Quote from: TonyLBI'll point out that, once that rule is in place, players will start looking for plausible ways that their characters can have their conversations at gun-point.  Why involve NPCs at all?

Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing.  Certainly there's a cinematic style where "Friendships form over the barrel of a gun" makes perfect sense.

If you don't mind it you could have things that way, but it would be trivial to avoid that kind of thing if you don't want it.

For example, instead of saying that acting a certain way under the gun gives you special benefits, you could make a general rule that the GM can offer the players valuable prizes for playing along with any given scenario.  That would be a more robust rule.

Alternately, instead of using meta-rules like that, you could just design a system that gives people massive bonuses in combat if they "get the drop" on someone.  (I won't bother describing the many ways you could do that.)  That's the route I'd take.

It seems like an odd assumption that players will want to point guns at each other, rather than a third party, though.

One option might be to have what is at baseline a highly lethal system, say something like CP2020 but then to hyperinflate the luck points idea, seperate to the health system, to account for heroic type action and characters.

EG:

Slippery Jim is being shot at by a DeMarco goon with an SMG.

The goon gets enough of a roll to hit with five rounds, Jim would be toast but he spends five points from his luck pool to avoid all five rounds which, instead, dramatically shatter a ton of drinks bottles behind the bar.

When their luck runs out they go down like a sack of shit just like anyone else, which means there's an element of resource hoarding to consider as well.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt seems like an odd assumption that players will want to point guns at each other, rather than a third party, though.

If what they're rewarded for is having guns pointed at them?  Doesn't that make the assumption "Players will want to point guns at each other, rather than have guns pointed at them by a third party"?

Quote from: TonyLBIf what they're rewarded for is having guns pointed at them?  Doesn't that make the assumption "Players will want to point guns at each other, rather than have guns pointed at them by a third party"?

In general, though-- pitting the players against each other isn't that much fun, and limits the story to only what the players can do to each other. It's obviously not impossible, but it isn't that interesting.

Characters need to go places and so stuff in order to get into these situations.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.  I look at a movie like, for instance, The Killer and I say "So ... two PCs (maybe three, if you include Sydney) and then a big bad boss with a ton of mooks.  The PCs spend most of the session sniping at each other in order to generate enough resources collectively to have a shoot-out in a church that makes the GMs big, scary boss look like the fuckin' pansy he is."

I think it would be fun to play a game that encouraged that sorta shit.  But, like I said, maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn general, though-- pitting the players against each other isn't that much fun, and limits the story to only what the players can do to each other. It's obviously not impossible, but it isn't that interesting.

Characters need to go places and so stuff in order to get into these situations.

Deadlands created rewards for playing to your flaws, which you could then spend during play.  That worked brilliantly but did tend to lead to some intra-party conflict which I do find to be against the spirit of RPGs for the most part.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn general, though-- pitting the players against each other isn't that much fun, and limits the story to only what the players can do to each other. It's obviously not impossible, but it isn't that interesting.

I think its potentially interesting, in that its an dramatic adversarial situation that doesn't get reflected in RPGs that much, so it could be fresh.

But then, adversarial situations between PCs often turn into adversarial situations between players, so if not handled carefully or with players that are both "into it", it could be trouble in the making.

Most cinematic games ive them the cookie at the beginning. If there out of cookies when bad guy puts a gun in his face they have to hope he doesn't shoot them.
 
Thre are different ways to do cinematic.
 
Why not run a Gritty Damage system with some cinematic backup points. The Massive Damage save is a good one, as people can spend their action points to get a bonus on it.
 
 
It gives them Script immunity to a point  + keeps Lethality
 
What system are you playing by the way? That might help us answer your question

The most obvious path (to me) is to have the 'lethal' blow not kill but in some other way cost the character.  It might cost them some metagame mechanic to avoid dying, or their character might be disabled and out of the action.  Waking up in the hospital for instance.  They might even have some lingering problem from the experience.

Just because you don't want to kill a character doesn't mean there aren't costs for failure.

Quote from: MaddmanJust because you don't want to kill a character doesn't mean there aren't costs for failure.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but to me failure is losing your character for good. Anything else is just a temporary setback. "Losing the battle, but not the war", so to speak. That's not a cost to me.

Quote from: YamoMaybe I'm just old-fashioned, but to me failure is losing your character for good. Anything else is just a temporary setback. "Losing the battle, but not the war", so to speak. That's not a cost to me.

Heh, and maybe I'm all newfangled, but losing a character isn't a very interesting cost to me.  I mean it's not like losing a character means you don't get to play anymore.  It means that your goals and aspirations for the character will never come to pass, but you get to bring in a brand new character with all new goals and aspirations that the previous characters' demise doesn't hinder at all.  It looks like more of a cost to keep the same character but have their goals and desires put further away from them.

You can do it either way, and my main interest is in which is more important to stay accurate to the genre you're playing in and what is the most fun.  Several types of my fun are interfered with by frequent character death.

Quote from: MaddmanJust because you don't want to kill a character doesn't mean there aren't costs for failure.

I've made groups strongly motivated by revenge by doing something to a character other than just killing them when they lose.  Like, while someone was down, the villain grabbed their super cool weapon and ran off.  Or, because they were down, they were unable to save an NPC that they like.  Or, now they have an ugly scar that impairs most initial reactions.  

If I had just killed one or more characters, the overall game wouldn't have been as cool.  Instead, new characters not already involved in the story show up and lots of earlier subplots would have been dropped.

Those are good ideas.  I'm a lot more attracted to the idea of risk as characters losing something than risk as players losing their time investment.

There was a major disconnect, I think, between players who came to the hobby from wargames and players who came to the hobby through video games.  CRPGs rarely use character death as anything but a momentary setback, save for TPKs that lose you the game (note that permanent character death, when it happens, usually serves as a major plot point.)

In fact, those differences could account for a lot of the differences between the old school and the new.  When your first dungeon was a video game, you never learned to value the "skill" aspect of rpgs.  You never ran back to town to hire pikemen and war dogs, never spent 3,000 gp on training costs so you could level, never whacked a pile of shit and rags with a 10' pole to make sure it didn't have Rot Grubs infesting it.  You power leveled until you could clear the stage, beat the boss and get on with the game.

I'm sure there's a lot to be said about the effect games like Final Fantasy IV, Phantasy Star and so on had on the generation of roleplayers that played them.  I've been trying for half an hour now, but it seems it's not going to happen right now.

Quote from: fonkaygarryThose are good ideas.  I'm a lot more attracted to the idea of risk as characters losing something than risk as players losing their time investment.

There was a major disconnect, I think, between players who came to the hobby from wargames and players who came to the hobby through video games.  CRPGs rarely use character death as anything but a momentary setback, save for TPKs that lose you the game (note that permanent character death, when it happens, usually serves as a major plot point.)

In fact, those differences could account for a lot of the differences between the old school and the new.  When your first dungeon was a video game, you never learned to value the "skill" aspect of rpgs.  You never ran back to town to hire pikemen and war dogs, never spent 3,000 gp on training costs so you could level, never whacked a pile of shit and rags with a 10' pole to make sure it didn't have Rot Grubs infesting it.  You power leveled until you could clear the stage, beat the boss and get on with the game.

I'm sure there's a lot to be said about the effect games like Final Fantasy IV, Phantasy Star and so on had on the generation of roleplayers that played them.  I've been trying for half an hour now, but it seems it's not going to happen right now.

Probably the single most insightful post I've seen on this site so far. And that's saying a lot.

Kudos.