Risk In RPGs

[robin_d_laws]

I am less interested in categorical distinctions between RPG game designs than I am in those that describe what actually happens during play. This is part because, as a designer, I’m more interested in providing tools that work than in adhering to an aesthetically or theoretically coherent framework. It also goes to the old saw about the rules not

Comments

[drivingblind]

That's not entirely against the design goals of the game. :)

Mopery is certainly a potential risk, but one that I think is better addressed in the social contract than the rules.

But drawing down more currency to face the climax they know is coming? Thereby bringing more problems upon themselves as characters? That's exactly correct -- and a lot like what you'll see stories doing outside of RPG. Fate strongly wants to emulate that story experience.

[caesarsalad77]

I had a friend who, while he turned me on to Feng Shui, wouldn't play it with me in favor of the description bonus based Wushu. He felt that both games were supposed to be about effects heavy, risky actions, but Feng Shui still penalized you for doing wilder stunts.

Perhaps that's part of the toolset you're looking for? Right now, as you see it, players are risk-averse because anything other than a success is not a reward, unless you have a group that's only interested in crafting a good story and not winning it. So part of any system would be a way to reward folks when the story doesn't go their way. Mutants and Masterminds has its hero points for complications. Bad guy puts you in a death trap and escapes for the next session? Players get a hero point to help tip things in their favor next time.

Or does this foster too much expectation of reward?

[emprint]

"Needed: better tools to help players embrace the judicious risk-seeking necessary for success in narrative game environments."

What would be an example of one of the not-so-good tools we have already?

[perich]

As an example of a not-so-good tool: my group has the frustrating tendency to turn planning sessions into 45-minute accounting bonanzas. Everyone points out flaws in everyone else's suggestions (regardless of whether those flaws are critical or trivial), no one leads the discussion, no one's happy with the result.

To the original post - Robin's comment:

Although the characters shouldn’t appear suicidally reckless, extended planning sessions are counterproductive under this paradigm.... got me thinking about substitutes for planning sessions. What if a session of play looked like we see in the movies - watching the plan as it unfolds, not suffering through the tedious bickering portion

[emprint]

Good points. What I was asking, though, is what tools for encouraging risky behavior we have that aren't sufficient.

I think another part of the problem is that traditional mechanics put a lot of distance between randomness, risk and reward. In a lot of cases, the only reward for success in a random event is being able to continue, while the risk is an abstract ball of danger associated with dealing with anything unknown, and the reward is something you get at the end of the dungeon.

[semerkhet]

This is exactly the sort of tension that runs through my gaming group. I have a couple players that are firmly in Column A and a couple players that are firmly in Column B. I'm about to start a homebrew setting with Burning Wheel, and I'm hoping to move the Column A characters toward embracing risk. While the Burning Wheel rules do a lot of things I want them to do as far as shared authorship and gritty combat, I'm not sure the rules actually encourage the characters to take risks.

On the bright side, this isn't some problem festering under the table. The players who are risk averse have agreed that it would be more fun if they were able to loosen up a bit. We'll just have to wait and see how it goes.

[fengshui]

Some of that depends on the competence level of your characters. In our BW game, we were all 6-8 lifepath characters, and that reduces the risk of direct confrontation. Sure, if you weren't wearing armor or a helmet, combat could be a bad idea. However, going in against a bunch of mooks wasn't too bad, especially if you worked the maneuvering system to your advantage. The same applied for social conflicts.

[koipond]

I think something in the end that will be helpful would be a penalty other than character death. The reason why most of the characters try to play for the risk aversion scale is that they're thinking about survival instead of action because that's what we as human beings do. It may be cool to jump out of that building to land on that airplane, but unless the characters ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO IT they wont because if they fail then they're dead.

While that's a bit of an extreme example, there is a middle ground where if the characters try to do something risky and fail there should be something around to give other than "you're dead" to the players. Maybe a sliding scale or risk and reward if you play conservatively your gains are lower and you have a chance of dying, but the more risk you take you get higher gains and less immediate death.

Or you could always have a point pool that goes "Not dead yet, something cool happens" but that's been done, a lot.

[koipond]

It's not easy. I'm also not a big fan of charts so that really throws me off.

Going back to the token idea, actually giving characters tokens that go "Okay, normally I would be dead but this changes it" is that other possibility. It's just that I've seen a lot of games that do that and call them action points, or this points.

It all comes down to the GM in the end though. If you're only response to something is "they die" then players are going to end up being more conservative in that regard.