Re: (TFT) Developed logical settings, deadly risks, and motivation

[ErolB1@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/21/2007 11:15:20 PM Central Daylight Time, 
selfinflicted_wounds@boardermail.com writes:


> > 
> > So why in the rude words of seven different languages should I do 
> something
> > that makes me miserable for *entertainment*????
> > 
> 
> Well that would be the risk/reward thing. By this I mean that your PC (and 
> therefore you) would never play in a game where you were constantly frustrated 
> but if your not spending at least a couple of sessions every once in a while 
> in frustration/misery then there's no fair risk. At that point wouldn't it 
> simpily be an exercise in finding various methods for introducing smoke into 
> the various praticapents orifices?

There was an interesting post on that point over on usenet a while back. 
[[[googling]]] Here it is: 
==============================
# Nov 20 2006, 5:48 pm
#Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
#From: mkkuh...@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
#Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:48:13 +0000 (UTC)
#Local: Mon, Nov 20 2006 5:48 pm
#Subject: Re: Capture of Player Characters

[snip to the meat of the post]

#RPGs and video games differ from most ordinary board games in that
#there doesn't have to be a loser.  I think it's reasonable that they
#attract mindsets which aren't very interested in losing; and a lot
#of RPG groups successfully cater to this.
#
#If I enter into playing, say, chess with the expectation I will never
#lose, I'm being an idiot and I'm bound to be disappointed.  Not even
#the World Champion gets that.  But if I enter into _Heroes of Might
#and Magic IV_ (which is what I'm currently playing) with the
#expectation that I won't lose, I'm not hurting anyone, and it's not
#unreasonable that I may get what I want.  (Especially if I turn the
#difficulty down--and I may yet do that, because the losses are really
#more annoying than challenging.)
#
#Whether the player still wants it when she gets it is another question,
#but for at least some players in some situations the answer is "yes."
#I don't think I would still be playing _Heroes_ if I lost even 1/3
#of the time.  In a board game, I know I have to give my opponent
#a fair shot, but here there's no such obligation; the only thing
#against winning all the time is that it may detract from the challenge,
#and for me, right now, I'd rather win than have a really strong
#challenge.
#
#If this is a personality flaw it's an awfully common one; I think
#it's better just regarded as a preference.
#
#A common problem with such games is that they are entertaining for
#the players but not for the GM.  I get tired of having my NPCs
#wiped out time and again; I spoiled a campaign recently by engineering
#a TPK in the attempt to make things "a bit more challenging."  Clearly
#I overshot, but by game contract I shouldn't even have been trying.
#
#Mary Kuhner mkkuh...@eskimo.com 
#
=============================

There's also a matter of the short term vs the long term. If a character has 
a 98% chance of surviving each mission he goes on, this works out to a less 
than 50% chance of surviving after 35 missions. Now, this is reasonable if 35 
missions represents an adventuring career of 10 or 20 or 30 years. But if a 
character has only 1-3 missions per year, then either the charcter is going to be 
very much a part time adventurer, or else the missions are going be long & 
involved. 

And even for a "short and simple" mission or adventure, a 98% chance of 
survival is, on its face, very high. At least by the standards most gamers use. IME 
most gamers need to either resort to "script immunity" to keep the survival 
chance that high, or else need to use some sort of mechanical fudge-cheat - 
e.g. the D&D craziness of characters getting raised from the dead multiple times. 



**************************************
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"