Okay, let me try a slightly different approach:
Throughout a campaign, a given party will face, several thousands of times, instances that will produce a success/failure outcome. There needs to be parity in how the internal fiction functions:
- Race for the McGuffin:
-- success = party gets to McGuffin first
-- failure = someone else gets to McGuffin first
* your failure means someone else had success = parity in how success/failure is determined
- Get the Princess safely to the Castle -vs- Ogres want to Kill the Princess:
-- success = princess arrives at castle in one piece
-- failure = princess gets killed en route to castle
* your failure means someone else had success = parity in how success/failure is determined
- Stab Goblin in the Face -vs- Goblin Stabs You in the Face:
-- success = d20+mods exceeds target AC
-- failure = d20+mods does not exceed target AC
* d20+mods vs. target AC = parity in how success/failure is determined
- Don't Die:
-- success = health levels remain above 0 = didn't die
-- failure = health levels fall below 0 = dead
* monsters conform to this success/failure rule, while your murder-hobo of a PC can never experience the failure state = no parity = shenanigans.
That last example is a case of removing "fair play" from an element of the game -- you've removed internal-consistency; and this removal necessarily de-legitimizes that aspect of the game; and that de-legitimization is just plain bad on principle.
Now, if you have a game where
nobody really dies -- well, irrespective to anyone's personal opinions on that type of game, the "no death" rule in this case would be legitimate because it's presented in a way that is consistent.
Furthermore, if you don't have a standing "no PC death" rule, but it gets implemented on the fly as a kind of deus ex machina,
that's even worse -- that's flat-out losing fidelity in the social contract, and a breach of trust. Sure, it might make you feel good in the moment, but now you're just pointlessly going through the motions.
Stubbazubba wrote:
you should know how bad game rules can be. Why would you want to enslave everyone at the table to them when something stupid happens?
I think that you're conflating separate issues here.
Ostensibly, you label a rule as being "bad" because it gets in the way of the game -- right? Reduces fun? Or whatever subjective measure you want to apply -- I get it.
But
why does it get in the way? What makes it less fun?
- a rule that doesn't actually accomplish what it tries to accomplish
- make doing what it's supposed to do overly-complicated
- produces unexpected/dysfunctional results
- isn't internally-consistent with other aspects of the game, or otherwise conflicts with other rules
There are others, I'm sure; but you get the idea. If you're gonna change a rule, it needs to be for objective reasons.
Notice that I did not include on that list "undesirable outcomes" -- for 2 reasons: 1) too vague, and 2) too subjective. All of those would be "undesirable outcomes".
"Because it doesn't make the players feel good" is subjective. In a game where the PCs go around
murdering people, then the "no PC death" rule is objectively bad (explained above). Hell, if their ego is that fucking fragile, then fine -- let them come back in as
Landfill's twin brother Gill, or some shit.