Quote from: blakkieJohn Morrow, you give an excellent argument for why player character death is not a requirement. As long as a character you give a damn about could die.  Of course death is simply a subset of things to give a damn about.

I have played games where a character can't die.   It was Teenagers from Outer space and of course characters can't die.   But it was a great deal of fun.

I care about fun, that's what comes first for me.   I don't care if it's a game where I can die or not die, having fun is my #1 Priority.

I always found the treat of permanent player death fairly irrelevant in most fantasy RPG's due to the prevalence of healing magic and resurrection magic. Having said that, I think in a tabletop RPG that the threat of death for my character adds a lot of interest in how a combat will turn out or even how a trappy maze of death ends out.

Do I kill my players often when GM'ing my games? Not usually, as others have stated, it would ruin continuity, story and sometimes the fun if they died a mindless death from a failed check. I have, however, 'rewarded' consistently dense player decisions with it from time to time.

Alternatively, for my characters playing in an MMORPG, permanent death would be a real pisser, only because I pay a monthly fee and it is absurdly tedious (for me) to grind up through levels if I had to start a new character, also in a world where getting ganked in PVP (by some dude who has no more time to spare (*ahem* no life) than me) is a real possibility, final death would mean very few new players to your game..

Since I don't have to pay a monthly fee (yet) to play a tabletop RPG, and to make a powerful high level character all I have to really do is write the numbers down on the character sheet, final death in a roleplaying game doesn't worry me at all.

My personal opinion is that I think that by removing the possibility of death from a game mechanic all it does is remove some of the excitement of beating a dangerous situation. This isn't true for every game in every situation, but for the gritty fantasy RPG's I prefer to play, yes the threat of character death makes it more interesting for me.

My most memorable gaming memory comes from a lead up fight to the climax of the campaign. My character died for the greater good of the party in a truly heroic kinda way. It was cinematic, it was glorious and it involved me failing my last skill check. His death eventually led to the success of the final fight, so my characters death wasn't in vain.

Why would anyone play a game that doesn't have steamtech?

Why would anyone play a game with furries?

Why would anyone play a game with a picture of a dude on the cover?

Why would anyone play a game with rules for cattle rustling?

Why would anyone play a game without rules for arm wrestling?

Why would anyone play a game with dwarves in it?

Why would anyone play a game without elves in it?

Why would anyone play a game on a weekday night?

Why would anyone play a game without Mountain Dew on hand?

It just boggles the mind...

Seanchai

QuoteWhy would anyone want to play a game where there's no risk of death?

TOON...

Like some others have said -- some genres like Superheroes work better when character death isn't part of the game.

That's not the same thing as failure.

The question should be:

Why would anyone want to play a game where there's no risk of failure?*

* Because then there's no chance for real success either.

Quote from: blakkieJohn Morrow, you give an excellent argument for why player character death is not a requirement. As long as a character you give a damn about could die.  Of course death is simply a subset of things to give a damn about.

While I'm not a huge fan of player character death, I don't like it being off the table, either.  And in two of the PC deaths in my D&D 3.5 campaign, the players chose not to have their characters come back when a Raise Dead was cast on their corpses.

I dunno, man, whyn'cha ask Warren Spector?


EDIT:  Dang!  Scooped by jedimastert!  S'what I get for watching Stargate SG-1: Ark Of Truth while the rest of you were posting.

Oh, and BECAUSE YOU CAN RUSTLE CATTLE, DUH!!

Quote from: John MorrowGRANDFATHER

(off-screen)

She doesn't get eaten by the Eels at this time.

And the second we hear him:


THE SICK KID'S ROOM

The Kid looks the same, pale and weak, but maybe he's gripping the
sheets a little too tightly with his hands.

THE KID

What?

GRANDFATHER

The Eel doesn't get her. I'm explaining to you because you looked
nervous.

THE KID

Well, I wasn't nervous.

His Grandfather says nothing, just waits.

THE KID

Well, maybe I was a little bit concerned. But that's not the same
thing.

GRANDFATHER

Because I can stop now if you want.

THE KID

No. You could read a little bit more ... if you want.

(He grips the sheets again, as the Grandfather picks up the book)

THE KID
-- wait -- what did FEZZIK mean, "He's dead?" I mean he didn't mean dead.

(The Grandfather says nothing, just sits there)
Westley's only faking, right?

GRANDFATHER
You want me to read this or not?

CUT TO:
THE KID: CLOSE UP

THE KID
Who gets Humperdinck?

GRANDFATHER
I don't understand.

THE KID
Who kills Prince Humperdinck? At the end, somebody's got to do it. Is it Inigo? Who?

GRANDFATHER
Nobody. Nobody kills him. He lives.

THE KID
You mean he wins? Jesus, Grandpa! What did you read me this thing for?

Which is why the kid should play rpgs because:

MIRACLE MAX
Look who knows so much. Well, it just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Please open his mouth.

Inigo does. Max inserts the bellows in Westley's mouth and starts to pump.

MIRACLE MAX
Now, mostly dead is slightly alive. Now, all dead...well, with all dead, there's usually only one thing that you can do.

MIRACLE MAX
Now, mostly dead is slightly alive. Now, all dead...well, with all dead, there's usually only one thing that you can do.

INIGO
What's that?

He stops pumping.

MIRACLE MAX
Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

In other words, if it's dead, take it's stuff.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RJesus, Grandpa! What did you read me this thing for?

Probably my favorite line in the whole movie, demonstrating the expectations that people have for stories.

Westley's death and subsequent resurrection just shows that death is only death when the GM decides it is.

Completely pointless, I thought. Just a set-up for Billy Crystal's routine.

Quote from: telliusI always found the treat of permanent player death fairly irrelevant in most fantasy RPG's due to the prevalence of healing magic and resurrection magic.

The two RPGs that I run regularly take more or less completely opposite stances when it comes to avoiding PC deaths: Praedor is a gritty sword-and-sorcery game in which any skirmish may prove lethal, healing is always hard to come by and resurrection simply isn't known to exist outside religious beliefs, whereas in Nobilis not only are all significant characters incredibly difficult to injure in the first place but after a Noble's death someone else will then inherit his Estates, allowing the player to immediately take over that next heir in the dynasty. Still, I'll have to say that when it comes to consequences of failure (as opposed to the likes of heroic sacrifices), character death is one of the dullest and least interesting alternatives out there, if only because that has a good chance of killing the game before its time. It really becomes inevitable only with the kind of a group that doesn't consider anything less a penalty at all or care about anything else except whether their characters live or die.

Quote from: jhkimPhrase it however you like, I'd like to see some evidence that PC-killing campaigns are somehow objectively superior to non-PC-killing campaigns.  i.e. What exactly makes your masturbation better than other peoples?  

In my experience, there is no correlation between how easily PCs are killed and either how (1) mature, and (2) challenging, the campaign is.  That is, there have been extremely challenging games where there wasn't a strong threat of death -- in particular, some Champions games come to mind, where there were very challenging strategic problems as well as tactical fights -- but we kept to the convention that PCs didn't die.  Conversely, there have been extremely immature, unchallenging games where PCs are regularly killed -- the players just got used to rolling up new characters.

Precisely. All roleplaying is masturbatory wish-fulfillment, just that the jollies come from different places. Some people get off on the whole "I got here through sweat, blood and tears" as though there's ever anything dangerous about playing make-believe with your friends.

Quote from: GrimGentThe two RPGs that I run regularly take more or less completely opposite stances when it comes to avoiding PC deaths: Praedor is a gritty sword-and-sorcery game in which any skirmish may prove lethal, healing is always hard to come by and resurrection simply isn't known to exist outside religious beliefs, whereas in Nobilis not only are all significant characters incredibly difficult to injure in the first place but after a Noble's death someone else will then inherit his Estates, allowing the player to immediately take over that next heir in the dynasty. Still, I'll have to say that when it comes to consequences of failure (as opposed to the likes of heroic sacrifices), character death is one of the dullest and least interesting alternatives out there, if only because that has a good chance of killing the game before its time. It really becomes inevitable only with the kind of a group that doesn't consider anything less a penalty at all or care about anything else except whether their characters live or die.

Never played Nobilis or Praedor, but I would suspect/hope that there are plenty of rpg's that have gritty death possibilities like these. I'll have to check them out .. thanks!

Quote from: telliusNever played Nobilis or Praedor, but I would suspect/hope that there are plenty of rpg's that have gritty death possibilities like these.

Well, Praedor is a Finnish game that's never been translated into other languages, so you wouldn't have heard of it. Its rules for crits and infections, along with an exploding d6 of damage that's added to every injury, make the system harsh on heroes; but personally I like to view, say, someone getting his left hand chewed off by a twisted beast an opportunity for new adventures about making a deal with the sorcerers for a new hand or scavenging the ruins of the ancient world for a prosthetic relic. Sometimes adventurers die quite unexpectedly, of course, but less fatal consequences can push the game into more entertaining directions.

Quote from: GrimGent. Sometimes adventurers die quite unexpectedly, of course, but less fatal consequences can push the game into more entertaining directions.

Then how are those 'more entertaining directions' failures? So I lose a hand and now go on a compelling adventure to recover the bejeweled Hand of Tuomivarnii to replace it. Sounds like fun.

If rescuing the princess is a win, but failing to rescue the princess also results in a cool, fun adventure, then I don't understand how there are 'other kinds of failure' in these games. It just sounds like the PC actions have all sorts of consquences, all of which are cool and fun.

So to those in the 'failures other than death' camp - are any of these failures un-fun to players? Do players try really, really hard to avoid them because they hate these failures?

If not, then I don't really see 'other kinds of failures' at all; I see games where there is no failure. Which is fine. But let's just be honest about it, and stop pretending that the cool, fun shit that happens when you fail to succeed is a failure in anything like the same sense as tearing up your PC sheet is a failure.