Character Death Mechanics?

[John Wick]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

Hope 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

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Sparky]

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

[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

[Ron Edwards]

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.

[Sparky]

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)

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Sparky]

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