Is it time to cut the war game roots of role-playing?

[Lord Raziere]

No. no. no.

a character losing is a tragedy. I'm not interested in tragedies. I would only feel sad that my character did not get to achieve their goal this game, and wouldn't have fun knowing that if I were in their shoes, that they failed, and that the entire game leading up this failure was a waste of time and effort. With no way to continue to make an effort to achieve the goal.

Losing is not fun, for I have played Dark Souls 3 where you lose over again and over again, and the fun I had was when I finally won, not when I failed again. The fun is in defeating the boss after a good hard fight, not after losing again- losing is easy, just stand still and let the enemy kill you, if you think it so fun.

[ImNotTrevor]

I'm torn about where this has gone, probably because I game very differently from most here. I'll outline the differences in how my groups tend to operate and go forward from there.

1. We tend to play games where all characters acting as one unit is NOT the expectation. This is less rare than you would assume, and is fun for similar reasons to those that make an evening of Super Smash Bros fun. But with cooler stories to tell our friends by the end.

2. This means that we tend to not be concerned with individual "usefulness to the party." Scenes change rapidly between many people and the systems we use are fairly light and chaotic, so the odds of sticking with one event for long are small, and most often characters find themselves in unlikely pairs either at odds or working together. (You've not had a fun time at the RP table until a homicidal religious maniac and the psychic who brainwashed him into killing his wife have to work together to stop an invading warlord.)


So basically...
My current character is probably going to lose.... maybe. That's my assessment as a player who sees all the scenes. But my character isn't me and has his own agenda which he will pursue come death and/or hell. He knows his personal quest is a longshot. He just doesn't care.

So in my personal opinion, it's not so much that losing is fun.

What's fun is to throw together a bunch of passionate, intense people in dire, horrible circumstances and see what sort of shape the resultant wreckage takes. What is fun is the uncertainty.

Now, where I'd probably differ is that I'd say this:
Failure can be Fun.

Failing is less dire than losing, and often results in more interesting results than just losing. (Many good stories both in fiction and in reality begin with a failure, not a success.) Most successful people experience many, many failures no matter how competent. And by "failures" I mean major, dire setbacks. (Like your 3rd attempt at starting a business going bankrupt.) But they are still both competent and successful overall. If the biggest failure a PC ever experiences is being unable to get extra treasure, the stakes for their adventures are probably pretty low.

The problem many systems have is that they're a bit all-or-nothing. PCs getting captured, tortured, knocked out, and otherwise is pretty rare in many wide-use systems. Hence why Losing is rarely fun there. In my favorite system, losing all your hitpoints doesn't mean death. Heck, it can happen to you 3 times before you finally HAVE to die! And having that happen means being suicidally stupid on a regular basis. It's hard to die. Why? Because death is the most boring thing that can happen to you.

So yeah. Failure can be fun. Losing... nah.

But then again, my group doesn't assume that we're all going to always be on the same team. So that colors my experience a lot.

[kyoryu]

Failing should be fun. Losing isn't fun, we tend to avoid it. But games are better when it isn't The Worst. And too many games are made so that the only viable options are either party victory or TPK.

As a gamer, in just about any game, video, sports, whatever, a good game is one that I can lose. It's not the losing itself that's fun - but the fact that I can lose, evidenced by the fact that I *do* lose on a regular basis, is what makes the victories so sweet.

If I basically know I'll "win" every encounter provided I don't totally screw up, then that's boring to me.

[Cluedrew]

On Losing is Fun: I think the point of the saying is not that it is stating that the act of losing is fun, but that losing (or failure, see ImNotTrevor) can be part of a fun experience. In fact generally, even in those contexts the act of losing itself is unfun, but often worth it to get even more fun out of the game.

And then there is the idea that "win" and "lose" are not so simple as who was the last standing in a wargame. In my group there are two famous campaigns, one where almost everyone died (all but 1 PC) and one where everyone made it out, put just barely. The first was considered a win, the latter a draw. There were a lot of objectives that did not require the PC to live in the first.

On Useless Characters: Can characters really be useless? I often joke that there are two basic roles in our party. Those who get us into trouble and those that get us out of trouble. By the standard definition the former is useless* but the game wouldn't be nearly as fun without them. So they have a use from a narrative/game flow perspective.

* Well not quite, but they have some skills and resources that help, but not as much as they need help so overall I think it counts.

[Jama7301]

I try to frame it as "Failure can be interesting". It's why I will peek in on bad TV or listen to bad music, in order to get different approaches.

Avoiding absolutes with this because hoo boy, can it go bad. Unfair failure, vindictive GMs, and the like can really strain this. It requires that you not only be on the same page as your GM, but as every other player, because someone's failure might end up costing you. It's a style that requires a lot of trust from all parties to even approach it going well.

If I act suboptimally, put the party in danger, or just botch some rolls, it's fine if we're all in on this ride together, and the GM is willing to roll with it in a way that makes sense.

If Thomas doesn't want his thief dragged into the Bard getting tossed in jail, he may find my behavior or bad luck ranging anywhere from mildly annoying to incredibly frustrating.

It's kind of a hard line to walk as a GM.

[Jay R]

It's not that "Losing is fun," or "Failing is fun."

Playing is fun. I actually enjoy playing. I can play for hours, having fun. If, at the end of that time, I fail, or lose, well, that's annoying, but nobody makes me give the fun back.

[Cluedrew]

{Laughing} Internally.

You know, there are many ways I'm sure we could state that with more accuracy, but that is a beautiful way to put it. It also has me highly amused.

[Lord Raziere]

Whatever. I don't really get it myself, while I can accept failure I'm not good at or with character death, just not my playstyle.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Failing should be fun. Losing isn't fun, we tend to avoid it. But games are better when it isn't The Worst. And too many games are made so that the only viable options are either party victory or TPK.

As a gamer, in just about any game, video, sports, whatever, a good game is one that I can lose. It's not the losing itself that's fun - but the fact that I can lose, evidenced by the fact that I *do* lose on a regular basis, is what makes the victories so sweet.

If I basically know I'll "win" every encounter provided I don't totally screw up, then that's boring to me.

I can understand this, but have to wonder. Failure is an inherent part of anything with randomization (or unknowns). Why go out of your way to increase the odds of failure? That is, what is the fun in creating a character with the intent of failing? That's what some seem to be wanting. Is it about creating the weakest character that can still succeed?

I try to frame it as "Failure can be interesting". It's why I will peek in on bad TV or listen to bad music, in order to get different approaches.

Avoiding absolutes with this because hoo boy, can it go bad. Unfair failure, vindictive GMs, and the like can really strain this. It requires that you not only be on the same page as your GM, but as every other player, because someone's failure might end up costing you. It's a style that requires a lot of trust from all parties to even approach it going well.

If I act suboptimally, put the party in danger, or just botch some rolls, it's fine if we're all in on this ride together, and the GM is willing to roll with it in a way that makes sense.

If Thomas doesn't want his thief dragged into the Bard getting tossed in jail, he may find my behavior or bad luck ranging anywhere from mildly annoying to incredibly frustrating.

It's kind of a hard line to walk as a GM.

Note: the following applies to games where some sort of party cohesion is expected. Otherwise, do as best fits the system.

As a player (and as a GM), I would be very unhappy if one player came to the table with the intention of "causing trouble" for the group. As a player, I expect everyone to try to contribute to the party's goals (or at least not actively sabotage the group). If the premise is "sneaky recovery of artifact" and one person brings a loudmouth who broadcasts the party's presence to the world, that's a problem. If the premise is "travel the world, meet interesting monsters, kill them and take their stuff," a non-combatant (or an active pacifist) is a no-no. As a DM, it feels rude for one player to disrespect the work I put in to create an active world with interesting hooks by refusing to engage with them or trying to undermine the premise. Either play someone who the group would want to be with or don't play. Playing a "look at me I'm so special and cause you all trouble" type who constantly has to be rescued is an inherently egotistical thing to do. It makes the game all about that one character instead of sharing the spotlight evenly. It also consumes an inordinate amount of GM time to plan and react to constant intentional disruption while still keeping things moving for the rest of the group.

I can understand the lure of playing a "group of level 0 commoners trying to survive in a big bad world" game, but they shouldn't stay level 0 commoners. If they do, they're gonna die real quick. Same if you try to play an incompetent who wouldn't have survived to adulthood without constant supervision in a more normal game. In this scenario, you also shouldn't have a group of level X adventurers and a PC who's a level 0 commoner (at least not for more than a single fight).

Note that I do not demand that characters be hyper-competent--just enough to not sit around twiddling their thumbs or actively draining group resources (including player time). There's a huge gap between incompetent and so powerful that you can't fail. Systems that encourage either end are Doing It Wrong(tm) in my opinion.

[Max_Killjoy]

I can understand this, but have to wonder. Failure is an inherent part of anything with randomization (or unknowns). Why go out of your way to increase the odds of failure? That is, what is the fun in creating a character with the intent of failing? That's what some seem to be wanting. Is it about creating the weakest character that can still succeed?


Note: the following applies to games where some sort of party cohesion is expected. Otherwise, do as best fits the system.

As a player (and as a GM), I would be very unhappy if one player came to the table with the intention of "causing trouble" for the group. As a player, I expect everyone to try to contribute to the party's goals (or at least not actively sabotage the group). If the premise is "sneaky recovery of artifact" and one person brings a loudmouth who broadcasts the party's presence to the world, that's a problem. If the premise is "travel the world, meet interesting monsters, kill them and take their stuff," a non-combatant (or an active pacifist) is a no-no. As a DM, it feels rude for one player to disrespect the work I put in to create an active world with interesting hooks by refusing to engage with them or trying to undermine the premise. Either play someone who the group would want to be with or don't play. Playing a "look at me I'm so special and cause you all trouble" type who constantly has to be rescued is an inherently egotistical thing to do. It makes the game all about that one character instead of sharing the spotlight evenly. It also consumes an inordinate amount of GM time to plan and react to constant intentional disruption while still keeping things moving for the rest of the group.

I can understand the lure of playing a "group of level 0 commoners trying to survive in a big bad world" game, but they shouldn't stay level 0 commoners. If they do, they're gonna die real quick. Same if you try to play an incompetent who wouldn't have survived to adulthood without constant supervision in a more normal game. In this scenario, you also shouldn't have a group of level X adventurers and a PC who's a level 0 commoner (at least not for more than a single fight).

Note that I do not demand that characters be hyper-competent--just enough to not sit around twiddling their thumbs or actively draining group resources (including player time). There's a huge gap between incompetent and so powerful that you can't fail. Systems that encourage either end are Doing It Wrong(tm) in my opinion.

Fully agreed on both points.

I just don't get the attraction of failure, or of playing a character who contributes little and constantly needs help.

[ImNotTrevor]

This is another of those times where I kinda have to shrug because "the party working as a cohesive unit at all times" is barely a part of my usual games.

Even in my FATE games the characters are at least a liiiittle bit at odds on occassion. And that's my most teamworky game I play.

I usually do Apocalypse World and its derivatives nowadays and boy howdy does that not stick to the "party of adventurers" format. When one of the classes is basically "you're the mayor" and another is "you own a business," you're going to have a very different game than one in which everyone has different methods of killing stuff and/or acquiring loot.

That's probably a big part of why I like it so much, now that I think about it....
Since there's no out-and-out expectation for the party to be a unit, pvp is less of an issue because nothing has been damaged.
Players not contributing to the current situation isn't really a problem. They have their own concerns to attend to that have far-reaching consequences and involve some of the NPCs causing the problem you're dealing with now.
Maybe the guy who's Nash's best customer might be the guy trying to kick T-bone out of the gang. Nash wants him alive, T-bone wants him dead. Maybe Crash finds out that its his right-hand-man leaking info to Juniper when he goes to confess his sins to her. Maybe the guy Jethro blames for the problems going on down at the temple is the guy supplyinf moonshine to Nash. Maybe all of the above.
That creates way more interesting dynamics, to me, than the party needing to basically have the same relationship to an NPC. When the group understands that this kind of precarious positioning is possible and common, and commits to it, things tend to go AWESOME! Apocalypse World is probably the only game I've played where having at least one psychotic murderhobo is practically guaranteed to make it more fun.

To put it simply, in my second session of Apocalypse World ever, one of my players misunderstood an "important meeting" not to be an actual important meeting, but code meaning this guy needed to be killed. Fast forward to this guy going out a window and the whole community going bananas. In the end, the guy's "lawyer" started a coup and took over the town, leaving the players as refugees.
And we all considered it the best 4 hours of Tabletop any of us ever played.

[CharonsHelper]

This is another of those times where I kinda have to shrug because "the party working as a cohesive unit at all times" is barely a part of my usual games.

Even in my FATE games the characters are at least a liiiittle bit at odds on occassion. And that's my most teamworky game I play.

While you might not play them very much, teamwork based games are the VAST majority of TTRPGs, and earlier the OP basically said that he was talking about D&D and its derivatives.

So it's as if the OP said he didn't like getting sun in his eyes playing sports, he later admitted that he was talking specifically about baseball and maybe softball, and you're saying it's not a problem in your sports when you play squash & ping pong. Sure - squash & ping pong players don't worry about sunlight, but the vast majority of sports are outdoors & the OP specifically said that he was talking about baseball.

You're just talking past the topic at hand. Yes, your point is true, but not really relevant.

[oxybe]

@Oxybe: I disagree with your argument starting with your premise. You found your reasoning on the idea that Player A is somehow not engaging the scenario. But they are: they looked at the facts of the situation and facts of their character and decided on a course of action. They are tangibly acting in character. It is just as valid game decision as Player B's or hypothetical Player C's. It's bad character decision, but that should not make it a bad player decision.

You want to talk acting? Fine. Why should I, as an actor, share the stage with someone who doesn't do anything to move the scene along? This isn't reciting Shakespeare. There is no script to follow. This is best compared to improv, and the crowd threw you a scene and your response to the current situation is lie down and do nothing because "it's what my character would do".

There is no Stanley Kubrick breathing down your neck and asking for retakes if you don't get it just right. There is you, the others at the table and the GM.

I would say if "acting in character" would make for a bad or dull scene, be a good actor and find a reason why your character would engage in this situation. Find a rationalization as to why you would engage in something your character would normally not do and see it as a chance to grow your character. Or just say it was an out-of character panic moment. Something.

You can try to rationalize it as "I was just playing my character" but the end result is still:

A) you're not contributing to the scene or scenario. your character chose to do nothing

B) You, the player, made the choice to bring a character who chose to nothing instead of bringing in a character that would do something.

You disagree with my premise. I disagree with yours. You're not just here for yourself, you're sharing the game space with everyone else at the table, so interact with them, interact with the scene, keep the ball moving, do something other then nothing!

I'm coming from the point of view that the people at the table, the players and GM, will make an active effort to have their characters engage the situation presented to them. They'll find a way to go "yes my character will do something" and either find a way to justify it using existing character motivations or will do so to show the character is trying to change something about themselves and grow.

at this point it's probably an agree to disagree, but I unless it's a player's first session or two and they're getting a feel for the group, I would expect them to find a way to take an active role in the scene.

[Max_Killjoy]

You want to talk acting? Fine. Why should I, as an actor, share the stage with someone who doesn't do anything to move the scene along? This isn't reciting Shakespeare. There is no script to follow. This is best compared to improv, and the crowd threw you a scene and your response to the current situation is lie down and do nothing because "it's what my character would do".

There is no Stanley Kubrick breathing down your neck and asking for retakes if you don't get it just right. There is you, the others at the table and the GM.

I would say if "acting in character" would make for a bad or dull scene, be a good actor and find a reason why your character would engage in this situation. Find a rationalization as to why you would engage in something your character would normally not do and see it as a chance to grow your character. Or just say it was an out-of character panic moment. Something.

You can try to rationalize it as "I was just playing my character" but the end result is still:

A) you're not contributing to the scene or scenario. your character chose to do nothing

B) You, the player, made the choice to bring a character who chose to nothing instead of bringing in a character that would do something.

You disagree with my premise. I disagree with yours. You're not just here for yourself, you're sharing the game space with everyone else at the table, so interact with them, interact with the scene, keep the ball moving, do something other then nothing!

I'm coming from the point of view that the people at the table, the players and GM, will make an active effort to have their characters engage the situation presented to them. They'll find a way to go "yes my character will do something" and either find a way to justify it using existing character motivations or will do so to show the character is trying to change something about themselves and grow.

at this point it's probably an agree to disagree, but I unless it's a player's first session or two and they're getting a feel for the group, I would expect them to find a way to take an active role in the scene.

Agreed.

I've been going to some improv comedy shows, and the last thing I can picture them doing is refusing to engage.

If playing a character in an RPG is "acting" (which I do not actually agree with, any more than I would agree that an RPG is "a form of fiction"), then, well, acting isn't done in a vacuum, just for the actor's sake, unless the actor wants to just prance around an empty space alone and play make believe, I guess. The only audience in an RPG group is the rest of the group... who would be the rest of the "troupe" as well? Yeah, this whole "roleplaying is acting" thing falls apart pretty fast.

[Cluedrew]

You're just talking past the topic at hand. Yes, your point is true, but not really relevant.

Well even though the topic is about the systems that are still heavily rooted in war games, pretending that other systems don't exist isn't helpful (as was pounded into me on the first page of this thread). I suppose the assumption that there are (~)two clear-cut sides is also a war game thing, the PCs all being on one of them might be an extension of that.

I may have missed that one in my list, it doesn't feel quite the same as others on the list but if the list is supposed to be "unspoken assumptions that date back to the war game days that may be harmful depending on context" than yes, it may belong on it.

On Not Engaging: I think there some scenes that work quite well when one of the characters just goes "nope", but they certainly aren't the norm.

[Jay R]

This article has a great line on the subject of not engaging.

"Do you remember that great story about that hobbit who told Gandalf to go away, and sat at home picking his hairy toes all day before his entire village was swallowed up by the armies of darkness? No. No you bloody don’t. So put on your backpack and get out there, Frodo"

[Max_Killjoy]

This article has a great line on the subject of not engaging.

"Do you remember that great story about that hobbit who told Gandalf to go away, and sat at home picking his hairy toes all day before his entire village was swallowed up by the armies of darkness? No. No you bloody don’t. So put on your backpack and get out there, Frodo"

Generally good advice in that article, if sometimes delivered too absolutely or too aggressively.

Failure to engage can sometimes be due more to lack of communication / lack of "session zero" establishing a campaign and compatible characters that everyone is OK with. And while "my character wouldn't do that" is a flimsy excuse to refuse to engage with entire campaigns (barring the really extreme, in which case we're back to something getting missed before the campaign), it is a perfectly valid reason for a particular character to not engage in a particular act.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Generally good advice in that article, if sometimes delivered too absolutely or too aggressively.

Failure to engage can sometimes be due more to lack of communication / lack of "session zero" establishing a campaign and compatible characters that everyone is OK with. And while "my character wouldn't do that" is a flimsy excuse to refuse to engage with entire campaigns (barring the really extreme, in which case we're back to something getting missed before the campaign), it is a perfectly valid reason for a particular character to not engage in a particular act.

I agree that "not acting [in one particular situation]" is different from "not engaging the premise of the game". I was in a game on Monday (a one-shot) where we were in a (presumed) no-win situation--either kill innocents or be killed ourselves. My character, refused to kill the innocents but also refused to attack the party members who were slaughtering the people; instead keeping the brain-washed hordes of people surrounding us from attacking either side. Not a nice place to be, but he's not a super nice person. The rest of the session we were all working together as a (quite bumbling) team.

Note--the situation was screwy both from a DM perspective (it wasn't clear what options we had which led to the badness) and from a player standpoint (turns out attacking the leader would be enough to break the illusion and spare the innocents. Several party members went straight for the innocents, starting with a pregnant woman ). It would have been much better off avoided on all sides but we didn't really realize we could until later.

[kyoryu]

I can understand this, but have to wonder. Failure is an inherent part of anything with randomization (or unknowns). Why go out of your way to increase the odds of failure? That is, what is the fun in creating a character with the intent of failing? That's what some seem to be wanting. Is it about creating the weakest character that can still succeed?

I wouldn't create a character with the intent of failing.

Let me put this in a different context. I play hockey. There are many leagues. If I play a lower league, I'll win a lot - as a goalie, I can have a disproportionate effect. If I play in a higher league, I'll lose a lot, for the same reason.

Why would I play in a middle league instead of the lower one, where I could win all the time? Because I wouldn't want to play in that lower league.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wouldn't create a character with the intent of failing.

Let me put this in a different context. I play hockey. There are many leagues. If I play a lower league, I'll win a lot - as a goalie, I can have a disproportionate effect. If I play in a higher league, I'll lose a lot, for the same reason.

Why would I play in a middle league instead of the lower one, where I could win all the time? Because I wouldn't want to play in that lower league.

I understand that part just fine. The desire for a challenge is real, certainly.

But either I was misunderstanding the tenor of the comments that prompted the "Losing is Fun" sub-discussion or else your response (while true) is non-responsive. I was understanding people to desire playing incompetent characters. That is, consciously creating characters for TTRPGs that cannot (and will never be able to, due to player choices) succeed at the presented challenges, at least not in the same manner as the rest of the group. That I do not understand.

For me, the desire to be challenged manifests as a desire to seek out harder challenges, not to weaken myself so that my present ones are challenging. In game terms, that means playing a character that is competent by the standards of the system and intentionally seeking out situations that push the limits of their capabilities. In a randomly-generated game (such as most rogue-likes), playing on "hard mode" does involve crippling oneself as you have no control over what challenges are presented. In a TTRPG that's not a complete railroad, that constraint no longer holds.

[CharonsHelper]

I'll +1 PhoenixPhyre's last post.

Being challenged is fun. Much of what I enjoy about TTRPGs are the various tactical challenges, and I wouldn't play a monte haul campaign or one where the GM puts on kid gloves & fudges his dice so that I always win with ease.

But that's a very different thing from "losing is fun". It's not the losing/failure which is fun. Losing sucks and makes me grumpy. It's knowing that losing is a possibility which makes overcoming a challenge worthwhile, and the best way to know that is if it sometimes happens, but that doesn't keep the loss/failure itself from sucking any less.

That doesn't mean that I'm going to manacle my legs together before a race so that a 100 meter dash against a bunch of toddlers is a challenge.

Let me put this in a different context. I play hockey. There are many leagues. If I play a lower league, I'll win a lot - as a goalie, I can have a disproportionate effect. If I play in a higher league, I'll lose a lot, for the same reason.

Why would I play in a middle league instead of the lower one, where I could win all the time? Because I wouldn't want to play in that lower league.

I 100% agree. But if you WERE playing in the lower one, you wouldn't tie one hand behind your back to keep it from being too easy. That wouldn't make it more fun, and it'd make your teammates grumpy.

Instead, you should pick a league which is a challenge for your skill level and then try your hardest to win every game you can. Because while the challenge is fun, losing is not fun.

[Mordar]

I wouldn't create a character with the intent of failing.

Let me put this in a different context. I play hockey. There are many leagues. If I play a lower league, I'll win a lot - as a goalie, I can have a disproportionate effect. If I play in a higher league, I'll lose a lot, for the same reason.

Why would I play in a middle league instead of the lower one, where I could win all the time? Because I wouldn't want to play in that lower league.

This was pretty much a perfect fit for me. Sometimes winning a game just isn't as fun. Sometimes the score is far from the most important determinant of enjoyability.

I understand that part just fine. The desire for a challenge is real, certainly.

But either I was misunderstanding the tenor of the comments that prompted the "Losing is Fun" sub-discussion or else your response (while true) is non-responsive. I was understanding people to desire playing incompetent characters. That is, consciously creating characters for TTRPGs that cannot (and will never be able to, due to player choices) succeed at the presented challenges, at least not in the same manner as the rest of the group. That I do not understand.

For me, the desire to be challenged manifests as a desire to seek out harder challenges, not to weaken myself so that my present ones are challenging. In game terms, that means playing a character that is competent by the standards of the system and intentionally seeking out situations that push the limits of their capabilities. In a randomly-generated game (such as most rogue-likes), playing on "hard mode" does involve crippling oneself as you have no control over what challenges are presented. In a TTRPG that's not a complete railroad, that constraint no longer holds.

I think for me the phrase is better made as "Losing can be fun, too". Similarly, I'll never make pink ninjas or pacifist warriors...but I might want a blaster mage even though it has been empirically demonstrated that Build 932.5 is better at all instances. And I might make a character that isn't as well-suited to adventuring as others, but I will not go out of my way to make someone utterly inept or a complete drag on the group. Because the social aspects are important, and the social contract shouldn't be broken. Now, I might play the social bungler who hits like a truck...but that bungling will only come out at times that are appropriate to the game and social contract (so no, not with the King during negotiations, or the guildmaster who is about to give us the adventure hook). So maybe it is a matter of degrees.

I'll +1 PhoenixPhyre's last post.

Being challenged is fun. Much of what I enjoy about TTRPGs are the various tactical challenges, and I wouldn't play a monte haul campaign or one where the GM puts on kid gloves & fudges his dice so that I always win with ease.

But that's a very different thing from "losing is fun". It's not the losing/failure which is fun. Losing sucks and makes me grumpy. It's knowing that losing is a possibility which makes overcoming a challenge worthwhile, and the best way to know that is if it sometimes happens, but that doesn't keep the loss/failure itself from sucking any less.

That doesn't mean that I'm going to manacle my legs together before a race so that a 100 meter dash against a bunch of toddlers is a challenge.

Similarly, "Sometimes winning isn't that much fun" applies too...like you say, the Monty Haul campaign generally isn't very satisfying from the meat of the story perspective. But in rare occasions the group and situation can still make it enjoyable.

I 100% agree. But if you WERE playing in the lower one, you wouldn't tie one hand behind your back to keep it from being too easy. That wouldn't make it more fun, and it'd make your teammates grumpy.

Instead, you should pick a league which is a challenge for your skill level and then try your hardest to win every game you can.

We don't know why kyoryu didn't want to play in the lower league...it could be as you surmise, that the challenge is insufficient, or the pace of play is dull, or winning all the time gets boring. Or it could be, as I read it initially, that the environment isn't as fun, the friends aren't the same, the overall experience suffers. Winning isn't enough cause to want to play with a bunch of [insert funny name here].

If you are playing only for the challenge and improving your skill, it will always make sense to base the league decision solely on skill level. To me, this is the classic mountain climber ideal. But sports (for me it is baseball and basketball) are at least as much about the social elements (and no, I don't just mean chit chat) as the personal improvement. That doesn't mean I don't play hard and try to win. But it may mean I try to work on a different part of my game (much more applicable in basketball, of course) if I'm matched up against a noticeably weaker or less skilled defender. Sometimes that means shifting the spotlight to other players so that I don't dominate the ball and destroy the fun for the whole of the group. Similarly, if my match-up is someone better, I'll try to mitigate their advantage (which may involve shifting spotlight to other players too...but for a completely different reason). But barring the people being complete tools, I'm playing for fun. And that isn't impacted nearly so much by the final score as by the experience along the way. I'm not going to get an NBA contract playing ball at the park every Saturday, and no one on this forum is going to get scooped up to West Point based on their tactical acumen.

In summary, I try to abide by the social contracts while still having agency, and find that a well-fought loss and be as much or more fun than a victory, and the experience is based on much more than the final tally.

- M

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll +1 PhoenixPhyre's last post.

Being challenged is fun. Much of what I enjoy about TTRPGs are the various tactical challenges, and I wouldn't play a monte haul campaign or one where the GM puts on kid gloves & fudges his dice so that I always win with ease.

But that's a very different thing from "losing is fun". It's not the losing/failure which is fun. Losing sucks and makes me grumpy. It's knowing that losing is a possibility which makes overcoming a challenge worthwhile, and the best way to know that is if it sometimes happens, but that doesn't keep the loss/failure itself from sucking any less.

That doesn't mean that I'm going to manacle my legs together before a race so that a 100 meter dash against a bunch of toddlers is a challenge.



I 100% agree. But if you WERE playing in the lower one, you wouldn't tie one hand behind your back to keep it from being too easy. That wouldn't make it more fun, and it'd make your teammates grumpy.

Instead, you should pick a league which is a challenge for your skill level and then try your hardest to win every game you can. Because while the challenge is fun, losing is not fun.

Finding the right level of challenge within an RPG, getting the players and DM all on the same page and a page where they're all enjoying the game, is tricky.

A long-time fellow gamer, when DMing, will say "It's supposed to be a challenge!" in frustration when PCs take a pass on hooks he offers up because they just sound too damn much like total traps, or TPKs waiting to happen. Thing is, he has a habit of giving about half the relevant information, kinda assuming we should be getting the same mental picture he already has, and then his NPCs get evasive when pushed for more information or commitment, so combined with his desire to see the PCs "challenged", it always feels like we're sticking our necks out way too far.

[Talakeal]

I would oersonally say that the problem with losing is in absolutes. Always losing is no fun, but neither is always winning. For the game to have any meaning you have to be facing real challenges, and that means that sometime you will ose. Imo reacting to failure is the best opportunity for genuine character growth and introspection, and gives me emotional experiences that I dont normally get from the game, win win.

I would tend to agree that characters need to have some flaws and need to lose in fiction. I am straining to think of any stories where this is not the case. Can anyone give me some examples? Even the likes of Batman and Goku have character flaws they struggle to overcome and fail now and again.


Also, what is wrong with a character not contributing in a situation? In games I play in people are fighting for spotlight time, and I cnsider it gracious to let other people shine. You talk about improv comedy, but in actual ensemble movies you dont have every character in every scene, and even the characters who are in the scene often fade into the background to let other characters have their moments.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would oersonally say that the problem with losing is in absolutes. Always losing is no fun, but neither is always winning. For the game to have any meaning you have to be facing real challenges, and that means that sometime you will ose. Imo reacting to failure is the best opportunity for genuine character growth and introspection, and gives me emotional experiences that I dont normally get from the game, win win.

Again, not responsive. No one claims that they need to always win, just that playing well (as in aiming for success) is the goal. Challenges certainly need to be actual challenges (although I am not really motivated by challenge myself). Failure is inevitable, why build characters or systems that increase the odds of failure?

I would tend to agree that characters need to have some flaws and need to lose in fiction. I am straining to think of any stories where this is not the case. Can anyone give me some examples? Even the likes of Batman and Goku have character flaws they struggle to overcome and fail now and again.

First, what works in authorial fiction may not work in a TTRPG. As an author you can guarantee the fail-fail-succeed arc. In a game (or in life), you can't. Failure usually leads to failure and death unless the challenges aren't really challenges.

Second, characters inevitably have flaws, because they're played by flawed humans. Thus, claiming that characters need flaws doesn't do anything. The trick is to create characters whose flaws help the game (provide hooks, allow for interesting situations for all to enjoy, etc). In a game about fighting giant spiders from hell, a flaw like arachnophobia isn't useful.

Also, what is wrong with a character not contributing in a situation? In games I play in people are fighting for spotlight time, and I cnsider it gracious to let other people shine. You talk about improv comedy, but in actual ensemble movies you dont have every character in every scene, and even the characters who are in the scene often fade into the background to let other characters have their moments.

I don't have a problem with one character fading into the background, but there's a difference between willingly ceding the spotlight and not being able to even participate in a raft of situations because of class/build/mechanical choices. One is a player choice, the other is a system flaw. Participating is not hogging the spotlight by the way--the spotlight can be on several characters at once. Lastly, it being someone else's time to shine does not mean that you have to be useless. There's a continuum between the two. Everyone can be competent in the encountered situations (but not overpoweringly so) while still having individual places to shine.

[Max_Killjoy]

I would oersonally say that the problem with losing is in absolutes. Always losing is no fun, but neither is always winning. For the game to have any meaning you have to be facing real challenges, and that means that sometime you will ose. Imo reacting to failure is the best opportunity for genuine character growth and introspection, and gives me emotional experiences that I dont normally get from the game, win win.

I would tend to agree that characters need to have some flaws and need to lose in fiction. I am straining to think of any stories where this is not the case. Can anyone give me some examples? Even the likes of Batman and Goku have character flaws they struggle to overcome and fail now and again.

The problem comes when a certain sort of creative writing or dramatic fiction or lit-crit snobbery seeps in and turns that into "Flaws and failure are what MAKE a character, so the more flaws and failures, the better."

And sometimes, I don't want the story to get caught up in a widening gyre of navel-gazing and teeth-gnashing the character's flaws. One of the things I like about a certain sort of "crime procedural" is that it doesn't dwell on the personal faults and dramatic personal lives of the characters, it concentrates on the mystery at hand, on figuring out the crime and catching or otherwise bringing to justice those responsible. Certain documentary series lost their appeal for me when they went from being about the task at hand (catching crustaceans, making motorcycles, etc) and instead focused on the "interpersonal drama"... ie, people screaming at each other and breaking things and slamming doors over stupid crap.

Also, what is wrong with a character not contributing in a situation? In games I play in people are fighting for spotlight time, and I cnsider it gracious to let other people shine. You talk about improv comedy, but in actual ensemble movies you dont have every character in every scene, and even the characters who are in the scene often fade into the background to let other characters have their moments.

Let me try to clarify that. My concern is with:

• The character who can't at least hold their own when the inability to do so will repeatedly put other characters at risk.
• The character who can't at least keep their head on straight and defend themselves / find cover in a combat situation.
• The character who is so bad at stealth that they have to be left behind by the rest of the party whenever they want to sneak past something, because that PC *WILL* fail, in a game where stealth will be happening routinely.
• The character who is so utterly socially inept that they can't keep their mouth shut for 5 minutes even when it's life-or-death, or stop scratching their arse and burping during an audience with Her High Holy Eminence the Anointed Empress of Ninety-Nine Worlds.
• The character who is so utterly clueless about technology in a game full of high technology that they keep randomly pressing buttons and making bad things happen / making things worse.
• Somewhat related, the character who keeps doing the most dramatically or comically "appropriate" thing even when it blows up what the other characters are trying to accomplish at the time.

First, what works in authorial fiction may not work in a TTRPG. As an author you can guarantee the fail-fail-succeed arc. In a game (or in life), you can't. Failure usually leads to failure and death unless the challenges aren't really challenges.

Second, characters inevitably have flaws, because they're played by flawed humans. Thus, claiming that characters need flaws doesn't do anything. The trick is to create characters whose flaws help the game (provide hooks, allow for interesting situations for all to enjoy, etc). In a game about fighting giant spiders from hell, a flaw like arachnophobia isn't useful.

So true, on both counts. Here we're getting into why I so very much loath the notion that RPGs are just another form of fiction, and that they should function exactly like, and be approached exactly like, creating works of authorial fiction.

[CharonsHelper]

Finding the right level of challenge within an RPG, getting the players and DM all on the same page and a page where they're all enjoying the game, is tricky.

Oh - I agree that it can be tricky. As GM I generally err on the side of being too easy. I mean - the PCs are supposed to win most of the time, and as long as the challenge is enough to be engaging and burn through some resources it works.

And occasionally stomping something can be fun, especially if it's something which used to give you a hard time and let the players realize just how much more powerful they are now.

Plus - the players don't generally know exactly how hard/easy it is going in.

A long-time fellow gamer, when DMing, will say "It's supposed to be a challenge!" in frustration when PCs take a pass on hooks he offers up because they just sound too damn much like total traps, or TPKs waiting to happen. Thing is, he has a habit of giving about half the relevant information, kinda assuming we should be getting the same mental picture he already has, and then his NPCs get evasive when pushed for more information or commitment, so combined with his desire to see the PCs "challenged", it always feels like we're sticking our necks out way too far.

Yeah - that goes back to my "Losing sucks and makes me grumpy.". I like enough of a challenge where there is a chance of losing, but I'm not going to go into a situation which will do nothing but make me grumpy. (Or one which will make me Grumpy either - I don't want to babysit some unconscious pale girl.)

[Alcore]

To the title: No. I have read some good books on the warhammer 40k universe. It is clear to me that role playing can fit in a wargame.


I feel they must be divorced from each other to a point. I feel we have already reached that point, or the game has anyways. My soldiers are rarely soldiers and often suck at combat. A GM advertises a 'peaceful' game with little combat and always you have one Conan in the group. The rest bristle with weaponry.


Point two is one i get into the most trouble with. People expect me to pick the best option. If I don't then I'm not doing it right, I'm killing the team, etcetera. People argue with me, if I claim role playing i get bad words back. often i just don't know as pbp doesn't allow real life experience to accumulate.


As for downtime; that is where RP should pick up the slack. Don't like that answer? Sometimes it's just that simple.


Most of this is just a taste and expectation deal. D&D should keep it's roots; it sells it. Not financially but socially. MnM 3e tore away from D&D (and other similar systems) and made it's own nitch; but you can still see it's roots....

[Talakeal]

This article has a great line on the subject of not engaging."

So, after reading the article I have to say that while I agree with much of what he says, overall he sounds a lot like my ex-DM. "Youre snowflake characters are but a neccesary evil which I must endure to fully express the glory that is my STORY! Behold its glory and despair ye mere players!"

Also, it seems like he wants a game where everyone is bored and no one has fun rather than risk any ine player stepping on anyone else's toes by having too much fun.

[Talakeal]

The problem comes when a certain sort of creative writing or dramatic fiction or lit-crit snobbery seeps in and turns that into "Flaws and failure are what MAKE a character, so the more flaws and failures, the better."

And sometimes, I don't want the story to get caught up in a widening gyre of navel-gazing and teeth-gnashing the character's flaws. One of the things I like about a certain sort of "crime procedural" is that it doesn't dwell on the personal faults and dramatic personal lives of the characters, it concentrates on the mystery at hand, on figuring out the crime and catching or otherwise bringing to justice those responsible. Certain documentary series lost their appeal for me when they went from being about the task at hand (catching crustaceans, making motorcycles, etc) and instead focused on the "interpersonal drama"... ie, people screaming at each other and breaking things and slamming doors over stupid crap.




Let me try to clarify that. My concern is with:

• The character who can't at least hold their own when the inability to do so will repeatedly put other characters at risk.
• The character who can't at least keep their head on straight and defend themselves / find cover in a combat situation.
• The character who is so bad at stealth that they have to be left behind by the rest of the party whenever they want to sneak past something, because that PC *WILL* fail, in a game where stealth will be happening routinely.
• The character who is so utterly socially inept that they can't keep their mouth shut for 5 minutes even when it's life-or-death, or stop scratching their arse and burping during an audience with Her High Holy Eminence the Anointed Empress of Ninety-Nine Worlds.
• The character who is so utterly clueless about technology in a game full of high technology that they keep randomly pressing buttons and making bad things happen / making things worse.
• Somewhat related, the character who keeps doing the most dramatically or comically "appropriate" thing even when it blows up what the other characters are trying to accomplish at the time.

So true, on both counts. Here we're getting into why I so very much loath the notion that RPGs are just another form of fiction, and that they should function exactly like, and be approached exactly like, creating works of authorial fiction.

Oh, ok. I thiught you were objecting to the idea of people playing non-combatant characters, when it really seems like you are more objecting to people who play Jar Jar / Tasselhoff.