[silvarilon]

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.