I quite liked farcry 2s permadeath system, but one thing annoyed me there wasn't enough feedback to let you know when they were dying and it was too hard to find and save them when it happened.

Nothing is more annoying that one of your characters being dead. Of course everyone would exit the game, reaload it and start again. If not, you are becoming permanently weaker and will probably lose the game later (after hourts of additional play).

It is an imperative to keep all party members alive. As long as you want to win the game.

I think you may have skimmed over my initial post, or even not read it at all. You don't become constantly weaker. You can revive characters, after a fashion, but I don't want it to be pathetically easy, making death as significant a problem as a stubbed toe. Additionally, you can recruit new characters if you want who are comparable to the dead one.

You don't become constantly weaker. You can revive characters, after a fashion, but I don't want it to be pathetically easy, making death as significant a problem as a stubbed toe. Additionally, you can recruit new characters if you want who are comparable to the dead one.

It does not matter. Either death is not a problem (Diablo II, rpgs with no consequence RiseDead spell) and then you don't care or death is a problem (most games) and then you reload. You can't have "middle way" like a bit of a problem but not a huge problem. No one will go through some loops to review their characters, it is either strightforward or you reload.

Additionally, you can recruit new characters if you want who are comparable to the dead one.[/quote]This is not a valid point for a player. They don't think that way. Loss is a loss. There is an emotional attachment to a character. If you played FF7 and you got to the scene where Aeris died, have you though "who cares, I have several excessive characters anyway"? You DO NOT let your characters die, that's an imperative for a player, tripple true if this is RPG

Sure there are some exceptions (like Cannon Fooder where it was the core of the game and you could replace these solders quite easily), but that's a very specific game.

It does not matter. Either death is not a problem (Diablo II, rpgs with no consequence RiseDead spell) and then you don't care or death is a problem (most games) and then you reload. You can't have "middle way" like a bit of a problem but not a huge problem. No one will go through some loops to review their characters, it is either strightforward or you reload.

I disagree. There are some games (not a ton, but some) that feature permanent death but don't force constant reloads. FF Tactics is an example; you can reload if you really want to, but I played on even when some characters died, although I did try to prevent it from happening in the first place.

If it was just a matter of removing that character from your party, I might agree. But what if it could have major repercussions in the plot, without needing it to be a pre-scripted plot event? Would that pique your interest any, or would you still be a die-hard reloader?

Oh and by the way, there are legions of players who will go through loops to revive characters. How many FF7 players spent how many hours trying to bring Aeris back, because of one glimpse of her face after she died?

This is not a valid point for a player. They don't think that way. Loss is a loss. There is an emotional attachment to a character. If you played FF7 and you got to the scene where Aeris died, have you though "who cares, I have several excessive characters anyway"? You DO NOT let your characters die, that's an imperative for a player, tripple true if this is RPG

Sure there are some exceptions (like Cannon Fooder where it was the core of the game and you could replace these solders quite easily), but that's a very specific game.
[/quote]

That's my point. The death should matter if it happens. Did it not strike you as ridiculous that Aeris dies forever from being run through with a big sword, while every other character can take an unlimited number of mountain-shattering attacks and a.) live, or b.) have some junk sprinkled onto them and then everything's fine? I don't want the player to feel "Character B died, no big deal", I want it to be a huge deal-- something to work to prevent, and require significant investment to undo.

The idea that allowing your character to die (assuming that you can prevent it by playing skillfully or managing risk) should be absolutely meaningless makes a game less immersive for me. Death never matters then, for anyone, and if phoenix down only costs as much as 4 potions why would the game world ever feature any death for anyone, ever? If the only consequence of death is having to spend 400 gil, then it's not much of a consequence, and you can't even kill someone for story purposes without some massive story cheat-- including villains. If you choose to reload to un-kill a character, it's still a cheat, but at least it's a meta cheat, and the game world is still consistent.

I think that cheap death is one of the most widespread and illogical tropes in all of videogamedom. Maybe it's unavoidable, because a game will not be fun enough if your characters can die for good. But I don't like the idea that death is a low cost, temporary irritation, but I can still somehow kill a major villain and not expect him to pop back up almost immediately, and that the only way a meaningful death can occur is to be hard-coded, which means that my interaction with the game world is irrelevant because I can't affect it. Don't knock the entire concept just because it isn't what you're overwhelmingly used to (although you may well disagree with the idea for sound and immutable reasons only).

I support permadeath if characters are replaceable. FFT did it pretty well, and I didn't mind losing a soldier or two in the course of a campaign, but when a major character bought their farm, you'd be locked out of late-game content that those characters triggered. That's a recipe for a loaded save, since gameplay is lost forever. In Dwarf Fortress, I'll keep playing without savescumming even if 80% of my population gets killed, including major political figures and master artisans and champion warriors, because I can just train up a new guy, and there's always another wave of migrants right around the corner. Trying to keep my legendary weaponsmith alive while goblins are battering down my entranceway and a legendary beast is ascending my mineshaft is a good gameplay experience, and if he gets caught in the crossfire I just stud his sarcophagus with gold and jewels and keep training his apprentice to take over. A couple of my best games involve battles where I'm down to four or five semi-useless peasants and I have to start over from scratch, walling off the dangerous-yet-lucrative mines and restricting outdoor activities while the corpses are stacked up and the loot is gathered, holding the barricades for months or years until some brave caravan comes through with immigrants, food and the all-important booze.

Dying would be OK if
A) it serves the plot (e.g. it changes the way the plot evolves)
and B ) it is hard to let your characters die during a "normal" battle (e.g. you would have to be extraordinarily stupid, or careless, to allow such a thing to pass).
I generally find in a game that allows perma-death, I feel more engaged with my characters, but get very easily frustrated as the AI often leads me into deathtraps through no fault of my own (getting stuck, AI wandering off when it shouldn't etc). As long as the AI behaviour is OK and there are no "easy" deaths (e.g. I fight three goblins, one gets a lucky shot - party member dead...permanently) then I foresee this to have no negative bearing on the player's experience.
Also, if this game is not one of those were you get buddy-buddy with your other party members, then perma-death really isn't that much of an issue. For example, Survival Crisis Z you have plenty of secondaries that die each fifth second and you really don't give a crap after a few of them have passed away - it just becomes the de facto standard for how the world is written (which fits very well with the survival theme, I think, in that particular instance).

Don't knock the entire concept just because it isn't what you're overwhelmingly used to

That's my point Players KNOW that they did something WRONG if character died and they know they are SUPPOSED to reload. How do you plan to break this expectation?

In roguelikes the players know from the start they ARE NOT ALLOWED to reload. That's a huge difference. Plus, try to explain the concept behind permadeath in roguelikes to a new player It's a looot of work and usually the response is "that sux"

There are some games (not a ton, but some) that feature permanent death but don't force constant reloads. [/quote]Really? Never heard of any except roguelikes and maybe partially Cannon Fooder.

That's my point Players KNOW that they did something WRONG if character died and they know they are SUPPOSED to reload. How do you plan to break this expectation?

In roguelikes the players know from the start they ARE NOT ALLOWED to reload. That's a huge difference. Plus, try to explain the concept behind permadeath in roguelikes to a new player It's a looot of work and usually the response is "that sux"

Fair enough that players have that mechanic ingrained, and may not even see the effects of a permadeath system because they won't play on to do so.

So, what if the mechanic were that death to a member of your active party (those that you take into battle with you), while possible, is still preventable by player intervention (spells, items, etc.); a system where in a particularly high pressure situation (like a major plot event, featuring a large assault or something) your characters might die but in a regular battle, it's almost certainly not going to happen unless you choose to. BUT, you can send recruited characters on missions, carried out off camera and without direct player intervention. If you send a character or group into a very difficult mission, death to some is a possibility, and you won't necessarily find out about it very quickly (you might have gone on and completed your own tasks, making re-loading more of a hassle for you).

In this situation, would you still reload? Or might you manage risk more carefully in where you send your characters and how you equip them, avoiding high risk missions unless they're particularly crucial to you? And if you attempted such a mission anyhow, and a character died, would you reload, or play on but feel cheated?

Really? Never heard of any except roguelikes and maybe partially Cannon Fooder.[/quote]

I mentioned FFT as such a game. But perhaps tactical RPGs are a special kind of beast, where characters are seen as more expendable than in other genres, or even just a game type that has managed to alter player expectations slightly, so that reloading isn't such an ingrained reflex.

So, what if the mechanic were that death to a member of your active party (those that you take into battle with you), while possible, is still preventable by player intervention (spells, items, etc.); a system where in a particularly high pressure situation (like a major plot event, featuring a large assault or something) your characters might die but in a regular battle, it's almost certainly not going to happen unless you choose to. BUT, you can send recruited characters on missions, carried out off camera and without direct player intervention. If you send a character or group into a very difficult mission, death to some is a possibility, and you won't necessarily find out about it very quickly (you might have gone on and completed your own tasks, making re-loading more of a hassle for you).

In this situation, would you still reload? Or might you manage risk more carefully in where you send your characters and how you equip them, avoiding high risk missions unless they're particularly crucial to you? And if you attempted such a mission anyhow, and a character died, would you reload, or play on but feel cheated?

What you're describing here is how the mission structure was for recruited assassins in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. Personally, that system caused me to manage risk effectively, only sending recruits on missions when the chance for completion was around 90%. I think you would need to be very careful with how this type of system is implemented. It's really easy for the player to feel cheated if the chance of completion for two missions is 90% and he fails both missions. As long as this is handled well, I would play on and feel fine about it.

Really? Never heard of any except roguelikes and maybe partially Cannon Fooder.

I mentioned FFT as such a game. But perhaps tactical RPGs are a special kind of beast, where characters are seen as more expendable than in other genres, or even just a game type that has managed to alter player expectations slightly, so that reloading isn't such an ingrained reflex.
[/quote]I think we got to the core of the problem. Tactical RPGs (FFT), turn based tactical wargames, RTSs (actually Cannon Fooder was like very simplitic RTS when I think about it) have units. Units can die. If you play chess you are supposed to sacrifice pawns to win. That's part of the game.

On the other hand RPGs have characters, not units. When character die the game immediately ends in defeat (not exactly, but this is accurate from the player's perspective). Losing a character is never acceptable and is always the fault of the player and is always a terrible thing that basicly prevents the player from winning the game.

If you want to make permadeath you should rather make a tactical wargame than RPG.