Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;831556another funny thing is that "the dice fall where they may" doesn't eliminate the potential for RP.

I don't think it should either, but people who are down on lethality say that it makes investing in the character pointless.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831573And here's the thing, I never said that 'random' death isn't possible.  If the player decides that his character who fell into the trap of doom is dead, no ressurrection possible, I don't stop him.  I just leave it in my players hands.

Unless the player choosing whether or not a trap is fatal for his character is rolling dice to decide if the trap was fatal, that is not an example of random death.

QuoteThe problem I have with random death being possible is that players often end up treating characters as playing pieces, rather than caring about what happens in the adventures.

I've have not noticed the effect you mention. And I have GMed and played RPGs for a long time with levels of lethality ranging from 0% to at least 70%. Players who treat their PC as a playing piece seems mostly a factor of how the player plays more than  a factor of how lethal the game is.

I do think that players tend to get more attached* to characters they enjoy the longer they play those characters. So a lower lethality game makes it more likely that a PC will survive long enough for a player to develop the maximal level of attachment to that character for that player. But here we are discussing different degrees of attachment not total lack of attachment where  the PC is a disposable playing piece.


* Players can also tire or become bored with a character over time. A low lethality campaign will also increase the chance that this can happen. Playing multiple PCs or alternating PCs can mitigate the overplay factor that can occur in a low lethality long term campaign.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;831585I don't think it should either, but people who are down on lethality say that it makes investing in the character pointless.

Yeah I just don't get that.

At most it may mean that your character is like a sand castle on the beach. Ephemeral, transitory, here today and gone tomorrow. That doesn't mean that creating a sand castle can't be entertaining or is utterly pointless or futile.

You might build a sand castle as an embodiment in three dimensions of mortality and impermanence or to struggle against the chaos and destruction of the sea, striving for a time to hold off the relentless wash of the tide, but ultimately knowing that you can only succeed for a while until the remorseless tide washes away all trace of your actions, or maybe its just an afternoon's activity of having fun playing in the sand.

It's OK if you don't want to make sandcastles. It just seems weird to act like sandcastle making is some bizzarro leisure activity. But I feel the same way about people who totally fail to understand why someone might enjoy building a cathedral of stone instead of a castle of sand.

I like lethal combat because it encourages problem solving and roleplaying over combat.

Quote from: David Johansen;831590I like lethal combat because it encourages problem solving and roleplaying over combat.

Uh, no it doesn't.  It means people over-think every little detail, often to the point of dragging the session down.

Good game design encourages problem solving and roleplaying over combat.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831592Uh, no it doesn't.  It means people over-think every little detail, often to the point of dragging the session down.

Good game design encourages problem solving and roleplaying over combat.

If the system is sufficiently lethal players tend to avoid combat and engage in problem solving in my experience. Lethality can definitely be used to encourage that kind of play if you desire it (though it isn't the only method). Games where players can amass buckets of hp are not really lethal in my view. Games where everyone (PC, npc, etc) has pretty much the same ability to withstand a knife to the throat or a gun shot to the head (and where those things stand a chance to kill in a single roll) change how players interact with the world in a big way.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;831594If the system is sufficiently lethal players tend to avoid combat and engage in problem solving in my experience. Lethality can definitely be used to encourage that kind of play if you desire it (though it isn't the only method). Games where players can amass buckets of hp are not really lethal in my view. Games where everyone (PC, npc, etc) has pretty much the same ability to withstand a knife to the throat or a gun shot to the head (and where those things stand a chance to kill in a single roll) change how players interact with the world in a big way.

Yeap, by sniping their problems at range.  At least that's been my experience.  It hasn't actually stopped the killing, just changed how it's done.

IME, Its not having death as a possibility that causes a reduction in character investment. its having death as some that is frequent and easy, even constant. Games with allot of one hit kills, save or die, etc, situation that can encourage a more Beer and Pretzels outlook. Not all the time and not unavoidably but generally, at least in my observation.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;831403Just like in real life, if you're done you're done.

I got better! :eek:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831573The problem I have with random death being possible is that players often end up treating characters as playing pieces, rather than caring about what happens in the adventures.

It's a problem if players feel forced to play high lethality adventures. In a more sandbox setup where they can choose their own threat level it should be less of an issue.
All my games have the possibility of random death; I tend to see very good roleplay & investment from my players though.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;831585I don't think it should either, but people who are down on lethality say that it makes investing in the character pointless.

Yes I know they do, and I disagree.

I'm not in favor of dickish behavior on the part of the GM though.  The previous example of someone looking around the corner and getting capped in the head by a homing laser would be a totally unfair thing afaic unless the GM had made sure the players were aware of that possibility upon entering the facility.  If he's done that, then looking around the corner in that fashion would be a dumb move on the part of the player and getting lasered a more reasonable consequence.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831598Yeap, by sniping their problems at range.  At least that's been my experience.  It hasn't actually stopped the killing, just changed how it's done.

In my experience it greatly reduces killing. If the system is genuinely lethal, the idea of just wading through a dungeon and killing everything in sight is utter suicide, so you don't do that. And killing at a distance comes at risk as well. Certainly killings might take place, but people are going to hedge their bets a lot more when they do kill, kill as a last resort when safer options have already been explored, and problem solve or engage in diplomacy if they can. That is a much different game from a standard D&D dungeon though. But I've definitely found where you set things like health levels and damage in a game greatly impact player behavior. If everyone in the setting is walking around with 4 HP and normal weapons can do up to 4 damage, people start to behave a bit more like they do in real life.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;831598Yeap, by sniping their problems at range.  At least that's been my experience.  It hasn't actually stopped the killing, just changed how it's done.

Thus the mechanics encourage a more intelligent approach to getting the job done.

Does a soldier on the battlefield sling his rifle and engage the enemy in hand to hand because it would be more heroic? Not if he cares about survival. Likewise utilizing cover, flanking, suppression fire, & other tactics because, generally surviving the mission is a good thing.

When the players know that their characters are at real risk and combat is suitably dangerous, ingenuity becomes standard operating procedure if the players are invested in their characters at all.

Back to Arminius's comment about players abusing their script immunity...

Something happened recently in the game I play in that might have qualified for this.  I decided to ask my friend/GM what he had thought about the situation.

What happened was my character turned around to see four gunmen with M-16s trained on him.  Surrendering would have meant abandoning all my goals for the whole episode.  Ultimately, it would probably have led to my character being implanted with a mind control parasite, as well as other unpleasant things.  Despite all the guns, I didn't see surrender as a viable option.

My course of action was to knock the gun of the nearest gunman out of aim.  This caused him to fire wildly and the other gunmen to duck in order to avoid friendly fire.  I also tried to use the gunman I just attacked as cover against the other three.  Then I attempted my escape.  It succeeded, and my Dodge skill was good enough that I only got tagged by one bullet on my way out which luckily rolled low damage.

So, last night I asked the GM if he felt my actions were flaunting my script immunity.  He replied that the thought never occurred to him.  He told me that he just wanted to see how I'd deal with the gunmen.  In fact, he felt I took the hard way out.  See, the gunmen were all mind controlled by parasites, and I knew this.  I could have tried to use my assault rifle to blow them all away (they were unarmored).  Instead, I tried to find a solution where I didn't kill my attackers so they could be cured of the mental control later.  He felt that it was overall a good event which showed my character was trying to be heroic.  He didn't see it as out of character, or particularly reckless (no more reckless than anything in an action movie type thing).

I mentioned to him how people online felt that since there was no chance of my character getting killed, then there was nothing I had to lose in that scene, and there was no point in him GMing it.  He replied that it was a good thing those people didn't play in our games, and found their fun elsewhere.  He asked if I didn't feel there was anything at stake in that scene, and I replied that I definitely felt there were things at stake there.  He pointed out that I took a little extra time to come up with my course of action in that scene, and that I was clearly thinking, weighing my options, and taking it seriously.

So that's my anecdote.  That's the way we look at it and how it works for us.

Quote from: Originally Posted by BedrockBrendanIf the system is sufficiently lethal players tend to avoid combat and engage in problem solving in my experience. Lethality can definitely be used to encourage that kind of play if you desire it (though it isn't the only method). Games where players can amass buckets of hp are not really lethal in my view. Games where everyone (PC, npc, etc) has pretty much the same ability to withstand a knife to the throat or a gun shot to the head (and where those things stand a chance to kill in a single roll) change how players interact with the world in a big way

.

Yes.
I work with games with high lethality and high consequence.  And maybe it does not work too well for others, but there is very, very little script immunity.  Nor do my players want it.  

And by consequence, maiming and other permanent damage happens as well, which is often overlooked.  Recently, in the online game, a player lost a hand to a rat. I hate it when PCs regularly take major damage or nearly die, but no actual harm comes to them.

The greater the risk, the greater the reward.