It occurs to me that games ought to be able to allow for pyrrhic victories - where you apparently win, but in doing so lose. I imagine this can be very common in a tactics vs strategy sense. I was recently playing the old SPI game “Midway”, and although the American player sank more of my ships, I won the game because I distracted him with sinking my ships while my troop carriers got to their destination successfully (and scored many victory points for me)
The novel “Tactics of Mistake” about sci-fi mercenaries covers a similar theme, where the protagonist sets up a number of wins for the opponent such that he is vulnerable for the finale.
In a TTRPG situation, sometimes combat is just about killing the bad guys. But what if the actual objective is ensuring that something gets away, or time runs out on the clock? Fighting a losing battle to allow other important things to happen could be important for both the protagonist and the antagonist!
Thank you for your comment! Always enjoy your connections to wargames!
I like the idea of games where winning combat doesn’t necessarily win you the game, but where avoiding all combat will probably make you lose. Sounds like Midway might be like that. In some ways Scythe (board game) is too… combat is a side activity, and not the main way to win the game (even though it is filled with giant mechs).
A Pyrrhic victory is a similar concept, but the focus might be more on both sides losing than both sides winning. Certainly a concept that would show up in historical wargames.
This was a fantastic breakdown, especially the reframing of combat not as zero-sum but as a decision space with multidirectional value. That mechanic alone (win/lose rewards) feels like a low-key revolution in curbing analysis paralysis and loss aversion. Totally aligns with Engelstein’s insights — but brought to life in a way players feel, not just theorize.
Also love the mention of the Loki strategy in Blood Rage — made me wonder: what would a TTRPG look like if emotional or narrative losses boosted player agency instead of reducing it? What if you failed a roll but gained new leverage in the form of social fallout, reputation, or even magical consequence?
The takeaway for me: game design at its best makes players curious, not cautious. You nailed that here.
I think your summation of "make players curious, not cautious" is a good one! Players need to "have some skin in the game" with real risk and a chance of losing... but at the same time, loss aversion psychology is real and needs to be considered when designing games.
Tried thinking about failing in combat in TTRPGs, and ended up looking at failing in general.
There are games like Heart, where the consequences (Fallout) have a rewarding nugget of new mechanics. Saw someone else mention getting experience from failures, and I've seen that in a few games.
Brindlewood Bay/The Between handle failures with Crowns/Masks. I count these, since narratively, the player did fail, but gave up a finite resource to succeed. The Crowns/Masks are fun opportunities to develop your character's story.
In Racoon Sky Pirates, failing doesn't mean your Racoon is hurt, it just means that the situation gets more chaotic and difficult to overcome in the end. And frankly, the players are always trying to cause chaos anyway, so it feels like a reward. Vampire the Masquerade does something similar with Hunger.
The Details of Our Escape integrate "failure" (not being able to play a domino) so thoroughly into the game, I don't think it would work without it.
In TTRPGs the basic reward for every roll should be narrative progress. Not having a good answer to "what happens if I fail the roll" means failed rolls are nothing-actions. Quite a few RPGs have felt half-baked at the table because they had too much of that.
I think I was getting Heart confused with Dark Vigil (https://fractalrpg.com/). Both have a very grim aesthetic, with themes of mutation and corruption. In Dark Vigil increasing corruption can let you take on traits like a prehensile limb or unnatural luck.
Yes. I just reread some of them, and I have to admit was a stretch to describe them as "rewarding". But there is a strange resonance between the fallout options (which get VERY weird and VERY brutal) and the character upgrades (which are just as weird and brutal). Most of the fallout options are simple, and the more complex ones mainly serve to flesh out the brutal consequences you need to deal with.
In Scythe, the player who loses also gets a reward, in that case a combat card. The winning player advances in winning the overall goal. I think it's nice to have mechanics where losing doesn't feel too bad. Especially if there was a huge time investement in a certain battle. As long as winning is always rewarded more.
Good call. I haven't played Scythe in a while and forgot about that.
Fits into the idea of reducing the sense of loss when an action is performed. Probably a good thing, and a hallmark of modern (or at least contemporary) game design.
My thoughts went immediately to PbtA games in general, or at least how some games frame it - a 6- result is not necessarily a failure, it just shifts where the narrative control of the moment sits. While a 10+ gives essentially full control to the player who rolled, and a 7-9 involves an intermediary results, usually a success but with a player-chosen cost, a 6- gives most/all control to the facilitator/MC/herald (or whatever the "GM-like" role is called). It might even still mean that they do what they wanted - but maybe that is the problem, they got exactly what they *thought* they wanted (I suppose, monkey paw style). Jason Mill's (probablyokgames.com) "Demigods" is very explicit about this - even in the free quickstart guide it reads:
"Sometimes a Move will say specifically what to do on a 6-, otherwise the Herald will fill in part of the narrative. Try not to think of a 6- as a “miss”, where you whiff and nothing happens. The character may even accomplish their goal, but the Herald will make a Hard Move, adding danger or pressure to the narrative."
PbtA games are a notable gap in my TTRPG experience. I should try one of those soon!
I love the idea of avoiding the "You miss and nothing happens." turns or actions. Not being able to do something meaningful on my turn has become quite the peeve of mine lately, both in TTRPGs and in board games. I have limited and finite gaming time, I want to do something with it!!! :)
Monsters of the Week gives you exp. for every failed roll, which includes combat. My players love it. There are a few ways to change a failure to a success - character pool of Luck points that don't refuel, Help actions - so taking the exp. feels like a choice and good consolation for failing to accomplish something.
I do like games that give you a consolation prize for losing/failing. Particularly if the failure prize give you a way to maybe be more likely to succeed in the future. The kid-friendly Bird Detectives game I wrote for CMU does this.
The system you describe is even more interesting because it sounds like you get to choose if you spend the luck points or not to succeed/fail. This means you might choose to fail on purpose if it get your that last XP you need for some other benefit. I like it!
It occurs to me that games ought to be able to allow for pyrrhic victories - where you apparently win, but in doing so lose. I imagine this can be very common in a tactics vs strategy sense. I was recently playing the old SPI game “Midway”, and although the American player sank more of my ships, I won the game because I distracted him with sinking my ships while my troop carriers got to their destination successfully (and scored many victory points for me)
The novel “Tactics of Mistake” about sci-fi mercenaries covers a similar theme, where the protagonist sets up a number of wins for the opponent such that he is vulnerable for the finale.
In a TTRPG situation, sometimes combat is just about killing the bad guys. But what if the actual objective is ensuring that something gets away, or time runs out on the clock? Fighting a losing battle to allow other important things to happen could be important for both the protagonist and the antagonist!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
Thank you for your comment! Always enjoy your connections to wargames!
I like the idea of games where winning combat doesn’t necessarily win you the game, but where avoiding all combat will probably make you lose. Sounds like Midway might be like that. In some ways Scythe (board game) is too… combat is a side activity, and not the main way to win the game (even though it is filled with giant mechs).
A Pyrrhic victory is a similar concept, but the focus might be more on both sides losing than both sides winning. Certainly a concept that would show up in historical wargames.
Your post gave me a lot to think about! Thanks!
This was a fantastic breakdown, especially the reframing of combat not as zero-sum but as a decision space with multidirectional value. That mechanic alone (win/lose rewards) feels like a low-key revolution in curbing analysis paralysis and loss aversion. Totally aligns with Engelstein’s insights — but brought to life in a way players feel, not just theorize.
Also love the mention of the Loki strategy in Blood Rage — made me wonder: what would a TTRPG look like if emotional or narrative losses boosted player agency instead of reducing it? What if you failed a roll but gained new leverage in the form of social fallout, reputation, or even magical consequence?
The takeaway for me: game design at its best makes players curious, not cautious. You nailed that here.
Thank you for your comment!
I think your summation of "make players curious, not cautious" is a good one! Players need to "have some skin in the game" with real risk and a chance of losing... but at the same time, loss aversion psychology is real and needs to be considered when designing games.
Tried thinking about failing in combat in TTRPGs, and ended up looking at failing in general.
There are games like Heart, where the consequences (Fallout) have a rewarding nugget of new mechanics. Saw someone else mention getting experience from failures, and I've seen that in a few games.
Brindlewood Bay/The Between handle failures with Crowns/Masks. I count these, since narratively, the player did fail, but gave up a finite resource to succeed. The Crowns/Masks are fun opportunities to develop your character's story.
In Racoon Sky Pirates, failing doesn't mean your Racoon is hurt, it just means that the situation gets more chaotic and difficult to overcome in the end. And frankly, the players are always trying to cause chaos anyway, so it feels like a reward. Vampire the Masquerade does something similar with Hunger.
The Details of Our Escape integrate "failure" (not being able to play a domino) so thoroughly into the game, I don't think it would work without it.
In TTRPGs the basic reward for every roll should be narrative progress. Not having a good answer to "what happens if I fail the roll" means failed rolls are nothing-actions. Quite a few RPGs have felt half-baked at the table because they had too much of that.
You really caught my attention with that description of Heart. Unlocking new mechanisms during play? Yes! Is this the one your are talking about? https://rowanrookanddecard.com/product/heart-the-city-beneath-rpg/
I think I was getting Heart confused with Dark Vigil (https://fractalrpg.com/). Both have a very grim aesthetic, with themes of mutation and corruption. In Dark Vigil increasing corruption can let you take on traits like a prehensile limb or unnatural luck.
Ok! Maybe I’ll check out Dark Vigil.
Yes. I just reread some of them, and I have to admit was a stretch to describe them as "rewarding". But there is a strange resonance between the fallout options (which get VERY weird and VERY brutal) and the character upgrades (which are just as weird and brutal). Most of the fallout options are simple, and the more complex ones mainly serve to flesh out the brutal consequences you need to deal with.
In Scythe, the player who loses also gets a reward, in that case a combat card. The winning player advances in winning the overall goal. I think it's nice to have mechanics where losing doesn't feel too bad. Especially if there was a huge time investement in a certain battle. As long as winning is always rewarded more.
Good call. I haven't played Scythe in a while and forgot about that.
Fits into the idea of reducing the sense of loss when an action is performed. Probably a good thing, and a hallmark of modern (or at least contemporary) game design.
My thoughts went immediately to PbtA games in general, or at least how some games frame it - a 6- result is not necessarily a failure, it just shifts where the narrative control of the moment sits. While a 10+ gives essentially full control to the player who rolled, and a 7-9 involves an intermediary results, usually a success but with a player-chosen cost, a 6- gives most/all control to the facilitator/MC/herald (or whatever the "GM-like" role is called). It might even still mean that they do what they wanted - but maybe that is the problem, they got exactly what they *thought* they wanted (I suppose, monkey paw style). Jason Mill's (probablyokgames.com) "Demigods" is very explicit about this - even in the free quickstart guide it reads:
"Sometimes a Move will say specifically what to do on a 6-, otherwise the Herald will fill in part of the narrative. Try not to think of a 6- as a “miss”, where you whiff and nothing happens. The character may even accomplish their goal, but the Herald will make a Hard Move, adding danger or pressure to the narrative."
PbtA games are a notable gap in my TTRPG experience. I should try one of those soon!
I love the idea of avoiding the "You miss and nothing happens." turns or actions. Not being able to do something meaningful on my turn has become quite the peeve of mine lately, both in TTRPGs and in board games. I have limited and finite gaming time, I want to do something with it!!! :)
Monsters of the Week gives you exp. for every failed roll, which includes combat. My players love it. There are a few ways to change a failure to a success - character pool of Luck points that don't refuel, Help actions - so taking the exp. feels like a choice and good consolation for failing to accomplish something.
I do like games that give you a consolation prize for losing/failing. Particularly if the failure prize give you a way to maybe be more likely to succeed in the future. The kid-friendly Bird Detectives game I wrote for CMU does this.
The system you describe is even more interesting because it sounds like you get to choose if you spend the luck points or not to succeed/fail. This means you might choose to fail on purpose if it get your that last XP you need for some other benefit. I like it!