Your character died. Big deal.

[Imaro]

Ok, now I'm getting a little confused...so some people have death...but it's not a random, gotcha thing??? WHAT???

If death in your game is not random...then it is controlled/scripted/determined by the player (and/or DM) and thus is not included in one's game in the same sense that it is part of the actual rules...and again I say this just seems odd... claiming a game is about killing things and taking their stuff as long as the nasty orc has no chance to kill me unless I say it's ok just doesn't sound right... IMHO of course.

 

[Fifth Element]

Ok, now I'm getting a little confused...so some people have death...but it's not a random, gotcha thing??? WHAT???

You're reading me far too literally. Clearly there's some randomness in any character death, given the fact that die rolls infuence so much.

But I'm talking about deaths caused by one single die roll that the player can do little or nothing about, save not play the game. Save-or-die type stuff.

Or "gotcha" traps and monsters. Like when you walk into a room, and the floor is actually....a monster! Haha!

 

[AllisterH]

I've played and GMed a lot of other RPGs, and I've found that to be *extremely uncommon* indeed. Downright rare, even. In fact, I can't think of even one, off the top of my head.

Just goes to show, eh? Dayumn, there must be a lot of games out there.

I guess I should be clear. The other games I've played, it's really, REALLY, hard to die.

One of my first games was Teenagers from Outer Space and also AMBER. The former, it literally is impossible to die and the latter, there really is no such thing as "random" death.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I guess I should be clear. The other games I've played, it's really, REALLY, hard to die.

One of my first games was Teenagers from Outer Space and also AMBER. The former, it literally is impossible to die and the latter, there really is no such thing as "random" death.

Ah. Yes, I did get the wrong impression there.

Mind you, I still haven't played TFOS - or anything much alike - as far as I can remember. All (in this respect, anyway) rather conservative, 'old skool', standard, whatever.

It seems to be overwhelmingly a more modern phenomenon, and in addition a mostly niche, 'indie'-style approach. In origin, at least. Wouild that be right? I am referring to that 'green lighting' kind of thing, and totally deathless RPGs, in particular btw. If not, puzzlement will continue - perhaps I've simply managed to randomly sidestep RPGs that possess these traits, time and again, through the years.

 

[pemerton]

I guess I'm finding a disconnect in the fact that I'm seeing a few posters who, when confronted with things 4e is supposedly lacking have used the... D&D is a game of "killing things and taking their stuff" or "D&D has extensive rules for the important stuff, tactical combat" yet... this seems an extremely hollow and disingenuous defense if you play in a style where their is no risk of death for the PC's (only their opposition) and claim other things serve as the same or worse consequences after you have expressed the above as the focus or important part of the game. YMMV of course.

I don't see any disconnect between "D&D is a game about encounters" and "D&D is most enjoyably played as a game where certain sorts of (random, meaningless, ...) PC death are off the table".

For the encounters part of the game to be satisfying, presumably there has to be something at stake for the players in the resolution of those encounters. I don't know of any reason why that something would have to be (random, meaningless) PC death.

I've played a lot of Rolemaster combats in which it's virtually impossible for the PCs to die (not because of "death flag" mechanics, but because of simulationist mechanics that have much the same consequence - all the PCs have access to Self Keeping and Self Healing magic, or carry intelligent items that can cast Lifekeeping spells upon them, or whatever). The combats weren't therefore meaningless, because something was still at stake for the players. And they still enjoyed the tactical/rules-heavy dimensions of the combat.

4e is clearly designed to change the incidence of PC death, by making it much more a consequence of failures of the PCs to do certain things (kill the monsters in time by way of the efficient synergistic use of powers, stabilise a downed comrade in time, etc) and less the result of unmediated dice rolls. I don't see how this creates any disconnect from a signficiant focus on combat encounters with a strong tactical dimension. What's at stake in those encounters? It needn't simply be the lives of the PCs.

I agree there is a bit more of a disconnect between the "death flag" style of play and the "kill things and take their stuff" play. But not necessarily, if the approach to the game is sufficiently light-hearted in a certain sort of respect (perhaps a bit like The Dying Earth, but with more bloodshed). And in any event, 4e need not involve taking things' stuff at all, given the treasure parcels can be distributed in the form of gifts from friendly NPCs just as readily as in the form of loot from foes.

 

[AllisterH]

Ah. Yes, I did get the wrong impression there.

Mind you, I still haven't played TFOS - or anything much alike - as far as I can remember. All (in this respect, anyway) rather conservative, 'old skool', standard, whatever.

It seems to be overwhelmingly a more modern phenomenon, and in addition a mostly niche, 'indie'-style approach. In origin, at least. Wouild that be right? I am referring to that 'green lighting' kind of thing, and totally deathless RPGs, in particular btw. If not, puzzlement will continue - perhaps I've simply managed to randomly sidestep RPGs that possess these traits, time and again, through the years.

*LOL*

I was playing Amber and TFOS way before 3e. *checks wikipedia*

Yep, Amber was created in 1991 while TFOS is an 87 game (predates 2E? That, I did not know...)

I certainly wouldn't consider such games "modern". I consider any game created in the last 5 years, modern personally.

Amber is a niche game (and I think it still has one of the larger LARP communities after WW) whereas TFOS was recommended to me via my anime friends (it and Robotech were my genre RPGs as I'm one of the old school anime fans --*says it with pride*)

 

[jensun]

HAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's just silly. When you sit down to play, that is one of the possibilities of the game, otherwise there is no point in having any sort of combat or injury if you cannot die at any time without your own consent.

PvP may not always be flagged as "on", but the DM does NOT need your permission for your character to die.

If I met someone in a game claiming they didn't give their permission to have their character die, then the game would end, because I would be laughing so hard someone would have to call an ambulance for me to get oxygen so I didn't suffocate.

That sort of thing would be no fun at all because there is never any risk to any action.

Is it April 1st already?

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just screaming "one true way" as loud as possible while waving a giant "one true way" flag.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I was playing Amber and TFOS way before 3e. *checks wikipedia*

Yep, Amber was created in 1991 while TFOS is an 87 game (predates 2E? That, I did not know...)

I certainly wouldn't consider such games "modern". I consider any game created in the last 5 years, modern personally.

Sure. I already knew how old Amber Diceless is. TFOS, didn't (and don't) have a clue. Regardless, overwhelmingly/mostly != universally. My choice of words was quite deliberate.

Amber is a niche game (and I think it still has one of the larger LARP communities after WW) whereas TFOS was recommended to me via my anime friends (it and Robotech were my genre RPGs as I'm one of the old school anime fans --*says it with pride*)

As I said, I was asking the question not about the two games you had already mentioned - one of which might or might not qualify anyhow - but about RPGs that do possess such traits (that is, either the green-lighting of PC death, or an absence of PC death altogether.)

So, I am still left wondering whether it is *mostly* - and possibly even *overwhelmingly* a modern and/or niche/indie RPG feature. And to what kind of an extent, if so. It's my assumption that yeah, that's so, at the moment. This is because I haven't encountered any evidence to the contrary, and it seems - to me - a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw. But if anyone wishes to debunk, be my guest, please! I'd rather know, whatever the case happens to be.

 

[jensun]

The idea that someone needs to give the green light before having their character killed is a bizarre and alien one to me. This ain't no writer's workshop. If you want to tell the story about your hero's epic quest, then head on over to fanfiction.net. The rest of us will be playing the game and, as a game, that means there's a chance to fail.

And, on the flip side, this is a game you play with friends for enjoyment rather than an exercise in simulating some sort of vietnam survival story.

Also, your play style is not the only play style. Telling people to head over to fanfiction.net is dismissive, rude and uncalled for. I could similarly dismiss the old school method as nothing more than a simulated board game hack and slash fest having all the grace or subtelty of a brick to the face but I dont.

Finally, you continue to equate death as the only form of failure when it is quite obvious that this isnt true. Continuing to assert it just makes you look foolish.

 

[jensun]

I guess I'm finding a disconnect in the fact that I'm seeing a few posters who, when confronted with things 4e is supposedly lacking have used the... D&D is a game of "killing things and taking their stuff" or "D&D has extensive rules for the important stuff, tactical combat" yet... this seems an extremely hollow and disingenuous defense if you play in a style where their is no risk of death for the PC's (only their opposition) and claim other things serve as the same or worse consequences after you have expressed the above as the focus or important part of the game. YMMV of course.

I have no idea if this is aimed at me (I support taking death off the table) but I dont treat treat the game as about nothing more than killing things and taking their stuff. I am not sure where you would have that impression or is this just one of those "lets take an unsupported general swipe at people" things?