Quote from: Omega;699507And yeah, if they charge off headlong into trouble despite efforts to eas them into it. Well. Let the bodies fall where they may.

Hold the fucking phone.

What happened to new players becoming discouraged from their characters getting killed early in the game? Aren't new players the ones most likely to "charge off headlong into trouble" due to their lack of experience?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;699511Hold the fucking phone.

What happened to new players becoming discouraged from their characters getting killed early in the game? Aren't new players the ones most likely to "charge off headlong into trouble" due to their lack of experience?

When you specifically give them a safe area and they insist on going off and getting their heads handed to them... well. yeah. Smack em around a bit and hope no one shuffles off the mortal coil.

Example. Was running a Mars RP and the characters were told very plainly on disembarking the transport that there were very clearly marked off zones where the police force could hang out and hunt anyone who stepped foot in the area. What does one of them do? Yep. Walks right into the first zone he sees and is eaten after one of the officers gave him ample warning he should beat it. The other characters, from a safe distance, persuaded her to cough the not very bright character up.

A little hand holding is fine for a new player. But theres a limit. And as said. There are options to a DOA start character that can lead to more adventures.

Case by case issue of course. I like to get a handle on player personality before starting a session with new people. Sometimes it gives clues where to hand hold this one and where to bury that one.

Quote from: Omega;699507True. Safe areas are a option too as long as they have non-com things to garner EXP off of.

Right or wrong my OSR yardstick is LotFP, which specifically only rewards (a) getting treasure from dangerous places and (b) killing stuff. That's what the game is about -- nutters doing dangerous jobs.

More power to you if you want to reward roleplaying with townies, but that's a different game, surely?

I can dig high lethality if charge  is fast and easy, but I'm not going to get emotionally invested or attached to any of my characters, and I'm probably not going to be engaged in what's going on in the game beyond "how dead / rich am I? How much money is that thing worth?" I'll be engaging with the game at a mechanical level more than an imaginary level.

If chargen is involved or takes ages, I probably won't be back for session 2.

Quote from: Adric;699527I can dig high lethality if charge  is fast and easy, but I'm not going to get emotionally invested or attached to any of my characters, and I'm probably not going to be engaged in what's going on in the game beyond "how dead / rich am I? How much money is that thing worth?" I'll be engaging with the game at a mechanical level more than an imaginary level.

Ah then you're missing out on the best bits. Not so much in comically high lethality games like some CoC sessions I've played in, but in games where if you foolishly charge and get shot by three guys with pistols you probably aren't getting back up.

Deadly isn't fun, deadly if you're stupid is, because it encourages clever gaming and out of the box thinking. Victory actually means something far more than treading the well worn "beat a level appropriate monster at the appropriate level" path. Yeah it stings more when you die too, but the higher the emotional risk, the higher the reward.

Quote from: The Traveller;699530Deadly isn't fun, deadly if you're stupid is, because it encourages clever gaming and out of the box thinking. Victory actually means something far more than treading the well worn "beat a level appropriate monster at the appropriate level" path. Yeah it stings more when you die too, but the higher the emotional risk, the higher the reward.

Yeah, exactly my sentiments on it. I don't need 5 pages of stats to feel connected to a PC, all it takes is a name and the couple of things I write under 'notes'. I like/want/need the real possibility of death in the game but that doesn't mean I get off on the dying... or seeing other PCs whacked. I just like the kind of play it encourages... and dislike the sort of play where players can trade bennies for re-rolls all day long because that's how goes down in the movies.

Quote from: smiorgan;699526Right or wrong my OSR yardstick is LotFP, which specifically only rewards (a) getting treasure from dangerous places and (b) killing stuff. That's what the game is about -- nutters doing dangerous jobs.

More power to you if you want to reward roleplaying with townies, but that's a different game, surely?

Surely, if you can sneak your way into the back door of the dungeon and make off with the loot without raising the alarm, fighting or getting fought, that must be worth something... right? The job is still dangerous... but there's are options besides kicking in the door and going in full bore.

Two of my favorite video games are Deus Ex and Postal 2... in part because they're set up so a player can pretty much make it through without killing anyone (though I've never managed it in P2), if he really wants to.
I'm not a pacifist but I like to have options and I don't like playing with folks who just want to attack everything and refuse to make plans... especially when it's because they know the rules/GM will pull its punches and let them off easy no matter how dumb they go.

Combat wise, I think Classic Traveller does an excellent job for a game that's not about fantastic battling superheroes. It ranges from impossible to very unlikely that a single hit from most weapons will kill an average character, but a shotgun blast will almost certainly send you to hospital. The consequences (barring putting yourself at the mercy of a killer determined to finish you off) are significant enough to deter rash violence, yet usually allow continued character development.

Call of Cthulhu is pretty similar.

I'm currently working on a Hackmaster campaign, as my Novus game imploded from player's complaining about one player's "uber build" (amongst other things, but this was the straw...). I chose Hackmaster because the combat system looks amazing AND (more importantly) it looks more complicated to actually CharOp. My hope is that some "old school" gaming will focus my group on actual play (versus CharOp), teamwork and experiencing real risk versus the silly "appropriate level encounter" stuff.

The subject of mortality and the random nature of character creation has become a sore point for two players. One of the reasons I chose Hackmaster was because I was super tired of arguing and complaining. I had a long talk with both players and stood my ground;

"I appreciate you feel this game doesn't offer you all the options you want or the ability to choose the best options. I chose it specifically so you couldn't optimize your characters. Instead I just want you to roll them up, elaborate on their backgrounds, and just play them. I'm not interested in debating the merits of Hackmaster, or changing the rules to better fit your demands, or entertaining myriad options to make everyone happy. We're playing this game as written. No exceptions. You understand fully where I'm coming from. I've explained how I GM, what I want from a game, and what I expect from you. You don't have to play in my game. If you can't let go of all your angst, and complaining, and bitterness you have to go. I don't want the negative whiny crap disrupting my game every week. If you can stop throwing temper tantrums, embrace the idiosyncrasies of old school gaming, and just GET INTO IT, you're welcome at my table." {footnote}

One player was going to leave and then changed his mind; the other calmed down and should be a problem no more. My other 4 players are happy as punch with my choice in Hackmaster so I think we're off to a good start (if a somewhat bumpy one...).

Quote from: Evansheer;699485I've seen a sudden burst of high, frequent turnover hurt a group's overall investment in one campaign recently.  As it is now, only one character still has a realistic investment in the hook that kicked the campaign off.

It's been feeling a bit like going through the motions lately in that game.

Quote from: Arturick;699504...  I listened to a podcast of people playing the Kingmaker adventure series.  Things got crazy lethal in the mid to high levels, and the party went from "guys who founded a kingdom together" to "random dudes in charge of a kingdom for no discernible reason."  When the last few founders died off, you could really feel everyone lose interest.

These posts intrigue me. I think it's fairly easy to discuss character mortality before a game and set expectations. It may not always go over well, but you can forewarn. However, what about long term play? How do old school games handle the potential lethality/mortality and still maintain continuity? When I was a younger chap, we just made new characters and kept playing. We weren't too interested in kingdom building until Birthright came about. That had some options IIRC where you are playing the ruler at a high level and the characters who serve that ruler in some capacity. If a character died, you could just make a new character that works for one of the rulers (yourself or another player). How do you folks handle this?

Footnote: I do not share my problem player's opinions on Hackmaster's "lack of customization". It's not a game you can CharOp to make the most capable uber-something. However, it has PILES of options in Talents, Skills, Proficiencies, classes, races and a long list of quirks/flaws. There are 14 types of clerics depending on the god you worship (and there's more due to come out in another book...). It's filled with options. You just have to take the good with the bad. You are not super heroes, your just a spark of a potential hero. You become heroes IN PLAY. Which is what I'm looking for right now in my fantasy game.

Quote from: Simlasa;699533Surely, if you can sneak your way into the back door of the dungeon and make off with the loot without raising the alarm, fighting or getting fought, that must be worth something... right? The job is still dangerous... but there's are options besides kicking in the door and going in full bore.

That counts as recovering treasure from dangerous places; how you recover treasure doesn't matter. Killing things is a secondary goal with much lower yeild of XP and higher risk -- so your sneaky strategy is arguably the preferred option according to the reward mechanisms.

My reply was to the idea of safe spaces and getting XP for social interaction in those spaces. That's a perfectly legitimate game, but it's not this game.

Quote from: trechriron;699556However, what about long term play? How do old school games handle the potential lethality/mortality and still maintain continuity?

Like, if we had a World War Two situation, and Roosevelt, Mussolini and Hitler all died? Hey, it's a fantasy game, man! History can roll on somehow.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;699448I love when people get stupidly macho about pretending to be fantasy characters. You are playing a game of make believe. Feeling the need to emasculate people who play make believe in a different way than you is almost embarrassing to even watch.

And this is coming from a person who doesn't mind a character death or two.

It's classic (Grognard) Internet Tough Guy routine.

I would tell the player that the game system can be unforgiving and dangerous things can kill you.

The real issue here in my opinion, is how often does a character die when NOT doing somehting stupid or taking a known risk. (Entering a dragon cave?)

If the lethality is too frequent and or arbitrary, I can see many, many players not enjoying the game.


Rate of death is a delicate dance the gm has to learn based on what the players enjoy.



That being said, I personally feel real danger is much more engaging than 'You can't die no matter what'

Quote from: Bill;699574Rate of death is a delicate dance the gm has to learn based on what the players enjoy.

Really, pretty much all of the "Pundit starts a discussion point, A or B" topics could be answered "depends on the table".

Depends on how you define old skool.

If you define it solely as Fantasy Fucking Vietnam where players must risk their lives spelunking in veritable hornets nests to tomb raid, then yes, the expectation of high lethality to accomplish anything should be impressed upon the players from the get-go.

My definition for old skool is nowhere near as narrow, and I utilize far more XP methods.

Lethality is as relevant to the pre-game table conversation as is the campaign's premise and scope. Some games do not presume new PCs need to run through the gauntlet (or shredder) to progress. Lethality becomes a PC choice like anything else; risky choices have consequences, true, but also a spectrum. The game is said to be open and free and I have adhered to that since the start.

So I've run a game of Riddle of Steel-- don't do it, the game's shit, but the combat system has a lock on being lethal without being arbitrary. It works like this: you get a pool of dice dependent on your skill level, decide if you're attacking or defending, and roll a chosen amount of dice.  I've had fights end with single shot insta-kills, and I've had two trained fighters grapple on the ground over a single dagger for thirty minutes of real time.  The players accepted the death because they knew there were alternative courses of action available to them.

For lethality to matter, the player's moment to moment choices must matter. When the character dies, the player has to be able to look back and say 'if I'd only stayed on the defensive, I could have made it', or 'if I'd only kept my spear handy instead of throwing it, I might still be alive.'

The problem I've run into in D&D is just how incredibly random combat encounters are at a lower level. Even at higher levels, the wrong roll on the wandering monster chart and it's boom, squish, dead.  Just last week, I got a TPK on my whole party of 8th level characters with a single Beholder. A couple failed saves and they were locked down. It was a great story, and the player's were fine with the results, but largely because they were sort of done with the characters and knew they'd scraped by a few too many death traps purely by luck.  

It's fun, but only for certain groups. I've lost two of the best role players I've ever played with in that campaign because they didn't want to die from a single random bad roll, which nearly happened. They'd accept death if they'd, say, used up some resource they had conscious control over and chose to push on, or if they'd ignored warning signs, but they just weren't interested in being random Gnoll-kebob.