In my previous post (see below) I blamed it all on system. Most systems encourage character investment/building, and have mechanics which don't lend themselves to single, grand heroic gestures. Timo's comment got me thinking, though. While that's all true, this is also about both the players and the GM contributing to a certain kind of story. This has a ring of GNS theory, here.

On some level this can also be broken down to the degree to which you think of what you do as a game vs. a story.

Surely we all think of it as both, but if you're more on the game side, why SHOULD you risk your character? If you think of it as a story, why SHOULDN'T you? When everyone at the table agrees that the important thing is telling the cool story as opposed to "winning the game" so to speak, why wouldn't you throw that character in harms way?

I'm not saying the system isn't important here, just that some of this is an agreement between players and GMs- do we want a cool story or a cool game? You can certainly have both, but a high stakes moment may force you all to come down on one side or another, and there's nothing wrong with that.

-Todd