>In the game my character died (you know the one off) I was at -60,
>with only mundane healing available, so a resistance of 20M2 against
>the highest first aid availble 1M. I also tried DI but that failed
>as well. But that said, it was very dramatic and another character
>trying to save my character also died. So there was this great
>battle and two of the hero's died. Very poignant to the story.
>
>When a player makes a dangerously large bid, as a narrator you point
>out the risk in very clear terms so the whole group is aware of the
>risk being taken.
I completely agree that they should be aware of the risks involved. No doubt about that - if they're not aware of the ramifications of a bid then they shouldn't be making it at all (that is, I try to have the players understand the mechanics).
But that's just the point. What you're saying is that the "risk" in this case is death. That is, you note to the player the diffiiculty of healing at that level of negative, and you imply that there will be no help coming if they fail. And this is very dramatic indeed. And the player should only accept if, indeed, it's a good day to die.
Meaning that if it's dramatic to die here, then this is a great thing to do. But there should be other options as well. That is, your game all starts out with that promise of "a real chance of death." But consider, what if you never set up any conflicts that would include combat. Or traps, or disease - any of the "standard" RPG afflicitons that strike at PCs. That is, it's you, the Narrator, who decides to a large extent what the opposition to the heroes will be. The question is why the negative outcome of combat always has to be death.
It's neither realistic, nor dramatic. It's tense, yes, and potentially fun when the drama does match it. But the moments when death is really on the line in a story are rare. What you have to consider is that the outcome of most conflicts in stories is some sort of a setback - most importantly the character is now more interesting because of some problem that they've accumulated by the failure. More below.
>If they end up with -100AP and survive by GM fiat
>the game loses something for me.
Player fiat. I let the player decide. I'd never choose something like that for their character. Only the player really knows if the moment was dramatic enough or not for the character's story to end right there. In any case, it rarely if ever gets to this point in my game. Because...
>From what you say, and this is not a criticism, could it be your
>players bid large because they feel they have to work pretty hard to
>be in danger of losing a character and maybe it is that feeling they
>are seeking? A hero is someone who puts their lives on the line for
>what they believe after all.
Yes, but what is a life? It's made up of many things. Heroes don't always risk all of it at once. If Indiana Jones were really rolling to see if he lived or died in each conflict he was in, he'd have died long before the end of the first movie. What's really at stake in these conflicts isn't life or death, but losing something important to a character. What Complete Defeat means in mechanical terms is that you've lost the ability to approach a certain problem from the angle that you were attempting to approach it by. Yes, if life is on the line, then failure means that you can no longer approach anything from the living angle.
But that all assumes that this is what the conflict is risking. What about things like:
The point is this - the "arena" of conflict might be combat, might be debate, might be the use of any reasonable skill. But that doesn't indicate a goal for the people engaged. This is why the rules make it clear that it's important to state what it is that you're character is trying to accomplish in the contest. Because just because you're using your combat ability, doesn't mean that you're trying to kill someone.
In fact, in both real life, and in stories, it's rather rare for someone to make such an attempt on another's life. With Narrator characters, here's the thing. You can make like you're trying to kill the heroes with the arena, but have another actual goal. In fact, I don't bother telling the players what the goal of the narrator character is much of the time.
What does this mean? Well, it means that the player is unaware of precisely what they're facing in terms of loss. Meaning that they feel the pressure of the uncertainty. That is, they know that if they lose big the narrator is going to do *something* bad to them. Dramatically, there's never any lack of pressure.
My players bid large because they trust me to work with them to decide precisely what sort of goal that opponent has for their character. Again, if I'm really not quite sure by the end of the contest what the narrator character was after in the contest, I'll ask the player if that Complete Defeat means death. If not, it means that the character loses something else important to them. Morover, I'll make sure that it's the sort of loss that doesn't stymie the character, but just gives him more to do.
Basically, this last is the key, the "Yes, but" part. Failure should not mean that the player suffers in terms of suddenly lacking something to do, unless the character's story is over. That is, in fact, only if death or some other carreer ending appropriate result happens, should the result of any defeat mean that the character suddenly has nothing to do. This is problematic in a lot of scenario design, and generally in the way people handle play. If the character loses that contest to open the locked door, it can only mean that they have to find another way (oops, channeling Orlanth there). Better, a bad failure on this should mean that they lose something important - perhaps their masterfully crafted lockpicks or something, such that the character now will have more goals, not less.
Death is the ultimate game stopper. Only use it when it's appropriate to stop the game.
I've been playing this way for quite a while now, and I can only say that the fear of losing the "edge" of the game is unfounded if you handle it intelligently. Basically, never just say, "What, death? No, I overrule that." Instead, say, "What Complete Defeat? Well, you lay there dying, but you pull yourself back from the brink when you realize that Maliar has taken your beloved Shira from you. You swear to mend eventually and find her once again." See, it looks like death is on the line, but, in fact, it's the girlfirend in this case. What's the mechanical effect of Complete Defeat in this case? How about you can't face Maliar in combat again (unless you "heal" the defeat somehow), forcing the player to come up with another way to defeat him.
Making any sense? Consider this - there is no combat in Hero Quest. Mechanically, combat is just one example of the kinds of conflicts that you can mechanically run. The point being that all you have to do is to think of combat conflicts in terms of having any potential success/failure parameters, and you suddenly don't have to worry about an inappropraite death ruining a perfectly good game.
And, as you said above, this is just my take on how to play it - YMMV. But I will say that I've been a very satisfied camper using these ideas.
Mike
Powered by hypermail