The complexity of the system (i.e. how long it takes to create a character mechanically, in particular) seems to be one of the big elements playing into why people think of TPKs as naturally "Unfun". I would agree with that.

If my character dies after half an hour into a 3rd D&D game, then I'd be bummed. If I die in an OD&D/Swords & Wizardry game? Cool. Let me roll a new one, I'll be back in 5 minutes.

That's another nail in the coffin of overly complicated systems as far as I'm concerned. This is also one of the reasons why the behemoths of gaming suck for non-gamers who might have been otherwise interested in gaming and running games on their own. Three core books of 200+ pages? Half an hour at the very least to create a character? That blows.

Anyway. Yeah. TPKs can be understood and seized as opportunities in the campaign. They don't have to break the game. If of course creating new characters takes the whole game session, then... I understand why people would want to avoid it at all costs.

Quote from: Stuart;292200Stay off the internet then, or pay more attention to words like "advice".

Or, I could just point it out when I see it, and you can cowboy up and take it.

Quote from: Sigmund;292218Or, I could just point it out when I see it, and you can cowboy up and take it.

Ya reckon pardner? :emot-clint:

Quote from: Stuart;292242Ya reckon pardner? :emot-clint:

Yes, I do.

Hitler's Battletech Game Goes Awry
He puts all other tyrranical game masters to shame.

http://www.critical-hits.com/2009/03/24/youtube-tuesday-hitlers-locust-edition/

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;292124*snip extensive p4wning*

What it all comes down to is that you (luke) think that the game designer knows better what's fun for the group as a whole than does the GM of that group. Which is good to believe if you're a game designer, but has the problem of being utter bollocks.

You remain a cocksmock. It's probably all that time at the Forge immersed in GNS nonsense.

Bravo, Kyle, bravo. :hatsoff:

Quote from: droog;291795The truly excellent GM can use whatever tools are handed him.

Perhaps the truly excellent GMs remember that what was handed to them were just tools, and no more?

Quote from: Roman;292431Perhaps the truly excellent GMs remember that what was handed to them were just tools, and no more?

Different tools for different purposes. I can use a brick to hammer nails if I really have to.

Quote from: Benoist;292210If my character dies after half an hour into a 3rd D&D game, then I'd be bummed. If I die in an OD&D/Swords & Wizardry game? Cool. Let me roll a new one, I'll be back in 5 minutes.

That's the main reason why I like Arduin's HP  system. You start out with a nice amount that gradually go up little by little. It really works well.

Quote from: Imperator;291953I believe that the GM should follow the rules, and any houserules the group agrees to use. Apart from that the GM has the responsability of making judgements on situations not covered by the rules, using them as a reference, and those judgements are final.

So yes, I feel that all the players at a game (the GM being another player with different functions) must obey the same rules.

Except that the GM is assigned an asymmetrical role within the rules. Just to be clear, because I do agree.

Look, I could make a game that works like this...

Your character has a Fight score, and a Talk score. Both rated on a 1-10 scale.

You describe what your character wants to do, and the GM describes what happens as a result.

If you feel that fighting will enable you to get something you want, then instead of describing what you do, you can just say "I Fight in order to get X", and if the GM agrees that fighting can do that, you roll a d10 under your fight score to get X. If you feel that talking will get you somewhere, you can do likewise; the only difference is that the GM has to agree that talking is appropriate to the situation. Obviously, once you get X, the fact that you have X is incorporated into the reality of the game world and will affect further developments. (For example, whether you reach the top of a tower by pure description of climbing the outside, or by Talking your way past a guard at the staircase, it makes no difference in what you can see from the top.)

If you Fight or Talk and you fail, the GM is the final arbiter of the consequences. Usually the GM will describe a substantive development as a result of your failed action, but the GM might let you Fight or Talk again, however many times as seems reasonable based on accompanying narration.

It's very easy to play this game without breaking the rules; the only real hard-and-fast rule is that[I]if[/I] the GM allows you to fight or talk in pursuit of X, then
[I]if[/I] you make your roll, then
you get X
Everything else is just a matter of social agreement: the game will work if the GM narrates consequences of declared actions reasonably in the eyes of the players--including being reasonable in allowing the use of Fight and Talk.

My contention is that most RPGs will work pretty much in this fashion, at least in a formal sense. (The GM is technically the final arbiter, but social dynamics may give someone else more influence.) This makes RPGs very different from other games.

The place where many so-called Forge games differ from the paradigm outlined above is that the GM is removed from being the final arbiter. Sometimes it's claimed that no one has discretion over when a rule comes into play--but if this were really true, you'd have a board game (or maybe more precisely, something like Nomic). Instead you have a kind of exhortation to consensus-based rulings which mystifies the process through which consensus is reached. There's no real way to determine if a player's use of Fight to single-handedly defeat an army is appropriate, but the rules encourage the players to think they can attempt such a thing, and in the process, the rules either break the chain of internal logic (causality flows primarily from mechanics rather than narrative), or they force overt negotiation over the narrative. The former is the essence of "say yes"; the latter is the essence of "setting stakes".

Quote from: Stuart;292146This. Games shouldn't contain rules / tables that can result in a random TPK.

I think you should expand on this. Players shouldn't be forced to use those rules/tables without (a) knowing what they're getting into, and (b) having any interesting alternatives.

If players have a real, informed choice whether to do something that causes a risky random roll, then it's their problem if they take the roll and get a TPK. In this respect, players have a responsibility to approach the game in a way that keeps it interesting, just as much as GMs do.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;292444My contention is that most RPGs will work pretty much in this fashion, at least in a formal sense. (The GM is technically the final arbiter, but social dynamics may give someone else more influence.) This makes RPGs very different from other games.

The place where many so-called Forge games differ from the paradigm outlined above is that the GM is removed from being the final arbiter. Sometimes it's claimed that no one has discretion over when a rule comes into play--but if this were really true, you'd have a board game (or maybe more precisely, something like Nomic). Instead you have a kind of exhortation to consensus-based rulings which mystifies the process through which consensus is reached. There's no real way to determine if a player's use of Fight to single-handedly defeat an army is appropriate, but the rules encourage the players to think they can attempt such a thing, and in the process, the rules either break the chain of internal logic (causality flows primarily from mechanics rather than narrative), or they force overt negotiation over the narrative. The former is the essence of "say yes"; the latter is the essence of "setting stakes".

Hmmm... I think you make a good point there. Still, I'm not convinced that the difference you explain really makes it a non-RPG.

Quotein the process, the rules either break the chain of internal logic (causality flows primarily from mechanics rather than narrative), or they force overt negotiation over the narrative

Sounds nice, Elliot, but I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. Specifics?

Quote from: mrk;292439That's the main reason why I like Arduin's HP  system. You start out with a nice amount that gradually go up little by little. It really works well.

This is one of the few gems that I mined from Adruin as well.  I really liked the alternate hit point system.  It's sort of a bridge between a static hit point system and a scaling hit point system.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;292445I think you should expand on this. Players shouldn't be forced to use those rules/tables without (a) knowing what they're getting into, and (b) having any interesting alternatives.

If players have a real, informed choice whether to do something that causes a risky random roll, then it's their problem if they take the roll and get a TPK. In this respect, players have a responsibility to approach the game in a way that keeps it interesting, just as much as GMs do.

Well, this is something of a question of game design.  Should the rules have bad choices included as options for the players to learn from, or should they only have good choices?  The former is usually suggested as a way of rewarding/encouraging "system mastery."  

Random death can be fun, particularly in horror or other high-fatality games.  However, everyone dying at once seems rather less so.  By design, the choices should still aim to be fun, even if they are intended as mistakes.