Somewhat sparked in my mind from the last post.
What method is best, in your opinions, for taking on the possiblity of death to the characters? Are you more a fan of being a bit more lenient, giving them better chances to not die, more or less keeping them alive as long as they aren't truly idiotic and asking for it? Or would you rather just plain old let 'em take their chances and the roll of the dice and they get no help from the GM? Or thirdly, are they not going to die at all in your game?
I personally kind of like the first method, if for no other reason than that losing a character mid-adventure can, when unplanned, force someone out fot he game (a player, that is), seriously disrupt what the characters are trying to accomplish and possibly make it no longer possible to acheieve, etc. And as a player, it kinda bites to die suddenly, in my opinion.
I've been watching the community for months and months (actually, it's probably been about as long as I've had my journal). For some reason I never joined. I've been commenting a fair amount recently so I thought it was about time I clicked on that "Join Here" link and made myself known.
So, a little background on my roleplaying history..
I was first interested in roleplaying at around the age of 12 or 13. My dad used to be a wargamer and I was fascinated by all his miniatures. Then a Games Workshop opened up nearby and I realised there was a wide world of roleplaying out there (I'd also been a big fan of the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon from the first time it aired, so I guess it was a natural progression). For a few years I bought Dragon and any other gaming magazine I could find despite having no-one to play with (Games Workshop was scary so I avoided it like the plague [and still do]). I found the red boxed set of D&D in Toys 'r' us and ran my first adventure for my parents a short while later - they died at the first Carrion Crawler. I then got Heroquest and forced the whole family to play it until we'd completed most of the expansion packs.
I didn't roleplay seriously until I was around 16 when I ran a short campaign for some friends (and my dad who was still forced to join in). I should have realised then that I'd never be a good GM. I have only worked that one out after several failed campaigns. But I did discover that I loved this hobby that I'd been reading about for years.
And then I started university and everything changed. I met people who were interested and good at roleplaying. It was great!
Most of my gaming has involved AD&D and now D&D. The campaign I play in most has been ongoing for 6 or 7 years now, and I joined in during the second year. For that I am very grateful since I love the richness of the campaign and I hate short campaigns. Sometimes the campaign annoys me but in general I love it and for the most part D&D does what it says on the box and more...
I've also played Cyberpunk (which was fun), MERP (which was way too complicated), and Vampire (although I have books for other games, I like to hoard them and never play them).
Vampire is perhaps one of the best systems I've ever played, and I really enjoyed the short-lived campaign although the others didn't so much. I love the political nature of the game. It's only just recently ended (ahead of time, because all but one of the characters managed to die in one session) and I'm dying to play more. (So this is where I beg for anyone to point me in the direction of an lj/forum based Vampire campaign). My favourite thing about Vampire is character progression. It's so much cleaner than gaining levels and means that what you do during the sessions affects how your character develops, both in personality and stat-wise.
Still, I'm a fantasy player at heart, so I could never survive on just Vampire alone.
Bored yet? I am. So that's me. Hi!