The way I enjoy playing (your mileage may vary) is like previously mentioned, that my players don't die unless they want their characters to.

Aye. I think 'PCs can only die in cutscenes' should be the default for pretty much all modern RPGs, MAYBE with an option for permadeath for the kind of masochistic weirdos who actually enjoy that sort of thing.

The way I enjoy playing (your mileage may vary) is like previously mentioned, that my players don't die unless they want their characters to.

Aye. I think 'PCs can only die in cutscenes' should be the default for pretty much all modern RPGs, MAYBE with an option for permadeath for the kind of masochistic weirdos who actually enjoy that sort of thing.

The way I enjoy playing (your mileage may vary) is like previously mentioned, that my players don't die unless they want their characters to.

Aye. I think 'PCs can only die in cutscenes' should be the default for pretty much all modern RPGs, MAYBE with an option for permadeath for the kind of masochistic weirdos who actually enjoy that sort of thing.

I think random permanent death is just fine. It is a game after all, and sometimes really bad things happen. I hardly think that makes me a 'masochistic weirdo' so do try to be less judgmental.

No, its definitely masochistic to enjoy months of progress being wiped out. That is why Rogue-like's are a genre, because some people like that. But it is absolutely not the norm.

There's a reason most video games have save points and respawns.

But really, I'd much rather have a PC go out tackling a sorcerer off a cliff to save the party and the entire town (actual example from play), over being one-shotted by the lucky roll of said sorcerer, leaving the other PCs to face a harder fight, which will likely then kill them as well.

The first player (not just the PC) in that scenario is a hero and has an awesome story to tell. The second player ends up likely annoyed and a bit sad that their character that they've played for who knows how long is just gone without having had any impact.

What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.

I think people are used to games where the alternatives in combat are success or death . This system is structured so it's not hard to be taken out of a fight, but harder to outright die.That leaves us with success , failure , or death , which is far more interesting.

Currently, GMs tend to fudge the heck out of systems to avoid death , which leaves success as the only outcome.

What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.

I'm not limiting it to just people who have been tabletopping since D&D 1st edition. I'm talking about people, in general, who enjoy games, which is what Star Wars is going to target.

And for as long as I've been playing, as has been pointed out, fudging to avoid death has been far far far more common than killing PCs.

This game can be as lethal as a group wants. As soon as a character drops...simply have the adversaries or situation continue to stomp their out-of-the-fight forms to murderize them. In that construct, this game is going to chew through PCs faster than Rapan Athuk in d20.

I personally think it's interesting to come up with nondeath and non-unconscious ways a character can be out of the fight (bloodily sobbing under a pile of crates, hanging from a com array underneath a Bespin ventilation shaft...)

It also works for the NPCs, which can be useful AND fun. The players vent ol' Boba Fett out an airlock, and later they recieve some bit of gossip or intel that indicates he's not only NOT dead...but rather vexxed.

From a design standpoint, EotE caters to your barbequed PC style. Is there something inherently better about saying 'Remember...ALL desintigrations...*compressor breath*" ?

What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.

I'm not limiting it to just people who have been tabletopping since D&D 1st edition. I'm talking about people, in general, who enjoy games, which is what Star Wars is going to target.

And for as long as I've been playing, as has been pointed out, fudging to avoid death has been far far far more common than killing PCs.

What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.

I'm not limiting it to just people who have been tabletopping since D&D 1st edition. I'm talking about people, in general, who enjoy games, which is what Star Wars is going to target.

And for as long as I've been playing, as has been pointed out, fudging to avoid death has been far far far more common than killing PCs.

Considering that my group is strongly opposed to fudging, we are obviously going to hold very different views.

That's fine, but you're still a niche group of gamers within a niche group of gamers.

What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.

I'm not limiting it to just people who have been tabletopping since D&D 1st edition. I'm talking about people, in general, who enjoy games, which is what Star Wars is going to target.

And for as long as I've been playing, as has been pointed out, fudging to avoid death has been far far far more common than killing PCs.

Considering that my group is strongly opposed to fudging, we are obviously going to hold very different views.

That's fine, but you're still a niche group of gamers within a niche group of gamers.

What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.

I'm not limiting it to just people who have been tabletopping since D&D 1st edition. I'm talking about people, in general, who enjoy games, which is what Star Wars is going to target.

And for as long as I've been playing, as has been pointed out, fudging to avoid death has been far far far more common than killing PCs.

Considering that my group is strongly opposed to fudging, we are obviously going to hold very different views.

That's fine, but you're still a niche group of gamers within a niche group of gamers.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

...okay, so you are also completely disconnected with what popular gaming culture currently is.

Rogue-likes are a niche genre in videogames. They are popular, but still very much niche. And rogue-likes only manage it because they take hours to play, not months.

There is a reason outside of rogue-likes you've got Save Anywhere ability and respawns, rather than permadeath. There's a reason that most modern P&P RPGs also make death less and less likely, and that in boardgames its increasingly less likely for a player to be removed from the board before the end of the game.

If you seriously cannot see the trend of modern gaming and understand that it means your way of thinking is no longer the current philosophy? Then I don't know what to tell you.

Do you have your right to play your games the way you want to play them? Absolutely. But don't delude yourself into thinking that you're part of the majority.

What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.

I'm not limiting it to just people who have been tabletopping since D&D 1st edition. I'm talking about people, in general, who enjoy games, which is what Star Wars is going to target.

And for as long as I've been playing, as has been pointed out, fudging to avoid death has been far far far more common than killing PCs.

Considering that my group is strongly opposed to fudging, we are obviously going to hold very different views.

That's fine, but you're still a niche group of gamers within a niche group of gamers.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

...okay, so you are also completely disconnected with what popular gaming culture currently is.

Rogue-likes are a niche genre in videogames. They are popular, but still very much niche. And rogue-likes only manage it because they take hours to play, not months.

There is a reason outside of rogue-likes you've got Save Anywhere ability and respawns, rather than permadeath. There's a reason that most modern P&P RPGs also make death less and less likely, and that in boardgames its increasingly less likely for a player to be removed from the board before the end of the game.

If you seriously cannot see the trend of modern gaming and understand that it means your way of thinking is no longer the current philosophy? Then I don't know what to tell you.

Do you have your right to play your games the way you want to play them? Absolutely. But don't delude yourself into thinking that you're part of the majority.

Why is it "mainstream" for games to be made that way?

I'll give you a hint.

It's not because it's "popular", it's because it's the only kind of game that has been made in a long time.

As Game Publishing became big business Publishers focus tested a every little thing that happened. The results of their focus tests are that people they focus tested are more likely to enjoy games where the difficulty is low.

The problem with Focus testing is that while the results are valid, the results are only "internally valid". There is no sure fire way to make sure that your Internally valid test will be valid at the public at large until they get their hands on it. This was a huge part of the problem with "New Coke" back in the day. When they focus tested "New Coke" it outperformed Pepsi by a significant enough margin to convince Coca-Cola that they needed to discontinue their longtime successful product line and back the New completely. The problem was the results of the test ignored Coca-Cola's sign value, and the results of the taste tests were only Internally valid.

Why do you think that so many by the numbers First Person Shooter's fail miserably. The team who made Medal of Honor Warfighter were just following Market Research and sales figures and as a result they produced a lackluster game that nobody bought even though it has all the same features that Call of Duty has. By Comparison, even though Call of Duty has enjoyed a long time being the major gaming spotlight in the world of Video games, it's still clear to their customers that the people who make Call of Duty actually understand that product they are trying to market.

It also works for the NPCs, which can be useful AND fun. The players vent ol' Boba Fett out an airlock, and later they recieve some bit of gossip or intel that indicates he's not only NOT dead...but rather vexxed.

I did this recently with an NPC. In my game there were five gladiators still alive in Teemo's palace in (or just out of, since the maps are a little different) Mos Shuuta. One of them was a Wookiee, left behind by Lowhhrick and none too happy about it. He dropped during the fight with Teemo, but Lowhhrick immediately did first aid. We added another player to the group the following week, who just happened to want to play a Wookiee hired-gun. Ta da! He even rolled Duty for his Obligation, so now he has a life-debt to Lowhhrick.

What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.

I'm not limiting it to just people who have been tabletopping since D&D 1st edition. I'm talking about people, in general, who enjoy games, which is what Star Wars is going to target. And for as long as I've been playing, as has been pointed out, fudging to avoid death has been far far far more common than killing PCs.

Considering that my group is strongly opposed to fudging, we are obviously going to hold very different views.

That's fine, but you're still a niche group of gamers within a niche group of gamers.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

...okay, so you are also completely disconnected with what popular gaming culture currently is. Rogue-likes are a niche genre in videogames. They are popular, but still very much niche. And rogue-likes only manage it because they take hours to play, not months. There is a reason outside of rogue-likes you've got Save Anywhere ability and respawns, rather than permadeath. There's a reason that most modern P&P RPGs also make death less and less likely, and that in boardgames its increasingly less likely for a player to be removed from the board before the end of the game. If you seriously cannot see the trend of modern gaming and understand that it means your way of thinking is no longer the current philosophy? Then I don't know what to tell you. Do you have your right to play your games the way you want to play them? Absolutely. But don't delude yourself into thinking that you're part of the majority.

I should note that I stated I didn't like being referred to as a masochistic weirdo. I find suggestions that I am deluded be be offensive as well. I'm not attacking your style, don't attack mine.

Hey guys, I'm sure your name-calling is really important to you, but it's really distracting from the thread. Just wondering if you'd mind taking it to PMs or something, so we don't have to trawl past it on our way to the actual discussion. Cheers.

Are people at least willing to accept that there is a hefty chunk of tabletop gamers who would benefit from more systems designed to work best when character permadeath isn't something that can happen?

What is this norm you discuss? Everyone I've ever played with for the last 30 years has been ok with the idea of death-by-dice in an RPG.

I'm not limiting it to just people who have been tabletopping since D&D 1st edition. I'm talking about people, in general, who enjoy games, which is what Star Wars is going to target. And for as long as I've been playing, as has been pointed out, fudging to avoid death has been far far far more common than killing PCs.

Considering that my group is strongly opposed to fudging, we are obviously going to hold very different views.

That's fine, but you're still a niche group of gamers within a niche group of gamers.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

...okay, so you are also completely disconnected with what popular gaming culture currently is. Rogue-likes are a niche genre in videogames. They are popular, but still very much niche. And rogue-likes only manage it because they take hours to play, not months. There is a reason outside of rogue-likes you've got Save Anywhere ability and respawns, rather than permadeath. There's a reason that most modern P&P RPGs also make death less and less likely, and that in boardgames its increasingly less likely for a player to be removed from the board before the end of the game. If you seriously cannot see the trend of modern gaming and understand that it means your way of thinking is no longer the current philosophy? Then I don't know what to tell you. Do you have your right to play your games the way you want to play them? Absolutely. But don't delude yourself into thinking that you're part of the majority.

Most of your examples are video games, and that's not the same thing as tabletop gaming. Apples and oranges as it were.

I should note that I stated I didn't like being referred to as a masochistic weirdo. I find suggestions that I am deluded be be offensive as well. I'm not attacking your style, don't attack mine.

Except that most of my examples are not video games. As I said, most P&P RPGs have made death more rare, and board games have mostly gotten rid of player elimination.

And I'm sorry you find the truth offensive, but you're wrong and refusing to accept it. You are part of a niche within a niche, the hardcore of the hardcore. That is a reality.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion" does not protect you from being wrong, I'm afraid. There is nothing wrong with your position/opinion on how you like to play, but you are absolutely wrong in your evaluation of that position's place in the hierarchy of gaming. To deny that people who like to die and have to start over are a minority is being seriously out of touch, and that's just the facts.

But please, if you can give me some examples of how your opinion is the modern norm/preference, I'll admit I'm wrong. But I don't think you can.

How recent does the game have to be for you to consider it modern?

I would remind you that not being part of the majority makes you a Special Snowflake...

Wouldn't you rather be a special snowflake than a pandered to mass?

The Elite, not the Horde?

Funny. Never really cared either way, but if my style makes me a special snowflake, then I've been playing in a blizzard for years.

You just gotta remember that most people can't handle gaming of your magnitude.

plenty of permadeath in the games i've been playing. including WFRP3. most of the players i know lose interest if there is no possibility of death. we are all stating our opinions which are informed by our experiences. in my neck of the woods happydaze is representing the majority.

Then I think they should stop pandering to the mass who are happy with disposable PCs and start catering to the Elite who prefer character development and story.

plenty of permadeath in the games i've been playing. including WFRP3. most of the players i know lose interest if there is no possibility of death. we are all stating our opinions which are informed by our experiences. in my neck of the woods happydaze is representing the majority.

Welcome to the snowstorm!