I’m having trouble determining what system to run. Please help.

[Klorox]

I need a little advice on what system to play with my group. We want to stick to a fantasy-themed RPG (for now).

I’m taking over as DM, at least for the time being. The group has mostly played 5e D&D for the past few years. A couple of the guys have *only* played 5e until a few weeks ago, when I ran a game of Basic Fantasy RPG.

I’ve found that it’s difficult to create a real sense of danger in a game like D&D 5e, when characters heal up so easily. I also have a problem figuring out how to create a good, character driven story when characters tend to die off fairly easily, as they can in a game like Basic Fantasy (BFRPG is a retro clone of the early 80’s B/X D&D).

So, what system is a good one where the characters will really have to think and struggle to solve problems, but it’s still decently survivable? One thing I really like about old school games is when players are faced with a dilemma, and their first instinct isn’t to look at their character sheets to find a solution. I like when they need to think to solve problems, whether that be a trap or a social issue. I also like taking a step back from feats, and I hate when players plan out a “build”

Should I stick with BFRPG? Should I transition to Castles & Crusades? Any other suggestions?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

How comfortable are you with BFRPG? You might be able to give it some tweaks to make it more forgiving. For example, characters could be dropped (and remain out of action for a bit) instead of dying, or you could have more generous retreat rules.

One mechanic you could try stealing is the Resistance Roll from Blades in the Dark. It lets a character reduce the severity of a consequence suffered, by effectively rolling a saving throw. However, depending on how badly they do, they accumulate something called Stress, which can add up and give the character a long-term consequence if it gets too high. So characters can push off danger by building a sort of future debt. Does a good job of making things feel dangerous while also letting characters stay in the game a bit longer.

[Rynjin]

Savage Worlds is a great system with potentially high lethality if the players aren't careful. It works well as a fantasy game, but adapts to any kind of setting.

The main way players can "cheat" is using the meta currency, Bennies. These can turn a potentially lethal hit into just a scratch. There are also rules to make grievous injuries more common than actual death.

[Anonymouswizard]

So being deadly isn't an inherent problem to storytelling, but it does mean that fighting needs to be discouraged. But I'm also assuming you want to stay with 'low tech' fantasy, rather than urban fantasy or something like Shadowrun.

So two suggestions from Osprey:

Paleomythic is a game about playing stone age adventurers generations after the fall of the serpent people. As a stone age person you're tough and smart, everybody has basic crafting, tracking, and athletic ability, and PCs are a cut above the rest. Checks are made by rolling a handful of d6 and looking for any 6s and the tool die (which on a 6 can have special effects, but on a 1 breaks your tool), characters are defined by Traits, which may be positive or negative, and Talents which serve as a mixture of feats and classes. You roll a number of dice equal to your current number of positive traits, plus one if you have a relevant positive trait, minus one if you have a relevant negative trait. Damage comes out of your positive traits, which causes a death spiral but means most PCs can take two to three solid spear hits.

The Talents vary from being really good at an activity such as fire making, crafting, or combat, to communing with or summoning spirits, to having followers or tamed animals. Characters are simple but it's easy to carve out a party niche.

The other Osprey game is Heirsto Heresy, made for a very specific campaign (which I know can be a deal breaker). The PCs are survivors of the Knights Templar trying to make it to safety, and may be completely mundane knightsbin a mundane world, or may have faith or magical powers in a more fantastic world. As trained knights the players won't have to worry about mobs of mooks, and even against skilled combatants you can take a couple of hits before blowsmatter. HtH is much oser to D&D in the way it plays, but essentially has everybody as the same 'class', with new abilities coming along later if the GM desires.

Note that while hp will protect from light attacks eventually you'll be dropping down the four hit death spiral

[kyoryu]

I need a little advice on what system to play with my group. We want to stick to a fantasy-themed RPG (for now).

I’m taking over as DM, at least for the time being. The group has mostly played 5e D&D for the past few years. A couple of the guys have *only* played 5e until a few weeks ago, when I ran a game of Basic Fantasy RPG.

I’ve found that it’s difficult to create a real sense of danger in a game like D&D 5e, when characters heal up so easily. I also have a problem figuring out how to create a good, character driven story when characters tend to die off fairly easily, as they can in a game like Basic Fantasy (BFRPG is a retro clone of the early 80’s B/X D&D).

So, what system is a good one where the characters will really have to think and struggle to solve problems, but it’s still decently survivable? One thing I really like about old school games is when players are faced with a dilemma, and their first instinct isn’t to look at their character sheets to find a solution. I like when they need to think to solve problems, whether that be a trap or a social issue. I also like taking a step back from feats, and I hate when players plan out a “build”

Should I stick with BFRPG? Should I transition to Castles & Crusades? Any other suggestions?

One thing I'd really look at is transitioning to dangers that are more story-based. If you stick to "death" as the primary peril, you're going to have a rough time because either you kill characters a lot, or players eventually figure out there's not much real danger.

But the "story" can go wrong all the time. The bad guy can get away with the MacGuffin. The allies can get kidnapped. The ritual can succeed. Treating each encounter/fight/scene/whatever as a branch rather than a skill check can mean that players can fail all the time creating a real sense of risk.

And then, when you put death on the table as a likely outcome, it also will have a greater impact, as there's more belief that you'll follow through (and supposedly you would).

(My preferred game for this style is Fate, but it can work with any system. About the only real thing you need to do is make sure that you allow players to retreat reasonably easily, so long as they give up what the combat is "about")

[LibraryOgre]

I need a little advice on what system to play with my group. We want to stick to a fantasy-themed RPG (for now).

I’m taking over as DM, at least for the time being. The group has mostly played 5e D&D for the past few years. A couple of the guys have *only* played 5e until a few weeks ago, when I ran a game of Basic Fantasy RPG.

I’ve found that it’s difficult to create a real sense of danger in a game like D&D 5e, when characters heal up so easily. I also have a problem figuring out how to create a good, character driven story when characters tend to die off fairly easily, as they can in a game like Basic Fantasy (BFRPG is a retro clone of the early 80’s B/X D&D).

So, what system is a good one where the characters will really have to think and struggle to solve problems, but it’s still decently survivable? One thing I really like about old school games is when players are faced with a dilemma, and their first instinct isn’t to look at their character sheets to find a solution. I like when they need to think to solve problems, whether that be a trap or a social issue. I also like taking a step back from feats, and I hate when players plan out a “build”

Should I stick with BFRPG? Should I transition to Castles & Crusades? Any other suggestions?

C&C won't solve many of your problems, I think... characters as written are still pretty fragile, since they go with the AD&D standard of 1 HD at 1st level.

I'm a big fan of Hackmaster's style of giving characters extra HP at 1st level. These days, you get your full constitution, plus a bonus based on your size (with elves being an exception; they're counted as one size smaller). So, a 1st level human Fighter, with a 15 Constitution, has 10 HP (medium sized creature) + 15 (Constitution) + 1d10 HP. At 2nd level, he rerolls, getting what he rolls, to a minimum of 5 HP... at 2nd level, he'll have at least 30 HP, and maybe as high as 35. Hackmaster Basic is free, but you can incorporate the idea into most D&D-derived systems pretty easily. You might even decide "PCs get these extra HP, no one else does." So, your group fights Orcs with 1d8 HP, but themselves have an extra 20 or so.

[Rynjin]

That was one of the general rules I thought was neat for Final Fantasy d20. it was like "heroic HP" or something, characters got extra HP based on their hit die type at first level. Like +20 HP for d10s, +15 for d8s, etc.

[Jay R]

I’ve found that it’s difficult to create a real sense of danger in a game like D&D 5e, when characters heal up so easily. I also have a problem figuring out how to create a good, character driven story when characters tend to die off fairly easily, as they can in a game like Basic Fantasy (BFRPG is a retro clone of the early 80’s B/X D&D).

While the systems can have this effect, these are both easily controllable by the DM. Make the 5e encounters harder, or the BF encounters easier. [One way to make the BF encounters easier is to have encounters in which the bad result isn't death, but something that leads to more adventures. After losing a fight, they wake up chained to an oar. Now they need to lead a slave revolt and capture a ship. Or fairies or satyrs or some such force them to dance all night, leading to no new spells or healing overnight. Losing an encounter might lead to a temporary curse, or a forced sidequest, rather than death.]

I find that the ideal game, with any system, is one in which it often feels like you might all die, up until near the end of the encounter. The death star is about to blow up the rebel moon, the only attacker left for us is Luke, and Darth Vader is right on his tail. Or the entire army is surrounded by orcs and trolls at the Black Gate, and we've just been shown that they have Frodo's mithril shirt, so the quest must have failed. Or Dorothy and her friends are surrounded by the witch's army, the witch is threatening the scarecrow with fire, and our heroes have no weapon but a bucket of water.

[I must admit that I have never played 5e or BF. But I have played over a dozen sets of rpg rules, including 4 editions of D&D.]

One thing I really like about old school games is when players are faced with a dilemma, and their first instinct isn’t to look at their character sheets to find a solution. I like when they need to think to solve problems, whether that be a trap or a social issue. I also like taking a step back from feats, and I hate when players plan out a “build”

Again, while the systems can lead players in a certain direction, the players, not the rules, determine if they will think out of the box. I'm running a 3.5e game now with old AD&D players. They are solving problems with their minds, backed up with their builds. Rather than attacking the gang of thieves, they allied with them, and pointed them at potential victims.

You want people to solve problems without looking at the rules? OK, you start. Right now, you are trying to determine which rules will solve your problem. Get yourself out of that approach first. How are you going to solve the problem without looking at the rules?

[Zuras]

The whole idea that a deadlier game raises the stakes or keeps them real is a bit wrong-headed. It can certainly be true, but in the OSR formulation the key is how the lethality of combat interacts with the party’s goals of exploration and loot.

Gaining xp from acquiring treasure rather than just defeating enemies and accomplishing plot goals while making combat deadly gives even goal driven players with murder-hobo tendencies reasons to parley or pursue other non-combat solutions. It works great for player directed campaigns, but if there are significant narrative forces in the world, or the party wants to play actual heroes rather than clever knaves, players will eventually be forced to either be heroic and dumb or cowardly but smart.

Conan is a hero, but he’s also a lot more practical than Aragorn, since he knows there are Lovecraftian horrors in his world and no angels are coming to bail you out.

If your players want to play epic fantasy while you’re running swords & sorcery, gods help you if they’re good at creating compelling characters, because you will end up murdering Samwise Gamgee while he’s trying to protect some orphaned children, and you *will* feel bad about it. A higher lethality system is best tied to a more cynical and less idealistic tone at the table.

As far as systems that deliver on that, I haven’t played much OSR stuff in ages, but a player in my 5e game plays ACKS regularly and thinks it’s great. Lots of people on the forum have recommended Worlds Without Number as providing that Swords & Sorcery feel while remaining elegantly modern.

The White Hack appeals to me the most personally, as it makes good use of your character’s backstory to mechanically justify doing cool stuff, a bit like aspects in Fate, but I haven’t run a game of it yet so I couldn’t say if it plays as well as it reads.

[meschlum]

I'm fond of advertising "Reve: The Dream Ouroboros", which might satisfy some of what's requested.

- Old school game, skill rather than level based
- Combat includes fatigue and wound mechanics, making it relatively short, deadly, and slow to recover from
- Magic is slow in combat time but still usable, and rewards creativity since you tend to get a few very specific spells, so exploiting them is encouraged. You can also get a generic fireball spell, creating a static ball of fire that remains in place for a few hours.

The core conceit of the game is that the worlds are the dreams of dragons, as are the player characters (and the NPCs, presumably). Magic works by poking at the dragons and directing their dreams, but can backlash if they get too close to waking up. PCs are the current incarnations of characters the dragons have dreamed over and over, and so find some skills (those they used in many previous dreams) easier to learn. If they die, they will most likely wake from a nightmare somewhere else, and join their friends, who had a similar dream... In an earlier age, mages managed to wake the dragons, breaking the world until they slept once more, and now there are holes in the worlds, leading to other dreams - and travelers (PCs) who set out to explore all these worlds, to see which parts they dreamed before.

So you have an in world mechanism for death not being the end of the character, but still being meaningful - since someone who dies isn't going to step back into the current scene (barring rather excessive magical shenanigans), and so won't get any of the loot or rewards. Skill based mechanics with limited spells means that you don't have a tool for every problem, but might have a few flexible ones you can get inventive with instead.

If looking at options when you're not getting characters killed (and so leaving them able to participate in the current scene), healing is slow unless boosted by magic (which has some minor risks of its own), so taking wounds is a consequence that will hinder careless characters. The ability to heal them eventually, or just wake up fine next session, means that characters do not get crippled by their mistakes (including being tossed into jail, rather than just avoiding death).

Specific mechanics are essentially roll under d%, with critical success (and fumble), a minor obsession with d7s, and some clever mechanics to implement difficulty versus skill and attribute (which could probably be converted into traditional mechanics, but these work, so why bother?). You also have a plethora of status bars: dream (mana) points, fatigue points, HP, encumbrance, and wounds.

Fighting costs fatigue points, being hit costs HP and can inflict wounds, getting patched up after a fight can restore HP - wounds take longer and will slow you down. Magic costs dream points and takes time, and when applied to healing it creates short lived (multiple days) healing potions that accelerate your recovery (and cost 1 dream point to use). You recover dream points by sleeping, but might dream of something dangerous as you do...

There are even rules for creating magic items (via complex and expensive spells), which are potent but not gamebreaking (a sword to the face is rather deadly), though a lot of GM calls are involved for the more inventive options.

[kyoryu]

The whole idea that a deadlier game raises the stakes or keeps them real is a bit wrong-headed.

Agreed.

tension = stakes * probability

That gives us two handles to work with tension on. The problem with working on the "stakes" side of the equation, specifically if focused on "death" is that players don't want to lose their characters. And I have yet to see a table that, outside of maybe the first few levels, is okay with losing characters on a regular basis (like, one or more a night).

Which means that if you focus on raising stakes via lethality, you are really going to have a low probability of them actually occurring. So what you end up is, more than anything, creating the illusion of probability. But players, at some level, figure that out.

By shifting away from death and into other types of stakes (loss of stuff, loss of xp, story stakes), you can have those stakes happen much more often. And, even if they're theoretically less impactful, the fact that the players will see them happen regularly can make them feel more real.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Permanent (or near-permanent) injuries are a good system-neutral way of preventing death while maintaining tension-- if the rules say you would be killed, you instead get a hand lopped off or lose an eye or something.

[Anonymouswizard]

Permanent (or near-permanent) injuries are a good system-neutral way of preventing death while maintaining tension-- if the rules say you would be killed, you instead get a hand lopped off or lose an eye or something.

OTOH this does lead to the well known 'party with one full set of limbs between them' problem. There are ways around this, including replacement body parts being relatively common, defaulting to adventure-long rather than permanent consequences, or just having a few steps of 'too wounded to participate' before anything major happens.

Actually, the idea of walking wounded, who can be moved or walk at a decent speed but can't do any adventuring wouldn't be a bad one for some RPGs to adopt. It's a consequence, but it mitigates the issues that come from 'darn, Dave T. Fighter VII died in the fourth layer of hell, where are we going to find Dave T. Fighter VIII?'.

[kyoryu]

OTOH this does lead to the well known 'party with one full set of limbs between them' problem. There are ways around this, including replacement body parts being relatively common, defaulting to adventure-long rather than permanent consequences, or just having a few steps of 'too wounded to participate' before anything major happens.

Actually, the idea of walking wounded, who can be moved or walk at a decent speed but can't do any adventuring wouldn't be a bad one for some RPGs to adopt. It's a consequence, but it mitigates the issues that come from 'darn, Dave T. Fighter VII died in the fourth layer of hell, where are we going to find Dave T. Fighter VIII?'.

That's why I like story-based consequences more than anything.

"Oh, you lost here? I guess the evil ritual went off, and now the princess has been possessed by an evil demon. Guess that's a big problem you're gonna have to deal with now."

The only problem with this is that it means that it's really hard to plot a game into the future, as players might lose at any time. That's my preferred style anyway, so it's not an impact to me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

OTOH this does lead to the well known 'party with one full set of limbs between them' problem. There are ways around this, including replacement body parts being relatively common, defaulting to adventure-long rather than permanent consequences, or just having a few steps of 'too wounded to participate' before anything major happens.

That's true. I guess it depends on just how deadly the system is-- something like 5e where you get maybe one or two kills per campaign it would be fine, but a game where you can expect to die in a single hit would certainly cause issues.

[Zuras]

Agreed.

tension = stakes * probability

That gives us two handles to work with tension on. The problem with working on the "stakes" side of the equation, specifically if focused on "death" is that players don't want to lose their characters. And I have yet to see a table that, outside of maybe the first few levels, is okay with losing characters on a regular basis (like, one or more a night).

Which means that if you focus on raising stakes via lethality, you are really going to have a low probability of them actually occurring. So what you end up is, more than anything, creating the illusion of probability. But players, at some level, figure that out.

By shifting away from death and into other types of stakes (loss of stuff, loss of xp, story stakes), you can have those stakes happen much more often. And, even if they're theoretically less impactful, the fact that the players will see them happen regularly can make them feel more real.

I feel like lethality can be used to support tension, realism, and alternative conflict resolution, and you need to understand those are separate goals. You can have real combat stakes without death—one of my favorites is the high level cleric they go to for healing/resurrection afterwards extracts an unpleasant favor in exchange for their services. This could be forcing them to choose sides in a conflict they had been avoiding, or (depending on campaign tone) something as silly as being auctioned off as dates in the church’s charity auction. Some PCs would rather die than be forced to spend an entire evening as Lady Rodwina’s date.

In OSR games, more dangerous combat also keeps even the murder-hobos from murdering everything in their path, since being forced to retreat and heal interrupts racking up loot and xp.

As far as realism, I also find a difference between deadly low level combat and the open world element of periodically running into things you just shouldn’t fight. Even in 5e it’s not hard to provide random encounters where the PCs are obviously outclassed, the trick is setting them up so the PCs can escape after they realize they’ve made a mistake. The eccentric ancient white dragon in Rime of the Frostmaiden is an excellent example of that.

Again, it gets back to tone—in 5e my rule is one colossally stupid decision will put your PC in a situation where bad luck could easily kill you, and further bad choices will require extraordinary luck to survive. In a more OSR tone game, even a regular-stupid decision could require above-average rolls or quick thinking to escape, and two stupid decisions in quick succession just leads to a maimed or dead character.

[Anonymouswizard]

That's why I like story-based consequences more than anything.

"Oh, you lost here? I guess the evil ritual went off, and now the princess has been possessed by an evil demon. Guess that's a big problem you're gonna have to deal with now."

The only problem with this is that it means that it's really hard to plot a game into the future, as players might lose at any time. That's my preferred style anyway, so it's not an impact to me.

I mean, ideally it'll be a.mixture, some story-based consequences, some major injuries, some actual deaths, the occasional actual benefit, once in a while you have to wait while the GM sings the Galavant soundtrack at you...

Walking wounded is just a pretty simple fix to reducing character deaths while keeping relatively common drops. In D&D5e I'd likely apply it after the first failed death save, after the second we break out the maiming tables...

[kyoryu]

I feel like lethality can be used to support tension, realism, and alternative conflict resolution, and you need to understand those are separate goals. You can have real combat stakes without death—one of my favorites is the high level cleric they go to for healing/resurrection afterwards extracts an unpleasant favor in exchange for their services. This could be forcing them to choose sides in a conflict they had been avoiding, or (depending on campaign tone) something as silly as being auctioned off as dates in the church’s charity auction. Some PCs would rather die than be forced to spend an entire evening as Lady Rodwina’s date.

Sure, when I mean "death" I really mean "death death". Readily available resurrections means the stakes are really whatever the cost of resurrection is, and that's definitely something you can hit them with more often.

In OSR games, more dangerous combat also keeps even the murder-hobos from murdering everything in their path, since being forced to retreat and heal interrupts racking up loot and xp.

Which is also why OSR games tend to have retreat rules - again, the normal loss condition is exactly what you said (and/or resurrection cost), while "death death" is the outlier.

Again, it gets back to tone—in 5e my rule is one colossally stupid decision will put your PC in a situation where bad luck could easily kill you, and further bad choices will require extraordinary luck to survive. In a more OSR tone game, even a regular-stupid decision could require above-average rolls or quick thinking to escape, and two stupid decisions in quick succession just leads to a maimed or dead character.

Generally, death should be the result of multiple bad decisions (including "don't retreat") and some element of luck.

I mean, ideally it'll be a.mixture, some story-based consequences, some major injuries, some actual deaths, the occasional actual benefit, once in a while you have to wait while the GM sings the Galavant soundtrack at you...

Walking wounded is just a pretty simple fix to reducing character deaths while keeping relatively common drops. In D&D5e I'd likely apply it after the first failed death save, after the second we break out the maiming tables...

100%. There's lots of tools. Relying on death as the only one is the problem. Personally, I go with story stakes->personal loss->injuries->death, roughly.

[Laserlight]

Last campaign I ran was unusual for me in that the party was generally wandering from place to place, killing monsters. The stakes were usually "win the fight or die", which got tedious after a while. I much more enjoyed running a Three Musketeers campaign in which failure could be "You come to the Cardinal's attention" or "The tavern regulars take your money and throw you into the alley" or "you have disappointed your confessor, your mistress, your other mistress, your landlord, your sergeant..." My favorite "players lose" of that campaign involved a loud fight in the apartment building where Phillipe lived, drawing the ire of landlord and neighbors, which devolved into a chase along the Seine in full view of everyone, with Colette fleeing while carrying Jacques' scantily clad mistress, followed by Jacques carrying Philippe's outraged mistress, chased by Philippe, chased by Philippe's murderous "mistress" (in fact a monster but seemed to all the onlookers to be a angry noblewoman). They never lived that down.

[kyoryu]

I love those examples.

[DeMouse]

Dark Heresy is my go-to for lethal systems. Plenty of rules for randomly generating a character so players can jump back in the action if they get taken out early in the first session and the critical damage tables offer spectacular and hilarious ends. Combat is so hyper-lethal that players will quickly learn that taking a fight head-on is never a good idea but if they can find a way to give themselves an advantageous position they can take down some truly dangerous foes.

[Anonymouswizard]

Dark Heresy is my go-to for lethal systems. Plenty of rules for randomly generating a character so players can jump back in the action if they get taken out early in the first session and the critical damage tables offer spectacular and hilarious ends. Combat is so hyper-lethal that players will quickly learn that taking a fight head-on is never a good idea but if they can find a way to give themselves an advantageous position they can take down some truly dangerous foes.

Shadowrun, the various Warhammer games, it seems most lethal RPGs actually tend to compensate with some kind of way to cheat character death. Not that the WFRP critrical hit tables aren't a laugh (as are the less detailed 40k versions), and as a d% system it does have a couple of good tricks, the Warhammer games have the vbest damn way of determining hit locations I've seen in an RPG.

[ahyangyi]

Mechanically , death (which involves making a new character) is often a smaller penalty than permanent injuries (which involves having to play the same character with a handicap). That means the more mechanical-leaning players would feel cheated when they have to play through injuries, and while the more story-leaning players might prefer sticking to their characters, roleplaying an injury might or might not align with their intentions.

And of course, story setbacks are the best.

[kyoryu]

Mechanically , death (which involves making a new character) is often a smaller penalty than permanent injuries (which involves having to play the same character with a handicap). That means the more mechanical-leaning players would feel cheated when they have to play through injuries, and while the more story-leaning players might prefer sticking to their characters, roleplaying an injury might or might not align with their intentions.

And of course, story setbacks are the best.

Well, also depends on what happens when you die. Are you coming back at "level 1" or at the party's current power level?

[Anonymouswizard]

Well, also depends on what happens when you die. Are you coming back at "level 1" or at the party's current power level?

It still shocks me that people think character death needs more penalties than 'you can't play for a while'. Okay, I suppose I get it in troupe play and classic '20 henchmen per player' D&D, but not in the kind of games most people are talking about these days.

And yes, in my mind 'you can't play' is the greatest punishment an RPG can inflict, beyond anything limiting your character's abilities because if the worst happens you can (and sometimes probably should) retire your character in the next period of downtime. It's why characters dying is less important to me than charactersa going down, if they both serve the same purpose than I'd rather the former be under player control and the latter determined by the system.

Of course long term injuries should also mostly be consentual, unless the character can get a replacement without penalty (so stuff like Shadowrun is out). Plus who knows, the PCs could always walk out of the fight with a bad reputation.

[kyoryu]

It still shocks me that people think character death needs more penalties than 'you can't play for a while'. Okay, I suppose I get it in troupe play and classic '20 henchmen per player' D&D, but not in the kind of games most people are talking about these days.

I didn't say "should" or "shouldn't".

I'm pointing out that whether or not a crippling injury is worse than having to remake a character is at least partially dependent on whether or not the new character is in equal power to the old. If it is at the same power level, then yes, the "correct" move from an optimization standpoint would be "take a new character rather than keep one that has been permanently impaired".

And yes, in my mind 'you can't play' is the greatest punishment an RPG can inflict, beyond anything limiting your character's abilities because if the worst happens you can (and sometimes probably should) retire your character in the next period of downtime. It's why characters dying is less important to me than charactersa going down, if they both serve the same purpose than I'd rather the former be under player control and the latter determined by the system.

I mean, I get it, I think there's some nuance there. Like, sometimes there are scenes that don't involve you, and I think that's okay. I do think in a combat removing the ability to meaningfully engage is pretty un-fun, which is why I usually avoid hard control effects against PCs. Even a point where your turn is "roll the dice to see if you can do something next turn" isn't really much better, as you're not making decisions, just performing a mechanical action.

Of course long term injuries should also mostly be consentual, unless the character can get a replacement without penalty (so stuff like Shadowrun is out). Plus who knows, the PCs could always walk out of the fight with a bad reputation.

Interesting. I think I mostly agree here. There's also an interesting space for "you'll take some injury, but you choose", and I also think that the recovery period and impact of the injury play into it.

Like, a truly crippling injury that's permanent is one thing, but a mild injury that goes away in a scene or two is something else.

[Zuras]

Any system with frequent character death needs some sort of mechanism to blunt the pain, whether just making it easy to roll up a new character, switching to playing a previous henchman, or just having more limited character scaling.

A fresh Call of Cthulhu character will be just as good at non-mythos related activities as a veteran PC. Most skill-based systems keep fresh characters on the same scale as veteran ones—a veteran GURPS character 10 sessions in to a campaign who gained max XP would still only have 30% more build points than a starting one, and perhaps be 50% more capable, not an order of magnitude stronger, (like a 5th level AD&D wizard compared to a 1st level one).

Even in D&D, the whole XP scaling system means you usually only face one session of terror at 1st level before you become reasonably competent (assuming you don’t die). Old—school D&D also kept a significant amount of a characters potency in the magic items they owned, so if a player is playing the henchman or cousin that inherited their stuff, it’s similarly a less complete loss. Whitehack also let you play as your own ghost for the remainder of the adventure where you died, as well as providing additional special classes only available to players who’ve lost a PC during the campaign.

Basically, sometimes PCs might need to be sacrificed on the altar of verisimilitude. If done properly (which is admittedly difficult), it does not sacrifice player fun as well.

[cavalier973]

Go with B/X or equivalent, is my advice.

Making characters is quick and easy (after the first time, at least), and building an “adventure” (that is, a dungeon) has the same feel as making a character.

The PCs live in a town or village that is surrounded by the scattered ruins of an ancient empire. They need money, and have heard that these ruins could have treasure.

Remember to roll the dice as little as possible. See if you can get through a session without any for rolls at all. If you placed a trap in the room, ask the characters what they are looking at, if one describes examining the floor, say, “You see one pavement stone that looks a little different from the others”.

You could have a house rule that a PC carrying a shield or wearing a helmet can have those pieces of armor shatter rather than take damage.