[silvarilon]

Originally Posted by Fifi I'm worried about you guys who are worried about the implications of permadeath. But I have good news. If you don't see the value of games with permadeath, you'll be happy to know that they are easy to avoid.

I think the discussion is less a string of complaints about permadeath, or a competition for "who has it worse" - and instead a constructive discussion about the various negative impacts.

Why is that useful? As a game designer, I want to understand my players, and what they like and don't like. There are many benefits for permadeath, as well as disadvantages. Understanding the disadvantages puts us in a better position to maximize the benefits while minimizing the disadvantages.

For my part, Ironclaw Online has limited permadeath, because I'm trying to do exactly that - gain some of the advantages, while avoid the disadvantages.


When talking about roleplay-intensive players, how you tend to get the "stick with one PC" vs "regularly try out new PCs"

Originally Posted by prof1515 A problem arises though when the latter group encounter the former. The latter are given to taking unreasonable risks without regard for what their PCs would do realistically. The former typically are not. It's fine until the latter decide they want to end their character and they involve the former.

Correct - that can be a problem. Depending on the game design. If the game allows the PCs to pull out weapons and try to kill each other, then the players who want a new character can effectively attempt to kill off another PC with no "cost" to themselves.

I've myself had a few players attempt "suicide" by attacking my PC, with the hopes of killing my character, and when they failed they kill themselves, with the hope my PC gets charged with murder and imprisoned. That would be a totally fun situation if it had happened from roleplaying, it was less fun because it happens from players taking advantage of the OOC fact that they were planning to delete their character anyway. (It's happened to me a few times because my one character is rather unpleasantly nasty, and some players can't tell the difference between a character that is roleplayed as nasty, and a player that is nasty... as time went by and that character got better known people stopped doing that)

There are a few ways around this, but it would depend on your game setup. For our part, death is actually *optional* in many areas. The focus is on roleplaying, which requires cooperation between the players. So if you loose a fight and they decide to kill your character, it *asks* you if you want to have your character killed. You can say "no" and then it's up to the players to come up with a reason why they don't kill you. Cooperation. Roleplaying. Storytelling.

There are some exceptions. There are "danger areas" where your character can be killed without you giving permission. If you step into the dueling arena, for example - even though most duels are non-lethal, you don't get a choice. Loose a fight, and your opponent can kill you.

So that gets around the "take high risks" characters. Those characters can explore the "danger areas" without worry about death. The long term characters can avoid those areas, and instead focus on the politics and roleplaying. And if a temporary character attacks and wins a fight, the long-term character's player can choose not to die, or can choose to temporarily die. Most choose to temporarily die since, well, they're roleplaying and tend to go along with where the story is taking them. They know they won't be loosing the character forever, just for a week or two.

The players risking permadeath will know beforehand (you can get permadeath from being executed by the law, or by upsetting the church enough that they refuse to resurrect you anymore) - in both those cases, the player has to do some action before the premadeath will happen. They can avoid doing any death-penalty crimes, or avoid going into any danger areas if already excommunicated. It allows the risk-takers to take risks, while giving a way for the long term players to safeguard their characters.

This system isn't perfect, far from it. But it minimizes some of the problems with temporary characters doing kamakaze runs on long term characters.

Originally Posted by prof1515 This is a significant problem indeed. It's always bothered me that players will role-play realistically until circumstances involving violence and death are concerned. Whether it's everyone in a bar drawing a weapon to cut down a *supposed* thief or casually walking past a corpse, violence and death are still one area where role-play tends to be far too unrealistic.

We have our in-game legal system enforce this "escalation" - and boy does it upset players.
So we have constables that will just arrest *both* people and charge them *both* with assault. "But I was defending myself" - No. You drew a sword and hit your opponent. You *could* have fought back with your fists. Or drew a sword and only parried, while calling for the constables. Or parried while trying to retreat. Those are all valid in-character solutions *and* all valid things that the player can do with the game engine. But they don't want to, because in almost every movie, book, and computer game the hero doesn't just defend themselves, they also kick the bad guys ass.

In some games, it would be fine to draw a weapon and kick the opponents ass. In Lord of the Rings, Frodo & Sam happily kill orcs with no concern as to whether the orcs have families. If I was making a LotR mud, I'd have no negative consequences for killing off those orcs. In this particular case I'm making a political game. So there *are* consequences for drawing a sword. Political consequences.

... and yet, it still hasn't stopped the players from stupidly escalating things.

Actually, something that does help avoid the stupid escalation, is the above mentioned "you choose if you die" - as the players got used to that, they had to come to terms with the fact that they can't just kill off another PC unless they *ask permission* and *play cooperatively* - and most players won't give permission after loosing a fight, or if the death has no roleplay. So instead, they typically need to ask *before* the fight. "Hey, if I win, would you agree to die?" "Sure, if you'll do the same" or "What? Your character would kill over this argument? That's just insane" or whatever. It forces them to think about where they would stop fighting.

Players also seek conclusions. At the end of almost every movie, the bad guy dies. Death feels like a good conclusion. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to explain to players that *letting bad guys go is good* - that allows them to *come back again later* and leads to *another story* and *more for the players to do* - but that seems to feel unsatisfactory to many players. They want the bad guy dead. They want to get a "you win" message. And that happens with combat escalation between each other. If they have a verbal argument there is no clear "you win" point (and even worse, if they feel like they're loosing, and don't want to, they're encouraged to start a combat and turn the loss into a potential win)

I don't have a conclusive answer for this, but something we're trying out is to have "levels" of combat. In our newly released combat system, when you have a fight, at some point when you've taken enough damage it stops and says "You're getting really tired. Do you want to stop fighting, or keep fighting and risk long term injuries" - if they keep fighting, as well as getting cut up, they might get broken arms or legs, or other similar injuries. After a while of that, if they take enough hits it asks if they want to keep fighting or risk permanent injuries. If they keep fighting they risk things like loosing an eye or fingers. If they get beaten enough after that then they die (but are resurrected later) - the intention behind this is to let the players have their combat and "win" or "loose" but give them an incentive to stop fighting somewhere *before* they fight to the death. The player can decide how much they want to win the fight, but if they keep fighting every time they will end up with lots of bad injuries, and spend all their time in the infirmary, unable to fight anyone for a while. While letting the roleplayers still fight "to the death" if it's something that they care about (and presumably, loosing an eye or something would be a reward for those players. It gives them a souvenier of the event. While the non-roleplayers who just want to win would collect a lot of meaningless disfigurements and disadvantages with no story behind it)

[silvarilon]

Originally Posted by prof1515 The problem was that almost all of the veteran top-level players were cowards who rarely PK'd anyone within 50 levels of their own and sometimes as much as 150+ below themselves.

This isn't uncommon. One of the reasons behind the "agree to death" thing - if someone is just very good, and picking on you, you don't have to die. They can still beat your character up, so they *can* respond to what you're doing, but they can't escalate to that same level without you agreeing on it.

Originally Posted by prof1515 I too have seen players (myself included) do things and put themselves in greater danger in the name of RP. The chief consideration here is that the game's staff police the reactions very carefully though. A problem with good RPers role-playing things like that is that there are also twinks in games who ignore such considerations and just see them as advantages. Players like that can destroy role-play because they just care about "winning", not about role-playing.

What I *try* to do (and often fail, but I try...) is to give consequences for actions. Consequences can be good or bad, but they should be sensible. My theory is that good roleplayers will enjoy even the bad consequences, since they are a sensible result from the actions they were roleplaying, and makes the world feel more real, while twinks will hate the consequences since they feel like they got punished or "lost" - hopefully that will slowly train the players into roleplaying the ups AND downs of their character and focussing more on the story. Or it'll chase away the twinks and leave us just roleplayers. Or something.

It's been partially successful so far. Most players still attempt to shelter their characters from any negative consequences.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye If you wanted to create a survival horror setting, I would challenge you to create more horror than on an RPI setting where your character cannot just simply come back to life. In this way, permanent death is a positive thing for RPIs.

Oh, certainly. Permadeath has many positive aspects (or we wouldn't have it in games...) - I was just assuming everyone had accepted that and we were discussing the negative aspects.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye Still, no matter the kind of game, permanent death as a feature (even an optional one) can do nothing but raise the stakes of play. For roleplay, this means more intense, more interesting play.

It does raise the stakes. But that's not always a good thing.
Raising the stakes also raises the incentive to cheat, to be uncooperative, to take every advantage possible. It increases the incentive to "play the game" rather than "roleplay the story." It stresses some players who want a more relaxing game. It puts the focus on physical loss and death, rather than other types of loss (such as social standing loss) etc.
Not to say that raising the stakes is bad. Raising the stakes tends to make players care more, and it's good for them to care more for the game. Just pointing out that we shouldn't look at it as a 100% positive thing without any negative consequences.

Being in a battle with another character might be exciting. Being in a battle with them to the death is *more* exciting. But if they log out when they're about to loose because they don't want to loose the character... that's going to be more upsetting than if they kept playing and temporarily died. Obviously, that's an example of bad behavior from the player, but higher stakes will encourage more bad behavior, since the player has more to loose.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye RPIs are affected less negatively by permanent death than a more H+S-styled game would be, simply because ...

You're a good example of what I mean by different types of games attracting different players.

When you talk about "loss" from permadeath, you seem to be thinking in terms of lost levels and equipment. And maybe having to replay things.

My roleplayed character that I've currently got - I've spent about four years building that character. If it died, what would I loose? Money. Yes, but I don't care. Items? Yes. I've got some unique items that can *not* be replaced, souveniers from once-off events, custom gifts from other characters. Love letters, or other items from past plots. But even so, I could loose all the items without it affecting me much. What I'd *really* loose would be the relationships. Having spent literally years to get the police force to rely on my character, to the extent that when my character speaks up on a matter of law everyone, including the police, listen. Over time that's even developed into them writing to my character when they need a point of law clarified. That's totally awesome and fun, but took four years to build up that relationship. There are alliances with various nobles in various houses. Past history where my character has proved trustworthy, past history where my character has proved vengeful (and capable of getting vengence) on those that didn't stick to their alliances and agreements. There are plots and plans in the works involving the various allies and enemies. These social relationships *cannot* be replaced. Sure, I could make new relationships with a new character, but unlike equipment - where I could fight with a +3 sword or a +2 axe, but I'm basically playing the same game - if I loose the character that's currently conspiring to frame a noble by having an ally start a fight between the noble and the noble's wife, then poisoning the wife and pointing to the noble as a victim... (just an example) - if I loose that character, and instead my new character isn't working with those schemers (since it literally takes years to build up that trust...) - well, I could have another plot where the tailors are preparing outfits for a fashion ball. But I would effectively be playing a completely different game. In a social game, the character you're playing makes a *world* of difference. That means there's more replayability, since you're effectively playing a new game. But it also means there's much more to loose since you don't just loose the character, you also loose the ability to play that particular game. In a hack and slash, if I loose my warrior and start a new archer, well, I've really just switched sword skills for archery skills, but I'm still playing the same game and able to essentially do the same activities as before. If I loose my roleplaying character, the activities I'll be doing in the game change drastically.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye If I were to see a player character die, and then catch an application by that player with a similar concept, I would almost positively gently decline and encourage them to stretch themselves. Now, granted, we've only been open five weeks: do you know how many times that I've had to do that? None. On Shadows of Isildur, where I worked for some time, I maybe did it a handful of times or less.

This matches my experience. Players don't have to put in any applications, they can just make their new characters without staff supervision, and even then they almost all create new, different characters. We've got a few who always make tailors, or otherwise always make the same "type" of character, but even if they try to pick up relationships where the first left off, most of the other players just won't accept that. They will treat the new character like, well, a new arrival. Not like the same old one.

In a roleplay environment, as long as the players are roleplaying, I don't think there's much worry about people who just recreate the same character. The social relationships can't be restored. Essentially, they're just playing a new character who is boringly similar to their old one, and most players will be good enough to avoid doing that.

[DonathinFrye]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. I do think, however, that if you have permanent death as a feature on a roleplay-focused MUD, then you have to have complete respect for that feature. You can't let players get away with attempting to "twink" or cheat death, or to be uncooperative in a conflict-based scene. You also have to give players the chance to play characters who are not as typically threatened as combat-focused characters, but still are necessary for the story and the well (or ill) being of the rest of the characters. Using a rewards based system, having open dialogue with your game's community about what you expect and what you don't want to see, re-enforcing and empowering their ability to tell stories in a positive way, encouraging them to take risks, and showing them that accepting IC consequences for IC actions is something that lets them truly affect the world with more realistic stakes ... these are all just a small number of the many things that you have to do to make permanent death work (on an RPI-like game).

I think that your combat system sounds very interesting. I've played and designed so many systems - I have a true love for combat, and it's a unique approach. However, consider the scenario below.

What if your character is an arch-nemesis to my character? What if you were my brother and had stolen my wife and run the business that our father gave us into the ground? What if I were a generally good person? Now, imagine me, sitting infront of a lake, throwing stones. PCs pass by going on about their gossip, trade and general business; meanwhile, I am throwing stones and staring out at the lake, knowing that you will be alone in the shop come nightfall. I'm fighting with myself, using feeling/think commands/code. I'm trying to push myself to have the will to kill you, or to forgive you, or to run away and abandon the village. Nightfall comes, and I go to the shop; I find you sleeping on the floor in the backroom. I poison my dagger and sneak into the room. I lock all of the doors and steal your keys off of your belt. I then surprise you and engage you in combat, all the while unleashing the rage that I have for how you, my brother, have betrayed me.

This kind of storytelling - the kind of murder and sacrifice, fear and fearlessness, plague and inexplainable accidents, facing overwhelming odds while knowing OOCly that you may lose that four year character in a meaningful way - is hard to accomplish without permanent death. In your system, when you decide to stop fighting to avoid being murdered, where does that leave the scene but unresolved? Should you keep fighting and end up dead, where does that leave those relationships in a few days when your character is resurrected? I definitely do not believe that good storytelling can only accompany permanent death; however, permanent death lets you go places that you cannot go without it.

So it's a complicated issue, as all of these (mostly well-written) posts would indicate. Many of what I might think are positive attributes of including permanent death in a roleplay-focused MUD might be conceived by others as negative attributes. I think that, ultimately, the distinction lies in what kind of story you are wanting to tell. If you are wanting to tell a story where life and death matter, then death has to matter in an in-character fashion. No matter how creative an approach you take, there is always an OOC element to allowing resurrection of characters that makes certain kinds of roleplay impossible (or nearly so) to accomplish, as in the example situation I've posted above. If you are telling a story where death does not need to matter, either because your game is more of a hybrid of H+S and Roleplay-focus, or because your game isn't designed in such a way as to cause death to matter to the story itself, then permanent death may not be right for you. It's all in the genre.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by silvarilon Being executed for a crime also means they wouldn't resurrect the criminal.

Originally Posted by silvarilon I've myself had a few players attempt "suicide" by attacking my PC, with the hopes of killing my character, and when they failed they kill themselves, with the hope my PC gets charged with murder and imprisoned. That would be a totally fun situation if it had happened from roleplaying, it was less fun because it happens from players taking advantage of the OOC fact that they were planning to delete their character anyway. (It's happened to me a few times because my one character is rather unpleasantly nasty, and some players can't tell the difference between a character that is roleplayed as nasty, and a player that is nasty... as time went by and that character got better known people stopped doing that)

Originally Posted by silvarilon We have our in-game legal system enforce this "escalation" - and boy does it upset players.

Originally Posted by silvarilon Having spent literally years to get the police force to rely on my character, to the extent that when my character speaks up on a matter of law everyone, including the police, listen. Over time that's even developed into them writing to my character when they need a point of law clarified.

Hold on a second...you're the owner of a commercial mud where paying customers can have their characters permanently killed by a legal system that even you admit upsets the players - but you also play a character in the mud who effectively dictates the law to everyone else, and is so "unpleasantly nasty" that a few players have even gone so far as to attempt suiciding their characters on you?

Isn't that a huge conflict of interest? Or have I misunderstood something?

[scandum]

Another theory is that MUDs with permadeath attract players that aren't overly bothered by permadeath - players that don't like permadeath leave and never come back.

As you artificially select for a certain trait you end up with a group of people that deviate from the norm, and as such you develop a particular culture. Take Holland for example where dumb and smart kids go to different schools after age 12, which results in a different highschool experience - there is nothing wrong with being a nerd when everyone in your class is nerdy.

So from that perspective AFS muds aren't all that different from Hack and Slash muds, the difference is in the people who play them, and subsequently the game's culture.

What I find interesting is that these AFS muds incorrectly market themselves as 'roleplay intensive' combined with the notable amount of fanboyism. The whole thing is borderline sociopathic (like me) so I would say permadeath selects for players that aren't fully emotionally stable, and possibly enjoy the traumatic / humiliating experience of character loss.

[MudMann]

Originally Posted by scandum What I find interesting is that these AFS muds incorrectly market themselves as 'roleplay intensive' combined with the notable amount of fanboyism. The whole thing is borderline sociopathic (like me) so I would say permadeath selects for players that aren't fully emotionally stable, and possibly enjoy the traumatic / humiliating experience of character loss.

I can only think of one suitable reply

/emote watches Scandum toss rocket fuel on the blazing debate of permadeath and feels the impending doom of life with no eyebrows

[Zivilyn]

Originally Posted by KaVir Hold on a second...you're the owner of a commercial mud where paying customers can have their characters permanently killed by a legal system that even you admit upsets the players - but you also play a character in the mud who effectively dictates the law to everyone else, and is so "unpleasantly nasty" that a few players have even gone so far as to attempt suiciding their characters on you? Isn't that a huge conflict of interest? Or have I misunderstood something?

Holy crap, at least it wasn't just me thinking that.

Sounds like a dictatorship where you pay to be at the whim of the dictator... whew.

Btw, LOSE != LOOSE, fml I hate that misspelling.
Lose:
I lost the battle, lost my dog etc. You lose, I lose. Miss this shot and you are dead, you lose.

Loose:
The noose is loose, I need to loosen my jeans, I loose an arrow, she is loose... etc.
In a text-based game, those kinds of things are kind of important to staying in the 'zone'.

Sorry to be a word-nazi, that one just drives me up the wall.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Synthesis I've put in over 70 characters there over nearly 13 years, and the only times I've ever "recycled" character concepts are when I've died by some fluke random mob showing up to pwn me at the <10 hour mark.

Since even you were willing to recycle a character concept for this reason, would you prefer that games with permadeath have some method of avoiding this type of early, PvE character destruction?

Originally Posted by scandum Another theory is that MUDs with permadeath attract players that aren't overly bothered by permadeath - players that don't like permadeath leave and never come back.

Great point. When it comes to major gameplay elements like permadeath, roleplay, etc. you self select your playerbase as long as you are clear about your featureset.

Originally Posted by scandum What I find interesting is that these AFS muds incorrectly market themselves as 'roleplay intensive' combined with the notable amount of fanboyism. The whole thing is borderline sociopathic (like me) so I would say permadeath selects for players that aren't fully emotionally stable, and possibly enjoy the traumatic / humiliating experience of character loss.

That's a pretty extreme view that I don't think I've heard before. Can you elaborate on that?

[DonathinFrye]

Yes, I would love to hear Scandum explain why people who play RPI/AFS games are sociopaths, or why character loss is traumatic or humiliating to the players that enjoy permanent death as a feature.

[silvarilon]

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. I do think, however, that if you have permanent death as a feature on a roleplay-focused MUD, then you have to have complete respect for that feature. You can't let players get away with attempting to "twink" or cheat death, or to be uncooperative in a conflict-based scene. You also have to give players the chance to play characters who are not as typically threatened as combat-focused characters, but still are necessary for the story and the well (or ill) being of the rest of the characters. Using a rewards based system, having open dialogue with your game's community about what you expect and what you don't want to see, re-enforcing and empowering their ability to tell stories in a positive way, encouraging them to take risks, and showing them that accepting IC consequences for IC actions is something that lets them truly affect the world with more realistic stakes ... these are all just a small number of the many things that you have to do to make permanent death work (on an RPI-like game).

I agree entirely. If there is the possibility of complete loss of a character, then that has to be taken into account with the entire game design. Whether hack and slash, AFS, RPI, or whatever...

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye What if your character is an arch-nemesis to my character? ... Now, imagine me, sitting infront of a lake, throwing stones. ... knowing that you will be alone in the shop come nightfall. ... I poison my dagger and sneak into the room. I lock all of the doors and steal your keys off of your belt. I then surprise you and engage you in combat, all the while unleashing the rage that I have for how you, my brother, have betrayed me.

Good, dramatic story. Now imagine that same thing happening, but instead of being brothers, well, instead we both tried to get the job as the next diplomat, and I got it. And you're angry. Perhaps just IC angry, perhaps OOC angry. Perhaps I didn't even know you'd applied for the job, and have never even met your character. The same scenario could go very badly, where my character is killed off in an entirely meaningless way (for me) - and the months of politics to get the job boils down to "who decides to kill the other character" - which would discourage players playing politics, and encourage them to just focus on killing off opponents. It would change the game.

Your example is wonderful and dramatic. Mine is the opposite, and just frustrating and annoying for the player.

The way I'd picture it working in Ironclaw is that we have this dramatic buildup. Since we're playing brothers, presumably we'd have some sort of contact with each other where we can talk OOC. You would tell me that you're interested in this story, we'd discuss it, and decide if I'm willing to loose my character so you can advance your story. If I am, it goes as you describe, and we have the full drama. If I'm not, we cooperatively discuss it and decide on another outcome. Maybe your character is standing over my sleeping character with the knife, and then realize that they just can't kill their brother. The boy that they grew up with, the one who protected them from bullies, the one who helped support your mother as she grew old and frail? That realization could be an equally dramatic story. Or maybe it turns out that my character expected an ambush and was feigning sleep, and pulls a dagger of his own, then they fight and the looser dies. Or maybe we decide your character *would* kill my sleeping character, but a chance event of a visitor banging on the door interrupts the assassination. Or some other outcome - the point is, you'd have to agree with me how we're going to resolve it. Because Ironclaw is intended more like a group story, imagine if you were writing the Lord of the Rings with Tolkein, along with three other people. And one of the writers just decided that the Nazghul would kill off Frodo and the other hobbits? And whoever is writing Boromir decides that they want the ring, so Boromir cuts everyone's throats while they sleep. Valid actions for each character, but it wouldn't make for the same story, and certainly isn't cooperating with the other writers.

But that's because the emphasis is on cooperative storytelling. There can be roleplaying where the emphasis is on game playing, too. Or on storytelling without such a strong cooperative element. Even if I'm telling a story, I'm not going to have the same adrenalin rush of "will my character die" if the outcome of your planned assassination is decided beforehand. Certain plots and plans wouldn't be able to happen if the other players knew the plan. So there are certainly advantages to *not* planning things out, and to having non-consensual death in the games, too.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye This kind of storytelling - the kind of murder and sacrifice, fear and fearlessness, plague and inexplainable accidents, facing overwhelming odds while knowing OOCly that you may lose that four year character in a meaningful way - is hard to accomplish without permanent death.

Indeed. Although it's still possible - many novels have those themes, without anyone having to die.
But you're right, it's easier to have those "exciting risks" if there is, well, something to risk.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye In your system, when you decide to stop fighting to avoid being murdered, where does that leave the scene but unresolved?

Well, it leaves the scene where the players decide to take it. Since you know that I don't have to agree to death, you can ask before the scene happens, or you can improvise at the point I decide to stop. But as long as you "know the rules" beforehand, then you can know that you have to come up with an explanation. In the real world, there really are way less murders than in MUDs. Often, even a bad, nasty murderer, will kick their opponent a few times and then walk away. There are plenty of ways to resolve a scene other than "the other character is now dead" and, since the focus is on storytelling, I expect my players to be able to come up with other resolutions.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye however, permanent death lets you go places that you cannot go without it.

Certainly. Permanent death does have its place.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye I think that, ultimately, the distinction lies in what kind of story you are wanting to tell.

Indeed. If you're telling the story of "James Bond" then you'd need lots of faceless bad guys to kill. If you're telling "The Count of Monte Christo" then you'd need a handful of developed opponents to scheme against and kill. If you're telling the story of "Harriet the Spy" then you need a mystery, but don't need death. And so on. The game mechanics will dictate the types of stories your players tell.

Originally Posted by scandum The whole thing is borderline sociopathic (like me) so I would say permadeath selects for players that aren't fully emotionally stable, and possibly enjoy the traumatic / humiliating experience of character loss.

Well, let's say that permadeath selects for players that enjoy the risk of character loss.

Why they enjoy that risk may vary from player to player, some may enjoy the chance to force another player to loose their character, others may enjoy the thrill of risking their character, and winning through. Others may just find they don't have any emotional investment without the risk (who wants to play a game that's too easy where you can't loose?) and so on.

[silvarilon]

Originally Posted by KaVir Hold on a second...you're the owner of a commercial mud where paying customers can have their characters permanently killed by a legal system that even you admit upsets the players - but you also play a character in the mud who effectively dictates the law to everyone else, and is so "unpleasantly nasty" that a few players have even gone so far as to attempt suiciding their characters on you? Isn't that a huge conflict of interest? Or have I misunderstood something?

What you just described is pretty reasonable, given the information in this thread. But I certainly haven't explained things in terms of how I balance fairness vs PC power.

We do have a legal system that can lead to permadeath, and my character does have some influence over it - however, there are many checks and balances. All the laws that lead to permadeath are clearly marked, and the players are given plenty of warning. Things like "If you are roleplaying a slave, and have a weapon without permission" (slaves have to be approved by staff, who run them through the IC and OOC rules) or "If you keep claiming to be a noble when you aren't one" (we had a character claiming to be a king. Since this hadn't come up before, he was contacted and told that it could lead to his execution if the in-game authorities heard of any future incidents, but they would ignore the past claims) or "If you don't retract your statement of heresey and make a public post about converting" (It's a religious setting. You don't have to *believe* but you have to at least not walk around spouting heresy, or you'll be executed. Even in those cases, when caught they are given the chance to just say "Oh, I see my error and convert" that first time.) - there are other crimes, like "assault" or "destruction of property" that might be more subjective, but none of the more subjective crimes can lead to permadeath. And that's where my character would most often be consulted, when there is a question about a subjective crime. Also, I didn't just grant myself that power for my character, I roleplayed being interested, learning about the crimes, and constantly giving consistent advice when asked, until the other characters would ask. Officially, my character has no power in the legal system other than that given by the other players through asking for advice. - I have roleplayed my character into gaining in-game allies, that sometimes are helpful. And I have roleplayed my character into a position of respect (from some characters.)

So... my character has little to no ability to use that influence to get someone executed. Certainly my character does not "dictate the law"
And even more certainly, me running the game has little to do with my character's in-game position, any other player could have done exactly the same.

Secondly, when I said that the legal system upsets the players, I was specifically referring to how the legal system doesn't encourage the violence escalation that we were discussing earlier. If two people pull swords and fight each other, the legal system charges *both* with assault, even if one was attacked. That's more the players wanting to play the hero who can pull weapons and kill "bad guys" with no consequences, and not really anything to do with my character having influence on the legal system.

Thirdly, the legal system is totally, utterly, dependent on evidence gathered by players. I'm constantly striving to "put the power in the hands of the players" and let them take more and more of a role in running things, rather than having staff always "at the top" - staff will always play characters like the king, but we make an effort to make those characters fade into the background (the king hasn't even come out in the past two real life years...) and let the players make the real decisions. We need systems so an abusive player doesn't ruin the game for others. The legal system is one of these cases, instead of a staff magistrate deciding if someone should be punished, the players gather evidence and enter it into the system. When they have enough "points" of evidence for the crime, the criminal can be arrested, then has to choose a punishment based on the number of "points" against them. What that means is that staff can sit back entirely, and let players follow up the crimes. The players can charge each other, gather evidence, arrest, the criminal's player chooses the punishments, and life in the game goes on. Hopefully with fun roleplay at each step. But it also means if the players don't *want* to enforce certain rules, well, they just won't gather any evidence for it. So to have someone executed, you're going to need to find a lot of evidence or witnesses. Makes it very hard for one character to be an OOC dictator about it.

We also have other checks and balances, of course. For example, no staff ever puts in a game change that benefits one of their characters without getting the change approved from another, unaffected staff member. Including me. So if my character is in conflict with, say, a poisoner I wouldn't change the laws to make murder an executionable crime. I might suggest it, but I'd have to leave the decision to someone else. More likely I'd wait for that conflict to end before making the change, to be doubly sure that we don't unfairly benefit our own characters.

As a side note, on the "unpleasantly nasty" - the suicides really were players who wanted to delete their characters and play something new. They decided to target my character because of the nasty attitude they thought they could be the hero by killing the "bad guy" - it wasn't because my character had actually *done* anything to them.

Originally Posted by Zivilyn Holy crap, at least it wasn't just me thinking that. Sounds like a dictatorship where you pay to be at the whim of the dictator... whew.

Actually, yes. The game is entirely a dictatorship. I'd like to think it's a benevolent dictatorship, because I run a game with the intention of making it as fun for the players as possible. But it's not a democracy, it's not a commune. I listen to ideas and suggestions and debate, and then make the decision I think will be best for the game. That's a dictatorship.

Hopefully I'm doing a good job, and hopefully by running things well we make a better, more consistent game for everyone.

I certainly don't *roleplay* a dictator character in the game, my characters are all pretty low, socially. Mostly because I spent almost all my free time building the game rather than playing it, which makes it hard to climb the ladder. And I don't allow staff to take shortcuts just because they're staff, if they're playing a character they play it *exactly* the same as the other players. Including myself. The influence my characters have (well, only really one. The others have zero influence) is entirely due to the fact that I've been playing the same character for years now, and have slowly built up trust with the other long-term characters. If I played more instead of building and coding, I'd probably have gotten to this point in a matter of months instead of years.

And... tying that back in with the larger discussion... permadeath would mean more to me than some other players, since it took me years to get here, while someone who can play more could get there in months. So, even if we're loosing the same status, it's a larger "hit" to me, since it'll take me longer to get it back. Also, this point of a "dictator" character, there are some players that DO have more OOC power than others. Some have more friends, some some are staff on games that let staff give rewards directly to their characters, or make game changes that benefit themselves. Some have better weapons that make them significantly tougher (maybe through a chance drop, or for some other reason) - all those things make the competition of PC vs PC more unbalanced, which affects how happy players are with a permadeath situation. Unbalanced isn't always bad, someone who's put in effort for the past two years should certainly have an advantage over someone who hasn't.

[Jazuela]

1. 6-page explanations of a point, doesn't make it any more, or less, valid. It just makes it long. I skimmed.

2. Part of what I actually bothered to read, said something about if we were up for the same job as diplomat and I got the job, and you killed me, and all my efforts were wasted...well um...political roles = people with enemies. If I was stupid enough to NOT set up my own personal cadre of spies, assassins, thieves, and guards, then whoever hired me was even more stupid than I was. And, kudos to you for getting rid of my character's incompetent self, and, why didn't anyone stop me before I got that far in the first place?

3. Another phrase I actually managed to read was something about how Harriet the Spy wouldn't benefit from permadeath. Here's the scene:

I'm a spy. You catch me. I call my pal the assassin to kill you. But wait..you rezz, because this isn't a permadeath game. So you're alive 20 minutes later, 4000 exp points, 56800 silver pieces, and one pair of gold-laminated bracers shorter, but alive. And tell everyone about my pal who killed you, and now a posse goes after the assassin. But wait! This isn't a permadeath game! So the assassin gets killed - and rezzed, and killed, and rezzed, over and over again by each of the posse, til his player is so fed up with dying he goes off to play WoW on a RP server, because even that has to be better than this. Meanwhile, you've gone and told everyone about my spying activities, and now everyone knows I'm a spy, I get fired from my spy job with the competition, and no one will ever hire me again, because spies aren't any good if everyone knows they're spies. All because this isn't a permadeath game. So much for Harriet the Spy.

[Synthesis]

Originally Posted by Threshold Since even you were willing to recycle a character concept for this reason, would you prefer that games with permadeath have some method of avoiding this type of early, PvE character destruction?

Armageddon does have a 2-hour "newbie resurrection" period for new accounts. It used to be for everyone, but experience showed that veteran players sometimes used this 2-hour period to do exceptionally risky things, knowing that if worse came to worst, they would "respawn." It's more of a grudging convenience to newbies than anything else.

But no, PvE or PvP character deaths don't frustrate me in the least, because the game is organized exceptionally well. The vast majority of the time, when my characters have died, it's because either a) I was doing something stupid, b) I ****ed off the wrong people, or c) I went link-dead or had a really slow connection. Link-loss aside, the rest is part of the greater story of the game: life is hard, **** happens, people die.

[scandum]

Originally Posted by Threshold That's a pretty extreme view that I don't think I've heard before. Can you elaborate on that?

DonathinFrye kind of proves my point when he states "players that enjoy permanent death" - as if players enjoy permanent death, that's like talking about "players that enjoy getting banned" - while keeping a straight face.

I think many people are familiar with the so called "abusive admins" who treat players like dirt, and some people put up with that. There appears to be a niche for players that like being abused, and since abusive admins eventually get bored and/or sloppy, the only way to provide guaranteed abuse is to hard code it.

Some women find themselves unable to leave a man who beats them, and these AFS people apparently find themselves incapable of leaving behind an equally unhealthy situation. What I don't quite understand is why they try so hard to get others to join them, though I guess it makes for quite the bonding experience when you're being abused together.

[DonathinFrye]

You have made a lot of assumptions, Scandum. I don't play a PC on my permanent death game. I don't abuse people. I am friendly and understanding on the forums, moderate when there are OOC disputes or someone is having trouble with a character concept or finding the kind of roleplay they want. I encourage them to take risks and be willing to accept the rewards and consequences for those risks, whatever they may be. For combat characters, or politically-driven characters, this may mean death. But Atonement is designed to let the characters shape the world entirely ... all of the clans are player-created, there is no admin-controlled government, the environment is codely changeable and controllable by the pcs, the AI's numbers and tactics shift depending on the ongoing battle between PCs and the NPCs ... everything is geared to make there be clear and believable IC consequences for IC action.

In my mind, it is hard to say that the IC consequences for IC action approach is justified without permanent death. Jazuela makes an excellent point above as to why.

I've played on RPIs, PK MUDs, H+S, every kind of MUD imaginable. I have seen abusive admins in every genre. That's a people thing; oftentimes, the worst abusers are power-gamers. I'm not sure what you are basing your insults off of, whether it be personal experience with a specific MUD, or just a general misconception of the motivations of RPI/AFS admins; however, I doubt that you've played my game (correct me if I'm wrong). Atonement's extremely unique, even for an RPI. Give it a try and then make silly accusations about me (or other admins that you do not know and whose games you have not played) being sociopaths or abusive.

[silvarilon]

Originally Posted by Jazuela 1. 6-page explanations of a point, doesn't make it any more, or less, valid. It just makes it long. I skimmed.

That's fair. I'll be more concise.

Originally Posted by Jazuela 2. Part of what I actually bothered to read, said something about if we were up for the same job as diplomat and I got the job, and you killed me, and all my efforts were wasted...well um...political roles = people with enemies. If I was stupid enough to NOT set up my own personal cadre of spies, assassins, thieves, and guards, then whoever hired me was even more stupid than I was. And, kudos to you for getting rid of my character's incompetent self, and, why didn't anyone stop me before I got that far in the first place?

Sure. If it's a game about assassination and murder then that's all true. If the focus is elsewhere, then being able to kill off other PCs like that might actually be distracting from the real game. Depends what game you're building.

Originally Posted by Jazuela 3. Another phrase I actually managed to read was something about how Harriet the Spy wouldn't benefit from permadeath. Here's the scene: I'm a spy. You catch me. I call my pal the assassin to kill you. But wait..you rezz, because this isn't a permadeath game. So you're alive 20 minutes later, 4000 exp points, 56800 silver pieces, and one pair of gold-laminated bracers shorter, but alive. And tell everyone about my pal who killed you, and now a posse goes after the assassin. But wait! This isn't a permadeath game! So the assassin gets killed - and rezzed, and killed, and rezzed, over and over again by each of the posse, til his player is so fed up with dying he goes off to play WoW on a RP server, because even that has to be better than this. Meanwhile, you've gone and told everyone about my spying activities, and now everyone knows I'm a spy, I get fired from my spy job with the competition, and no one will ever hire me again, because spies aren't any good if everyone knows they're spies. All because this isn't a permadeath game. So much for Harriet the Spy.

Uh, Do you know the character "Harriet the Spy"? It's a children's novel (and I believe there is a children's TV show about it too) - Harriet the Spy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My point wasn't that death doesn't add excitement, it was that *some* story types don't need death, and if death can happen too easily that distracts from the real gameplay. The story of Harriet the Spy wouldn't have had the same meaningful ending if the angry classmates just tried to kill her (and won or lost) - instead, the lack of a "kill her and be done with it" option helps to escalate the situation by allowing other, ongoing, forms of competition.

And I know Harriet the Spy is a children's book, and we're talking about games for adults. There are plenty of examples of adult stories that also wouldn't work if death was involved.

None of this makes you wrong. Your example illustrates one of the frustrations with temporary death. It doesn't make you right, either.

Fun gameplay comes from overcoming obstacles. Those obstacles might be "finding a way to kill the opponent" or they might be "find a way to defeat the opponent without killing them" or it might be "work with your allies to achieve something" - all work, if the game is designed for it.

Originally Posted by scandum DonathinFrye kind of proves my point when he states "players that enjoy permanent death" - as if players enjoy permanent death, that's like talking about "players that enjoy getting banned" - while keeping a straight face.

Players might not enjoy permanent death (or might...) - I think for the most part the useful discussion is about players that enjoy a *game* that includes permanent death.

DonathinFrye makes some pretty compelling arguments about why and how permadeath can improve a game, without you needing to be masochistic to enjoy the results.

[scandum]

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye Atonement's extremely unique, even for an RPI. Give it a try and then make silly accusations about me (or other admins that you do not know and whose games you have not played) being sociopaths or abusive.

Just for the record, I wasn't calling anyone in this thread an abusive admin, yet.

[Vanth]

I think that PK/HnS games don't use permadeath because then they would stop being able to retain new players, as veteran players would kill them all: you would end up with a few virtually unkillable characters. And because of that, you would devolve into 80% of staff work going towards 20% of the players, since most players would never reach a high level, or explore far-off areas. As a result, staff members would lose their feelings of accomplishment and usefulness. So you end up with a game that no one staffs or plays - a rather masturbatory experience for the head admin, who shuts the game down.

But that's just one sociopath's opinion.

[silvarilon]

I note that we tend to be thinking of permadeath in terms of "competitive PVP" with direct combat.

i.e. Character 1 goes out with a sword and kills Character 2.

But the topic can be so much wider than that. Perhaps there is no *direct* permadeath, you can't just kill off another character at your whim. But there could be permadeath results of possible actions.

In my game, a character can kill off another character, but it is only temporary. Magic is used to resurrect the murdered character.
But if you get caught for a crime and executed, there is no resurrection.
Other actions might also lead to permadeath. We've had permadeath from: Declaring war on the church and being burnt at the stake, as well as "claiming to be a king" - we've also had characters who annoyed the church enough that they refused to ressurect them anymore (which means if any of them does get killed by another PC it would be permadeath)

In all those cases, the player takes some action before their character risks permadeath. It means that another player can't bully them by just killing them off. And it means there has to be some opportunity for story before they risk permadeath (so no meaningless permadeath)

I could imagine more achievement based games also using this idea. Maybe certain tough monsters have ways to permanently kill off characters if you fight them. Maybe there are defensive skills that can permanently kill the attacker. Maybe there are risks the players can take that could lead to their death (for example, a magician may be able to summon a powerful demon, but if they do it badly the demon eats them)

All those options would allow the positive impact of permadeath, without the possibility for high level players killing off all the noobs and dominating the game. And would allow the players who don't wish to risk permadeath to avoid those risks.

Of course, it also means you can't just walk up to another PC and kill them - while your character might have a good reason to do that. But, y'know, that's the tradeoff of not being able to bully other players. What you might use for good roleplay, someone else would abuse.

[Vanth]

Ahh, see, I wouldn't consider that permadeath. I view permadeath as a game feature, and game features are those things that can be reliably expected to occur in the course of gameplay.

Permanent death that only happens in very specific circumstances and is avoidable is not, IMO, permadeath. If we were going to use that definition, I'd say that you can certainly have that kind of death in any sort of MU*, and there are non-RPI games that have that sort of thing.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Vanth Ahh, see, I wouldn't consider that permadeath. I view permadeath as a game feature, and game features are those things that can be reliably expected to occur in the course of gameplay. Permanent death that only happens in very specific circumstances and is avoidable is not, IMO, permadeath. If we were going to use that definition, I'd say that you can certainly have that kind of death in any sort of MU*, and there are non-RPI games that have that sort of thing.

I'd agree with this. The purpose of permanent death as a feature is fairly straight forward. The purpose of circumstantial permanent death is less clear. Why should execution sentenced by one clan, or refusal to resurrect by another clan add anything to the gamplay/environment of the MUD when typical death means nothing. In my mind, this seems as though it would (if anything) empower admin or favored characters/clans to have the most ultimate advantage in a MUD without persistent permanent death: they can destroy other characters, permanently, whereas the other clans cannot possibly act in kind.

I can't claim to have played the game at all, and it may create some interesting dynamic that isn't evident to me, but I lean towards thinking that partial implementation of permanent death is the weakest approach in what is typically a black/white issue.

[silvarilon]

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye I'd agree with this. The purpose of permanent death as a feature is fairly straight forward. The purpose of circumstantial permanent death is less clear.

I'll agree with you on that. Permanent death as a feature (i.e. my PC can get in a fight and permanently kill another PC) is very straightforward. And it has straightforward implications, some of which are good, some of which are bad.

Circumstantial permanent death is less clear precisely because it depends on the circumstances.

The purpose of those game mechanics would depend on what you are trying to achieve with your game.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye Why should execution sentenced by one clan, or refusal to resurrect by another clan add anything to the gamplay/environment of the MUD when typical death means nothing.

What it adds is the ability to strongly differentiate your clans. Join clan X and you have power over sentences of executions. Join clan Y and you have power over resurrections. Join clan Z and you have better resources to buffy you in combat. Join clan A, B, or C and you get various social advantages.

The way you would differentiate your clans would depend on the game you're making. If you're making a game primarily about combat, then having one clan able to resurrect would be hugely unbalancing. If you're making a game where it's easy to avoid combat, then having one clan able to resurrect has a smaller game impact.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye In my mind, this seems as though it would (if anything) empower admin or favored characters/clans to have the most ultimate advantage in a MUD without persistent permanent death: they can destroy other characters, permanently, whereas the other clans cannot possibly act in kind.

If implemented badly, yes.
If implemented well, every clan or character has the same potential - their choices would lead them towards different strengths.
In my implementation, the clans can only implement permadeath on other characters when certain conditions are met. I.E. the character that is going to die has taken some action to lead towards that event. So, that inherently makes it a rare event, and not relevant if we're talking games where "every character can kill off each other" - in games with more plentiful death, having one clan holding the keys to permadeath does seem very unbalanced.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye I can't claim to have played the game at all, and it may create some interesting dynamic that isn't evident to me

The game is intended for politics and social roleplay, so the dynamics it creates are primarily political. Want someone removed, you've got to catch them out in certain ways. Drive them into doing something that would get them executed. Want to save a character from the gallows? You'll need to get the right characters on-side. Your clan might not have the right abilities, but your clan will have something else that you can barter with.

It shifts the emphasis. In a "pure" permadeath game, if you have an enemy you always have the option of walking up to them and killing them. That will often be the easiest option, and thus the one taken most often. It leaves little reason for players to come up with Machiavellian schemes to manipulate their enemies into a misstep. That is perfectly fine, since most games aren't trying to push for scheming politics. For games that are pushing for something different, the careful control of permadeath can provide an achievement. Being able to protect yourself from permadeath, or being able to permadeath an enemy is something that motivates players. So if you create the gameplay mechanics to achieve that based around the "core gameplay" of your game, you'll be encouraging more players to interact with your core gameplay.

Regardless of whether that core gameplay is the combat system, politics, fighting monsters, buying treasures, or whatever.

But yes, limiting permadeath does "weaken" the impact. I'd still argue that a good design in limited permadeath has the potential to strongly reduce the negative impacts while only mildly reducing the positive impacts. But, in the final tally, permadeath is always going to be an issue of personal preferences. And players will self-select the games based on their preferences. So there will always be a demand for both types of games.

[Newworlds]

I think that any game that has only permadeath and players last longer than a year, there is either:
A) Something wrong with the system
B) Something wrong with the Administration (eg, making sure buddies don't die)
or
C) Worthless to begin as a new player because the game is stacked against you.

[DonathinFrye]

Re: Silv ... I understand what you are suggesting. I agree with some of it, though I'm still fairly fuzzy on the benefits of circumstantial permanent death. Premeditated scheming politics could be said to even be enhanced by permanent death - when your life is at stake, I definitely believe that you play more carefully and craft more elaborate plans. The idea that anyone could walk up to anyone else at any given time on an RPI and kill them is a little off (for most). If it was done without IC reason or proper roleplay, it would become an investigated issue on most. If it was done around v/NPCs or other PCs, it would almost certainly result in the capture of the law-breaking offender. If it is done out in the wilderness, it is fairly easy to escape and report the attack. There's actually a surprisingly few number of "twink" player-kills that I have seen. Many RPI players even recognize the wonderful roleplay value of a "good death scene" and help give that to their victims when possible, even in murder. What you're suggesting happens, rarely, but always gets reported and handled by the staff.

It's all about the environment and community that you foster. For players who don't respect the culture of separating IC/OOC and "twink" kill other characters, they tend to be unable to have long-lived characters or find themselves in position of enough power to kill other characters to begin with. They tend to go play other games, where death means less and they can find success more easily.

Originally Posted by Newworlds I think that any game that has only permadeath and players last longer than a year, there is either: A) Something wrong with the system B) Something wrong with the Administration (eg, making sure buddies don't die) or C) Worthless to begin as a new player because the game is stacked against you.

I'd agree, most of the time. The PCs that last longer than a year on the RPI MUDs that I have staffed for are (almost always) without fail social characters. Crafters, city-workers, etc; they are those who don't have reason to involve themselves with potentially deadly politics, dangerous adventures or war. It seems like a boring way to play (to me, personally), but there are quite a few players out there who prefer a purely social/safe role.

Of course, there are no entirely safe roles on Atonement; the life/death of the entire playerbase is oftentimes left in the hands of the PCs to work together in aims for survival. Even our social/crafting/safe roles are still kept aware of the fact that death could come knocking on the door to Deck One at any time if the characters become complacent.

[cutthroat]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I think that any game that has only permadeath and players last longer than a year, there is either: A) Something wrong with the system B) Something wrong with the Administration (eg, making sure buddies don't die) or C) Worthless to begin as a new player because the game is stacked against you.

Hardly.

I've found that in permadeath games, it's really up to the player to decide if he is going to put his character in a dangerous situation that would possibly/likely kill them. In a roleplay-focused game this is perfectly acceptable; unless you are playing a suicidal person, it is reasonable to assume that self-preservation should be on your character's mind. In a H&S or PvP-focused game with permadeath, you're talking about players that want to keep their characters because of some attachment to them (for example, because of the progress they've made with it).

As for Administration acting as a long-lived character's guardian angel, I can't say I have broad experience over all permadeath games to give you an accurate answer. I know from being a player of Armageddon that long-lived and/or "important" (authority or leadership) roles have as much of a chance dying in a dangerous situation as they do living through it. Sure it's a setback when an established character dies, not only to the player of that character but others depending on that character for plot advancement and the like. But it helps keep things realistic.

Your last point would hold some merit if we're talking about a H&S/PvP-focused game with full permadeath. In such a game, old players would find newer ones easy targets (unless there are rules in place to prevent killing newer players like that). In a roleplay-focused game, old characters aren't necessarily out to bag new ones - indeed, it's generally the exact opposite if anything.

/Not a staff member anywhere, but found this topic interesting as a player.

[Newworlds]

You're not suggesting that new players have the same power/skills/abilities as a brand new player are you? Surely any player that has been around for a year or two could kick a new player's arse and therefore has much more limited risk of death. Moreso the longer you are around.

I haven't played these types of games for well over 5 years, but I can tell you the whole premise back then was tag and bag new players. A big reason I couldn't stand Arm. And those pking had the attitude of "Well too bad, it's a harsh game! Intensive Roleplay." Riiiiight.

Perhaps the attitude has changed there and other similar games because of the lack of ability to bring in new players. But I doubt the style and power base has changed.

Which brings up another argument about Level vs. Leveless systems. I maintain there is no difference when a Leveless system has skill levels rather than Guild or Player levels. Any levels at all makes it a Level system. I tend to laugh at games that call themselves leveless yet have 13241234 skill levels in say crafting, swimming, hand to hand combat, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what's the difference between a Level 242 Mage and a Mage with of Spell Skills at 242. Both can beat the pants off of a Level 1 Mage and a Mage with Spell Skills at 1.

[Vanth]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I think that any game that has only permadeath and players last longer than a year, there is either: A) Something wrong with the system B) Something wrong with the Administration (eg, making sure buddies don't die) or C) Worthless to begin as a new player because the game is stacked against you.

If many characters lasted longer than a year, I would agree with these statements. If a few characters lasted longer than a year, but most lasted a month or three or five (as is the case in Armageddon) then I think these statements are false.

You're not suggesting that new players have the same power/skills/abilities as a brand new player are you? Surely any player that has been around for a year or two could kick a new player's arse and therefore has much more limited risk of death. Moreso the longer you are around.

No, old players definitely have an advantage over new players, even if they are both creating new characters (btw, I sometimes find it hard in your posts to understand what you mean because you seem to be using the term 'player' to mean both 'player' and 'character'). Old players know where to find things in game and generally how the gameworld works - an example of this in Armageddon is that old players don't try to play characters that have ideals better suited to Tolkien-esque high fantasy or modern-day life.

In Armageddon, old characters may, or may not, have an advantage over new characters - power is as much a function of the social game and karma, as it is of skill development.

I haven't played these types of games for well over 5 years, but I can tell you the whole premise back then was tag and bag new players. A big reason I couldn't stand Arm. And those pking had the attitude of "Well too bad, it's a harsh game! Intensive Roleplay." Riiiiight.

Perhaps you shouldn't make blanket statements about games that you haven't played in years, and from the sound of it, didn't play for very long to begin with.

Yes, sometimes new players get their characters killed quickly. If you read the game documentation and follow the recommendations we make about your first characters, this will happen much more rarely. But if you're going to get butt-hurt about your character dying, you're probably not well-suited to a permadeath game.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Newworlds You're not suggesting that new players have the same power/skills/abilities as a brand new player are you? Surely any player that has been around for a year or two could kick a new player's arse and therefore has much more limited risk of death. Moreso the longer you are around. I haven't played these types of games for well over 5 years, but I can tell you the whole premise back then was tag and bag new players. A big reason I couldn't stand Arm. And those pking had the attitude of "Well too bad, it's a harsh game! Intensive Roleplay." Riiiiight. Perhaps the attitude has changed there and other similar games because of the lack of ability to bring in new players. But I doubt the style and power base has changed.

I can't speak for ARM, as my head-staffing experience has been entirely with Shadows of Isildur, and now Atonement. However, it is a bit of an IC cultural thing, I believe, in most cases. Forced conscription and humiliation of PCs doesn't happen on Atonement due to the setting. On SOI, it is common practice, though, for orcs to act this way towards new orc characters. A lot of players loved the rough roleplay of orcs ... and a lot of players hated it. At least on SOI, you had (if anything, too many) different spheres/races/play-areas spread out. It was very easy to avoid this sort of play there if you wanted to. From my experiences as a player on ARM, I'd say that it's probably a little harder there - but not too much so.

Which brings up another argument about Level vs. Leveless systems. I maintain there is no difference when a Leveless system has skill levels rather than Guild or Player levels. Any levels at all makes it a Level system. I tend to laugh at games that call themselves leveless yet have 13241234 skill levels in say crafting, swimming, hand to hand combat, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what's the difference between a Level 242 Mage and a Mage with of Spell Skills at 242. Both can beat the pants off of a Level 1 Mage and a Mage with Spell Skills at 1.

Well, I'm not really a fan of waving the "level-less" flag infront of my game, but I think that you're mostly wrong here. Whether or not your skills have numerical values attached to them, the system itself is still significantly different than player levels. It's an entirely skill-based growth system as opposed to a level-based growth system (which oftentimes can/does include a skill-based growth system as well). I think that you can safely say that a skill-based system that does not utilize experience-points/levels is fairly different than an XP/level-based system.

With that said, it's still a system. It's not some magical answer to power-gaming. But with a skill-based system like RPIs use, that obfusicates the numerical values of stats/skills from players, the general idea is to encourage less meta-gaming/power-gaming and more improvement through natural progression. Most players don't even really understand how skill-growth truly works in these games, and that little bit of mystery is meant to drive players towards more realistic immersion. It has mixed results, and there are still players who obsess over their skill-levels, but having staffed at PK/H+S MUDs as well as RPIs, I can safely say that it does manage to help lower the overall focus on meta-gaming in an RPI's community.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye Well, I'm not really a fan of waving the "level-less" flag infront of my game, but I think that you're mostly wrong here. Whether or not your skills have numerical values attached to them, the system itself is still significantly different than player levels. It's an entirely skill-based growth system as opposed to a level-based growth system (which oftentimes can/does include a skill-based growth system as well). I think that you can safely say that a skill-based system that does not utilize experience-points/levels is fairly different than an XP/level-based system.

No matter how you slice it, it still comes up numbers. You can call it sewer trenching, but there are still numbers attached to the advancing of skills.

Originally Posted by DonathinFrye With that said, it's still a system. It's not some magical answer to power-gaming. But with a skill-based system like RPIs use, that obfusicates the numerical values of stats/skills from players, the general idea is to encourage less meta-gaming/power-gaming and more improvement through natural progression. Most players don't even really understand how skill-growth truly works in these games, and that little bit of mystery is meant to drive players towards more realistic immersion. It has mixed results, and there are still players who obsess over their skill-levels, but having staffed at PK/H+S MUDs as well as RPIs, I can safely say that it does manage to help lower the overall focus on meta-gaming in an RPI's community.

Oh come on, wether you are sitting in a farm all day to increase your farm abilities or killing an orc, it's the same thing. Meta-gaming happens regardless of the environment or structure.

NWA is built mostly around social power control, but still people love to level. If there was no growth ability no one would play any game.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Vanth Perhaps you shouldn't make blanket statements about games that you haven't played in years...

You are probably right.

Originally Posted by Vanth But if you're going to get butt-hurt about your character dying, you're probably not well-suited to a permadeath game.

It's funny to see the good old Arm Admin attitude hasn't changed in the slightest.