[silvarilon]

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.