Would you play a game with only 1 life (ie. New Cap City)

[Janx]

I just finished watching the BSG spin-off Caprica

Not to go into details of the show, it featured an online MMO called "New Cap City"

It was a game where each player only got 1 life. if you died in the game, you were blocked from ever getting back on the server.

I'm curious who would or wouldn't be interested in playing such a game, and why not?

To put it in a real world example, imagine there's a local D&D game that gets a lot of buzz. However, if your PC dies in the game, you are to leave the table and can never play in that group's game again.

Presumably, you can still play D&D with other people, just not that group or campaign world.

Or it really is an MMO (WoW?) with strong user validation, to prevent sock puppet or multiple users per account.

Would this kind of game appeal to you?
Would it really bother you if you died in the game?
Would it change your tactics in the game?

For me, I could see the first few sessions as not being a big deal. If its super easy to die, then it might not be any fun, so it'd be easy to not become invested if I died in the second session and move on.

After playing for a while, I would certainly be more cautious about protecting my PC, probably take fewer risks. Especially if I had attained some power and prominence in the community.

 

[Umbran]

I think it depends on why they have such a restriction - the reason probably informs much of the game's design, play, and feel.

The only reason that pops into my mind for such a limit is to create artificial scarcity. That's a major turn-off for me, and would strongly disincline me to play.

 

[luckless]

I wouldn't bother playing an MMO like that. A table top game with a large group of friends could make it interesting, but a game open for anyone to play from across the world wouldn't be interesting at all.

For one, the server would most likely be dead, as few people would want to play it in the first place due to all of the reasons I'm listing. (Including the first reason, a self fulfilling prophecy.)

The second reason is the risk of lag and bug effects. It can be annoying enough to die in a regular game due to glitches.

The third is the obvious risk of blatant griefing by players or groups of players. If you don't enter the game with a large group of friends to gang up on people, you'll just be ganked by others as soon as they can. Average player lifespan will likely be slightly longer than the minimum time required to kill someone the second they step out of any spawn protection.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

back in the day I had a friend that ran Owod that way.

he had a WoD set up with 3 games running (1 mortal, 1 mage/werewolf, and one vampire) in diffrent parts of the same world, and there was a waiting list to get in. He allowed no mroe then 7 PCs per table, and you could only be in a max of 2 at the same time. if you died you had to sit out the rest of the campaign...

It was great, I started as a Virtuel Adept in LA, joined up the atlanta game as a Tremere, died as my tremere, then was on the wait list for the mortal game. 1 week before my mage died I got to start my police detective in london(witch was the first time I was told no guns on a cop)... that lasted until the end of the campaign.


It made combat lethal and a worry. Even the most bad ass combatants had a fear of what was going to happen next.


He tried to do it again in another game set in the wild west with dead lands but it floped, so i guess it might have been a fluke.

 

[Janx]

assuming the game server was "perfect" as in no lag or specific bug effects (unrealistic assumption), I agree with your other concerns.

I think the griefing will be the real problem. Newbs will get ganked quickly, and even assuming "everybody" wants to play, eventually, we'll run out of population to gank. Leaving only the griefers on the server.


I also think, that in the D&D game example, since all PCs will likely die eventually (in all but the most protective GM's care), the group will eventually experience 100% turn-over (repeatedly probably) and assuming each new PC starts at 1st level, the game will not advance very high.

I've certainly played PCs that have never died, but most of those had extenuating circumstances (DM fiat?) that in a game where the GM takes pride in "you can't come back" I suspect the lethality dial will be turned up, at the minimum, no GM safeguards.

 

[Nagol]

I think it depends on why they have such a restriction - the reason probably informs much of the game's design, play, and feel.

The only reason that pops into my mind for such a limit is to create artificial scarcity. That's a major turn-off for me, and would strongly disincline me to play.

It would also depend on how you could "die".

If the only way was through a group of PCs ganging up on you or your reputation dropping below a certain threshold then it could lead to a more polite atmosphere (more likely it would become a PvP gankfest though).

 

[Nagol]

As an experiment once, I did run a mystery/horror mini-campaign that way. Each player brought in a PC and I warned them in advance that there would be no replacement in the event it was lost.

I was trying to temper impulsive/semi-suiicidal actions and encourage falling back, planned actions, and careful investigation. It worked after a fashion. The only death was in the second session out of a dozen or so.

 

[Janx]

It would also depend on how you could "die".

If the only way was through a group of PCs ganging up on you or your reputation dropping below a certain threshold then it could lead to a more polite atmosphere (more likely it would become a PvP gankfest though).

I'm only speculating, but per the show, the v-world was just like ours (same physics) but players got cool gadgets and probably skill boosts so they look cool. So a high fall or fatal wound would be fatal.

The translated gist is, if your PC "died", there's no ressurrection, and you're out of the game.

Without PvP-free zones (or enforced safe areas), it would be gank-ville

 

[Asmor]

Many MMOs used to have an option typically referred to as "hardcore" (e.g. Diablo 2's Hardcore characters, or EQ's Hardcore server), where character death was final.

It has its attraction, but not my thing.

 

[JustKim]

To put it in a real world example, imagine there's a local D&D game that gets a lot of buzz. However, if your PC dies in the game, you are to leave the table and can never play in that group's game again.

As a social player the idea is completely abhorrent to me. You may as well ask me if I would join a game where if my character dies, so do I. The ideas are equally ridiculous. Nothing could make me consider a setup like that for a tabletop game. I know this is basically what a tournament-style game is, but I've never been interested in that either.

For a mimorperger I think my answer is the same. Truthfully I have very little investment in a game like that and I rarely encounter anyone I could endure for more than an hour, but if I ever played with my friends or made lasting friends in the game this gimmick would ruin the experience for me.

This seems to be a question of whether I get more satisfaction from keeping an abstracted character alive than I do having fun with my friends. The answer for me is clearly no. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could answer yes.