The only reason I disagree with you on that is because I frickin' LOVE carnage. So yeah, different philosophies but most seem to have no problem with this. Maybe a few softies out there, but ultimately a mature group.Honestly, I believe my first reply still encapsulates the long and short of it all. This won't change anything in roleplay except to help GMs avoid uncomfortable situations because it's a shortcut for the Player's Rights statement of "Talk with your GM or thread OP to make sure you're on the same page." All the GM has to do after this change is look at a struct point.
None of the concerns about invincible or immortal characters really seem relevant to me because it's never been a problem. I think everyone in this thread has at least one character among their roster who has never encountered significant harm so to see it brought up is kind of funny to read more than it seems like a legitimate concern.
Wes asked for clarity so:
I'm also thinking the struct could be "Player preferences for harm" or "Player preferences for risk" and options are "Risk of death or injury permitted" "Risk of only injury preferred" or "No risk of death or injury preferred"
It's not within the scope of this suggestion and was not voted on. You can always make your own suggestion thread.What about for plots?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?