Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5195132" data-attributes="member: 3887">Is dying so bad? No. But I prefer campaigns death-lite. So long as my characters can fail --that is to say, the campaign is still a game and victory/loss conditions exist-- I'm happy taking PC death off the table.I like games that resemble literary picaresques, or genre television shows. The cast of characters bounce from adventure to adventure, winning some, losing others, but (relatively) safe in the fact their adventures will continue until the last page, or cancellation.Whedon's Firefly might be the best example of my ideal campaign. Mal and Co. certainly lose, but they always live to lose another day. Well, until they were canceled.The main thing I get from gaming is creating and performing amusing characters. I dig making personalities. But I only have a finite number of interesting characters knocking around my head. Especially ones proven to click with the rest of my group.So the only consequence of PC death for me is scraping the personality I enjoy playing and making another one, but not the same personality, because that would be weird and damage campaign verisimilitude'. This hoop-jumping seems a tad silly to me. Ergo, my group moved towards using loss conditions other than permanent PC death. Making a character in mechanical terms is easy. Making a personality I want to perform for a few month, or years, is not. This is why the old-school 'bring 5 replacement PC's to each session' paradigm doesn't work for me.That said, my current campaign is following a self-destructive trajectory as the PC's edge close to fomenting a ecclesiastical/Communist revolution against their city's elite, which they'll almost certainly lose. The smart money is on my PC ending up on a cross. Which would be perfect... and perfectly fine by me because it would also mean the end of the campaign in suitably grand and batty style.</blockquote>

Verification