Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 02:35:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

I've played in a bunch of games where effectively the PC only died with permission.

I've enjoyed Toon, which isn't pulp but has an absolute "PCs don't die" rule.

I also played in a serious "adventures in history" game where all the PCs were immortal beings, and we played out adventures in non-linear time. i.e. The first adventure might be in the 1600s, and the second adventure in the 700s. So for continuity, PCs couldn't permanently die - though they could be crippled or trapped for decades.

Though requiring consent doesn't mean that PCs don't die. In almost all the cases of player death that I can think of, the player was fine with it and enjoyed having a dramatic death scene.

Also, I've also had plenty of relatively light-hearted games where no PCs died - like Champions, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, effectively PCs can't permanently die except by player choice, since returning from the dead only costs 1 drama point. (Though they might be out for a few episodes and the player has to take over an NPC.)

How many of those have a big player base?

Maybe Champions/Hero and Marvel.

Now, let me rephrase it to see if I can convey my opinion in a clearer way:

Quote
If it wasn't a Pulp game (or any game where it's asumed by the genre conceits) then that was a shitty game (given that the GM DIDN'T inform you)

Clearer now?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 02:35:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

I've played in a bunch of games where effectively the PC only died with permission.

I've enjoyed Toon, which isn't pulp but has an absolute "PCs don't die" rule.

I also played in a serious "adventures in history" game where all the PCs were immortal beings, and we played out adventures in non-linear time. i.e. The first adventure might be in the 1600s, and the second adventure in the 700s. So for continuity, PCs couldn't permanently die - though they could be crippled or trapped for decades.

Though requiring consent doesn't mean that PCs don't die. In almost all the cases of player death that I can think of, the player was fine with it and enjoyed having a dramatic death scene.

Also, I've also had plenty of relatively light-hearted games where no PCs died - like Champions, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, effectively PCs can't permanently die except by player choice, since returning from the dead only costs 1 drama point. (Though they might be out for a few episodes and the player has to take over an NPC.)

How many of those have a big player base?

Maybe Champions/Hero and Marvel.

Now, let me rephrase it to see if I can convey my opinion in a clearer way:

Quote
If it wasn't a Pulp game (or any game where it's asumed by the genre conceits) then that was a shitty game (given that the GM DIDN'T inform you)

Clearer now?

I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

That rule could make sense in some game.
Surely, one of theese game isn't D&D (or WFRP or Call of Cthulhu...).
Also...in Ad&D-like systems...you already got a polymorph saving throw, introducing player's consent would go counter the spirit of the game.

(edited the last sentence as it was confusing).

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 12, 2023, 04:32:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 02:35:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

I've played in a bunch of games where effectively the PC only died with permission.

I've enjoyed Toon, which isn't pulp but has an absolute "PCs don't die" rule.

I also played in a serious "adventures in history" game where all the PCs were immortal beings, and we played out adventures in non-linear time. i.e. The first adventure might be in the 1600s, and the second adventure in the 700s. So for continuity, PCs couldn't permanently die - though they could be crippled or trapped for decades.

Though requiring consent doesn't mean that PCs don't die. In almost all the cases of player death that I can think of, the player was fine with it and enjoyed having a dramatic death scene.

Also, I've also had plenty of relatively light-hearted games where no PCs died - like Champions, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, effectively PCs can't permanently die except by player choice, since returning from the dead only costs 1 drama point. (Though they might be out for a few episodes and the player has to take over an NPC.)

How many of those have a big player base?

Maybe Champions/Hero and Marvel.

Now, let me rephrase it to see if I can convey my opinion in a clearer way:

Quote
If it wasn't a Pulp game (or any game where it's asumed by the genre conceits) then that was a shitty game (given that the GM DIDN'T inform you)

Clearer now?

I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

That rule could make sense in some game.
Surely, one of theese game isn't D&D (or WFRP or Call of Cthulhu...).
Also...in Ad&D-like systems...you can fail a polymorph saving throw only by consent...go figure.

Wrong, in D&D-like games you don't roll a ST for polymorph wehn you're willing to submit/accept the magic, since you're not resisting there's no need for a ST. It's not that you fail it, it's that there's no ST.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 04:56:27 PM

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 12, 2023, 04:32:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 02:35:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

I've played in a bunch of games where effectively the PC only died with permission.

I've enjoyed Toon, which isn't pulp but has an absolute "PCs don't die" rule.

I also played in a serious "adventures in history" game where all the PCs were immortal beings, and we played out adventures in non-linear time. i.e. The first adventure might be in the 1600s, and the second adventure in the 700s. So for continuity, PCs couldn't permanently die - though they could be crippled or trapped for decades.

Though requiring consent doesn't mean that PCs don't die. In almost all the cases of player death that I can think of, the player was fine with it and enjoyed having a dramatic death scene.

Also, I've also had plenty of relatively light-hearted games where no PCs died - like Champions, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, effectively PCs can't permanently die except by player choice, since returning from the dead only costs 1 drama point. (Though they might be out for a few episodes and the player has to take over an NPC.)

How many of those have a big player base?

Maybe Champions/Hero and Marvel.

Now, let me rephrase it to see if I can convey my opinion in a clearer way:

Quote
If it wasn't a Pulp game (or any game where it's asumed by the genre conceits) then that was a shitty game (given that the GM DIDN'T inform you)

Clearer now?

I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

That rule could make sense in some game.
Surely, one of theese game isn't D&D (or WFRP or Call of Cthulhu...).
Also...in Ad&D-like systems...you can fail a polymorph saving throw only by consent...go figure.

Wrong, in D&D-like games you don't roll a ST for polymorph wehn you're willing to submit/accept the magic, since you're not resisting there's no need for a ST. It's not that you fail it, it's that there's no ST.

I meant that it would be silly to introduce the player's  consent in Ad&d, because you got a saving throw against polymorph. It would be ludicrous and it would go against a basic mechanic (and the spirit) of the game.

Anyway, I rewrote that sentence as it was confusing.

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 12, 2023, 04:32:56 PM
I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

Is that a new version of Microscope or something? The version I played had no such rule and basically stated that if a character dies, too bad so sad, you can create a scene with the character in the past before they died. In non-linear time, nobody really dies, you just need to respect causality.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 12:32:43 PM

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 12, 2023, 04:32:56 PM
I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

Is that a new version of Microscope or something? The version I played had no such rule and basically stated that if a character dies, too bad so sad, you can create a scene with the character in the past before they died. In non-linear time, nobody really dies, you just need to respect causality.

Microscope, as far as I know, only has 1 edition. It has got an expansion, Microscope Explorer, but the core manual got only one version.
As to killing characters only with player's consent, actually the rule is there. Microscope rules state that, when you try doing something to another player's character, that player decide the outcome. That include also killing him.

Sure, in the next scene, you can go back to the time before he died and play that character another time. But he's still dead, so to speak, in the time of his death and after.

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 13, 2023, 01:31:01 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 12:32:43 PM
Is that a new version of Microscope or something? The version I played had no such rule and basically stated that if a character dies, too bad so sad, you can create a scene with the character in the past before they died. In non-linear time, nobody really dies, you just need to respect causality.

Microscope, as far as I know, only has 1 edition. It has got an expansion, Microscope Explorer, but the core manual got only one version.
As to killing characters only with player's consent, actually the rule is there. Microscope rules state that, when you try doing something to another player's character, that player decide the outcome. That include also killing him.

Sure, in the next scene, you can go back to the time before he died and play that character another time. But he's still dead, so to speak, in the time of his death and after.

This might be a mixup between Events and Scenes. On p42 in the chapter on "Playing Scenes"

QuoteDoing Things To Characters

Each player controls the fate of the character they chose during the Scene setup. If you want to do something to someone else's character, describe what you are trying to do and your intended effect. It's up to the other player to decide the result.

QuoteA player says the gladiator character he controls tries to stab the Emperor and kill him. The Emperor's player gets to say if the Emperor is slain, wounded, or escapes the attack entirely.

So within a scene, a character has a specific player who is playing them - and that person decides their character's fate. Outside of a Scene, though, a player could create a timeline Event of "The Death of the Emperor" and then it would be established that the emperor dies. Since at that point no one is playing the emperor, there is no consent needed.

Yeah, okay, when role playing a scene with other players you can't just get to declare that another player's character is dead. You only control a character for a scene; nobody owns them. This is just to encourage role play, rather than some consent dogma. You can just declare that character dead in an event or kill him in another scene where you play him. We had one memorable game where someone was shocked that a character they created was summarily killed by another player.

It's a mechanic, not consent thing. Microscope discourages collaboration and doesn't give a fuck about consent and in my mind that's a huge part of what makes it fun.

Quote from: Microscope
Nuking Atlantis
Or "Can I just say that guy is dead?"
It doesn't matter who created that gleaming city on the hill or
who played that character in the last Scene: if it's your turn,
you can do whatever you want. No one owns anything in the
history. You can make an Event and say "this is when the Prophet
gets assassinated" or "this is when that awesome city you guys
have been going on about gets nuked. Boom!" You have nigh
unlimited power, so long as you don't contradict what's already
been established.
Don't pull your punches. Killing a character or nuking a city
doesn't remove it from the game because you can always go
back in time and explore what it was like when it was still around.
No matter what you do, other players can still go back and use
it, so don't be afraid to wipe things out. Nothing is ever removed
from the history. The past is never closed.

Edit: Also, the player deciding if the character they controls dies or not is just in Played Scenes. There are also Dictated Scenes where you control any characters you want and narrate what happens. So the whole agreeing to die thing is just part of the mechanics that distinguish the different types of scenes. Nobody owns characters, but if you want to kill a character that another player created and loves, you can 100% do it, just wait until your turn.

Much like playing monopoly, consent happens when you agree to sit down and play the game.

"Wait a minute - I never agreed to be poor!"

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 02:22:12 PM
Yeah, okay, when role playing a scene with other players you can't just get to declare that another player's character is dead. You only control a character for a scene; nobody owns them. This is just to encourage role play, rather than some consent dogma. You can just declare that character dead in an event or kill him in another scene where you play him. We had one memorable game where someone was shocked that a character they created was summarily killed by another player.

It's a mechanic, not consent thing. Microscope discourages collaboration and doesn't give a fuck about consent and in my mind that's a huge part of what makes it fun.

Microscope encourages sharing in a sense by not having any long-term ownership of characters or other elements. So everyone can leave their mark and radically change the timeline. This is "collaborative" in a sense, but it is based on individual contribution rather than consensus (which tends to be dominated by just a few people in most social dynamics).

I don't think that's opposed to consent, because without ownership, there is no consent needed. Outside of a scene, the emperor isn't owned by any player, so it's not violating any player to have him killed.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2023, 04:47:59 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 02:22:12 PM
Yeah, okay, when role playing a scene with other players you can't just get to declare that another player's character is dead. You only control a character for a scene; nobody owns them. This is just to encourage role play, rather than some consent dogma. You can just declare that character dead in an event or kill him in another scene where you play him. We had one memorable game where someone was shocked that a character they created was summarily killed by another player.

It's a mechanic, not consent thing. Microscope discourages collaboration and doesn't give a fuck about consent and in my mind that's a huge part of what makes it fun.

Microscope encourages sharing in a sense by not having any long-term ownership of characters or other elements. So everyone can leave their mark and radically change the timeline. This is "collaborative" in a sense, but it is based on individual contribution rather than consensus (which tends to be dominated by just a few people in most social dynamics).

I don't think that's opposed to consent, because without ownership, there is no consent needed. Outside of a scene, the emperor isn't owned by any player, so it's not violating any player to have him killed.

Sure, that's one way to put it. You have total authority on your turn, so it's not collaborative, but since everyone takes turns, it is collaborative. Obviously the latter is encouraged otherwise it wouldn't be a social game.

As for sharing, no, not really. Sharing implies consent. You ask for permission and it's granted or not. In the game you simply take total control of the world and then yield it when your turn is done. There is no asking or granting of permission.

As for your comments on consent, you seem to be implying there's some sort of causal relationship, i.e., the idea that no consent is needed just happens to naturally flow from the fact that no player owns any part of the world. Ownership is a side issue. What makes the game work is that you don't need anyone's permission to mess with anything. The game would still function with ownership of characters and such, but it wouldn't function with a requirement for consent.

What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?  I guess those that would normally bitch probably wouldn't because they don't know what sex they are anyway.

You're dead Marcy, get out of here!

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 02:22:12 PM
Yeah, okay, when role playing a scene with other players you can't just get to declare that another player's character is dead. You only control a character for a scene; nobody owns them. This is just to encourage role play, rather than some consent dogma. You can just declare that character dead in an event or kill him in another scene where you play him. We had one memorable game where someone was shocked that a character they created was summarily killed by another player.

It's a mechanic, not consent thing. Microscope discourages collaboration and doesn't give a fuck about consent and in my mind that's a huge part of what makes it fun.

Quote from: Microscope
Nuking Atlantis
Or "Can I just say that guy is dead?"
It doesn't matter who created that gleaming city on the hill or
who played that character in the last Scene: if it's your turn,
you can do whatever you want. No one owns anything in the
history. You can make an Event and say "this is when the Prophet
gets assassinated" or "this is when that awesome city you guys
have been going on about gets nuked. Boom!" You have nigh
unlimited power, so long as you don't contradict what's already
been established.
Don't pull your punches. Killing a character or nuking a city
doesn't remove it from the game because you can always go
back in time and explore what it was like when it was still around.
No matter what you do, other players can still go back and use
it, so don't be afraid to wipe things out. Nothing is ever removed
from the history. The past is never closed.

Edit: Also, the player deciding if the character they controls dies or not is just in Played Scenes. There are also Dictated Scenes where you control any characters you want and narrate what happens. So the whole agreeing to die thing is just part of the mechanics that distinguish the different types of scenes. Nobody owns characters, but if you want to kill a character that another player created and loves, you can 100% do it, just wait until your turn.

Sure, I was strictly speaking about played scenes, because that's the one moment when you get to roleplay a PC in a game of Microscope. In Periods, Events and dictated Scenes you don't really have a PC, you just run things limited only by focus/legacy, palette and logic (don't contradict what has already been established).