The point is you still have to EARN that exp again - thus it is just as "permanent" as losing a character (which could also be rebuilt with exp), just not as severe.
The real advantage of permadeath IMO is the side-affects of the realism it introduces - if you assassinate the king, you don't have to worry about him reappearing naked a few minutes later and ordering your execution. Thus permadeath helps prevent stagnation - rulers can be overthrown, rebels can be executed, and loose ends can be tied up whenever necessary. The major disadvantage of permadeath, though, is that it destroys the hard work a player has put in.
But when you have a half-way house, you lose the benefits of true permadeath, while retaining the problems. Not only does the king come back - but he also comes back in a really bad mood, because he's just lost a "level".
This is why I went for the approach I used, whereby the character itself can be lost, while the time spent is not. The player is able to reconstruct a brand new character, and reallocate the points earned in previous games. So the king can be assassinated, and that character will never come back - but the player of the late king is able to create an equally powerful new character. They lose their status and social standing (which provides an incentive to stay alive) but don't lose any of the statistical development they've done.
|