Quote from: Bren;1020547Is the way in which some people play shared story telling really all that mystifying?

Is the concept that shared storytelling isn't really a game all that mystifying? Or that some statements are actually leading questions?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1020487In those kinds of games, it is less about winning or losing and more about exploring the character's morals and personality.

It seems a bit pointless, unless there are stakes involved.

So, if character death is off the table, and you want to explore the utility of cruelty versus compassion you can see effective your take over of they city-state is. Which guilds can you recruit, which factions? How much wealth can you accumulate? How much power? How many orphans rescued and given decent lives, or how profitable your mines are once you enslave them?

Utilizing your characters to examine philosophical issues is all well and good, but what are the goals? If you somehow discover that your character is like Leon in The Professional, "never women, never children", is raising up Mathilda to follow in your footsteps a win or a loss?

Having some sort of stakes, however you want to define them, and defining their gain or loss is what makes it a game. If its little more than cooperative storytelling, that's fine, but you can go with a much more simple rule set for that.

Quote from: Bren;1020547Is the way in which some people play shared story telling really all that mystifying?

Quote from: Baron Opal;1020605It seems a bit pointless, unless there are stakes involved.

Alright, fifty-zillionth time around this particular obstacle course.

• Some people play role-playing games with an emphasis on the game.
• Some people play role-playing games with an emphasis on the playing of a role.
• Some people who prefer the former don't understand why those who prefer the latter bother with the trappings/pretense of a game instead of making it a pure acting/storytelling exercise.
• People who prefer the later are not beholden to the people who prefer the former to do so.
• The two are not in competition in any way (except maybe in reserving a table at the FLGS at a given time) and it boggles my mind how often it seems people need to artificially create conflict between the two.

That about cover it? I miss anything?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1020487In those kinds of games, it is less about winning or losing and more about exploring the character's morals and personality.

Of course, if you want a game where it's more about playing out the process, ie., like a virtual real world rather than answering a question or exploring a personality facet then that kind of thing won't work.

Yes.

But consider that you can also focus on exploring morals and personality without any sort of plot control.

And I would argue that it actually borks morality pretty damn hard when the universe gives you plot armor.

I think it also tends to distort it and set people up to be extra-fragile about consequences, as seen in certain threads I've read on other forums posted by confused GMs whose players said they wanted to try a harsh dangerous game and then sulk when they lose some hitpoints and/or get cursed in the process of taking on more powerful enemies than they should have expected to, ignored GM warnings, etc.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1020613... That about cover it? I miss anything?

Do you lump the people who say they care about "genre emulation" and "creating a story" in with the people who emphasize playing a role? I wouldn't, because my favorite RPG players like both the game and the roleplaying, but don't want "genre emulation" (or don't want it to override the game logic) and understand the "story" is something you might choose to talk about to celebrate what happened in the game after the game's events have been played out.

But you could just extend the form of your list to say there are people who focus on various aspects and not others.

However, I think there are some conflicts and incompatibilities between some of those mindsets, and that's what these discussions tend to be about: how best to serve different goals, talking about what we do and don't do and why, and noticing the details of the contrasting interests and approaches of others.

And of course, expressing why the approaches of others wouldn't work for us. And not just for catharsis and being right, but because if some things aren't expressed, then the expectations of the hobby drift in ways that don't take those things into account.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1020613Alright, fifty-zillionth time around this particular obstacle course...

That about cover it? I miss anything?

Yes, the whole point, in fact.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic, the OP;1018117I am curious how "old school D&D gaming" handles deaths of high level characters (though, really, this applies to anyone playing D&D anywhere ever). We all know that low level characters can often die, and depending on how stereotypical the "fantasy vietnam" game is, they die in droves...

How do you handle the death of such characters?

Now, if we are exempting character death as a fail state because it disrupts the flow of the game, what are we playing for? This statement is not to imply that other reasons or fail states are sub-par, but to discover the goals of the game. If we are exploring how flexible our character's morals are in relation to their duty to their patron, then either loss of the patron or the compromising of their morals is the fail state. If the attempt to balance the freedom of adventure with the duties to clan are what we are exploring, then perhaps the lack of an heir is the fail state and the production of an heir is a win, with the size of the fortune amassed at that point is the degree of their win.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1020487In those kinds of games, it is less about winning or losing and more about exploring the character's morals and personality.

So, again, how do you lose? What is the motivation behind the adventuring? Why are these people not farmers and craftsmen? What is it about the personalities that makes them take these risks (ostensibly death, but whatever it is they are risking in the game), and what would it take for them to go home and not take these risks? To actually find enough wealth to have a home? To fall in love with the person they were sent to rescue?

I ask this because you seem to want to have a game where death isn't really an option. Fine, that's not necessary. But if you are going to have a situation where you are going to have adventures you need conflict, and threat of death isn't really there. So, where is the conflict, the motivation for adventure? What are these adventurers risking, what are there goals, and what are they willing to do to achieve them?

And if that last sentence isn't what mAcular is pursuing, I have misunderstood the question.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1020604Is the concept that shared storytelling isn't really a game all that mystifying?

I understand the assertion. But absent an explanation of what the writer means by "shared storytelling" I can't tell whether a vague and undefined phrase like "shared storytelling" excludes any and all activities that a reasonable person would accept as being a game.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1020605Having some sort of stakes, however you want to define them, and defining their gain or loss is what makes it a game.

Cooperative storytelling can include stakes. (It doesn't have to, but it can.) As a simple example, the stakes could be how much of the shared story any one particular person has provided. So if you want to assign a winner, the person who provided the most story wins. Or the person who provides the least story loses. Or you create a rank ordered hierarchy of winning-ness.

If two or more people take turns tossing a ball/frisbee/flaming torch/what-have-you around until one of them fails to catch the object, is that a game?

Quote from: Skarg;1020620But you could just extend the form of your list to say there are people who focus on various aspects and not others.

Yeah, shocking ain't it?

QuoteHowever, I think there are some conflicts and incompatibilities between some of those mindsets, and that's what these discussions tend to be about....

And I'm fine with that. What occasionally gets my goat are the people in the various camps who don't seem to understand the very obvious fact that different people like different things, focus on different things, value different things, etc. and that terms or categories like RPG do not have the kind of clear and unambiguous definitions that terms or categories like parallelogram, rectangle, and square possess.

I apologize, I seem not to be communicating effectively.

Quote from: Bren;1020640Cooperative storytelling can include stakes. (It doesn't have to, but it can.) As a simple example, the stakes could be how much of the shared story any one particular person has provided. So if you want to assign a winner, the person who provided the most story wins. Or the person who provides the least story loses. Or you create a rank ordered hierarchy of winning-ness.

True, but not what I am referring to. You're not trying to win against the other player, any more than the Medic is trying to beat the Researcher in Pandemic. Usually "winning" is defined as character survival. If character death is inconveinient, then perhaps a different goal may have more utility. It seems like the OP finds that risk undesirable, and was looking to see how other people deal with that in higher level or longer lasting games.

QuoteIf two or more people take turns tossing a ball/frisbee/flaming torch/what-have-you around until one of them fails to catch the object, is that a game?

No, it's a pastime.

QuoteWhat occasionally gets my goat are the people in the various camps who don't seem to understand the very obvious fact that different people like different things, focus on different things, value different things, etc. and that terms or categories like RPG do not have the kind of clear and unambiguous definitions that terms or categories like parallelogram, rectangle, and square possess.

Which is why I'm asking about campaign and character goals to clarify, so as to better understand. What gets my goat is people telling me "it's different" and expecting me to just drop the line of conversation. I won't benefit from the perspective of others that way. "...focus on different things..." is what I'm inquiring about, Bren. Or, do you think that's not worth learning about?

Well, in the specific case that I was talking about, it was other people's games.

In MY game, that the OP is about, PCs have died left and right. But the people I was worried about were players who had their original, first ever PCs, from Day 1, and had nursed them to high level without suffering any deaths yet. So I didn't want them to get so discouraged that they just quit playing or stop trying to get invested in their characters or something since they lost so much with their first ones.

However, the other people's games I was talking about isn't COMPLETELY no goals or stakes. There are stakes and goals, but it's way less sandboxy -- the GM directs the scenes around a central premise that the party has to tackle, that the game "is about." So you can say it's a more linear game. The combats are also designed to roughly match the party rather than be totally open ended situations. The situations that are available to them and the way the characters are hooked into the premise ensure that they travel along the path to deal with game's main issues rather than just run off to invade a random dungeon. The party can still die, and they can lose stakes like, trying to rescue a hostage, for instance.

In fact, the campaign ended with the "main question" being resolved by one PC coming to an answer that opposed another PC, and them fighting over it and one dying.

But basically, it would be a game with the "you trip over a trap and some rats eat you" style deaths not ever coming up.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1020645In MY game, that the OP is about, PCs have died left and right. But the people I was worried about were players who had their original, first ever PCs, from Day 1, and had nursed them to high level without suffering any deaths yet. So I didn't want them to get so discouraged that they just quit playing or stop trying to get invested in their characters or something since they lost so much with their first ones.

IME losing a very high level character normally does not have that effect. There is more a feeling that the arc of that character's life has been fulfilled, they have completed their destiny. I recall when one player lost his demigod-level 1e PC, he was very happy to start again at 1st level.
I think very frequent PC death OTOH does discourage players.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1020642I apologize, I seem not to be communicating effectively.

 OK. Let's see if we can both communicate more clearly. First off, sometimes when discussing RPGs pronouns can become confusing as there is some slippage between the "I" of the player and the "I" or "him" of the player character. In my example the winner/loser I was referring to was the player, not a character. With winning/losing correlated to how much of the shared story that player had told.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1020642True, but not what I am referring to. You're not trying to win against the other player, any more than the Medic is trying to beat the Researcher in Pandemic.

Does the noun that corresponds to the "You're" in your sentence above you refer to above the player, the player's PC, or someone else?

In any case, I don't know what you mean by "the Medic is trying to beat the Researcher in Pandemic." I'm not familiar with Pandemic. What is it?

QuoteUsually "winning" is defined as character survival.

I disagree that winning is or should be defined as character survival. Simple character survival isn't the only win/loss condition for virtually any player in any RPG I've ever seen. Dying is often, though not always, considered to be a fail or losing state for the vast majority of players (and RPGs) though there are a few exceptions e.g. heroic deaths, avoidance of fate's worse than death, etc. I've even seen quite a few players for whom death was a preferable outcome to surrender. Certainly reasonable people would agree that there are other measures of winning aside from or beyond simple survival, e.g. which PC or player acquired the most treasure, magic items, tech items, experience points, valuable in game contacts, in game knowledge or secrets, etc. Similarly there are other measures of failure like the loss of valuable resources, enduring unpleasant interactions during play (for either the player or their PC). So when I play an RPG and I want to look at my win/loss state, I compare value acquired (however one measures or defines value) vs. value lost or expended.

Also I assume that each of the other players perform a similar calculation whether consciously and explicitly or intuitively and implicitly. Some of the rewards and losses the player values are known to me as the GM and are one's that I as the GM may create or control. Some rewards and losses are subjective to the player and may be conscious, unconscious, or a combination of the two. Some players may share their views and valuations and some may not. Indeed the player may not even be able to clearly articulate which values they hold most dear while gaming. And those values will often change over time (perhaps even during the same session) and may be effected by all sorts of out-of-game factors e.g. the player who had a stressful real world day and who therefore atypically really wants to kill something in game in that one session.  

Suffice it to say I find the focus solely on character death vs. survival misses much if not most of the winning and losing that people associate with playing their character in an RPG.

QuoteNo, it's a pastime.

As is playing and running RPGs, not so? When I was a kid we referred to "playing a game of catch."

QuoteWhich is why I'm asking about campaign and character goals to clarify, so as to better understand. What gets my goat is people telling me "it's different" and expecting me to just drop the line of conversation. I won't benefit from the perspective of others that way. "...focus on different things..." is what I'm inquiring about, Bren. Or, do you think that's not worth learning about?

Learning about what other people like is good. I think you might learn more (better? faster?) about what other people like by not assuming you already know what constitutes the most important aspects of winning or losing for those other folks.

Some things I've noticed over the years.

• Quite a few players refuse to have their character surrender even when faced by overwhelming odds. Some even choose death over surrender.
• More than a few players are extremely resistant to any sort of authority figure in the setting. This may express itself as smarting off to or insulting authority figures in a way that very few people would ever do in the real world.
• A few players really hate to have their PC look bad, whether looking bad means failing at certain important tasks, failing repeatedly at things their character is supposed to be good at or at the skills that the player sees as central to their character, being made fun of by NPCs in the setting, or something else.
• Quite a few players are very resistant to the use of any form of social mechanics or controls on their PC. Examples include: the opposed traits and passions in Pendragon, especially anything related to fear, cowardice, or lack of bravery, the Sanity mechanic in Call of Cthulhu, spells in D&D like Charm Person, Hold Person, or Fear, threats or intimidation against their PC up to and including actual torture of the PC and again of course #1 above.

The above would seem to indicate that survival isn't the only place to look for win/loss states.

Quote from: S'mon;1020646IME losing a very high level character normally does not have that effect. There is more a feeling that the arc of that character's life has been fulfilled, they have completed their destiny. I recall when one player lost his demigod-level 1e PC, he was very happy to start again at 1st level.
I think very frequent PC death OTOH does discourage players.

How often are we talking?

When I first started GMing and the campaign was at lower levels, character death was pretty regular, and everyone would restart at level 1. After three years of playing twice a month, the highest death counts are 2-3 players with 4 deaths a piece.

The aggressive, reckless players, are the ones who would die, and the cautious ones would survive (the ones who still have their original PCs). However, this can create the perverse effect of making everyone afraid to ever do anything.

Nowadays, I've made things more forgiving to encourage investment into characters, but a character dies now and then. Also they are higher level now so it's harder to die.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1020656How often are we talking?

I think losing a PC every session or so, or just "regularly", can be discouraging.

Quote from: Bren;1020648In any case, I don't know what you mean by "the Medic is trying to beat the Researcher in Pandemic." I'm not familiar with Pandemic. What is it?

It's a cooperative boardgame where the players try to contain the spread of four diseases worldwide while researching the cures. Everyone wins or everyone loses, and rather fun. I brought it up because you seemed to think I was talking about players trying to best each other, and I wasn't. But, this is getting into "I think you think I think" business, and I don't want to go there.

QuoteI disagree that winning is or should be defined as character survival. Simple character survival isn't the only win/loss condition for virtually any player in any RPG I've ever seen. Dying is often, though not always, considered to be a fail or losing state for the vast majority of players (and RPGs) though there are a few exceptions e.g. heroic deaths, avoidance of fate's worse than death, etc. I've even seen quite a few players for whom death was a preferable outcome to surrender. Certainly reasonable people would agree that there are other measures of winning aside from or beyond simple survival, e.g. which PC or player acquired the most treasure, magic items, tech items, experience points, valuable in game contacts, in game knowledge or secrets, etc. Similarly there are other measures of failure like the loss of valuable resources, enduring unpleasant interactions during play (for either the player or their PC). So when I play an RPG and I want to look at my win/loss state, I compare value acquired (however one measures or defines value) vs. value lost or expended.

I agree, especially the bolded part.

QuoteSuffice it to say I find the focus solely on character death vs. survival misses much if not most of the winning and losing that people associate with playing their character in an RPG.

Still agreeing.

QuoteLearning about what other people like is good. I think you might learn more (better? faster?) about what other people like by not assuming you already know what constitutes the most important aspects of winning or losing for those other folks.

I don't assume such, that's why I'm participating in the discussion. I can only start from my point of view, however, and then expand or change my mind with discourse with others. However, I seem to have given you the impression that character survival was the only thing important to me.

QuoteSome things I've noticed over the years.

• Quite a few players refuse to have their character surrender even when faced by overwhelming odds. Some even choose death over surrender.
• More than a few players are extremely resistant to any sort of authority figure in the setting. This may express itself as smarting off to or insulting authority figures in a way that very few people would ever do in the real world.
• A few players really hate to have their PC look bad, whether looking bad means failing at certain important tasks, failing repeatedly at things their character is supposed to be good at or at the skills that the player sees as central to their character, being made fun of by NPCs in the setting, or something else.
• Quite a few players are very resistant to the use of any form of social mechanics or controls on their PC. Examples include: the opposed traits and passions in Pendragon, especially anything related to fear, cowardice, or lack of bravery, the Sanity mechanic in Call of Cthulhu, spells in D&D like Charm Person, Hold Person, or Fear, threats or intimidation against their PC up to and including actual torture of the PC and again of course #1 above.

The above would seem to indicate that survival isn't the only place to look for win/loss states.

Indeed. We can even expand your list with the alternate win/loss states I mentioned above (gaining of stable wealth, producing an heir, protecting one's extended family).

I think you've made a faulty assumption since I was focused on discussing character death, which was a point of discussion of the OP. Thus, I was inquiring what else was of interest.

Quote from: Baron Opal;1020664I think you've made a faulty assumption since I was focused on discussing character death, which was a point of discussion of the OP. Thus, I was inquiring what else was of interest.

Yes, I was making that assumption.  I got the impression that you didn't understand how an RPG could still be a game if PC survival or death was no longer at stake. It's a point of view I've seen on the Internet before. I apologize if I have jumped to a hasty and incorrect conclusion. At this point I think I have lost the thread of what it is (if anything) that you find perplexing about the type of play that mAcular Chaotic was describing.

If you feel like clarifying that would be great and I'll see if there is anything I can productively contribute to that discussion. I will also understand if you don't feel like rehashing or rephrasing things already said and just want to move on.