@Thenomain
It is worth noting that when I made that statement I was referring to stories within text-based games, though I do believe that death & loss play a big part in all story telling. We likely have a fundamental difference of opinion on the topic. That being said it's still worthwhile to expand on this a little.
In normal storytelling like movies and literature and ancient stories/folklore death and loss play a huge part in the narrative. The majority of the time the main character(s) aren't at risk of death because they are the vehicle for the story. I would argue though that death and loss still exist within the world. We are meant to suspend disbelief and accept that there is danger and that is why sacrifice and heroism matter in them. I'll point to Agent Caulson in the Avengers, Boromir in Lord of the Rings, and the death of Aerith in Final Fantasy 7 which is notable because it's in a game with bringing people back is a function of gameplay. These are non-main characters whose deaths enriched stories and established that death was reality of the world that their story was being told in. Regardless of whether or not the Main Character was really going to die, within the story, they -could- die. Thus the trick and the suspension of disbelief.
In text-based games and their storytelling I believe that death & loss are even more crucial. Unless you take the tact that all PCs are main characters and thus should be exempt from that and if you do then that is your decision (or that of the game runner). I certainly won't say you shouldn't do it only that I believe there would be more value in having the threat. I'll use two games as examples.
The Sea of Storms (wheel of time setting) has perma-death but fighting between PCs tends to be resolved via RP like MUSHes with a staffer judging or players collaboratively completing the scene. If there is a disagreement there is coded combat which can be fallen back onto on the agreement of the participants. I actually staffed on this game for the better part of a decade and I can tell you the average character lifespan was something like 2-6 ooc years. But death was possible. It did happen. It wasn't willy nilly and it didn't require consent to happen. It worked pretty well for the stories we were telling there. (note this is another game that would probably be a good middle-ground for MUSH players). What mattered is that it -could- happen and thus it added tension and motivation to scenes and actions taken.
Sindome (cyberpunk setting) this game has perma-death but in my opinion it is extremely difficult to actually die. You see it has cloning as a game mechanic so as long as characters have the money they can keep updating their clones. There is a risk that the clone will degrade but that can be rectified for a small fortune. It is also possible to be killed before you manage to update your clone (which is extremely difficult to do and requires amazing timing and organization) or you can be killed so many times you go broke and no one is willing to help you out and die due to lack of updating the clone. I think you can recognize that while this game technically has perma-death it is a narrative rarity (just like traditional storytelling) for it to happen over the course of normal game play. What matters is that the specter and reality of it exist within the world and provide weight to decisions.
-
Why do you believe non-consent death detracts from storytelling in text-based games? I mean there are just as many characters (not main ones) who die in tales for the purpose of story progression as those who live for the purpose of story progression.
-
If I said death has to be possible but not probable would that change our disagreement as it pertains to text-based games? Like sindome perma-death is possible but improbable under normal circumstances.
-
I apologize for coming off as overly comfortable. I enjoy this community and you guys (out of all other places I've come to share OR with) have engaged me the most in interesting discussion. I will try and curb being overly familiar as I don't mean to come off as arrogant or belittling.
I'll end this reply with the repeating statement that I encourage all text-based games (even though that don't fit our 3 qualifiers) to promote themselves on Optional Realities and that while I have preferences and in the formation of the community we made some decisions which are exclusionary. We do not intend for that exclusion to go past a link list. I hope my continued involvement in this community and support for games that aren't listed will help convey that sentiment. I love text-based gaming, even if it's not how I would design the game myself.
