Failing Conditions in Forum and Chat Roleplaying

[Rulke]

Often in Table-Top or pen and paper roleplaying there is failing conditions to a quest, that make it so you can't complete the main goal, thus making the game a loss. My question is this, has anyone ever done something similar in Roleplaying on here or other forums, if so how did it work out? If not, would you ever do it thus increasing difficulty on your roleplay and forcing people to be far more careful when acting in character?

Just a query I had and was curious if anyone else thought of it, or tried it.

[Marionette]

Not something I've ever done. In my personal philosophy, RP is not about winning or losing, it's about playing an enjoyable game. The drama and pressure that come along with winning or losing a collaborative, for-fun activity can be pretty high. IC, sure, there are probably going to be tasks that can be failed at. Maybe the characters don't succeed (that's always a possibility, or at least it should be if you want any real tension), but I wouldn't consider that a loss in OOC terms. In short, I'd say the characters lost their quest, but I wouldn't say that "the game is a loss." Characters can screw up royally while the players still have tons of fun.

Additionally, for those seeking a longterm game that moves in a satisfying manner, this kind of loss condition -- mess up one action, become unable to complete the main quest, "lose" -- is a killer. It shuts you right down (unless you slide a new goal in in its place; if you've prepared to transition from the loss to more content, that isn't an issue). For me, I think it's best to always try to include several different paths to an event if it's necessary to advance the plot.

None of this means that people don't have to be careful in character. I always adhere to the rule of "in character action = in character consequences." If the characters screw up, they have to deal with whatever comes with that. Say they were trying to rescue the Duke of Something-or-other from a dragon because he's the king's brother, and the king's favor is needed to get Fancy Sword of Ages. Rather than heeding warnings to proceed carefully and avoid waking the dragon, they rushed in guns swords blazing, and the enraged dragon ate our dear Duke. Welp, they don't get the king's favor now. In fact, he really hates them, and he's sending the royal guard after them. I might set out another path for them to get Fancy Sword of Ages if it's necessary to the story, but now they have to deal with the ire of an angry king and whatever he decides to throw at them. I wouldn't just say, "Duke's dead, you lose." (unless rescuing the Duke as supposed to be the penultimate climax of the game, after which it would have ended anyway, so... yeah, not much to do then).

[Bosch]

Marionette nailed it. Outright failure is a bit harsh but there should be consequences as it’ll help keep me on my toes as a GM while keeping the plot fresh. GMs should kind of have the road map of the plot in their head but it should be free enough to take a few detours or change entirely. A character that fails is an awesome thing and to me shows a mature RPer who’s there to tell a story. All stories have to end and it’s fun to present RPers with a big choice at the end with life or death consequences as it gives the RP a feel of finality. In particular if your RP has been running for a while.

[Kurokiku]

I've never used failing conditions as such. I mean, obviously, there are some things that are going to have really bad consequences if someone does them IC, and if so, the players might "fail" to meet some objective they had. Then it's up to their ingenuity to figure out some other way of getting what they want.

More importantly, I think is that the world all of this is taking place in doesn't just "wait around" for the players. Plans proceed, alliances are made, events occur, and NPCs do important things. So maybe the fact that the players weren't able to (to use Marionette's example) slay the dragon without killing the Duke means that they aren't at the palace when the assassination attempt on the king takes place, and suddenly, the villain (who'd been planning it all along) has an incredibly-superior position, making any subsequent success on the part of the heroes much harder.

For me, the crucial bit is remembering that no action is without consequence, and that doesn't just apply karmically. The entire world doesn't stop moving while a character finds a way around an obstacle they've managed to create for themselves, and I find that time is an oft-neglected component of this kind of storytelling/game-playing (whatever your preferred view on what RP actually is/does). I tend to think of it as something of a hybrid, and it would be very strange for me if a GM went "well, okay, you guys failed that, start over from here" or something like that. Hell, if the characters screw up so badly that they all die and the GM allows that without some kind of saving throw, then that's what happens. Either the story ends there, or everyone makes new characters and it picks up differently, hopefully in a way that makes sense given the original events.

[AugustArria]

The possibility of failing conditions would make any roleplay into a competition, in most cases the other players competing against the GM to try and reach a favorable outcome for their characters. Personally, I can't abide by any system of forum roleplay in which one party is the 'winner' and the other is the 'loser', or where everyone either 'wins' or 'loses'. I think it simply would never work without the addition of dice or some kind of forced measure to ultimately decide if the players 'lose'.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that terms like winning, losing, difficulty, and failing conditions shouldn't exist in forum roleplay, because freeform roleplaying doesn't work very well at all when the writers are competing against either each other or the GM, at least not if you're trying to write an interesting story.

Any decent roleplayer should be willing to, and more importantly, see the value in, making their character lose occasionally, voluntarily putting their character through something that they would desire to avoid. It's essential to crafting a compelling story, which in my opinion is the goal of a forum-based roleplay. It's a cooperative effort.

[Chalchiuhtlicue]

The possibility of failing conditions would make any roleplay into a competition, in most cases the other players competing against the GM to try and reach a favorable outcome for their characters. Personally, I can't abide by any system of forum roleplay in which one party is the 'winner' and the other is the 'loser', or where everyone either 'wins' or 'loses'. I think it simply would never work without the addition of dice or some kind of forced measure to ultimately decide if the players 'lose'.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that terms like winning, losing, difficulty, and failing conditions shouldn't exist in forum roleplay, because freeform roleplaying doesn't work very well at all when the writers are competing against either each other or the GM, at least not if you're trying to write an interesting story.

Any decent roleplayer should be willing to, and more importantly, see the value in, making their character lose occasionally, voluntarily putting their character through something that they would desire to avoid. It's essential to crafting a compelling story, which in my opinion is the goal of a forum-based roleplay. It's a cooperative effort.

I really couldn't agree with this post more. Although I would take it a step further. I've DM'd tabletop games, you know, things with dice, and even I hate true 'failing' conditions. I do like making it so they have to be creative and sometimes roll well, but as the person running things, I don't want the game to end just because they got a bad roll. Because ultimately, as an extension of making things a competition ( players vs other players or players vs GM ) kills the whole point of it being a collaborative experience, specifically in freeform RP. Further still, if it somehow does become GM vs Players... well that's just bad. "Rocks fall, everyone dies, game's over." That's not something that should happen.

Yes, I'm willing to let your characters die if you do do something incredibly stupid ( in one game I ran, someone decided to try to be a meat shield for someone else instead of either of them going into the readily available cover... and ended up getting shot by basically every baddy in the area, enough to kill him at least 5 times over in damage because he was the weakest character in the party... by a great margin... and he was the only character who was in their line of sight not protected... -_- ). But that doesn't mean the game's over. You can either reroll a character and try better, or depending on the setting, keep playing in the underworld for a bit. Or both.

[LSunday]

I'm doing one in my own RP right now. If you've read/heard of Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, the RP is running in that style.

In many ways, I'm running it almost like a competition. Everyone was allowed to create two characters; as the story progresses, I will kill them off one at a time in 'death scenes' where I will post as the killer/god, and they have a chance to fight for their lives. Every time I run one of those, 2 or 3 people are in danger and the one who protects themselves the least will die.

So far, it's motivated everyone to be careful and active. I let them know that part of my decision on who to kill will relate to average response times and post quality, along with how much they are contributing to the overall story, not just how safe they play their characters.

The RP hasn't been running too long, but the response has been positive and I have yet to lose a member. Feelings might change when I have my first elimination that completely removes a player, though.

[shadowty]

Actually killing them in itself may contribute to the story.

[Marionette]

I do think there are cases in which win/lose conditions might be enjoyable (although I do have some personal qualms about using character death as punishment, more or less, for response time and post quality as LSunday describes because that's majorly mixing IC and OOC consequences). However, a GM needs to be up front about this and seek out players who are actually interested in this type of play. That's a really important thing in all cases, finding a group that jives with the style of game you're GMing.

Of course, I still wouldn't really consider death a loss, per se, and would go in a direction that feels less like punishment, personally. I think RPs where it's less a matter of "whether you die" and more one of "when and how you die" could be really fun with the right group, but the key word there is fun. If death is that important a facet of the game, make it not necessarily something to be striven for but something that is worth the build-up of avoiding the inevitable as well as something that plays out as a fitting climax. That I wouldn't call a loss.