[silvarilon]

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.