Beardy Preferences - Player Death

[Joose]

Following on from this thread, here is the first subject of debate: Player Death!

Its generally accepted that if you have a TPK (Total Party Kill), something somewhere has gone horribly wrong. However, that doesnt necassarily mean that us GM's should be actively avoiding them, or that we should be avoiding player characters dying in general. I vaugely remember having a discussion with Pants about this ages ago, and I seem to remember we roughly agreed on how it should be handled, but I would like to see what you lot think too.

The way i see it, there are basically 6 ways to deal with player death. I'll list them from most extreme at one end to the other extreme. Im pretty sure that none of you would want either of the extremes, im just including them there for the sake of completeness and easy comparison.

1) No one ever dies. The GM should do everything up to and including cheating like mad to make sure that although the PC's can get pretty banged up, none of them will ever die in any situation, ever. Obviously, TPK's will never happen.

2) Stupid to Death. The GM's should do as above, unless the player has done something particularly stupid. In other words, if any PC dies it should absolutely, undoubtably be thier fault. They should never die due to something completely out of thier hands, and should never die based purely on a dice roll. TPK's will almost certainly never happen

3) Rare death. Similar to 2, except GM's should only handwave/cheat so that PC's can die if the death would have been undramatic and/or plain dumb. Death in, for example, combat due to a string of shitty dice rolls should be allowed. Death due to a string of spectacularly shitty dice rolls whilst climbing up a drainpipe on a small building should not be allowed. TPK's are still incredably rare, and should only happen if it will somehow be awesome for everyone involved.

4) Death happens. The GM should just go with the story and never cheat. If that means that players die, so be it, even if its in a really undramatic way. Rules are rules. TPK's, whilst not common, could happen and could theoretically seem to come out of nowhere from the players point of view.

5) Kill em all. The GM should go out of thier way to fuck over thier players, without just presenting them with impossible situations and without cheating. PC's are going to die, a lot, and a fair amount (but not all) of game sessions will end up with a TPK.

6) Rocks fall, everyone dies. The GM should go out of thier way to kill the players using any means necassary, including cheating or even just saying "suddenly there is an extinction level event. You all get roasted to death." Every single game ends with a TPK, possibly followed by the GM getting dickslapped by angry players.

Just for clarity, when I say "cheating" here, I am specifically talking about doing something that does not comply with the rules as written, as you could argue that the GM cant cheat. I dont want to go there, as its a pretty stupid argument. I'm talking about things like fudging dice rolls, metagaming, etc. Also, im well aware that there are a whole spectrum of play styles that fit in between the above catagories, im just laying them out like that so we have something to use as a reference point.

Personally, I think that going too far to the 1 end of the scale takes out the drama. If you know you cant die, there is no risk, and if there is no risk there is no excitement. However, going too far to the 6 end of the scale has problems too: players get attached to their characters and tend to get pissed if they die in crappy ways. So I tend to go for something around 3. If something has just happened that *should* mean that a player has just popped his clogs, I imagine what the average reaction to that death will be, for the group as a whole. Reactions like "HOOOLY SHIIIIT! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIIIIEEE!" is perfectly acceptable. So would "Whelp, its sad to see him go, but what an exit!" is also cool. "Oh. huh. OK then" is not an OK reaction. If its more likely to get the latter than the former, im inclined to cheat a little, maybe with a fudged dice roll, or the sudden and unexpected arrival of a Doc Wagon team. The exception to that is if the player has gone in willingly. If they know full well that what they are about to do could end in thier sudden and ignominious demise, and then it does, well...you knew what you were getting into. For example, the Bug Hunt game in Shadowrun could very easily have ended in a dead Frank, if the Demonically-powered Chopper hadnt passed out first. Hell, it came close to Frank being hynotised into blowing Choppers head clean off just before that, which would probably have ended in both of them being bug chow. I would not have handwaved either of those deaths, as both Pete and Roman knew what they were getting into, and death at the hands of a queen insect spirit whilst in the depths of a hive would have been quite a dramatic death.

Having said that, I always get a bit nervous when im putting my players into possibly deadly scenarios, as im never quite sure where you lot really feel you are on that scale. I dont want to kill one of you off only for you to shout "BULLSHIT!" and never play again, but I also dont want to mollycoddle you so much you get bored. So where do you want the line to be drawn?

Holy crap, that was a much lengthier post than I thought it would be.

[FatherJack]

NO, NOT BLACK LEAF!

[Dog Pants]

I'm pretty much in agreement there. I try to play a straight bat, to let the dice fall where they will as if I'm simulating the world. When it comes to shitty things happening to players though I tend to bottle out. My rule on that is that the players should never know. If all the players think someone is going to die, and I would have to implement some obvious deus ex machina to stop that happening, they're going to die. It only generally happens when a player does something stupid, even after I've explained the relevant rules to make sure they understand the consequences. It has happened on a few occasions. I don't think I've ever had a TPK.

Specifically to SLA, there's a difficult balance. The game is notorious for having no mid-scale bad guys, everything is either cannon fodder or a party killer. You can use little guys in numbers but the combat system is so pedantic that it becomes a grind. There are other, Weird things which can fill the middle, but my style is to play everything down so that the weird stands out among the mundane. So they're rare. Creativity can go a long way though. SLA is designed to be a dangerous game, and having Life After Death is actually more useful to the GM than the players as you can afford to make the odd mistake. I need to ramp that up really.

The problem, as you say, is illustrating to the players that something is dangerous. If they thing they're on the right path then they'll assume they're going to have a good chance at survival. It's the GM's job to drop in subtle hints that this is not the case. Conversely, if you get a reputation for hammering the players if they stray from the path then they aren't going to experiment. For me as a GM having to improvise as the squad come up with crazy plans is one of the best aspects of the game.

A few examples then;

In the second BPN when Deject caught up with the rogue Op carrying a Surekill it took me off guard. One shot and it would have killed him, and it was my fault, the simulation played out that way. It wouldn't have been fair, so I dropped in a knight in shining armour, the disgraced Op who had lost it. It was too blatant for me, but preferable to Deject losing his character on his second BPN because of my lack of planning.

In Tower Offence, on the other hand, the squad had walked knowingly into a well defended position. Gerald was close to death, and would have died had he stuck around longer.

A previous squad asked for a Black BPN into Lower Downtown. Black BPNs are suicide missions, so I won't hold back. One died to a randomly generated nobody carrying a Thresher gun. He couldn't have avoided it, but taking a Black BPN is a statement of intent in itself. The campaign ended there inconclusive as I joined the Air horse, but in the ongoing plot of my World Of Progress they have never been seen again.

I experienced a TPK with my second ever character, a human fighter an AD&D. The DM had overpowered an encounter but played it to its conclusion, including the bad guys dumping our bodies into a lava filled moat. Since we were fighting to clear out the temple of a good deity he literally used deus ex machina, and we were reincarnated as a reward. That was the best thing that ever happened to that character - he came back as a half-ogre and was much more interesting for it. The elf rogue, on the other hand, came back as a gnome and promptly threw himself back into the lava. He was reincarnated again, but as a ferret.

[shot2bits]

I agree with you that player death should be a possiblity otherwise you wont create the same excitement or tension and players arent going to feel like they can or need to make any meaningfull decisions during combat or other dangerous situations, but as you say the player should always feel like it was justified/sufficiently glorious.

What i dont find clear is what actually happens after a players character dies? can the player roll a new character and assimilate them into the team, or do they just stop playing?

[HereComesPete]

What i dont find clear is what actually happens after a players character dies? can the player roll a new character and assimilate them into the team, or do they just stop playing?

I've used both methods before. Some players have asked to leave the game and to do so in as mad and unforgettable a way as possible, so they've died and a different player has taken their place. Others have mad stupid decisions and had to re-roll, a bit pissed off but mostly at their own decisions.

And leading from that I too fall around option 3. Leaning toward option 4. If someone consistently puts their character in harms way then they will get rewarded for it, but they may also get their character killed for it. Even if that being killed consists of failing a series of combat roles against a trash mob because they ran in to the middle of said mob.

[Dog Pants]

Actually, one of the most amusing player deaths I saw was caused by the rest of the squad. It was like a SLA equivalent of someone doing a stage-dive and the crowd moving aside. The squad Waster had been pissing everyone off, so when the player stated "I'm getting in the lift and pressing the button", everyone else stated they didn't follow. The lift opened up onto a room containing around 40 Tek-Trex drones. The Waster survived the hail of 5mm fire just long enough to hit the button again, so when the lift got back to the top the doors opened to reveal his bullet-riddled corpse. Fortunately his camera survived, so they watched his footage and sent in a load of grenades.

[FatherJack]

I would be upset if a character died who I'd invested a lot of time and personality into, but also wouldn't like to play if there was no real sense that there was any danger. While that sometimes leads to a more cautious approach than leaping around with flashy acts of bravery, it also means I'm likely to drop everything and try to help if another player is in real trouble. A bit like winning the war by getting everyone home safe, rather than winning medals by having the highest kill count.

I should certainly like to have some say in how I met my demise, rather than just random bad luck, be that facing down the impossible monster for the others to escape, or being the last standing and still trying to heal fallen comrades. If I was playing someone less virtuous, bumping into another cluster of bad guys, or falling into a trap as I tried to run away and escape would also be acceptable methods of despatch.

You decide on how your personality traits are played out, so if you go with something that could clearly get you into trouble, like impulsiveness, an itchy trigger-finger or a sharp tongue you have to expect a bit of strife, and if the worst happens chalk it off that it's something that was always going to happen to them.

I'd hope my characters would be missed, but would relish the chance to try something new. To that end I'd also have no problem retiring or sending characters on holiday, instead creating new ones if the situation demanded, such as matching levels with other player's characters.

[deject]

I tend to prefer options 2 & 3 unless the game is structured for player death and/or persistence isn't very important. While the GM shouldn't save characters who do dumb shit or are suicidal or anything, most of the time I think the PCs should be surviving.

[Dog Pants]

What i dont find clear is what actually happens after a players character dies? can the player roll a new character and assimilate them into the team, or do they just stop playing?

I think it's taken as read that a player who's character dies but who wants to continue playing gets to roll a new one, and in most cases the new character will be of a similar level. Personally I match the level of the lowest character in the party, although this is easier with some games than others.

[FatherJack]

What i dont find clear is what actually happens after a players character dies? can the player roll a new character and assimilate them into the team, or do they just stop playing?

I think it's taken as read that a player who's character dies but who wants to continue playing gets to roll a new one, and in most cases the new character will be of a similar level. Personally I match the level of the lowest character in the party, although this is easier with some games than others.

That's an interesting allowance. I'd kind of assumed the new char has to start from scratch, and the existing players would try to protect them until the (relatively) massive amounts of XP they gained from travelling with you allowed them to catch up, since XP is usually calculated on a logarithmic scale. Indeed I've always assumed that was why XP was roughly logarithmic.

By logarithmic, I mean it's say 100XP for L2, 200XP for L3, 400XP for L4. Bring your L1 buddy on an L4 adventure and he gets maybe 200XP - instant L1->L3.

I guess that doesn't scale very well to high-level stuff though, where a monster looking at an L1 character would simply disintegrate them, but I thought there could maybe be waypoints every five levels or so, which you could restart at if you died.

I guess that sounds a little harsh, but when you get your character killed, there must surely be more of a penalty than re-rolling a rough equivalent at the same level as your weakest party member, because that "weakest" party member may be you.


I know it's not all about the numbers, and that losing my beloved Black Leaf might be more than just an inconvenience and be an emotional loss as well - (though I'd probably stop short of hanging myself) - perhaps that is enough.

[The Shutting Downs]

I tend to run around the 3/4 mark, leaning more towards the 4.

Death happens, it's part of the game, and I personally feel that a well timed 'leap of faith' is all the more dramatic if it's passed knowing it could have ended badly for the character, the relief around the table is felt more for it.

That being said, I don't like PC's being killed because I have made some really cheesy rolls as a GM, especially in low end encounters. Yes I know it's the game, but there is still the element of story to build on, death through a hard fight I can let happen, but just because (for example) the dice fell on 3 10's someone has to roll a new sheet does not make me feel, as a GM, that I have helped the player gain satisfaction in the game.

So end rsult, yes I can live with fudged dice from a GM, but I would rather know that there is still a real element of risk comparative to what my character would experience.

[Joose]

I guess actually it will depend on the game system you are using as well, to a point. Dying in D&D can be reversed through magical means (to a greater or lesser degree of difficulty, depending on stuff), dying in a SLA game over unless you have a LAD account, dying in Eclipse Phase is no big deal as long as you have a recent backup (and a character who doesnt find such things bad), and dying in SR is entirely unreversable (unless you are a Spirit or something).

Reintroducing players (or introducing new players) into a game is always a tricky thing, but again depends on the game. I would tend towards basically what you guys have suggested: The new character should be less good than the established characters, but not by so much that he is useless. Games with less structured character classes or no classes at all tend to be easier to do this with. In SR or SLA, for example, older characters dont get more powerful so much as more flexiable. I mean, they *do* get more powerful too, but you can fairly easily catch a newer character up to the level of the older characters in certain areas just by being a little more focussed on what that character is good at. Games like D&D, where there are more strict classes and definate levels could be a bit more tricky, but like FJ says, the newer character will be gaining levels relatively faster than the older characters, so will pretty much catch up after a while. as long as they dont start too many levels behind everyone else, its not an issue. You dont want to start too close either though, or you could end up with the other players feeling a bit cheated.

I guess we are all pretty much in agreement then: Death should always be a possibility, but never in a way that feels cheap. That sound about right?

[Dog Pants]

Sounds right to me. In fact I've half generated a new D&D character in the partial expectation that Desmond will eat me in Grimmie's game.

[Grimmie]

Sounds right to me. In fact I've half generated a new D&D character in the partial expectation that Desmond will eat me in Grimmie's game.

I'm fine-tuning his abilities as we play.