⚔️Serberia

In games of this kind, where there is a strong emphasis on player characters and their development, I believe a more forgiving death system is essential, possibly even without injuries. Unless these injuries completely negate the character's usefulness and are difficult to get rid of. This is because deaths are associated with a number of problems at once – the loss of a party member has both role-playing and gameplay consequences.

That's true. The question is, either something exists in the game, or it doesn't. It shouldn't be reworked towards the end of the game, regardless of whether it's the GM's whim or the players' desire. Moreover, this immediately devalues the main conviction – and players should, in theory, choose the main conviction in more than half of the cases. It also devalues the skill of the medic, and with it, the need to somehow establish team interaction, and who knows what else will fall apart in the structure if we remove a supporting beam. Any game is a sequence of choices. The choice makes it interesting primarily because of the risk that some of the options entail. I am, of course, a well-known fan of making idiotic, risky, and strange decisions in expeditions (and not only), and encouraging others to do the same, but this is not done out of a lack of understanding of the risk, as it may seem, but precisely because of the desire to take a risk and see a less safe, but more fun option, and, accordingly, see how we will get out of a difficult situation. But if there is no risk, then what? Are all options correct? This means that, in general, they are the same. If they are the same, then why choose and why play?