The Forge Archives

Hi folks! I'm mainly looking for some options here. I tried various search queries in the forge archives and even a couple of google searches...I couldn't find anything much on the topic, which seems odd to me.

Background: I'm using a sort of a nine rung "result ladder," where I (so far) have positive and negative 'permanent results' at the ends and ties/no-effect in the middle. There's a (linear) dice roll+trait spending resoloution mechanic that drives the result up and down this ladder...jumping up or down a rung and more rarely two to three rungs.

I'm picturing results where (say) a PC and NPC might melee-attack each other ferociously for several quick rounds. The battle rages up and down the result ladder until one side or the other gains a very strong advantage. The next round they're moving in for a killing blow.

I'd like to keep character death the result of a gambled action and this would mostly come up only in the climax. Although, I'd also like to leave a little room for the nasty combination of several bad rolls and poor choices putting you in the same sort of predicament. This could occur just as easily in a trap as in combat.

Just enough for the players to know it's possible for their characters to die and that they'll have to face the music every once in a while. Massive damage from things like landslides and explosions will likely kill you off.

Most games that I've seen resort to the dodge-roll method. There are a few that simply advise to play-to-the-plot and even a few that ascribe to the philosophy not to kill off characters at all.  The players this game is for don't retire characters.

I'd rather not use anything complicated like rolemaster's charts, nor do I want a standard do-or-die saving/dodge roll. I'm also trying to avoid using hit points and anything with a death spiral effect. Kind of trying to put a narrative spin on a gamist function. (Is that in the right order?)

Uh, I think I've hit all the major points. Anyone have any ideas? What do you do about this in your games? Any interesting references to existing games you can suggest?

Thanks
Sparky

Hi, Sparky.
Welcome to The Forge!
I'd suggest looking for articles/posts on Fortune in the Middle (FitM). This would seem to be the most obvious solution to your problem I think.
I hope that helps!

Andrew,

Fortune in the middle?  I'll check it out. Thanks!

Sparky

For a practical example, that should fit what you want very closely, IMO, see Zenobia (http://www.eyeballkid.co.za/zenobia/zen1.html).

Also, for what might at first seem like a more radical soution (but is really not), see my Standard Rant #3 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2024).

Mike

Forgive me for being so silent.

I've been feverishly wolfing down all the FiTM threads I could find, along with Zenobia and MIke's rant. Along the way I ran into Joe LLama, Fang's El Dorado and Illusionism. Perhaps you can understand why it took me so long to reply...

As a result, I have a much clearer understanding of what it is that I wanted when I posted. I wanted some guidelines on how one can  objectively decide when it is appropriate to kill off a player's character. Or more accurately, under what conditions would you consider allowing a character to 'die' by the results of their actions in a setting? Fairly, without and prescripting and without any mean spirit on the GM's part...and not only dying from wounds taken but from traps and maybe from even the psychological damage a person takes from the loss of a loved one or something suitably dramatic.

The general feeling I get from all the reading I've done is that player characters should have script immunity from death. I can understand the social/meta/in-game reasons for this, but I'm just one of those folks who wants to include that element in their game. Players beware and I plan to play as well, so my flesh is on the line too.

I just don't want to use plain old hit points or GM whim to do it. I would be satisfied a mix of Zenobia's flashy Crippling Hits and Hero Wars' extended contest mechanic. Something with good color applied in an objective, yet not totally predictable manner.

Any other thoughts to consider (practical or not) or suggestions for threads and games I might read? I feel like I'm not being imaginative enough to get the sort of solution I'm really after. (I do realize that it is possible that I'm overcomplicating things for myself, but I believe that it can be done despite my inability to express myself.)

</quitiing my rambling>

Sparky

Well, Multiverser has what I think may be a unique way of handling the problem: Death is Not the End. But it's integral to that campaign system, and probably wouldn't work easily in what you want.

I think what you need to get to, ultimately, is why it is that you want there to be this axe hanging over everyone's head, that at any moment their characters might die. Let me suggest some possible reasons; but I'm going to use a bit of local jargon, so bear with me and ask if you don't understand something.

It may be that you've got a strong gamist streak; that is, you want there to be some aspect of winning and losing. It may be even that it's not so much that you look at death as a win/lose outcome, but that you view it as a deterent to extreme actions. That is, you imagine that if a character has script immunity and he comes to a two hundred meter chasm, he's going to announce that he'll jump across it; since he can't die, what will happen? That's an extreme example; but the idea here is that you want to maintain the concept that there are consequences to failure when characters take risks, because you want those to be real risks, not illusory ones which everyone knows can't possibly lead to negative consequences.

It may be that there's enough simulationist in you that the idea of script immunity rubs you the wrong way. People die, therefore characters die; and if they do something stupid enough, they need to die. You're probably a fan of the Darwin Awards (O.K., I enjoy those, too). You think that if death of the character is impossible, the world is not realistic.

Even if you're yearning for a good narrativist game, you might be balking at script immunity because you don't trust your players. That is, if the rule is no one dies until his player decides he does, you expect that your players will take full advantage of this and run roughshod over reality and story. Script immunity is, in the wrong hands, a superpower; and you think that you're putting your game in the wrong hands for such a thing.

Now, I'm not a big advocate of script immunity; but I think it can be important to narrativist play. There are several solutions to these problems, each of which has merit.

The most obvious is to create negative consequences that fall short of death. Again to go for the obvious, in Toon a character is never killed, but "falls down", and is out of the action for five (real world) minutes--an eternity in that fast-paced game, according to those who enjoy it. Loss of abilities or luck, shifts in chance of success, penalties to experience, trouble points to be spent by the referee in creating future problems--all of these and more can be used as negative outcomes without killing the characters.

Considerably less obvious is to reeducate your players, to build a game in which they have script immunity but there's not much value to survival; or to introduce them to games in which death of the character is a positive concept, and competitive "staying alive" is completely foreign to the rewards. I believe Jared Sorensen has a game in which the point of play is to have a meaningful death (which one is it, someone?); Alyria, Sorcerer, and I'm sure other games you've already seen reduce the importance of "staying alive" drastically.

If you think that letting a player control his own character's death is too much but giving that decision to the referee is also too much, perhaps you want to create some sort of democratic system. You could control this with something like hit points, call them luck points or something, and decree that whenever a character loses so many of such points the group has to decide whether his "luck ran out" and he died, or whether he found a way to survive and escape. This might have the effect of hedging in those absolutely insane superhuman efforts to which some players are tempted by script immunity ("they'll never let me get away with that") without falling back on direct attrition of points or referee fiat.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

QuoteI believe Jared Sorensen has a game in which the point of play is to have a meaningful death (which one is it, someone?)

I believe that would be Schism.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

Quote from: GreatWolf

QuoteI believe Jared Sorensen has a game in which the point of play is to have a meaningful death (which one is it, someone?)

I believe that would be Schism.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

Well, kinda. I mean, the point of the game is to die. Whether it's meaningful or not is up to the player (I, for one, wouldn't mind playing a character who dies for the wrong reasons...or for no reason at all).

Lots of food for thought here. You've hit upon many of my concerns, kind of a little bit of everything. I haven't spoken about the setting, but it's a pulpy sort of thing where sometimes even the heroes can die.

I like not only my NPCs but my settings to have some teeth. Kind of like the desert planet of Dune...you can survive just fine (usually) as long as you avoid the overwhelmingly dangerous areas. I'm not really aiming to have an axe hanging over anyone's head all the time. I am satisfied with them just coming close to mortal harm every once in a couple of games. But there's no real 'bite' if the possibility isn't there. I just want them to know that there's an axe hanging out there somewhere (usually) beyond their (current) comfort zone.

The point spending mechanic of this game provides the players with lots of wiggle room. Using these points, they have a great amount of leeway to interpret their abilities and to mitigate the consequences of their actions. Using a feature like hit points simply adds more wiggle room between actions and consequences, so I've been looking for other options that still have teeth.

And I do want strong consequences matched to strong risks. A related sticky point with me is that if the PCs can kill NPCs then it should be possible for the PCs to die as well. I'd like to have that hard line based on a principle and solidly drawn, even if it is rarely used.

Everyone, thanks for the help. I was worried that I was overlooking something, but I'm satisfied that I haven't missed anything obvious.

Sparky

Hi Sparky,

Here's the most recent Forge thread that addressed this issue:
Do you care if your character dies? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2391) It contains an internal link as well to at least one older relevant thread.

I'd like to know a bit more information about your game, especially how you see people enjoying it, which I mean literally. Moving from theory into actual game design requires a pretty strong understanding of that vision.

Best,
Ron

Hi there!

I'll check out the thread(s.) I knew that this subject must have been discussed before and tried to search it out. I don't recall what keyword combos I searched for, but apparently they weren't the right ones.

The fun I expect will be the typical sort of gameplay for our group. Lots of action, some twists of character and plot..nothing too exotic from anyone else's games. It is intentionally a very broadly defined space opera setting, much in the same way that the setting for Traveller has been set up with areas for other GMs to define. There are several rival non-human powers with key holds on important things like Space Travel technology.

(Possibly more than you care to know) I'm choosing to focus on the espionage aspect of the rivalry, drawing elements from several fictional sources including Farscape, the Alien Legion comics, a manga called Grey, the Herbert books, Bond films and even Star Wars II bar scenes. Play mainly centers around being the pawns/puppets of the 'invisible hands' that direct events in that universe. There's a bit more color unmentioned, but it's a decent vision of what I want.

One thing that I appreciate about espionage is that sometimes it goes sour and people die. There are double crosses and unseen traps and serious consequences. Hence my desire to include the possibility of character death. To avoid this having too strong of a presence, the option that I will probably pursue will use a cloning technology to avoid permanent character death. (It also raises other issues for the players/PCs to deal with.) It's a high-tech version of Rune's character 'saves' mechanic. In the end, I get the tension I want and the players get to avoid permanently losing their characters growth.

I'm still working on the details of the conflict (not task) resoloution mechanic, but the intent is to have a small number of result categories that aid in producing a descriptive resoloution. I have a good idea of what I want out of it, but lately I have been doing a lot of reading here at the Forge, so work on that has kind of been put on hold.  ;)

Does that begin to answer your questions?

Sparky

Hi Sparky,

Boink! Does it answer my question? My God, man, it's beautiful.

OK, OK, um (now I'm all excited), character death in this kind of game. It strikes me that there are two kinds: death meaning failure of character goals, and death meaning success of character goals. I'd sure like to see some kind of distinction between them, especially in a game which (forgive the jargon) has such a nice, down-to-earth feel about it, based on your description so far.

And then it strikes me too, that in such stories, the fates of characters other than the hero are actually more important than that of the hero. This might be a key concept for that itself might help overcome the "if my guy dies I gotta get a new guy" problem, which your clone solution is kind of a clunky solution for (I mean, not awful, but a bit forced, maybe).

Let me know if I'm getting too way-out on you, though. I'm also interested in what you think of the thread I linked to, above.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Wow. Thanks for the kudos.


I'm a little confused by the comment about the difference in death due to failure to meet or success in character goals.

IMO, If a character dies while pursuing their goals or satisfying their personality, then that's a success to me. The character is doing exactly what they were made to do. They aren't cowering in fear of loss. (Can you see the influence of Chris Kubasik's Oracle articles here?) Of course, it would probably tend to be more player satisfying if it happens during the climax. A character's death should have some important meaning, so maybe I should always reward that with an important in-game development. Maybe something along the lines of permanently stopping that Mastermind Villain from ever pursuing the same goal in future games. Have to think about it more after I hear other responses.

I suppose I really should come fuilly clean here with regards to character goals. I really liked(!) the concept of Spiritual Attributes in the Riddle of Steel and so I borrowed it for my game. (Thanks Jake! Wish I'd thought of it.) The theft does includes the advancement aspect, so the PCs can only improve by pursuing their goals.

The clone solution is a bit clunky. I'm going to explain a bit more about that, but don't read it as spoken defensively. I do want more teeth than what I'm about to post, but I haven't taken the time to rethink it and edit yet.

To add to the setting mix, I established that the human race is dying from genetic stagnation and so they began to Genetically engineer at a a furious rate. This of course, is only accelerating the process and gives me some opportunites for 'genegineered' horrors, mad scientistry and evoloution gone amuck. Living brains floating in liquid tanks, etc.

So brainpeeling (mind scanning) and cloning new bodies for Agents is a viable solution, in a way. It also would allow me to have many different recurring foes without going to any extreme lengths of believability. With the espionage focus, the players get to be paranoid about whether or not the 'home office' has been reading their memories. I can also (at some point) have the PCs run into other copies of themselves on other missions or (gasp) as opponents. Whee!

To size this all these effects down a bit, this cloning thing isn't immediate in results or avaliable everywhere. It will cost them some of their Core Points (Spiritual Attributes) to 'Save' their character in the Agency database. The end result should be that the players will see their death as a trade-off that might need to be made sometimes. They'll lose some gear (in the explosion, whatever) and as many Core Points as they earned since their last Save.

Cloning makes for a more Bondish/Video Gamish sort of game instead of a more gritty game. I'm still not sold on the idea...I'm definitelyy open to tweaks and options of the idea. One of the players is still helping me with playtesting, so there's till time for implementing options.

As for the threads you pointed out, I'm the usual GM. I no longer get attached to any character whereas the usual players get attached. They basically don't like having to start over, much like some of the other commenters mentioned. They like the thrill of accomplishment most, but appreciate a good storyline in a consistent gameworld. These guys happen to be the kind who play play for fun with a little catharsis. Although one of them always has 'things' about the color green, dwarves and people from Vermont. Don't ask me.

There was also talk about playing to the characters or to the players. I think that both are necessary over time to really sate the player's appetite. Not sure if that one player will ever get enough green, though.

One other thing mentioned was character monotony. To avoid this effect, I reduced character creation down to just a few choices. This should make it easy to create a new character and to highlight their choices, encouraging them not to make exactly the same sort of character again.

After all that, I think I may be too way-out for you now.

Thanks!
Sparky

Espionage is about things going kerflooie, and the agent dying? I think not.

Bond

will

never

die


OTOH, in only the second Bond theatrical installment he gets married, and his wife dies. When things go wrong in espionage, "people important to the protagonist" die. But he has to go on to deal with that, however he can.

At least that's how I see it. If you can't get tension out of the possibility that the character's wife might die, then threatening the character is unlikely to have any more tension. Make the player define NPCs important to the PC, and then watch as the tension rises as they are threatened. But don't ever worry that the PC will die. He should be immortal in such fiction.

BTW, this is a great way to link PCs in such a game. They have "important people" in common. Make sure each has at least two in common with each other PC, so that if one blows up that the other remains to hold them together until the missing NPC can be replaced.

Mike

Interesting ideas. I like the cloning, although I'm reminded of Paranoia(last clone standing!).

I think the core conflict with these things is that for the game to fun there has to be tension, but for there to be tension there has to be consequences, but consequences are non-fun. The only real solution to this to do something like mike said, where there is a way you can inflict consequences on a charachter, but it doesn't actually impede the players fun.  Unfortunatly players have to feel some connection to these charachters because otherwise they won't care that something bad happened to their connections.
Unfortunatly, all the solutions require some 'buy-in' from the players, i.e. they have to understand that sometimes, one of them may their fun reduced a bit, so that there can be tension and the rest of the time the can enjoy it more. Hope my weird ramblings made some sense.

Disagree.

When Indiana Jones is captured, is that a bad thing from the mind of the moviegoer? When Bond's wife is shot, is that a bad thing to the person in the audience sympathizing with that character? No.

The protagonist does not always succeed. But in all cases we feel for him. That is the only requirement. That the player have some reaction to the things that affect the character. Then it's all good, no matter what happens. Even if the character dies for some good reason, the player will be satisfied. When Bond's wie dies, it's a great thing from the player's POV. Sure it sucks from the character's POV. But for the player, now he has an excuse to get medieval on the badguys.

It is possible to have "negative" repercussions for the character that are all "positive" from the player's POV. The only way this would not be true is if the player were actually the character. To quote Mel Brooks, "Comedy is when you fall down a manhole into a sewer and die. Tragedy is when I cut my finger." The player is not the character, and can (and always do) regard them as a separate entity who's story they are watching unfold.

So the "connection" is one of observer. Not one of being. This is critical to understand. Tension always comes from the potential that the character can fail. Thus it does not matter that the conflict causing the tension has a failure condition that is death, or any other loss. Just that there is one, and that it's dramatically important. In that case, no matter what the outcome, the player will be pleased.

The only way this is not true is if the failure does reflect back on the player. That can only happen if he is invested personlly in the conflict. That only happens when there is some player metric involved. Hence Gamism. In Gamist play, failure means that the player has failed, and that sucks (but one accepts it as a neccessary part of competition). In Narrativism the player has no such stake. The only thing that is important to the player is that something dramatic happens. And since failure is as dramatic as success, failure is never less pleasing than success (and often quite a bit more pleasing).

This is why it's very dangerous to try and mix Gamism and Narrativism. Either the player will invest in the competition, and therefore be dissatisfied when he fails or does not find a decent challenge, or he will promote failure inhis character, and be punished for it.

So, which is it, Sparky? Do you want Gamism or Narrativism?

Mike

Hi Mike,

Most of the tension will not come from the characters being killed off. Really. And I like the NPC guideline you mentioned.


Hey Damion,

I haven't nailed down all the particulars, but the conflict resoloution mechanic should provide for some fun consequences. For example, I'm going to avoid wound penalties to actions and any sort of death spiral. Those kill the fun for me, so to speak.

One kind of result I'm imagining: "Success and Minor Advantage" which someone (player or GM) will use to narrate a result description. Maybe the PC uses the small advantage to have slightly better Initiiative next time or leap to a better position or a small landslide of rubble crashes between the foes, giving the PC a headstart on running away from the foe.

One of the aims of this is to give the players who don't GM the chance to get used to creating interesting consequences both positive and negative. Kind of like a meaured narrative mechanic.


Back to Mike,

Do I want them to be detached observers or personally invested? Pick one or the other?

My answer is that the individuals constantly demonstrate both and so I expect both. I know it sounds like heresy, but bear with me a sec.

A given player will sometimes limit their actions simply for the sake of character. Sometimes they'll want to succeed in the worst way, gaming for all they're worth. Sometimes they'll act in the best interest of the storyline. Sometimes they want to see how the dice fall and take it from there. It goes a long way towards satisfying them to allow them their choice in approach, and it gets more narrative as time goes on.

I'm basically trying to let the resoloution system do the work and let everyone ad-lib off it within the bounds of setting. Sometimes it will be positive, sometimes negative but almost always interesting.

I set-up a few things ensuring the sim needs of a multiple GMs in the setting and a few things that are gamist for just the simple pleasure of dice rolling fun. Being true to the characters'abilities and personalities results in a reward. That leaves the GM free from most system judgement calls to use their energies in-game to be the most creative with the storyline, or so my theory goes.

I think that I can have both Gamism and Narrativism if both are a bit limited. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. I won't really know how successful it is until it's playtested for a while. Hopefully I won't have to eat any crow. ;)

Thanks for your thoughts, guys.

Sparky

Quote from: SparkyI think that I can have both Gamism and Narrativism if both are a bit limited. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

You don't know how much I hate to be the one to say this, but:

I don't think you can accomplish this this way.

Gamism is very much about playing to win; narrativism is very much about exploring the premise of a moral, ethical, or otherwise personal issue.

Perhaps it might help if I suggest (at the risk of upsetting someone) that there's a difference between telling tales and telling stories. All role playing games create tales. You can go back and retell what happened, and sometimes enjoy very much describing how your team faced the dragon and brought him down, or fought the space pirates until you managed to escape in the life boat just before the ship exploded. This is telling tales. You can similarly suggest that playing just about any game or sport tells similar tales. The announcer at the baseball game relaying the events on the radio has his audience locked on to the tale he tells. The play-by-play recounting of a chess match may be a very tense and interesting tale to the right reader. But none of these things are stories.

Gamism may tell great tales, tales you'll tell again and again, about how you won or how you lost. But they don't, in the main, deal with the same kinds of personal issues as telling stories. It is never about whether it was the right thing to kill the dragon, or blow up the space ship. It's about whether you succeeded in the objective.

Look at the movie Dragonslayer. There's a tale there of a sorcerer who kills a dragon. But the story is about many other things--about a girl who has been hidden in plain site as a boy for her entire life, so she won't be sacrificed to the dragon; about a princess who discovers that she has been shielded from the risk of the lottery while all the other girls were at risk, and so sacrifices her own life; about the apprentice who thinks he has power and discovers he has little; about the faithful servant who doesn't know a bit of magic but understands his master's intention of coming back from the flames to kill the dragon, and dies trying to make that happen. The story is about all these things, not about killing the dragon. The quest to kill the dragon is in this case merely a catalyst to create the situation in which the issues are explored.

Now, when you're writing a book or a movie, you have control of the outcomes, and so can make the tale come out the way you want even while exploring the themes of the story. But when you're playing a game, you have to make choices between whether to do what is best for the tale or what is best for the story; that is, do you run this in such a way that it's about facing the challenge and winning or losing, or do you run it so that it is about those other issues?

I am convinced that you can play in a game that is gamist, narrativist, and simulationist; but I don't think you get there by limiting any of these. You get there by cutting away the things that limit them and allowing the game to find its center through the nature of the setting and the desires of the players. A game can't really be partly narrativist, partly gamist, and partly simulationist, I suspect. It must be fully dedicated to each of those it wishes to support, and prepared to let them fly. If that means that the last session was a gamist challenge to rescue the princess from the demons but this one is a narrativist conflict about whether to marry her or continue doing what the character does best and the next is a simulationist exploration of the lands around the kingdom, maybe that's a way to get there. But you can't really have a limited gamist effort to rescue the princess and a limited narrativist conflict about whether to marry her; that's nonsense. Maybe you can design a game that has controlled drift between them, or which manages them in some other way; but you can't really have a game work which doesn't at some point know what the player goals are, even if that changes.

I hope this makes sense; I'll probably get trounced for something here, but really, "limited narrativism" and "limited gamism" don't make sense to me, even apart from trying to combine them in one game.

--M. J. Young

Hi MJ,

I see no one trounced you. ;)

Perhaps I've used some terminology incorrectly, misunderstood responses and/or not expressed myself clearly. I certainly didn't mean to. If that's the case, you all have been very patient with me and I'll apologize right now.

I also tend to speak in generalities and apply general principles instead of focusing on just the particulars so I when I say something like 'story,' I mean 'a connected series of events.' On this forum certain words like story might have connotations that I'm not aware of or think to specify. Being aware of this, I usually try to offset this with examples.

I've acted under the impression that Narrativism was about story/theme and Gamism about accomplishing objectives and Simulation about being true to a particular source or setting.

IME, Gamist goals can be woven into a storyline and be dramatically brought to a Narratively satisfying climax, with or without an emphasis on Sim concerns. I'm using a Gamist mechanic which is limited (or modified or perhaps tempered) by the other approaches. Many Gamist games have a paragraph or two in the GM's section about fudging the results to make for a more satisfying story. Isn't that Gamism 'limited' by a dose of Narrativism? Maybe the use of the word Narratism in this sense is incorrect.

The goal of play, for me, is an interesting experience within the game world. The characters will act and react, exploring and discover things about themselves and the setting. This includes elements in the setting both pre-planned and implied, but are a product of everyone's decisions. So long as the play and resoloution is interesting, I am not concerned about a tempered bit of drift towards a certain approach from one scene to another. The resoloution is structurally Gamist, but that doesn't preclude the other concerns from affecting play.

I hope this makes more sense to everyone. Please advise.

Thanks
Sparky

Mike:Agree.

However it can be hard to alwasy come up with a method that is sadisfying to players as well as charachters. If a charachter dies fulfilling their goals,they probably don't mind all that much, but they player may still hate it because they have to make a new characther.

Well, I think your termenology is wrong. But hey,

Quote
The goal of play, for me, is an interesting experience within the game world. The characters will act and react, exploring and discover things about themselves and the setting.

Just because their are dice, doesn't mean the mechanics are gamist. Anyway, I made the same mistakes when first read GNS, still do quite often.
This appeares simulationist, (Actually, Sim Bond would be interesting).

Sparky, any more details about this? Mechanics, ect? It sounds kinda interesting.

Quote from: damionMike:Agree.

However it can be hard to alwasy come up with a method that is sadisfying to players as well as charachters. If a charachter dies fulfilling their goals, they probably don't mind all that much, but they player may still hate it because they have to make a new characther.

I want to think I'm getting through, but there still seems to be some sort of communication barrier. Maybe not, but I'm going to try one more time.

James, in Narrativist play, nobody gives a damn about how the character feels. That is, if he fails it's just as good as if he succeeds, as long as it fits the developing story. No Narrativist player or GM would ever have a character die unless the player wanted it to happen, or was at the very least not opposed.

Only in Narrativist games designed poorly in this regard (many of them at this point), or in games designed to support other modes, can a character die when it makes no sense to the storyline. InSpectres is a great example of a well designed game. Death has absolutely no place in an InSpectres story, so it's just not possible mechanically. In Hero Wars, it can happen if the GM is not attentive, but is still grossly unlikely. Hear that, everyone? A Fantasy Game where it's impossible to die "accidentally".

As such, characters can only die when someone playing in Hero Wars thinks it's appropriate. Thus, even if the character wanted to die, but the player does not in HW, he will not (assuming that the player is playing Narrativist; a Sim player can make it happen, and would be satisfied that it had). Were you aware that this was the case when playing HW with Ron, James? Does this reduce the tension while playing?

In Narrativist play, the player does what he wants at all times, and the characters motives are only important insofar as the player will want to make the action sensible (why would a player want to do otherwise).

So, what does this mean to Sparky? Well, players who prefer Narrativism will be disapointed by mechanics that allow accidental death. Players who prefer Gamism, will be disapointed by mechanics that don't allow this.

I fail to see how you can have both.

This is the sort of insoluble situation that has the prevailing attitude here at The Forge going with the general assumption that trying to mix your modes of play in design is not a good idea. At the very least it's terribly hard, and I personally have yet to see a set of rules that comes even close to fixing such problems.

So, if you think you are the one to do it, more power to you Sparky. But you'll be in uncharted waters that have swallowed a lot of good designers before you. Consider that it may be impossible (or just way more hassle than it's worth).

Check out these threads:
Can a game designer work for all three (G/N/S)? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3396)
is it the slice of the pie, or the size of the piece (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3329)

Actually, the way that you stated it, it almost sounds like you are suggesting Transition. Do a search for that term if you are interested in trying to create a game that alternates it's support. However, consider that my assumption is that that this is just creating three similar games, and allowing people to pick the one they like.

Mike

P.S. It just occurs to me that MJ's game Multiverser does not allow death. It alows a failure of sorts, but that failure is just to stay in the current universe. As such it's not even close to a counter-example in the traditional sense. That is, it's not a question of Death, or whatever, but of whether or not such punishes the player or not. As such, I'm going to guess that in Multiverser, that you can die "accidentally" and as such that it's either a Sim or Gamist part of the game.

Quote from: Mike HolmesP.S. It just occurs to me that MJ's game Multiverser does not allow death. It alows a failure of sorts, but that failure is just to stay in the current universe. As such it's not even close to a counter-example in the traditional sense. That is, it's not a question of Death, or whatever, but of whether or not such punishes the player or not. As such, I'm going to guess that in Multiverser, that you can die "accidentally" and as such that it's either a Sim or Gamist part of the game.

I would say that it's a bit more complicated than that, but in the main that would be  correct. The mechanic can seem simulationist or gamist, depending on how it's run; but the game has complexities beyond that. The rules provide interfacing with other games; we're working right now on an interface with a highly narrativist game in development elsewhere. Under Multiverser rules, if you verse into a "game world", you're subject to the rules of that game to the degree that that game covers your actions and equipment. (Multiverser rules still fill in gaps, where the player has an ability or piece of equipment which logically should fit in that world but doesn't adapt easily to the other game system.) Thus when we verse someone into a narrativist game system in which death mechanics are strictly limited in that way, the character can only be killed under the terms of that game system. Whenever he is killed, he is converted back to Multiverser rules for the next world.

This interfacing aspect is often overlooked. We're working on a book of interfacing rules for various games, but have to make arrangements with each author/publisher to be included. (In exchange, we let them include Multiverser interface rules in their publications, however they wish to distribute them.)

--M. J. Young

Mike:

Sorry. What I was trying to say is that  even in narrativism charachters may get into situations where the charachters dieing is the best for the story, and in fact them NOT dieing may be bad for the story, but this may not fit the goals of the player. In Gamism char death happens from 'failure'.  Gamists don't really like 'random' death, they want death to be the punishment for failure.
In Simulationism char death happens because that is what the system dictates(I.e. death fits with what is being 'Simulated').  
In Narrativism it is either player choice or a conflict between the player and the story(still player choice, but the player decided that they would rather have the story than a live characther).

In most systems charachter death comes down to GM control. (Even in HW). Basicly there is some point where the GM has to take explicit action to kill a charachter. Quite alot of GM'ing advice is how to turn a system where the system controls death to one where the GM controls it. (By say avoiding situations where death is a uncontrollable mechanical outcome).
It seems to me this is what Sparky is suggesting. I think it's an accepatable solution, as it allows the GM to tailor things to the group.

Quote from: damion
In most systems charachter death comes down to GM control. (Even in HW). Basicly there is some point where the GM has to take explicit action to kill a charachter. Quite alot of GM'ing advice is how to turn a system where the system controls death to one where the GM controls it. (By say avoiding situations where death is a uncontrollable mechanical outcome).
It seems to me this is what Sparky is suggesting. I think it's an accepatable solution, as it allows the GM to tailor things to the group.

Hmmm. That's a correct point. Yes, a GM can do that. The question is how powerfully the system enables the GM to do this. If it's obvious machination from the GM not supported by the system, that will alienate players who expect a Sim-looking system to act like one.

IOW, I suggest at least a HW level of GM and player empowerment over the outcome of the situation. And that means, basically, conflict resolution, FitM, and the "Failure means conflict" principle.

Mike

Hi all,

Mike: I'll read those threads and do the search for transition before I use any fancy terms like Gamist, Narrativist. Give me a day or two more and I should be able to eliminate that barrier and respond more accurately to your posts.

Damion:
I really should create a pdf explaing the whole thing, but here's a quickstart-type thing. The dice rolls are meant to provide a structure for play. Most of my players would be confused by the freedom of (say) Donjon. I'm just trying to make it easy for all of us.

=========
Non-dramatic tasks can usually be resolved by just stating the desired action. Certain tasks (like equipment repairs or singing) where the quality of result is important can be resolved by rolling two d10s and comparing them both to a difficulty number set by the GM. If desired, Trait points can be temporarily spent to succeed despite poor rolls.

To resolve a Scene, the player states their general intent and rolls two d10 against a Success target number and an Advantage target number. One of the dice is then assigned as the Success die and the other as the Advantage die. As above, points can be temporarily spent to improve one of the dice rolls, but only one of them.

These rolls are written as Success-dot-Advantage. When spoken, the numbers are simply stated as "number number." Ex: (9.0) is spoken as "nine zero."

The goal is to beat the target numbers. The die rolls minus their target numbers become the Result. Successive Results are added to the Results from last round or 0.0 at start. At this point the action is narrated according to the final Result. When the Result matches the target numbers, the goal of the scene is successful.

What happens is that each of the result numbers rise and fall with the ebb and flow of battle. The numbers drive the action and the resourceful use of Trait points can save the day.
==========

Scene Example:
Dirk the Swordsman is ambushed by the first of two monsters (difficulty of 5.5 when apart and 10.10 when together.) Pretty tough odds. The goal of the scene is obviously to survive.

First Round:
Since Dirk has been ambushed, he is on the defensive. He rolls a 5 and a 4, which he places as 4 Success and 3 Scene. He decides to defend the attack by spending one point from his Swordsman Trait to turn the 4 into a 5.

The Result is now a 5.3 and we take away the diff of 5.5, leaving the final Result of (0.-2) The player narrates that Dirk held off the monsters' attacks by some fancy footwork and some parrying with a quickly drawn sword.(This represents the 0 Success Result.) Unfortunately, he also leapt over a small chasm onto a narrow rock outcropping, which represents the -2 (dis)advantage with limited room to maneuver. It also has the effect of limiting his attackers to fighting only one at a time-much better odds than two on one.

Second Round:
The GM describes one of the beasts clumbsily leaping over the chasm, landing with a snarl and a spray of stones and pebbles. Dirk goes on the attack against a diff of 5.5  and rolls a 7.5. The new result is (7-5).(5-5) or 2.0, which make the final Result (+2,-2) for this round.

The player states that Dirk's sword strikes quickly and often, tearing into the monster's midsection but he does not drive the creature off. The fight would now continue into round three.

There are a few things I left out for sake of simplicity in the description, but that's the essence of how it works. It's all bits and pieces of many other games, of course, but it's meant primarily to act as a tool for creating interesting gameplay. What do you think?

Thanks,
Sparky

Hi again,

I wanted to detail just a couple more things, but seperately from the last post.

Mike, I'm concerned that that you might feel blown off because of my lack of immediate attention to your posts. Don't feel that way, I just want to really understand where you are coming from.

However, one of your posts made a comment about trying to succeed at linking two approaches where so many others have failed. I'm only trying to design a fun game system for my group...I had/have no pretensions of this effort topping anyone else's. Matter of fact, it is everyone else's good ideas that have allowed me to get something together I really like.

Anyway, back to the details:

Scene Conflicts
These are meant to provide tension by slowing down resoloution. They don't just get used for combat. They can be used for chase scenes or  escaping a trap or whatever.

Character Death:
A PC can only die during a Scene Conflict. Their highest trait determines the Result required. If a PC's highest trait is 9, then the final Result would would need to be (-9.-9) or worse.

A character is made with 20 Trait points and can gain more by making strong weaknesses. Reward points (Cores) can be spent to help them succeed in rolls or to escape the danger.

In the end, you'd almost have to want to have your PC die. If you entered a dangerous combat while low on points and didn't run away the PC might get overwhelmed and die. But that's really a choice. You can see it coming a long way away.

Spending
Points spent from a trait (like Dirk's Swordsman trait) actually double when used appropriately. So really, Dirk should have been (+1.+2) by the end of round two. It was too confusing to include that option in the example.

Limits on the GM
The GM is limited to a budget of twice the highest trait among PCs. (I'll call them tokens for right now.) Difficulty is purchased with Tokens at the beginning of the scene resoloution, with 1 Token equalling 1 Success and 1 Ad target number.

Tokens can also be used (before the roll) to increase the Success or the Ad target numbers. Tokens can only be recovered in the same amounts that the players recover their tokens, so they must be spent wisely.

(Scene difficulties include the factors that affect all participants all the time while Advantage diffs affect only one party at a time. Points spent after the Scene starts only apply for that round.

In the second round of the example, I could have made the Success target higher by saying that the second monster began throwing rocks at Dirk, for example. I could have just as easily said that Dirk was now looking west into the setting sun for a harder Ad target.

So the GM has currency to balance out the threats that can be brought to bear on the PCs while the PCs currency outnumbers the GMs.


Thanks,
Sparky

Hi all,

As you probably guessed, I'll be absorbing the GNS theory and its applications for quite awhile. I'll post any ideas and questions I have about GNS in the Theory forum.

For this game, I wanted a more Gamist approach because that's our current preference. I realize that this is not to the prevailing taste here and so I really appreciate the feedback and encouragement that I received.

Thanks!
Sparky

I don't feel blown off at all. Take whatever time you need, Sparky.

Quote from: SparkyFor this game, I wanted a more Gamist approach because that's our current preference. I realize that this is not to the prevailing taste here and so I really appreciate the feedback and encouragement that I received.

It's not true that we don't prefer the Gamist approach, really. I think that what most people really object to more, is the fact that most gamist designs are broken. Mostly because they are mixed with other modes of play. Games often effectively tell players, "Play to win; but only if it's "realistic" or "dramatic" to do so." Then the player is left to choose one or the other, and play gets all messed up.

Take a look at the Iron Game Chef (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3766) competition for some great examples of coherent Gamist designs.

That all said, what you seem to be doing sounds pretty Narrativist to me. The idea that a player can see and avoid death situations, thus putting the power to control when he might die into his hands is pretty Narrativist. There are, strangely enough, some strong similarities between Gamism and Narrativism (the willingness to accept a lot of non-continuity driving metagame). You might be surprised.


James, I re-read what you posted. And I just have to comment again. If you are reading a book, and the main character dies, and you think, "damn, that sucks, I wanted to see more stuff happen to him", is that a good story? A good story is one in which the sort of things that the audience wants to see happen, happens. So, at no time is the character dying in an RPG when the players don't want it to happen, good for the story. As the players are the audience. What makes a good story is whatever sorts of things that they'd like to see happen. Resolution systems, then, are only springboards for creativity. To the extent that they cause stuff to occur that the players don't like, they are anti-Narrativist.

This is key to understanding Narrativism. There is no story for story's sake. There is only story for the player's sake.

Mike

Mike, I'm going to take issue with this idea:

Quote from: Mike HolmesA good story is one in which the sort of things that the audience wants to see happen, happens. So, at no time is the character dying in an RPG when the players don't want it to happen, good for the story. As the players are the audience. What makes a good story is whatever sorts of things that they'd like to see happen. Resolution systems, then, are only springboards for creativity. To the extent that they cause stuff to occur that the players don't like, they are anti-Narrativist.

My thinking is that there is a balance here. A good story is one in which the reader is surprised by what happens, but not unhappy about it. Hey, I wanted the Fellowship of the Ring to stay together all the way to Mordor; Tolkien had a better idea. I wanted Gollum to reform and Frodo to bravely throw the ring into the crack in Mount Doom; again, Tolkien's idea was better.

The point is that a story needs to do things we neither expect nor want, in order to be better than the story we would have created ourselves.

That doesn't mean that whether a character dies or lives is of no consequence; it does mean that it might be a better story when the character we wanted to have live dies.

Looked at another way, I write stories. Often when I'm writing, I will write myself into a corner. It will become apparent that what I thought was going to happen, or what I wanted to have happen, can't happen because of what I've already written. At that point, I could decide that I've messed up the whole thing, toss out fifty pages, and try to rewrite the whole thing. I'm not like that. What I do is try to figure out where the story will go, how I can make it better than what I had intended. Usually I succeed. Often I find wonderful plot elements from trying to resolve story events which I would not have found otherwise.

As an example, I recently put a book character into the situation of being born over again, with all his past knowledge intact. This character had telepathic abilities, which was not normative. Before he was more than a few months old, he decided to telepathically contact his new mother to try to figure out what was happening to him. Once he managed to convince her that she was not crazy, she did the logical thing that he--and I--had not seen coming: she told his father. Now he had to choose between letting dad believe mom was crazy, or showing dad his abilities. Dad did not take it terribly well; this being a rather primitive setting, there were immediately questions about whether this was some sort of demon child. Mom defended her son. Perhaps, she said, their child was some sort of god-sent deliverer, to help the people in their time of need. Oops--I'd had no idea about a deliverer, or a time of need. I actually had not yet figured out quite what the character was going to do when he grew up, as I was primarily exploring bringing the character through growing up. But this gave me a major story, about racial oppression, in a fantasy setting.

It's certainly not necessary; but it isn't entirely detrimental to narrativist play to have entirely unanticipated and seemingly negative events including possibly character deaths. Hey, I thought the movie Executive Decision was terrible despite a good cast; and I really did not like it at all when Segal's character was blown away in the boarding effort. But that's one of the best scenes in the (otherwise weak) film, and it sets up the real conflict of the movie, the aspect of the commando team taking orders from the inexperienced guy. It might have been a good film (it's probably a good book) given that story. (What I don't like is the constant repeat of "go--no, wait" which starts to become ridiculous.)

--M. J. Young

We really don't disagree in principle, MJ. We disagree in how to get the effect sought by the principle.

I've said that randomness is OK. That it is a springboard from which creativity comes. Yes, it should provide unforseen twists and turns. I've never said, or meant to imply that the player should simply get what he wants. Just that he should find the output satisfacttory in al lcases. We agree that, in the end, the result should not leave the players unhappy. That's all I've said.

Further, as in your writing experience, I think that there is no way that in a game with multiple players that one could ever have an outcome that was entirely predicted by one of the authors.  Certainly not in Narrativism as defined. So that's completely a straw man. It's going to be random in any case.

My point has been that unexpected death is very rarely, if ever, a pleasing result to the NArrativist player. Whoops, rolled really terribly, and Bob the Magnificent died by the hand of Mook #4 leaving a huge number of really excellent story threads hanging.

How is that at all something the player wants? This is not a dramatic setback, it's the end of the character's story. As I've said, it's not success that we're concerned with maintaining, but simply the players' power to continue to play until such time as they think that a termination of the story is appropriate.

Again, we're assuming Narrativist here. You're comments certainly make sense if you are talking about Simulationism. Where the player is more concerned with internal consistency or something than he is with story. It's your refusal to understand that this is precisely where the line between Narrativism and Simulationism is drawn that leads you to believe that there is no line, and that a game can support both equally well, it seems to me.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't have a coherent hybrid that plays of a bit of both. That's an option. But, as with all hybrids, the probable result is drift to a manageable mode. IME, the usual response to such a hybrid is Illusionism. Wherin the GM takes personal responsibility for ensuring that the story is maintained by, amongst other things, making sure that the characters somehow survive as long as neccessary. This was my mode of play for the longest time. And it works just fine for Sim players. But the players who prefer Narrativism hate it. As such, if that's what you want to support, then one needs to put the ability to survive (read "continue the plot)" square and openly in the hands of the participants.

Mike

Hey,

This requires some set up, so please pardon the length.

(What am I talking about? This is The Forge!) :)

In 7th Sea, there is only one way for a character to die. It involves a couple of mechanics.

First, there are 3 "ranks" of characters in 7th Sea: Heroes and Villains, Henchmen, and Brutes.

Heroes and Villains have a Flesh Wound/Dramatic Wound system that lets them keep running around after they've been hurt. When you finally do fail your Resolve roll, your character does not die. The specific game term is "Fall Down." This means, your character can fall off a two-hundred foot high cliff and not die. He'll be Knocked Down for a real long time, but he won't be dead.

The only way for a Hero or Villain to die is for him to be Knocked Down and a Hero or Villain (not a Brute and not a Henchman) spend an action and say, "I kill him." The killing blow must also be accompanied by a Drama Die (hero point/fate point/etc.), so if the killer has no die, he cannot commit the killing blow.

Hope that helps.

Quote from: John WickHope that helps.

Well, it's a perfect example of mechanics that restrict this one outcome to only the most dramatic of moments. Thanks, John, both for the example, and having created it. :-)

Nobody that I know would claim that there is no tension in 7th Sea combat. Yet it's impossible to die inappropriately. Fancy that.

Mike

Hello,

Nice example, John. For an accompanying example, see Orkworld, in which a character may die but the Trouble he causes/earns lives on ... oh, you know that game? Fancy that.

I'm very concerned that Sparky's goals are not being met in this thread. For one thing, Mike, you introduced James Bond and Indiana Jones into the discussion, and if I'm not mistaken, neither of these are "espionage" in the sense of this game. Death in Bond or Indy is candy; death in LeCarre is climactic, as well as simultaneously grubby and operatic. Sparky, help me out - give me an example of a character death in the game you envision, both in player terms (what happens at the table) and in in-game terms (what happens in the fictional events).

Best,
Ron

Hey there,

The concept and choice of whether to include character death is thorny. I asked my original question in hopes that some (more Narrative minded than myself) people would contribute their ideas about when or under what conditions they would have a PC die.

And they did - the short answer is "not normally." But the discussion has led into some interesting and important places too.

I wanted to have the unexptected, the freedom to risk and win, the freedom to lose- even ultimately lose and yet control character death. And as witth everything else, the direction I have pursued is within hodge-podge blends. Much of this is not directly expressable in the rules but in how things are to be described and handled. The degree of true danger to the PCs is actually dependent on exactly how the game is being handled for a given night.

I've allowed, if desired, for different games (within the bounds of setting) to have slightly different focuses. (Is this technically a form of planned Drift?) I expect standard play to eventually center somewhere dependent on the individuals, but there will also be a flavor wobble imposed by each GM for each night's game (Four Color, True Color or Monochrome.) So the players know that in (say) True Color that the game will be more of a Sim (perhaps more deadly intent than usual and that cloning is not always available or automatically successful.)

My espionage also has a military bent, which comes from the old days of playing Top Secret and the less known video game Covert Action. Lots of action and doing spy stuff like infiltrating, meeting contacts, using cool gadgets and accomplishing missions within parameters. Of course, I want to see lots of over-the-top action (Bond,)  but sometimes I want them to feel the pounding surf and stinging sand as they assault a beachhead. Sometimes it will be more mystery solving and investigative work (a la Sherlock Holmes.)

Too, I want some of the flavors that come from old war movies: do-or-die, slog-thru-the-mud, etc. Sometimes things are life or death important, but not everything. Sometimes a buddy suddenly dies during an otherwise easy mission in a mostly friendly (read pacified and civilized) locale. Sometimes it's just the way that things happen (how the dice fall.)

I also happen to have liked Farscape for it's freshness of approach to the main characters. You never really knew if they were going to add to the mains or take one away. At one point, it seemed to me that they might even kill off the lead, and in more than one way they did.

Part of the exercise is to make death a valid choice among choices. Sometimes it is meant to force the issue - and force the players to create a new character. A new clone replacement is not always going to be available.

Specific instances not otherwise noted:

1. Death when the self-sacrifice of a PC is what wins the big climactic battle, whether it is from a narrative motive of the player's or not. It might even be the only way to win sometimes.

2. Death as a result of the under-handed nature of espionage which can include assasination attempts, booby traps, truly deadly foes, etc.


As for player enjoyment, the big issue I want to avoid is hurt feelings. BUt I want to shake the players themselves up too.

Most of us here are aware (or of the opinion) that it's not so bad to see character die, having made a decent story. For the players that can appreciate and enjoy this, they can create legends.

But for those that might cling to a character..if the PC does die, then it is as a result of gameplay in a 'truly' dangerous setting. It is not the GM simply deciding to kill off PCs. It is a result of a series of choices where the PC went too close to danger (by choice or fortune.) I play games at my best ability and yet still losing sometimes. It doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the play.

Also, as a shot in the arm, MJ mentioned somewhere above that it is not necessarily undesirable to have sudden death in a narrative. Likewise, it wouldn't be so bad for some of them to be a little shook up by losing a character. It's just a game.

Sorry for the long-winded answer. I felt like I was talking all around your question, but I wanted to explain my intents. Hopefully it addresses your questions.

Sparky

One more thing Ron,

I was a little confused about this statement of yours (awhile back...)

"...character death in this kind of game. It strikes me that there are two kinds: death meaning failure of character goals, and death meaning success of character goals. I'd sure like to see some kind of distinction between them..."

I'm still curious about exactly what you meant. What did you have in mind? I hate to pass up any good ideas.

Thanks,
Sparky

Hi Sparky,

Sorry for not following up on this before. I've been kinda busy with Infamous Spawn and whatnot.

Let's see. OK, take a secret agent guy. Let's say that it's not about the gadgets in his jockstrap or his ultimate cool taste in mixed drinks, nor about over-the-top stunts. No, it's about day in, day out cover identity in an eastern European country, working with slightly vague instructions when you're bloody aware that they're the result of political jockeying among competing intelligence firms of the same government, dealing with informers who you bloody well know work both sides of the fence.

Your goal? There's a girl, Sofia, who really wants to get across a particular border and start her life over. She's not political, she's not educated and knows nothing about the sometimes-deadly life you lead, but she trusts you. You've told her nothing can be done, but you've promised to help her in your mind.

OK, the assignment goes wrong and the agents of seven different political blocs are all shooting each other. You had to kill two guys, one of whom was actually on your own government's side but insisted on believing some disinformation. Or maybe the information you've gathered is the disinformation, who knows? Both the major political parties (the one your government supports and the one the Other Side supports) are crumbling, and the country itself is probably going to get the Military Coup (tm) Treatment any minute now.

So screw it. It's all about Sofia, now - can you get her papers forged and help her get across the border? Your life is nothing - lies, empty patriotism, mumbling politics, atrocities accepted for the hope of a promotion, assassinations of innocents when they got in the way.

1) You die. Sofia escapes. (Heroic sacrifice)
2) You die. Sofia cannot escape. (Tragedy)
3) You live. Sofia escapes. (Redemption)
4) You live. Sofia cannot escape. (Despair)

Does that help?

Best,
Ron

P.S. Sparky, if it's OK with you, let me know your given name. I like using those instead of web-handles.

Hey there,

Yes, that helped understanding what you meant. I'd like to see the game played like that sometimes. You mentioned wanting to see a distinction between them?  Slightly different kinds of rewards for Tragedy and Heroic Sacrifice, maybe? Or am I missing the point?

I'll update my bio to include my given name.

Sparky
(Chris)

Hi Chris,

It's not really a matter of what I want to see, 'cause it's your game to design. I'm saying, back up and look at the point of this entire thread. It is, I think, What's the point of a player-character dying?

Going back to the origin of role-playing design, the original assumption is that player-character death = player loss conditions = "game over," at least for a while. This is consistent with the competitive context that the hobby fostered in the late 1970s.

Now, not everyone wants to play in that context. Therefore to use the same rules-set (e.g. D&D and many like it), character death became less permanent, with resurrections and hit-point levels that could withstand any amount of damage and whatnot. But these are just epicyclical "fixes" to the pre-existing assumption, and not very useful or elegant design.

So I'm saying, put aside any assumptions you have about how character death relates to player enjoyment. It doesn't have to mean, "You lose." It can be something totally different - especially if player-character death actually helps to achieve the player's goal for that character.

Answer the question above from the ground up. Given what your game is about, given your image of a group of people playing it - and imagine a player-character dying. What does the player say? (1) "Aw fuck," and he has to sit out? (2) "Yeah baby! Sofia escapes! I have died with one shred of honor to my name!" and everyone cheers? or (3) Something else? If so, what?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I'm specifically aiming for the capability of having an epic game with real challenges. (I think epic is the right word.) And it's fine if it never actually goes in that direction but I also don't want to hinder it by not including death. The deepest reason I include death mechanics is that I don't think you can have true challenge without true risk.

I think that if a PC dies but has the chance to be 'ressurected' somehow then that is a more-than-acceptable player-loss condition because it is temporary. If this is not possible, then the death as a heroic sacrifice (esp. in contrast to the dictates of espionage) is a very good thing. These options are usually suffcient...It's mostly going to be light hearted play for at least the first few games of a given campaign, maybe most of the games.

But I think that when a 'long lived' PC permanently dies, it forever changes the game. No one is invincible. Important people can die - in fact, one of the most important DID die.

I think (in the few instances I have seen it happen) that inspires much more heroic play. Maybe heroic isn't the right word, but the players/PCs become far more likely to pursue more noble goals and self-sacrificing deeds than ever before. Collateral and incidental damage to innocents is something to be avoided. Even incidental NPCs lose some of their 'cannon fodder' status and tend to have much more value to the players. They're less likely to pursue vengeances over minor insults or to hunt down that last orc just for sport.

The portrayal of character becomes deeper and has a little edge, a little more immersive. Things matter. We're doing important things. Only we can save the day and even then we just might not. We might not even survive it either - either way, we cannot allow ourselves to fail.

On a parrallel line, MJ wrote this in an earlier thread:
"The point is that a story needs to do things we neither expect nor want, in order to be better than the story we would have created ourselves."
I want a real challenge, as a player and as a GM. I want to be surprised and pleased with an interesting experience. Take out the possibility of the ultimate loss and it cheapens the characters and the play, for me at least.

We all have fun playing these games but there are moments that really shine. These moments are what gamer-stories are all about. About PCs meeting true challenges and risks, whether succeeding or failing.

Chris