Permadeath led me to blowing up a planet, causing genocide and fucking up Star Wars canon.
It's why it's so fun.
It's why it's so fun.
Lets do this (II)
- Thread starter Millim
- Start date
To my standards? Oh yes, yes I have played with a lot of That Guys.
But the important thing is to demonstrate that I don't want freedom from permadeath specifically to do that That Guy things. I want to be able to enjoy myself. That means knowing my character will survive.....just like Fallout. Cause it's fun.
But it's not fun as there's no tension.
PnP RPGs only work if the Players can die, just like how in a game, your party can die, or you can die.
As stated before, the only thing stopping you from making a new character in Fallout is the save feature, w/o it, that's it.
You can make a new character if your character dies, which can also be rather fun as you then have your previous character's death written into the canon.
It also makes you make quick fire decisions like "How do I get out of this problem I'm in".
Much like a game like Fallout actually, the biggest difference being that you can negate those decisions if you fuck up.
It's also really fun witnessing the outcome of what you did.
I don't think you're comprehending me. For players like me, the reload function is the only thing that allows a game to be fun. There is no point in playing if the character can die. Better no arc than an aborted one. I don't play for challenge. I don't like challenge. I like telling a story, most specifically I only want to tell stories with a happy ending (Fallout being the bare minimum of a happy ending)
I am not trying to be rude in any way, but I think P&P RPGs are not for you. Pretty much any P&P relies on the players knowing that their characters can go kaput if they aren't cautious or mess with the wrong crowd.
The thing about computer games is that they do not have a human GM, so if the player makes a mistake, the computer game will be ruthless, in P&P if the player makes a mistake, the GM might be lenient and change the situation behind the scenes so the character doesn't immediately die, but gets almost dead, or the GM explains the situation again and try subtly to change the player's mind.
And even so, rogue-like games with permadeath seem to be increasing in popularity lately (I also do not like permadeath in some computer games, while in others i think it works perfeclty, like in the game Streets of Rogue for example).
An example: I once had a player that only started changing his mind about doing stupid dangerous stuff after he had to make 4 new characters, even though I would explain the situation again and ask him if he was sure he wanted to do whatever stupid thing he wanted to do. I had even stopped being subtle and everyone else already knew he would die if he didn't change his mind. Now if I had totally cheated the system and allowed him to survive even thought there was no chance it would happen, he wouldn't have learned anything from it, he would just continue to do stupid stuff and making the rest of the players annoyed, he could be having fun making his character act totally stupid (with a Wisdom of 14 and Intelligence of 18) but it was spoiling the fun for the other four players and for me as a GM to be honest.
Now I am sure you wouldn't be playing your character in such a stupid way that you would try to jump through a wall of blades that deals 12d6 damage when you only have 7 HP all while you were affected by a slow spell, because the issue you seem to have with permadeath is that you actually care about your character and get emotionally invested, but if the rules are not the same across the board and for all players it will break the "immersion" (I hate this immersion word...) of the other players, because the world lacks coherence, it doesn't make sense anymore and it would be unfair for the rest of the players. We could make everyone not being able to be killed, but knowing the kind of players NMA has that prize difficulty, world consistence, hardship, and the danger of the wastes, they would not have fun if they could all fall fighting deathclaws but then would just get up and keep fighting, or would just wake up in someone's bed/clinic all ready to go back to the deathclaws to deal with them again.
I guess one way is to make a poll or ask around and see if there are any other players that have fun the same way you do, who knows, maybe there are a few and you will find a nice group to play with. We won't know until we ask.
This whole thing is an unfair thing, on one side it is unfair for you that people in this thread seem to not have fun playing or allowing you to play the way you have fun, but it is also unfair to demand they do so. It is a lose-lose situation no matter how we see it and there is no way everyone will ever be happy
.
Horrid
First time out of the vault
I'm definitely with Risewild on the unfairness of the situation and the poll, but still I have to ask just a few questions...
How would you suggest to become immune to permadeath in P&P RPGs? With an actual reload function? Like everyone hops back in time as soon as someone dies and they try again?
How would you prevent your players from abusing this? How would it feel for another player if they get taken away their achievements because someone else was too "uncaring" to let alone that big red button over there?
How do you tell a consistent story, if you can simply try every option and reload if it fails until you find the right button to press?
How do you create plot without conflict? Because conflict generates challange.
How can anything you do in the game be interesting if it is basically scripted to succeed?
I do realize that you can fail in other ways than dying, but that will then become the option to go for as the GM, if you want to actually tell a story. Even if you exclude dying as a major consequence, actions without consequences have no meaning, and so meaning can then only be generated by fucking people up in any other way than dying if they do stupid, dangerous or challenging things. But if that feels unfun again, would you revert to before that as well? How does anything you do have meaning without permanent consequences, if these are too harsh? And what is "too harsh" then? Where would you draw that line when telling your story...?
I also do not want to sound mean, but I really do not understand how storytelling would work like that.
P&P RPGs are storytelling games, they are no simulation of a reality, which Risewild also tried to point out before.
If you want to actually be able to tell your story as a GM you won't let your PCs die before it is told, except when they actively fuck up. That can also include chosing a dangerous path over an easier one, but my players will always know when a decision they make can lead to dying. I would never present my players a binary decision where one of the options can easily lead to death without telling them or offering a failsave...
How would you suggest to become immune to permadeath in P&P RPGs? With an actual reload function? Like everyone hops back in time as soon as someone dies and they try again?
How would you prevent your players from abusing this? How would it feel for another player if they get taken away their achievements because someone else was too "uncaring" to let alone that big red button over there?
How do you tell a consistent story, if you can simply try every option and reload if it fails until you find the right button to press?
How do you create plot without conflict? Because conflict generates challange.
How can anything you do in the game be interesting if it is basically scripted to succeed?
I do realize that you can fail in other ways than dying, but that will then become the option to go for as the GM, if you want to actually tell a story. Even if you exclude dying as a major consequence, actions without consequences have no meaning, and so meaning can then only be generated by fucking people up in any other way than dying if they do stupid, dangerous or challenging things. But if that feels unfun again, would you revert to before that as well? How does anything you do have meaning without permanent consequences, if these are too harsh? And what is "too harsh" then? Where would you draw that line when telling your story...?
I also do not want to sound mean, but I really do not understand how storytelling would work like that.
P&P RPGs are storytelling games, they are no simulation of a reality, which Risewild also tried to point out before.
If you want to actually be able to tell your story as a GM you won't let your PCs die before it is told, except when they actively fuck up. That can also include chosing a dangerous path over an easier one, but my players will always know when a decision they make can lead to dying. I would never present my players a binary decision where one of the options can easily lead to death without telling them or offering a failsave...
Well what I would do, if I were a GM, is I would never, ever kill a PC unless that player decided to be a massive metagaming prick. If your character acts like a Munchkin for any reason even justifiable backstory, I will smite the shit out of them.Munchkins have no place at the table. Otherwise I would always warn the player, 'this is a really stupid move, are you sure you want to do it?' If they did it anyway, and they fall to zero HP, the character is knocked unconscious and is crippled and given PTSD, anxiety, depression, something like that the the player must actively work to overcome. If the whole party goes down, all the rules apply only they will be 'rescued' by people who will at least drop them off in the next town with no equipment or money or will enslave them. Either way, the party will be forced to roleplay through it. If I'm feeling generous, the affected characters will retain equipment but lose one character level and any skill points and perks that level gave.
So I wouldn't say that there's no consequences for failure, there are. It's just I won't kill the character. See, you can and should have plenty of fail states ready beyond death.
So I wouldn't say that there's no consequences for failure, there are. It's just I won't kill the character. See, you can and should have plenty of fail states ready beyond death.
Horrid
First time out of the vault
Yeah I get that, and I think that is pretty much the way most people play...
So basically what you would want is to scratch any kind of permanent or final/terminal consequences?
I mean enslavement for example can be pretty much final...
What I'm basically saying is, that I as a player really dislike my GM doing the deus ex machina thing everytime such consequences come up.
At the moment for example in my D&D group, I have a player who has a new boyfriend. He lives a few hours from here and she lives with him for 3 to 4 weeks at a time and then comes back for about the same time... it didn't come up that often yet, but since we are playing on a weekly basis I always have to find a way to reasonably kick the character out of the party. I either do that or I have those Mark the Red moments where the character is there but not there and I hate that even more, because it creates major inconsistency if the others just say we use some of that characters abilities to solve a problem. so I deny that... but how can I and why? the character is there in-game... I hate that.
It is ok for one session but not for 4 or more maybe... So I find ways that the character isn't with the party during that time. But even though it happened only 2 times now I'm running out of reasonable explanations of how the character "disappears all the time"... And I will not do the "I'm gonna step out for a moment... (4 weeks later) ... Oh hi, there you are! I must have gone lost in the woods..."- thing... Because inconsistency. That's fun once, but not all the time... and the same logic goes for final consequences in my opinion.
You cant' make everything perfectly consistent, but when it comes to final consequences, whatever they may be, I really wouldn't like my GM to find yet another way again to drag us out of the shit we produced... Of course that would be his responsibility if he practically railroaded us into said shit, but that's usually a plot device then... or he's just a major sadist and an idiot... which happens...
But below the bottom line, that is exactly the point. I do not think, that you have an essentially different understanding of how to play P&P RPGs than most people, and basically it comes down to the people you chose to play with whether that question about permadeath ever occurs. If you don't play with munchkins, jerks or both (as players or GMs), you don't have to worry about it too much. On the other hand, I have already shot player characters because their players were jerks who acted against the group by their own chosing and not as part of the plot, just because they thought they were save because they are a player character... With me as a player that kind of arrogance pretty quickly ends with a bullet in the head or a sword in the throat. Because consistency. And I would hate my GM if he/she ever found a weird way to save that PC just because it shouldn't be, just as much as I would hate to forcibly have my character act severly against their own background, personality, beliefs or whatever just because someone likes to ignore the consequences.
Maybe if I had you as a GM I would just shoot the prick in the knees... That's pretty much permanent most of the time ^_^ ... but, no permadeath!
So basically what you would want is to scratch any kind of permanent or final/terminal consequences?
I mean enslavement for example can be pretty much final...
What I'm basically saying is, that I as a player really dislike my GM doing the deus ex machina thing everytime such consequences come up.
At the moment for example in my D&D group, I have a player who has a new boyfriend. He lives a few hours from here and she lives with him for 3 to 4 weeks at a time and then comes back for about the same time... it didn't come up that often yet, but since we are playing on a weekly basis I always have to find a way to reasonably kick the character out of the party. I either do that or I have those Mark the Red moments where the character is there but not there and I hate that even more, because it creates major inconsistency if the others just say we use some of that characters abilities to solve a problem. so I deny that... but how can I and why? the character is there in-game... I hate that.
It is ok for one session but not for 4 or more maybe... So I find ways that the character isn't with the party during that time. But even though it happened only 2 times now I'm running out of reasonable explanations of how the character "disappears all the time"... And I will not do the "I'm gonna step out for a moment... (4 weeks later) ... Oh hi, there you are! I must have gone lost in the woods..."- thing... Because inconsistency. That's fun once, but not all the time... and the same logic goes for final consequences in my opinion.
You cant' make everything perfectly consistent, but when it comes to final consequences, whatever they may be, I really wouldn't like my GM to find yet another way again to drag us out of the shit we produced... Of course that would be his responsibility if he practically railroaded us into said shit, but that's usually a plot device then... or he's just a major sadist and an idiot... which happens...
But below the bottom line, that is exactly the point. I do not think, that you have an essentially different understanding of how to play P&P RPGs than most people, and basically it comes down to the people you chose to play with whether that question about permadeath ever occurs. If you don't play with munchkins, jerks or both (as players or GMs), you don't have to worry about it too much. On the other hand, I have already shot player characters because their players were jerks who acted against the group by their own chosing and not as part of the plot, just because they thought they were save because they are a player character... With me as a player that kind of arrogance pretty quickly ends with a bullet in the head or a sword in the throat. Because consistency. And I would hate my GM if he/she ever found a weird way to save that PC just because it shouldn't be, just as much as I would hate to forcibly have my character act severly against their own background, personality, beliefs or whatever just because someone likes to ignore the consequences.
Maybe if I had you as a GM I would just shoot the prick in the knees... That's pretty much permanent most of the time ^_^ ... but, no permadeath!
Last edited:
Without Permadeth, the funniest things won't happen.
For example, yesterday, the party decided to kill me because I cut off my own dick and wiped it in an NPC's face.
The rest of the Perry then decided to kill me.
For example, yesterday, the party decided to kill me because I cut off my own dick and wiped it in an NPC's face.
The rest of the Perry then decided to kill me.
If your character is just an excuse to do stupid shit like that, I don't want to play with you, permadeath or not. You're wasting my time.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
In my D&D group, we usually have permadeath EXCEPT FOR in instances of TPKs..
That way, there's added tension because any character could potentially die, but it doesn't hold back the plot since the party itself has to survive.
That way, there's added tension because any character could potentially die, but it doesn't hold back the plot since the party itself has to survive.
In all honesty, we were all doing stupid shit.
The guy who founded Sikhism for example is now a pirate in a cyborg's body.
Bare in mind, I'm in 3 RPGs, I need to fuck around at some point as the other two I play pretty seriously (except when in Star Wars I try and do something and end up fucking up the canon instead).