Player character mortality - Yay or Nay ?

[silva]

I always got puzzled by the possibility of character death in a tabletop roleplaying game.

I mean, in videogames if your character die you just press "new game" or "load" button and thats it. But in a tabletop roleplaying game if your character die it takes a dozens minutes to hours long process to create a new one. Also, you must justify the presence of the new character inside the current group somehow, something not always so easy to do. And there is also the commitment the player may have invested in his character - making plans for the future, investing himself emotionally, etc - which get disrupted by the character death.

So, I admit. I was never a fan of character death. If needed, I prefer to ruin a character life by taking away his valued possessions (be it goods, people, values, etc) than taking his life. In fact, I view character death as uncompatible to tabletop rpg gaming.

What are your opinions on the matter ?

[Grek]

It really really depends on how complicated character generation is and what the tone of the game is. WHFR is a good example of that: It doesn't take long to generate a new character, you don't have much control over the process and the genre is low comedy/grimderp fantasy. You don't get invested in your character and you will actually cheer them on if you roll a shitty career like rat catcher.

[Stahlseele]

Now Shadowrun for example, where Character Creation is it's own minigame that can take days to finish successfully . . yeah . . that's a different problem . .

[Lago PARANOIA]

For most games, while I prefer for it to be there (because it adds suspense and is an unusual plot twist) I don't consider it a deal-breaker if it's not unless it's supposed to be a high-casualty game like the Great Patriotic War: The RPG.

As far as 3E D&D is concerned, I think the game is too lethal as it is. There aren't enough ways to resume playing a similar character after death setbacks at low level (like coming back as a revenant or an apprentice or similar-looking relative), one-sided butchery of a winning side is way too common of a combat outcome, and in any case the monsters are so haphazardly designed that a lot of encounters that have fair or even easy CRs are too lethal when played by an impartial DM with maximum tactical sense.

[OgreBattle]

Players and GM should be clear on what tone the game will be in, it's really a killjoy to get sucker punched by death... but if you knew it was a grimdark game then that's part of the atmosphere.

AD&D level stuff is great for quick and swingy one-shots 'cause of how little time it takes to make a character.

For games with more involved character creation, there should be some kind of 'warning' to build up tension, or a way for characters to spend fate/action to avoid death for at least one turn (so their buddies can save their ass, or so they can all run away)

[Neurosis]

So, I admit. I was never a fan of character death. If needed, I prefer to ruin a character life by taking away his valued possessions (be it goods, people, values, etc) than taking his life. In fact, I view character death as uncompatible to tabletop rpg gaming.

What are your opinions on the matter ?

I have strong feelings on this. Namely, I absolutely detest this kind of thinking. Character death is something that happens. It shouldn't be unavoidable, and it shouldn't be fully random, but if you screw up and do something stupid or reckless AND the dice are against you, yeah, it should be possible to fucking die. (For what it's worth, I also don't like non-interactive fiction where it's clear that "plot armor" is the only thing keeping the protagonists alive. Although it is possible to go too far in the opposite direction: GRRM may be verging on this.)

The possibility of character death is what gives gaming its savor, it's what makes the stakes meaningful. Without it, you're playing some training wheels bumper cars bullshit, for pussies.

Now Shadowrun for example, where Character Creation is it's own minigame that can take days to finish successfully . . yeah . . that's a different problem . .

Yeah, but Shadowrun is also gritty, violent crime fiction (with cyberpunk and magic, whatever), a genre where death should very much be possible.

Fortunately, Shadowrun 4E has a mechanic to avoid death, Hand of God. Unfortunately, frequent invocations of Hand of God in a dangerous campaign lead to stagnation of character growth, as all Karma gets used to buy Edge back up. Lame. : (

[Voss]

So, I admit. I was never a fan of character death. If needed, I prefer to ruin a character life by taking away his valued possessions (be it goods, people, values, etc) than taking his life. In fact, I view character death as uncompatible to tabletop rpg gaming.

What are your opinions on the matter ?

I have strong feelings on this. Namely, I absolutely detest this kind of thinking. Character death is something that happens. It shouldn't be unavoidable, and it shouldn't be fully random, but if you screw up and do something stupid or reckless AND the dice are against you, yeah, it should be possible to fucking die. (For what it's worth, I also don't like non-interactive fiction where it's clear that "plot armor" is the only thing keeping the protagonists alive. Although it is possible to go too far in the opposite direction: GRRM may be verging on this.)

The possibility of character death is what gives gaming its savor, it's what makes the stakes meaningful. Without it, you're playing some training wheels bumper cars bullshit, for pussies.

I wouldn't phrase it that way, but yeah. Given RPGs as a whole center around violence, the idea that character death is incompatible RPGs is just fucking bizarre. Not all failure states need end in death, but given the number of swords and bullets flying about, death-immunity renders the whole thing pointless.

Given that I started with BECMI and 1st edition, taking away possessions and the like is actually worse, to me. 'And the wizard loses his spellbook' was actually a thing that happened, even in official modules (slave lords ->railroad defeat in one module, start with nothing in the next). At that point, you're playing mister useless. Death would have been a mercy, but instead the DM is being a sadistic fuck.

[deaddmwalking]

If you take a setting and assume that the PCs are 'really special', I'm okay with death being off the table. Or at least, random death. I mean, you can play a game where your PCs are basically all 'Highlander' characters - and only decapitation (possibly by another character also in that vein) is the only way to kill your character. That can be fun, but that's not what I think of when I think of D&D.

In standard D&D, you come from a dirt-farmer background. Even if you don't die, you probably know people who did. And if you don't, you probably felt that you were close to death a time or two. The spectre of death makes the game better; but actual death, not usually so much.

One potential issue with a game like 3.x is that death is usually the only victory condition. If the kobolds fight to the last man, then the PCs when when they're all dead. And if the PCs lose? Well, if the kobolds are smart, they'll murder them all as they bleed out. But if the DM is cognizant enough, instead of murderous kobolds, he'll have them using slave labor for their mining. That gives the kobolds a victory state other than 'death to the PCs'.

Of course, it would help if the rest of the rules helped support that. Taking someone prisoner is much harder than killing them outright.

[silva]

As Stalhseel and Grek put it, I think the point is much more related to a (meta) game premise than in-setting premise. In a dark-humour game like WHFR, where char creation is fast, death is welcome. But in a complex/fiddly game like Shadowrun, whre char creation take ages, death is unwelcome.

Oh, and Shadowrun device for death-avoiding is called DocWagon contract. Its so obvious a metagame device that its affordable even to your lowlife barrens native runner out of a pink mohawk campaign. (Paranoia also comes to mind as having a device for avoiding char-death, in the form of the characters clones)

I think character death was nerfed/questioned as a valid concept by the time "characters got out of the dungeon", which was the time where the characters lives and background took a greater dimension than the GM dungeon, which in my view begins to happen with Runequest in 78, and get definitively popular in late 80s with Vampire, Dragonlance, etc.

[infected slut princess]

I fail to understand why people get bent out of shape about characters dying in D&D 3.x of all things. This is a game where a) far worse things than death can happen to your character, and b) death is fixed rather easily with magic.

[Voss]

get definitively popular in late 80s with Vampire, Dragonlance, etc.

Not sure why you think that. Dragonlance campaigns/games ran like any other D&D game, and the background stories had *more* random death of notable characters than most other D&D settings. FR characters get 'out-of-the-abyss' free cards as part of their plot armor, in DL major characters just get stomped or randomly drop dead because they are fucking old. Vampire also plays better with a risk of death, otherwise entire systems and plot points (sun/fire/Sabbat/Elders) become completely laughable.



Paranoia is a weird example, too. Death is part of the point. The more hilarious, the better.

[silva]

But in Paranoia, when you die its your clone who dies - you dont have to create another character from scratch. Its like a videogame where you have 7 lives.

[JonSetanta]

I had a DM years ago that usually had a character "knocked out"

[Neurosis]

HERO System is really good at having combat (for both sides) be non-fatal by default. Actually killing someone takes a lot of effort, while just knocking someone out/incapacitating them is your bog-standard combat outcome for either side. Pretty much the opposite of the "ain't no mercy in D&D" problem Frank frequently describes.

[Chamomile]

It's weird that the local AW fanboy thinks death is a bad idea, because the post-apocalyptic "everything sucks" setting where life is cheap and there's like five unused playbooks waiting if your character bites it is exactly the kind of place where you do want death on the table.

[NineInchNall]

That's because he, like the rest of the world's Elennsars, wants a game where the odds are stacked against him. So they want a grimdark world where bathtub gin is cheap and life is cheaper, where people die all the time, where everything is deadly dangerous, where anyone can and is likely to die at any time.

But they want their characters to defy probability and survive. Every time.

[hogarth]

I fail to understand why people get bent out of shape about characters dying in D&D 3.x of all things. This is a game where a) far worse things than death can happen to your character, and b) death is fixed rather easily with magic.

My complaint is that death brings the game to a screeching halt for at least one player and often the whole party.

I like games with hero points to use as "extra lives" or something that like that.

[silva]

It's weird that the local AW fanboy thinks death is a bad idea, because the post-apocalyptic "everything sucks" setting where life is cheap and there's like five unused playbooks waiting if your character bites it is exactly the kind of place where you do want death on the table.

Well, if youre referring to Apocalypse World, I must disagree. AW is miserable, sure, but far from lethal. The players are the stars of the show and have such a huge survival factor its not even funny. We never had anyone dying at our tables. Starving ? check. Crippled ? check. Raped ? check. But actually killed ? Never. Or at least thats how it went out in our tables. What makes you think Apocalypse World is lethal ? The question is honest. Perhaps my group are overlooking some rule or something.

EDIT:

just to elaborate on my point, some feats responsible for the players characters high survival in AW are (from the top of my head):

1) the assymetry between PCs and NPCs (PCs have to fill a full clock before dying, while NPCs are like "mooks" and generally die with 2 or 3 damage),

2) and the possibility for players to pick a cripple/scar/etc each time their life clocks get too high, effectively making them survive lots of punishment.

3) the player-centered gaming structure which makes it difficult for the GM to prepare set-pieces beforehand where heavy damage could be make to the PCs. This is specially true when PCs reach +3 on their main stats, and reduce drastically chances of missing (thus denying the GM to make hard moves on them).

[Lago PARANOIA]

I fail to understand why people get bent out of shape about characters dying in D&D 3.x of all things. This is a game where a) far worse things than death can happen to your character, and b) death is fixed rather easily with magic.

Most people play D&D 3E at levels 1-3. Which is when the game is at its most lethal, has the fewest viable non-VAH ways to avoid violence, has the least tokens on the board to deflect death, and has the fewest resurrection schemes.

3E D&D really needs to do one or more of: tone down the difficulty of low levels; arrange advancement so that players can quickly blast through them; provide a variety of ways to continue playing the same or a very similar character in the event of death. The last one can be provided in a lot of ways.

[Chamomile]

Most weapons in AW deal 2 or 3 harm. A single serious weapon like a machine gun nest or grenade will deal 4 or 5. There's also harm from daring escapades that do not involve direct attacks, like falling. Harm that comes from lack of resources (starvation, heat stroke, etc. etc.) does exist, and is actually more dangerous because armor can't help you.

Most character have 1 armor. A few have 2. A fair number don't get any. Since characters only need to take 3 harm before they're injured past the point they can heal on their own, there's plenty of situations where the majority of your party members will go from "perfectly fine" to "need a medic" in one hit. Take 4 or more harm and you're staring at a very real possibility of death. You can weasel your way out of it by permanently reducing one of your stats by 1 in order to get yourself back to 3 harm, but you can only do that once per stat for your character's entire lifetime.

AW is unlikely to see you chewing through a character each session, but it is nearly guaranteed that your party will lose a dude or two along the way unless the MC starts softballing as soon as things get rough. Conveniently, a standard party of four can each lose a character and still have three playbooks leftover. Add in the half-dozen or so bonus playbooks which were officially made and released haphazardly, but which are now very easy to track down, and everyone in the party can die two or three times over before you run into the risk of actually running out of characters to play. And even then, there's plenty of fan-made playbooks out there.

[Voss]

It's weird that the local AW fanboy thinks death is a bad idea, because the post-apocalyptic "everything sucks" setting where life is cheap and there's like five unused playbooks waiting if your character bites it is exactly the kind of place where you do want death on the table.

Really? It came as no surprise to me at all. I saw the name and title together and I immediately knew it was a thread about not actually allowing player death

[silva]

Chamo, most characters have at least 1-armor and most weapons do 1 or 2 damage (the bigger damage is 4 from a grenade - there is no 5 damage weapons in the game), so the average damage the characters will take are around 0 or 1 per combat exchange. If we consider they have 6 hp AND the opportunity to soak that damage through the Take by Force move in a sucess or weak sucess, the players have a big advantage to take zero damage most of times. Also, remember that 2 damage is enough to kill most NPCs.

But the real advantage the players have is the fact that, most of times, the MC can only hurt them if 1) he announce future badness, thus automatically making players aware of potential threats and 2) the player rolls a miss or weak sucess. And considering how most players will try to fiction-position themselves to use their stronger stats as much as possible, this means the players generally only get hurt when themselves roll bad (and they dont roll bad often with stats at +2 and +3).

So in a typical violent situation the players will have the initiative (due to future badness), thus choosing when and how to inflict damage (tip: they will try to Go Aggro always thats possible) and the outcome will depend solely on their rolled stats. And even a weak sucess (7-9) have them under control of damage taken (because of the Take by Force move). Add to this the possibility of exchanging a lethal damage for cripples and permanent stat impairing, and you have effectively 5 "ressurrection chances" (because you can do it once for each stat).

Because of all this, my experience so far has resulted in 0 (zero) player characters deaths. I cant see how the game is lethal at all. Characters are really capable and will have whatever they want, provided theyre willing to break a few eggs and cope with the consequences. And here comes the misery and destruction the game advocates: through the consequences to their goods/friends/resources/color, not through their deaths.


*EDIT*

I can see how Dungeon World can get lethal fast, since its dungeon-based structure may put players against a string of monsters and other threats. But Apocalypse World violence tends to be over quickly, thus allowing players to go back to lick their wounds or take the initiative and re-position themselves for new threats.

[TheFlatline]

I always got puzzled by the possibility of character death in a tabletop roleplaying game.

I mean, in videogames if your character die you just press "new game" or "load" button and thats it. But in a tabletop roleplaying game if your character die it takes a dozens minutes to hours long process to create a new one. Also, you must justify the presence of the new character inside the current group somehow, something not always so easy to do. And there is also the commitment the player may have invested in his character - making plans for the future, investing himself emotionally, etc - which get disrupted by the character death.

So, I admit. I was never a fan of character death. If needed, I prefer to ruin a character life by taking away his valued possessions (be it goods, people, values, etc) than taking his life. In fact, I view character death as uncompatible to tabletop rpg gaming.

What are your opinions on the matter ?

To continue your video game analogy, the worst, most hated levels in video games are the ones where they take away all your skills/inventory and let you start over again.

These are reviled with almost universal hatred as far as game design goes.

So what's my opinion? That's a fate worse than death for the character.

[Avoraciopoctules]

So, I admit. I was never a fan of character death. If needed, I prefer to ruin a character life by taking away his valued possessions (be it goods, people, values, etc) than taking his life. In fact, I view character death as uncompatible to tabletop rpg gaming.

What are your opinions on the matter ?

Even if Mister Cavern wants to keep PCs from dying, there's nothing keeping players from ditching their own characters. And if you take away enough of the stuff they liked about the character, there is a very real chance the player could simply kill them off to move onto something more interesting.

For instance, in Crypts of Chaos (a play by post here on the Den) there was a lot of character-transforming bullshit. There were a lot of instances where I resolved that it was better to cycle in a new character even if that meant dropping 4 or more levels behind the rest of the party.

You should probably talk things over with your group if you don't want to get a surprise when PCs hit sufficiently bad personal circumstances.

[Starmaker]

I think character death was nerfed/questioned as a valid concept by the time "characters got out of the dungeon", which was the time where the characters lives and background took a greater dimension than the GM dungeon, which in my view begins to happen with Runequest in 78, and get definitively popular in late 80s with Vampire, Dragonlance, etc.

Not sure why you think that. Dragonlance campaigns/games ran like any other D&D game, and the background stories had *more* random death of notable characters than most other D&D settings. FR characters get 'out-of-the-abyss' free cards as part of their plot armor, in DL major characters just get stomped or randomly drop dead because they are fucking old.

Not really. In Dragonlance the series, characters dropped dead not because of any intention to reflect the deadliness of the game or the cruelty of the world, it was because the authors are hardcore Christians and think living forever is a no-no. So even fucking elven maidens barely out of diapers get to advanced age in like 50 years. The death count of Chronicles aka THE WAR OF THE FUCKING LANCE is seriously two guys, both of whom are dead for quasi-religious reasons aka "because they wanted to"; no one actually dies a failure.

In Dragonlance the game, the pregen characters themselves start with stats you won't roll in a hundred years and major magic items out of the gate. If you created your own characters, you were still assumed to walk around with a dead-raising Mormon missionary in tow, because there's only one plot in Dragonlance and that is the War of the Lance (unless you were into larping, in which case the best plot is the Fall of Istar: sign up as a team of town hobos, get roaring drunk on moonshine and sleep through the Cataclysm).

TL;DR while I cannot trace the origin of the demand for heightened character survival, because I played D&D with dot matrix printouts in a timeless void until 2000, Dragonlance is no more lethal than FR.