Is this a good rule, /tg/?
>>46744866
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Maybe "if you die in game, you're kicked out of that campaign." Play it with friends that are buddies beyond just a play group, and let them know their in for a hardcore survival GM-as-nature game, then sure.
If they know the stakes, it'll make death more daunting, fights more thrilling, and the game just more fun, but in the wrong context, it could just ruin possible friendships.
It's a great way to get rid of That Guy.
>>46744866
Define good.
>>46744966
>yfw the entire party murders his character when the party sleeps
It's like confronting and removing him from the group without actually having to discuss it.
>>46744994
I'm imagining this guy coming to the table and having the molestation happen in slow detail by the group with everyone else in on it
>>46744866
I really dislike the idea of doing this. I can see why you would do this, but the hardcore everyone dies rpg is not the kind of rpg I play.
That being said I am very much against just rolling up a new character just because your bored with the one you were playing.
maybe if you're doing some kind of last man standing survival thing but otherwise never do this
>>46744866
if theyre cool, have them co dm w/ you
>>46744866
"If you die in game, you come to the services of the BBEG (DM)"
Every loss weakens the party, and directly strengthens the enemy.
On the opposite end of the spectrum how does everyone feel about introducing an immortality mechanic in which dead PCs come back to life at a penalty of some kind?
>>46744866
Nope. Thanks to computer RPGs, one of the remaining things we play tabletop for is social interaction. Ruin the social aspect by making it harder to make friends at the table and you give people one more reason to just say "Fuck this, I'm just going to go play Skyrim/Fallout."
If you're a GM with decent players I don't understand why you would want to lose them. Good players are almost as rare as GMs themselves.
>>46745328
Did it once because my group was really, really stupid. I felt like a meat grinder dm without even trying. Ultimately, it cheapened death. They went from fearless because they were dumb to fearless because death didn't really matter anymore. Instead of doing suicidal shit without realizing it'd kill 'em they began making decisions that'd involve them dying multiple times. It was funny sometimes, but I really wouldn't recommend it for a serious game.
It seems shortsighted to kick someone out forever just for dying. There are other ways to make death terrifying other than that, and it would be tragic for someone to be removed from the group because of bad luck potentially.
I would rather just have them roll a new character on death, although just between us, I will sometimes fudge numbers to allow players to escape (barely) from leathal situation, usually killing off NPCs in thier stead. That way the story can continue without interuption, players don't need to fuck around with new characters, and they still see real consiquence to thier actions. I always have a sluegh of likable, albeit rather useless in the traditional sense, NPCs on hand to this end, who have ties to the PCs, like sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, etc.
> Murdering a PC makes for less fun then murdering a PCs son in game, which can give more motivation and grant story direction.
I will still totally kill a PC who has really fucked up and their is no way out, but thier plan must be completly flawed and stupid to begin with. I try to give people the benifit of the doubt if they put any effort forward.
>>46744866
It's awful, especialy with how often character deaths are caused by RNG and other stupid players and not actual mistakes on the dead guy's part.
>>46744866
No.
Even where it's merely, "you're out of the campaign" it's still fucking horrendous.
>>46744866
>guys what if
>hear me out
>you know roguelikes yeah?
>what if
>this is a heaps cool idea
>trust me
>what if we make every game a roguelike
fuck off retard
>>46744866
No.
if the point is to make sure death has serious consequences then have the player roll their next character as a level 1. If the party is at level 15 when this happens then boom they get fresh meat to train. if they're still at level 1 however then scale back the challenges a bit treating it almost as a mulligan.
NOOOOOOOO BLACKLEAF
>>46745328
I considered in a Demon's Souls sense, that their souls were bound to a specific place, so they could never truly die.
I was planning on figuring out some other mechanic for dying as punishment though, something that made them want to stay alive. Worse stats were one consieration, but some something less mechanical and more fluffy seemed a better choice.
>>46746121
First thing I thought of
>>46744866
>"if you die ingame, you're kicked out of the group"
No, anon.
If you die in-game, you die IRL.
>>46744866
On the one hand, it might encourage a more realistic level of self-preservation than is typically seen in RPGs. On the other hand, it's a game and maybe you don't want to fun-penalise someone for wanting to make a heroic sacrifice or for suitably playing out their character's berserk rage despite common sense telling him he should flee, or whatever.
I can see campaigns, though, where it might not make sense for a new person to suddenly join the party after a member dies; just say you'll get them back in the action as soon as you can. I've been in this scenario before; character very sadly got shot a couple of times point-blank in the chest pretty early in a session and none of his bros were able to administer suitably medical aid. I sat and just watched/listened to the rest of the session, and next session did the same for 30mins or so until the group returned to "base" and their employer could let them know "Ah, this is the new guy I've brought in". I'd have been sad if I were out of the game for the rest of the campaign, but was fine with just waiting until it made sense for me to re-join as someone new.
>>46745328
I've thought about a Soulsesque game like >>46746161 mentioned and maybe it could work in a specific setting, but in general I find the idea pretty awful even if it makes sense in-universe. Maybe in a party of Spess Mehrens, a character becomes a dreadnought (ignoring mechanical balance issues), that could be cool narrative-wise. A party of Eldar (I want to run/play a game of EldarQuest sometime, could be cool) could see someone become a Wraithguard if someone else in the party is willing to be a Spiritseer. Maybe in some settings, if a whole story arc were dedicated to acquiring a one-off source of resurrection for a beloved character, that could be pretty sweet; in fact, it's not entirely the same as death but at the end of a campaign I played in with a friend, his character was possessed and fucked off to seemingly never be seen again and it's a damned shame the GM is as busy as he is because he's an awesome GM and I would kill for a follow-up game in which we work to find a suitable exorcist and track down our friend.
>>46744866
Until the next campaign, right? I can see CounterStrike: the RPG being a fun way to play.
>>46744866
Under certain circumstances it could be enjoyable. But you'd really have to have a group of friends who all want it to work.
>>46744866
>if you die ingame, you're joining BBEG group
is it better?
Under normal circumstances I would say that's a stupid rule. But I can imagine some exceptions, like someone constantly making stupid and obvious mistakes, thereby causing his own death. Or a player constantly dying so he can make a new character.
>>46744866
No wtf
>>46744866
>>46744866
But I play role playing games with my friends.
I like to hang out with my friends.
If they leave, I am no longer hanging out with my friends.
Why the fuck would I make my friends leave the game after something bad happens in the game? Now I am no longer playing a game with my friend. That is counterproductive.
>>46744994
It would be like that scene in Full Metal Jacket in the barracks, I imagine
>>46748108
>thinking it can ever be a good idea
>>46746202
>uninstall KB3035583
>hide KB3035583
Don't talk to me or my operating system ever again.
>>46744866
No.
Players whose characters die in game should move onto their spare characters, who were prepared in advance of the session. The GM should integrate them into the party/game ASAP.
The whole point of a tabletop RPG is to have fun. If someone's character dies and they have to leave, they can't have fun and it's just shitty.
If there's a player the group wants to get rid of, they should ask them in person to leave.
By the way guys, this isn't hypothetical. This actually happened in the last group I took part in.
In the merciless cyberpunk 2020 system. Great idea, right?
>>46750405
Did you eat them afterwards?
>>46746202
This, you filthy casuals
>>46744866
Awesome rule. We actually did that back at the camps. The amount of salt produced by our group alone could supply local kitchen for years to come, obviously it inevitable spiraled into betrayal and PCs killing each other.
The very best part came from one of the backstabbers forgetting the basic rule of treachery - don't assume people dead until you see the corpse. PC pushed into dark tunnels came back. With a vengeance.
I think better would be "one party member dies campaign ends." You get a similar effect but no one has to be excluded. I was looking to run a game based on this concept a while ago. Then just recently was looking at running a story that really didn't work for the possibility of new party members joining. So again would have been probaly going with this.
Bad idea. Not only it punishes the player for an in game thing, it also punishes everyone else. It's a lose-lose situation.
If you die you pay for the pizza.
If more than one person dies they share the cost.
If no-one dies the pizza cost is split between the whole group.
The GM never pays for pizza, as is tradition.
This is in addition to any in-game cost (XP, gold, diamonds, permanent injuries/penalties).
>>46756886
The GM/DM not paying is important as then he doesn't have the temptation of killing people in order to avoid paying.
Obviously party members have that temptation... so maybe you have to pay if you kill a party member?
Or groups that have people who kill party members just to get out of paying for the pizza would probably just kick them out for being That Guy.
>>46756886
I might not be the kind of a guy that would push another guy under a bus for a free meal. But I'm totally the kind of a guy that would push another guy's fictional character under a fictional bus for a free non-fictional meal.
>>46744866
No.
In fact, if you die, I will offer you all the possibilities of your character some way coming back to life. There will not be a lot of options and there's gonna be a price, probably, as I don't normally use settings or rules where it's easy to revive a person. So of course I understand if you don't want to play as your character's soul turned a demon or trapped into an iron golem. You can make another character of the same level as the one that died.
Of course, today you will probably not play anymore. You probably need time to think and even if you do not it's often hard to put a new character in the middle of the action. But please, for today take control of Fred's dog or this irrelevant NPC and have some laughs if you want to. Looking while others play can get boring.
My gm is doing this, and at first I thought it was going to end poorly, then the gm approved of my necromancer, and made the off hand comment that the second I get animate dead, the issue becomes moot as players will retain control of said characters, just as one of the many flavors of undead, though they retain their int score,(this setting is based off pf abet heavily modified for his setting). given the limitations of animate dead, we still only have two "lives" so to speak, it just adds a layer of fun, that and it's his first time as gm so he wanted it to be to be difficult but fair.
>>46757053
OK... let's go with the if you kill a party member you pay in their place?
Is that too harsh?
I mean it would limit party in-fighting except when you really really wanted that blasted dwarf dead for what he did...
>>46757149
Every option that isn't "the pizza cost is split between the whole group, DM included" is retarded (and I'm a perma-DM).
>>46757190
DM shouldn't pay for snacks or pizza.
Everyone brings slightly more than they need and makes sure that there's stuff the DM/GM likes.
Gaming Etiquette 101.
Beer is optional.
>>46752850
no, I quit
>>46759160ur a casul
>>46745328
We did that for one of our games, every time you're resurrected you come back as a lesser life form.
> Went from a human to a Terrier
>>46746067
Did you ride the short bus as a kid?
Normal D&D is already roguelike. You can't reload or save, so if your character is dead that's what happened. You can certainly ressurect, but that's still in line with permadeath in spirit.
Non-roguelike would be "Oh, you fell into the pit of spikes and it killed you. Tell you what, redo from cave start?"
>>46744945
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooo.
