Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;753525I currently play in a storygame RPG that's pulp (Trail of Cthulhu, Eternal Lies by Pelgrane) but the GM has let us know that there's no PC immunity. PC death immunity is not specifically a storygame RPG thing, as evidenced by several Trad games that have death immunity (like Marvel Superheroes) and storygame RPGs that don't (like the aforementioned Trail and other Gumshoe games).  Death immunity seems more to be a genre thing.

Agreed. Other gritty and/or lethal story games include Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, Fiasco, Sorcerer, and Apocalypse World. If anything, these are more the mainstream of Forge and post-Forge indie story games - than games like Spirit of the Century. These games tend to be dark, emphasize strongly on letting the dice fall as they will, and strictly following the rules.

In my last Dungeon World campaign, the GM kept my character alive when he was in trouble - but he was fighting against the rules to do so. That my character survived had more to do with the GM than the rules. There is a "Death's Door" move that allows avoiding death, but it is a random roll. There is no check for player consent to die.

Quote from: robiswrong;753553The 'avoiding death' mechanisms in Fate generally boil down to the difficulty of a one-hit kill, and the ability to Concede a conflict (basically, retreat/give up).  If you stick it out and get Taken Out, well, it's up to the GM what happens.

I think that's the consent element I was thinking of - the player can always choose to Concede and not die, or make a "this is worth dying for" commitment - which is good as since it's the GM's choice to kill a PC, if the player had not made that commitment then the GM would look like a dick if he killed the PC rather than had them captured etc.

Now that I think about it, I've definitely heard the "you should never kill a character without their consent." bit.  Strangely, it's usually said by younger D&D 3.x players - I see it most frequently at the forums on giantitp.com.

Quote from: S'mon;753593I think that's the consent element I was thinking of - the player can always choose to Concede and not die, or make a "this is worth dying for" commitment - which is good as since it's the GM's choice to kill a PC, if the player had not made that commitment then the GM would look like a dick if he killed the PC rather than had them captured etc.

But apart from being more of a first-class game mechanic (as opposed to something that's derived from movement), it's not really different than retreating in a combat.

And, for what it's worth, you can only concede until dice are thrown - once the dice are down, you have to resolve them fully before you can Concede.  So you can't ever say "wow, that's a lot of stress, I'll choose to Concede rather than being Taken Out".

Quote from: robiswrong;753630Now that I think about it, I've definitely heard the "you should never kill a character without their consent." bit.  

You decide to roleplay in a setting where death exists, you've just given consent for your character to die.

Quote from: CRKrueger;753638You decide to roleplay in a setting where death exists, you've just given consent for your character to die.

Just to be clear, you'll notice I'm not defending the "your character can only die if you give consent" thing.

Quote from: robiswrong;753639Just to be clear, you'll notice I'm not defending the "your character can only die if you give consent" thing.

Oh yeah, I know, just had to comment on that one.

Quote from: robiswrong;753481So what's this game where PCs are invulnerable?  I mean, given the recent thread where just about nobody could come up with the last time that a PC with any investment in them died...

It was a problematic thread given that "lethality" (meaning "death rate") depends partly on player decisions, given a game where players can make decisions that meaningfully affect their chance of dying. If "lethal" refers to the death rate assuming perfect tactical and strategic play, and you really expect play to reach those heights, then the result is the same as rolling a chance of dying per adventure. I don't mean it's as fun, just that if you require a certain death rate even under the assumption that players are going to be perfect, you're taking skill and emotional motivation out of the equation entirely, leaving only chance, regardless of whether it's the roll of the dice or a decision made without the benefit of perfect information.

While I think that kind of lethality has its place--maybe if you want to make an RPG about front-line infantry combat on the Eastern Front--I think it's equally valid and more useful to think about lethality in terms of how unforgiving and strict the game is. Two games might have the same low PC death rate among experienced players while playing quite differently; the first game gives players the tools to minimize lethal uncertainty provided they use them with skill; the second game just mandates that nobody dies.

Or it may not be a matter of skill exactly. As I suggested upthread, one game might give PCs a decent chance of survival provided the players can deftly negotiate the "hard realities" of the setting; another game may instead give the players the power to define the realities of the setting on the fly, with the result that the PCs survive pretty much regardless of what they do. The latter doesn't have to become a gonzo lasersharked parody of the underlying genre--but it's quite a bit more susceptible to that.

Maybe if you add in a PvP element, so that the group as a whole can put the brakes on gonzo elaborations without "punishing" themselves by undercutting an ally, you could mitigate the effect.

Regardless of how lethal a game's rules says the game is, or how lethal the table insists the game is, if you play 100 sessions and nobody dies, I just don't buy that the game is truly "lethal" in any interesting way.

That doesn't mean the game is bad, of course.  But if over a long time, nobody crosses the bad luck + bad decision threshold sufficiently to cause a death... well, I just don't think that "lethal" is an appropriate descriptor.

And I'm not saying this from an outsider's perspective.  I've played in games that bragged about how lethal they were, and yet nobody died.  And in reality, the game got boring because at some level I *knew* that my character wasn't likely to die (and there were few other consequences involved).

Quote from: robiswrong;753795Regardless of how lethal a game's rules says the game is, or how lethal the table insists the game is, if you play 100 sessions and nobody dies, I just don't buy that the game is truly "lethal" in any interesting way.

That doesn't mean the game is bad, of course.  But if over a long time, nobody crosses the bad luck + bad decision threshold sufficiently to cause a death... well, I just don't think that "lethal" is an appropriate descriptor.

Agreed.

I think that both lethal and non-lethal games can be fun. Some people might have a preference for one or the other, but there's nothing wrong with either of

1) People who like lethal games playing lethal games and having fun.
2) People who like non-lethal games playing non-lethal games and having fun.

I understand people have preferences, but I don't get the moral judgment over plot immunity.

Quote from: robiswrong;753795Regardless of how lethal a game's rules says the game is, or how lethal the table insists the game is, if you play 100 sessions and nobody dies, I just don't buy that the game is truly "lethal" in any interesting way.

That doesn't mean the game is bad, of course.  But if over a long time, nobody crosses the bad luck + bad decision threshold sufficiently to cause a death... well, I just don't think that "lethal" is an appropriate descriptor.

My point was to look beyond the term.

QuoteAnd I'm not saying this from an outsider's perspective.  I've played in games that bragged about how lethal they were, and yet nobody died.  And in reality, the game got boring because at some level I *knew* that my character wasn't likely to die (and there were few other consequences involved).

In my book, boring = bad.

So is there something boring about calling a game "lethal" and then not having it measure up to your personal definition, regardless of the content otherwise? I mean if you like fudge and Nutella, does fudge become awful if you call it Nutella?

Or were the games boring because you need the excitement of PC death and there wasn't any? (This means you prefer lethality, using your definition of lethality.)

Or were the games boring because you saw PCs doing dumb things without dying? (This means you prefer lethality according to the criteria I suggested, but you might be okay with PCs rarely or never dying if they never did dumb things.)

Admittedly, lethality due to risk vs skill isn't either/or. In fact I'd say that if the players could always avoid all risk, at no cost, the game is likely to be boring for me. Basically that devolves into puzzle-solving. But in the overall equation of risk, cost, and reward, I'm not entirely sure that it's necessary for players to accept a particularly high chance of death for the game to be interesting.

To sum up:

I find that notional challenges that can be overcome using "whatever" tactics tend toward a gonzo atmosphere, which is something I'm not often looking for in RPGs. OR if everyone pretends the tactics are important, but they aren't really, it feels fake, anti-immersive, forced, railroaded, illusionistic, etc.

However if PC decisions really matter, so that they can choose their own course weighing personal risk against rewards and costs, while exploring and possibly redefining those values (rewards and costs), then the PCs don't necessarily need to take on a high level risk or have it imposed on them, for the game to be interesting. I'll add that that I appreciate it when decisions matter in a way that's coherent with the setting and genre.

This particular mix of characteristics may not result in many PCs dying, but I can see why someone might still call it "lethal" compared to other games.

Quote from: Arminius;753878So is there something boring about calling a game "lethal" and then not having it measure up to your personal definition, regardless of the content otherwise? I mean if you like fudge and Nutella, does fudge become awful if you call it Nutella?

Or were the games boring because you need the excitement of PC death and there wasn't any? (This means you prefer lethality, using your definition of lethality.)

No.  There was nothing truly at risk, because every challenge could be overcome using relatively standard tactics.  Yes, you *could* die if you did "dumb things", but that threshold was sufficiently low that, in reality, it never came up.

I don't care if character death is common or not, but I do prefer risk in games.  And at some point, when we've seen enough "scary things" and yet as long as we play smart, we come out okay, we realize that outside of dumb decisions, there's no real risk.  It's just like we know that no matter how bad things look in the middle of the movie, the hero ain't gonna die.

Quote from: Arminius;753878Or were the games boring because you saw PCs doing dumb things without dying? (This means you prefer lethality according to the criteria I suggested, but you might be okay with PCs rarely or never dying if they never did dumb things.)

If the risk of death is 'if you do incredibly dumb things, you die', then it's not really a risk of death in my book.  I mean, having that there can certainly impact how players play, and I'd agree with you that invulnerable, bulletproof characters make for a dumb game.

But I mean, that's the chunky salsa rule, right?  Anything that happens in a game that would, realistically, reduce you to the consistency of chunky salsa will kill you.  If you get your head guillotined, you're dead.  If charging a machine gun nest is a valid tactic, it kinda hurts the believability of the setting.

Quote from: Arminius;753878Admittedly, lethality due to risk vs skill isn't either/or. In fact I'd say that if the players could always avoid all risk, at no cost, the game is likely to be boring for me. Basically that devolves into puzzle-solving. But in the overall equation of risk, cost, and reward, I'm not entirely sure that it's necessary for players to accept a particularly high chance of death for the game to be interesting.

I *totally* agree with this.  There needs to be *risk*, but that risk doesn't need to be character death.  And since character death has a negative impact on many players, many GMs are hesitant to employ it in a heavy-handed fashion.

As such, other risks can actually create higher tension since they are *likely* to actually occur.

Quote from: Arminius;753878To sum up:

I find that notional challenges that can be overcome using "whatever" tactics tend toward a gonzo atmosphere, which is something I'm not often looking for in RPGs. OR if everyone pretends the tactics are important, but they aren't really, it feels fake, anti-immersive, forced, railroaded, illusionistic, etc.

In some ways, if there are tactics that *work*, and tactics that *don't work*, and using the working tactics will always result in success, then, well, you're realistically just as railroaded.  Certain choices = win, other choices = lose.  You just go down the list of things you're supposed to do.

Quote from: Arminius;753878However if PC decisions really matter, so that they can choose their own course weighing personal risk against rewards and costs, while exploring and possibly redefining those values (rewards and costs), then the PCs don't necessarily need to take on a high level risk or have it imposed on them, for the game to be interesting. I'll add that that I appreciate it when decisions matter in a way that's coherent with the setting and genre.

I'm not the one focused on "death = only acceptable risk".  I think a game has to have some level of risk to be interesting, but that risk doesn't have to be death.

And I'm not interested in games where I win all the time.  This isn't just limited to RPGs, either.

Quote from: Arminius;753878This particular mix of characteristics may not result in many PCs dying, but I can see why someone might still call it "lethal" compared to other games.

Again, I differentiate between "lethal" and "risk".  You can absolutely have risk without being lethal.

No major disagreement, but I think the chunky salsa rule is also an exaggeration, just like trying to separate luck & skill in actual play. I may be off but I think the subtext of this thread is clash of expectations--as BV showed. If the mood of a movie is over the top action like Transporter, you can do things that don't work say The French Connection. I think the same applies to a gaming table. There are gradations of mood even before you get to conscious parody and beyond. It's reasonable to complain if pop trends push your favorite genre into a narrow niche that's fairly removed from the original center of gravity.

As far as risk and tactics, I think one thing I may not have made clear is even in theory, the ability to avoid personal risk through sound tactics doesn't mean that personal risk will disappear. That only happens if the players only have tactical choices. Suppose you have multiple values. An NPC did a favor for the PC some time in the past; now the NPC needs help in a business matter (that may involve some rough stuff). As the game proceeds, the PC hits a crisis and must choose tactics:

--One tactic eliminates all personal risk (no chance of dying) but there's a 50% chance the NPC will lose his investment.

--The second tactic entails a 1% personal risk, but the venture will succeed if the PC succeeds (lives).

This ties in with what you say about risks other than death,  but it's still "gritty" in a way that satisfies the need for lethality to be genuine. I would contrast this with either

--If you take a blow, you can trade off the damage by having your girlfriend break up with you when you get home, or whatever, or

--The stakes of a given conflict are always resolved, but PC death isn't an option. Sure, you can have an ultra-tactical fight to ward off the hired guns trying to run Uncle Fred off his farmland, but if you "lose", you're only left for dead, or forced to retreat, etc.

In conclusion, grittiness and lethality may not depend on a particular mortality rate, but they do require that risk of death be a real factor for the PCs to consider.

Quote from: robiswrong;753882In some ways, if there are tactics that *work*, and tactics that *don't work*, and using the working tactics will always result in success, then, well, you're realistically just as railroaded.  Certain choices = win, other choices = lose.  You just go down the list of things you're supposed to do.

That's a bit of a stretch.  Who's talking about tactics that always result in success?  Deciding not to charge machinegun nests head on and instead use distraction/flanking maneuvers, smoke grenades to obscure vision increases the chances of success highly, but does not make it guaranteed.

The reason that a special ops guy might prefer to take out a sentry by approaching him from behind using a weapon that won't alert the whole compound isn't guaranteed, but it's better then walking up to the front gate guns blazing.  Sometimes the only way to do it is to assault, but even then you have a plan so that to the enemy it looks like total chaos, but to you it's executing a strategy.

The heroes of WWII that we talk about today didn't become famous because they did all that "heroic stuff" in SotC, any jackass can do that, they did it in a system more lethal then RQ.  

It just goes back to whether you want your character to be a hero because they do heroic things or because we agreed beforehand that we're roleplaying within the dramatic literary scope of trope blah blah blah.

Quote from: robiswrong;753882Again, I differentiate between "lethal" and "risk".  You can absolutely have risk without being lethal.

You can have risks obviously that aren't lethal, but if death is off the table, or so rare that it might as well be due to mechanics, then there is no risk at all, because who cares?  Any situation is temporary, and can be dealt with later (like the hero who loses his wife in Season Two gets a new girlfriend in Season Three).  Yeah it sucked ass at the time, but oh the story arc!

Quote from: CRKrueger;754334That's a bit of a stretch.  Who's talking about tactics that always result in success?  Deciding not to charge machinegun nests head on...

What do you mean I can't charge the machinegun nest head on and win? You railroading bastard!

@robiswrong - "good tactics work" is a really bad definition of "railroading", and makes me wonder if you've encountered actual railroading  ("the PCs will now be captured"/"if they leave the path, hit them with draconians until they turn back"), or even typical linear adventure design ("the PCs must find clue X to get to place Y for the adventure to continue").