Universal RPG's not Universal?

[Dannyalcatraz]

In fact, there are systems in which it is literally impossible to kill someone directly in combat assuming normal character builds. So I don't think your statement is really true unless you're assuming direct GM fiat.

I haven't seen the system yet where a PC can't be pushed off of a cliff or the equivalent.

 

[Fenris]

Anyway, if I might ask a further question, does anyone know of a good rpg for primitive tribes? Stone age, low magic if possible?

DoM
Sounds like you should check out Grim Tales. It is a universal system that allows you to bolt on what you want. The base classes are based on the ability scores. So you get a Smart Hero as in d20 Modern rather than an Adept. But GT has rules for mutations, and cyberware and other good stuff as well as magic, but doesn't assume that you will you any of it.

And it will handle a primitive game very well.

 

[Ry]

The problem with this logic is that "full control" over lethality in some systems adds up to either avoiding combat altogether (to keep it low) or being ridiculously over the top (to make it possible). In fact, there are systems in which it is literally impossible to kill someone directly in combat assuming normal character builds. So I don't think your statement is really true unless you're assuming direct GM fiat.

There's another option, see the death flag in the Raising the Stakes file in my sig.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Anyway, if I might ask a further question, does anyone know of a good rpg for primitive tribes? Stone age, low magic if possible?

Iron Heroes would probably work.

3.5 D&D would work, especially if you modeled it after a DarkSun campaign (check out Athas.org and this thread- http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200844 )

HERO or Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS would work as well.

 

[buzz]

The only system I've ever seen in which the GMs doesn't have full control over a game's lethality...

Stacking the deck is a separate issue, not to mention one that potentially touches upon the GM leaving the ruleset behind, which doesn't speak to talking about lethality in the combat system.

In D&D, I know that, assuming my DM is using the CR system, I can throw my PC into just about any encounter and know that they are not likely to die from a single hit. Ergo, I'm encouraged to play my PC heroically. In something like Unknown Armies, the situation is generally the opposite, ergo, approaching a situation guns blazing will likely end my PC's career really fast.

And then there's the whole scope of RPGs where, assuming there even is a GM, it's simply not possible to stack the deck, nor is PC death even typically at stake.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Stacking the deck is a separate issue

I'm not talking about stacking the deck. I'm talking about combat in a dangerous environment and letting that environment actually affect the outcome of the game.

I've played a lot of campaigns in a lot of different systems. Occasionally, combat takes place in a hazardous environment- a cliffside, a foundry, on a ship in the middle of the ocean.

A guy without safety equipment or special powers goes off the side of a cliff? Dead.

A guy gets knocked into a smelter? Dead.

A guy in heavy armor who can't swim goes overboard? Dead.

That, BTW, goes for PCs as well as NPCs.

However, in any system, a GM can keep any of those events from being fatal by use of action points, reserved actions, HRs, or even by GM fiat.

And then there's the whole scope of RPGs where, assuming there even is a GM, it's simply not possible to stack the deck, nor is PC death even typically at stake.

You keep saying that...Proof? Examples?

 

[Thomas5251212]

I haven't seen the system yet where a PC can't be pushed off of a cliff or the equivalent.

I've seen several where that's no more or less dangerous than anything else in the system, and will not, in and of itself, cause death--in some cases, no matter the height. You seem to be operating on the idea that all systems have a default "this just kills you" option. Barring GM fiat, that's simply not true. I know of at least one special (though not obscure) case in a system I'm currently playing where a character cannot be killed by a single incident of damage at all barring fiat (the character will be left disabled, and person with a rock would be able to finish them off, but the single incident simply, flat out could not kill them within the system). There are many more where the dial would have to be turned way up to produce the result (by moderate levels in D&D itself, it requires a pretty ruddy big fall before most fighting types will expect to die; by high levels its almost impossible barring really excessive heights).

 

[buzz]

A guy without safety equipment or special powers goes off the side of a cliff? Dead.

A guy gets knocked into a smelter? Dead.

A guy in heavy armor who can't swim goes overboard? Dead.

I think just about everyone has seen the old saw about D&D hit points sucking because a high-level PC can survive a fall of a cliff, etc. I.e., there are systems where, played by the rules, these are the not all-or-nothing situations you're setting them up to be. And if the GM is flatly declaring that they are, well, the they're cheating, aren't they? Or, fiat-ing, at least.

However, in any system, a GM can keep any of those events from being fatal by use of action points, reserved actions, HRs, or even by GM fiat.

Unless the system lacks action points and similar, or limits or omits GM fiat.

You keep saying that...Proof? Examples?

Well, to be really obvious, one could pick something like Breaking the Ice, which, being about dating, never puts death on the table.

Or, you could point to Dogs in the Vineyard. The GM simply cannot waive their hand and kill a PC. If a conflict hasn't escalated to a point where death is on the table, death ain't gonna happen.

Or, maybe you're playing Sorcerer and Sword, and your PC has a Destiny to be king of Aquilonia or something. Your PC simply will never die permanently during play.

Then there's the GM-less Universalis, where death won't happen without consensus; or the GM-less Polaris, where death won't happen until the player thinks it'd be really cool for the scene.

And, I dunno, Toon? Can PCs even die in that game?

The list goes on. EDIT: Really, you cold point to any RPG that uses conflict resolution with stakes-setting (which also tend to remove the idea of GM fiat/Rile 0).

 

[jdrakeh]

A guy without safety equipment or special powers goes off the side of a cliff? Dead.

A guy gets knocked into a smelter? Dead.

A guy in heavy armor who can't swim goes overboard? Dead.

Not necessarily true in any system that uses escalating hit points or fails to include realistic rules for encumbrance. Which many systems do and don't, respectively.

However, in any system, a GM can keep any of those events from being fatal by use of action points, reserved actions, HRs, or even by GM fiat.

Fiat is deviation from the rules, not adherance to. And if a system doesn't include rules for action points (etc) by design, introducing such rules also marks a deviation from the RAW.

You keep saying that...Proof? Examples?

Yeah. I wondered about that, too. I cannot think of a single RPG that makes exercising GM fiat or introducing house rules impossible.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think just about everyone has seen the old saw about D&D hit points sucking because a high-level PC can survive a fall of a cliff, etc. I.e., there are systems where, played by the rules, these are the not all-or-nothing situations you're setting them up to be.

and

Not necessarily true in any system that uses escalating hit points or fails to include realistic rules for encumbrance. Which many systems do and don't, respectively.

A lot of people, myself included, dog Kevin Sembieda's mechanics for RIFTS. Like many other games of its era and since, it uses an escalating hit point system.

However, Mr. Sembieda went on record in his own publications as saying that, regardless of HP, if you have your PC do something suicidally stupid like put a blaster rifle's muzzle in his mouth and pull the trigger (assuming the PC can take damage from that blaster, of course), your PC is dead.

His rationale: an escalating HP system is an abstraction of how proficient a PC is at avoiding damage. If the PC chooses not to avoid the damage, he takes the realistic results of his actions.

On that point, he and I agree totally, and I run my games accordingly.

Unless the system lacks action points and similar, or limits or omits GM fiat.

and

Fiat is deviation from the rules, not adherance to. And if a system doesn't include rules for action points (etc) by design, introducing such rules also marks a deviation from the RAW.

Fiat isn't neccessarily a deviation from the rules- remember Rule Zero?

A GM's responsibility in any RPG is to run a fun, fair game for all involved- himself included. If the GM has to alter certain aspects of the RAW to achieve that, so be it.

For the most part, I don't fudge in favor of the players or NPCs. However, I have on occasion fudged in favor of the storyline of the campaign.
***
I followed the links to each of the games listed:

Well, to be really obvious, one could pick something like Breaking the Ice, which, being about dating, never puts death on the table.

And should I choose to run a psychopathic killer out on a first date with Miss Victim...er...Buffy Lancaster?

Or, you could point to Dogs in the Vineyard. The GM simply cannot waive their hand and kill a PC. If a conflict hasn't escalated to a point where death is on the table, death ain't gonna happen.

I read this (http://www.lumpley.com/games/dogcerpts.html#whats) section. Its a game set in the Utah of frontier-era America. Death was everywhere- disease, blizzards, etc. The game acknowledges that a character may be a "remorseless monster" or subject to the supernatural...or even Demons.

I'm sure a GM could make a campaign in that game as lethal as he cared.

Or, maybe you're playing Sorcerer and Sword, and your PC has a Destiny to be king of Aquilonia or something. Your PC simply will never die permanently during play.

Destiny is tricky. Just because you've been told by some wierd old woman that you're the lost son of the last King who will rise up to overthrow the reign of Amhyr the Usurper doesn't mean that the fortune you've just been told is true. Perhaps she gives that fortune to every 5th male traveller she encounters who fits the general description...

Perhaps she's just a loony.

Then there's the GM-less Universalis, where death won't happen without consensus; or the GM-less Polaris, where death won't happen until the player thinks it'd be really cool for the scene.

I'll give you those...in part. GM fiat can't exist without a GM, true, but if the concensus of a group in Universalis or player attitude in Polaris is towards a highly lethal playstyle, then the game will be as lethal as any run by a killer GM.

Those games don't eliminate the ability to alter the lethality of the game, they just alter who has the power to do so.

And, I dunno, Toon? Can PCs even die in that game?

You can if you're playing a Who Framed Roger Rabbit campaign...with acetone.

I cannot think of a single RPG that makes exercising GM fiat or introducing house rules impossible.

Every one of the RPGs I've ever played has either explicitly or implicitly allowed or expected houseruling and GM fiat.