@nats - as I said, killing a PC is really a Ref's call.
The really key aspect of that statement is that PC's can 'die' by mechanics and in roleplay, but they aren't really killed off unless and until a Ref decides...
As a game with the ultimate goal of everyone having fun - killing PC's should really be something a Player and the Ref are both comfortable with. In my games, Players agree to their PCs dying - I give them the option beforehand (start of game) or immediately after the PC 'dies' (i.e. they aren't clinically dead, just 'mostly dead' - hehe Princess Bride reference).
Since I never really played campaigns - my players always enjoying making up new PCs - my adventures where generally tailored to the PCs, so there were plenty of times when we didn't kill off PCs... that would have caused too much work and disruption to the story. (Now if a player got in a mood to be silly and suicidal their PC could become 'good as dead' - roleplaying a coma gets boring for most folks
).
But, since my players enjoyed rolling up new PCs - and roleplaying the dramatic death scene had its own rewards (sometime players would opt for a heroic suicide - gallantly throwing away their PCs - for the fun of it) - I was used to smoothly getting a player back in the game. Most times, players would do chargen right then. Depending, it would either become a group thing, or the player would hastely make up their PC and surprise me (and then the group).
However, other games were played with the expectation that all or most of the PC would die. To get used to the rule mechanics, the idea of roleplaying (most times, my players have never played an RPG before, but people have almost always 'pretended' to be someone else), and to encourage roleplay despite the 'risks', I'd have a first adventure with each player rolling up usually 3 PCs. They might play all at the same time or one at a time. The adventure will kill one or all of the PCs - guaranteed!
This does a number of things - first everyone enjoys and gets used to the mini-game of chargen (and MgT really has made this better with the connection skills and descriptive events, IMO). Second, nobody has ever rolled up identical PCs for themselves - so they are encouraged to roleplay each one differently (stats especially help define them). I make a big deal about playing up weaknesses - encouraging players to see the potential of 'bad' rolls to make the game more challenging and enjoyable.
Third, it inherently helps get people over 'character attachment syndrome' - in D&D and leveling games, I found people (including myself early on) get so attached too attached to a character - and never discover the true range of roleplaying opportunities inherent in playing other characters. Especially random ones...
And this brings me to @BFalcon's post.
I"ve always 'trusted' my players. That is important. Not because I don't believe any of them will not 'cheat' - but because I really could care less if they do. It is up to the player - if they only think they can enjoy a game by 'cheating' why would I want to ruin their 'fun'? I don't design adventures expecting the dice to go against my players during chargen or play - so it's not like this really 'hurts' my game.
The thing is - I make the 'bad' rolls fun. This is the key - people who like to 'win' all the time generally want attention for it. If the awful rolls are getting more 'attention' they lose their desire quite quickly to make super-sophonts or always succeed at every task roll. Ultimately, its a lot more fun to have a drawn out battle of PC life and death - a struggle to survive against the odds - than it is to have one that is simply: you fire, you hit, the enemy is dead. Peer pressure works against the 'cheater' when everyone else wants a challenge.
I roll up sample characters with my Players (sometimes they become NPCs that the PCs have a history with - this is really cool with MgT) - elaborating on their weaknesses, more than their strengths. Giving concrete examples - 'character-wise' - to make the PC come alive. 'Cheaters' suddenly start wanting to have the crappiest PCs at the table - so they can really ham up their limps, lisps, hangups and those Exceptional Failures... :mrgreen:
The really key aspect of that statement is that PC's can 'die' by mechanics and in roleplay, but they aren't really killed off unless and until a Ref decides...
As a game with the ultimate goal of everyone having fun - killing PC's should really be something a Player and the Ref are both comfortable with. In my games, Players agree to their PCs dying - I give them the option beforehand (start of game) or immediately after the PC 'dies' (i.e. they aren't clinically dead, just 'mostly dead' - hehe Princess Bride reference).
Since I never really played campaigns - my players always enjoying making up new PCs - my adventures where generally tailored to the PCs, so there were plenty of times when we didn't kill off PCs... that would have caused too much work and disruption to the story. (Now if a player got in a mood to be silly and suicidal their PC could become 'good as dead' - roleplaying a coma gets boring for most folks
).But, since my players enjoyed rolling up new PCs - and roleplaying the dramatic death scene had its own rewards (sometime players would opt for a heroic suicide - gallantly throwing away their PCs - for the fun of it) - I was used to smoothly getting a player back in the game. Most times, players would do chargen right then. Depending, it would either become a group thing, or the player would hastely make up their PC and surprise me (and then the group).
However, other games were played with the expectation that all or most of the PC would die. To get used to the rule mechanics, the idea of roleplaying (most times, my players have never played an RPG before, but people have almost always 'pretended' to be someone else), and to encourage roleplay despite the 'risks', I'd have a first adventure with each player rolling up usually 3 PCs. They might play all at the same time or one at a time. The adventure will kill one or all of the PCs - guaranteed!
This does a number of things - first everyone enjoys and gets used to the mini-game of chargen (and MgT really has made this better with the connection skills and descriptive events, IMO). Second, nobody has ever rolled up identical PCs for themselves - so they are encouraged to roleplay each one differently (stats especially help define them). I make a big deal about playing up weaknesses - encouraging players to see the potential of 'bad' rolls to make the game more challenging and enjoyable.
Third, it inherently helps get people over 'character attachment syndrome' - in D&D and leveling games, I found people (including myself early on) get so attached too attached to a character - and never discover the true range of roleplaying opportunities inherent in playing other characters. Especially random ones...
And this brings me to @BFalcon's post.
I"ve always 'trusted' my players. That is important. Not because I don't believe any of them will not 'cheat' - but because I really could care less if they do. It is up to the player - if they only think they can enjoy a game by 'cheating' why would I want to ruin their 'fun'? I don't design adventures expecting the dice to go against my players during chargen or play - so it's not like this really 'hurts' my game.
The thing is - I make the 'bad' rolls fun. This is the key - people who like to 'win' all the time generally want attention for it. If the awful rolls are getting more 'attention' they lose their desire quite quickly to make super-sophonts or always succeed at every task roll. Ultimately, its a lot more fun to have a drawn out battle of PC life and death - a struggle to survive against the odds - than it is to have one that is simply: you fire, you hit, the enemy is dead. Peer pressure works against the 'cheater' when everyone else wants a challenge.
I roll up sample characters with my Players (sometimes they become NPCs that the PCs have a history with - this is really cool with MgT) - elaborating on their weaknesses, more than their strengths. Giving concrete examples - 'character-wise' - to make the PC come alive. 'Cheaters' suddenly start wanting to have the crappiest PCs at the table - so they can really ham up their limps, lisps, hangups and those Exceptional Failures... :mrgreen:
