Quote from: SpikeOvergeneralization, J.

Yep. My bad. I went back and read the initial post again and I agree with you in retrospect. Neither Polaris or among the beautiful creatures doom characters to fail at whatever they undertake, which is what the initial post seems to suggest.

In these games, the world will end and there is nothing that the PCs can do to stop it, but that's not quite the same thing. They (the PCs) can still successfully pursue a number of other goals (including thwarting villains, falling in love, engaging in political skullduggery, etc).

I can deal with a game that presupposes the end of the world, but a game where whatever (i.e., everything) that my PC attempted to accomplish was doomed to fail? No. I wouldn't play in that game.

I posted this on the same thread I started on rpgnet. It may or may not clarify, what I'm trying to get at.

QuoteNow, just because the pcs know they are doomed, does not mean they know what form said doom takes. The thriller element so often on display - well at least in my games - would be retained by them not knowing how or when they will die, all possible because of the fickle hand of dice  But they will be racing to their doom so to speak...

Someone mentioned the Alamo. This is exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about. I think doom situations like these is the perfect breeding ground for intense action and roleplaying.

Furthermore, in my In Harms Way campaign, the players know that their mission -based on real life events, Napoleon's expedition in Egpyt was a success - but what exactly happens to them is still unknown...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI posted this on the same thread I started on rpgnet. It may or may not clarify, what I'm trying to get at.

Kind of. . . but now you're talking about something totally different than your first post. In your first post you were talking about PCs being doomed to fail at whatever they attempted (i.e., doomed never to succeed). Now you're talking about them being doomed to die, which is not necessarily the same thing as being doomed to fail. I suggest that you take some time to think about what it is you actually want to discuss here and then, once you have it nailed down, start a new thread.

Quote from: jdrakehKind of. . . but now you're talking about something totally different than your first post. In your first post you were talking about PCs being doomed to fail at whatever they attempted (i.e., doomed never to succeed). Now you're talking about them being doomed to die, which is not necessarily the same thing as being doomed to fail. I suggest that you take some time to think about what it is you actually want to discuss here and then, once you have it nailed down, start a new thread.

Actualy failure and death (ultimately) is what I am getting at.(Your distinction is pretty spot on though)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RActualy failure and death (ultimately) is what I am getting at.

Do you mean, as you initially posted, that PCs "would fail in whatever it was they set out to do" (i.e., everything that they set out to do)? Or do you mean that they'd simply fail to to achieve one specific endgame goal (e.g., saving the world)?

If the latter, I could hang -- so long as my PC was allowed to pursue other goals during actual play (such is the case in ABC and, as I understand it, Polaris). If my PC was forced to pursue only the unobtainable goal, then I'd pass. Also, if the former, no -- I could never enjoy such a game.

Quote from: jdrakehDo you mean, as you initially posted, that PCs "would fail in whatever it was they set out to do" (i.e., everything that they set out to do)? Or do you mean that they'd simply fail to to achieve one specific endgame goal (e.g., saving the world)?

If the latter, I could hang -- so long as my PC was allowed to pursue other goals during actual play (such is the case in ABC and, as I understand it, Polaris).

(Bolding mine) I meant the latter. Thanks James, for clearing this issue up. The PCs would be encouraged to pursue (and depending on luck? dice whatever) may even succeed. I'll post an example of a campaign I'm thinking of running.

Regards,
David R

Still not with you, there. Like I said, I'm the guy with the van full of dynamite with Cthulu's name on it.  Take the Midnight setting, pretty grim and gloomy, no chance for heroes sort of place, right? Sort of what you're talking about in presentation.

Sure, at a starting, low level campaign point I'll be all about surviving the session and dodging that fatal blow for as long as possible. But before too long I'm gonna be looking for ways to turn things around, reall screw the bad guys over in the long run.  If every idea, no matter how plausible gets shot down by fiat 'the setting doesn't work that way' or 'no, Spike, you're doomed' I'd quit in a heart beat. Heck, if the GM led me on, let me think my ideas where going somewhere and pulled the rug out from under by more subtle fiating I'd kiss the game goodbye.  

Grim? sure. Dangerous? There with ya bub. Hopeless? only if you mean in tone, and not literally.

Spike I get where you are coming from. Truth be told, most of my players are Pika-nese in outlook But...

...they have told me they want something different. A couple of months back I posted a link on this site about The Black Pharaohs. This is what my doom campaign is going to be about. The dying days of this Empire. Currently I'm doing rudimentary research, trying to find a pivotal moment where I can set the campaign. If I can't find one, I'll probably make one up.

The players will know upfront, that this campaign (working title - and apologies to the film - Long Day's Journey into Night) will be about the doom of their civilization, not to mention their characters....

I'm probably going to run it like the tv series Rome or better yet The Last Days of Pompeii, were they will be adventure, intrigue, all this good stuff...but in the distance, the darkness edges closer...

Regards,
David R

See... I don't mind a dying empire game.  That is that the EMPIRE is gonna fail, probably no matter what anyone does about it. But what the CHARACTERS do is NOT garaunteed to fail.  Maybe the actions of the characters breath a few more years of life into the beast, maybe they are instrumental in salvaging some civilization, some culture from the rot and decay around them, maybe they set up their own mini-empire out in the hinterlands, filled with the best and brightest they could recruit.

The point is, they don't have to go down with the ship.

Hell, let me bring in Vance's Dying Earth stuff. The entire world is on its last legs, ancient beyond measure, the sun could go out at any moment.... yadda yadda.

Only: the sun never goes out. Each story starts and ends with the sun still up there.  Sure, everything is decadent 'seen it, done it, enjoy life while you still can'... and there are still adventures. To the characters and the reader what goes on in the story MATTERS.  And if every story ended with the sun going out for good, people would stop caring after the second book. They might even get upset with the first book, if the novelty of wiping out the story with this plot device didn't charm them.

Because the story isn't about Cudgel the Clever reigniting the sun, or finding some way to escape, its about him stealing from some bad ass wizard, and what the wizard does in revenge. Oh.. and the sun could go out any day.