What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

I was at the gym today and I was thinking about our permadeath discussions here. I came to the conclusion that I actually believe AFS (Armageddon Feature Set) type games are the LEAST impacted by a concept like permadeath. Now, before anyone has a heart attack, hear me out. I understand that permadeath is a core concept for AFS muds. So what I mean when I say they are the least impacted is that players' day-to-day experiences and enjoyment are affected less on an AFS mud than on other types of muds. Perhaps that is part of why permadeath works on those muds - it is actually less disruptive and less of a negative for overall enjoyment than it would be on other games.

Imagine a spectrum from left to right:

Pure Hack-n-Slash ......................|...................... Pure Role Play (MUSH)

RP enforced games and AFSes are to the right of that center line, obviously.

I believe that the further to the right you move on that spectrum, the LESS impact permadeath has on increasing excitement, tension, etc. Why? Because the farther right you move, the less someone has to lose from dying permanently. If the whole point of the game, and if all the fun of the game is the role play, then it really doesn't matter what your character is. How good your stats, skills, or any other "trained" abilities are don't matter that much. Yes, you lose a little bit from having to "give up" a fun character, but for creative people this is not a big deal. In fact, one could argue that it is more fun to make new characters frequently to keep things fresh and new. No matter how awesome a character is in a game, book, or movie, I can only take so much of that character before I am bored with it. is possibly my favorite fantasy literary character. But after reading 3 or 4 books with him, I've had enough for a few months.

Now, the farther left on that spectrum you move, the more devastating permadeath becomes. If you have actually spent months or years leveling up a character, perfecting his skills, perfecting his gear, etc., then permanently dying is absolutely devastating. This would be like losing a level 70 tier 6 character on WoW, or something like that.

Role play experiences are not linear. As long as you are having role play experiences, you are at the pinnacle of "fun" for that type of game. In a hack-n-slash game, a lot of the fun is linear. If you are bored with the low or mid-level gameplay, then dying permanently or starting over would be a HUGE issue. You would have a lot of grinding ahead of you just to get back to the type of fun you actually want to have (high level or "end game" content). But when the main purpose of the game is role playing, you can get right back to that same type of fun immediately upon re-entry into the game world with a new character. Dying and rerolling is not actually a significant setback.

Looking at permadeath in this manner, you also see another of its pros on games that are almost pure RP with virtually no "hack-n-slash" or statistical/numerical character development. A coded feature that forces people to give up an old, beloved character (because it died) and make something new helps prevent people from stagnating. Sometimes, as a game developer, you have to save players from themselves. Players will often do things out of habit or stubbornness and not realize it is actually impeding their enjoyment. So having permadeath in more pure RP oriented games helps give people a nudge to give up an old character and start something new.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

As there is only one "Armageddon Feature Set" game, this is little more than a personal attack on that game. I realize you're very protective of your own game and possibly insecure in regard to possible comparisons with other MUDs, but repeated attempts to demean and attack other games is really uncalled for.

If instead you are attempting to address permanent death in all Role-Play Intensive games and simply fail to comprehend that other RPIs do not feature the same exact characteristics as Armageddon, I'll address your points as if you were referring to all RPI MUDs and not just Armageddon itself.

This might be true if there weren't fundamental differences in the philosophy behind what "pure hack n slash" and "pure role play" games are attempting to do. This really appears to be more of an attack on RPIs but let's suppose for a moment that it isn't.

This is your mistake. You may not comprehend this but there is an equally incredible investment in their characters by both role-players and H&Sers. The hours of killing and leveling done by a H&Ser is complimented by the hours of role-playing done by a RPer. In some ways, RPers require far more time because some, but not all, H&S MUDs allow botting.

A professor at my university used to bot a couple characters on MUDs. In a conversation with him, he once pointed to a computer in his office and boasted how much experience he just earned without having to even type anything. Now, if his character were killed, his loss was very little since none of the time it took to level and train the character had detracted from other things he could do because he hadn't been doing the leveling and training and so forth himself. Was there a loss, yes. He would have to re-engage the process and then go about his life as normal until the program had botted through the game to the point it had gotten his character to the first time. But the loss to him was very minimal.

By contrast, role-playing isn't really something you can do with a bot. Sure, you could try but in the end it would result in some really, really pathetic RP. There isn't an AI in existance that can match the human mind in response and interaction. While it might be possible to program a routine to go out and raise the skill levels, slowly, of a character on a role-play game, the character will be no better off for role-play than if they'd just started.

You lose a lot if you were enjoying the character. Many role-playing games, RPI or not, have a policy prohibiting creating similar characters. Additionally, every character is unique and the experiences and opportunities of a character are not always possible more than once. If your character were in a situation where they were subject to unique opportunities for role-play, the loss of that character might forever shut the door to those opportunities again. No amount of effort on a new character could recreate that and the fun of the role-play in that situation might be forever lost to the player.

Most role-players have more patience and discipline than this. They're possibly more imaginative than you and capable of finding more in a character, enough to sustain the character for a very long time. Role-playing may not suit your tastes but the same is not true of all. Personally, I've played the same character on games for years and not even touched upon a significant portion of its potential.

Opinion, not fact.

Something which would be completely attainable again. The only possibility for loss would be unique equipment. But levels and skill advancement is, unless it consisted of unique skills not attainable again, something which could be recovered.

While role-play may not be linear, there are still linear routes to some experiences. The difference in role-play linear experiences is that quite often they are one-time experiences. No matter how much you try, you can never attain the opportunity again. At least with H&S, you have the chance to go through the "grind" again.

The thing is that you can't necessarily get into the same role-play content again. The "same type of fun" role-play might be possible, but not the same role-play. When I played H&S, I made the same exact character three times and each time was able to reach the same exact, actually achievements and levels that I had the time before. In fact, each time I was able to get slightly further in some ways by doing the same thing over because I could avoid the mistakes I'd made the previous time. What took me 18 months to achieve the first time took me only 12 months the second time and 10 months the third.

By contrast, when my characters on permanent death role-play MUDs have died, everything about them was lost. It couldn't be achieved again. The opportunities and experiences of that character were gone and even if I had made another character like that again, there could be no way to reverse the course of in-game events and replay them again for the benefit of the new character. The chance was gone forever.

Agreed, some players do that very thing and you're absolutely correct that it's necessary to provide policies to prevent such things from happening. Many role-play MUDs have such policies prohibiting players from picking up where their former character left off.

Personally, I've found that permanent death enhances the sense of loss of any game regardless of whether or not it's H&S or RP. I would offer that a better chart would not be a "Pure H&S - Pure Role-Playing" line but rather a grid of that horizontal scale crossed at the middle with a vertical scale featuring "Permadeath" on one end and the inverse on the other. Various types of games find their way into the corners of the grid while others congregate near the middle.

Take care,

Jason

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

That's just misleading and pure propaganda. AFS is no more of a flame than RPI, when in actuality RPI causes way more of a flame through its inherent misleading nature than AFS. Let's not forget that these discussions all started because some player dared used this rather ambiguous term in the wrong way and got flamed for it. Trying to better the community by using a less confusing term and, thus, attempting to end the confusion is hardly a flame, nor is the above post. The above post is a theory and an attempt to discuss the theory divorced from the utter ruin of the other thread. You know very well that AFS is not an attempt at a flame. Your statements, however, obviously are.

Calling something an AFS is hardly declaring that they all have the exact same characteristics as Armageddon. Rather, it means that they share feature choices that are similar to Armageddon. Otherwise, it wouldn't be Armageddon Feature Set, it'd just be Armageddon. Saying that something is a Godwars style mud is neither a slam on Godwars nor a declaration that the game is just a rip off KaVir's original work. It's naming a very well known style of mud and paying KaVir a bit of tribtue on the side. You said it yourself that two of the original three AFSes were either Armageddon or a spin off. Sounds like they deserve the tribute. Lastly, this isn't a discussion about AFS muds or even muds in general. It's simply a supposition about permadeath and how it impacts players, not characters, on a scale based on having RP and not having RP.

We could have started out with that supposition in the first place since there was an attempt to divorce it from the flames flying around in the other thread. You could have left out the personal flames in the first place and gotten to the discussion. Maybe try that next time.

I think the problem you're having here is that you somehow think that it's an insult to link hack n' slash muds or even the big MMOs to your preferred mud choice in some way. It's not. We all play games for entertainment, and as much as you might like to have a clear line in what is "best", most people play all sorts of games for a variety of reasons. Permadeath is a concept that is actually shared by several games and is not exclusive to AFS muds. The question is whether or not the presence of roleplay makes permadeath less "harsh" because of the rewards of roleplay. The given example was taken from WoW, and thankfully, you've been smart enough to stay away from the sheer amount of time and mindless effort it takes to get to level 70 with Tier 6. (I was smart enough to stop before I'd gotten there.) You might not actually know what kind of hideous grind it actually is, but guess what? There's a pretty big number of people doing that grind right now and doing it gleefully. Losing a level 70, Tier 6 character would be far more devastating to the players who chose to play WoW than losing my beloved character on a roleplay enforced mud.

What Threshold is saying is simply that permadeath succeeds best when there is roleplaying behind it, and the loss of a character is less senseless because of the roleplay and allows players to keep trucking on with new characters. There's appeal to keep coming back for more.
If you put down your flame thrower for a second, perhaps you can see that what is being said is that the presence of roleplaying makes roleplay enforced muds able to support permadeath whereas other games rarely succeed. Even in Diablo II, Hardcore is just an option. Muds are really the only type of games anymore that have permadeath on a regular basis. Roleplay muds are much more suited to permadeath than hack 'n slash muds because of the the roleplay aspects. Very few "pure" hack 'n slash muds have permadeath because the impact of permadeath is much more distressful than on a roleplay enforced game.

If you are arguing the opposite, then I'm thinking perhaps AFS muds, where permadeath is a required feature, must have the most masochistic players around. If death actually creates the sense of wastefulness that one might get from losing a level 70, Tier 6, I wouldn't come back for more. Whereas even on Threshold, players who have had up to 10 years of developing their characters have suffered permadeath or roleplayed it out themselves. Some have also experienced it involuntarily and keep coming back for more.

Granted, anyone can really bot any game as long as they have the required programming skills, but those aren't really people who are playing the game. They're playing a programming game, not the actual computer game. Of course there wouldn't be a sense of loss there, but that's not what is being proposed or discussed. We're talking about real time invested into a game by the player, not some botting scenario, and trust me, you aren't getting to level 70, Tier 6 by botting.

The same goes for a character that just botted on any game RP-enforced or not. You didn't really do much in the game. You have no emotional investment except in the program that you created. Permadeath for people who bot would be like having a sector of their hard drive crash and destroy all the bots and scripts they've created. Again, I stress that they're not playing the actual game they're botting. Their game is creating the bots in the first place.

The whole post is an opinion. That's the point. Again, let me restate it for you: Permadeath for players in non-roleplay environments is a devastating, game-stopping experience. Not so for games that heavily support roleplaying if not outright enforce it. The further left you are on the spectrum, the more likely you're never going to come back to a game if your character permanently and was deleted at death.

The point isn't whether or not it's completely attainable again. The point is that there's no incentive to do it all again unlike being on a roleplaying game. Because of the roleplaying factors, it would be worth creating a new character and leveling again. It'd be a new experience because your character won't be the same level 70 in the same Tier 6 when you are done.

That's why permadeath is so devastating in a non-roleplay enforced environment, and that's Threshold's entire point, which I'm sure you could deduce if you bothered to actually read the post instead of forumlating your next flame as you skim. There's no point in going through the grind again if your character permanently dies on a game where the end result is going to be almost exactly what you had before you died.

Again, you show that you clearly understand the point that's being made.

Q: Why does permadeath work on certain games?
A: Because the presence of roleplaying gives players incentive to come back for more. The loss of a character is not completely devastating and game stopping to the player.

But that doesn't matter to the player because you played for the experience that character had, not to have a level 294 warrior with the Blade of Ultimate Doom. The gear loss, the time invested in leveling the character pales in comparison to the actual life the character had. That's just simply not true without the roleplay experience. In Diablo II, you played Hardcore in order to see how high you could place on the ranking charts, and that's what made it worth creating another Hardcore character. Losing the actual character didn't matter that much as long as you placed high enough.

You're basically agreeing making the same points as Threshold but flaming him in the process. :)

{Sorry for all the snipping. I broke the character limit, guaranteeing no one is going to read this post!}

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

I just get tickled when a poster assumes the worst about another.
I got bored with the Wheel of Time after book four, knowing there were umpty-billion others, and it simply didn't hold my interest. Some people got to book seven before they came to the same conclusion. However, it's because I'm impatient or undisciplined? I stuck with the Thomas Covenant books from get-go to gone-for-good. What judgements should be passed on me for that?

Is it possible that it's because the WoT books are tedious, poorly wordsmithed, trite and commercially exploitive? That perhaps one man's T-bone is another man's drivel?

I sincerely wish some of these presumptions about the poster were kept to oneself.

I've gotten tired of characters played by others because I thought they were pedantic, predictable, or otherwise pathetic, but that really doesn't imply that I'm less imaginative or disciplined, does it? Ten years of listening to a character do a weak rendition of Jar-Jar Binks' accent should have -some- terminal point, no?

RPIs. RPEs. RPGs. Know what takes the fun out of many of them? Attitudes of players. Wish there was a perma-death for that.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

The overall question is, "What types of games are impacted most by permadeath?"

By the context of the argument, it appears that this question is asking what types of games are impacted in a negative fashion by permadeath. This question could delve into questions such as how permadeath systems impact player retention, levels of abuse, twinkery, boredom, etc...?

So the theory is, "AFS-type MUDs are impacted less by a permadeath system because there is less to lose that cannot be replaced since most people are interested in role-play and role-play is an ongoing trait of AFS-type MUDs."

I definitely believe that the coded focus of H&S games does cause permadeath systems to hit closer to home in terms of what it takes away from the player, but I also believe that's a fault of the H&S game design and that certain changes could help alleviate some of the issues. Issues that seem to help lessen the sting in AFS type games would be:
Both Hack and Slash and AFS, or RPI, games require an investment on behalf of the player.

The investment on part of the Hack and Slasher is contained almost entirely within their achieved coded successes. If asked to describe their character, they would probably respond by listing pieces of particularly glowy or humming gear that ***DEVASTATES*** you in the face since skill distribution is likely fairly similar at the upper echelons of each class choice.

The investment on behalf of the role-player is in both the coded success and the role-play experiences the character has attained. When asked to describe their character, they would probably provide you with a few personality traits, physical appearance, background story, current job, and perhaps a blurb about how proficient they are in some of their skills if that's been a focus of their character.

Losing either character would result in a sense of loss for losing that investment of time and energy. However, I would wager that AFS players would be slightly less frustrated because they still have a wealth of memories and experiences from which to draw when they remember that character. When people talk of their characters, they don't talkabout the leet gear they had, or how fast they downed Zone 27 -- they talk about the stories of which they were a part. They relay encounters and convoluted plots in which they participated. Something remains of that investment even after death, and that may also factor into why permanent death isn't quite as harsh to AFS type games.

Now, I mentioned that I wouldn't necessarily place H&S on a linear scale by default because it would be possible to create a H&S game that was better designed to support permanent death. You could increase the complexity of the classes and class choices, allowing for many varied paths to power and methods of improving that don't focus on the same grind day after day. It could still be fairly devoid of RP, but still be a more interesting interface so that repeat characters wouldn't swiftly become boring and/or aggravating. You could alter the world in some way so that the zones change or evolve somehow so that the experience of moving through them can be different from week to week, month to month, year to year.

So, my answer to the initial question would be this:

The games that are impacted most by permanent death systems are the ones whose game design and game world offers the least about of unique repeat play, complex character development, and most rigid linear ascension to coded power.

-LoD

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

I'm starting a different thread to avoid derailing this one discussing the inaccuracies in an earlier post....

I never suggested that it was. I said that the emotional impact of losing a character, be it on a RP game or a H&S game, is equally devastating to anyone with a committment. For me, I voluntarily quit my H&S characters over and over when I got tired of the game. I rebuilt them without much concern. Losing my characters on RPI, where I knew I could not simply go out and repeat the events and role-play I'd experienced with them was far more important to me. To someone else, the inverse might be true. Neither has a trump on the impact of loss, though.

It doesn't. Loss is loss and for different people, what they lose has differing value to them. For some a H&S character is nothing. For others, it matters.

Actually, I've never played WoW and aside from watching someone else do it for a bit, I've avoided it altogether. My experiences with H&S was on text-based games and some old console games but never any of the present graphical MMOs. And the times that I lost my character on H&S didn't matter. The only time it really did was when it was done personally to **** me off by another player that had been told to stop harassing me by one admin but let off the hook by another. Favoritism is something I don't tolerate and one of the primary reasons I have quite games in the past including RPIs.

While I'll agree that there's more depth to role-playing worlds which would allow for new experiences with new characters, that doesn't make losing a character easier. It makes it harder for some since the experiences they've lost are gone and they can't just go out and level back up to them.

Again, you accuse me of flaming where none was present. Please desist from doing this.

They rarely succeed because they're rarely attempted. The vast majority of H&S games are not permadeath. As for their success ratio, there are other factors besides permadeath that cause games to go under. What proof is there that permadeath results in the failure of H&S games to succeed?

There's no evidence that it is any more distressful. There is evidence that for different individuals there are different levels of attachment. To each their own. There is no absolute. For some, losing a character on a H&S is nothing more than a setback in points while losing a character on a RP game is a devastating loss, almost like losing a family member. For others, losing a role-play character is just another chance at something new while losing a H&S character is a source of incredible frustration.

If you are arguing the opposite, then I'm thinking perhaps [RPI] muds, where permadeath is a required feature, must have the most masochistic players around.[/quote]

I'm not arguing the opposite, I'm pointing out that the impact of loss is dependant upon the individual's investment, not on the type of game. Let me state that I believe that there is no difference between the loss of a character in a permanent death role-playing game and a permanent death H&S game. The difference is in the player playing them. For some, the impact of losing hours of killing stuff to gain levels and equipment and whatnot is a greater loss. For others, the impact of losing the character that they have role-played is a greater loss. It's not the game type that matters. It's the player playing the game.

Some people actually enjoy the grind. I'm not one of them but I know some that do. To each their own.

Again, attempting to defend your strengthen your opinion by trying to color my statements as attacks does nothing to combat the fact that an opinion is worthless unless the facts support it. The facts do not support a conclusion that permanent death in either type of game has greater impact. It is dependant upon the player.

But that's really just an opinion. The best that can really be said is that permadeath doesn't work for certain types of players, be it on a H&S or a role-playing game.

I didn't flame him and am quite frankly wish you would stop assuming as much. I agree with him on some points, disagree with him on others. I'm not flaming him, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in his position which is not the same thing as flaming him. If all players conformed to the generalizations he's using his position might be more accurate but not all players do. I myself don't as I proved back in 2001 when I literally junked equipment and stuff that most players on my old H&S might not achieve if they'd played for a decade, then deleted my character. I didn't care. There was no emotional loss for me. It was just a game. By contrast, when I lost a character that same year on the RPI I played, I was depressed for days. I've known people that have been depressed for even longer at the loss of a character while others have shrugged it off and started work on their next. It's not a matter of which type game they were playing. They'd likely behave the same if they were playing the opposite type of game (though usually their distaste for the other type would prevent them from even trying).

Take care,

Jason

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

Quite right. Using the WoW example was a bit simplistic since WoW isn't designed for permadeath. Most games designed without roleplay enforcement behind the core design don't go the permadeath route. There's really just one sub-set of games that do it consistently, and you have to wonder why that is. Sure, it could be a chicken and egg thing: Do HnS games design without permadeath because players wouldn't keep dying and playing, or is it because it's been tried and players stop playing whenever they die off?

I personally love the grind of a typical HnS game, and I'll level up several characters at once. However, I also do it with the understanding that those characters will always be there. Any progress I've made with the character will always be saved. Again, personal preference.

So, the theory isn't completely accurate since we have very few hack n slash games with permadeath to compare with the RP permadeath games. Still, it seems logical to deduce that permadeath tends to succeed better in a specific type of setting.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

While I agree to some extant, I think it also affects games that have really developed characters in roleplay as well. For example, if you work for a year on your character, building up relationships, political structures, etc., it is very harsh to start over as it were. It would be similar to being an NFL coach having to recroute the entire line up every time you lost a game. Yes yes, it is harsh, but really does it make for a better coach? Highly unlikely.

This begs another question and I'll post it on the other permadeath thread so as to not derail this thread.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

Most respectfully, prof, you may not have intended a flame, but your earlier post sure looked, smelled, and smoked like a flame to me.

I think that permadeath can be painful in both situations. I don't know of any pure H&S places that are permadeath (though pretty much all muds I come across claim to be role-play intensive). Personally, I find it harder to create a character that is distinct and recognizable and that I like to play than I do to grind through levels.

Once I played a mud that involved hack and slash and some roleplay too. I created a pretty decent character, who spoke and acted pretty consistently and whose personality was decidedly different than mine. In the end, I quit the mud not because he died and lost all his equipment (and I remember thinking "Man, I lost my Stormshield! I'll NEVER get one of those again), but because the imms decided one day that my name didn't sound fantasy-ish enough and said I had to start over with a new char. Losing my equipment sucked, but losing my personality was a show-stopper.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

Man, I hate when I get devastated in the face. When being devastated is the only option, I usually hope for a toe or an ear lobe.... NOT IN THE FACE! :p

Don't devastate me, bro!


I agree. I think that is why permadeath is not only tolerable, but enjoyed in a sense on AFS muds. It reminds me of a concept from the Highlander TV show, and also expressed more recently by Achilles in the movie Troy: the fact that when someone is mortal, and therefore fleeting, this can make their life seem more precious. The farther a MUD is to the right of the spectrum from the OP, the more the gameplay is about the experience, not the experience points. And since nobody can ever take away your experiences, dying permanently is not as big of a deal.


I agree. Obviously, any game related issue charted out on a single spectrum is going to be somewhat simplistic. But sometimes it helps to simplify things just to boil down the question and get at some of the core issues.

I think the key for making permadeath more tolerable, and have less of an "impact", is to create a goal for the players that exists outside of the character. For Hardcore Mode Diablo II, this external motivation was competing on the ladder/ranking. For AFS muds, it is experiencing interesting role play.


I don't think it has to do with unique repeat play, or having complex character development. Diablo II has virtually zero unique repeat play (randomized maps are a very minor change), but permadeath Hardcore mode is still very popular and fun.

A lot of RPE games have incredibly complex character development systems, as well as many HnS muds, and that actually makes the prospect of permadeath WORSE. Complex character development options is something that increases the impact (particulately the negative impact) of permadeath. AFS muds tend to allow for complex character development, and that is what makes permadeath still have SOME impact on an AFS mud. I think without this, death would have virtually no meaning on an AFS mud.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

Oh man, that really stinks. They didn't have any way to just change your name or anything? How long had you been playing this character?

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

Well, that depends. If his name was "IROCKU" we might change it too, but then, he'd never get past creation really. So, hmm, who knows, maybe the MUD started to get more RP'ish.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

No, the character was TC (variously titled "the brave", "the bold", and briefly "the not quite so bold as sir lancelot")

I played him for about 2 years. And despite the funny titles, he was a fun and memorable character-- an over-the-top, sort of John Wayne-ish paladin.

I tried to argue that it should be pronounced "Tck" but that didn't really fly. The mud did try to get more formally RPish, but the irony was that he was actually a pretty well-defined character. His name just happened to violate the new policy of nothing that looks like initials, and no exceptions were made.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

Yeah...that's just ..off. There's really only three options I can see that an admin should have made there. None of the three are deleting your character and making you start over.

1.) Ignore your name and grandfather it.
2.) Change your name.
3.) If the mud had binary pfiles and couldn't easily change your name, have you make a new character and reimburse it with the previous character's level and stats.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

Yeah, that is the way I see it, with exactly the same 3 options.

A shame.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

Well, that's too bad, as it seems you had a good bit of history going with Tche (the name we probably would have suggested for you if you were on NW).

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

I think permadeath affects a certain type of -player- more than a certain type of game.

With that said, I don't play any hack-and-slash MUDs, but if any of them require the sheer number of hours that being top-tier in WoW does, I'm betting it would affect them the most.

If I was offered the choice between permadeath in WoW and permadeath for a character that I played in a pure RP MUD for over a year previously, I would choose the pure RP char. No hesitation.

But that's probably because I have about 300+ DAYS played on my WoW character (with minimal afk). :eek:

That's not to say that permadeath wouldn't have affected my pure RP character. It had a rich history and storyline that took a year to develop; there was immense character development and building of relationships. To start again would be, ick. Fortunately, that particular game didn't have permadeath/PK.

I would honestly prefer that TI (the MUD that I am playing currently) didn't have permadeath. But I suppose I can understand how it helps make the game more realistic.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

This is my opinion.
The discussion seems to assume that things all fit neatly on a sliding scale - which for the most part they do - but we're not really taking into account that different sorts of players pick muds at the different points on the scale.

It's been said that the cost of permadeath is when the players loose the effort they've invested into a character. That is the truth. But what the player feels they've lost will vary based on the type of player they are.

In roleplay muds, you'll find that players tend to fall into two general categories. You've got the ones who make a character and play it for years. I know PCs that have been around for over eight years, and have played almost every day. And then you've got the players who keep wanting to try out new character ideas, who delete their old characters and constantly create new ones.

Obviously, permadeath is going to have a different impact on those players, despite both being on a roleplay mud.

Similarly for hack and slash. Loosing years worth of levelling is lame, and upsetting. And if it's not worth the effort to build your new character back up to the previous level then you'll leave the game. But in my world, I'll only play a hack and slash game if I'm *enjoying* the game. I don't care about being the best, or having that sword - I care about the enjoyment of working my way through the game (and I stop playing when I get to the end...) - so for a player like me, loosing my character isn't much of a loss. I get to try out a new character type, and play through the game again. If the grind isn't fun, I wouldn't be playing in the first place.

The benefits of permadeath also vary based on the players. I strongly do not enjoy hack and slash games if there isn't a chance of loss. That loss doesn't have to be permadeath, it could be temporary death, loss of items, lower position on the scoreboard, etc. - but there has to be a way to "not succeed" so that when I do succeed it's more meaningful.

An easy way to have a loss mechanic is to add combat and death to the game. You go out, hit things until they die, and if you're successful they die. If you're unsuccessful, you die. Then you come back to life and repeat. There is a clear point where the player feels "I lost that encounter" - without temporary death, it's much harder. How do you show the player that they lost the encounter? Even if they break their PCs arm, or loose items... it's not easy. There are certainly game mechanics that could be used. For example, you could have a fantasy world where their magic amulet detects that they are about to die, and teleports them to the hospital. Or you could have death permanent, but have a clear indication when they are about to loose the combat, and plenty of opportunities for them to retreat.

In roleplaying intensive muds, death is often less necessary as a loss mechanic. If the game is very social, loosing a job, gaining the scorn of the priesthood, or whatever social game mechanics are in place can provide the loss. When combat is a focus, players want a "conclusion" - usually death. In a roleplaying game, if combat is less of a focus, it is easier to avoid death as a regular occurrence. Especially if the combat has social meaning, for example, a duel of honor has a conclusion without needing death.

Another thing to take into account is player escalation. Ever watched how players react to each other? When one does something that upsets another, a regular response is to try and pretend it doesn't bother them (which is easy from behind a keyboard) - that continues while the player gets more and more upset, until it gets to the point where they are so upset they explode, and want to get as much revenge as possible. Molehills into mountains. Even when there aren't OOC feelings involved, players often respond in... I don't want to say inappropriate... perhaps I should say unrealistic ways. Someone insults them, they pull a sword. Having an argument, they choke the other person. Someone scoffs at them, they throw a rock at that person's head. Seriously, now. Imagine if someone in real life *threw a rock at your head* - that's the sort of behavior we tell our children not to do, but in a MUD it would be a very moderate response. There are a number of reasons for these extreme responses. No (or few) consequences for the player. Other players have extreme responses so that is the "normal" reponse. They are playing the special hardcore tough assassin psycho (but so is everyone else), and so on. The end result, though, is that situations escalate much faster than they would in real life. Throw permadeath into the mix and... well... situations will escalate to death much faster.

That tends to be less of a problem in a hack-n-slash mud, because if roleplaying isn't expected the combat mechanics probably already take pvp into account. In many cases the options would be "fight the other PC" or "don't fight the other PC" - so everyone knows the rules, and is on an even footing. In a roleplay mud, things are often much less balanced, and the "rules" are murkier. I've regularly seen players on roleplay muds do things like drop their weapons because there was roleplay from other players about wrestling the weapons out of their hands, and do other actions that disadvantage themselves - that's great, it's always wonderful when players put roleplay first in that sort of situation - but it only works when the other players will be equally considerate. If someone roleplays headbutting you, so you roleplay that you're stunned. While you're stunned they roleplay grabbing your sword, and you allow that to happen, then they roleplay putting a knife to your throat while questioning you, and you go along with that for the sake of the story.... then they decide to escalate the situation and kill you (well... kill your character, but you know what I mean) - that's fine, if you want your character killed. If you don't want your character killed? It's more problematic. Will that other player now let you roleplay grabbing their wrist and wrestling *their* weapon away? Maybe. Maybe not. If not, the situation has become somewhat unfair, not because of game mechanics, but because of player actions. If the scene leads to death, then you might feel that it was unfair due to the players acting under different assumptions of "how the game is played" - if that death is permanent, that's a significant situation that can be very upsetting.

You could argue that the player shouldn't have allowed themselves to be disarmed, etc. and that it was their choice when that happened. That is a valid argument, but that will lead to a different sort of roleplaying, and a different sort of game. It's equally valid to argue that since you allowed yourself to be disarmed, the other player should also do the same when it's appropriate in the story. Neither is right or wrong, as long as both players have the same assumption.


In Ironclaw, (a RP enforced game) we pussyfoot around this issue somewhat. We have temporary death, but there are certain situations that can lead to permanent death. If someone dies from a sword fight, the church priests resurrect them after a few days. If the player chooses to, they can have the priests not resurrect their character, or say that the resurrection was unsuccessful. (And that allows the characters to roleplay that death is a dangerous thing, and that not everyone returns) - it is also assumed that the PCs are special, and the average peasant on the street wouldn't be resurrected.

We have some situations where there is a risk of permanent death. Some characters have been excommunicated by the church which, among other things, means that they won't resurrect the characters if they die. Being executed for a crime also means they wouldn't resurrect the criminal. One character once "declared war on the Church" and tried to rile up mobs, and got burnt at the stake for his troubles. And occasionally there are special events that give extra options for characters that are willing to risk permadeath (for example, going out to personally duel with a feared pirate captain while the other players fight with the crew) - in all these cases, there are clear warnings to the players so they know what they are risking. And many players still choose to take the risk, if they think the story or benefits will be good enough. The significant thing is, the players choose if it's worthwhile. They can allow their character to go out with a bang, in something that's significant to their personal story. They won't loose their character just because they ran into another player who decided to kill them off, or because of a bad dice roll. But... that's just our compromise. Others wouldn't want the option at all, and then there are people who would like the chance of loosing characters from bad dice rolls. It all depends on what works for your game.

... it's worth noticing the concept of "going out with a bang" - we've given players big events for permadeath, like being burnt at the stake. In many hack-and-slash games, the permadeath wouldn't be a big event. "The eighteenth spider crab killed me" or "Bob attacked me while I was walking to the hospital to get healed" - that's not fun. Even in a hack-and-slash, if the death was "I fought my way to the witch-lord and, knowing I was mortally wounded, I stabbed my sword through his chest, locking us both into a death embrace. Wrestling together, we tumbled over the cliff to our deaths." - even if that isn't seen by any other players, the player in question can feel "Yeah, my character is badass" rather than "Oh, I died. I guess that's over."

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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. If you're looking for a game to play, avoid the ones calling themselves rpi (as much as you'd like them not to, that's what they'll be calling themselves. It will not occur to them to refer to themselves are AFS games.)

If you're looking to create a game and you don't think that permadeath has value, then you needn't include that feature.

Please. Enjoy your gym time. Don't worry. Be happy.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

And remember to hydrate.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

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.

This is not necessarily the case. The H&S I used to play ages ago didn't have permadeath but it did have temporary death (the length of which was determined by how many PKs you had). 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. Worse yet, many of them were also on the game's staff and they continually made it more and more difficult for new players to achieve anything near to what they had been able to easily, be it gaining equipment or experience points or gold. I suggested permadeath zones be added but the resounding chorus from them was a unanimous "NO" because they were too cowardly to fight one another with temporary death much less with the risk of losing everything. You should have heard the amount of whining that was done when, a few years earlier, the old staff had reduced the amount of XP that could be earned by PK, making the XP reward of PKing a PC 50 levels lower negligible.

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.

It's not that easy since more than just RPIs employ permadeath. A search feature for permadeath would be a welcome addition.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

My basic response to a lengthy and perhaps haphazard argument.

RPIs are affected less negatively by permanent death than a more H+S-styled game would be, simply because there is a culture of acceptance of permanent death on RPIs/"AFSs". Additionally, permanent death in these settings, if designed well, raises the stakes and provides a sense of community for the sake of survival. Certainly on Atonement, where combat code is more developed than other RPIs - where npc AI is far better scripted, coded and intelligent - there is a high risk to combat. That's the setting. 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.

As a side-note, I refer to the RPI genre as such, simply because the "code engine" that almost all RPIs use (ARM is an exception) is called the RPI Engine, or is a derivative of the RPI Engine. You could call Medievia DIKU, Realms of Despair a SMAUG, or Utopia: Type Final a Godwars ... you would be exactly as correct.

Now, could permanent death work for H+S in a positive way? I think so, if it's designed to work. Optional "hard" mode makes sense, and I know that Dragonrealms and a few other H+S MUDs have employed this approach. One thing that I think actually makes the loss of (particularly) equipment a little bit rougher in an RPI (or at least less certain), is that on a H+S you typically get your equipment from killing a mob or completing a quest. Even if your character dies, you are going to likely follow the same or a similar route to get your equipment. This is perhaps the only "more negative" aspect to permanent death that I can come up with for an RPI-styled game.

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. For both RPI and H+S, this means more strategic and cautious planning of combat, lest you risk getting killed for foolishness. It's certainly not a good answer for every MUD.

What kind of MUD does it affect the most? In a positive way, it affects RPIs the most, I'd say. In a negative way? Quest-based MUDs. H+Sing levels and equipment back together isn't so bad. Having to repeat your way through a series of quests that you are already familiar with (unless the game has a very dynamic and varying quest system) might have less replayability love.

Replayability is what you are ultimately talking about here, and genres that have more of a variety in replayability will ultimately be better candidates for some form of a permanent death system than MUDs that are less replayable.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

jason, I think you are taking anything that Threshold says about RPI to be an insult. I cannot see in any way shape or how this is an attack.. if anything, I think the whole post was quite interesting and made ME look at Armageddon or permadeath games in a different light.

I have tried Arm twice now, and never lasted beyond 2 hours with any characters, and that was disheartening, but that is becasue I was looking at it from the prespective of "ohmygod what if I build this character for a year and THEN die" never appreciating that Arm is more about the roleplay, and not the individual avatar. After several years of playing a mud where a whole months work can be destroyed by a single disconnect, then my mindset was just not ready for that game.

You need to get off your high horse, and swallow your antagonism. The post is relevant, interesting, and not an assult on RPI, but more letting people know that they can be intesting if you shift perspective.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

I'd say that permadeath is nothing more than a restart of the same character with a different name on most games that have it as the only option. I've seen this alot and especially on forums where the permed player is asking buddies to meet them at locations to help them get going again. Gag. And yes, I've seen this on Armeggedon as well.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

Wow. Really?

I haven't played a permadeath game in a long, long time. I'm shocked to hear this, though after further thought not that surprised. While some people certainly love the feature, I think permadeath is one of those features that sounds awesome in concept to some people, but when faced with it they regret it.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

I've never seen this on ARM, though I will admit that I've not been able to play the game much because of aesthetics, unfortunately, more than anything else. I somehow doubt, though, that their staff would allow for players to post relevant IC information to have meetups to "help new characters get going again". On RPIs, you don't typically go out and kill mobs to get equipment. I know that when I worked at Shadows of Isildur, the other head staff was almost too nazi about punishing folks for any sort of outside communication with players at all (beyond the forum, which was monitored to keep IC info out). I don't think that you can realistically expect players not to talk on AIM, and I don't think that you can fairly punish them for doing so.

At any rate, I'd be surprised if you saw someone posting about a "help my new character get equipment again" meetup on ARM and nobody was punished or corrected on the issue by the staff. I've heard good things about the ethics of ARM's staff. Of course, I also heard good things about the ethics of Shadow of Isildur's staff when I was a player; I am not beyond being surprised. :p

But I will stick up for permanent death here. I've ran PK-oriented MUDs, Hack+Slash, been involved as a staff and player on more MUDs than I can possibly remember, for over two-thirds of my life now. The choice of making death permanent in your game is a serious design feature; truly, if you do so, the entire concept and play of your game needs to respect this feature. Table-top games are (typically) permanent death. There have been very popular MMOs with permanent death as an optional mode of play. RPIs (at least, the ones utilizing the RPI Engine) are permanent death. There may not be a great number of RPIs out there, but the ones that continue to exist have good-sized playerbases of people who enjoy the danger and realism of being able to have your character quite literally die. The fear of death, choosing to stand and fight in the face of death, murder, execution, your friend/enemy/ally dying and mutating into a monster infront of you, death in childbirth, the loss of family or friends, the slow numbing of a soldier who grows accustomed to his brothers dying around him ... these are such potent forces in writing, in roleplay, in immersion; permanent death changes the stakes in which the events of the world and characters around yours unfold.

It's not right for every setting or every MUD. But if you have a story with high stakes, where you want your players' characters to mean something to the story through sacrifice, or weakness, or any of those things augmented by my points in the previous paragraph ... if you want that element of finality in your game, more than you want to not hamper players with loss of equipment and character - then permanent death may just be right for you. It's all in the genre.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

I'd like to see a link to the Armageddon forum thread where a permed player is asking buddies to meet them at locations to help get them going again. I'd be especially interested in the responses by other players in that thread, to such a request. (My guess would be, anyone posting something like that, would be -immediately- met with players posting things like, "Hey welcome to the game Mr. Noob, but recruiting OOCly on the forum is against the rules.")

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

I'd have to agree this is violation of the spirit of the game if not direct rules in forums. The forum posts I saw were from two perm'd players looking to hook up with previous friends and one new player looking to find someone to roleplay with. All were answered by other players. You have to understand this was several years ago. If the posts still exist, I'll send a link.

Keep in mind, this isn't a bash on Arm as they run a pretty tight ship from what I've seen. It is merely an example that this type off perm and restart is active everywhere and even if players don't talk on forums they surely talk on IM. My point was that permadeath most of the time is nothing more than starting again and likely with not much variation in character play.

On NWA if a player is perm'd they must do a number of things to prove their new choice of a new character with background and where they begin. They normally cannot choose a similar path (for example if you are permed as a slave you cannot recreate as a slave in the southland). This tends to force a player to take each character creation more seriously.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

If you think being killed on Armageddon leads to nothing but repeats of the same character concepts, you either a) have never played Armageddon or b) have a very limited imagination. 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.

As far as other players are concerned, I would hazard a guess that only true newbies who have difficulty generating descriptions and backgrounds ever repeatedly recycle concepts. As far as recruiting over the forums is concerned, uh, no.

Diversity there is what you make of it. If you want to play the same archetype over and over again, that's your prerogative, but the permadeath feature has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

I'll have to agree with Synthesis. We use a Badge award system for roleplay of specific archtypes of characters on Atonement that is meant to dissuade people from playing the same personality types again and again. We make it clear, as staff, that we want them to try new and challenging character concepts. 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. Most players, in my experience, want to try to play different characters, especially when encouraged to do so. I don't think that this has anything to do with permanent death; you can encourage players to play different characters on a roleplay-focused game whether or not there is permanent death.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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"
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.

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)

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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?

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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?

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.

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

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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. :p

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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...

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.

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.

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.

Certainly. Permanent death does have its place.

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.

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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. :p

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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

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.

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) -
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.

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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. ;)

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.

Re: What types of games are impacted the most by permadeath?
 

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.