[silvarilon]

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."