Doyce has been seriously getting into the theoretical side of RPGs of late. While, like academic theory and critical literary analysis and the like, this can sometime venture into the Theory For The Sake Of Sounding Profound, he’s dug up some good, thought-provoking gems, like this one. A few excerpts I found of intriguing:
… So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that’s another topic, but they don’t exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That’s their sole and crucial function.
… So here’s a better way to get suspense in gaming: put off the inevitable. Acknowledge up front that the PCs are going to win, and never sweat it. Then use the dice to escalate, escalate, escalate. We all know the PCs are going to win. What will it cost them?
… PCs, like protagonists in fiction, don’t get to die to show what’s at stake or to escalate conflict. They only get to die to make final statements. Character death can never be a possible outcome moment-to-moment. Having your character’s survival be uncertain doesn’t contribute to suspense, as above, just like we don’t actually ever believe that Bruce Willis’ character in Die Hard will die. Instead, character death should fit into what it will cost. This thing, is it worth dying for? Obi-wan Kenobi and Leon say yes. In fiction, You never die for something you haven’t staked your life on.
Lots of other good thoughts there surrounding (and, perhaps, explaining) these. Take up and read.