The illusion of challenges and GMing, Spin off from the other thread Options

[toturi]

He did, however, intentionally choose not to buy it off for no reason - effectively an intentional failure, because he has chosen to fail.

He intentionally choose not to buy it off the Critical Glitch for roleplay reasons. But he had already failed and it wasn't intentional.

Going back to Bull's example: The one about the guy who was really talented and trained and who easily won the race? Or the guy who broke his leg during training and had to heal and overcome rehab and painkiller addiction, only to make an underdog comeback at the end, overcome the odds, and win the gold medal?

If the second story is cooler and more inspirational, shouldn't you be working towards that kind of situations? Meaning that you are looking to break a leg, get addicted, get enough karma to buy off the habit, overcome the odds (which implies that the odds are against you, odds are that you won't win) and win the gold medal?

If the odds aren't in your favor, yet somehow you won, barring your dice pool coming up all/mostly sixes or successes, doesn't that suggest to you that someone is really manipulating the situation so that you get your happy ending?

[RHat]

He intentionally choose not to buy it off the Critical Glitch for roleplay reasons. But he had already failed and it wasn't intentional.

Going back to Bull's example: The one about the guy who was really talented and trained and who easily won the race? Or the guy who broke his leg during training and had to heal and overcome rehab and painkiller addiction, only to make an underdog comeback at the end, overcome the odds, and win the gold medal?

If the second story is cooler and more inspirational, shouldn't you be working towards that kind of situations? Meaning that you are looking to break a leg, get addicted, get enough karma to buy off the habit, overcome the odds (which implies that the odds are against you, odds are that you won't win) and win the gold medal?

If the odds aren't in your favor, yet somehow you won, barring your dice pool coming up all/mostly sixes or successes, doesn't that suggest to you that someone is really manipulating the situation so that you get your happy ending?

The point of the second story is that sometimes, when things don't go the way you want, it ends up making for a better story overall. Intentionally working towards those moments, as a player, actually screws the whole thing up. And part of challenge is that failure is a possibility - there needs to be interesting consequences both to failure and to success so that the story has somewhere to go either way.

[toturi]

The point of the second story is that sometimes, when things don't go the way you want, it ends up making for a better story overall. Intentionally working towards those moments, as a player, actually screws the whole thing up. And part of challenge is that failure is a possibility - there needs to be interesting consequences both to failure and to success so that the story has somewhere to go either way.

My point is that there are certain points, where once you fail big, or go down a certain route, it is very hard to come back from. For example, once your character gets an Addiction, it is quite difficult to kick the habit. It is more likely that your character ODs in a puddle of his own vomit. So more often than not, it ends up making for a worse story overall.

Your so-called interesting consequences in so far that the story has somewhere to go is the expectation that since going down any further would lead to a dead end/vicious cycle, the only way for the story to progress is for the GM to give you a way out, despite the odds.

[RHat]

My point is that there are certain points, where once you fail big, or go down a certain route, it is very hard to come back from. For example, once your character gets an Addiction, it is quite difficult to kick the habit. It is more likely that your character ODs in a puddle of his own vomit. So more often than not, it ends up making for a worse story overall.

Your so-called interesting consequences in so far that the story has somewhere to go is the expectation that since going down any further would lead to a dead end/vicious cycle, the only way for the story to progress is for the GM to give you a way out, despite the odds.

That requires quite a lot of failures - and in most games, a choice or two on the part of the player. And what you're describing is a GM painting himself into a corner, which is just never a good plan.

[WorkOver]

This really is a tight rope walk.

Too hard, players whine. Too easy they get lazy. I find that the players who cry the most tend to be the D20 players trying a new system.

I also find that when the game is too hard, players get reckless, they stop caring because they look at the characters as paper.

Too easy and they get bored.

I plan on games bring 50/50. S caveat is that I have hooks to make a bad choice and make it 20/80, and a clever choice to make it 80/20.

It is always understood that any one can die. I will not save players, I will not save important NPCs. You die, you die.

Some NPCs fight to the death, some will run, some are made to get spanked.

A game us never made for players to know they will not be killed.

[toturi]

That requires quite a lot of failures - and in most games, a choice or two on the part of the player. And what you're describing is a GM painting himself into a corner, which is just never a good plan.

In what way is the GM painting himself into a corner? What I think I am describing is a roleplayer painting himself into a corner.

[DMiller]

I'd probably enjoy a game like that. Of course I'd show up at the table with 3 to 5 characters pre-approved, since with my dice rolls the first hold-out that was shot anywhere near me would mean bringing in a new character, I still think it would be fun. I'd just have to make sure all of my characters wore a red shirt. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[RHat]

In what way is the GM painting himself into a corner? What I think I am describing is a roleplayer painting himself into a corner.

It is the GM who presents the choices - if one choice leads down only one path that doesn't really contribute much to the story, then that choice shouldn't have been there in the first place. If a player's choices draw their character deeper down the hole with drugs, the result could instead be something like pulling them into something that's going on in the underworld, or saddling them with a debt to deal with that they incurred to help feed their habit, or forcing them to come up with a way to do so because now money's tight and their contacts aren't taking their calls... You can do a LOT with that.

[toturi]

It is the GM who presents the choices - if one choice leads down only one path that doesn't really contribute much to the story, then that choice shouldn't have been there in the first place. If a player's choices draw their character deeper down the hole with drugs, the result could instead be something like pulling them into something that's going on in the underworld, or saddling them with a debt to deal with that they incurred to help feed their habit, or forcing them to come up with a way to do so because now money's tight and their contacts aren't taking their calls... You can do a LOT with that.

My games tend to be sandboxy. So while the GM can present some choices, those choices are not the only ones available. The GM can do a lot with those other choices, but nearly all of the choices as present by you lead to a downward spiral and ultimately lead to a character death and detract from the story. If the character wants to play a doped up drug addict, he can do so, but on his own time and if the GM has time for such solo misadventures.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The point of the second story is that sometimes, when things don't go the way you want, it ends up making for a better story overall. Intentionally working towards those moments, as a player, actually screws the whole thing up. And part of challenge is that failure is a possibility - there needs to be interesting consequences both to failure and to success so that the story has somewhere to go either way.

This. Right. Here...
You do not WORK TOWARDS such a goal, you OVERCOME such a situation. Sometimes resolving such an issue is very difficult. But you CAN overcome them, if you persevere. If you continue to backslide and take the easy way out, then yes, that character will likley never make it, and will eventually die from his choices. That too, can be an interesting outcome.

[toturi]

This. Right. Here...
You do not WORK TOWARDS such a goal, you OVERCOME such a situation. SOmetimes resolving such an issue is very difficult. But you CAN overcome them, if you persevere. If you continue to backslide and take the easy way out, tehn yes, that character will likley never make it, and will eventrually die from his choices. That too, can be an interesting outcome.

If you do not come to such a situation, how do you overcome it? I am not disputing that such outcomes may be interesting, but what I want to know is how is such an outcome more enjoyable for a majority of people?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If you do not come to such a situation, how do you overcome it? I am not disputing that such outcomes may be interesting, but what I want to know is how is such an outcome more enjoyable for a majority of people?

You get to it by failure. You do not have to seek failure out. You cannot avoid failure, because it just happens.

How is always winning enjoyable. It is hollow and meaningless if there is no failure to accompany it.

Back to your Olympic Sprinter example earlier... How can he enjoy running against a High School opponent knowing he will never lose (Hint: He does not enjoy it)? He runs against other Olympic Sprinters, and yet, of the thousands of such contestants in the search for the Gold, only three will ever receive the Medals. So, The majority of Olympic Sprinters will never, ever receive a Medal, but yet they still compete. Why?

[toturi]

You get to it by failure. You do not have to seek failure out. You cannot avoid failure, because it just happens.

How is always winning enjoyable. It is hollow and meaningless if there is no failure to accompany it.

Back to your Olympic Sprinter example earlier... How can he enjoy running against a High School opponent knowing he will never lose (Hint: He does not enjoy it)? He runs against other Olympic Sprinters, and yet, of the thousands of such contestants in the search for the Gold, only three will ever receive the Medals. So, The majority of Olympic Sprinters will never, ever receive a Medal, but yet they still compete. Why?

Why can't he? The character doesn't know he will never lose. The player may know that the odds of his losing are one in a million, but the character doesn't know that. The character can enjoy winning, he might enjoy it less but nonetheless he can enjoy it (hint: he does enjoy it, even if I know I can never lose, I can still enjoy winning). The majority of Olympic sprinters never receive a medal, yet they still compete because there is something in it for them. Endorsements, rankings, threat of punishment(China, North Korea) etc.

A better example in this case is if Mr Phelps or Mr Bolt or Ms Isinbaeva are so dominant, why don't they just quit? Afterall, if you are so dominant, the odds are on your side to win, yet they still compete, why? Going by your reasoning as I understand it, they shouldn't enjoy it.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Why can't he? The character doesn't know he will never lose. The player may know that the odds of his losing are one in a million, but the character doesn't know that. The character can enjoy winning, he might enjoy it less but nonetheless he can enjoy it (hint: he does enjoy it, even if I know I can never lose, I can still enjoy winning). The majority of Olympic sprinters never receive a medal, yet they still compete because there is something in it for them. Endorsements, rankings, threat of punishment(China, North Korea) etc.

A better example in this case is if Mr Phelps or Mr Bolt or Ms Isinbaeva are so dominant, why don't they just quit? Afterall, if you are so dominant, the odds are on your side to win, yet they still compete, why? Going by your reasoning as I understand it, they shouldn't enjoy it.

I am pretty sure that an Olympic Runner will Never Lose against A High School Competitor. As for why Olympians compete, when is the last time you actually saw Ryan Lockte in anything? So much for Endorsements; and his ranking is pretty meaningless outside of his sport (how often do YOU watch his sport), and I am sure that he receives no threats if he chooses to not swim.

Mr. Phelps LOSES from time to time, even in Olympic Competition (I am sure he no longer competes at the High School or College Level), and many of his Wins are by the merest 100th of a Second. So, No, he does not know he will win. And if memory Serves, Phelps has quit... Why?

As for enjoyment, I am sure Phelps enjoys his wins, and his losses crush him. But he competed even after his losses. His Wins are by no means guaranteed, and he has lost, more than once, which pushed him even harder to be better. By your reasoning, why ever try after you have lost, it can hardly be worth it.

[toturi]

By your reasoning, why ever try after you have lost, it can hardly be worth it.

My reasoning is that you look to avoid losing, you do not look at a loss as an "opportunity", you hate it (and as any serious competitor will tell you, they hate losing). You hate losing, you look to avoid losing in the first place. Once you lose, you look to avoid losing again. That's why some competitors realise that they are simply getting old and can't keep up, they retire, they hate losing, so they quit. Some competitors think that they still have a chance at winning, so they roll the metaphorical dice again.

In any competitive field of endeavour, you look to win. You try to improve your odds of winning. That's why you train. You don't want to lose. You do not look at losing as a "more interesting story". You absolutely hate it.

But to some people, losing makes for a more interesting story but it seem that they like it only if it involves winning at the end. My point is that once the story takes a downturn, how do they know if the story will make that uptick? If that uptick is necessary for them to enjoy the story and make it interesting, then they might as well have started at the bottom of the story hill and climbed up to the top, instead of walking down into the valley and climbing up the top of the hill.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

But to some people, losing makes for a more interesting story but it seem that they like it only if it involves winning at the end. My point is that once the story takes a downturn, how do they know if the story will make that uptick? If that uptick is necessary for them to enjoy the story and make it interesting, then they might as well have started at the bottom of the story hill and climbed up to the top, instead of walking down into the valley and climbing up the top of the hill.

You DON'T know you will have an uptake, and that is life. You strive to improve, and you get what you get. That is Life. Tragedy, loss and discontent happen as a part of life, just as much as triumph, success and happiness are. It is the struggle that is important in life, not the ultimate destination at which you arrive. *shrug*

[quentra]

Tym, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. In Shadowrun, like in life, I want to win, not 'deal with the struggle' or some other mystic zen philsophical bullshit. I want to win, ie achieve my goals. Everyone dies as their ultimate destination - but if you haven't won, you haven't done shit but suffer.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Tym, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. In Shadowrun, like in life, I want to win, not 'deal with the struggle' or some other mystic zen philsophical bullshit. I want to win, ie achieve my goals. Everyone dies as their ultimate destination - but if you haven't won, you haven't done shit but suffer.

You may WANT to win, but still lose. Why is that hard to understand? Your character will fail rolls, and will fail tasks. That is a Fact, and is Life. Wanting it to be otherwise will not change that one little bit. Failure brings two results. You can wallow in your defeat, or you can get back up and try again. Both make interesting stories. Never experiencing failure is not only boring, it is unrealistic as well. Sorry that you do not see that.

[Dolanar]

the simple way to look at is like this

the group wants to get from A to B A==================B

somewhere along that path an event happens preventing you from going directly after B, either through a failed dice roll or something else that changes circumstance. A=====\=====B

now the group must figure out how to get around the blockage to get back to B.
A=====|=====B
-------\\=//--------

for some groups this extra, but unexpected bridge to get to B gives more fun than the original path, & allows more RP enrichment

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Interesting analogy Dolanar... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[RHat]

Tym, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. In Shadowrun, like in life, I want to win, not 'deal with the struggle' or some other mystic zen philsophical bullshit. I want to win, ie achieve my goals. Everyone dies as their ultimate destination - but if you haven't won, you haven't done shit but suffer.

You want want to win, sure. But, the struggle makes the win more satisfying.

[tete]

When I GM Shadowrun (and Shadowrun specifically) I just do my best to make the challenge realistic for the task at hand. A run like DNA/DOA against Aztech will be extremely hard, runners will probably die but the payout will be big but i dont start there they grow into it when i feel they are ready. Maybe you start with a drug delivery, move to some smuggling, on to some low corporate espionage eventually getting to the megacorps. I dont have solutions just missions, its up to the players to try to figure it out for themselves. At the same time just because there is a min/max shaman in the group doesnt mean the stuffer shack is going to be magically warded and other BS. Some things should be easy others tougher, Johnsons are trying to hire the right guys for the job. I also tend to be very serial so that characters can die or be missing and it doesn't impact the whole plot. Campaigns just sorta come out of it with major story lines because I throw in the re occurring NPCs from time to time.

[TeknoDragon]

To chime in with my two nuyen, I like the idea that if my character screws up, she could be dead. Or worse.

My favorite character died in a Missions game trying to rescue someone from ghouls. The group screwed up, and as a Dead Man Switch, Glitter pulled the pin of a grenade, in her satchel. Using Hand of God on top of that would have felt... cheap.

Each character I play, each mission they take, there's always that risk of having a teammate pour out a 40 on the curb... if she's remembered at all. The grit, the grim, the dark reminder that Shadowrun isn't rainbows and puppies, unless Horizon got into your brain and your team is trying to break into the facility to rescue you.

If the mission is going greased-slide easy, I get nervous wondering where the ambush is.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You want want to win, sure. But, the struggle makes the win more satisfying.

Yes, that is the point of the issue. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)