Quote from: oggsmash;1133427correct, and after surviving a few harrowing adventures where someone else did die, or you almost did creates a value and investment in that character.  I feel there is waaaaaay too much trying to make a "backstory" for a character,  a beginning character has no backstory, they are one of many.  Their adventures and exploits as they play CREATES their backstory.  Not sitting down to write a bunch of being awesome and having never accomplished shit.

I agree. Another way to look at it is the characters actions in the game say more than any backstory. And I'm not particulary against backstory.

Thinking about it, I think lethality level isn't the only factor. There's also the nature of danger and how that affect the tone of a game. I'll use some specific examples, in order of killyness.

Dungeon Crawl Classics: Hearkens back to the days of Tomb of Horrors. Your character can die due to an unlucky dice roll, and we like it that way.

Dark Sun: Surviving an adventure can be it's own reward. You may have to choose which character goes without water today, and they may die for it.

Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance, etc: Death is not off the table, but there are other ways to handle that fail state. Having the bad guys take a defeated character hostage for ransom, NPCs save your bacon but want to be recompensed, and there's ressurection if you can afford it. (Not just in cash, but favors owed to the gods or the priests or both) If your characters falls into lava or gets eaten by a dragon, well sometimes your character just croaks.

You can run out of replacement clones in Paranoia.

Mu first and only session playing Paranoia ended up with the whole party getting killed, alot and using up all 6 clones.

Quote from: Omega;1133587You can run out of replacement clones in Paranoia.

Mu first and only session playing Paranoia ended up with the whole party getting killed, alot and using up all 6 clones.

Sure. But having those 6 clones makes death in Paranoia different than D&D or whatever other game.

I would say that there has to be at least one fail state that is really what it purports to be.  Whatever those fail states are, they must be honored.  The disconnnect comes when we have pretend fail states that are not honored in fact.

In D&D, supposedly you can die and that's that.  Raise Dead, a bunch of hit points, luck, etc. can put it off, but it really is possible to die.  

Arguably, some of the "too easy" slams on 5E are shorthand for the more accurate "it is possible to die but the chances if you play the default are so low after level 3 or so that we consider them not worth mentioning".  That is, except for a few rabid anti-5E people speaking from ignorance, no one believes you can't die at all.  Some find the chances of death low enough that it effectively nullifies the fail state.  Others (like me) consider the default to make the chances of death to low, but are happy with a few house rules that move the threshold to somewhat more likely (though not as likely as what others would want).

In the same way, if you play, say, AD&D 1E with a GM that fudges a lot, then you've got the pretense of death being on the line, but it isn't.  Whereas if the people at the table are playing for other reasons (e.g. failed missions, my character's love interest shuns him, etc.) that really can fail, then maybe they are ok with throwing the death fail state out--because it is well understood by the group that death isn't on the line.

In Toon, death isn't a mechanic.  Losing because you end up like Wile E. Coyote--failed, humilated, etc. is on the line.  If it's not, then the GM is fudging Toon and missing the point.  I'd be as annoyed by that as by an AD&D game where everyone pretended you could die when the GM always fudges to stop it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1133597But having those 6 clones makes death in Paranoia different than D&D or whatever other game.

Paranoia 1e combat is very deadly and its pretty common for combats and environmental dangers to run "one-hit, one kill". And the ubiquitous nature of grenades and rocket launchers being used at short range means half-to-full group kills happen often.  Thus, instead of worrying about losing all your hit points, you worry about losing all your clones.

I can't speak to the later edition of Paranoia. Perhaps those combat rules are much more survivable.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1133666Paranoia 1e combat is very deadly and its pretty common for combats and environmental dangers to run "one-hit, one kill". And the ubiquitous nature of grenades and rocket launchers being used at short range means half-to-full group kills happen often.  Thus, instead of worrying about losing all your hit points, you worry about losing all your clones.

I can't speak to the later edition of Paranoia. Perhaps those combat rules are much more survivable.

My point is it's easy for a character to die in Paranoia, but it's also easy to bring them back. This changes the tone of the game, in that a character dying just for a laugh is actually encouraged in the game.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1133579

In one of those, immortality is part of emulation of genre. Sure, if you want your D&D games to be like looney tunes, you don need to have pcs die.

The other is extremely lethal so much so that you get five (clone) lives and it's very common that all five don't survive a single session. Maybe you never played?

Quote from: oggsmash;1133427correct, and after surviving a few harrowing adventures where someone else did die, or you almost did creates a value and investment in that character.  I feel there is waaaaaay too much trying to make a "backstory" for a character,  a beginning character has no backstory, they are one of many.  Their adventures and exploits as they play CREATES their backstory.  Not sitting down to write a bunch of being awesome and having never accomplished shit.

This perspective is so on the money and defines what amounts to a real backstory, which invariably becomes far more nuanced and memorable than any of the players could have imagined.  That's what is so great about the RPG play concept.

Making a character is complicated and takes time?  Too bad, play a system with simpler mechanics if you're going to get miffed about spending time on a character creation that might die.  No one is asking for a vast cornucopia of backstory at the start that does nothing other than to stroke a player's alter-ego.

I'm a big believer in players who lose a character, making some sort of connection to their new character.  It makes a nice catalyst for player investment, whether it is some overall arching plot to overthrow a major opponent or just an opportunity to give a random spider in some dungeon that took out their former character payback.

It's like watching a film like LOTR:  we know going in how it is going to go down, yet we become invested in characters like Boromir due to their failings and loss.  And like a good DM would develop, Boromir is tied into the story down the road and becomes a crucial part of events transpiring, even in death.  Sometimes in this increasingly player-driven RPG narrative, it is better to let the DM decide if the fate of the character warrants some cause and effect down the road.  The players may be pleasantly surprised with some unexpected developments in their campaign.

Would be amusing to see this ret-con style applied to something like Tomb of Horrors:  A group would never finish the module.  If they did finally manage to complete it, they would be pretty crestfallen as in the end, any sense of achievement against the odds that might have been felt would be replaced with nothing.

Really the whole idea seems to stem from a transition of simpler, older version of some poor schmucks trying to survive and taking a chance at easy riches transforming into overpowered heroes who now expect to be the catalyst of everything that happens around them.  To those players who prefer these larger than life archetypes, I strongly suggest checking your ego at the door:  you might find playing characters who are just trying to make it alive to sundown more rewarding than you may realise.

So yea, count me as not including that idea in my games anytime soon.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1133597Sure. But having those 6 clones makes death in Paranoia different than D&D or whatever other game.

5 clones we had, + the starter. And those are not "do overs" as you have to pick up where you left off as well. Essentially the same as a raise dead.

Keep in mind that in AD&D there was a small chance of permanently not being able to be raised ever again if you died.

I think we underestimate the attachment and value a character would have if you started as a level 1 D&D char, 0 DCC, or a 100-150 point character in GURPS.
   
     You get that character in gurps close to 250 points, you start  to seriously consider semi retiring them, setting up a stronghold, base, whatever to let them continue on, but get the risk off of them.   You get a character to level 5 or 6 in DCC, and you may feel similar, because you know if you have to go get rid of that giant, he is one critical from removing you from your air addiction.   5th edition D&D I can not comment as much, regarding hitting say level 10, I only have experience there up to 4-5, and the lethality seems to drop off to the point entering a dangerous situation with preparation seems almost death proof (if you guys have examples where this is not the case, hit me with em).   I could be wrong, but compared to 1st edition, it seems some of the lethality from the steeper challenges and higher level magic seems to have leveled off at high level.  I do know in 1st edition, level 10 WAS A BIG DEAL.   Again, you start considering retiring that level 10 fighter to manage his stronghold and land and rolling up a level 1 character  because adventuring is DANGEROUS.  Sometimes other games feel a bit more like a video game and I just have to go back from the save point versus getting killed.

In terms of lethality; I'm generally a fan of what I call the "three hits" rule; a starting PC should have enough resilience to take about three "normal" hits or barely survive one "big" hit (i.e. two hits worth from a single source) from the things they're likely to face.

This gives them just enough slack that any single random result won't kill them outright, but if they continue to engage in risky behavior beyond their ability it will turn lethal very quickly. It also leaves enough room that a well-prepared and/or clever party could turn an initial reverse around.

I similarly design opponents along being able to take one (mooks, ex. goblin), two (average, ex. orc), four (mini-boss, ex. ogre) or eight (boss; ex. orgre chieftan) hits that a PC can typically deal to bring them down.

There's some variance due to the dice; the PC rolls crap on damage so the mook actually takes two hits to drop while a crit drops an average foe in one hit or the monsters get some crap rolls and despite four hits, a PC is still upright or a nasty crit drops a PC in two blows (and before they even got to act); but overall it's been the right balance of survivability vs. threat for me and those I play with.

This is the one issue I think I have with D&D.  The first two, and I guess third level, it feels dangerous and combat feel harrowing.  But later, if you are a level 4 barbarian and two orcs are aiming bows or cross bows at you, and you are pretty sure you are going to get hit charging at them, you do not really care, because there is virtually no chance of you getting dropped, especially if you hulk out.  I think I need to play it more and run it less.  See it from both perspectives.

Quote from: oggsmash;11339655th edition D&D I can not comment as much, regarding hitting say level 10, I only have experience there up to 4-5, and the lethality seems to drop off to the point entering a dangerous situation with preparation seems almost death proof (if you guys have examples where this is not the case, hit me with em).   I could be wrong, but compared to 1st edition, it seems some of the lethality from the steeper challenges and higher level magic seems to have leveled off at high level.  I do know in 1st edition, level 10 WAS A BIG DEAL.   Again, you start considering retiring that level 10 fighter to manage his stronghold and land and rolling up a level 1 character  because adventuring is DANGEROUS.  Sometimes other games feel a bit more like a video game and I just have to go back from the save point versus getting killed.

5e has lower but possible PC death at 5+. It has easy but not guaranteed raising.
The biggest issue I see these days is that GMs mostly run Adventure Paths/Campaign Adventures, and new or replacement PCs start at or close to the single Party Level. So if one of the 12th level PCs dies in my Princes of the Apocalypse game, player rolls a new level 12 PC. This seriously discourages any idea of retirement.

I'm running my 1e AD&D PBP with start-at-1st, raise dead is rare,  and I can imagine PCs getting (edit) more risk averse at high level, & players may eventually want to start fresh level 1 PCs or even play the Henchmen of the advanced PCs.

Quote from: oggsmash;11339655th edition D&D I can not comment as much, regarding hitting say level 10, I only have experience there up to 4-5, and the lethality seems to drop off to the point entering a dangerous situation with preparation seems almost death proof (if you guys have examples where this is not the case, hit me with em).

IME, a 5E group can easily overpower almost any level-appropriate encounter, even "Deadly" ones, but they have to watch their resources (primarily spells, but also hit points) closely or else their effectiveness rapidly drops off. The key to planning on the PCs part is more about figuring out when& where they can fit in rests. If they are going on an extended jaunt (30+ "rooms" and lots of discrete encounters) somewhere they cannot take a long rest between (and are unlikely to manage even a short rest without some risk of interruption) then they have to fall back on basic attacks and cantrips a lot more, meaning even the easier encounters can become far tougher (and, depending on the foes/terrain/etc. risk becoming a slog to get through).