are A: Wounded, and B: About to get fist or pistol beat. How much does a fist or small club do? One two hits and they could be down?