Quote from: Gabriel2;831422I'm not into RPGs for the contest of player versus GM.  I'm in RPGs for the story of the character.  It's difficult to tell new stories about a character when they're dead.  (Although there have been some occasions where that hasn't stopped things.)  Since I prefer single player games, a character kill typically means the end of a campaign.  So, other drawbacks for being defeated are immensely preferable and more interesting.

If I want the challenge of leveling up a character with the omnipresent spectre of permanent elimination, I'll play something like Wizardry or a board game featuring player elimination mechanics.  I feel those kinds of games better deliver on that kind of competition and challenge structure than RPGs can possibly aspire to.  

The problem is the term "game."  In full honesty, I don't see RPGs as "games" with the connotation of competition or proof by merit.  I see them as pastimes.

Most rpgs (including D&D) are NOT designed or intended to be player vs GM type games. The game is the players vs the environment. The GM is not a player and thus cannot "win" by eliminating characters. In a game where the GM can just announce " ok there is a rockslide and you all die" the very idea of competition of players vs GM is silly.

There is still plenty of room for an actual game of surviving in the game world while exploring it and growing in power & influence. A character dying is simply akin to drawing a "go back to start" card in a board game. A campaign has no defined end beyond what the participants desire so starting over multiple times works just fine.

Having death on the table doesn't mean you are competing against the players. This and the inclusion of things to surprise alive doesn't take away RP. I am all for RPG and my sessions revolve heavily around it. What I want to avoid though is the sense that things are being scripted or that we know how they'll turn out (both for the GM and the players).

I'm never trying to kill PC's but if it happens it happens. I design a dangerous world how well they survive it is largely up to them. My group has never really cared about getting killed off, they typically end up laughing about it later. It's interesting though that my players are fairly reckless at first level but once they get a character to 2nd level they start playing smart and getting a bit attached. Even then they don't mind dying.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;831439Most rpgs (including D&D) are NOT designed or intended to be player vs GM type games. The game is the players vs the environment...

Exactly.  When I watch Road Warrior, my thinking is never "I wish I could re-enact Mad Max's story arc."  It is always "I wish I could explore that world and try and survive those challenges."  I don't see how character death negates role-play.  I don't want to help write/create the world or the story other than by reacting to and surviving (or not) the challenges presented by it.  

The idea of sitting across the table from a GM and taking part in a mutual narrative story-telling exercise in which my character faces multiple deadly circumstances (but not really) isn't what I'm after.

When I run a campaign, I almost never want any of my player's characters to die (occasionally, there have been exceptions, but even then I think I have been mostly fair). My understanding of the role as a fair gamemaster basically requires that I usually run the game in a way that the players always have a chance to prevent death without needing to read my mind or come up with extra clever strategies or being ultra paranoid about traps and the like. In my games, there are virtually no "save or die" situations, but I don't pull punches, either, and most games I play have quite lethal rules (Runequest, HarnMaster, Midgard...) and virtually no ressurrection rules, but PC death is still very rare.
However, using these survival options and actively preventing their character's demise is the task of the players, not mine as the gamemaster; if they insist on being stupid and suicidal, or the dice really, really hate them and they push on anyway, there is the potential for a bad outcome. And thus, when a PC dies, it may be unfortunate, but it should normally feel well deserved.

I also believe that a gamemaster that doesn't allow the PCs to die when they well deserved it, does a great disservice to his setting's credibility but also to the players themselves: without the option to truly and spectacularly fail, they cannot truly and spectacularly earn their victories, either.

I'ld say, if you want a non-dangerous game, create a non-dangerous setting. Creating a dangerous looking setting and then sucking all the danger out of it by DM-assisted immortality is like giving kids trophies for just showing up.

Quote from: Gabriel2;831435From most responses, what many here want out of an RPG is a "role playing GAME."  What I'm after in an RPG is a "role PLAYing game."  Play, not competition.[...]
Another big difference from what I see here a lot is that I largely only care about the world as a set for the characters to inhabit.  I'm concerned first and foremost with characters.  I do care about "the world" to the extent that it has to have a feeling of verisimilitude and genre appropriateness, but I'm not interested in running the world as the only recurring and important character.

I see it a bit differently, at least in my default assumption and preference. (I can adjust if the parameters are laid out and executed well.) The importance of PC death isn't a matter of RPGs being competitive games, but of preserving the sense of in-character point of view. If the characters think something is a mortal danger, then the players should, too. The same goes for the sense of challenge. Granted the old saw that there are ways of "failing" without dying--and it's a valuable consideration whether in rules construction or scenario development. However if the main risk in a situation, from PC POV, is death, then taking that off the table can lead to a sense of just going through the motions in my experience. I.e., take any plan of action, and the GM will ultimately ensure it works out. Or pander to the GM or group consensus of what is AWESOME!1!, and the GM will let it slide. I feel this leads to gonzo, which isn't necessarily what I signed up for.

Quote from: Bren;831415It does seem like there was a change in expectation and play style. I'm not sure what the cause was.

I started in the '70s with a frankly immature group, probably around 11-13 year old peers. There was a lot of nonsense killer DM stuff such as repeatedly running into rooms with Yellow Mold and no way to avoid it, or on one occasion a 10'X10' room with dozens or even hundreds of Purple Worms. When I DMed I avoided this stuff and tried not only to make the game "fair" but more importantly to make it "real". Consequently death was very much on the table, and frequent in D&D.

The downsides were familiar:

--Occasional hurt feelings
--Loss of PC continuity
--Risk of campaign implosion on a TPK

And one other: I wanted to see PCs make it to high levels so the cool shit could come into play.

Consequently I tended to play hard but then give second chances either through cheap resurrections (maybe on credit), or with TPKs it was "you all had a bad dream." Later I started working on the idea of a dungeon with training wheels, a 1/2th-level dungeon if you will, both to stack the odds and give players a chance to learn basic strategy and tactics.

That never actually materialized, but when I went to college I encountered a completely different set of expectations. The people I played with obviously hated PC death, although they didn't openly say so until I challenged them on it a couple years in. This was circa 1984-86, so I don't think it came from modules. It seemed they had just stumbled onto the idea of a semi-railroaded, largely fudged style. (The players had sometimes more, sometimes less control over overall goals and actions within scenarios or scenes, but GMs always found a way to keep PCs alive.)

I enjoyed these games but as I mentioned, I raised the issue of death a few times; my friends responded with "PC death is no fun" or even, "It hurts when my PC dies." The person who said the latter also reinforced my concern about taking death entirely off the table--I gave her a hypothetical where her character was caught flat-footed and told to surrender, and she said she'd opt to run. In that case I knew I'd have no choice as a GM but to either turn her PC into a pincushion, or let her have her way always.

This is why I really liked and still do like the idea of hero points, which I ran across originally in Top Secret. Within a couple years I saw the idea expand. Depending on the implementation, it gives the players a buffer that they can use in various ways, without removing risk entirely, and maintains a sense that PCs have something to lose.

I also think it's important that players be able to opt to use them--they should be ignorable until you hit a point in the game where it would be unpleasant not to use them. For my default game style, I don't care for the idea that you need to use them basically to do anything.

I'm willing to kill PCs in any game. But the time and place matters (although the players won't know this.) I will avoid "cheap deaths". I was in one game, a GURPS Space campaign, where the PC died when he looked around a corner and a computerized gun targeted him. One roll and his head disintegrated. I didn't agree with that death and vowed I wouldn't do the same. Likewise I'd prefer that the PCs don't get killed by random beasts or thugs or guards. But if they are taking on the lair of the Big Bad then it could happen that way too. I would prefer that a named NPC does the deed.

Quote from: Beagle;831449I also believe that a gamemaster that doesn't allow the PCs to die when they well deserved it, does a great disservice to his setting's credibility but also to the players themselves: without the option to truly and spectacularly fail, they cannot truly and spectacularly earn their victories, either.

As a GM and a player I agree with the former. Death needs to be possible for the setting to be credible to me. (I've no interest in supers settings where Manhattan can get trashed by Hulk, Thor, or the like but no one gets killed even though buildings fall down onto busy city streets.)

I think the latter statement, "without the option to truly and spectacularly fail, they cannot truly and spectacularly earn their victories," is really significant in examining why different players look at death differently. For some players earning victories is important. So the risk of death is an important aspect of earning the victory. As a player I feel that way, at least a bit. Death being entirely off the table makes the game less engaging for me.

On the other hand, there are players who really aren't very (or at all) interested in the thrill of earning victories. They may just want to play a character they like. Some of those players are just as happy (or even happier) to have lower stakes in game. Both lower stakes in the sense of PCs being like TV series characters and almost never dying, but also lower stakes as in sessions that are not about life and death struggles saving the world or even saving a village. If the session is about something less heroic or more mundane (shopping for a birthday present, going out to dinner, celebrating an anniversary, asking someone out on a date) then the risk is now appropriate to the stakes and death is kind of unreasonable as a risk.

Quote from: Larsdangly;831456I'ld say, if you want a non-dangerous game, create a non-dangerous setting. Creating a dangerous looking setting and then sucking all the danger out of it by DM-assisted immortality is like giving kids trophies for just showing up.

While I am occasionally tempted to attribute people not wanting their characters to die in a RPG (or any other old thing I don't like about how someone else plays games) to the overly privileged and entitled upbringing of kids younger than me, I don't think that expressing that notion is helpful to a reasoned discussion. And at least anecdotally it isn't true. The oldest person I game with doesn't want their characters to die and being older than me, that player is definitely a boomer and not from some alphabet generation.

Quote from: Gabriel2;831422I run games like episodes of a TV show.  The stars (PCs) may face threats, but we all know they aren't in any danger of death unless the actor's contract is up (the player wants the character to die).

I'm not into RPGs for the contest of player versus GM.  I'm in RPGs for the story of the character.  It's difficult to tell new stories about a character when they're dead.  (Although there have been some occasions where that hasn't stopped things.)  Since I prefer single player games, a character kill typically means the end of a campaign.  So, other drawbacks for being defeated are immensely preferable and more interesting.

If I want the challenge of leveling up a character with the omnipresent spectre of permanent elimination, I'll play something like Wizardry or a board game featuring player elimination mechanics.  I feel those kinds of games better deliver on that kind of competition and challenge structure than RPGs can possibly aspire to.  

The problem is the term "game."  In full honesty, I don't see RPGs as "games" with the connotation of competition or proof by merit.  I see them as pastimes.

Sounds more like the problem is you'd be happier writing a script with your players and then acting out your story than actually playing a game.

Quote from: Matt;831465Sounds more like the problem is you'd be happier writing a script with your players and then acting out your story than actually playing a game.

I think your reading is unlikely and ungenerous.

I'd say he isn't very interested in the challenge of earning victories. He just wants to play out a series of adventures for the same group of characters. That's more fun and interesting for him if he doesn't lose established characters.

We played our Star Trek game that way. Since the adventures were like episodes of TOS or TNG not having main characters die seemed genre appropriate. It also meant we didn't spend time overly planning out actions or  worrying about why the PCs beamed onto a derelict ship in their uniforms instead of in a full environmental suit. A Star Trek game where there was more than an insignificant risk of main character death wouldn't fit the genre.

It's not my favorite type of RPG, but it can make for a fun campaign now and then. You don't have to like it. Nobody has to like it. After all it's not like the less dying in RPG squad will come in and force you not to let PCs in your games die.

But some people really like those sorts of games. Criticizing games other people like without actually understanding why they like what they like is unproductive to a discussion. Making fun of what other people like without even understanding what it is they like and why is even less productive.

I'd say if Gabriel2 is happy with his players and game, then mission accomplished. I might not be happy in his game but since I am not playing with him it doesn't matter.

I'm guessing that were we playing D&D or Jovian Chronicles, things might not go well, but if we played Mythic or The Shadow of Yesterday we might find a happy medium.

Quote from: Arminius;831458The person who said the latter also reinforced my concern about taking death entirely off the table--I gave her a hypothetical where her character was caught flat-footed and told to surrender, and she said she'd opt to run. In that case I knew I'd have no choice as a GM but to either turn her PC into a pincushion, or let her have her way always.

Character focus is the answer here, "act like the character."  Or if that fails the sniff test, then the "don't be a dick" rule.  This sort of action might come about because of a misunderstanding or miscommunication.  If it were a player doing it solely because they felt there were no consequences, then I would view that the same as someone cheating at the table by lying about dice rolls or modifying their character stats.  It boils down to the person I play with wouldn't do that kind of thing with the goal of flaunting their script immunity.  Or at least they wouldn't do it intentionally.  And if it's just a mistake, then it's something that can be solved by a little bit of talking.

More likely the scene would be something like what plays out in many fictional scenes of a character with a gun trained on them.  If the gun wielder was close enough, the player would have to come up with a description of how they distract or surprise the gunman and then run.  

Failing that, then they get shot.  They go unconscious.  In most of my games there is medical technology or magic available to revive them.  Now they're in a shittier situation, but they're still not dead.

So, it sounds like we're on the same page or at least somewhere in the same book.  I can't help but feel that part of the issue is calling this state DEATH.  If easy restoration of the character is possible, then I don't view it as death.  It's just a case of unconsciousness.

Well, I don't care for requiring players to self-police genre or realism because I feel it's a bit like self-censorship. If they're seeing things from the PC's POV then they should try to get away with whatever they can. Not everyone may feel this way but I have had times where I felt some players were running roughshod and I conversely was over-restraining myself because to do otherwise would be boring.

Again, I like the idea of hero points as a way to deal with the issue. In the example I gave, had the tool been available, the player might have expended a point anywhere in the encounter to try to effect an improbable escape, or if they tried to run without using a point right away, then a point could be spent to avoid a lethal result if necessary. Of course if the game mechanics explicitly allow a wide band/buffer of incapacitation before death, then there'd be less of an issue--though PCs would rarely surrender without a struggle.

The more overt method would be some form of conflict resolution. Again, based purely on reading, I think TSoY does this well although it takes accidental death completely off the table unless players explicitly decide to risk it to get their way. There are other games where you can remove PC death as a direct consequence of losing "the conflict" but leave it as a possible side effect of the conflict resolution mechanic, but the ones I've seen have been unsatisfying in other ways.

Quote from: Arminius;831483Well, I don't care for requiring players to self-police genre or realism because I feel it's a bit like self-censorship. If they're seeing things from the PC's POV then they should try to get away with whatever they can. Not everyone may feel this way but I have had times where I felt some players were running roughshod and I conversely was over-restraining myself because to do otherwise would be boring.

The problem, from my POV, was more the players who were running roughshod over the genre or realism.

I'm quite happy with players who decide that their character puts their hands up and surrenders because they are caught flat footed. I have a few players who will do that without requiring a lot of prompting. After all putting up your hands is a pretty normal human reaction to a loaded gun. It is also what we see 95% of the time for action heroes who aren't bullet proof.

Players who ignore guns because they think they are bullet proof "a wheellock pistol does 1d6+1 and my PC has 10 Lifeblood so I just charge him" annoy me. A lot. I avoid that behavior by trying not to play with those folks and by using rules like Honor+Intrigue, Call of Cthulhu, or heck even WEG D6 where point blank pistol shots can kill your PC.

Also, if I am playing a swashbuckling game like Honor+Intrigue (or an espionage game like 007) it may be a lot more useful to go along with the guy pointing the pistol at you so you can find out who he is and what he wants than to run away or try to turn the table on him. Going along for now may be your best chance to find out what is really going on and who is really behind the attacks on your PC.