Creating Tension in a session.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by downer

Completely correct, but not what I was getting at. The crux is the distinction of "player tension" - the players fearing (or facing, against their intentions) the defeat of their characters - and "character tension" - the characters fearing or facing defeat. My belief is that the latter is a good thing, and does not presuppose the former. I played in a Warhammer FRP campaign for 4 years, in which my character was constantly faced with inevitable doom, which, as the player, I knew wouldn't really happen - unless I came asking for it. My character ended up a disillusioned, more than slightly crazy alcoholic. But that was not the GM's call alone. I roleplayed my character descending into a spiral of paranoia and despair, because I felt it would create more dramatic tension than laughing it all off. Because that was our agreed upon mood. The GM didn't need to enforce that, and hold me to it by making me believe in all the bad things the Warhammer world threatened me with. He did one hell of a good job communicating the mood, and that did it.

This is the crux of it for me.

I know that there are people who enjoy fiction where the narrative structure is entirely foreordained and there is no question that the heroes will triumph, only how they will go about it.

I have even enjoyed such fiction myself. Some of it is so well written that my pleasure springs from the use of language as a form of art, whether in dialogue or description. Some of it has compelling characters and complex interpersonal interactions that aren't foreordained. Some is visually appealing.

In general, though, it is unlikely that a roleplaying game can achieve entertainment value based on these factors. It won't ever be visually appealing, because it is not a visual medium, and as for the beauty of language or even clever dialogue, even if the GM and players were all world-class writers, they'd still be working under a time-pressure that would reduce them to far inferior dialogue and scene descriptions than what they would manage if they had weeks or months to script each scene.

I suppose it is possible that the characters will be compelling and their interplay fascinating, but when I meet a group of roleplayers who can act better than professional actors while they write better than professional actors, all in real time, I'll become a talent agent and sign them all on right then and there. I know they'd make me richer than Croesus.

So for me, at least, if the story in a roleplaying game is to retain an element of interest and the game itself not to degenerate into something that barely keeps my eyes from closing, it can't be predictable.

The intellectual challenge of trying to make sense of contradictory information presented to the characters and then using it to accomplish their goals. The uncertainty of not knowing how things will end. The knowledge that the players' choices do matter, because there is no script.

These things are important to me because they are things that roleplaying games do better than other media.

Some examples:

Roleplaying a mystery adventure can be more fun than reading a mystery novel, even if the latter if better written. In a book, you know that no matter what you do, the mystery will be solved. The intellectual challenge of trying to solve it before the detective is spoilt by not being able to control the direction of the investigation or what information to go after.

Roleplaying a horror scenario can be more tense, more horrifying and more exhilirating than watching it on screen, even if the movie is vastly more tightly plotted and visually appealing. The tension is improved by the knowledge that your choices make a difference.

If you know that this difference is to some extent an illusion, that spoils things.

If I know that while driving fast in the rainy night with no lights might sound dangerous, but my character will not crash because it won't be dramatically appropriate, the choice to be made between rushing because your friend was screaming over the phone or slowing down because you might die if you don't loses a lot of its poignancy. A lot of the investment is gone, because you are not making a real choice. The tradeoff doesn't exist, because you are safe no matter which course you choose. If you drive fast, you won't crash because the story hasn't finished. And if you slow down, you won't be too late, because the other PC won't die either.

If the risks of the game world are only simulated risks, it makes the game world feel less real and less vivid. All fiction depends in part on suspension of disbelief, but that doesn't mean that the creator of a work of fiction can arrogantly refuse to pay any mind to sustaining that state of mind, claiming that if people want to enjoy his work, it is their job to suspend their disbelief. In truth, it is the author's job to make it as easy as possible for the consumers of his fiction to immerse themselves in the work, to forget that it is make-belief and to vicariously experience the emotions of the characters with which they identify.

The element of risk, real risk, is a powerful aid.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by downer

Completely correct, but not what I was getting at. The crux is the distinction of "player tension" - the players fearing (or facing, against their intentions) the defeat of their characters - and "character tension" - the characters fearing or facing defeat. My belief is that the latter is a good thing, and does not presuppose the former.

I grant that that's true, but it's not what I'm looking for in gaming. I actively want player tension, both as a highly effective way to produce character tension, and as a good thing in its own right. More generally, my personal definition of a truly successful game is one that has an emotional impact on the players. And conversely, I find it more satisfactory to play with a GM who can have such an impact on me.

When you asked about "creating tension" I took it for granted that you meant player tension—because I don't consider character tension to be real tension at all. It's just someone roleplaying a person who's tense.

Part of this is that I believe that people who are playing a part don't make the same kind of choices. This isn't even a matter of conscious calculation; it's a shift of emotional balance. If you know that nothing you do will ever get your character killed unless you have specifically asked to have them die, then you will not have the same hesitation to send them into danger; your subconscious will not be reminding you, "I could lose Fred on this mission!" And conversely, if you do send Fred into "danger," you won't have the sense of real threat. You won't play Fred as someone who knows he's in danger, because your subconscious won't be looking for every possible threat and making them real to you.

A story I read years ago has a sorcerer showing someone a sharp sword and saying "I use this for ritual purposes as a symbol of a sharp sword." He also had a dull sword, which he needed as a symbol of a dull sword.

Bill Stoddard

[downer]

I find the thought that you need to hang a real stick over the player's heads to get them "into the action" rather sad. It makes roleplaying as an act of make-believe, pure applied imagination, seem rather pointless. I mean, do you apply that to other aspects of the game? Do I really need to fall in love to play a convincing lovestory? Do I really have to hate to make my epic rivalry with the villain seem real? No. I'm "just playing a person who loves or hates". So what's different about fear of danger?

Roleplaying, in itself, can have an emotional impact. If you deny that, then of course, you will need to up the game in order to take something away from the table. But then I really pity you, because you apparently never felt the emotional impact of seeing your character become real before your eyes as you play him or her. It's Aristotle's catharsis, just better, because you're not just watching, because the feedback is more direct. So, in trying to feel what my character feels, I get emotionally involved. Stirring an actual player emotion about, rather than within, the game feels like a cheap trick to me.

I'm not saying that the player is supposed to do all the work here. The GM needs to supply him with a world that feels real. But he also needs to make the player feel safe. A player who knows that the game won't touch him any more than he is willing to let it, is less reserved about letting his feelings become those of his character. When you go for a certain level of immersion, you need to give the player some control.

Finally, not every game needs or can have that level of involvement. But by taking the tension to the metagame you're building an additional barrier, because it's hard to feel your character's tension if you're busy with your own.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by downer

I find the thought that you need to hang a real stick over the player's heads to get them "into the action" rather sad. It makes roleplaying as an act of make-believe, pure applied imagination, seem rather pointless. I mean, do you apply that to other aspects of the game? Do I really need to fall in love to play a convincing lovestory? Do I really have to hate to make my epic rivalry with the villain seem real? No. I'm "just playing a person who loves or hates". So what's different about fear of danger?

Tension in the sense meant (e.g. in the experience of a thrilling movie) is not the fear felt by the characters. It is the reaction of the audience.

[downer]

Originally Posted by Brett

Tension in the sense meant (e.g. in the experience of a thrilling movie) is not the fear felt by the characters. It is the reaction of the audience.

Good point. Best I've heard so far. So, you would hold that there is no tension in movies or other stories, if the audience doesn't think that the characters will come to serious harm? Then how do TV series ever build tension? After all, we know that the heroes will come back for another episode, and won't end up maimed, imprisoned or defeated by the forces of evil. Does that preclude tension? I found some shows quite tense, without ever fearing for the characters. Or is failing to achieve their goals enough? Because in that case, tension in roleplaying games is fairly easy to build. Even I, soft as I may be on my characters, do not guarantee them success. But I wouldn't yet classify that as "real risk" or "credible danger".

[benz72]

Originally Posted by downer

Good point. Best I've heard so far. So, you would hold that there is no tension in movies or other stories, if the audience doesn't think that the characters will come to serious harm? Then how do TV series ever build tension? After all, we know that the heroes will come back for another episode, and won't end up maimed, imprisoned or defeated by the forces of evil. Does that preclude tension? I found some shows quite tense, without ever fearing for the characters. Or is failing to achieve their goals enough? Because in that case, tension in roleplaying games is fairly easy to build. Even I, soft as I may be on my characters, do not guarantee them success. But I wouldn't yet classify that as "real risk" or "credible danger".

GRR Martin didn't pull any punches when he killed off a lot of the 'main' characters in SoI&F. I found the breaking of the assumption that protagonists 'always get through it somehow' very refreshing. It added a lot to my enjoyment that I could not assume any such thing.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by downer

Good point. Best I've heard so far. So, you would hold that there is no tension in movies or other stories, if the audience doesn't think that the characters will come to serious harm? Then how do TV series ever build tension? After all, we know that the heroes will come back for another episode, and won't end up maimed, imprisoned or defeated by the forces of evil. Does that preclude tension? I found some shows quite tense, without ever fearing for the characters. Or is failing to achieve their goals enough? Because in that case, tension in roleplaying games is fairly easy to build. Even I, soft as I may be on my characters, do not guarantee them success. But I wouldn't yet classify that as "real risk" or "credible danger".

You specifically advocated for guaranteeing your players' success unless the players actively choose to fail. Specifically here (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by downer

OK, I misquoted you guys. That doesn't make it any less wrong. The players do not need to fear that they will lose. On the contrary, players should feel that they cannot lose, unless they want to. It's a contractual thing. The players and the GM have to agree on a sort of ratio that suits the campaign. In a dark setting, the players will regularly lose, and will understand that that is only proper - it wouldn't be a dark setting otherwise. In fact, they will make themselves lose, by having their characters succumb to their own dark sides, and so on.

Other posters also specifically mentioned that a fear of failure can create tension, not just a fear of death. Specifically here, which you quoted when writing the previous-quoted paragraph (again, emphasis added):

Originally Posted by Brett

Nope, not what I said, not what Kromm said, not what whswhs said. What we said was that if the players are not genuinely afraid that they might lose you won't get any tension going. And therefore (we said), develop a scenario in which the bad guys can win without killing the PCs or destroying the world. Don't try to base your tension on life or death for the PCs and the destruction of all they hold dear. Base it on some threat that the players will believe you would go through with. Less is more.

I think you may need to read-through this thread again, including your own posts.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by downer

Good point. Best I've heard so far. So, you would hold that there is no tension in movies or other stories, if the audience doesn't think that the characters will come to serious harm? Then how do TV series ever build tension? After all, we know that the heroes will come back for another episode, and won't end up maimed, imprisoned or defeated by the forces of evil. Does that preclude tension? I found some shows quite tense, without ever fearing for the characters. Or is failing to achieve their goals enough? Because in that case, tension in roleplaying games is fairly easy to build. Even I, soft as I may be on my characters, do not guarantee them success. But I wouldn't yet classify that as "real risk" or "credible danger".

Not the same situation, as Icelander explained at length (and quite clearly, I thought). When I watch a movie, I am seeing photographic images of people at the edge of a steep drop, or experiencing pain and injury, or other things of the sort. Those images have a direct impact on the imagination, and for me, often an intense one. I don't have that tool available to me as a GM.

Though I would also note that I like Joss Whedon's television series precisely because he doesn't have that safety net. Witness the deaths of Jenny in season 2, Joyce in season 5, and Tara in season 6 of Buffy. The lack of that sense of edge makes most action/adventure television comparatively boring to me.

But I would also suggest to you that "you did not gain X" and "you lost Y" are very different propositions psychologically. The emotional impact is not the same. Indeed, some of the most compelling situations dramatically are the ones where you have to choose between the two: Where you can gain your goal, but only at the price of losing something you value.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by downer

Roleplaying, in itself, can have an emotional impact. If you deny that, then of course, you will need to up the game in order to take something away from the table. But then I really pity you, because you apparently never felt the emotional impact of seeing your character become real before your eyes as you play him or her.

Condescend much?

You argue as if I were saying that the only way to get any tension in a game were to expose the characters to real danger, and as if I were proposing to rely on that as the sole narrative device. Neither is remotely true.

What I have proposed is, first, that an occasional actual death or loss can contribute to an ongoing sense of potential irreversible impairment to characters; and, second, that evoking that sense is one of a GM's narrative tools. Nowhere have I said that it is the only such tool, or that it should be used all the time. As I quoted once before, "Just because I say I like sea bathing, I don't mean I want to be pickled in brine."

I would add that there are players who like irreversible character loss, dramatically. I remember my martial arts campaign, where at the end of one scenario, one of the players said, "Bad Leg and Addicted to Laudanum? Sweet!"

It's a popular rhetorical device to paint your opponents as advocating the most extreme and unmitigated version of their position, while taking any position that contains any element of yours as agreeing with you. Indeed, it's so often used that it has a traditional name: "straw man argument."

The other thing that I'd say is that players being tense over the prospect of character death, injury, or loss is effective precisely and only because the players do identify with their characters in the way you are suggesting is only a property of your style of gaming. If my players did not identify with their characters, but regarded them only as counters on the table . . . if they thought, "Oh, well, I can just roll up another" . . . then putting their characters in danger would be completely ineffective as a source of dramatic tension.

Finally, I find it ironic that you write, "It's Aristotle's catharsis, just better, because you're not just watching, because the feedback is more direct." Do you remember what Aristotle was writing about when he discussed katharsis? Tragedy! Classical Athenian tragedy, with people putting their eyes out, or being buried alive, or being torn limb from limb by crazed cultists! Aeschylus', Euripides', and Sophocles' audiences had no guarantee that the characters on stage would still be alive at the end of the play; there was a very good chance that they wouldn't. It seems that by your argument that "it's hard to feel your character's tension if you're busy with your own" the classical drama would have been utterly ineffective at providing katharsis and needed to be turned into classic adventure serials where the hero would always get out of the trap at the start of the next episode.

Bill Stoddard

[downer]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Not the same situation, as Icelander explained at length (and quite clearly, I thought). When I watch a movie, I am seeing photographic images of people at the edge of a steep drop, or experiencing pain and injury, or other things of the sort. Those images have a direct impact on the imagination, and for me, often an intense one. I don't have that tool available to me as a GM.

Sure you don't. But you and Icelander sound like a movie or TV show actually has something more to offer than a game, which I disagree with. There is a whole lot of entertainment value in the dialogue, the atmosphere and other paraphernalia of the game. Highly-paid writers and big budgets have given birth to many an execrable book and movie, and the spontaneity of a gaming session has spawned many a remarkable character and memorable dialogue. Dismissing that out of hand seems plain wrong to me. Maybe Icelander and I have different standards, but I've played entire sessions where there wasn't even danger on the horizon and was never in danger of falling asleep. After all, I'm not just a passive consumer in a game, but an active producer, so even without tension, there is a world of things to catch my interest.

Though I would also note that I like Joss Whedon's television series precisely because he doesn't have that safety net. Witness the deaths of Jenny in season 2, Joyce in season 5, and Tara in season 6 of Buffy. The lack of that sense of edge makes most action/adventure television comparatively boring to me.

Well, that's part of the appeal of Whedon's shows, certainly. You and I simply are in different demographics, I guess. I have noted that there is a certain segment of viewers (and by extension, gamers) who feel unsatisfied with the classic Plot Armor. I like it just fine.

But I would also suggest to you that "you did not gain X" and "you lost Y" are very different propositions psychologically. The emotional impact is not the same. Indeed, some of the most compelling situations dramatically are the ones where you have to choose between the two: Where you can gain your goal, but only at the price of losing something you value.

Bill Stoddard

I agree. But I prefer to have my player's cooperation on that. Correct me, if I'm mistaken, but I get the impression that you guys don't trust your players to come up with that themselves. I find that when I leave the field open for player input, the players will often suggest such sacrificial approaches, and are willing to give up things to succeed, without me forcing them to. They are even willing to give up things for no other gain than the roleplaying opportunities afforded by the loss. But I have rarely, if ever, met a player who likes to have the GM dictate that. That puts people on the defensive. It's one thing, if the player says: "OK, I detonate my nifty magic item to defeat the bad guys.". It's another if the GM says: "Detonate the nifty magic item, or let the bad guys win. Your choice." The trick is to leave the options as open as possible and allow the players to surprise you with their own sense of drama.

@Langy:
I am not the one who needs to read my posts again. The players never lose. It's the characters who do - which can be a success for the players, if they're in on it and going along. I'm at a loss to understand why so many people equate one with the other, particularly since I have emphatically stressed the differences. As for the second part, I was interested in Bill's perspective, whereas you quoted Brett.