When I'm acting as a GM, the only time I kill off a character is if the player abandons them. If you stop posting and don't log on for a month, yeah, I'm gonna kill your character. It'll be fun for me and the rest of the thread. Heck, I might let the other players have a crack at it.

That being said, I do find it ridiculous for a player to put an immortality clause in a CS. No matter what the setting. If your character is a human, your character can die. That's one of the rules of being human, it doesn't matter that this is a roleplay. I signed up for a roleplay once (it never launched) in which the rules of the roleplay clearly stated that character death was a good possibility, and you'd likely have to write more than one. It never got off the ground, but I signed up at least. If it isn't explicitly stated in the rules, however, I think most players just assume that the GM is not going to kill their character. And they [i]really[/i] wouldn't expect you to kill them without warning.

[quote=XecutionerRex] If our characters get into enough beef that death is a totally realistic outcome, I might just kill off your character and end the game.[/quote]

That's right out. I'd never do that to my players. That's not fun for any of them, even if it might be fun for you.

So, in answer to your question: yes, I do like games where my characters are in danger of dying. However, I think most roleplayers assume their character is not going to be killed off randomly by the GM unless it's explicitly stated otherwise in the OOC somewhere. When you talk about being 'realistic' in a roleplay, stop and ask yourself how many times you've written a human character having to take a bathroom break. I don't think I've [i]ever[/i] done it. Showers and baths, sure, shaving for men, brushing teeth... but I can't say I've ever once written a character needing to take a wee. So the perspective for 'realistic' might be a [i]tad[/i] skewed. Just sayin'. ;)