>From: "parental_unit_2" <parental_unit_2_at_...>
>>
>If either one had been killed in an event important enough to narrate
>as a long extended contest, it could have still been OK. Getting
>killed by some secondary event (simple contest) or a couple of bad
>rolls in an extended one doesn't sound as fun. So I lean toward the
>"risk-averse" end of things.
This is an important point. Are we talking about risk to the player, or risk to the character? In the case of "getting killed by some secondary event" we're talking risk to the player. That is, he may lose his character, his ability to interact with the game, without any big payoff.
Risks to characters aren't avoided (unless one is playing to prove that he is a tactically competent player through the agency of his character). Risks to players are.
There's a simple way to avoid risk to players... don't set the stakes of failure as death if dying at this point in the story won't have a big payoff.
I'll mention this for shock value: what if you asked the player what the result of the Complete Defeat you just rolled should be? Certainly the player knows if it's worthwhile for his character to die then and there.
If you do this - or more likely simply convey to players that you're not going to make death occur when it's no fun, and the system doesnt' require it - then there's nothing about the conflict to which the player will be averse. Players who understand this have their characters engage in all sorts of risky behavior, and understand that the character is going to get hosed a lot. But they're getting to make decisions based on what they think the character most values. Often very heroic decisions. Certainly dramatic.
Without the worry that they'll be punished as players by the system arbitrarily deciding that their character is taken away.
Note that you don't have to tell the player that death is off the table, either - the choice to get into a contest will be made before the stakes are set. So the trust has to exist before the stakes to have the player with enough courage to take on the contest. As such, if that's the condition in question, there's no reason for you to say at that point that "death won't happen here." And, thus, the player can have his cake and eat it too: have the suspense of a possible death, without the actuality.
Just like when watching Indiana Jones, and wondering if he's going to fall off the cliff. It's OK to put him at risk, and we can worry about him. But in the end we'll get an entire and interesting story - not just some fragment cut short by some random die roll.
Yeah, I'm just repeating myself. I think it's important.
Mike
Powered by hypermail