Failure in games

[Lavecki121]

Can you please GM a game in the play by posts? I am very curious as to what situations you would put PC in

[Mr. Death]

Let me get this straight, Toturi. You don't ever want to even come close to losing. You want the GM to low ball everything so the chance of failure is minimized. You want your character to be awesome and badass all the time, never face a major set back, and basically win at everything without having to face real adversity and challenge. You think the GM is doing you some kind of disservice if he fails to lob softballs under hand for you to belt out of the park...

...and in the other thread you said you think other players were being self-masturbatory?

[toturi]

For a lot of us, gaming is about some kind of accomplishment. It's not an accomplishment if you didn't have to work for it, and really, no, just statting the character out isn't working.

Why have dice at all then, if you think that you've already "earned it" just by filling out the character sheet? If you think the GM is doing something wrong by making losing even a possibility?

Winning's fun, but it's more satisfying to earn it. It sounds like you don't really want to play, so much as you want to win.

Of course statting the character out isn't earning the win. You earn the win by statting the most optimal character you can come up with. That is the work. That earns the win.
You don't earn it by filling out a character sheet. You earn it by sculpting, by chiselling that block of stone into a masterpiece. By optimising, by min-maxing. Losing in a game with dice is almost certainly a possibility. That, per se, has nothing to do with the GM.
True. I want to have fun. Winning is fun. I can't have fun if I do not play. Hence I play to win and that is fun.

[toturi]

Can you please GM a game in the play by posts? I am very curious as to what situations you would put PC in

Sure. Are you interested in playing in a game I GM then?

[Lavecki121]

I would play it. I want to understand your play style more and feel this may be the best way to do that.

[toturi]

Let me get this straight, Toturi. You don't ever want to even come close to losing. You want the GM to low ball everything so the chance of failure is minimized. You want your character to be awesome and badass all the time, never face a major set back, and basically win at everything without having to face real adversity and challenge. You think the GM is doing you some kind of disservice if he fails to lob softballs under hand for you to belt out of the park...

...and in the other thread you said you think other players were being self-masturbatory?

I want everyone's character to be awesome and badass all the time, not just my own. The players (plural, not just myself) should never face a major setback and basically win at everything despite their characters facing adversity and challenges that less optimal characters are unlikely to overcome.

I understand that I would not always get what I want in a game. Some players like to be challenged. But assuming I get what I want and my character succeeds, does my character's success hold back the other players enjoyment of the game? If my character gets the thingmajig that your character wants or manages to get the group pass an obstacle, will it adversely affect your enjoyment of the game? I do not think so. I hope not. So yes, spin it however you wish, I still do think that those other players are being self-masturbatory.

[toturi]

I would play it. I want to understand your play style more and feel this may be the best way to do that.

I'll see if I can come up with an interesting city concept and a campaign direction.

In the mean time however, do you have any preferences? What type of game do you usually enjoy and find fun?

[Mr. Death]

Of course statting the character out isn't earning the win. You earn the win by statting the most optimal character you can come up with. That is the work. That earns the win.
You don't earn it by filling out a character sheet. You earn it by sculpting, by chiselling that block of stone into a masterpiece. By optimising, by min-maxing. Losing in a game with dice is almost certainly a possibility. That, per se, has nothing to do with the GM.

So you're saying you earn it by...filling out the character sheet optimally.

If I'm reading this right, Harry shouldn't succeed in the books because he's determined, clever, and has to figure out a way around obstacles. Harry should succeed in the books because he can roll a 4 in fire spells, and the author never throws anything at him that can dodge better than a 2, never gives him an Investigation roll that's going to take him real time, and has him figure out everything right off the bat?

True. I want to have fun. Winning is fun. I can't have fun if I do not play. Hence I play to win and that is fun.

I find it hard to consider what you're describing as "playing" except in the technical sense. You seem to want it to be that you don't play so much as be rewarded for finishing character creation. Because, honestly? It's really, really not hard to make a good character in this system. If there's anything my discussions with Sanctaphrax have taught me, is that it's laughably simple to make a character who's got high skills in several applicable areas.

So really, what you're "sculpting," this work-of-art character that you feel should be an 'I win' button? is probably along the exact same lines as thousands of other people have made.

"Winning" isn't about just having the best character stats. It's about what you do with them. You aren't "playing to win," you're expecting someone to hand you the win just for showing up.

I want everyone's character to be awesome and badass all the time, not just my own. The players (plural, not just myself) should never face a major setback and basically win at everything despite their characters facing adversity and challenges that less optimal characters are unlikely to overcome.

If the characters never face the chance of losing, they do not face adversity and challenges. If they never face a major setback and basically win at everything they do not face adversity and challenges. What they're facing is boring. What they're facing is softball validation.

Adversity and challenges mean the characters have to work to beat them. Otherwise it's, to put it as bluntly as possible, one big circle jerk. Fanfiction is filled with this sort of "We're all awesome and nobody can beat us ever" stories, and except for the ones that are parody, they generally suck.

I understand that I would not always get what I want in a game. Some players like to be challenged. But assuming I get what I want and my character succeeds, does my character's success hold back the other players enjoyment of the game? If my character gets the thingmajig that your character wants or manages to get the group pass an obstacle, will it adversely affect your enjoyment of the game? I do not think so. I hope not.

It's not about your character succeeding. It's about your character always succeeding without there being any chance of failure.

Your character never wins a pitched battle because they never face anything that challenges them. Your character never makes a daring escape because there are no obstacles for them to dare. Your character never has to make a clever plan because nobody even comes close to outsmarting him. Your character never has to make a tough choice because there's no risk.

In short? The character never has to make an effort.

So yes, spin it however you wish, I still do think that those other players are being self-masturbatory.

My point wasn't that you shouldn't consider them self-masturbatory. It was that this playstyle you're describing seems to be even moreso.

[Vairelome]

self-masturbatory

If he's doing it in a group and everyone's having fun, I think "masturbation" is not the right metaphor.  Surely we've moved on to sex, yes?

[Vairelome]

The last page and a half of debate largely turns on one of the more significant differences-of-opinion that many gaming tables may have with one another: what is your group's tolerance for character death (or functional equivalent)?

Mine is fairly low.  I don't enjoy Call of Cthulu-type settings where knowledge causes insanity, and I don't like your-character-could-REALLY-die-at-any-time game assumptions.  I put a lot of work into building characters that I like playing and want to see develop over a significant arc.  Cheap death isn't something I find fun at all.

There are entire games built around exactly the opposite concept (Paranoia, which I've actually played once as a one-shot).  Since Paranoia has seen multiple editions, obviously there's a player base that has different preferences than I do.

That's not to say I don't enjoy challenges and even in-game lethal combat.  The key here is "willing suspension of disbelief," and the idea that failure may result in less-than-lethal consequences that you still care about preventing.  Also, some players have a slightly unrealistic idea of their own tolerance for character death, and most GMs try to advertise a more lethal setting than they actually run (largely to enhance the "willing suspension of disbelief").  If you want to check your own tolerance, ask yourself when was the last time you had a character die in game, when was the last time another PC died in game, and as a fraction of sessions played, how often does it actually happen?  Also, how did you feel about the death?

I get a bit suspicious when I'm told "character death must always be a realistic risk for me to have fun!" and "I haven't lost a character in the past 10 years of play."  Seems to me there might be a difference between the actual and perceived risk, in that case--not that there's anything wrong with that, so long as everyone is having fun, but if you're discussing game-related ideology on the internet, I prefer looking at actual risk over unrealistic perception.

In short, I think I fall on the "lower tolerance for character death" end of the player preference spectrum, but still in a relatively heavily-populated region.

[toturi]

"Winning" isn't about just having the best character stats. It's about what you do with them. You aren't "playing to win," you're expecting someone to hand you the win just for showing up.
If the characters never face the chance of losing, they do not face adversity and challenges. If they never face a major setback and basically win at everything they do not face adversity and challenges. What they're facing is boring. What they're facing is softball validation.

Winning is as much about having the best character stats as what you do with them. Having the best tools is no use if you do not know how to use them, but to have the best odds of success, you'd want to use the best tools. The characters nearly always face a chance of losing in DFRPG, no matter how good the character. This is a fact of a system with dice. Hence the characters do face adversity and challenges, just that a well built and optimised character reduces that to a mere possibility instead of failure being probable.
 

Adversity and challenges mean the characters have to work to beat them. Otherwise it's, to put it as bluntly as possible, one big circle jerk. Fanfiction is filled with this sort of "We're all awesome and nobody can beat us ever" stories, and except for the ones that are parody, they generally suck.
It's not about your character succeeding. It's about your character always succeeding without there being any chance of failure.
Your character never wins a pitched battle because they never face anything that challenges them. Your character never makes a daring escape because there are no obstacles for them to dare. Your character never has to make a clever plan because nobody even comes close to outsmarting him. Your character never has to make a tough choice because there's no risk.

In short? The character never has to make an effort.

I disagree. I like fan fiction. Most of the time, I do not think they suck. Well they may suck, but in a good, enjoyable and fun way. It's about your character always succeeding with there being a minimal chance of failure.
Hopefully, yes. No effort is good. No effort is fun. And this is one thing I like about DFRPG, and as you have pointed out yourself, you can build a good character with a little effort. But I think you are wrong. The character has to put in effort, but if I had built the character right, I do not.

My point wasn't that you shouldn't consider them self-masturbatory. It was that this playstyle you're describing seems to be even moreso.

I like Vairelome's comment and I think it bears repeating that the playstyle I am describing is a group thing and everyone's having fun.

[Wordmaker]

This has been pretty enlightening. I can honestly say I've never met any gamer who wanted their GM to lowball the opposition in order to try and ensure success.

As a GM, I root for my players. I want them to succeed, but I also want them to have to put some effort into it. My group, and all groups I've been a part of, don't want success to be a foregone conclusion just because we made the right choices at character creation.

To answer your question, Toturi, yes, characters always succeeding in a game would spoil my fun. If one or more characters are always beating the bad guys because the GM won't let them fail, then there's no point in my being there. If the group is always going to succeed, then there's no story. Going from A to B killing monsters and solving every puzzle right away, that isn't a story. That's a series of successes being handed to you. If that's what you love from a game, then I'm honestly glad you have a group who shares that feeling and loves the same kind of game.

Me? To use the previous example, I'd rather fight the dragon, lose, get stronger, and then come back to beat the dragon.

[toturi]

Me? To use the previous example, I'd rather fight the dragon, lose, get stronger, and then come back to beat the dragon.

What if your character is eaten and there is no come back? Given the choice of utter defeat and total success, which would you choose?

[Wordmaker]

Why does defeat have to result in death? That's dull. Anything which ends the story prematurely should be avoided, if possible. An interesting, engaging defeat is not the end, no more than success should mean that there is never another challenge.

Given the choice between utter defeat and total success, I would want whichever one provided the most satisfying end to the story. Sometimes a tragic defeat can be a great thing.

In general, I want to win. But I don't want that victory to be a foregone conclusion. And I want to be able to enjoy the story that goes with defeat just as much as the one that goes with success.

[Vairelome]

What if your character is eaten and there is no come back? Given the choice of utter defeat and total success, which would you choose?

Well, in SOME cases, a middle ground is possible (DFRPG concessions are made for this).

Me? To use the previous example, I'd rather fight the dragon, lose, get stronger, and then come back to beat the dragon.

But in truth, rather a large percentage, maybe even a significant majority, of the antagonists I've faced in my gaming career weren't interested in negotiated surrenders that let you live.  We're talking about D&D 2nd-4th Ed and oWoD, mostly, not DFRPG/FATE.  In that context, losing a fight might very easily mean permanently losing your character, so this does go back to my post above concerning how much tolerance a player has for character death.  Certainly, in a system that has concessions and a GM who is willing to use them, player tolerance for losing may increase a bit as the stakes go down.

I am curious as to how much character death shows up in the games you've run.