This is in response to
a post I came across via Whitehall Paraindustries in which poor old Gleichman ends up in a frothing rage at how gormless and direly in need of a character-building thrashing are the youth of today. Thinking that it couldn't be that bad I clicked over to The Core Mechanic and had a look at the target of his ire. And what did I read?
"The difference between good intentions, and true heroes is only one thing: Luck."
- Tom W at
The Core MechanicThis is the opening comment of a paean in praise of Fate point systems.
Now, I'll go on the record here and say I'm not adverse to using Fate / Heroic Destiny / Get Out of Jail Free mechanics in my games. If used right (ie: at a meaningful cost in either character ability or player narrative control - see
SuperNecro's fine system for an example of what I consider "cheating fate done right") they can be an excellent source of drama and thematically appropriate action in a game. Likewise, I'm all for opportunities for player-driven, in-game awesome when playing. The bravura stunt that comes off just right and leaves a PC surrounded by a corona of radiant win! is something for which we're generally on the lookout. However, such things are more precious and appreciated if players earn them against the odds and through their own efforts.
There is a converse to what TV Tropes calls such
Crowning Moments of Awesome, and that is, in one word: failure. Failure, although something to be avoided with all the wit and cunning at your disposal, is an important teaching aid. Failure is how you learn to do it right next time; it is the bitter aloes used to purge the poison that is stupid; and, ultimately, failure is the salt that makes the sweet taste of victory all the sweeter.
I'm not suggesting you should actively seek out opportunities to suck and fail in the name of drama: but you should certainly be aware that the risk of failure is always going to be there in any co-operative game worth the playing. Smart players will not try to create mechanics to fudge away risk. Instead they will take account of it, and actively work to minimise the risks to which they expose their characters (for what else were situational modifiers created?).
Stop. Think. Research. Plan. Choose your own battlefield and terms of engagement. Weight the odds in your favour any way you can.
Then run screaming into harm's way.
Remember:
Rainbow Six; not Halo.
All this theory aside, having "75 characters die over 2 years" in a single campaign doesn't sound to me like the result of a policy of thoughtful, tactically astute play. If anything, it sounds more like a lemming-like rush to self-immolation. The first lesson I for one would take from this hecatomb is: "Stop running at things with your head son."
I think there is something of a disconnect in understanding of how story works in RPGs. Tom seems to think in terms of designated protagonists and 'achieving the mission', whereas I - and quite a few of the OSR - think in terms of potential heroes in an emergent story. Unlike a Hollywood film if things go badly in an RPG then the original 'intended script' gets torn up and a new one is written in by events. Through the choices the players make the session stops being the story of "Our glorious victory over the Trollish Horde" and instead becomes the tale of "The day we fought a doomed last stand against overwhelming odds" or "That time we got our butts ignominiously handed to us by the Trolls" (which varies by player skill and degree of situational hilarity).
"Suddenly the player, not the GM got to decide exactly how lenient the rules would be for them... The Die Hards could still start their character at zero fate, spend their extra attribute points on enormous strengths and dexes, but if the dice killed them; they died, no excuses."
- Tom W at
The Core MechanicErm, call me an oddball if you will, but the players should
already be doing this by careful, skilful play. Cinematic gaming does not, and should not, equate to plot immunity. The knowledge that there is no meaningful threat to the characters (be it to their persons, or the agenda they are trying to advance) sucks all the drama out of a story. Immunity to death is especially bad for this. Plot armour leaves no room for Boromir's last stand; no room for King Theoden's doomed stand against the Witch-King; no room for El Cid; no room for Druss; and no room for most of Kurosawa.
Sometimes failure is the right answer, and true heroes make their own luck.
Thoughts? Opinions? Brickbats and flung excrement?
note: Dan Collins (of Diminutive20 and OED fame and
a man who abhors Fate mechanics) weighs in on the related subject of
coddling players and the interesting question of what adversity reveals about character.
