I had an epiphany Saturday night, something I'd been struggling with and considering for years: why does D&D work, i.e why does it have staying power as a role-playing game, when so many other RPGs do not? What is it that sets D&D apart from all other systems, genres, and competitors?
Saturday, while walking to the store to pick up some beer, it came to me: raise dead.
Now, to be clear, there are a lot of reasons why D&D works...and works really well...for long-term (campaign) play. The driving force of the advancement mechanics (the x.p./leveling "carrot"). The plethora of challenges that scale from low levels to high. The micro-/macro- scale of the setting (i.e. the premise of exploring closed "dungeon" sites, and the endless possibility of exploring a whole world or different dimensions/planes).
But all these things can be (and are) replicated/implemented in other genres of games: lots of games have "levels" and/or points-driven systems. Lots of of genres feature "adventure sites" for drilled-down exploration. Most RPGs present a scale of challenges from the beginning stages until the later. Many, many games have emulated these particular aspects found in D&D.
However, while those things, when implemented, can add staying power (i.e. sustained interest/engagement with game play) in practice, I've never any of those games to last for longer than a few months...and generally not even that long.
[cue all the folks who've been running 20+ year Traveller campaigns to pipe up]
Here's the thing: I think (I think) that unless you have some slavish devotion to a particular genre/setting IP (for example, the person who ONLY plays Star Wars, because they love-love-love Star Wars and would not play RPGs at all without system to allows them to live in the SW universe), for sustained engagement over time, the participants require two things:
- a real, true challenge that tests them (no matter how poor the player, they become competent with enough hours logged), and
- a "tangible" (I use this term VERY loosely) form of accomplishment/reward demonstrating their impact (i.e. there has to be something to show for the time spent).
And the area where D&D differs from pretty much EVERY GAME on the market (certainly every game I can think of...which is more than a few), is the presence of of game mechanics that allow dead/destroyed characters to return to the game without breaking the verisimilitude of an escapist (fantasy) game. This is not "plot armor" for characters; instead magic like raise dead, reincarnate, resurrection, and wish are all baked into the system...these spells are a hard-wired part of the game's setting.
So what does this mean? Why is it important?
Well, for one thing, it means a DM can push the players as hard as he/she feels is appropriate for their capabilities without fear that beloved characters might be killed derailing years of work and investment. See, I readily acknowledge that players develop attachments to characters over long periods of consistent play...and not just attachments to their own characters...and DMs are not immune to this effect either. You work a character from 1st level up to 5th or 8th or 10th+ level, and the character takes on the same status in the minds of the participants as a major character in a favorite television serial.
It happens. It's not about creating a nifty "backstory" for the character, or developing a PC's "personality." It's about actual play, over time. Such characters matter to players.
And D&D provides means of bringing them back to life. The D&D world is a magical world...by definition and by design...that presumes souls (and spirits, yes, I see you DDG) do not immediately depart to their eternal reward upon expiration of the physical body. Players know this going in to the game. No, it's not necessarily easy (nor cheap) to do so, but there is always room for an Orpheus like quest. I've seen it happen...more than once in more than one campaign.
And so, because of this possibility, DMs can push the players hard. The kid gloves can come off. The DM is free to create dangerous scenarios, and run those scenarios by the rules, letting the dice fall as they may, and allowing the players to suffer and strive and triumph and fail on the basis of their own abilities and their own luck. Without the need for plot armor immunity, "death saves," or comic book style "ret-cons." Real Play; Real Stakes. Death on the line.
Which, by the by, makes the experience of playing D&D all the more visceral...all the more adrenaline-pumping...for the people sitting around the table. Cheers and groans and fear and real tension. And, upon success, real feelings of achievement. The kind of roulette spins that breed gambling addicts...which is why people who enjoy D&D play, will continue to love and enjoy it.
It's not an interest in improv that keeps them riveted.
So, yeah, this is the difference between D&D and (pretty much) every other RPG on the market. Superheroes, space opera, horror, espionage...none of them offer both the hard challenge of D&D, and the setting ingrained "get out of jail free" cards that take the sting out of loss. Of course, the D&D game has more wonderful things than just the magic of raise dead (including asymmetrical game play, a reward system that encourages action and cooperation, etc.), but this is the thing that, I believe, is UNIQUE to Dungeons & Dragons, and it facilitates long-term buy-in and investment which opens the potential to see how a campaign can unfold...in all its glory.
Happy Monday, folks.
: )
[and, if you're an American, please don't forget to exercise your right as a citizen and VOTE]
I mean...you knew I'd say something, right? Heheh.
ReplyDeleteAs is often the case when you tackle this sort of thing, I find myself absolutely fascinated by the idea you're presenting. As someone on the outside looking in, I can't agree nor disagree with what the post's premise.
I don't personally know why people like or play D&D and continue to do so, therefore I don't feel 'qualified' to comment on whether or not the reason you've given is the 'secret sauce' that makes the game what it is.
I find the odd paradox of 'classic' D&D being simultaneously unforgiving and making death no big deal a little silly for me. Either the setting/genre/game isn't that deadly or if your PC dies they stay dead. Maybe that's just me. At the same time, it is very D&D. Without a doubt this dynamic makes me think of D&D moreso then any other game.
For the record, Superhero games are the other type of game that regualry features resurrection. I mean seriously, how many times have Supers died and returned? Superman, Batman, Flash, and Green Lantern have all come back from the dead at least once. Goku from Dragonball Z has died at least twice. Lots of ways to bring back the departed as well.
I am so glad you decided to weigh in on this! Thanks!
DeleteI considered the superhero genre when writing this. Thing is, while "coming back from the dead" is definitely a trope of superhero comic books, there is also little "sting" of death because of the plot armor immunity that characters enjoy. You can't have a Spider-Man comic without Spider-Man, so you know he's never in any real danger (because then the comic company couldn't sell comics/make money).
And while that's FINE for comic books, that's not so great when it comes to an RPG. Because an RPG...at least, an adventure game like D&D...is about experiencing the thrill of the game. And if there's no threat of REAL loss, then that thrill is severely diminished.
Or, rather, it doesn't hold a candle to a game that provides that threat.
I've played MANY supers games over the years. Some, like Marvel make it really, really hard for characters to die (in true comic book fashion). Others, like Heroes Unlimited, make it pretty darn easy...so much so that you need to rely on some pretty convoluted GM acrobatics to keep people alive.
But even my friends in high school...who were HUGE comic book guys (one even went into the comic industry after college), and played a TON of HU games, couldn't sustain a long-term campaign. They could play for a few weeks or a few months and then...bleh. It would just trail off. Perhaps to start a new campaign with a new concept and new characters after a while (maybe)...but nothing with any true consistency and each series getting shorter and shorter. None of them game any more.
That, of course, is anecdotal. Probably there are really long-running supers games (Aaron Allston's "Strike Force" comes to mind)...but how much of that requires "fudging" on the part of the GM to keep characters from perishing? And does such "dancing monkey" play keep the GM engaged long-term? Honestly. My current campaign's been going for nearly four years now...no plans to end it. Ever. I've never seen ANY of my other games (Vampire, HU, Ars Magica, Stormbringer, Top Secret, Gamma World, Over The Edge, Star Frontiers, Marvel, TMNT, Rifts, ElfQuest, etc.) last that long.
Same GM...different systems. Probably two years...or less!...is all any of those have ever lasted.
It's not just that resurrection is possible...resurrection in D&D isn't a 'walk in the park.' It costs money...effort. Wishes (for PCs that were REALLY destroyed) costs more. But it's POSSIBLE, and it's built into the system, rather than relying on the GM to do some sort of 'dance' of "Oh, well Ice Lord was actually kidnapped by aliens six months ago and the guy who was destroyed by the Rabid Badger was just a robotic simulacrum left in his place," etc.
That's a big difference, man.
The longest D&D campaign I have ever run was about 3 1/2-4 years in length. The longest I was in as a player was maybe a year. Haven't been a player that often in my 47 years in the hobby and with death so common in D&D, few parties lasted to true 'campaign' length.
ReplyDeleteThe longest campaign I was ever in was a Champions campaign that went a good 10-11 years, though I was only part of it for around 4. I was also in a Kapow! game (very rules-lite Superheroes RPG) that ran for about 4 as well.
The longest RPG campaign I've ever run I am still running: Star Trek Adventures, now in its 8th year of (roughly) bi-weekly sessions. While there is definitely the threat of loss and death, we haven't had a PC die yet (though serious injuries have occurred on numerous occasions). We've lost NPC crewmembers of course. There is no resurrection (unless you count a Vulcan's Katra). Every even numbered year we advance the PCs with a new Focus and/or Talent and a raise to one or two stats. Every odd year we upgrade the ship.
A very different approach I suppose but one that clearly works for us.
Your lightyears may vary.
Yeah, you may be one of those examples of a group that has "slavish devotion to a particular genre/setting IP," at least with regard to your Star Trek campaign. If that's your thing, that's your thing.
DeleteThe Champions campaign? Fascinating, but similar. I had a long-running Marvel game that had plenty of soap opera mixed in, but it didn't last more than a couple years. How many story cycles can a comic book go through before they start recycling the same plots with slight twists? Supers campaigns (and serials) are, in my experience, some of the most contrived. And they HAVE TO BE because of the nature of the genre. But, hey, yours lasted a decade, so there must have been SOMEthing to it that kept you coming back. What was that impetus? And why did it finally end?
Again, thanks for the comment.
The campaign was created and GMed by my friend William Corpening, who started running it with the first edition of Champions and ended it when he moved out of NY a little over a decade later. In addition to a really well developed and interesting setting, Will is very good at getting things started but then essentially letting the players and their PCs dictate the direction the stories/sessions will go in.
DeleteLike many of the games and genres I run and play, Superheroes are interested in finding gold or other physical treasure and so the motivations are found in a vastly wider range of activities. Everyone wanted to 'Protect the Innocent' and 'Fight Evil' but that's a blanket, long term goal. Each PC had their own reason for being a Superhero (or Supervillain - yes we had PC bad guys) and different things they wanted to accomplish (leading to stories featuring the Soap Opera element of comic books).
You can always check my blog for details on the Champions campaign (there's a lot of info - A LOT - so best to use the tags 'Champions' and/or 'Kineto', though a blog search for 'History of the World' will give you a nice overview of my buddy's homebrew setting).
I will have to check those posts on your blog, as I don't recall having read them previously. I still find superhero RPGs fascinating, and Champions a very special case...I've known a LOT of folks who enjoyed this particular system, which I have only examined in its latter ("HERO System") form. Personally, I found HERO to be just about the most boring thing I've ever looked at, and it's especially interesting to me that most of the (very successful) Champions games I've hear about all started as 1E Champions (when it was still "Champions").
DeleteI am skeptical as to this. Yes, it lets you raise the stakes (in theory, anyway). It also trivializes death as a consequence and does weird things to the implied world of the game (including the bit where death is treated as a threat, even at higher levels, in most materials). There's also the bit where there are plenty of mechanical alternatives to resurrection spells - Dark Sun's character stable being the most obvious off the top of my head.
ReplyDeleteAlso, given how ridiculously high-magic D&D is/has become, I'd argue it help hurt verisimilitude far more than it helps. If you play magicpunk D&D, yes, it helps. But very few people actually do that.
Hey: I'm only talking about "old edition" D&D. That's the caveat with this conversation. So whatever "D&D is/has become"...um, okay. Not really talking about that.
DeleteIs death "trivialized" in AD&D? No, I wouldn't say so. My players don't want their characters to die. Death IS a "fail state." And they don't want to fail.
But it's not a game stopper (wish I could add italics there). They don't want to die...they don't want to fail. But it's a possibility...AND it's not the END of the campaign. Not even close! It doesn't "derail" the "story" for a protagonist to die.
It's a subtle difference, but it IS different. Different from other RPGs.
Just catching up on my blog reading now. I'd have to firmly disagree with your reasoning. Both that other games don't sustain long term play and that raise dead makes a difference in d&d. I'm of the opinion that campaign length is almost entirely dependent on group dynamics as opposed to game system or genre. You say you see no end in sight with your current campaign, what about in 10 or 15 years when your kids are grown ? Maybe you'll still DM the same campaign world, but is it really the same campaign? Trying to find an answer in the game as to why a certain group stopped playing a campaign seems to me like looking at the beetle on the tree while ignoring the whole forest you're in the middle of.
ReplyDeleteIt may just be that sustaining long-term games...ones that measure their longevity in YEARS if not decades...is really hard, and few GMs/DMs of ANY RPG can manage it. However, I have seen it managed far more often with D&D than with any other system, and (for my own experience) I have found it far easier to manage in D&D than any other RPG. In fact, I've found it impossible to do it any other game system (whereas, with D&D, I've managed it on more than one occasion!).
DeleteYour question about my growing kids/players is a good one, but perhaps we have a different idea of what a "campaign" is. For me, it is a persistent setting/world that grows and develops as *I* mature and develop. It is not player dependent (although PCs leave their mark on the game world, and retired PCs may turn up as "NPCs" down the road). In large part, the DM *IS* the campaign...although the campaign may be shared between multiple DMs.
But, no, I don't see the campaign as player dependent. If my (current) players were to decide tomorrow that they didn't want to to play ever again, the Red Empire and the Emerald City would still remain. British Columbia would still be a frozen tundra, and the Idaho Deathlands would still be filled with bandits and cannibalistic humanoids. Port Angeles would still be ruled by the vampiric Baroness of Ravenspire. Any new players would be journeying through the same lands that my current players have done, but they'd be encountering different adventures...even if many of the towns and rivers and roads were the same.
As to the "raise dead" thing: yeah, you may be right. I believe there are a LOT of reasons why D&D works well when it comes to long-term RPG play...lots of reasons I could cite. It's just that, hard as I try, the "raise dead" thing is really the only thing I can think of that is DIFFERENT from all the other RPGs on the market. Lots of RPGs have one or more elements of the "goodness" that make D&D what it is...but not that. That's the one thing that other games seem to have missing.
But perhaps it's not the ultimate "key" to D&D's success in this regard.
As to long term campaigns vs campaign settings it really depends on your perspective I guess. With my current online campaign I run I could theoretically claim it's the same campaign that my dad started in the mid 90s and has been run relatively continuously since then even if we changed dms. But I don't feel that really truthful. Just because I'm running the same game world doesn't mean it's the same campaign. A war or theater of war will have multiple campaigns, there is some connection but they are still separate from each other. I. My campaign world you could say there were maybe 3 major campaigns(with minor stuff filling it out), the first was the early games run by my dad for us kids and our friends, the second would be our federation games, and then the third is the campaign I'm running now. Each is different in some way and distinguished by a time in between where the campaign setting lay fallow but I wouldn't presume to say the federation campaign is the same as the one im running right now. The campaigns took place in the same setting yes, but other than setting there's no direct connection. That's just how I see it...
ReplyDeleteAnd I think that's a pretty valid way of looking at it.
DeleteMy son and I have our own campaigns which are (ostensibly) in the same world; however, mine is focused in Washington State and his is in the far wilder, less civilized Montana State area. Different PCs in both, different RULE SYSTEMS in both (he still uses alignment, for example, whereas I"ve cut it from my game).
And yet, when I ran with a co-DM in my youth, we considered it a SHARED campaign. The world was the same, the player pool (and their characters) were the same, only the adventures (and the DM running the adventures) differed from session to session.
The DMG defines "campaign" as: "General term referring to one DM's adventures as a whole rather than individually. An ongoing series of games based upon a created milieu."
As "milieu" simply refers to the game world, and you and your father use the same world, then you could be considered to have a shared campaign. However, you could likewise (as my son and I do) consider your campaigns to be separate, attached specifically to the individual DM, despite the shared world.
But if YOU were to run different games with different players in the same game world, I would not call them different campaigns. To me, they'd all just be "your campaign."
For me, I've always considered the "end of a campaign" to be equivalent to the end of the world. "Time to blow up the campaign and start again," is what we (my friends and I) would say, back in the past. The world is over. Its history is over. We are starting a NEW world, with a new history, and a new timeline...THAT (to me) is the beginning of a new campaign.