玩家面对战斗时的策略倾向

[小狼希诺]

难得白天闲逼，来聊点带团的话题吧。

我带的面团PF1规则是主流，然后使用了房规调整的英雄点系统。
玩家可以用1点英雄点获得一个额外的插动，或者用2点英雄点免于一死。而获得英雄点的方式其中有一条就是“英雄行为”——譬如面对强大的敌人，为了保护无辜者，在可以逃跑的情况下选择战斗。
细节上有些出入，不过大体如此。

然后我就发现玩家们面对战斗时的策略变得更加积极了。
可战可不战的时候他们变得更倾向于战斗，即使收获的战利品价值小于使用的消耗品的价值也愿意战斗。
在战斗中，也更加倾向于使用英雄点来完成“酷炫”的操作，队友/NPC面对死亡的威胁时，也更愿意牺牲自己的资源（英雄点、能力）甚至角色的生命来拯救。当然，事后他们会询问这种行为是否算得上是英雄行为，能否获得英雄点。
同时，在扮演上玩家也变得更加倾向于“英雄”，或者说倾向于能够获得英雄点的决策上。

当然，使用这套系统之后玩家强了1CR（笑），也几乎不会有剧情杀以外的撕卡可能性了。玩家越是自我牺牲，越是能获得英雄点，就离死亡越来越远。
仔细品味一下的话还是挺有意思的。

大家希望玩家面对战斗的策略是激进还是保守呢？又有什么手段来驱动玩家呢？
角色的死亡机制对于跑团游戏的意义是什么呢？
也许应有某本游戏设计的教科书系统的阐述过这个？

[鸽巫不坑不咕]

……1……1点HP一个动作！？

[小狼希诺]

HP（hero point）
算了我不用缩写了

[Mounrou]

Fate Point Mechanics (Yes, it was this thing that FATE/SotC first turned into real mechanics, and the one trick that everybody borrowed from) had always been used for this purpose.

Basically it gave another layer of options, beyond the normal +/- "obvious" mechanics that you can calculate.
>As simple mechanics show simple odds, when one can obviously see the odds, most people would prefer the safer sides of things.
>Even Players don't usually have death wishes after all. Even if PCs aren't actually "alive" per se.
>But "being heroic" usually means "not being safe". Not going against the odds means that PCs are probably not being as adventurous as they should be.
>So, FPs. You get FPs by "overreaching" from the safe zone (re: RP), and at the same time it "protects" PCs from the consequences of overreaching.
>It not just allows you to do more, but encourages you to do more.
So, yeah, that's why everybody borrowed that trick nowadays.

As for death, well, that's always the tricky part.
TRPG was, traditionally, a chance for players to safely brave deaths when the goal is to be heroic.
But then the idea of lost, re. "players don't want to lose", as well as "players don't want to lost their characters", since it gives the illusion of permanent lost. This of which, in terms of TRPG gaming, is unlike REAL LIFE, character death is actually false as you have multiple ways, both in-game and meta, to nullify them regardless of system or genre.
But that fear persists, despite this being a game, and sometimes despite of safety nets like the aforementioned FP mechanics.

Even if THE GAME ITSELF did not have death, sometimes the player just cannot continue.

For example:
TWO of my old game was based on PCs going through multiple "deaths" that, systems-wise they will come back from, and continue as same character. (I just put one of them up here. The other was system-less.)
About 1/2 the players usually dropped out after they get their first death.
And I mean drop out. It's nothing to do with gore or description either since I try to limit things to PG-17 level. And I did already explain the whole point of the game before I started so it's not "hey you just suddenly died" kind of situation either.
The few I got an answer out of, the answer's usually alone the line of "just don't feel like it anymore."
Maybe it's just, I dunno, the idea of death itself that turns people off?

(Well, yeah, it could also be that I'm just a bad GM... Can't denied that. v=3=v )

Anyhow, death is and always will be a tricky issue.
(I do know that a lot of players just aren't as big a risk taker as they thought they were... Though that might be different now with a COC-centric gaming mindset compare to a DND-centric gaming mindset... v=3=v )

[笨哈]

所以PF2直接把Hero point變成默認規則了，雖然效果只剩下重骰跟穩定瀕死。

英雄點是種很典型的正增強物，用以強化某種GM想要的行為，在這裡就是強化玩家去進行英雄的行為。

大家希望玩家面對戰鬥的策略是激進還是保守呢？

我觀察到玩家在面對戰鬥的策略是激進或保守，與挑起這場戰鬥的原因、當前的情勢會有較大的關係。
比如前天晚上帶了一團，我對四個2級玩家放了一個大體型泥怪，戰鬥開始的原因是隊上的神衛(PF1的聖武士)進入武器倉庫調查，但沒有發現腳下廢棄物中隱藏著泥怪。

這場戰鬥我希望他們激進，因為泥怪天生AC低，HP高，很適合玩家盡力搶攻而不是保守看情況。
所以我先讓泥怪包捲神衛並且用體液麻痺他讓他陷入窒息，不然門口就是另一個戰士，按照最佳戰術，我應該盡可能讓泥怪去麻痺現場還站著的生物，這也符合他的怪物習性。

事實證明還算成功，他們一開始的確因為神衛麻痺又窒息慌了1-2輪，然後就發現泥怪非常容易打中，接著就開始搶攻了。

而我不會一定要他們保守或激進，我會依照當前遭遇的設計，去引導他們偏向哪方。

又有什麼手段來驅動玩家呢？

使用增強理論就很夠了(認真)。

但不能舉例(除了上面)，因為這幾個玩家都會刷果園，我還不能把老底都交了(掩面)。
很多心理上的東西能成立，就是你不能說破。哪怕一個玩家看破了，只要你不鬆口，那永遠都有一份懷疑在。

角色的死亡機制對於跑團遊戲的意義是什麼呢？

我認為比起讓玩家角色真的死亡，更重要的是讓他們感受到死亡的威脅(雖然說出這句話的我在上面那團稍晚就殺了一個玩家)。

而死亡這個事實在遊戲中至少有兩個意義

1.作為一個合理的退場機制
這包括但不限於有些角色真的很適合在這時候死掉(例如一個驍勇善戰的60歲維京戰士，這一生的目標就是死在戰場，被女武神迎接去瓦爾哈拉跟眾神永遠的暢飲)。玩家要搬家、換工作、準備考試或甚至是想換張卡玩等等，死亡會是一個合理的選項，對某些角色甚至可以說的上是契合。

2.作為一個合理可見的威脅
死亡這條規則其實就是在告訴玩家：「如果你做了不合宜的事情與行為，你就會失去這個角色」。當你戰鬥中的決策嚴重失誤、當你在遊戲中做出了極不適當的舉動等，你的角色就會死去。

在這裡，死亡是增強理論中的懲罰。

當然，決策嚴重失誤&極不適當的舉動等等，每個DM心中都有一把尺，這是模糊地帶。

最後附上Paizo的創意總監大恐龍JJ對於玩家在冒險過程中死亡的回答

劇透 -   :

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1380?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#68995

I think that the THREAT of PC death is far more important to a game than actual PC death. In a story, when a main character dies, it's to accomplish an important beat in the evolution of the tale, and it doesn't make you, the reader, have to stop interacting with the tale; you can still experience the story in the same capacity as you did before the character died. Perhaps not with as much enjoyment, but still.

In an RPG, a player isn't merely reading a story or watching a movie. They're ACTIVE in the role of the character, and any effect that takes away that agency and prevents the player from being able to interact with the story and the game is frustrating to that player, be it a few rounds of stun or paralysis, or long term things like petrification or death.

To a player, if your character dies in a combat and that combat goes on for 3 combat rounds that take 3 hours to resolve in real life... that's a significant portion of the game session that you don't get to play the game. You just sit there and watch everyone else have fun... and if you feel that your death occurred because of an error in another player's tactics or a misapplied rule or simply as the result of a bad die roll or something, you're also sitting there frustrated and angry.

It's INCREDIBLY EASY for GMs to not get this. After all, when a GM's character dies, he has a whole worlds' worth of other characters to play. A GM is always playing and always has agency in the game, even at times when every bad guy in the battle is killed. There's never really a point in the game where the GM can't play. Furthermore, the GM knows how close to success or failure the party is at all times—the players do not. The GM might know that after a fight against a dragon that the player characters NEVER had a chance to even get hurt, but from the player side, they don't know this. They might just think that they got lucky or had good tactics or whatever... they don't know what you, the GM, have in your arsenal, and as such, every encounter could well be something unexpected.

The best thing a GM can do to address this is to play a campaign where they are a player, and to play that character for a year or two and level that character up. Experience what it's like NOT being in total control, what it's like NOT knowing the exact level of threat or what looms in the future. Then, when you go back to being the GM, you can use what you know to imply threat and the potentiality of death and not feel like "No one died in that encounter, therefore the encounter was too easy and no fun."

Now, to speak specifically to some of your comments, I disagree with one in particular.

If you're playing a character and that character is interacting with the story for multiple sessions, builds relationships with other PCs and NPCs, and invests their story in the world you're running, having that character die is traumatic and disappointing. It's often NOT appealing to merely "rewrite a new one and rejoin the team" because that new character has no weight behind it; there's no tradition or nostalgia. A new character will always feel like a replacement. Think of a show like the X-Files... then think of how the show changed when they replaced Mulder or Scully with other characters who tried to fill the same role. It's not the same. The show (X-files or whatever) is usually less interesting.

The same goes for player characters. When my character dies in a game, I have a VERY difficult time continuing to be interested in the game. If my character dies in the first or second or third session, before I've had a chance to figure her personality and role in the story out, that's less of a problem, but each session my character survives, her place in the story grows more solid and thus, if she dies, it's more and more likely that rather than simply make a new character I'll just quit the campaign entirely if she can't be resurrected. THAT SAID... if she dies in the climactic battle, or dies in a way that finalizes her story in a satisfying way, then absolutely is that okay... but most PC deaths don't happen that way. They happen because someone makes a mistake, someone rolls a bad roll, or the GM or another player causes something unfair to happen. Very unsatisfying.

NOTE: These are my views for a Pathfinder or similar game. For a game like Call of Cthulhu, those views are flopped on the head. In Call of Cthulhu, it's not about your character's story—it's not your character who grows more powerful as the game progresses. Character death in Call of Cthulhu is expected and helps to build the horror of the game, and it's usually VERY easy to bring in a new character and continue to adventure with relative ease alongside of characters who have survived, since the power level difference between a new character and one who's been on dozens of missions is nowhere NEAR as vast in Pathfinder or other level-based games.

[小狼希诺]

嗯……
虽然英文看的很累，不过果然看一看分享的心得能有不少收获呢。
谢谢两位w

[弑君者伊恩]

很值得琢磨呢，但是归根到底判定权是要交给gm的？有没有办法以明确规则的形式给pc一套“预设英勇行动组”呢？我在自己的规则里加入这个系统，但是没太想好。大约是通过背景，职业能在中低等级接连获得三四种特殊的英雄行为选项，尽量涵盖各种可能的场合但又有所区别。背景给的更多是战斗外的，职业给的更多是在战斗逆境时冒险一搏得