Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5377928" data-attributes="member: 22779">When removing a single element is described as completely destroying the game, making the game pointless, boring, and no fun, is it really that much of a stretch to say that this single element is of extreme importance to some people?If we remove, say, equipment destruction, does that still change the game from an RPG to a &quot;story game&quot;?&nbsp; ((Ok, perhaps for Raven Crowking it does, but, for those of us who actually want to carry on a discussion, what do you think?))My point is, you can play a fun RPG that does remove character death or greatly mitigates it to the point where it's pretty much player choice if the character dies or not.&nbsp; Is it a traditional game?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; It's focusing on elements that a traditional RPG, like D&amp;D, doesn't mechanically focus on.&nbsp; In Seven Leagues, for example, you play a fairy tale character, a la Brother's Grimm or whatnot.&nbsp; And, as such, you cannot die, since the protagonists in those stories never do.&nbsp; (Or at least very rarely do, for the overly pedantic out there)The game is fascinating and something I really want to try out someday.&nbsp; And, it does remove death from the table.&nbsp; Is it for everyone?&nbsp; No, certainly not.&nbsp; But, again, the point I was responding to was the one that was being made several times - that removing death makes the game pointless and meaningless.That's only true if death of the PC is very important in your game.&nbsp; If you shift the import away from that PC's survival to other elements in the game - such as NPC's for example, you can have a game where the PC is pretty much invincible, just like Jack Harkness, yet still capable of failure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5377928, member: 22779"] When removing a single element is described as completely destroying the game, making the game pointless, boring, and no fun, is it really that much of a stretch to say that this single element is of extreme importance to some people? If we remove, say, equipment destruction, does that still change the game from an RPG to a "story game"? ((Ok, perhaps for Raven Crowking it does, but, for those of us who actually want to carry on a discussion, what do you think?)) My point is, you can play a fun RPG that does remove character death or greatly mitigates it to the point where it's pretty much player choice if the character dies or not. Is it a traditional game? Nope. It's focusing on elements that a traditional RPG, like D&D, doesn't mechanically focus on. In Seven Leagues, for example, you play a fairy tale character, a la Brother's Grimm or whatnot. And, as such, you cannot die, since the protagonists in those stories never do. (Or at least very rarely do, for the overly pedantic out there) The game is fascinating and something I really want to try out someday. And, it does remove death from the table. Is it for everyone? No, certainly not. But, again, the point I was responding to was the one that was being made several times - that removing death makes the game pointless and meaningless. That's only true if death of the PC is very important in your game. If you shift the import away from that PC's survival to other elements in the game - such as NPC's for example, you can have a game where the PC is pretty much invincible, just like Jack Harkness, yet still capable of failure. [/QUOTE]

Verification