Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 09:46:26 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 06:43:05 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2025, 07:35:37 PMIf a character's death is particularly likely in the first session, then chargen time may seem like a waste. However, if my character dies after nine sessions, then it doesn't matter that much whether I took 15 minutes or 90 minutes to make my character months ago.

Do you even play RPGs, or is this all theorycrafting?  Because no one cares about the time it took to make a character months ago.  They care about the time it takes to make a character while the rest of your group is adventuring without you.  They care about the months of character-building and shared adventure that are now moot.  If you have a run of bad luck playing Rolemaster, you can spend 90% of your time in a session rolling up characters.  My group has funny stories about this happening to us.  Coincidentally, we don't play Rolemaster anymore...

To be fair, outside of D&D in my youth (like when I was 10-12 at Boy Scout camp), I've never seen replacement PCs rolled up during a game session.

If you suffer an unreversed death you're consistently out until next session (since the GM has to also determine how the new PC joins the campaign).

Therefore in nearly every situation I have ever experienced, whether the new PC takes 15 minutes or 45 minutes is largely irrelevant... the loss in play time and connections are the same regardless.

We normally play 3.5 - 4.5 hour sessions.  In Rolemaster, you can die to a crit on the first roll against.  If I drove 25 minutes across town to play at 6PM and die at 6:05PM, and my GM tells me I'm out of the game until the next session (while the group continues to play until 10PM), I'm out of the game for good.  This is why dick GMs lose players...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 07:41:59 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 09:46:26 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 06:43:05 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2025, 07:35:37 PMIf a character's death is particularly likely in the first session, then chargen time may seem like a waste. However, if my character dies after nine sessions, then it doesn't matter that much whether I took 15 minutes or 90 minutes to make my character months ago.

Do you even play RPGs, or is this all theorycrafting?  Because no one cares about the time it took to make a character months ago.  They care about the time it takes to make a character while the rest of your group is adventuring without you.  They care about the months of character-building and shared adventure that are now moot.  If you have a run of bad luck playing Rolemaster, you can spend 90% of your time in a session rolling up characters.  My group has funny stories about this happening to us.  Coincidentally, we don't play Rolemaster anymore...

To be fair, outside of D&D in my youth (like when I was 10-12 at Boy Scout camp), I've never seen replacement PCs rolled up during a game session.

If you suffer an unreversed death you're consistently out until next session (since the GM has to also determine how the new PC joins the campaign).

Therefore in nearly every situation I have ever experienced, whether the new PC takes 15 minutes or 45 minutes is largely irrelevant... the loss in play time and connections are the same regardless.

We normally play 3.5 - 4.5 hour sessions.  In Rolemaster, you can die to a crit on the first roll against.  If I drove 25 minutes across town to play at 6PM and die at 6:05PM, and my GM tells me I'm out of the game until the next session (while the group continues to play until 10PM), I'm out of the game for good.  This is why dick GMs lose players...

Heh. Shows the difference of experience.

I do drive about 20 minutes every other week for a four-ish hour session too, but we always end any combat before the end of session too.

As such, the odds of a deadly situation in the first five minutes (or even the first hour) is basically nonexistent in my experience.

I also wouldn't go home just because my PC died (nor do others at the table) any more than we would if we got turned into a newt or similar non-fatal, but basically removing from participation for the rest of the session. I like to see how my friends get out of the situation.

So your experiences are yours and mine are mine... neither are invalid and just highlight that different people want and experience different things when it comes to gaming.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 08:05:59 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 07:41:59 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 09:46:26 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 06:43:05 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2025, 07:35:37 PMIf a character's death is particularly likely in the first session, then chargen time may seem like a waste. However, if my character dies after nine sessions, then it doesn't matter that much whether I took 15 minutes or 90 minutes to make my character months ago.

Do you even play RPGs, or is this all theorycrafting?  Because no one cares about the time it took to make a character months ago.  They care about the time it takes to make a character while the rest of your group is adventuring without you.  They care about the months of character-building and shared adventure that are now moot.  If you have a run of bad luck playing Rolemaster, you can spend 90% of your time in a session rolling up characters.  My group has funny stories about this happening to us.  Coincidentally, we don't play Rolemaster anymore...

To be fair, outside of D&D in my youth (like when I was 10-12 at Boy Scout camp), I've never seen replacement PCs rolled up during a game session.

If you suffer an unreversed death you're consistently out until next session (since the GM has to also determine how the new PC joins the campaign).

Therefore in nearly every situation I have ever experienced, whether the new PC takes 15 minutes or 45 minutes is largely irrelevant... the loss in play time and connections are the same regardless.

We normally play 3.5 - 4.5 hour sessions.  In Rolemaster, you can die to a crit on the first roll against.  If I drove 25 minutes across town to play at 6PM and die at 6:05PM, and my GM tells me I'm out of the game until the next session (while the group continues to play until 10PM), I'm out of the game for good.  This is why dick GMs lose players...

Heh. Shows the difference of experience.

I do drive about 20 minutes every other week for a four-ish hour session too, but we always end any combat before the end of session too.

As such, the odds of a deadly situation in the first five minutes (or even the first hour) is basically nonexistent in my experience.

I also wouldn't go home just because my PC died (nor do others at the table) any more than we would if we got turned into a newt or similar non-fatal, but basically removing from participation for the rest of the session. I like to see how my friends get out of the situation.

So your experiences are yours and mine are mine... neither are invalid and just highlight that different people want and experience different things when it comes to gaming.

Then why did you comment in the first place?  Your initial comment (to a post not addressed to you) was to contradict my experience.  Now that you've said some stupid shit, suddenly "everybody's experience is valid... blah, blah blah."  How about starting there, and not falling back on it once your objections have been shown to be nonsensical?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 08:19:14 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 08:05:59 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 07:41:59 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 09:46:26 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 06:43:05 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2025, 07:35:37 PMIf a character's death is particularly likely in the first session, then chargen time may seem like a waste. However, if my character dies after nine sessions, then it doesn't matter that much whether I took 15 minutes or 90 minutes to make my character months ago.

Do you even play RPGs, or is this all theorycrafting?  Because no one cares about the time it took to make a character months ago.  They care about the time it takes to make a character while the rest of your group is adventuring without you.  They care about the months of character-building and shared adventure that are now moot.  If you have a run of bad luck playing Rolemaster, you can spend 90% of your time in a session rolling up characters.  My group has funny stories about this happening to us.  Coincidentally, we don't play Rolemaster anymore...

To be fair, outside of D&D in my youth (like when I was 10-12 at Boy Scout camp), I've never seen replacement PCs rolled up during a game session.

If you suffer an unreversed death you're consistently out until next session (since the GM has to also determine how the new PC joins the campaign).

Therefore in nearly every situation I have ever experienced, whether the new PC takes 15 minutes or 45 minutes is largely irrelevant... the loss in play time and connections are the same regardless.

We normally play 3.5 - 4.5 hour sessions.  In Rolemaster, you can die to a crit on the first roll against.  If I drove 25 minutes across town to play at 6PM and die at 6:05PM, and my GM tells me I'm out of the game until the next session (while the group continues to play until 10PM), I'm out of the game for good.  This is why dick GMs lose players...

Heh. Shows the difference of experience.

I do drive about 20 minutes every other week for a four-ish hour session too, but we always end any combat before the end of session too.

As such, the odds of a deadly situation in the first five minutes (or even the first hour) is basically nonexistent in my experience.

I also wouldn't go home just because my PC died (nor do others at the table) any more than we would if we got turned into a newt or similar non-fatal, but basically removing from participation for the rest of the session. I like to see how my friends get out of the situation.

So your experiences are yours and mine are mine... neither are invalid and just highlight that different people want and experience different things when it comes to gaming.

Then why did you comment in the first place?  Your initial comment (to a post not addressed to you) was to contradict my experience.  Now that you've said some stupid shit, suddenly "everybody's experience is valid... blah, blah blah."  How about starting there, and not falling back on it once your objections have been shown to be nonsensical?

I was trying to be polite.

You started by tearing down jhkim's experience as pointless and argue quick chargen is required to get back in the game as soon as possible (as if the GM has a requirement they bend the adventure to accommodate your situation... are they supposed to transform the next room into whatever best allows your new PC to enter the adventure? Seems pretty storygame nonsense to me).

I offered a counterpoint that jhkim's remarks are not pointless, they're dependent on group playstyle.

In a playstyle where you're not re-entering in the same session regardless of how fast you generate a new PC there is no particular advantage to fast PC creation.

That is further emphasized in systems where death is comparatively rare (ex. a superhero game... it's damnably hard to kill most PCs in a Champions or M&M games unless the GM is actively headhunting... Rifts can range from high lethality to practically unkillable depending on the power level you're playing at).

If it's a half-a-dozen or more sessions before anyone even has to roll up a new PC, then a complex chargen system that might take an hour or more is perfectly in line with the rest of the game mechanics and the style of play the GM is using.

That's why I say there's no one size fits all answer like you're trying to lay down... because the rapidity of chargen needed is actually a case-by-case answer.

Sorry, I tried to treat you like a human being and not an armed enemy combatant.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 08:47:44 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 08:19:14 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 08:05:59 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 07:41:59 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 09:46:26 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 06:43:05 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2025, 07:35:37 PMIf a character's death is particularly likely in the first session, then chargen time may seem like a waste. However, if my character dies after nine sessions, then it doesn't matter that much whether I took 15 minutes or 90 minutes to make my character months ago.

Do you even play RPGs, or is this all theorycrafting?  Because no one cares about the time it took to make a character months ago.  They care about the time it takes to make a character while the rest of your group is adventuring without you.  They care about the months of character-building and shared adventure that are now moot.  If you have a run of bad luck playing Rolemaster, you can spend 90% of your time in a session rolling up characters.  My group has funny stories about this happening to us.  Coincidentally, we don't play Rolemaster anymore...

To be fair, outside of D&D in my youth (like when I was 10-12 at Boy Scout camp), I've never seen replacement PCs rolled up during a game session.

If you suffer an unreversed death you're consistently out until next session (since the GM has to also determine how the new PC joins the campaign).

Therefore in nearly every situation I have ever experienced, whether the new PC takes 15 minutes or 45 minutes is largely irrelevant... the loss in play time and connections are the same regardless.

We normally play 3.5 - 4.5 hour sessions.  In Rolemaster, you can die to a crit on the first roll against.  If I drove 25 minutes across town to play at 6PM and die at 6:05PM, and my GM tells me I'm out of the game until the next session (while the group continues to play until 10PM), I'm out of the game for good.  This is why dick GMs lose players...

Heh. Shows the difference of experience.

I do drive about 20 minutes every other week for a four-ish hour session too, but we always end any combat before the end of session too.

As such, the odds of a deadly situation in the first five minutes (or even the first hour) is basically nonexistent in my experience.

I also wouldn't go home just because my PC died (nor do others at the table) any more than we would if we got turned into a newt or similar non-fatal, but basically removing from participation for the rest of the session. I like to see how my friends get out of the situation.

So your experiences are yours and mine are mine... neither are invalid and just highlight that different people want and experience different things when it comes to gaming.

Then why did you comment in the first place?  Your initial comment (to a post not addressed to you) was to contradict my experience.  Now that you've said some stupid shit, suddenly "everybody's experience is valid... blah, blah blah."  How about starting there, and not falling back on it once your objections have been shown to be nonsensical?

I was trying to be polite.

You started by tearing down jhkim's experience as pointless and argue quick chargen is required to get back in the game as soon as possible (as if the GM has a requirement they bend the adventure to accommodate your situation... are they supposed to transform the next room into whatever best allows your new PC to enter the adventure? Seems pretty storygame nonsense to me).

I offered a counterpoint that jhkim's remarks are not pointless, they're dependent on group playstyle.

In a playstyle where you're not re-entering in the same session regardless of how fast you generate a new PC there is no particular advantage to fast PC creation.

That is further emphasized in systems where death is comparatively rare (ex. a superhero game... it's damnably hard to kill most PCs in a Champions or M&M games unless the GM is actively headhunting... Rifts can range from high lethality to practically unkillable depending on the power level you're playing at).

If it's a half-a-dozen or more sessions before anyone even has to roll up a new PC, then a complex chargen system that might take an hour or more is perfectly in line with the rest of the game mechanics and the style of play the GM is using.

That's why I say there's no one size fits all answer like you're trying to lay down... because the rapidity of chargen needed is actually a case-by-case answer.

Sorry, I tried to treat you like a human being and not an armed enemy combatant.

Except you said none of that, nor did I.  I specifically responded to jhkim's assertion that character creation time doesn't matter if the character was created a long time in the past.  I responded with two points, one that the loss of a character in a system with a long build time will impact your continued play in the session (which isn't fun), and two, that losing a character means the loss of all of the relationships, experiences unique to that character, etc. (a point you didn't address).  I then gave an example of how a highly lethal and highly complex game can have those two combine to reduce the fun.

Your response included a dismissal that said GMs (in your experience) didn't even let players back in the game until the next session.  If spending all session rolling up characters is dumb, what is spending the whole session watching other people play?  You're one of those people that like critical role, aren't you? (Probably not, but the idea is the same). Let's not even talk about generalizing not getting into a fight in the first five minutes of a game (hell, half of TSR's and even WotC's published adventures start in media res).

So, when you jump in to defend jhkim by dismissing my experiences in the name of "all experiences are valid" expect to catch heat.  Oh, and "all experiences are valid" is a vapid, meaningless platitude in the context of this thread, anyway.  No one is arguing that anyone has to play a certain way.  We're arguing over what balance of lethality and complexity is unwieldy and unfun (to a significant group of people).

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 21, 2025, 10:25:59 AM

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on January 21, 2025, 07:47:11 AMTo be fair to my Rolemaster GM of those years ago. He would stop the game entirely while he adjudicated a new character being created. Because of how involved the process was of making characters for that game.

Well that's one way to ensure the group does everthing they can to keep every PC alive and a great incentive to boot anyone that has trouble keeping their PCs alive.

Because of the lethality of the systems. Everybody was given the benefit of the doubt,

But it was also very difficult to keep players after they encountered a few instakills, which was just the reality of running Rolemaster.

Trying to keep this on-topic,

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 08:05:59 PMHeh. Shows the difference of experience.

I do drive about 20 minutes every other week for a four-ish hour session too, but we always end any combat before the end of session too.

As such, the odds of a deadly situation in the first five minutes (or even the first hour) is basically nonexistent in my experience.

I also wouldn't go home just because my PC died (nor do others at the table) any more than we would if we got turned into a newt or similar non-fatal, but basically removing from participation for the rest of the session. I like to see how my friends get out of the situation.

So your experiences are yours and mine are mine... neither are invalid and just highlight that different people want and experience different things when it comes to gaming.

My experience is similar to your's, Chris24601, but I've had some rare times when a newly rolled-up PC would be brought in. The new PC would never instantly appear, though, with the exception of the CRUD System in "Send in the Clones" for Paranoia. The player would have to wait for the PCs to get to a place where the new PC could logically be introduced and join the group, which would usually be at least an hour - and typically close to the end of the session.

Two caveats on that:

1) Often if a PC was killed, the GM would have the player temporarily play an NPC - like a hireling or the equivalent. Once in Masks of Nyarlathotep, I made a new PC to be an NPC that had temporarily joined the party, so effectively I kept the same character - but his character sheet was replaced to be a standard PC.

2) Very rarely, players would have made a backup PC in advance. Sometimes these would even be made with connections already established with the PCs, so they could be swiftly introduced.


I'd agree that it's trivial to say "all experiences are valid" - but much of what I've been talking about is typical _Call of Cthulhu_ play. CoC isn't an obscure new game. It's one of the most popular RPGs of all time since it was introduced in 1980, regularly being listed among the top 5 systems. It's also known as one of the deadliest. Pundit just interviewed Sandy Peterson - I've got a first edition CoC book signed by him.

It's fine for someone to not like Call of Cthulhu as a matter of personal taste. But if they say that objectively it is bad game design - like saying point-buy doesn't work for deadly systems - then that has to contend with its success.

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2025, 02:58:58 PMIt's fine for someone to not like Call of Cthulhu as a matter of personal taste. But if they say that objectively it is bad game design - like saying point-buy doesn't work for deadly systems - then that has to contend with its success.

I really wish you were more acquainted with the scientific method.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."  The fact that there is a "successful" (for very large values of "success," when you consider that "5th most popular system" is a rounding error compared to the sales of the most popular game) example does not mean that the details of that success are applicable to the hobby as a whole.

For example, CoC is not designed as an action-oriented or combat-heavy game.  Generally, if you're fighting the eldritch horror with weapons, you've already lost.  As such, high lethality is an expectation, but not as something that will occur five times during a session.  Catastrophic sanity loss takes time (unless you are running houserules), and usually doesn't happen within ten minutes of the game starting..  CoC works best at the table as a slow burn.  On the other hand, D&D is an action-oriented, combat-heavy game (as is Rolemaster).  The standard dungeon-crawl might see the players engage in a half-dozen fights of varying scales each session. 

So, while both Rolemaster and CoC can be said to be highly lethal, there are different rates of lethality.  You probably don't expect your CoC character to survive the campaign (yet many do).  You probably don't expect your Rolemaster character to last the week (and many don't).  So complicated and involved point buy systems may "work" for CoC, and still be terrible design for a combat-oriented RPG like Rolemaster.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2025, 04:05:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2025, 02:58:58 PMIt's fine for someone to not like Call of Cthulhu as a matter of personal taste. But if they say that objectively it is bad game design - like saying point-buy doesn't work for deadly systems - then that has to contend with its success.

I really wish you were more acquainted with the scientific method.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."  The fact that there is a "successful" (for very large values of "success," when you consider that "5th most popular system" is a rounding error compared to the sales of the most popular game) example does not mean that the details of that success are applicable to the hobby as a whole.

For example, CoC is not designed as an action-oriented or combat-heavy game.  Generally, if you're fighting the eldritch horror with weapons, you've already lost.  As such, high lethality is an expectation, but not as something that will occur five times during a session.  Catastrophic sanity loss takes time (unless you are running houserules), and usually doesn't happen within ten minutes of the game starting..  CoC works best at the table as a slow burn.  On the other hand, D&D is an action-oriented, combat-heavy game (as is Rolemaster).  The standard dungeon-crawl might see the players engage in a half-dozen fights of varying scales each session. 

So, while both Rolemaster and CoC can be said to be highly lethal, there are different rates of lethality.  You probably don't expect your CoC character to survive the campaign (yet many do).  You probably don't expect your Rolemaster character to last the week (and many don't).  So complicated and involved point buy systems may "work" for CoC, and still be terrible design for a combat-oriented RPG like Rolemaster.

Okay, but so what? It's not like Rolemaster's popularity is anything but a rounding error either.

Because of how you play Rolemaster you want fast chargen (and the ability to insert new PCs into the same session your PC drops). What does that have to do with how other RPGs and tables handle death and speed of adding a replacement PC into the game?

Remember you're the one who started in on jhkim's analysis of time needed to make a PC not mattering if it's not something you have to do regularly...

"Do you even play RPGs, or is this all theorycrafting?  Because no one cares about the time it took to make a character months ago.  They care about the time it takes to make a character while the rest of your group is adventuring without you."

Clearly you were claiming he was wrong... now you're going on about how different games have different assumptions... which was what I was saying too.

Do you even HAVE a point or are you just ranting for the sake of ranting?

Just to add my experience to the survey here.

I don't find that character creation time has much of an impact on how I feel about my character dying. That's more down to the quallity of the campaign and whether or not the character creation process is inherently enjoyable. A couple of qualifiers, though.

1) I've never played a truly high-lethality game, at least as people here seem to reckon it. A handful of deaths per campaign, with maybe the odd TPK-like spike as a fluke is typical across all the games I've been involved with. If I was having to roll a new character every session, that might be different, but then the character creation process would be the least of my grievances.

2) I'm just generally someone who like getting an excuse to roll a new character, so I'm low energy when it comes to my PCs dying.

On the subject of rolling up during the session or sitting out until the next one, I've seen both approaches. Generally, it seems more the case that more "story-oriented" games go for the sit it out approach, because they're usually spending more time on creation and will care more about how to integrate a new character into the party. More "gamey" or beer-and-pretzels style is more likely to just say "eh fuck it. roll another guy real quick and we'll just have him walk in from the next room."

These days I'm firmly in the latter category. I strongly advise (but don't force) my players to have a backup character already rolled, so that they can get back in the game ASAP. I'm probably only going to have someone waiting until the next session if they died within 20 minutes of the end of the current one.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 22, 2025, 04:30:17 PMClearly you were claiming he was wrong... now you're going on about how different games have different assumptions... which was what I was saying too.

No, you didn't say that at all.  You simply asserted that my statement was wrong in general.  Show me where you say different games have different assumptions in your original post, or where you mention different games at all:

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2025, 09:46:26 AMTherefore in nearly every situation I have ever experienced, whether the new PC takes 15 minutes or 45 minutes is largely irrelevant... the loss in play time and connections are the same regardless.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 22, 2025, 04:30:17 PMDo you even HAVE a point or are you just ranting for the sake of ranting?

My point was in the original post, and here:

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 09:11:28 PMI responded with two points, one that the loss of a character in a system with a long build time will impact your continued play in the session (which isn't fun), and two, that losing a character means the loss of all of the relationships, experiences unique to that character, etc. (a point you didn't address).  I then gave an example of how a highly lethal and highly complex game can have those two combine to reduce the fun.

If character creation takes 10 to 15 minutes, and I lose that character in game, that's not too bad. 

But if character creation takes an hour, and I lose that character, just give me a pre-gen character at that point.

Just tell me the name, level, and character class.

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 22, 2025, 10:16:21 PMIf character creation takes 10 to 15 minutes, and I lose that character in game, that's not too bad. 

But if character creation takes an hour, and I lose that character, just give me a pre-gen character at that point.

Just tell me the name, level, and character class.

So here's the potential clash between Man at Arms and Eirikrautha. As Eirikrautha puts it,

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 06:43:05 AMBecause no one cares about the time it took to make a character months ago.  They care about the time it takes to make a character while the rest of your group is adventuring without you.

Is the important issue how long it took to make that character? Does the difference between 15 minutes and an hour making the character change one's attachment to them? Or is the important thing the time out from the action?

For both Man at Arms and Eirikrautha, would it make a difference if the PC death happened at the end of the session - so you could roll up a new one before the next session?

---

For me, I'm more like ForgottenF - as he calls it, "low energy". I'm generally fine with my PC dying as long as the adventure is good otherwise. I enjoy coming up with a new character. Some character creation systems are more fun for me than others, but typically it's something I enjoy.

For other people, I agree with Eirikrautha - how long it took to create a character isn't that important after the character has been around for a few sessions.

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2025, 10:48:34 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 22, 2025, 10:16:21 PMIf character creation takes 10 to 15 minutes, and I lose that character in game, that's not too bad. 

But if character creation takes an hour, and I lose that character, just give me a pre-gen character at that point.

Just tell me the name, level, and character class.

So here's the potential clash between Man at Arms and Eirikrautha. As Eirikrautha puts it,

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 21, 2025, 06:43:05 AMBecause no one cares about the time it took to make a character months ago.  They care about the time it takes to make a character while the rest of your group is adventuring without you.

Is the important issue how long it took to make that character? Does the difference between 15 minutes and an hour making the character change one's attachment to them? Or is the important thing the time out from the action?

For both Man at Arms and Eirikrautha, would it make a difference if the PC death happened at the end of the session - so you could roll up a new one before the next session?

---

For me, I'm more like ForgottenF - as he calls it, "low energy". I'm generally fine with my PC dying as long as the adventure is good otherwise. I enjoy coming up with a new character. Some character creation systems are more fun for me than others, but typically it's something I enjoy.

For other people, I agree with Eirikrautha - how long it took to create a character isn't that important after the character has been around for a few sessions.

"Hey, let's you and him fight!"  What a disengenuous piece of garbage you are...

I don't see any conflict between what I said and what MaA said.  The issue isn't the time to make my first character.  It's the time to make my second  (and third, and fourth...) , especially depending on the frequency of having to do so.  And it's not whether the death is at the end of the session.  It's whether the effort to create a new character is worth the payoff of playing them.  Sitting out for half the session is just the cherry on top.

Also, you never responded to my post about you misusing CoC as an example.  I assume that means you accept my counter-argument as correct.

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2025, 10:48:34 PMFor me, I'm more like ForgottenF - as he calls it, "low energy". I'm generally fine with my PC dying as long as the adventure is good otherwise. I enjoy coming up with a new character. Some character creation systems are more fun for me than others, but typically it's something I enjoy.

Just to follow up on that a little, I only get attached to or invested in my character if the campaign is good. Again, how long it takes me to make it has pretty much no bearing on the issue. The funny thing is that if the campaign is good, I know I can get invested in another character if mine dies, so that's no issue either.

If the campaign is boring, frustrating, or just dry/mechanical, that's where my character dying has me thinking "oh fuck, I have to go through the hassle of making another character just to keep being bored." It doesn't help that a bad campaign is more likely to mean your character died for a stupid reason, either.

Circling back to the original thread topic of "what works in a high-lethality game":

I'd say thinking about it in terms of what punishments are inflicted on the player beyond just character death is a good direction to look in. How pleasant/unpleasant character creation is would be one angle on that, but there are others. Is the new character going to be kicked back to level one, and relatedly, how useless is a starting character relative to an advanced one? Like Chris mentioned, does losing a character disconnect the player from the ongoing story/campaign?

One I think people don't often consider is how important is accumulated wealth or equipment? Something I've noticed in several OSR campaigns is how woefully underpowered new characters coming in are relative to long-lasting ones, even when they come in at the same level, because they lack the accumulated magic items of the long-running characters. In something like Call of Cthulhu or most Conan RPGs, that's a non-issue.

One of the highest-fatality campaigns I've played in was (of all things) Dungeon World. Nobody seemed to care, and I think it was because that campaign hit all these beats. The day-to-day adventure was fun, equipment didn't matter much, character creation is fast and relatively enjoyable, there was little ongoing plot, and starting characters in that game aren't much weaker than experienced ones.