Over on RPG.net, Redfox asked a question about whether it can be acceptable to run a game where no one actually experiences character death; where the worst that can happen to you is being taken "out of the action", but no more, and if that can be a satisfying game.

Apparently, he was displeased with the result he got posting this question there, and wished he had posted it here. So I've gone ahead and posted it for him.

Let's see what people think. And Redfox, let that be a lesson to you: post here instead!

RPGPundit

I was just unhappy that it had devolved into a bunch of crap name-calling between people claiming each other were "gamist" and getting into this big long debate about whether character death was okay in general when I wanted specific advice about running an Bleach-inspired anime game and the specific solution I'd come up with.  Bleh.

Quote from: RPGPunditOver on RPG.net, Redfox asked a question about whether it can be acceptable to run a game where no one actually experiences character death; where the worst that can happen to you is being taken "out of the action", but no more, and if that can be a satisfying game.

Sure.

I can't see as there's really anything else to say on the topic.

Oh and a specific cross-post:

Quote from: RedFoxIn pondering a game of Bleach recently (despite my bad luck with running games), I noticed that while there's a serious threat on the show nobody seems to ever die. Fatally wounded, yes. Gallons of blood spraying everywhere, yes. But no actual permanent incapacitation.

So then I thought, "Hey, why not do the same thing in RPGs?" I know it's not a new idea... I think 7th Sea and certainly TOON have done it before. But precious few games seem to have picked up on the idea.

So I'm currently thinking that people in my game can get "fatally" wounded but they'll just be temporarily incapacitated. At the worst, they'll need some healing time. No matter what obscene amount of damage they take.

Thoughts?

and later on in the same thread...

Quote from: RedFoxSo I'm thinking (if I use BESM) that I'll define negative HP in the following fashion:

    * 0 to -10 HP: Character is defeated but conscious. The character may speak (with much coughing and sputtering and wincing) and hobble slowly with someone's assistance. They'll have a hard time standing upright without something to lean on.
    * -10 HP and below: Character is utterly defeated. Character goes prone and can only speak a dramatically appropriate amount of dialog before falling unconscious. If the character does not get medical assistance within a dramatically appropriate amount of time (a rule of thumb is 24 hours) they may actually die.


This simply removes the hard "cross this point and die" point. -10 HP is just the same as -238 HP.

I'm hoping this'll make players more willing to take risks and perform heroic acts.

Cross-posting this from another thread because it seems relevant...

I'm pretty sure I'll be using this approach in my in-development RPG:

If a hero loses a round of combat and is reduced to 0 stamina, the player may choose either:
a) the hero is defeated. They are seriously wounded (mechanic for ability score loss)
b) the hero is triumphant! However they are mortally wounded (mechanic for mortal wounds)

With that type of system, there's no reason to fudge a dice roll in combat to keep a player's character alive, but combat is STILL something very dangerous, and character death is STILL a possibility.

One of the thoughts I had, after it came up in the GB thread here, for my own system, was basically just to give players the option upon what would otherwise be a death, to burn a level or something, and be able to continue living.  So there's be a definite penalty for it, but death could still be avoided if needs be.  Keeps the character alive, but encourages the player not to get sloppy.

Which is odd because that sort of mechanic annoys the shit out of me in CRPGs, but honestly wouldn't annoy me the same in a TRPG.

Is it "acceptable" in a global sense?  Sure.  Some people accept it.

Will it be, for specific person X, "acceptable"?  Only they can say.

If the group knows in advance that death is not an option it can work great. There's game systems built with this in mind, ranging in power levels from Nobilis (God of Nukes with Immortality) to Paranoia (which clone are you on?).

In my experience, putting players in any system into situations where character death is the least of their worries makes for better game experiences. Some players, when faced with defeat, will grab their dice and start rolling a new character. When you tell them that defeat is instead being captured by X and used to do Y, they get into the groove and start looking for ways to escape.

As long as the group wants to play the campaign, you should play the campaign. Just be sure that defeat means something, even if it isn't death.

Quote from: James McMurrayAs long as the group wants to play the campaign, you should play the campaign. Just be sure that defeat means something, even if it isn't death.

i tend to agree with James.  of course, it can become somewhat "G.I. Joe" (the cartoon) where no one dies, the hail of gunfire always misses, and exploding jets eject their pilots to parachute to safety.  but hey, Cobra lives to fight the Joes another day...and another day...and another day...ad nauseum.

seems like The Shadows of Yesterday had some sort of similar mechanic, where essentially the player decides when it's time for the character to shuffle off-stage and die in some noble manner.  otherwise, it's all just flesh wounds and going unconscious.

I think its entirely something that depends on the tone of the game. After all if you were running Harry Potter the RPG, and playing Harry Potter offing the lead star isn't wise for actually, playing the game at hand.

And in many ways the PC's are the leads of their own stories. I fully think that death and such aspects of play should be talked about before hand, and if NOT acceptable, have alternatives be discussed, if it IS acceptable the game should mention that--sometimes its a GOOD thing to let pc's suffer a terrible fate.

I still have a friend who begs me to continue the horror game where everyone died in an avalanche.

Let´s be honest:
D&D basically has all these options. Ressurrection is only 5,000 GPs away. You pay in money and EXP for dying. This is already quite soft on the players.

For a hard-core Traveller game, which defnitely isn´t anything about  fair challenges but all about emulation, such rules are anathema.

Personally I think it's ok. One game that works this way is Faery's Tale.

The best way to implement this is choice.

In one of my recent D&D campaigns I supplied the PCs early on in their adventures with an artifact that could Raise Dead once per day. One player chose not to use it during the course of the campaign, and instead made up a new guy when his character got killed. Another player had his guy use it something like 4 times over the course of a 20 level campaign, plus a few times he needed other help (at one point he was turned to stone while climbing down a 500-foot shaft: so not technically dead, but in a million stone pieces- they needed a wish for that one).  

Every once in a while, I'll have a PC dropped to negative hit points while off on his own, where he can't be helped by other party members. Under the current rules it's easy enough to have the bad guys stabilize the victim and carry them off to a prison or something. That doesn't even break the rules of D&D.

If your'e really uh.. mean, you can pull this one off in a big swarmy battle: when one of the PCs drops, have some minions or a spellcaster of the bad guys stabilize the victim and dimension-door out of there with the body, while the rest of the party is kept busy. Hah! Captured.

Toon

I win!

(doesn't "Tales..." have a similar character immortality rule? My copy is in storage so I can't check it)

I do think that if we're talking a standard RPG here (and not something like Toon), then you could allow for a "no death" option but you'd probably want to substitute some other kind of consequence for defeat in battle in place of death.  What I mean is, you as a GM would have to work very hard to make players think twice about charging at 300 orc warriors, if they knew that there was no possible way that they'd die by doing so.

It could be something fixed, like losing a level every time you "die" as someone suggested earlier; or losing an attribute point, or whatever; or it could be that there's always just consequences connected to the particular way you "fell"; ie. in the 300 orcs situation the player might miraculously survive but he'd probably be horribly disfigured and possibly sans limbs.

In other words, if you remove the threat of death, you have to work extra hard to make sure that you don't also remove the consequences of failure.

RPGPundit

Another way to do it is to introduce the "Quantum Leap" mechanic. When the player character dies, he "leaps" into another body until he can get back to his own (or he might never be able to do this?). This might involve an adventure in itself, as well as opportunities for different roleplaying experiences within the pc's new body. This could certainly retain the fear of death for the pcs, but could also be a cool reason to introduce new things into the game.

Attack 300 Orcs, 'cos you never die? = Get cut down after heroically killing 30 Orcs and then "leap" into one of the surviving Orcs body. Hilarity ensues!