JohnRTroy said:
Yes, but a few things have changed that might encourage the change in viewpoint.
1) Games are a little more story based nowadays. I think players are a little more attached to their characters nowadays, thinking of their favorite novels and such, so permanent death is a little less palatable.
I disagree that PC death's have become less palatable. I think it depends on the player. I remember crying when my first character got killed (when I was 11), and laughing about the good war story last time I lost one as part of a TPK.
I think the game works best when a PC's death matters, and it can happen.
Paintball was a lot more fun the first time we played, but after we realized being shot didn't really hurt, we didn't play it the same way, so it was lame . . . risk is fun . . . lack of risk is boring.
JohnRTroy said:
2) Today's gamers have a lot of choices. The games that compete with the RPG are the computer games, such as CRPGs, MMORPGs, MUDs, etc. In those games, multiplayer games ressurection is automatic, while a single reload can take care of death. So, please tell a player growing up with those options that you want "Safety Protocols Off".
Wouldn't choice imply having different games make different choices? Auto-respawn is a choice. Death with consequences is another.
I only play with my friends. I don't kill my friends' characters for "fun", but I want them to know the dice fall where they may because, like ABC Sports motto went: "The thrill of victory, the agony of defeat". Without losing, there's no winning.
The real fun of the game is when you can say: "Wow, that was close. We almost got slaughtered, but we did it, and everybody's OK." It's a fine line in DMing to get that Indiana Jones grabbing his hat under the crushing stone door thrill, without crushing too many archeologists . . . very tough to do without fudging dice rolls, but I'm trying to run a "clean" no safety protocol campaign now.
I guess that's the real generational difference. Me and my friends grew up before the era of "everybody gets a trophy for playing". No risk feels like no achievements to me.
JohnRTroy said:
3) The Wizard staff that absorbed TSR is more "gamist" than the original game writers. They see things in probabilities, stat analysis, and measure things precisely. That's probably why they encourage player and DMs to be more or less on equal footing, since a "bad" DM could turn off 4-6 times his number off of the game. I guess they're mostly concerned with tournaments and other rules.
I'm not agreeing with everything the gang at Wizards say. I actually agree that sometimes death can be intriguing. However, I also would suggest DMs recognize what influences the younger generations and appeal to them as well. We need more people to survive, and that might mean changing some of the ways we develop our games and run our games.
I guess so.
BTW, I'm not saying death is fun . . . I'm saying the death is unpleasant, and that risk makes adventuring exciting. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Who dares wins. It's much safer to do it in an RPG than to actually race motorcycles or whatever.
I think the best way for gaming to survive is to keep it exciting and fun . . . winning is good, but winning when you think you survived by the skin of your teeth but triumphed through superior cunning, luck, and teamwork with your friends, that's golden. Most of us geeks don't get to triumph at team sports too often.
