"Losing a fight" vs. "losing the game"

[quinron]

The diverse array of responses to this thread has gotten me thinking about how we tend to handle failure in D&D and related games. Heroic fantasy games tend to create what seem to be zig-zagging arcs - you start the day healthy, you burn through resources through the day until you're almost out, you get knocked unconscious once or twice, but at the end you're able to pull off an upset and recover, just to do it all again the next day. But zooming out, you end up with a pretty uncomplicated positive trend - every skin-of-your-teeth victory means more XP and potential magic items, which means you're getting stronger every day, and in more recent editions there's no way to lose levels, so you'll never lose the innate powers you've gained. I think what I like about "supposed-to-lose" fights in video games is that they usually signal that I'm in for a stretch of play where I've been stripped of my equipment and abilities and have to rely on my skills or wits to proceed, and it always feels rewarding to reclaim whatever you lost - the two biggest examples in my mind are getting your team back in Hollow Bastion in the first Kingdom Hearts game and escaping Cidhna Mine in Skyrim.

Personally, I've run a few adventures where I decided the NPCs were more likely to take prisoners than kill the party, and they've always been fun because they've forced the party to work together and plan more. Besides the idea of being captured, I'm kind of interested in running a game where fights are generally more dangerous but have lesser consequences - you probably won't be killed if you lose, but you'll have your magic sword taken and will need to track down the person who beat you if you want it back.

Is there a system folks could recommend that might facilitate this type of play more than D&D? I guess I'm looking for something like "Kenshi: the TTRPG." Also, I'd be interested in hearing stories of how you as a player or your players as a GM have bounced back from losing fights; I feel like this is pretty rare in games, but I think I only feel that way because most official adventures don't seem to put any advice in their that suggests they're anticipating this happening.

[Alteiner]

It's very rare that I run encounters where both sides are trying to kill each other. Typically, the opposition is either protecting something, in which case their goals is to drive the PCs off rather than kill them, or is trying to get something, in which case their goal is to get the thing and get away. Generally, neither requires that anyone ends up dead. I think too many players and GMs think of death as the one and only consequence of combat in RPGs when, given how durable both PCs and NPCs can become in certain systems, it doesn't really make any sense for things to be that way. If you divorce the idea of victory and defeat from character death, the range of possibilities for the outcome of conflict expands considerably. Sometimes, you "win" by never getting into a fight at all, and achieve your objective without your opponent even realizing you were gunning for them. Sometimes you lose without even knowing the identity of the person you lost to. Is it not a "fight" if the enemy is somewhere inside of the city and trying to escape, and the goal of the PCs is to keep them from escaping? In this case, a valid end-state is rendering the city inescapable. No one even needs to be in the same room for someone to "win" and someone else to "lose."

[RandomPeasant]

Part of it is about expectations. If people are expecting fights to be to the death, they'll fight to the death. Getting them out of that mindset can be difficult. "You get captured" is also an experience that players often associate with railroading and will try to avoid.

[Time Troll]

You are close to describing my default game: a hard game play adventure with lots of character death.

Most foes in my games are out to kill the PCs. Players need to keep on their toes.


Loosing a fight, or even just loosing a character is not the end of the game. You can never really loose the game.

My classic plot, that I have been doing for years and years, is the legacy idea. The players go on some adventures over say a year, then try and take on a big foe....and all the characters die. Then the players make all new characters that are the children of the first characters. They try again, and fail. Next make new characters that are the apprentices/squires of the second set of characters, and they fail too. Next the players make "pet" characters that were left over from the second set of characters. Next the players move to a new group of characters that just try to complete the task. For a special "holiday game" they get to play clones of the first set of charaters(again). For Halloween they get to come back as the ghosts of first characters...or even mix up charaters. And so on.

The players use the legacy to advance each run through: the characters leave items and even more so information "in case they loose". So they can try again with new characters.

And this gets even better when I can intertwine players and even whole other games too.

[Alcore]

Systems to recommend...


O.V.A. (an anime based one)

Golden Sky Stories (another asian, made there even. Non combat.)

Maid RPG (definitely requires adult players lest it devolve into something creepy... recommend play by post. Also asian made/based)

Mutants and Masterminds (recommend 2e as it is a 3.5 clone and the learning curve is much less. Killing is only possible if GM allows and is not default))

[quinron]

You are close to describing my default game: a hard game play adventure with lots of character death.

Most foes in my games are out to kill the PCs. Players need to keep on their toes.


Loosing a fight, or even just loosing a character is not the end of the game. You can never really loose the game.

I suppose I may have been inaccurate in my OP - this is kind of the opposite of what I was talking about. I phrased it as "losing the game" because even if the players decide to roll up new characters, the characters who were TPK'ed have indeed lost - any plans the players may have had for them are over. I'm more interested in games like those Alteiner described, where a character or group getting beaten in a fight doesn't necessarily mean they're dead - it could mean they've been captured, robbed, enslaved, or even just slowed down from achieving their goals.

Which isn't to say I don't like the "legacy campaign" - I think that format's also very cool, and it's one of the game types I've been hoping to run once I can get a stable group together.

"You get captured" is also an experience that players often associate with railroading and will try to avoid.

This is interesting to me. I pretty much never run games where I plan for the PCs to be captured; it's almost always a spontaneous response to them being beaten by a group of NPCs who would have more use for them alive than dead (held for ransom, enslaved, what have you). It actually tends to create a lot more cognitive burden for me than railroading them would, because I have to figure out where they're going to be kept, where their equipment ended up, how the NPCs are going to respond to them being out of their cells once they've escaped, etc.

[False God]

I've never enjoyed the whole "being stripped of your hard-earned goods" concept. It's always felt more like a way for a DM (or a video game) to take away things they really shouldn't have given you to begin with (see: Artifact items in WoW), only to make you grind out all new ones. Experience has taught me that you will almost never regain 100% of what you lost. Some magic sword will forever be lost, some special spell will be barred to you going forward, you'll lose stats in some area, forcing you to patch holes instead of progress forward.

I'm also not a fan of level-drain mechanics for the same reasons, but also for how much sheet editing they require. It's a lot of paperwork for what can be a fairly common effect that requires very specific defenses.

Of course, I've employed "setback mechanics" from time to time, but I tend to keep it more around the lower levels, where what you are losing is not the Magic Master Sword, but a mundane sword, a little gold, and your pantaloons. If you don't get them back, there are viable alternatives that are readily available. I do try to avoid them though. I'd rather be more judicious with items and powers to begin with than feel like I'm making attempts to dial everything back later. (I realize this is my personal perception of things, but suffice to say, I don't like it, so I try to avoid it.)

"Temporary Limitation" mechanics are fine though, ie: "You're in an anti-magic zone, only spells of level 3 or lower work 100%, everything else has a % chance of failure!" You haven't lost anything, you've just been limited for a while.

IMO: The "cost" of losing isn't what gear you're going to lose, or if you're going to be captured. The "cost" is whatever goals you were trying to achieve becoming further away or lost entirely. Being unable to save the Princess. Not stopping the BBEG's superweapon. Not retrieving the Sacred Relic before the enemy can (or before it is destroyed). You can go home with 1 HP and all your gear and still have failed in achieving your goals. That's the real cost here.

IME players are possessive enough about their "stuff" to begin with. There's no need to amplify that sort of paranoia with every potential fight loss costing them this or that magic item. Make fights meaningful, have the occur at important points in the game: the defense of the castle, the attack on the princess, etc... and make the costs to them clear and relevant to the goals of the party. You'll get better results with that sort of cost than taking their "stuff".

[quinron]

[snip'd]

That's fair enough. I suppose, since only about 5% of my RPG experience had been as a player, that I might not have the best idea of how players will see things.

That said, I don't think I'd ever run a game where losing a fight would leave you unable to get back everything you lost; that just feels petty. If I realized I'd given the players something too powerful, I'd much sooner just tell them I'd messed up and de-power the item than contrive a way to steal it. Recovering your possessions might be a hassle, but I have the ability to make it an interesting and hopefully fun hassle, and probably one that ends with the party coming away with more treasyre than they lost after they loot the thieves.

IME players are possessive enough about their "stuff" to begin with. There's no need to amplify that sort of paranoia with every potential fight loss costing them this or that magic item. Make fights meaningful, have the occur at important points in the game: the defense of the castle, the attack on the princess, etc... and make the costs to them clear and relevant to the goals of the party. You'll get better results with that sort of cost than taking their "stuff".

This is, I guess, the operative point here - it seems that for most people, GMs and players alike, the assumption is that roughly 9 times out of 10, a loss in a fight means not just a loss of your items/abilities but full-on character death (and the 10th time was a screwjob set up by the GM to force you back onto the rails). I reckon a setback like "a gang of bandits mugged you, you'll have to tangle with them if you want your magic weapons back" is a lot more fun in terms of how we spend our table time than "you all died, roll up new characters" or "you failed your mission, campaign's over."

Mind you, you don't have to rob the players all the time; obviously that will get old. I'm just interested in exploring how to implement more meaningful failure states than "you die" or "you lose," since I think failure and low points can make the players' eventual victories more valuable.

[False God]

This is, I guess, the operative point here - it seems that for most people, GMs and players alike, the assumption is that roughly 9 times out of 10, a loss in a fight means not just a loss of your items/abilities but full-on character death (and the 10th time was a screwjob set up by the GM to force you back onto the rails). I reckon a setback like "a gang of bandits mugged you, you'll have to tangle with them if you want your magic weapons back" is a lot more fun in terms of how we spend our table time than "you all died, roll up new characters" or "you failed your mission, campaign's over."

Mind you, you don't have to rob the players all the time; obviously that will get old. I'm just interested in exploring how to implement more meaningful failure states than "you die" or "you lose," since I think failure and low points can make the players' eventual victories more valuable.

I agree that there are more "loss states" to be explored than a TPK or a game-over, but I tend to populate a larger world with smaller campaigns, so "losing" doesn't mean the whole world has been destroyed, it just means you failed this quest. Doesn't mean you can't travel through time and steal the magic power rocks and try to beat the BBEG again. Or you can move on to some other events going on in the world.

I actually roll monks, companion-less druids, sorcerers and eidetic wizards in D&D for exactly this reason. So I really don't need "gear". If the DM can't think up anything better than "You get attacked, they steal your stuff!" I can just shrug and keep going on the quest. If the DM gets to the point where he starts stealing my "ki" or my spells straight from my mind, I'll understand that the DM's goal isn't to provide an interesting side-track, but to take things away from me for the sake of taking things away from me.

I'm always down for an interesting side-quest. But it needs to be interesting beyond "Go beat up those guys if you want your stuff." I'd rather just not need the stuff, and not have it to be stolen in the first place.

[kyoryu]

Fate is built on this assumption, but the general thought is that most of the time what's up for win/loss is less personal power and more story stakes.

[Rakaydos]

Ironclaw uses a status death spiral instead of HP, but one of the early statuses is "Afraid: You cannot perform an attack action (though you can use the counter defense if attacked in melee) until removed by an ally who is NOT afraid using a Rally action with a successful (pretty easy) skill check."

After a few turns of combat, it's pretty easy to tell if a side is losing a battle. And very few enemies in Ironclaw are mindless or fearless. And if it's the players who are losing, they are honestly better off exercising the better part of valor than pushing their luck in a losing fight. (also there's no attacks of opportunity for disengaging)

[King of Nowhere]

my style of campaign may be pretty close to your goal.
I have an advanced, organized campaign world with large nations and powerful organizations. The players generally go working from one of those. The players may not have access to high level clerics by themselves, but those organizations always do, and the main thing they offer is safety. You get killed? you'll get raised. You get captured? you can expect to be subject to a prisoner exchange. As long as you keep being useful enough, which has never been a problem.
The fights are often close enough, with the party facing npcs from enemy organizations that are almost the equals of the party. Especially at higher levels, save-or-die effects are used often. The party is generally given a loose objective, and they have ample autonomy in how to achieve it. If they mishandle the situation, they can expect to find a "receiving committee" made of people stronger than they are. in which case they can try to escape; tattoos of single-use teleport are widely available, and i always advise players to get one. Similarly, npcs on the losing side will try to escape when things go poorly.

So, most fights are close; when they are not, it's most often because the players can organize well and get the perfect ambush. it is fairly common for a pc to be killed during a high level encounter. occasionally the party has to retreat, quickly teleporting away carrying a couple of their dead. But because of the easy resurrections, it's not a big deal and the campaign goes on.
Complete defeat would result in being looted of their equipment, but this never happened. The closest thing was an enemy grabbing the cloak of a fallen pc before escaping. even if that happened, the party would be given second-hand gear from their allies. Just like a defeated boss npc can be expected to be raised and to come back, but with lesser gear. Considering how important is equipment in 3.5, this is a powerful debuff; after a couple of lost bouts, a major villain will stop being a major villain, and will either fade into irrelevance, or become a henchman for a greater villain. So there's still a sense of accomplishment to winning a fight, and a sense of a setback to losing one. Oh, besides any strategic objective that was being sought in the combat in the first place.
But the story continues.

Just yesterday the new party got its first strategic defeat. As assassin on employ from a foreign power killed some people in their nation, then retreated. They were tasked by their bosses to try and hunt that assassin in hostile territory. They started to investigate on the best chance to set up a good ambush, but they got reckless and they got recognized (they wanted to play as unique snowflakes races, and while this gave them advantages, it also makes them stand out). so, the enemies sent more high level npcs to fight them. Luckily, the party druid decided to scout the ambush area from the day before, tree shaped for disguise, and so he could discover the enemy waiting for them. the party had to call off the attack. the assassin they were seeking will hide somewhere else, and they lost the chance to kill him for the time being.
it was basically a defeat, but they realized they were heading into an ambush and so they only lost an opportunity. they also spent a lot of time planning, and the whole business resolved without a fight

[KineticDiplomat]

I have found that non-gear centric games and abstract wealth can go a long way to encouraging this mentality. I can think of several systems that essentially come down to “tell the GM what gear you think you should have; that’s your starting set and honestly may be your ending set”, and where wealth comes down to “yes/no, are you generally rich enough to buy the thing, does it requires a wealth altering investment, and are there any complications”.

The general effect is that loss framing takes on a different tone. Your life is important. Your axe is not the central defining feature of who you are, nor is it the pinnacle of your investment in the game so far, nor is it needed to match some algorithmically identified progression. And wouldn’t you know it, it’s better to take a loss than to die once the system isn’t predicated on losing being the equivalent of dying for the player.

[Duff]

Most D&D has a few mechanical features which drive fights to the death.
- If you turn and run, the enemy get an attack at you, but if they're as fast of you, they can charge and hit you and you have to do the same thing again next round. And the one after...
- No drop in your ability to fight as you get wounded. Games where this is a thing are more likely to see PCs looking for the exit early, as soon as they take a hit or 2
- Morale/intimidation systems which don't drive monsters fleeing early. This is even more of a GM choice than most rule related things, but the rules have built the culture. Most intelligent groups of monsters should be making a moral check the first time one of their comrades goes down, and by the time they've lost their leader and half the group, the remainder should be routing, not just trying to break off the fight. Instead that's usually about when they start wanting to break off the fight.

[Tanarii]

D&D used to have rules for breaking off fights.

For example in BECMI:
- Before combat even began, you could attempt Evasion
- Monsters (which included NPCs) had morale, and it was checked regularly and early:
In Combat: When the creature is first hit, taking 1 or more hit points of damage.
In Combat: When the creature is reduced to one-quarter (or less) of its starting hit points.
In Combat: When the first death (on either side, PC or NPC/monster) takes place; the DM makes one morale roll for the remain- ing creatures to see if they wish to continue.
In Combat: When half of the creatures are not free to act (because they are dead, asleep, controlled, etc.).

Monster morale breaking was a very important factor. And high morale creatures (especially undead with no chance to break) were scary.

[Democratus]

D&D used to have rules for breaking off fights.

For example in BECMI:
- Before combat even began, you could attempt Evasion
- Monsters (which included NPCs) had morale, and it was checked regularly and early:
In Combat: When the creature is first hit, taking 1 or more hit points of damage.
In Combat: When the creature is reduced to one-quarter (or less) of its starting hit points.
In Combat: When the first death (on either side, PC or NPC/monster) takes place; the DM makes one morale roll for the remain- ing creatures to see if they wish to continue.
In Combat: When half of the creatures are not free to act (because they are dead, asleep, controlled, etc.).

Monster morale breaking was a very important factor. And high morale creatures (especially undead with no chance to break) were scary.

In addition, there were rules for getting away from an opponent who is chasing you after you start running. Often it involved dropping treasure or food in your path.

[Xervous]

In addition, there were rules for getting away from an opponent who is chasing you after you start running. Often it involved dropping treasure or food in your path.

Quite obviously a kender qualifies as food. Will you agree that they’re also a treasure since many people would want to bury them?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Fate is built on this assumption, but the general thought is that most of the time what's up for win/loss is less personal power and more story stakes.

I think this is the most important factor. If your "robbing the players" or equivalent scenario results in a meaningful loss of personal power, to the degree that they will not be able to just "go get your stuff back", then there is no good incentive for them not to fight to the death, and at worst have to make a new character with all their stuff after the current one dies. If the "loss scenario" is story stakes, rather than a "broken" character that you feel like should be put down, people will generally be a lot more likely to go along with it.

[Tanarii]

Quite obviously a kender qualifies as food. Will you agree that they’re also a treasure since many people would want to bury them?

There's a treasure because of how awesome they are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's a treasure because of how awesome they are.

Awesome at causing gaming groups to disintegrate into PvP? (Note, I'm not old enough to have actually played with kender, so I'm going off of stereotypes).

[kyoryu]

I think this is the most important factor. If your "robbing the players" or equivalent scenario results in a meaningful loss of personal power, to the degree that they will not be able to just "go get your stuff back", then there is no good incentive for them not to fight to the death, and at worst have to make a new character with all their stuff after the current one dies. If the "loss scenario" is story stakes, rather than a "broken" character that you feel like should be put down, people will generally be a lot more likely to go along with it.

100%. Some personal power loss is still a thing, of course. And the "story stakes" thing can be abused by making every single loss SUPER EXTREME.

But, yeah, overall people are more willing to go along with story stakes and losing them, especially if that generally results in complications/etc. And once every fight can be lost, it adds a level of tension that can really change the game. Which is kind of counter-intuitive, really.

[icefractal]

I think maybe why I dislike enslaved/imprisoned plotlines is that when I'm playing a TTRPG, I don't want to think of myself as being in a story, I want to think of myself as being in a world. If events in that world make a good story, then all the better.

I realize that far more GMs run "story games" than "world games", and I'm at peace with that, but I still don't like being reminded of it. If I have to shift into the mindset "Yeah, things look hopeless, but this is just the 'low-beat' to make our ultimate victory sweeter" or "Of course they'll have conveniently stored our gear nearby because that's how a prison-escape plot works" then I'm moving farther away from what I enjoy.

And when you look at it from a "NPCs acting like PCs do, no plot armor" POV, then a lot of things seem implausibly convenient:
* Why keep a group of prisoners they know are very dangerous in a single cell or nearby each-other, only watched by a few poor-quality guards?
* Why leave the powerful magic gear sitting in a box in the prison, rather than distributing it for their own use or taking it to be sold? PCs very seldom give NPCs their stuff back, even if they end up just questioning and releasing them.
* Why treat their prisoners better than most present-day countries do, if they're supposedly an evil group, bad enough that shooting first and asking questions later was justified?
* Why stop their pursuit to pick up a few coins which were dropped in their own dwelling and they can easily go back for later?
* If they have an ability / tactic which overwhelmingly defeated the PCs in the lead-up to the prison arc, why stop using it for the 'real' battle?

None of these are impossible, but especially when you stack them up they get increasingly unlikely. And for me, they start giving the feeling that what happens is determined more by the story beats than by actions in the world - which is not something I like.

[Sapphire Guard]

It depends on why the fight is happening. If they're fighting against bandits, they might just take some of their more useful gear (they're not taking everything, just the things that are useful to them, and if they are tracked down, they'll be using that gear, it's not just on a random shelf). If it's a city watch, they might end up in a cell. If it's trolls in a random encounter, they might just continue about their day and not care if the players are dead or not.. If it's beasts, they might drag them back to their den to eat them.

[Calthropstu]

Big general. Huge threat. A cr 19 daemon in pathfinder. It leads an army of about 120k demons. It travels in the center of the army as it moves towards an elven fortress.

Party strikes at flanks killing hundreds of lesser daemons in seconds. Other elven strike teams attack elsewhere. Big general sends out shock troops and investigates what is CLEARLY the biggest threat himself.

Beats the crap out of the party, they retreat.

March continues, less about 10k daemons vs about 300 deaths to the elves.

Their objective was to lure the leader and try to kill it. It obviously failed. But they had more chances, and after 4 more tries finally forced a retreat and assaulted the gate the daemons were using to get there. Huge battle took place, general died.

Good times.

[Duff]

* Why keep a group of prisoners they know are very dangerous in a single cell or nearby each-other, only watched by a few poor-quality guards?
* Why leave the powerful magic gear sitting in a box in the prison, rather than distributing it for their own use or taking it to be sold? PCs very seldom give NPCs their stuff back, even if they end up just questioning and releasing them.
* Why treat their prisoners better than most present-day countries do, if they're supposedly an evil group, bad enough that shooting first and asking questions later was justified?
* Why stop their pursuit to pick up a few coins which were dropped in their own dwelling and they can easily go back for later?
* If they have an ability / tactic which overwhelmingly defeated the PCs in the lead-up to the prison arc, why stop using it for the 'real' battle?

Prisoners in a single cell - It's the only free cell? The party might corrupt good wholesome murderers? The murderers in the next cell might kill valuable sources of info before they can be properly interrogated? It's the only Anti-magic Cell and they don't trust that the fighter doesn't have a level in bard? There's only one cell and all the prisoners are in it?
Magic gear in a box? Harder but, Not sorted yet? Held in trust until there's been a trial (Lawful or good can be OK here). Otherwise, year, that's gear you're going to have to replace or track down over time.
Treatment of prisoners. Why would you think they have to be treated well? You're in a stone dungeon with rags to sleep on with 20 other prisoners and only bars in the window and door. So that's what you have to escape from
Dropping coins - They won't be there later. If I don't stop, that scumbag Blort will!
If we beat them once we can beat them every time. This one actually has some depth to it. What did the PCs show? If they were hit with overwhelming force quickly, they didn't show how dangerous they are. If they rolled terribly, they seemed less good than they really are. Only if they had a chance to show their abilities are they getting the supervision they deserve. And even then, they evil empire has other fish frying. They don't have enough guards to cover every event. And guards have lapses, that's how real prisoners escape from real prisons. And the PCs probably aren't the only thing going on in the castle - when the rebellion attack, seize your chance! When the Salt mine collapses, take the guard's uniform

[Vahnavoi]

The heart of the distinction lies in scenario design. Since I've been watching the Olympics lately, I'll focus on the most obvious scenario-level solution:

Make the game about combat as sport. Literally, combat sports. The characters are fighting in an arena or in a tournament, where simply killing your opponent doesn't count as a win and losing a fight doesn't mean losing your character, it means losing positioning in a competition and you can usually try again later.

You can build entire campaigns around training for fantastic gladiator Olympics where nobody dies except by accident. The Pokemon franchise does it, the Areena franchise does it, all the sports game franchises do it. Just get your head out of the hole in the ground - that is, stop thinking of dungeons and saving the world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The heart of the distinction lies in scenario design. Since I've been watching the Olympics lately, I'll focus on the most obvious scenario-level solution:

Make the game about combat as sport. Literally, combat sports. The characters are fighting in an arena or in a tournament, where simply killing your opponent doesn't count as a win and losing a fight doesn't mean losing your character, it means losing positioning in a competition and you can usually try again later.

You can build entire campaigns around training for fantastic gladiator Olympics where nobody dies except by accident. The Pokemon franchise does it, the Areena franchise does it, all the sports game franchises do it. Just get your head out of the hole in the ground - that is, stop thinking of dungeons and saving the world.

As a note, that kind of campaign would bore me to tears. Sports bore me already. Doing it slow, in a system that isn't really designed for it? No narrative, no real stakes, no exploration of the unknown, no real setting beyond the fake walls of the arena? Ugh.

Different strokes for different folks, to be sure.

[KorvinStarmast]

Monster morale breaking was a very important factor. And high morale creatures (especially undead with no chance to break) were scary.

Yes, it's a feature of the game I wish that 5e had put back in.

Quite obviously a kender qualifies as food. Will you agree that they’re also a treasure since many people would want to bury them?

yes to both. Kender is an old elven word for "Ogre Snacks".

Awesome at causing gaming groups to disintegrate into PvP?

Grief play will do that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, it's a feature of the game I wish that 5e had put back in.

There are actually rules for that in the DMG. Not a fixed numerical value (which is good because it's the sort of thing that doesn't make any sense to apply at the stat-block level rather than the session-level fiction). But a fair amount of guidance as to when to check for morale and factors that influence it.

[Vahnavoi]

As a note, that kind of campaign would bore me to tears. Sports bore me already.

[ . . . ]

Different strokes for different folks, to be sure.

I can sympathize, for me it took a decade of doing martial arts before watching martial arts competitions became exciting. Some of your objections are pretty weird, though:

Doing it slow, in a system that isn't really designed for it?

If you're thinking of D&D, D&D has rules for lethal and non-lethal combat both, you can do gladiator games within the normal rules just fine. Similarly, rules-wise the distinction between an obstacle course and a dungeon is non-existent. Skipping over chunks of downtime where little happens is very easy and doesn't take much actual play time. Indeed, you can just embrace the 15-minute-workday and make game days last 15 minutes or less in real time, that's what I do.

No narrative, no real stakes, no exploration of the unknown, no real setting beyond the fake walls of the arena? Ugh.

That's weird lack of imagination on your part. Basing a campaign on combat sports doesn't mean lack of those other things. Maybe watch Rocky movies? Or Gladiator. Or play some Pokemon. Or Robin Hood, an archery tournament is an iconic part of Robin Hood adaptations.