TheRPGSite

I've always considered lethality a crucial part of D&D. I consider it so important that I find games that don't risk character death nearly unplayable. What good is "winning" a game if there is no way that I can "lose"? I would think it's very safe to assume that this sort of thought process is shared in this community and in much of the OSR, which makes this contradiction I've come across all that more confusing.

Many OSR/ OSR-adjacent games feature a "background" feature, either Lion and Dragon's Background Events Tables or Deathbringer's Random Misery Table. I actually really like this idea, as I like the characters to be more than just "hero man" and "magic girl," yet, it seems incompatible with the notion of having a deadlier game. If you have a deadlier game, but the characters have backgrounds that the players get attached to, then it can really cause a schism when that character dies and can result in apathy and resentment, something that I very much would want to avoid.

For example, if Joe the Fighter dies from a random stray arrow from a failed search for traps roll, no big deal; Tim the Fighter can replace him. But if Joe, the champion blacksmith of Nottingdale, older brother to Celia, the party Cleric, Son of Peter, and Qwen, Brother of 6, and father of young Andrew (who he is adventuring to gain money to help raise), dies because the thief fucked up a roll, that can cause Joe's player to have a bitter taste in his mouth, and likely not care nearly as much when Tim the brother of Joe shows up. I was being a bit hyperbolic with the background of Joe, but the idea is still there. By having more to them, the character and player become more attached, and death becomes much more bitter between the DM and players and can lead to players just not caring anymore.

Am I missing a key ingredient in how this needs to be balanced? Am I just stupid and worrying too much? How do y'all go about this? Any advice would be appreciated.

I want the fear of death to be present and the understanding that it can come for you at any time, but I also don't want it just to become a board game of rotating characters. I've thought of having a negative HP system, where you have an amount equal to your Con, and every round after the first, you lose 1d4 HP, but I don't know how well that would work.

Not really sure why this topic shouldn't be on the main forum, so I'm moving it there. If the OP has a problem with that they can give me their reasons why they think it should go back to the Pundit's forum.

That's why I prefer games with some kind of 'get out of shit' mechanic, be it Fate Points or whatnot. The kind of thing that doesn't make the game trivially easy, but avoids the 'you take every precaution, but one bad roll killed you' BS.

I know this isn't popular with a sub-group of hardcore Grogs, that consider anything short of random death at anytime to be like sex with 6 rubbers on. But I consider any game with Joe The Warrior to be boring drivel, so right back atcha :)

IMO something like Fate Points keep the smart players around just long enough for their deaths to be a little more meaningful, while not overly protecting the terminally stupid.

Quote from: Shaldlay on August 02, 2023, 05:03:08 PM
I've always considered lethality a crucial part of D&D. I consider it so important that I find games that don't risk character death nearly unplayable. What good is "winning" a game if there is no way that I can "lose"? I would think it's very safe to assume that this sort of thought process is shared in this community and in much of the OSR, which makes this contradiction I've come across all that more confusing.

Many OSR/ OSR-adjacent games feature a "background" feature, either Lion and Dragon's Background Events Tables or Deathbringer's Random Misery Table. I actually really like this idea, as I like the characters to be more than just "hero man" and "magic girl," yet, it seems incompatible with the notion of having a deadlier game. If you have a deadlier game, but the characters have backgrounds that the players get attached to, then it can really cause a schism when that character dies and can result in apathy and resentment, something that I very much would want to avoid.

For example, if Joe the Fighter dies from a random stray arrow from a failed search for traps roll, no big deal; Tim the Fighter can replace him. But if Joe, the champion blacksmith of Nottingdale, older brother to Celia, the party Cleric, Son of Peter, and Qwen, Brother of 6, and father of young Andrew (who he is adventuring to gain money to help raise), dies because the thief fucked up a roll, that can cause Joe's player to have a bitter taste in his mouth, and likely not care nearly as much when Tim the brother of Joe shows up. I was being a bit hyperbolic with the background of Joe, but the idea is still there. By having more to them, the character and player become more attached, and death becomes much more bitter between the DM and players and can lead to players just not caring anymore.

Am I missing a key ingredient in how this needs to be balanced? Am I just stupid and worrying too much? How do y'all go about this? Any advice would be appreciated.

I want the fear of death to be present and the understanding that it can come for you at any time, but I also don't want it just to become a board game of rotating characters. I've thought of having a negative HP system, where you have an amount equal to your Con, and every round after the first, you lose 1d4 HP, but I don't know how well that would work.

Well, I can only speak to my experience, but in my groups it's always been a matter of timing.  Too many character details before the campaign begins makes it feel to us that adventuring is almost an afterthought for the character.  We usually create just enough backstory to give a motivation for adventuring, but that's about all.  The stories that define the character mostly happen during play.  What this means is that low level characters are pretty nondescript.  They haven't adventured long enough to have much of a story.  So when they die, no big deal.  By 5th or 7th level, the characters have usually done enough that they start feeling fleshed out, but there are a lot more ways to recover from death, though most are a major inconvenience and  might be a whole adventure in itself.  By 13th+ level, the party probably has a number of ways to cheat death by itself, so the danger of losing characters who are beloved is very small.

So, in my experience, lethality is somewhat inversely proportional to level, and therefore character "story".  The difference is that we don't really create elaborate backstories...

I can see where spending a lot of time on backstory and then getting killed for something minor and out of player control could become an issue.  I look at it from the other end: not having any backstory leads to reckless players who could care less because they just can roll up another.  Even higher level PCs I've seen have that same attitude when they waltz in on something and get smoked.  I agree that some kind of luck/fate system takes out the really bad blunders but if PCs have some investment in the character they cool it on the "kick in that door and kill it all!" gameplay and at least take a second to think about what they can do to mitigate risks.  A lot will depend on the player's desires for gameplay but so far I'm seeing more cautious activity.  It could just have been the group I was a player with but they didn't bother with listening at doors, checking for traps, rudimentary recon, etc; and they died many times just to whip up a new character.

Quote from: Striker on August 03, 2023, 03:06:12 AM
I can see where spending a lot of time on backstory and then getting killed for something minor and out of player control could become an issue.  I look at it from the other end: not having any backstory leads to reckless players who could care less because they just can roll up another.  Even higher level PCs I've seen have that same attitude when they waltz in on something and get smoked.  I agree that some kind of luck/fate system takes out the really bad blunders but if PCs have some investment in the character they cool it on the "kick in that door and kill it all!" gameplay and at least take a second to think about what they can do to mitigate risks.  A lot will depend on the player's desires for gameplay but so far I'm seeing more cautious activity.  It could just have been the group I was a player with but they didn't bother with listening at doors, checking for traps, rudimentary recon, etc; and they died many times just to whip up a new character.

I'm playing in an OSE game where the characters practically have no backstory at all, but still proceed cautiously and always listen at doors and check for traps. Each player also has a stable of characters he can choose from, so if one gets killed he can be immediately replaced. Characters can also be swapped between adventures if, for example, a player wants to play a thief for a change instead of a fighter.

Quote from: Shaldlay on August 02, 2023, 05:03:08 PM
Am I missing a key ingredient in how this needs to be balanced? Am I just stupid and worrying too much? How do y'all go about this? Any advice would be appreciated.

Perhaps you are missing a key ingredient:

If you do a fairly involved background, then lose your character, you are affected.  If you start with relatively little background, but develop one during play, then lose your character, the party is affected.  That is, the other players had a chance to get attached to your character too, in ways that matter in the campaign.  It sounds like the latter would be even worse, but in fact it is not, usually.  In the first case, it really does come across to the rest of the party that Tim replaces Joe, carbon copy--even if in your own mind Joe had all of those background details.  Whereas in the second case, not only had background emerged about Joe organically, it was background that the rest of the party is more likely to care about.  Which means whether you bring in Tim or someone else, it is to a party that cared about Joe.  It doesn't really matter in either scenario how much of Joe's background you had mapped out for yourself (or even with the GM), because you can't make other people care about your character's background.  It's like trying to make other people as interested in your dreams as you are--even literally in some cases.

Though I think most of this dynamic is the chemistry of the group and the mixture of several different elements.  Some story arcs just don't work well with death (and vice versa).  You can make death more or less likely through any number of system bits, as well as the way the players act.  The GM can run a game with likely story arcs that are more or less likely to be compatible with some amount of death.  But no one gets to just, for example, arbitrarily decide that they are going to run a campaign where Joe the Fighter is the Chose One to kill the Dark Lord, with death on the line at all times for anyone.  It doesn't work.  With some thought you might be able to run a campaign where Joe the Fighter is part of a prophecy concerning the death of the Dark Lord--with the usual ambiguity of such forecasts, such that if Joe paves the way for Tim, it still works out.  Or maybe the Dark Lord wins, and all Tim does is escape with Joe's kid, leaving the resolution for later. 

I think generally it is better to be clear about what everyone wants, then determine what mixture of those wants is likely or even logically possible.  You want a certain amount of death, then that's a constraint to everything else.  You want a certain amount of background, then that's a constraint to everything else.  If may not be much of a constraint, but it is always there.

You need to also be clear in your own mind on each element:  Do you want it for real, or do you want the appearance of it?  The appearance of "death on the line" and the reality of "death on the line" overlap a lot, but they are not the same thing.

This is something I've brought up before as well, and I love to mock the 'hurr durr super lethal' mentality over it.

If you want to run a game with a lethality rate akin to X-Com or Darkest Dungeon, that's fine, but I'm not going to do more than the bare minimum to flesh out a character.

Don't like it? Eat a bag of dicks. I'm not saying RPGs should be risk free but holy shit, asking me to pour time and creative energy into a PC who dies two sessions in is just insulting.

Minimal background (a table for example) takes seconds to establish, makes the PC ex-sailor stand out from the PC ex-farmer just a little and may allow some knowledge (yeah, he's a sailor, he knows knots, you untie the rope instead of cutting it).

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 03, 2023, 07:57:03 AM
This is something I've brought up before as well, and I love to mock the 'hurr durr super lethal' mentality over it.

If you want to run a game with a lethality rate akin to X-Com or Darkest Dungeon, that's fine, but I'm not going to do more than the bare minimum to flesh out a character.

Don't like it? Eat a bag of dicks. I'm not saying RPGs should be risk free but holy shit, asking me to pour time and creative energy into a PC who dies two sessions in is just insulting.

Pretty much the biggest problem with all the Battletech RPGs prior to Mechwarrior: Destiny was that they always defaulted to the wargame for Mech combat where there's pretty much a 1-in-36 of instant death due to headshot.

Which doesn't sound like a lot, but with most Mechs lobbing 3-5 shots per turn you're running even odds on surviving 10 turns of combat.

This isn't a problem for the wargame where a pilot is three stats (piloting, gunnery, and health track) and maybe a name if you're running a published scenario.

But the "A Time of War" rpg edition had a chargen system that had you build your character with XP gained via a lifepath system that, by hand anyway, takes probably 30-50 minutes.*

That's not good when you measure combat survival in turns.

Basically, chargen time needs to be proportional to expected survival times. Too thin with a long expected lifespan and players can lose interest because they don't have enough interesting bits to work with. Too many with too short a lifespan and they'll start wondering what the point of all the detail is if none of it matters in play.

* conversely, MW:Destiny both ramped down PC creation time and Mech combat lethality using a modified theatre of the mind combat system where mechanics make hitting it much more difficult (basically trying to emulate a feel closer to being a Battletech novel protagonist than a random pilot).

You can still die fairly easily, but chargen is closer to 10 minutes instead of 30-40 and you'll generally live long enough for that level of investment to feel worth it.

Yes, lethality should have some inverse proportion to the time you spend creating a PC.

This is the reason why HP was invented, IIRC; people get attached to their PC. Which is why high-level Pcs are harder to kill.

You can still have an OSR game with backgrounds if these are generated with a couple of rolls.

It's always worked for Rolemaster.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 03, 2023, 09:23:28 AM
Yes, lethality should have some inverse proportion to the time you spend creating a PC.

That's the answer right there.

I don't do long backgrounds. Usually just a former profession and homeland, and maybe a few family members. Background is created during play by the adventures themselves and by inventing background facts when needed.

Quote from: David Johansen on August 03, 2023, 10:14:23 AM
It's always worked for Rolemaster.

No, it never worked for Rolemaster.  My group loved the crits system, loved the charts, even liked the skills.  We never had a character live beyond 7th level.  We quit playing because it took so long to make a character that the investment wasn't worth it.  If it took 5 minutes to make a character, we'd still be playing Rolemaster today...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 03, 2023, 11:06:37 AM

Quote from: David Johansen on August 03, 2023, 10:14:23 AM
It's always worked for Rolemaster.

No, it never worked for Rolemaster.  My group loved the crits system, loved the charts, even liked the skills.  We never had a character live beyond 7th level.  We quit playing because it took so long to make a character that the investment wasn't worth it.  If it took 5 minutes to make a character, we'd still be playing Rolemaster today...

One of the oddest things I've noted is that the mechanics for WEG's Paranoia and Ghostbusters games would work a lot better if they were swapped. Ghostbusters is intensely rules light, but Paranoia has a ridiculous number of skills and traits to manage.

Considering that GB is not super lethal while Paranoia has to issue you five extra lives (clones) in the hope you'll survive the briefing? Very strange.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 03, 2023, 10:51:55 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 03, 2023, 09:23:28 AM
Yes, lethality should have some inverse proportion to the time you spend creating a PC.

That's the answer right there.

I don't do long backgrounds. Usually just a former profession and homeland, and maybe a few family members. Background is created during play by the adventures themselves and by inventing background facts when needed.

Yes.  In fact, the extremes are easy.  Heavy character construction, almost impossible to kill (e.g. Champions), no problem.  B/X D&D low level, character in 5-10 minutes, dies like flies.  Also no problem.

It's when you want some mix (which many people to do), the trick is finding the right balance.  Yes, it's inverse, but it is not as if you just adjust the slider and one things shifts the other automatically.  "Less complex to make a character" can be done a lot of ways.  "More likely to live" can also be done a lot of ways.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 03, 2023, 12:57:49 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 03, 2023, 10:51:55 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 03, 2023, 09:23:28 AM
Yes, lethality should have some inverse proportion to the time you spend creating a PC.

That's the answer right there.

I don't do long backgrounds. Usually just a former profession and homeland, and maybe a few family members. Background is created during play by the adventures themselves and by inventing background facts when needed.

Yes.  In fact, the extremes are easy.  Heavy character construction, almost impossible to kill (e.g. Champions), no problem.  B/X D&D low level, character in 5-10 minutes, dies like flies.  Also no problem.

It's when you want some mix (which many people to do), the trick is finding the right balance.  Yes, it's inverse, but it is not as if you just adjust the slider and one things shifts the other automatically.  "Less complex to make a character" can be done a lot of ways.  "More likely to live" can also be done a lot of ways.

That's a good point. Finding that balance I suppose could take some effort. However, what's the goal here? Do you want to eliminate all sudden deaths? Should players have some kind of expectation as to character survival based on background length? Too much balance, in my view, leads to grey goo. It should be the case that, once in a while, a carefully crafter character dies ignobly on day 1. Keeping that possibility in the minds of the players makes them a little less murder-hobo-y.

See, that's the thing with lethality. A game doesn't actually have to rack up a high death count for players to consider it lethal. The only thing that's required is the possibility of sudden death. In order to keep that possibility alive, you need rules that promote lethality, a fair GM, and, ideally, a few examples.

This might sound stupid, but in the 90s I used amnesia as a tool for highly lethal campaigns. Everyone had it - PCs, NPCs, etc. The campaign was about finding out why and how to restore everyone's memories. I also had players (3-4 players) run 2-3 characters each. This way, no one was knocked out of play early in the session. It's extreme but it worked! (I also had a homebrewed lifepath at the ready for the end of the campaign, but we never got that far due to me falling sick for a few years.) :(

Where does Traveller fall into this for y'all?

We spend 3-4 hours on chargen and also create connections between all the party members. We're all one bad damage roll from death. We've had 20 sessions of 5 hours each over the last year. I think all five of us have been close to death at least once. With three of us close two or three times. And if the pilot had failed one of his rolls, we'd all have died that one time.

We haven't had, I think, that many combats, because we work so hard to avoid them. I think less than half of our sessions have had combat. Maybe less than 5. But at least one of us gets close to dying every time.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 03, 2023, 02:35:44 PM
That's a good point. Finding that balance I suppose could take some effort. However, what's the goal here? Do you want to eliminate all sudden deaths? Should players have some kind of expectation as to character survival based on background length? Too much balance, in my view, leads to grey goo. It should be the case that, once in a while, a carefully crafter character dies ignobly on day 1. Keeping that possibility in the minds of the players makes them a little less murder-hobo-y.

See, that's the thing with lethality. A game doesn't actually have to rack up a high death count for players to consider it lethal. The only thing that's required is the possibility of sudden death. In order to keep that possibility alive, you need rules that promote lethality, a fair GM, and, ideally, a few examples.

Well, for me I draw one line that "sudden death must be possible", however rare.  In other words, there is no "plot" protection for PCs.  Next, I draw another line that the players should have some uncertainty any time they are doing something dangerous.  So no jumping off the 80 foot cliff because, "I've got enough hit points to survive the fall."    Then, I want playing smarter to lead to less deaths.  Which may sound automatic, both in desire and execution, but it isn't in either.  For example, if kicking down the door and bursting in is something that players routinely manage to get away with, then it's too tilted towards the action movie tropes for me.  Kicking down the doors as a calculated risk from time to time, I'm all for that.

Beyond those lines, however, I'd be quite happy if death seldom happened.  It's not terribly common in my games.  Characters getting close to death?  Happens all the time.  Characters close enough that ill-timed bad luck could finish them off suddenly, it happens some.  Law of averages says that a few of those will end up in a death.  I've played all different kinds of ways with lethal levels.  One thing that I've seen to be constant is that when death isn't really an option, quite a few players start going through the motions of working to keep their characters alive.  When it is an option, they pay more attention.  The latter ends up being a better game for me and them.  Though maybe that's just the kind of players I attract to my games.

I think I first pondered this when I started playing Dangerous Journeys due to how long it takes to make characters in Advanced Mythus.

The ideal ratio of character make time to character play time will, of course, vary by preference, but whatever ratio is thought to be ideal, you certainly don't want to drift too far from it. As a ratio, there are two variables, the depth of character creation, and the lethality of the game. Lethality itself, broadly speaking, has two variables. How lethal the GM sets the world/sandbox/adventure to be. And the players' appetite for risk and ability to make "winning" choices vs "losing" choices. And so you wind up with three big factors, and I look at all of them.

For backgrounds, I actually think this should be developed as play goes on. For a few reasons. That it cuts down on character creation time is just one reason. Another reason is the purpose of the background is to put into context how the character makes decisions in the present. And those remain to be seen until after play begins. Third reason is, in-game, there is interplay between the character and the other PCs and the milieu in general. What comes out of that is a lot more organic than a backstory authored in isolation. There's also practicality. If you're taking roleplaying seriously, in the sense that you're making decisions the character would make, you need to first define or author how the character responds to various stimuli, and there's just way too many things that can and do come up in the game that you cannot possibly foresee.

For lethality, one thing I go back to are the old stories about Tenser the mage, who started out at 1st level, knowing only Read Magic, doing dungeon delves often in small parties, sometimes even solo. Ask yourself, what must be true of the game for this to even be viable. I think dwelling on this has implications for both how the GM puts together adventures as well as how the players approach them.

As GM, you can't really have encounters where players are expected to fight. Otherwise Tenser won't make it. You can't have challenges that are expected to be bested by a spell. Tenser's only got one, and it's Read Magic. Everything needs to be opt-outable by players. Meaning that opting out can't ruin the fun or adventure. But with freedom to opt out, there also has to be enticement to opt in. Some reason players want to engage in a situation. And situations can't have pre-set solutions. It's all got to be open to creativity. And finally, it's almost as if the game bits need to be treated as an afterthought. The real game is a game of imagination and wits. Character abilities are things to fall back on when the player's imagination and wits fail.

As player, a simple test you can use as a proving grounds is to roll up a 1st level magic-user. You can even start with read magic + 3 spells per the 1E DMG--an edge Tenser did not have to start with. But then go solo against the Appendix A random dungeon. You can even cheat and look ahead. We know almost immediately you're going to need to be running away from a lot of things. And that can be trouble when it comes to Giant Ants which will be too fast to outrun. But if you read the Evasion & Pursuit rules, you realize you can easily get away just by throwing down food. This means when you're spending your initial 20-50 gp, you need to pack food even if you have no intention of camping out mid-adventure. You build up an arsenal of basic tricks, then when you go to play an actual game, you're going to live longer even in a hard-core old school game.

Any one of these can solve, or at the very least mitigate, the alleged "contradiction." But implement all three, and you'll never have a problem.

Personally I've never cared about backgrounds when I play OSR, I'm more interessed in playing clever dungeons and finding creative solutions to problems, anyway, there are OSR games that offer more narrative options, Whitehack with it's group system comes to mind for example, I was actually surprised with how well it handles a more narrative style.

Quote from: Shaldlay on August 02, 2023, 05:03:08 PM
I've always considered lethality a crucial part of D&D. I consider it so important that I find games that don't risk character death nearly unplayable. What good is "winning" a game if there is no way that I can "lose"? I would think it's very safe to assume that this sort of thought process is shared in this community and in much of the OSR, which makes this contradiction I've come across all that more confusing.

Many OSR/ OSR-adjacent games feature a "background" feature, either Lion and Dragon's Background Events Tables or Deathbringer's Random Misery Table. I actually really like this idea, as I like the characters to be more than just "hero man" and "magic girl," yet, it seems incompatible with the notion of having a deadlier game. If you have a deadlier game, but the characters have backgrounds that the players get attached to, then it can really cause a schism when that character dies and can result in apathy and resentment, something that I very much would want to avoid.

For example, if Joe the Fighter dies from a random stray arrow from a failed search for traps roll, no big deal; Tim the Fighter can replace him. But if Joe, the champion blacksmith of Nottingdale, older brother to Celia, the party Cleric, Son of Peter, and Qwen, Brother of 6, and father of young Andrew (who he is adventuring to gain money to help raise), dies because the thief fucked up a roll, that can cause Joe's player to have a bitter taste in his mouth, and likely not care nearly as much when Tim the brother of Joe shows up. I was being a bit hyperbolic with the background of Joe, but the idea is still there. By having more to them, the character and player become more attached, and death becomes much more bitter between the DM and players and can lead to players just not caring anymore.

Am I missing a key ingredient in how this needs to be balanced? Am I just stupid and worrying too much? How do y'all go about this? Any advice would be appreciated.

I want the fear of death to be present and the understanding that it can come for you at any time, but I also don't want it just to become a board game of rotating characters. I've thought of having a negative HP system, where you have an amount equal to your Con, and every round after the first, you lose 1d4 HP, but I don't know how well that would work.

If you don't like lethality why are you playing lethal rpgs? STUPIDSTUPIDSTUPID

Play something where YOU can decide when your Barbie kicks the bucket. I'm so fkn tired of people complaining about what D&D doesn't do as if there aren't hundreds of other rpgs out there. Some "less lethal" ttrpgs:

• FATE
• Cortex Prime
• Blades in the Dark
• Tenra Bansho Zero
• Wildsea
• Tales from the Loop
• Wanderhome
• Fabula Ultima
• Genesys
• HeroQuest

(https://y.yarn.co/867085af-112e-4efe-bc27-0b4d0fdf2677_text.gif)

Quote from: Shaldlay on August 02, 2023, 05:03:08 PM
I've always considered lethality a crucial part of D&D. I consider it so important that I find games that don't risk character death nearly unplayable. What good is "winning" a game if there is no way that I can "lose"? I would think it's very safe to assume that this sort of thought process is shared in this community and in much of the OSR, which makes this contradiction I've come across all that more confusing.

Many OSR/ OSR-adjacent games feature a "background" feature, either Lion and Dragon's Background Events Tables or Deathbringer's Random Misery Table. I actually really like this idea, as I like the characters to be more than just "hero man" and "magic girl," yet, it seems incompatible with the notion of having a deadlier game. If you have a deadlier game, but the characters have backgrounds that the players get attached to, then it can really cause a schism when that character dies and can result in apathy and resentment, something that I very much would want to avoid.

You've never played Traveller?  Your PC has 10, 20, 30 years of background before you even get to play it.

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 05:34:48 PM

Quote from: Shaldlay on August 02, 2023, 05:03:08 PM
I've always considered lethality a crucial part of D&D. I consider it so important that I find games that don't risk character death nearly unplayable. What good is "winning" a game if there is no way that I can "lose"? I would think it's very safe to assume that this sort of thought process is shared in this community and in much of the OSR, which makes this contradiction I've come across all that more confusing.

Many OSR/ OSR-adjacent games feature a "background" feature, either Lion and Dragon's Background Events Tables or Deathbringer's Random Misery Table. I actually really like this idea, as I like the characters to be more than just "hero man" and "magic girl," yet, it seems incompatible with the notion of having a deadlier game. If you have a deadlier game, but the characters have backgrounds that the players get attached to, then it can really cause a schism when that character dies and can result in apathy and resentment, something that I very much would want to avoid.

You've never played Traveller?  Your PC has 10, 20, 30 years of background before you even get to play it.

Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 05:34:48 PM

Quote from: Shaldlay on August 02, 2023, 05:03:08 PM
I've always considered lethality a crucial part of D&D. I consider it so important that I find games that don't risk character death nearly unplayable. What good is "winning" a game if there is no way that I can "lose"? I would think it's very safe to assume that this sort of thought process is shared in this community and in much of the OSR, which makes this contradiction I've come across all that more confusing.

Many OSR/ OSR-adjacent games feature a "background" feature, either Lion and Dragon's Background Events Tables or Deathbringer's Random Misery Table. I actually really like this idea, as I like the characters to be more than just "hero man" and "magic girl," yet, it seems incompatible with the notion of having a deadlier game. If you have a deadlier game, but the characters have backgrounds that the players get attached to, then it can really cause a schism when that character dies and can result in apathy and resentment, something that I very much would want to avoid.

You've never played Traveller?  Your PC has 10, 20, 30 years of background before you even get to play it.

And you can die DURING char gen! One can find no purer example of background complexity Venn overlap with lethality than that.

I am not a huge fan of high lethality campaigns. It takes me several sessions to get into character properly with or without a background, and killing a character off might not completely reset this process for the next one, but it will sure throw in a set-back.

There are ways to bridge the two, but they often include "cheating" in some way. In my homebrew system, the default quest-giving character literally has a one-time-use, XP-consuming time rewind ability you can use to reset sessions where several PCs died in (or, if the GM is sufficiently devious, something really bad happened in the story the players want another chance to stop.) Having a baked-in bail out provision means the GM can turn up the difficulty quite severely and not have to worry about ending the campaign, and even after the rewind the PCs have memories of the pre-rewind game, which separates the pre-rewind and after-rewind difficulty with enough gameplay that the GM can turn the difficulty down enough that it probably won't kill the PCs.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 04, 2023, 06:33:24 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 05:34:48 PM

You've never played Traveller?  Your PC has 10, 20, 30 years of background before you even get to play it.

And you can die DURING char gen! One can find no purer example of background complexity Venn overlap with lethality than that.

Exactly and last I checked it was one of the most played Sci-Fi RPGs in the history of TTRPGs

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 08:15:35 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 04, 2023, 06:33:24 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 05:34:48 PM

You've never played Traveller?  Your PC has 10, 20, 30 years of background before you even get to play it.

And you can die DURING char gen! One can find no purer example of background complexity Venn overlap with lethality than that.

Exactly and last I checked it was one of the most played Sci-Fi RPGs in the history of TTRPGs

I think it works because, options like Mercenary and the like aside, your adventures don't have to involve constant combat. I love that many of the adventure modules are search and rescue missions or mysteries and the like. Our poor GM keeps setting up for combat, and we keep avoiding it.

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 08:15:35 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 04, 2023, 06:33:24 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 05:34:48 PM

You've never played Traveller?  Your PC has 10, 20, 30 years of background before you even get to play it.

And you can die DURING char gen! One can find no purer example of background complexity Venn overlap with lethality than that.

Exactly and last I checked it was one of the most played Sci-Fi RPGs in the history of TTRPGs

Sadly I've never had a chance to try the game. The closest I've probably gotten is some 2300AD (being that it's a hard sci-fi system).

I do remember an old magazine article (maybe early White Dwarf) with the rules for making a Blade Runner style Replicant for Traveller, which I thought was neat.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 04, 2023, 11:05:17 PM
Sadly I've never had a chance to try the game. The closest I've probably gotten is some 2300AD (being that it's a hard sci-fi system).

I do remember an old magazine article (maybe early White Dwarf) with the rules for making a Blade Runner style Replicant for Traveller, which I thought was neat.

Here's the latest version (different name) for ~$9 for the PDF: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/415159/Cepheus-Deluxe-Enhanced-Edition?src=hottest_filtered (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/415159/Cepheus-Deluxe-Enhanced-Edition?src=hottest_filtered)

If you want a game with both high lethality (or at least high risk of death) as well as detailed backstories, what you might consider doing is getting the players attached to the backstory rather than the character. If/when the character dies, the backstory lives on as someone else takes up the mantle.

You already kind of alluded to this by saying Tim was Joe's brother, but it doesn't need to be quite on-the-nose with relationships. Maybe some great deed Joe did back in that village inspired someone, who became motivated to finish Joe's task after hearing of his death. Game Masters should then be encouraged to tie backstories with the main plot in order to keep everyone invested.

Short 2-3 line backgrounds are good, long backgrounds are bad.

Quote from: Effete on August 05, 2023, 01:38:27 AM
If you want a game with both high lethality (or at least high risk of death) as well as detailed backstories, what you might consider doing is getting the players attached to the backstory rather than the character. If/when the character dies, the backstory lives on as someone else takes up the mantle.

Not how we like to play.

My wife has a character whose goal is to become a tea trader. The character is sweet (and murderous), good with people, and not scheming. Her backup character hates tea, decided using psyker powers to control everyone made life boring, and is a functional psychopath. Her goal is to gain immortality with a cyborg body. Anything that advances that goal is OK with the character. The new character will help the group with their tea trading (they've already said if the tea character dies, they'll keep the trading going), because the new character wants the party to help her become immortal.

I think the problem is most players only play one character. In every game. In every system. Some minor details change based on setting and system. But if that character dies, they have no idea what to do.

Quote from: Effete on August 05, 2023, 01:38:27 AM
You already kind of alluded to this by saying Tim was Joe's brother, but it doesn't need to be quite on-the-nose with relationships. Maybe some great deed Joe did back in that village inspired someone, who became motivated to finish Joe's task after hearing of his death. Game Masters should then be encouraged to tie backstories with the main plot in order to keep everyone invested.

I think the whole tie backstories into the main plot is way overblown nowadays. I admire the GMs who can do it. But I don't personally find it necessary or even necessarily desirable.

The problems with the backstory/plot thing are

1. it's a lot more work for the GM. Some people will suggest either this isn't, or shouldn't, be true. But getting the backstories of four or five people to fit into the main plot, even sequentially, is a lot of work. It's even more work when you add in issues like the next point.

2. it makes running individual sessions with absences more of a problem. We've had sessions where the one person who could not make it was the one person with the skills to make that session work. Some of that is Traveller chargen chance and some of that is how the backstory/plot was written. But it also happens when someone can't make it and it is the big scene for their character's backstory/plot. (Makes it awkward.)


As a final note, I'll also say I don't necessarily find backgrounds and high lethality contradictions. If you put a lot of work into a character, then you're more likely to play rationally to keep it alive.

There is one caveat.

"High lethality" to me means that a character is easily killed. Assuming average stats (7?) a Traveller character has 21 HP. Most normal weapons can kill a character in 2 (2D or 3d) shots and any sort of actual combat weapon (5D and up) has a good chance of doing a one shot. If you choose inappropriately, you die. (Our party bends over backwards to avoid combat because of this.) Even then, there is some randomness. "Oh, the delicate character happened to be the only one in sight when the bad guys came through the door. Uh oh."

For me, "high lethality" should not mean a high death rate, regardless of what decisions the players make. I hate random, one-hit death in a lot of old school stuff. Why bother planning and making good decisions, if the GM is just going to randomly select someone to die anyway? (YMMV.) Now, if the party plays Traveller like they were in D&D5E, that's fine. They're going to all die.

And the thing that makes both playable and fun is making sure the players know what sort of game they're in for.

Quote from: Tod13 on August 06, 2023, 09:31:08 AM

Quote from: Effete on August 05, 2023, 01:38:27 AM
If you want a game with both high lethality (or at least high risk of death) as well as detailed backstories, what you might consider doing is getting the players attached to the backstory rather than the character. If/when the character dies, the backstory lives on as someone else takes up the mantle.

Not how we like to play.
<snip>

Oh, I agree! It's not something I personally would do either unless the game was specifically tailored to be run that way. But the OP asked for suggestions, so I gave one. :)

I've been reading this thread and wondering if i should contribute or just STFU.  I'll contribute and hopefully someone will find int valuable.

I've seen players create novellas for back stories and I think it's neat but useless.  A back story really only needs about a paragraph and should only have one significant life changing event.  That's at most.  A bare bones outline of what kind of PC you're making is really all that's needed in 99% of games.

First, the most significant events in a PC's life should be the ones being played out at the table.  A campaign should be taking an amateur and turning him into a seasoned vet.  This should inherently limit the back story right there.

It's one thing if you're playing a well established IP like Star Wars but most GMs I know create their own setting.  Unless you've been playing with a GM for a long time, you may not want to put in a lot of details that a GM has to try to make work with his setting.

I do a session 0 when running games.  If it's a new system, we'll do some Danger Room combat to get players used to it.  Mostly, it's about making PCs.  During PC creation,  I make players make 3 PCs.  I also work with players to weave them together with a common back story and to give them common goals.  With this, Players get invested not only in the PC but the party.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 04, 2023, 11:05:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 08:15:35 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 04, 2023, 06:33:24 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 05:34:48 PM

You've never played Traveller?  Your PC has 10, 20, 30 years of background before you even get to play it.

And you can die DURING char gen! One can find no purer example of background complexity Venn overlap with lethality than that.

Exactly and last I checked it was one of the most played Sci-Fi RPGs in the history of TTRPGs

Sadly I've never had a chance to try the game. The closest I've probably gotten is some 2300AD (being that it's a hard sci-fi system).

I do remember an old magazine article (maybe early White Dwarf) with the rules for making a Blade Runner style Replicant for Traveller, which I thought was neat.

I recommend Hostile by Zozer Games if you're looking for a Cyberpunk/Bladerunner type game.  It's a slight tweak on Cepheus Engine that perfect for that king of play.  It's also my current favorite to run.  Otherwise, you can use Cepheus Engine with no investment at all by going to the online SRD here: https://www.orffenspace.com/cepheus-srd/index.html.  If you want a print version of it, I think that Moon Toad is the best for the table: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/237247/Cepheus-Engine-RPG.  As always, don't take a single opinion from me and do your own research.

Quote from: Theory of Games on August 04, 2023, 01:20:07 PM
If you don't like lethality why are you playing lethal rpgs? STUPIDSTUPIDSTUPID

Play something where YOU can decide when your Barbie kicks the bucket. I'm so fkn tired of people complaining about what D&D doesn't do as if there aren't hundreds of other rpgs out there. Some "less lethal" ttrpgs:

• FATE
• Cortex Prime
• Blades in the Dark
• Tenra Bansho Zero
• Wildsea
• Tales from the Loop
• Wanderhome
• Fabula Ultima
• Genesys
• HeroQuest

Because maybe I like everything else about a game, but not the assumed lethality of it?

Maybe because 9 of those 10 systems suck, and I like OSR-alikes a lot more than them?

Maybe because even I loved every one of them, my chance of finding someone else willing to play them is quite low?

I'm always amused by those notions of "you're playing the game wrong". I've always felt the rule even more prime than rule 0 is "if everyone is having fun, you're doing it right".

I found the optional Bleeding Out rule in TSR D&D perfectly serviceable: Death at -10 HP, counts down by -1 per Round from when initially dropped at Zero or below, anyone can Coup de Grace you as an action as usual, anyone can Stabilize you as an Action, you need to recover to positive HP to regain consciousness. Made hirelings, natural healing & herbalism, base camps, etc. very useful again.

I once added you needed to pass a Stabilize check at 50% success rate (e.g. 11+ on d20), but it was unnecessary drama (though the drama was fun!).

Quote from: Bruwulf on August 06, 2023, 02:21:00 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on August 04, 2023, 01:20:07 PM
If you don't like lethality why are you playing lethal rpgs? STUPIDSTUPIDSTUPID

Play something where YOU can decide when your Barbie kicks the bucket. I'm so fkn tired of people complaining about what D&D doesn't do as if there aren't hundreds of other rpgs out there. Some "less lethal" ttrpgs:

• FATE
• Cortex Prime
• Blades in the Dark
• Tenra Bansho Zero
• Wildsea
• Tales from the Loop
• Wanderhome
• Fabula Ultima
• Genesys
• HeroQuest

Because maybe I like everything else about a game, but not the assumed lethality of it?

Maybe because 9 of those 10 systems suck, and I like OSR-alikes a lot more than them?

Maybe because even I loved every one of them, my chance of finding someone else willing to play them is quite low?

I'm always amused by those notions of "you're playing the game wrong". I've always felt the rule even more prime than rule 0 is "if everyone is having fun, you're doing it right".

OR maaayyyybe you shouldn't play games you don't like then come here to post one's feckless idiotic complaints about a situation a child could avoid? Maybe you could find some friends via the internet that like playing games you like? I did decades ago  ;D ;D ;D

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExZzF6ZGp1bHluc2F2Y2djOHNuYWQ5aG8wZHV5MTBxbXBoZ2s1c2lhaiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3gId7l0DvzipO/giphy.gif)

Maybe? Maybe?

Quote from: Theory of Games on August 07, 2023, 09:38:06 PM
Maybe you could find some friends via the internet that like playing games you like? I did decades ago  ;D ;D ;D

Based on your personality here, I'm going to press "x" to doubt...

Quote from: Opaopajr on August 06, 2023, 02:32:54 PM
I found the optional Bleeding Out rule in TSR D&D perfectly serviceable: Death at -10 HP, counts down by -1 per Round from when initially dropped at Zero or below, anyone can Coup de Grace you as an action as usual, anyone can Stabilize you as an Action, you need to recover to positive HP to regain consciousness. Made hirelings, natural healing & herbalism, base camps, etc. very useful again.

I once added you needed to pass a Stabilize check at 50% success rate (e.g. 11+ on d20), but it was unnecessary drama (though the drama was fun!).

Soooo much better than 5e death saves.

Quote from: Opaopajr on August 06, 2023, 02:32:54 PM
I found the optional Bleeding Out rule in TSR D&D perfectly serviceable: Death at -10 HP, counts down by -1 per Round from when initially dropped at Zero or below, anyone can Coup de Grace you as an action as usual, anyone can Stabilize you as an Action, you need to recover to positive HP to regain consciousness. Made hirelings, natural healing & herbalism, base camps, etc. very useful again.

I once added you needed to pass a Stabilize check at 50% success rate (e.g. 11+ on d20), but it was unnecessary drama (though the drama was fun!).

Opaopajr,

Isn't that the 3.x method? (Except Stabilize is 10%)

Quote from: Aglondir on August 07, 2023, 11:59:10 PM
Opaopajr,

Isn't that the 3.x method? (Except Stabilize is 10%)

"Hovering on Death's Door" optional rule is from AD&D 1e & 2e DMG, IIRC. Yes, just sourced AD&D 2e DMG, it's on p. 105 under Character Death section. So at least from there.

It also wipes spells from memory. Cure only gets you to 1 HP and you can barely function. Heal can get you more HP, and allows you "full vitality & wits" (but again spells memorized are lost). That's a powerful cost to casters!

It sounds like 3e carried it over.  :) It was a pretty popular optional rule.

Maybe it is time to just address the elephant in the room and break the hard news. IT'S A GAME!!!  Do you cry and throw a pity party when your bishop gets taken in chess? Back when I first started with Holmes and B/X we sometimes wouldn't even name a character until 2nd level. Backgrounds were something that developed during play if your character survived. We were just kids, and watched as our characters were hacked, mangled, and eaten by gelatinous cubes. We laughed and rolled up another character. We didn't bother with backgrounds before play. Every character was just a nobody until a name and reputation were established through actual play. Then the backstory meant something because it was something the group could relate to. No one wanted to hear about a character's sob story about why they ended up as a nobody adventurer, and we certainly didn't have time to listen to someone drone on and on about their fantastic and unbelievable exploits that they did before becoming a nobody first level character, like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoO2eI9IioE&list=PLSMETuURtTXBIBTJzA7p9v_2RO_O2BXIs&index=3

So the facts of D&D are:

Adventuring is a full contact sport

You are nothing special until proven to be

Be proud should you attain fame & fortune. Many try but few succeed. You will more than likely be dead at the bottom of a pit before that ever happens.

Character death is common. Get over it. It's frikkin game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 08, 2023, 08:51:44 AM
Maybe it is time to just address the elephant in the room and break the hard news. IT'S A GAME!!!  Do you cry and throw a pity party when your bishop gets taken in chess? Back when I first started with Holmes and B/X we sometimes wouldn't even name a character until 2nd level.

It is the last couple generations.  Snowflakes.  Jr. H.S. dodge-ball is considered by them to be as bad as real military, life & death combat.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 08, 2023, 08:51:44 AM
No one wanted to hear about a character's sob story about why they ended up as a nobody adventurer...

So true. At most, one sentence is needed. "I used to be a baroness, but now I kill rats in a gross cellar."

Quote from: Scooter on August 08, 2023, 09:31:09 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 08, 2023, 08:51:44 AM
Maybe it is time to just address the elephant in the room and break the hard news. IT'S A GAME!!!  Do you cry and throw a pity party when your bishop gets taken in chess? Back when I first started with Holmes and B/X we sometimes wouldn't even name a character until 2nd level.

It is the last couple generations.  Snowflakes.  Jr. H.S. dodge-ball is considered by them to be as bad as real military, life & death combat.

Well, every part of society and media is telling kids that the most important things about them are what color they are, what sex they are, and that personal effort can't overcome the effects of these things (making everyone but white males victims).  Why would you expect them to come to your game looking to achieve anything by personal effort?  They are defined by their backstory in real life, why would a game be any different?

Quote from: Theory of Games on August 07, 2023, 09:38:06 PMOR maaayyyybe you shouldn't play games you don't like then come here to post one's feckless idiotic complaints about a situation a child could avoid?

That and porn are the only two things the internet is really good for.

Quote from: Theory of Games on August 07, 2023, 09:38:06 PMMaybe you could find some friends via the internet that like playing games you like? I did decades ago  ;D ;D ;D

Nah. I'm not a cave-dwelling troll, I don't seek out "friends" based on what RPGs they play, I play what RPGs my friends want to play. The friends and the playing are the important part.

Besides, it's easier to just play what you want, how you want, and tell anyone who says you're playing it wrong to go fuck themselves with a copy of the Talislanta Big Blue Book. More fun, too.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 08, 2023, 10:37:33 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 08, 2023, 09:31:09 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 08, 2023, 08:51:44 AM
Maybe it is time to just address the elephant in the room and break the hard news. IT'S A GAME!!!  Do you cry and throw a pity party when your bishop gets taken in chess? Back when I first started with Holmes and B/X we sometimes wouldn't even name a character until 2nd level.

It is the last couple generations.  Snowflakes.  Jr. H.S. dodge-ball is considered by them to be as bad as real military, life & death combat.

Well, every part of society and media is telling kids that the most important things about them are what color they are, what sex they are, and that personal effort can't overcome the effects of these things (making everyone but white males victims).  Why would you expect them to come to your game looking to achieve anything by personal effort?  They are defined by their backstory in real life, why would a game be any different?

I try to avoid gaming with snowflakes. Those that make it to my table check their snowflake attitude at the door or don't stay long. Metaphorically beating that attitude out of youngsters is something I see as a public service.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 08, 2023, 10:37:33 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 08, 2023, 09:31:09 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 08, 2023, 08:51:44 AM
Maybe it is time to just address the elephant in the room and break the hard news. IT'S A GAME!!!  Do you cry and throw a pity party when your bishop gets taken in chess? Back when I first started with Holmes and B/X we sometimes wouldn't even name a character until 2nd level.

It is the last couple generations.  Snowflakes.  Jr. H.S. dodge-ball is considered by them to be as bad as real military, life & death combat.

Well, every part of society and media is telling kids that the most important things about them are what color they are, what sex they are, and that personal effort can't overcome the effects of these things (making everyone but white males victims).  Why would you expect them to come to your game looking to achieve anything by personal effort?  They are defined by their backstory in real life, why would a game be any different?

I know.  Stupid me for expecting anything else

Quote from: Opaopajr on August 08, 2023, 03:19:20 AM

Quote from: Aglondir on August 07, 2023, 11:59:10 PM
Opaopajr,

Isn't that the 3.x method? (Except Stabilize is 10%)

"Hovering on Death's Door" optional rule is from AD&D 1e & 2e DMG, IIRC. Yes, just sourced AD&D 2e DMG, it's on p. 105 under Character Death section. So at least from there.

It also wipes spells from memory. Cure only gets you to 1 HP and you can barely function. Heal can get you more HP, and allows you "full vitality & wits" (but again spells memorized are lost). That's a powerful cost to casters!

It sounds like 3e carried it over.  :) It was a pretty popular optional rule.

Correct. But 3E got rid of the "lose spells" rule:

Quote from: 3E SRDA spellcaster retains the spellcasting capability she had before dropping below 0 hit points.

I always ask my players to keep their PC's backgrounds as simple as possible.

Just a few lines telling me where the PC comes from (city, town, etc.), how did he became an adventurer (former mercenary soldier, former member of a small thieves guild), if he has any family. The player can also add one or two simple goals - and that's it.

I don't like complex, pages-long backgrounds for many reasons: your PC can die at a moment's notice and an elaborate background won't give him plot armor; I don't have neither the time nor the interest to read a detailed and long background; and, more importantly, I prefer to develop that aspect of a PC during the course of the campaign.

Quote from: Greywolf76 on August 12, 2023, 05:32:39 PM
I always ask my players to keep their PC's backgrounds as simple as possible.

Just a few lines telling me where the PC comes from (city, town, etc.), how did he became an adventurer (former mercenary soldier, former member of a small thieves guild), if he has any family. The player can also add one or two simple goals - and that's it.

I don't like complex, pages-long backgrounds for many reasons: your PC can die at a moment's notice and an elaborate background won't give him plot armor; I don't have neither the time nor the interest to read a detailed and long background; and, more importantly, I prefer to develop that aspect of a PC during the course of the campaign.

It isn't just death. I was into writing long backgrounds long ago when I was younger and had the time. A buddy was running a GURPS knights campaign and I wrote an 11 page backstory for my knight. The GM lost interest in the campaign and stopped running it after two sessions. It was at that point that I decided no more backstory beyond a line or two.

Quote from: Tod13 on August 04, 2023, 06:30:05 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 04, 2023, 05:34:48 PM

Quote from: Shaldlay on August 02, 2023, 05:03:08 PM
I've always considered lethality a crucial part of D&D. I consider it so important that I find games that don't risk character death nearly unplayable. What good is "winning" a game if there is no way that I can "lose"? I would think it's very safe to assume that this sort of thought process is shared in this community and in much of the OSR, which makes this contradiction I've come across all that more confusing.

Many OSR/ OSR-adjacent games feature a "background" feature, either Lion and Dragon's Background Events Tables or Deathbringer's Random Misery Table. I actually really like this idea, as I like the characters to be more than just "hero man" and "magic girl," yet, it seems incompatible with the notion of having a deadlier game. If you have a deadlier game, but the characters have backgrounds that the players get attached to, then it can really cause a schism when that character dies and can result in apathy and resentment, something that I very much would want to avoid.

You've never played Traveller?  Your PC has 10, 20, 30 years of background before you even get to play it.

Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!

I'm hoping that you are being flippant here, because death during character generation in Traveller has been optional since 1981. The only version in which death was the only result of a failed survival roll was the 1977 first edition of Traveller.

Now, Traveller works with having detailed backgrounds for characters and a lethal combat system because the core assumption is that combat should be avoided when possible. The same thing applies to Cyberpunk with its Lifepath and high lethality combat. The threat of violence is typically sufficient for most encounters.

Detailed backgrounds and lethal combat does not work for OSR games because the characters are expected to enter combat often - usually in a dungeon. Then again, most players back in the day or in current OSR games I've seen have a backup character ready, if not several. High lethality when entering a dungeon is not only expected, but planned for in the OSR gaming I've seen. A detailed character background was usually saved for when the character has advanced a few levels and proven their survivability.

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 11:08:57 AM

Quote from: Tod13 on August 04, 2023, 06:30:05 PM

Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!

I'm hoping that you are being flippant here, because death during character generation in Traveller has been optional since 1981. The only version in which death was the only result of a failed survival roll was the 1977 first edition of Traveller.

Why are you hoping that?  It is true that, "Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!"

Quote from: Scooter on August 13, 2023, 11:26:10 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 11:08:57 AM

Quote from: Tod13 on August 04, 2023, 06:30:05 PM

Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!

I'm hoping that you are being flippant here, because death during character generation in Traveller has been optional since 1981. The only version in which death was the only result of a failed survival roll was the 1977 first edition of Traveller.

Why are you hoping that?  It is true that, "Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!"

I'm hoping that because it is such a joke trope for Traveller players that Marc Miller's company Far Future Enterprises has sold t-shirts emblazoned with, "I Died In Character Generation" on them.

EDIT: There are several common misconceptions about Traveller. "Computers are huge multi-ton machines", is another one that hinges upon how a displacement ton is a tool for deckplan making and not necessarily mass (a displacement ton is equal to the volume consumed by a mass ton of liquid hydrogen or 13.5 cubic meters). "Traveller is stuck in 1970s technology and science", shows that the person saying that hasn't watched how the game has evolved with advances in science and technology (just compare the equipment available in Classic Traveller to Mongoose Traveller).

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 13, 2023, 11:26:10 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 11:08:57 AM

Quote from: Tod13 on August 04, 2023, 06:30:05 PM

Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!

I'm hoping that you are being flippant here, because death during character generation in Traveller has been optional since 1981. The only version in which death was the only result of a failed survival roll was the 1977 first edition of Traveller.

Why are you hoping that?  It is true that, "Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!"

I'm hoping that because it is such a joke trope for Traveller players that Marc Miller's company Far Future Enterprises has sold t-shirts emblazoned with, "I Died In Character Generation" on them.

You make no sense

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM"Traveller is stuck in 1970s technology and science", shows that the person saying that hasn't watched how the game has evolved with advances in science and technology (just compare the equipment available in Classic Traveller to Mongoose Traveller).

Why would it being a retro-tech future be a bad thing, and why would changing it to suit the modern mores be a plus? I love concepts where parts of technology advance while others remain backward (look at the Chinese empire and optics for example), and have a real fond spot for spaceships with big computer banks covered in blinking lights.

Hell, the retro-futurism of Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun 1st-3rd is beautiful, I have no time at all for the modern iterations that just look like our world but a bit more advanced.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 06:00:51 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM"Traveller is stuck in 1970s technology and science", shows that the person saying that hasn't watched how the game has evolved with advances in science and technology (just compare the equipment available in Classic Traveller to Mongoose Traveller).

Why would it being a retro-tech future be a bad thing, and why would changing it to suit the modern mores be a plus? I love concepts where parts of technology advance while others remain backward (look at the Chinese empire and optics for example), and have a real fond spot for spaceships with big computer banks covered in blinking lights.

Hell, the retro-futurism of Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun 1st-3rd is beautiful, I have no time at all for the modern iterations that just look like our world but a bit more advanced.

As I suggested in another thread: zero-G, thrust, microgravity, jump hardened computers might just be bulkier and slower than other computers. That's true today.

Quote from: Scooter on August 13, 2023, 03:28:37 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 13, 2023, 11:26:10 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 11:08:57 AM

Quote from: Tod13 on August 04, 2023, 06:30:05 PM

Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!

I'm hoping that you are being flippant here, because death during character generation in Traveller has been optional since 1981. The only version in which death was the only result of a failed survival roll was the 1977 first edition of Traveller.

Why are you hoping that?  It is true that, "Depending on the version, you can die in chargen!"

I'm hoping that because it is such a joke trope for Traveller players that Marc Miller's company Far Future Enterprises has sold t-shirts emblazoned with, "I Died In Character Generation" on them.

You make no sense

It makes no sense that I and others find a misconception about a game that hasn't been true in the last 42 years of a game's 46 year history to be tiresome and annoying?

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 06:00:51 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM"Traveller is stuck in 1970s technology and science", shows that the person saying that hasn't watched how the game has evolved with advances in science and technology (just compare the equipment available in Classic Traveller to Mongoose Traveller).

Why would it being a retro-tech future be a bad thing, and why would changing it to suit the modern mores be a plus? I love concepts where parts of technology advance while others remain backward (look at the Chinese empire and optics for example), and have a real fond spot for spaceships with big computer banks covered in blinking lights.

Hell, the retro-futurism of Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun 1st-3rd is beautiful, I have no time at all for the modern iterations that just look like our world but a bit more advanced.

If retrotech floats your boat, great. Just don't assume that your preferences match everybody else's or make sense in creating an immersive environment for medium-hard science fiction.

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 07:47:18 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 06:00:51 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM"Traveller is stuck in 1970s technology and science", shows that the person saying that hasn't watched how the game has evolved with advances in science and technology (just compare the equipment available in Classic Traveller to Mongoose Traveller).

Why would it being a retro-tech future be a bad thing, and why would changing it to suit the modern mores be a plus? I love concepts where parts of technology advance while others remain backward (look at the Chinese empire and optics for example), and have a real fond spot for spaceships with big computer banks covered in blinking lights.

Hell, the retro-futurism of Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun 1st-3rd is beautiful, I have no time at all for the modern iterations that just look like our world but a bit more advanced.

If retrotech floats your boat, great. Just don't assume that your preferences match everybody else's or make sense in creating an immersive environment for medium-hard science fiction.

That's fine, but then the fandom will tend to split by editions. Much like the OSR vs Modern split in D&D.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 08:18:11 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 07:47:18 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 06:00:51 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM"Traveller is stuck in 1970s technology and science", shows that the person saying that hasn't watched how the game has evolved with advances in science and technology (just compare the equipment available in Classic Traveller to Mongoose Traveller).

Why would it being a retro-tech future be a bad thing, and why would changing it to suit the modern mores be a plus? I love concepts where parts of technology advance while others remain backward (look at the Chinese empire and optics for example), and have a real fond spot for spaceships with big computer banks covered in blinking lights.

Hell, the retro-futurism of Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun 1st-3rd is beautiful, I have no time at all for the modern iterations that just look like our world but a bit more advanced.

If retrotech floats your boat, great. Just don't assume that your preferences match everybody else's or make sense in creating an immersive environment for medium-hard science fiction.

That's fine, but then the fandom will tend to split by editions. Much like the OSR vs Modern split in D&D.

The fandom ALWAYS splits by edition!

Now, are you trying to assign some kind of substance to that in order to support your subjective opinion?

The fact is, that there are hard core fan boys that will scream that this edition or that is better.  I have never played any edition RAW and always as either a GM or a player end up with a good chunk of alternate rules or house rules being thrown in.  Many times, the GM will blend editions as well. 

Also, since it so easy to do, much of the written stats for equipment either get reskinned or rewritten for what ever level of tech the GM wants.  T1 - T5, Mongoose Traveller 1 &2, and Cepheus Engine are so similar to each other that a lot of material written for one will work with another.  (there are exceptions)

I have never used the official setting either and I'm baffled by anyone that would judge Traveller by the tech or setting as that's the easiest parts to change.

Quote from: BadApple on August 14, 2023, 11:39:37 AM
Also, since it so easy to do, much of the written stats for equipment either get reskinned or rewritten for what ever level of tech the GM wants.  T1 - T5, Mongoose Traveller 1 &2, and Cepheus Engine are so similar to each other that a lot of material written for one will work with another.  (there are exceptions)

I have never used the official setting either and I'm baffled by anyone that would judge Traveller by the tech or setting as that's the easiest parts to change.

The Cepheus designer said they purposely built it so that one could use much of T1 adventures and supplements  with the game.  So true about setting.  I've always (except maybe my first handful of times) used my own setting for Trav.  Takes only a few minutes to create entire sectors and then tweak them for your own setting.

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 14, 2023, 07:24:08 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 08:18:11 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 07:47:18 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 06:00:51 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM"Traveller is stuck in 1970s technology and science", shows that the person saying that hasn't watched how the game has evolved with advances in science and technology (just compare the equipment available in Classic Traveller to Mongoose Traveller).

Why would it being a retro-tech future be a bad thing, and why would changing it to suit the modern mores be a plus? I love concepts where parts of technology advance while others remain backward (look at the Chinese empire and optics for example), and have a real fond spot for spaceships with big computer banks covered in blinking lights.

Hell, the retro-futurism of Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun 1st-3rd is beautiful, I have no time at all for the modern iterations that just look like our world but a bit more advanced.

If retrotech floats your boat, great. Just don't assume that your preferences match everybody else's or make sense in creating an immersive environment for medium-hard science fiction.

That's fine, but then the fandom will tend to split by editions. Much like the OSR vs Modern split in D&D.

The fandom ALWAYS splits by edition!

Now, are you trying to assign some kind of substance to that in order to support your subjective opinion?

Yes, the fanbase will always split a little by edition because rule mechanics shift. What I mean is, making substantial changes to the look and feel of the universe REALLY splits fandoms. It's the difference between "I prefer 2nd ed, but any ed is fine" (Most CoC fans) and "I don't play anything after 2nd, because it doesn't feel like the same game" (lots of D&D fans.)

Quote from: Shaldlay on August 02, 2023, 05:03:08 PM
I've always considered lethality a crucial part of D&D. I consider it so important that I find games that don't risk character death nearly unplayable. What good is "winning" a game if there is no way that I can "lose"? I would think it's very safe to assume that this sort of thought process is shared in this community and in much of the OSR, which makes this contradiction I've come across all that more confusing.

Many OSR/ OSR-adjacent games feature a "background" feature, either Lion and Dragon's Background Events Tables or Deathbringer's Random Misery Table. I actually really like this idea, as I like the characters to be more than just "hero man" and "magic girl," yet, it seems incompatible with the notion of having a deadlier game. If you have a deadlier game, but the characters have backgrounds that the players get attached to, then it can really cause a schism when that character dies and can result in apathy and resentment, something that I very much would want to avoid.

For example, if Joe the Fighter dies from a random stray arrow from a failed search for traps roll, no big deal; Tim the Fighter can replace him. But if Joe, the champion blacksmith of Nottingdale, older brother to Celia, the party Cleric, Son of Peter, and Qwen, Brother of 6, and father of young Andrew (who he is adventuring to gain money to help raise), dies because the thief fucked up a roll, that can cause Joe's player to have a bitter taste in his mouth, and likely not care nearly as much when Tim the brother of Joe shows up. I was being a bit hyperbolic with the background of Joe, but the idea is still there. By having more to them, the character and player become more attached, and death becomes much more bitter between the DM and players and can lead to players just not caring anymore.

Am I missing a key ingredient in how this needs to be balanced? Am I just stupid and worrying too much? How do y'all go about this? Any advice would be appreciated.

I want the fear of death to be present and the understanding that it can come for you at any time, but I also don't want it just to become a board game of rotating characters. I've thought of having a negative HP system, where you have an amount equal to your Con, and every round after the first, you lose 1d4 HP, but I don't know how well that would work.

I consider this a feature, not a bug. You care about the character and it makes death hurt. Shouldn't death be important and painful? If you don't really care it's no different than hitting the reset button on a video game.

Even in a game with no backgrounds, you will get attached to your long-lived characters by the sheer amount of experiences you have attached to them.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 03:27:26 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 14, 2023, 07:24:08 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 08:18:11 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 07:47:18 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 06:00:51 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM"Traveller is stuck in 1970s technology and science", shows that the person saying that hasn't watched how the game has evolved with advances in science and technology (just compare the equipment available in Classic Traveller to Mongoose Traveller).

Why would it being a retro-tech future be a bad thing, and why would changing it to suit the modern mores be a plus? I love concepts where parts of technology advance while others remain backward (look at the Chinese empire and optics for example), and have a real fond spot for spaceships with big computer banks covered in blinking lights.

Hell, the retro-futurism of Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun 1st-3rd is beautiful, I have no time at all for the modern iterations that just look like our world but a bit more advanced.

If retrotech floats your boat, great. Just don't assume that your preferences match everybody else's or make sense in creating an immersive environment for medium-hard science fiction.

That's fine, but then the fandom will tend to split by editions. Much like the OSR vs Modern split in D&D.

The fandom ALWAYS splits by edition!

Now, are you trying to assign some kind of substance to that in order to support your subjective opinion?

Yes, the fanbase will always split a little by edition because rule mechanics shift. What I mean is, making substantial changes to the look and feel of the universe REALLY splits fandoms. It's the difference between "I prefer 2nd ed, but any ed is fine" (Most CoC fans) and "I don't play anything after 2nd, because it doesn't feel like the same game" (lots of D&D fans.)

Which is why the current most popular versions of Traveller are Classic Traveller, Mongoose Traveller (1 & 2), and Cepheus Engine with T5 as the Grand Unified Traveller according to Marc Miller. You rarely hear about Megatraveller, The New Era, T4, d20 Traveller, GURPS Traveller, or Hero Traveller. The top spots are those mentioned above because they are the easiest to transfer things around from one to the other due to the fact that the rules are very similar to each other, which is what is most important.

Your preference for retrotech is not a rule, but an aesthetic style. The mark of how you play and run your own Traveller games. Retrotech isn't baked in to the setting or the rules. The look and feel of the Official Traveller Universe is pretty much the same as it has always been since its inception.

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 14, 2023, 08:48:25 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 14, 2023, 03:27:26 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 14, 2023, 07:24:08 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 08:18:11 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 07:47:18 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 13, 2023, 06:00:51 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 13, 2023, 01:56:29 PM"Traveller is stuck in 1970s technology and science", shows that the person saying that hasn't watched how the game has evolved with advances in science and technology (just compare the equipment available in Classic Traveller to Mongoose Traveller).

Why would it being a retro-tech future be a bad thing, and why would changing it to suit the modern mores be a plus? I love concepts where parts of technology advance while others remain backward (look at the Chinese empire and optics for example), and have a real fond spot for spaceships with big computer banks covered in blinking lights.

Hell, the retro-futurism of Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun 1st-3rd is beautiful, I have no time at all for the modern iterations that just look like our world but a bit more advanced.

If retrotech floats your boat, great. Just don't assume that your preferences match everybody else's or make sense in creating an immersive environment for medium-hard science fiction.

That's fine, but then the fandom will tend to split by editions. Much like the OSR vs Modern split in D&D.

The fandom ALWAYS splits by edition!

Now, are you trying to assign some kind of substance to that in order to support your subjective opinion?

Yes, the fanbase will always split a little by edition because rule mechanics shift. What I mean is, making substantial changes to the look and feel of the universe REALLY splits fandoms. It's the difference between "I prefer 2nd ed, but any ed is fine" (Most CoC fans) and "I don't play anything after 2nd, because it doesn't feel like the same game" (lots of D&D fans.)

Which is why the current most popular versions of Traveller are Classic Traveller, Mongoose Traveller (1 & 2), and Cepheus Engine with T5 as the Grand Unified Traveller according to Marc Miller. You rarely hear about Megatraveller, The New Era, T4, d20 Traveller, GURPS Traveller, or Hero Traveller. The top spots are those mentioned above because they are the easiest to transfer things around from one to the other due to the fact that the rules are very similar to each other, which is what is most important.

Your preference for retrotech is not a rule, but an aesthetic style. The mark of how you play and run your own Traveller games. Retrotech isn't baked in to the setting or the rules. The look and feel of the Official Traveller Universe is pretty much the same as it has always been since its inception.

To be clear, my original comment wasn't arguing that Traveller SHOULD be stuck in its original form (like a fly in amber) but rather that I see no problem personally with a hard-science setting where technology didn't follow the same path as our own world. So for instance the physics can be realistic, but maybe the ship computers (while powerful) fill a room.

It was me musing on a tendency with RPG's setting in the future (or what was the future) feeling the need to always modernize. Shadowrun going from "data can't be protected if hooked to networks, so secure servers have to be physically hacked" to "everything is wireless in current day, so it'll look weird not to have everything be wireless."