Quote from: RPGPundit;421235If the character can't die from the jump, there isn't going to be tension, no matter what. You can have "pretend tension", the character himself might be tense, but that amounts to you saying "my character is tense".  That's fucking it.

The only way for the PLAYER to feel tension is the way you usually feel tension, when there is real Risk, when YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO LOSE.

RPGPundit

I think it boils down to the stakes. LIke I said earlier, reading a book in the library feels less tense than jumping off a building because the stakes for failing to read the book are so low. It doesn't necessarily have to be character death (depending on the grittiness of the system), but in my opinon failing to the jump roll on the building needs to produce some negative setback that makes you want to avoid it, to replicate the mood your after. Whether its, the villain gets away, or you die, it has to be something.

There are instances where mechanics can crank up the tension, but that's usually because they raise the liklihood of something bad happening. So if your playing a horror game with a fear effect that paralyzes characters, that can work because being paralyzed while confronting a lethal threat raises the chances of being devoured by zombies (or clawed to death by a werewolf). But again, the high stakes were already present and the mechanic just shifted things out of the PC's favor.

Quote from: RPGPundit;421235If the character can't die from the jump, there isn't going to be tension, no matter what. You can have "pretend tension", the character himself might be tense, but that amounts to you saying "my character is tense".  That's fucking it.

The only way for the PLAYER to feel tension is the way you usually feel tension, when there is real Risk, when YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO LOSE.

RPGPundit

It depends on what character death means, or rather what character failure means. There are probably better ways to a desired end result of 'player inconvenience' than death of a single character since that player will have to create a new character and jump back in - unless he wants to sit on his arse and watch his friends have fun (or just go home).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;421239There are instances where mechanics can crank up the tension, but that's usually because they raise the liklihood of something bad happening. So if your playing a horror game with a fear effect that paralyzes characters, that can work because being paralyzed while confronting a lethal threat raises the chances of being devoured by zombies (or clawed to death by a werewolf). But again, the high stakes were already present and the mechanic just shifted things out of the PC's favor.

If a character gets bitten by a zombie (and thus infected so that he will inexorably turn at some point) is it better that the infection is realised and the character dead/removed frokm play, or that the threat is constantly there if ultimately never really made manifest?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;421245If a character gets bitten by a zombie (and thus infected so that he will inexorably turn at some point) is it better that the infection is realised and the character dead/removed frokm play, or that the threat is constantly there if ultimately never really made manifest?

I think if the threat is just an illusion, then it doesn't achieve what it should. At some point the player should turn into a zombie (or be cured if that is on the table). What makes the zombie scary to me in a game is the possibility of turning into a zombie if I get bit. That doesn't mean everyone who gets bit has to turn. You could have a system where the person makes a check after being bitten to see if they get infected, and the uncertainty of whether they will or will not turn adds something to the tension. But if the stakes of being removed from play and becoming a threat to the rest of the party, are what make this for me.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;421243It depends on what character death means, or rather what character failure means. There are probably better ways to a desired end result of 'player inconvenience' than death of a single character since that player will have to create a new character and jump back in - unless he wants to sit on his arse and watch his friends have fun (or just go home).

I think every group has its preferences when it comes to character death (which I why I emphasized stakes), but for me the game is less fun if character death isn't a real threat. My time playing my character is that much more enjoyable, even if it means I have to spend time making a new character because he died (but that is what back up characters are for anyways). When the GM fudges, or when the GM only allows character deaths that result from bad choices, it completely wrecks the experience for me. I do game with people, who take the opposite position though.

Quote from: RPGPundit;421235If the character can't die from the jump, there isn't going to be tension, no matter what. You can have "pretend tension", the character himself might be tense, but that amounts to you saying "my character is tense".  That's fucking it.

The only way for the PLAYER to feel tension is the way you usually feel tension, when there is real Risk, when YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO LOSE.

I agree you need something to lose, but hit points or their equivalent(ie possibility of loss of life or limb) aren't the only things you can do that with. Depending on the nature of the action(or overall conflict) and what's going on in the character's life outside of that microcosm, you can threaten a lot more than just their HP.

Heck, entire systems are dedicated to this. Like the FATE point economy. Your character gets dragged through the mud and for going along with it you get points you can spend to shine when it's really important. If you're running low on points, when to spend them becomes a matter of tension. Sure you can spend your last fate point, but what will the GM put you through later in order for you to restock?

PDQ has the famous "punch Spider-Man in the girlfriend" example. Failure in that game doesn't always mean failure in the standard sense, but "damage" in that game often represents complications and delays that cause problems in the character's life as a whole.

Something to lose is needed, yes. Does it need to be life or limb? Not hardly.

Sorry, what makes more fucking sense:

1. PC tries to jump a fucking building, and failing would mean he'll almost certainly die and have to make a new character.

2. PC tries to jump a fucking building, and failing means he'll be having troubles in his relationship with his aunt?

Fuck that. That, right there, is fucking Swine bullshit.

The maximum tension, and the maximum payoff, also require the maximum risk. Trying to replace that with absolutely unrelated "consequences" only destroys all sense of emulation.

There's no way to supplant the level of "risk" of being told IF YOU FAIL AT THIS YOU WON'T GET TO PLAY THIS CHARACTER ANYMORE.  That's it.  The fact that people today are a bunch of fucking pussies who want to try to have their cake and eat it too is just pathetic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;421695Sorry, what makes more fucking sense:

1. PC tries to jump a fucking building, and failing would mean he'll almost certainly die and have to make a new character.

2. PC tries to jump a fucking building, and failing means he'll be having troubles in his relationship with his aunt?

Fuck that. That, right there, is fucking Swine bullshit.

That only exists in your head. There is no such a game, and you won't find it. There is no such game (indie or otherwise) in which failing a roll jumping a building causes you to break up with your SO.

But this has been original. I give you a 7.

Quote from: Imperator;421730That only exists in your head. There is no such a game, and you won't find it. There is no such game (indie or otherwise) in which failing a roll jumping a building causes you to break up with your SO.

But this has been original. I give you a 7.

I've seen it said that in PDQ# you can get "punched in the girlfriend" - that is, that losing a combat can cause you to lose elements of your character other than physical hitpoints. But I've never read a PDQ# game so have no idea if that's actually strictly true of the system.

Quote from: Grymbok;421749I've seen it said that in PDQ# you can get "punched in the girlfriend" - that is, that losing a combat can cause you to lose elements of your character other than physical hitpoints. But I've never read a PDQ# game so have no idea if that's actually strictly true of the system.

I have read (only read, not played it, mind you) Dead Inside and other PDQ SRD I found somewhere. That is absolutely untrue.

Now, yor adversary could target some of your qualities, so conning your girlfriend into dumping you or killing her would be a possibility. But you would lose that quality as a result of a coherent in-game happening.

Quote from: Imperator;421730That only exists in your head. There is no such a game, and you won't find it. There is no such game (indie or otherwise) in which failing a roll jumping a building causes you to break up with your SO.

Actually, that's not true. In Fate, for example, failing at anything causes you to deplete your fate point reserve which causes you to need to have negative story things happen later on to refill it. So in a very real way, a bad roll on an athletics test could have you end up with marital troubles later on.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;422184Actually, that's not true. In Fate, for example, failing at anything causes you to deplete your fate point reserve which causes you to need to have negative story things happen later on to refill it. So in a very real way, a bad roll on an athletics test could have you end up with marital troubles later on.

-Frank

Not exactly true. You can forfeit the loss of Fate points and take the proper negative consequence.

Quote from: RPGPundit;4216952. PC tries to jump a fucking building, and failing means he'll be having troubles in his relationship with his aunt?

Where did i ever say that should happen?

It may be realistic for a character to die if he falls 40 storeys failing a jump. But this isn't real life, it's a game. Games don't interest me if they simulate real life as is, they interest me if they simulate the conventions of the genre they represent (and maybe that includes a game that is real life realistic). Playing under such random and two dimensional conventions is just boring. You roll for your Jump skill and you can either live or die; where's the fun in that? Presumably the jump in question is relevant - the character is being chased. So they are acting 'in character' (as opposed to randomly being stupid), therefore failure - death - just penalises the player for playing his character in game. That to me is the wrong approach. Different outcomes are required, not just die after falling because reality demands it.

Now maybe punching someone in the girlfriend offends your sensibilities, but I would like to see a better approach. When trinity makes that jump at the start of the matrix, we know she won't fail. So instead the film compensates us by showing the sequence in a spectacular fashion with some awesome music, etc. In an rpg, we need to think in a similar way according to the context (that it's an rpg, not a film). Therefore how do we compensate the player's sensibilities for buying into the idea that his character can't just randomly die while trying to do something cool and in keeping?

Quote from: FrankTrollman;422184Actually, that's not true. In Fate, for example, failing at anything causes you to deplete your fate point reserve which causes you to need to have negative story things happen later on to refill it. So in a very real way, a bad roll on an athletics test could have you end up with marital troubles later on.

-Frank

Potentially, similar incongruity can happen in any rpg that uses dice rolls to determine success/failure. Especially if critical results are employed within the system.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;422192Potentially, similar incongruity can happen in any rpg that uses dice rolls to determine success/failure. Especially if critical results are employed within the system.

If something bad happens later, it's not because something bad didn't happen now.  Not the same thing.  It's the difference between the random possibility of getting hit by a car while walking down the street and knowing that there is a car parked down the block with a driver just waiting to drive down the street and run you over one of these days.