Player character mortality - Yay or Nay ?

[annlee]

I don't like character death. It's just so saaad.

Trip NYC pants

[Dogbert]

A game is a game because it is an event with two possible outcomes: Success and Failure. If the thing is to be called a game, then both possibilities must exist. Now, how many conditions amount to "success" and how many to "failure" vary from game to game. Death is one condition for failure, but depending on what you're playing, it may or may not be the only one and it may or may not be binary (there can be degrees of success/failure).

Death is far from the worst consequence of failure, just the least interesting if you ask me... but then all of my games are goals-driven, all player characters must care for/pursue something. That's where I put the heat and how I got them moving or make them suffer.

Vanilla murderhobos, on the other side, have no attachments at all, care for nothing but their own sorry hides, and thus have nothing to lose except their own lives. In such games, death MUST exist because their character's continued existence is the only thing you can dangle over the players' heads.

[K]

Vanilla murderhobos, on the other side, have no attachments at all, care for nothing but their own sorry hides, and thus have nothing to lose except their own lives. In such games, death MUST exist because their character's continued existence is the only thing you can dangle over the players' heads.

Vanilla murderhobos don't need death.

Not getting loot can be a failure condition. Getting your arm turned into a tentacle can be a failure condition. Losing XP can be a failure condition. Heck, even keeping the next bit of the story away from a PC can be a failure condition.

There is an old saying about how no matter how much you lose, there is always more to lose. This means that even the vanilla murderhobo who gives no shits about the life of the princess and the political future of his homeland can still be threatened by the loss of something like not getting the reward money for the princess's rescue.

Death, on the other hand, means nothing in a game. You just get a new character.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

I vote Yay. You only live thrice, Five times, if you're a Fairy Mode playing wiener.

[silva]

I think Death can have a greater meaning in games where you have more than 1 life (like Paranoia, Freemarket or Shadowrun) and losing a live means coming back with the same character but impaired/with less resources/farther away from the objective/having lost an important NPC ("You know.. when the DocWagon team arrived your super important NPC contact was already dead.. sorry").


EDIT: hey, this got me inspired for a little AW Shadowrun move!

When you are killed and your DocWagon activates, roll +Contract Level (Standard= -1, Silver=0, Gold=1, Platinum=2). On a 10+ pick 3, on a 7-9 pick 1.
- you are rescued in one piece;
- all your gear is rescued with you;
- some identifiable friendly nearby is rescued with you (paying an extra tax thereafter);
- the rescue operation is fast and clean, with zero-publicity/media leakage;

[Lago PARANOIA]

I've always wondered: when people say 'PCs should only involuntarily die if they're doing stupid things' what exactly do they mean by that? Like, I get the underlying sentiment behind that -- that death should be off the table unless the players have a lapse of logic so large as to be fourth-wall breaking -- but how exactly do you implement that in a game?

[Zaranthan]

while you can't cast raise dead until lv7 there are tons of ways to bring a charecter back.

NPC services with the local level 9 Cleric.

450 gold.

While you are correct that spells are cheap, you forgot that Raise Dead has a material component: a pile of diamonds worth 5,000 gp.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I've always wondered: when people say 'PCs should only involuntarily die if they're doing stupid things' what exactly do they mean by that? Like, I get the underlying sentiment behind that -- that death should be off the table unless the players have a lapse of logic so large as to be fourth-wall breaking -- but how exactly do you implement that in a game?

One way is a battle reserve system, plus easy and relatively safe ways to retreat/surrender. ('safe' for surrender means, 'your enemies will put you in a prison that you can escape from during the next session' or something like that)

Thus, as long as the PCs don't decide to fight on with most of their reserve gone, their defeats will be nonlethal.

[infected slut princess]

I've always wondered: when people say 'PCs should only involuntarily die if they're doing stupid things' what exactly do they mean by that? Like, I get the underlying sentiment behind that -- that death should be off the table unless the players have a lapse of logic so large as to be fourth-wall breaking -- but how exactly do you implement that in a game?

I always disliked this idea rather strongly. I mean, there is a very fine line between brave and stupid, and the side of the line your actions fall on is generally determined ex post facto.

Old-school DMs seem most fond of the "death for doing something stupid" concept. "Yeah, if you were smart you'd have talked to the Sage of Donkey Town, who would have informed you that Dark Dungeon was full of bodaks, so you could made proper preparations. Instead, you just walked into Dark Dungeon, saw some bodaks, and died. Because you were stupid. Play smarter next time!"

Overall, I think "PCs should only die for doing something really stupid" is just a bad principle and should be abandoned by all reasonable DMs. A lot of people think it is fair and reasonable, but it is arbitrary as fuck.

[silva]

I agree with Infected Slut Princess here.

The idea of "punishing stupid decisions with death" looks too rooted on wargames and early forms of roleplaying games where the game offered very little ways to punish players otherwise, because the concept of character non-combat assets like friends and houses and personal goals, etc still didnt existed/were not taken seriously/were irrelevant for the game focus.

[hogarth]

A game is a game because it is an event with two possible outcomes: Success and Failure. If the thing is to be called a game, then both possibilities must exist.

If you combine that assertion with Frank's assertion that pretending to be a naughty nurse and a sexy patient in the bedroom is a role-playing game, that would be an interesting sex life (to say the least).

[deaddmwalking]

In real life, people die. The game will need to include the possibility of killing people if it is designed to be able to emulate 'real life' in any way, shape, or form. If you're more interested in simulation than genre emulation, having death as a possible result absolutely makes sense.

But because it is a game, I think it's absolutely critical to make death minimally likely. Fate points and such that turn a 'certain death' into an improbable survival (like Indiana Jones going over the cliff in a tank) are a good start - but if you tempt fate too many times, your number may just come up.

[K]

In real life, people die. The game will need to include the possibility of killing people if it is designed to be able to emulate 'real life' in any way, shape, or form. If you're more interested in simulation than genre emulation, having death as a possible result absolutely makes sense.

But because it is a game, I think it's absolutely critical to make death minimally likely. Fate points and such that turn a 'certain death' into an improbable survival (like Indiana Jones going over the cliff in a tank) are a good start - but if you tempt fate too many times, your number may just come up.

The problem is that death means nothing in a game as long as you get a new character and get to keep playing. You'd literally have to kick the dead character's player out of the gaming group to simulate the effects of death in any meaningful way.

This means you are left with either annoying players by making them spend half a session writing up a new character sheet or are you going to just let them keep playing the same character with some mechanic to keep them from dying.

[silva]

This.

When I sit down to have fun with my friends, I dont want to go home early because my character died. Its like Im invited to play some 2 on 2 street bball and after the first match - 5 min later - Im told to go home because my team lost.

The prerrogative of having fun with friends in a social hobby should be more important than any other prerrogative internal to the game, be it simulation or emulation or realism or whatever.

[shadzar]

I agree with Infected Slut Princess here.

The idea of "punishing stupid decisions with death" looks too rooted on wargames and early forms of roleplaying games where the game offered very little ways to punish players otherwise, because the concept of character non-combat assets like friends and houses and personal goals, etc still didnt existed/were not taken seriously/were irrelevant for the game focus.

well that is only because you view the "success and failure" of a single action as being rewarded or punished respectively.

an RPG is a game in which you are viewing the life of a fantasy character somewhat through your own eyes. life is success in that that character continues to be played, true. but life is also the end, if you decide to quit while the character is still alive. so living is not really success anymore. how many people really play until their character dies of old age? death happens in a game where it fits to happen. if you are assuming the responsibility for a life in the game world, then your failure to keep them alive means they died. you have lost this character.

now in many games, this would put you out of the game. Monopoly for example your bankroll has "died" and you get to sit and watch everyone else play. this is not true of many RPGs, because you can make a new character and keep playing. you may have "wanted" to continue playing that character that you had, but it is gone now. the game however is not gone, you can continue. this wouldn't work that well in Monopoly to let a player sit down in the middle with 1500$ and begin play after people have gone around the board a few times as it may be unfair to others or the person joining as someone will have an upperhand. in an RPG, this isnt really the case, you jsut have to find a way to fit in since it IS a cooperative game, the other players are supposed to cooperate to make this happen, whilst in Monopoly, it is a competitive game, and supposed to try to put people OUT of the game.

death isnt a punishment, just a result of action and reaction. if ANY player views character death as a punishment to the player, they are missing the point of it, and probably the game in its entirety. character death is just a part of the game. either you accept that and your characters die at times, or you dont and either play something else, or just not have character death.

it all really depends on how you want to play and the RULING you make as a group when you sit down to play. the RULES say there is character death. the RULING you make will be "is there character death?" the way you play it will be the right way for you. simple as that.

the RPG world is a world. the character is a living creature. living creatures die. RPGs are in part simulation, thus why there are "rules" for physics. so death is a part of that simulated creature called the player character.

[Heisenberg]

I've always wondered: when people say 'PCs should only involuntarily die if they're doing stupid things' what exactly do they mean by that? Like, I get the underlying sentiment behind that -- that death should be off the table unless the players have a lapse of logic so large as to be fourth-wall breaking -- but how exactly do you implement that in a game?

Like along the lines of following defeated demons when they retreat into hell, to take the fight to them there. That kind of stupid. I know that's not really like...an implementation, just an example of what is meant by that level of dumbness.

Of course at that point it's only questionably "involuntarily" dying... ya kind of asked for it...

[PoliteNewb]

A game is a game because it is an event with two possible outcomes: Success and Failure. If the thing is to be called a game, then both possibilities must exist.

If you combine that assertion with Frank's assertion that pretending to be a naughty nurse and a sexy patient in the bedroom is a role-playing game, that would be an interesting sex life (to say the least).

I'm given to understand that both "boner failure" (for men) and "orgasm failure" (for women) are not uncommon occurrences. So I'd say it makes for a pretty average sex life.

[Foxwarrior]

Like along the lines of following defeated demons when they retreat into hell, to take the fight to them there. That kind of stupid.

Indeed, a TPK soundly punished the DM for his idiocy.

[deaddmwalking]

In real life, people die. The game will need to include the possibility of killing people if it is designed to be able to emulate 'real life' in any way, shape, or form. If you're more interested in simulation than genre emulation, having death as a possible result absolutely makes sense.

But because it is a game, I think it's absolutely critical to make death minimally likely. Fate points and such that turn a 'certain death' into an improbable survival (like Indiana Jones going over the cliff in a tank) are a good start - but if you tempt fate too many times, your number may just come up.

The problem is that death means nothing in a game as long as you get a new character and get to keep playing. You'd literally have to kick the dead character's player out of the gaming group to simulate the effects of death in any meaningful way.

This means you are left with either annoying players by making them spend half a session writing up a new character sheet or are you going to just let them keep playing the same character with some mechanic to keep them from dying.

There are situations where people WANT a glorious death. Rather than retiring a character, going out in a 'blaze of glory' can be worthwhile. But ultimately, we expect basic physics to MOSTLY work - too much invulnerability strains credibility too far. If you can't be KILLED, hacking someone over and over well after they fall unconscious is both pointless and needlessly vexing to simulationists.

We agree monsters should be able to be killed, right? If things can be killed, PCs must also be killable or they're not 'like monsters'. In a game where you're playing demi-gods among normal folk, taking death off the table completely might make sense. If you're playing mud-farmers making good, some amount of death among PCs has to be possible. It does not have to be likely - it can even be entirely PREVENTABLE, but it must be a possibility.

Death might be the most meaningless 'loss condition' - so I'm not advocating its possibility on those lines - simply on simulationist lines.

[silva]

What people do when a player character is killed ? No, seriously. What your group did when this happenned at your table ?

Was the dead character player invited to get da fuck off while the rest continue playing ?

Did the group stopped playing while the guy created another character rapidly ?

Did the GM let the guy assume some NPC until next session when the player could make a new character ?

Did the GM simply manipulated the dice roll for the guy not dying ?

What are your REAL experiences with this ?

[DSMatticus]

I've always wondered: when people say 'PCs should only involuntarily die if they're doing stupid things' what exactly do they mean by that? Like, I get the underlying sentiment behind that -- that death should be off the table unless the players have a lapse of logic so large as to be fourth-wall breaking -- but how exactly do you implement that in a game?

Like along the lines of following defeated demons when they retreat into hell, to take the fight to them there. That kind of stupid. I know that's not really like...an implementation, just an example of what is meant by that level of dumbness.

Of course at that point it's only questionably "involuntarily" dying... ya kind of asked for it...

This is exactly why "punishing players for stupidity" has to be off the table. The vast majority of the time, the thing being punished isn't actually stupid. If you kick a demon lord's ass and thwart his evil plans and he slinks away tail between his legs, odds are very high that hell is an acceptable place to go adventuring. You have a fucking demon lord retreating. Seriously. If my party got into a personal confrontation with Bel or whoever and he backed down, my next question would be "so, anyone else want to go finish him off and be the lords of the first?"

But the DM thinks it's stupid because in his head there's a completely unintuitive (and frankly stupid) sorting algorithm of evil, and "Demon Lord" supersecretly means "low-level management in a hierarchy of evil you can't possibly stand up to," so the PC's show up in hell and are immediately bitchslapped by Asmodeus Lucifer (as opposed to the much more reasonable outcome of continuing the fight with the demon lord + his retainers to defend him).

The PC's failed to read the DM's mind, and he arbitrarily TPK'd them. It's an amazingly good example of how not to handle PC death.

[NineInchNall]

This is exactly why "punishing players for stupidity" has to be off the table. The vast majority of the time, the thing being punished isn't actually stupid. If you kick a demon lord's ass and thwart his evil plans and he slinks away tail between his legs, odds are very high that hell is an acceptable place to go adventuring. You have a fucking demon lord retreating. Seriously. If my party got into a personal confrontation with Bel or whoever and he backed down, my next question would be "so, anyone else want to go finish him off and be the lords of the first?"

I agree. In fact, the "follow the retreating BBEG through the portal back to his lair to finish the fight" idea has got to be one of the most common fantasy story clichés there is. If genre emulation is at all something one wants out of an RPG, that's it right there.

What people do when a player character is killed ? No, seriously. What your group did when this happenned at your table ?

Was the dead character player invited to get da fuck off while the rest continue playing ?

No.

Did the group stopped playing while the guy created another character rapidly ?

Sort of.

Did the GM let the guy assume some NPC until next session when the player could make a new character ?

Sort of.

Did the GM simply manipulated the dice roll for the guy not dying

Fuck that. I roll all the dice in the open.

What are your REAL experiences with this ?

Usually what happens is I have the player of the dead character help me run the rest of the combat/encounter that killed him/her. Then we take a quick break and as a group help the player make a new character. This usually takes around 10-20 minutes. It gives people a chance to reflect on tactics gone wrong, what they could have done differently, order pizza, refill beer mugs, refresh cocktails, etc. The new PC is introduced ASAP, oftentimes in the next room or something.

That's assuming the party is too low level to afford resurrection effects. If they can manage the rez, then no break is needed, and the dead PC's player helps me run monsters and NPCs until the rest of the party unkills him/her. (Which we try to do immediately as a matter of courtesy.)

[K]

The problem is that death means nothing in a game as long as you get a new character and get to keep playing. You'd literally have to kick the dead character's player out of the gaming group to simulate the effects of death in any meaningful way.

This means you are left with either annoying players by making them spend half a session writing up a new character sheet or are you going to just let them keep playing the same character with some mechanic to keep them from dying.

There are situations where people WANT a glorious death. Rather than retiring a character, going out in a 'blaze of glory' can be worthwhile. But ultimately, we expect basic physics to MOSTLY work - too much invulnerability strains credibility too far. If you can't be KILLED, hacking someone over and over well after they fall unconscious is both pointless and needlessly vexing to simulationists.

That issue is simply a problem of not having a good enough mechanic to negate death.

I mean, Raise Dead is a perfectly fine way to avoid death in DnD after being hacked to bits. Placing back-up copies of your personality into new bodies is the solution in Eclipse Phase. Even in a theoretical mud-farmer sim, simply having a "cousin" show up with the same character sheet can be enough (though I'd prefer that Jeffro, the God of Shit-scaping, resurrects your mortal coil to be placed back on the Great Work).

Mysteriously surviving a lava bath by MTP or having the DM fudge dice is insulting, but only because it's bad rules and not because avoiding perma-death has any narrative or mechanical harm associated with it in an RPG.

[Kaelik]

That issue is simply a problem of not having a good enough mechanic to negate death.

I mean, Raise Dead is a perfectly fine way to avoid death in DnD after being hacked to bits. Placing back-up copies of your personality into new bodies is the solution in Eclipse Phase. Even in a theoretical mud-farmer sim, simply having a "cousin" show up with the same character sheet can be enough (though I'd prefer that Jeffro, the God of Shit-scaping, resurrects your mortal coil to be placed back on the Great Work).

Mysteriously surviving a lava bath by MTP or having the DM fudge dice is insulting, but only because it's bad rules and not because avoiding perma-death has any narrative or mechanical harm associated with it in an RPG.

Yeah this. If every character class just got a fucking ability to come back from the dead somehow at level 12, adventuring after that would still be fine. Right now whether you are a Lich, or you have a Clone somewhere, or you have a Elemental Siphon or Jade Pheonix Mage or Many with Burning Eyes class ability to live through your death, that is a perfectly acceptable thing for a lot of people to do.

[RadiantPhoenix]

At this point, I think that "real" PC death{1} should be off the table unless that character's player explicitly decides it should happen at that time.

That said, if the players decided beforehand that PC death should be on the table, I think that reversing that decision when a PC is just about to die is bad.


{1}: In this case, I mean a death that has the player sit off to the side and not play, not just, "everybody stops, retreats with the body, and gets the character rezzed"