Character death revisited (now with bricolage!)

[LordSmerf]

I've been thinking about Chris Lehrich's stuff on bricolage and long term play, and a couple of comments on this post on Anyway really caught my attention.

But I also wanted to say this -- thus far, based on my own personal experience, I think it's easier to deal with the death of a PC in a closed-ended game. For me personally, knowing that there will be an end frees me from worrying that I might "screw things up" by killing my PC.

to which Charles responded:

I so totally agree with this. Character death in a short run game can easily say something as interesting as the character could say by staying alive and being able to do more stuff. Character death in an on-going campaign means the end of something that is likely to have been built up into an incredibly subtle and powerful tool for saying things.

And I thought, "hey, that's bricolage!"  Since you asked, here's my take:

If we accept that idea that over play we accrete game specific stuff ("game" in this case referring to a specific campaign), then we can consider a character to be a form of bricolage.  There are assumptions and baggage and history involved that say a lot.  The longer we play, the more stuff a character means.

In short term play (say, three sessions or less), all of the characters are going to be wiped out at the end of play.  In this situation allowing a character to die is simply having the inevitable happen early for some reason.  Often this reason is for some thematic statement, but whatever.

The closer you are to the end of the game, where all characters are lost anyway, the less "painful" it is to have a character die.  If there are only (say) thirty minutes left in the game, you aren't really losing much by "giving up" your character.

(This avoids the player agency sans a character issue, that's a different topic.)

In long term play (play with no definite end) characters are never about to be removed from play.  The longer a character is in play the more powerful they become as a symbol.  All the history of play is part of that character.  The result is that the longer you play with a character, the more you have invested, the less inclined you are to "throw them away" to make a statement.

This combined with the idea (which I haven't much considered, but seems valid to me) that an undeveloped character doesn't make for a very meaningful death generates a type of play in which, by the time you have developed a character to the point where their death is meaningful you don't want to let them die because the result would be having to start all over.  Starting all over would mean having a low-powered symbol.  By keeping your current symbol alive and continuing to increase it's meaning you get more milage then losing it and starting over.

Here's where you come in:

Does this seem to make sense?  Is there some thresh-hold at which a character's importance becomes high enough that death is meaningful?  In unlimited (no defined end/no end in sight) play, does crossing that thresh-hold also give you a character that is worth more alive than dead?  What other interesting stuff can be extrapolated from this?

Thomas

[Marco]

Well, I have some strong feelings on this--but I don't know how well they fit with the Bricolage assessment.

1. Most of my play is in one-shot games that run over 3-4 days with heavy play (my write ups here and many I haven't written up).

In the most recent one, I realized that, if my character died towards the end, I'd be satisfied since I had accomplished what I wanted to in the game ("I was clean.") The death would not make "a statement" but would, in that sense, actually bring closure to the character arc.

Interestingly (if a bit off topic) the character did die at the end (as a martyr) and, by 'suicide' saved a lot of people. In the context of the game, though, I didn't see this as a sacrafice: the game was ending and the afterworld was, in the game, a sure bet. The other player however, was not happy with the death of his character (he did it, for the common good--but noted that he'd rather have lived--even though the game didn't continue and there would be no follow-up).

2.  Our social contract doesn't allow for introducing new PC's after death easily. In the cases of PC sacrafice there will be a substantial effort to re-introduce the player (and, in fact even if it wasn't--if the player wants back in)--but this is done with a good deal of attention to plausiblity and may involve the new character being run solo for a while to "catch up" on in-game story.

So it's a big hassel. Mostly, if PC's die, we would probably just start another game.

This means that: yes, there's a point at which I'd make the statement of sacraficing the PC--but, there would be real consequences to pay (usually) and the price would be high.

3. I wrote an adventure called Season of Worms (which you can look at on my site) to explore the issue of PC death. It's a one-trick-pony, one-shot where each player gets 2-pre-gen PC's. One is a nasty popular high-school-kid. One is a more loveable social outcast.

In the 'second act' (and the adventure's first act is heavily scripted) the popular kids go up to the haunted house and "all get killed." This doesn't make a statement, so much as kick things off for the rest of the game (the second set of characters have a shot at saving the day).

It's no prize of open-ened scenario design and is intended as a 1-shot halloween style game. It's pretty railroady.

But: it was concieved of as a way to have the horror of PC death combined with the thrill of it (the characters that die you may really dislike by that point). In practice, I've recieved feedback that, despite the players pretty much knowing they were going to die, it was still a very enjoyably scary experience (one player kicked the GM under the table when she was badly spooked).

I think this means that PC death, even as a statement, is often meaningful in terms of loss if the player identifies with the character.

I don't think that identity and making a statement are exclusive so that doesn't surprise me.

-Marco

[Kesher]

If we accept that idea that over play we accrete game specific stuff ("game" in this case referring to a specific campaign), then we can consider a character to be a form of bricolage. There are assumptions and baggage and history involved that say a lot. The longer we play, the more stuff a character means.

My understanding of bricolage, applied to gaming, is that it involves using something present in a given total-collection-of-instances-of-playing (in a Big Model sense; i.e., Social Contract as well as all elements of Exploration, etc.), over time, to create new meaning with a new use of that thing(this new use necessarily containing elements or echoes of the old use.)  

In your example then, do you see the "thing" being changed over time as the collection of system-elements that make up the "character", necessarily including social contract and relevant CA assumptions on how characters should be used/played?

I ask these questions not to be obtuse or jargony, but because I think you're asking a fascinating question(!), and given that the meaning of "bricolage" as a gaming-applicable term is perhaps still on shaky ground, I wanted to be sure we had the same thing in mind before I reply to the questions at the end of your post.

[LordSmerf]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.  Could you perhaps expand a bit, or rephrase things?  I want to answer your question, but I'm not sure what the question is...

Thomas

[Kesher]

Yah, well, honestly, when I read over my post, it didn't make a lot of sense.  Sorry 'bout that.  I really shouldn't post at the end of a school day on a Friday...

Anyhow, I was trying to find out what your actual take is on the term "bricolage", as applied to the meaning of characters and their eventual death.  The term itself is, I think, not yet very concretely defined in relation to gaming.  Aaaargh... This still reads thickly.

Lemme go another way entirely:

Starting all over would mean having a low-powered symbol. By keeping your current symbol alive and continuing to increase it's meaning you get more milage then losing it and starting over.

What you're saying here I agree with; your new character will no longer be a mover-and-shaker in the game world.  However, do you think (especially tied to the idea of bricolage being a process of myth-making within the Setting), that the hesitant attitude towards character death might be somewhat lessened by knowing that their character will now become part of the internal mythos of the campaign ("Tell us the story of Johnny Strongpants who held the bridge against 23 trolls!")?

Also, a general question:  How much do people think CA figures in here?  Will a Narr vs. a Gam. vs. a Sim-inclined player view character death differently?

[LordSmerf]

<snip>

What you're saying here I agree with; your new character will no longer be a mover-and-shaker in the game world.  However, do you think (especially tied to the idea of bricolage being a process of myth-making within the Setting), that the hesitant attitude towards character death might be somewhat lessened by knowing that their character will now become part of the internal mythos of the campaign ("Tell us the story of Johnny Strongpants who held the bridge against 23 trolls!")?

Aha!  I see.  No, this isn't actually what I'm talking about at all really.  When I use the term "power" (which was perhaps ill-considered), I'm not talking about Effectiveness.  I'm not talking about the difference between a level 1 and a level 10 D&D character.

What I'm talking about here is really probably not that big a factor in pure Gamism (but I'm not sure that anyone plays purely Gamist).  Here's what I mean: My character Joe betrays his brother to their worst enemy to save his girlfriend.  This is a powerful statement in its own right.  However, this is a much more powerful statement if we know something about Joe.  Does he have a history of betrayal?  Did his brother betray him?  Has he been resisting betraying his brother for years?  Having a history makes the statement more powerful, it gives the statement more meaning.

What I'm saying is that by giving up your current symbol which has all this baggage, all this history (which is what I think bricolgae is about here) any statements I make will be made with a weaker tool.

To expand on where bricolage figures in here: Every time Joe the PC does something that gets added to what Joe is.  How do we know that this is Joe and not some character with the same stats?  Well, he did this, and this, and this.  All of these things he does constrain him and make him more powerful.  Any choice he makes is amplified and highlighted by all the choices he's made previously.

So a character is built up over time through a bricolage-like process.  This decision, and that decision, and this failure to decide all go into this big concept of "Joe the PC".  If he dies then I have to start all over from scratch.  His decisions don't have the same weight because they don't have the history.

Also, a general question:  How much do people think CA figures in here?  Will a Narr vs. a Gam. vs. a Sim-inclined player view character death differently?

Almost definitely, but at this point I have no idea how.  Discussion of this topic is encouraged in this thread.

Thomas

[Silmenume]

Hey there Thomas,

I'm not quite sure what to say or add to your discussion right now, but as a dyed in the wool "Sim-mer" I think you are onto something "important."  Not too long ago there was some discussion about "player risk" and how it was manifest in the various CA's.  Risk was readily identified in both Gam and Nar, but we came up short with regards to Sim.

I think this thread begins to tackle this issue from an effective position and I agree with you basic tenet that the longer a player has played a given Character, the greater the "meaning" of his actions.  Thus a "higher level" Character laying his life on the line to accomplish some task is going to carry much more weight (meaning) than a similar action undertaken by a brand new/low level Character.  I should note that the correlation between level and "weight of Character" is only loosely correlated and the phrasing was only meant as a short cut and not meant to imply level is what gives Character "weight."

So a character is built up over time through a bricolage-like process. This decision, and that decision, and this failure to decide all go into this big concept of "Joe the PC". If he dies then I have to start all over from scratch. His decisions don't have the same weight because they don't have the history.

And here is where the "risk" portion comes in.  As the Character gains "affective weight" every additional action he takes further increases this ability to take meaningful actions.  Here's where the risk lies in Sim – As the Character is player he becomes more "valuable" as a meaning making commodity, but in order to become "valuable" said Character must be risked.  Why?  Because the "value" of the Character is exactly what the player is "risking".  Lose the Character and the player's "voice" loses power in the ongoing dialogue.  Thus when a player takes a great risk in losing his Character to accomplish something, especially one that has been played for a long time and has great "weight", then the player is saying, "This is important to me!"

I agree that the longer the history of a given Character the greater the "impact" said Character's actions have on the players.  In my thread An effort to un-gum the Discussion, I employed the term "affect" and which Chris suggested "result", which I think describes what I think you are discussing here in this thread.  Let me know if we are on the same page with regards to "making statements".

[LordSmerf]

Jay,

I think we're pretty much on the same page here.  I'd like to slightly rephrase my position for clarity:  The type of play in which you build up a character like this is what Vincent calls Player-empowered Thematic play, and I think he's spot on.  If you are not addressing theme at all, and you are not competing, then there's actually no risk in losing a character.  There really aren't any advantages in established characters if you don't want theme or competition.  At least, that's what I'm thinking at the moment.

Now, you may or may not agree with Vincent's positions on what Nar, Sim, and Gam play are which is cool.  But if there's no Theme in play, then it doesn't really matter if you have an established character or not.

So, yeah, I think we're talking about the same thing here as long as we include the caveat that this only applies in the context of play that cares about Theme.

Thomas

[contracycle]

What you're saying here I agree with; your new character will no longer be a mover-and-shaker in the game world.  However, do you think (especially tied to the idea of bricolage being a process of myth-making within the Setting), that the hesitant attitude towards character death might be somewhat lessened by knowing that their character will now become part of the internal mythos of the campaign ("Tell us the story of Johnny Strongpants who held the bridge against 23 trolls!")?

Yes I think thats great, and that it would help.  The only problem is the time scale - becuase in most games, playing in real time or nearly so, its unlikely the game will run long enough for that to actually happen and for the commemoration to be raised.  If time were accelerated further, such that ALL characters were memorialised by default, and that these actually had soem kind of screen presence, then it might have more bite.

[LordSmerf]

What you're saying here I agree with; your new character will no longer be a mover-and-shaker in the game world. However, do you think (especially tied to the idea of bricolage being a process of myth-making within the Setting), that the hesitant attitude towards character death might be somewhat lessened by knowing that their character will now become part of the internal mythos of the campaign ("Tell us the story of Johnny Strongpants who held the bridge against 23 trolls!")?

and then

Yes I think thats great, and that it would help. The only problem is the time scale - becuase in most games, playing in real time or nearly so, its unlikely the game will run long enough for that to actually happen and for the commemoration to be raised. If time were accelerated further, such that ALL characters were memorialised by default, and that these actually had soem kind of screen presence, then it might have more bite.

And now I'm going to weigh in on the subject.  I'm not sure if it would help at all.  Here's why...

We already see people risking characters in long-term play.  Jay mentions things "just that important" and thus the statement made by the risk is a big one.  Having a "you will be immortalized in song" or whatever doesn't mitigate at all the problem posed by losing a symbol with built up meaning.

What it does do, which may encourage risking a character, is provide another reason to risk.  In addition to the player finding whatever in-game goal or thematic statement or whatever important, there's also this other thing acting as an incentive to risk ("Hey, if you die then you get this cool bonus prize!").

So, does it encourage players to risk their characters?  Probably.  Does it lessen any of the negative things involved?  No, but it does provide some new positive stuff on the other side.

Thomas

[contracycle]

Well, I take the point, but the idea I was trying to present was not that you get the statement "you are immortalised in song" but that this song actually becomes an object in the game space, which you run into every so often.  It's not just a pat on the head - its a part of the landscape.  And in a sense, I see that as putting the character into the landscape - because in this way, the characters life lends meaning to the setting, and the setting lends meaning to the characters life.  So I would think that quite a number of the original associations would be recalled whenever the memorial is encountered.  One might see it as tha apotheosis of character into setting.

[LordSmerf]

Very interesting...  I think you may be on to something here.  If character death does not end player agency through that character then character death doesn't mean losing your symbol and starting over.  It means getting a new symbol and modifying the old one.

How would you handle this in play?  Because to me the key is to ensure that the player still retains nearly full control over the character's impact on the SIS even after the character dies...

I think this is an appropriate topic for this thread as well...

Thomas

[Brendan]

Very interesting...  I think you may be on to something here.  If character death does not end player agency through that character then character death doesn't mean losing your symbol and starting over.  It means getting a new symbol and modifying the old one.

How would you handle this in play?  Because to me the key is to ensure that the player still retains nearly full control over the character's impact on the SIS even after the character dies...

I should note that the correlation between level and "weight of Character" is only loosely correlated and the phrasing was only meant as a short cut and not meant to imply level is what gives Character "weight."

I think there's something very interesting in the intersection of these two quotes.  What if, rather than level implying "weight of Character," the reverse is true, and weight determines level?  (Assuming we're using a level-based system, I guess, but you get the idea.)  What if characters can continue to gain levels after death, as more deeds and battles are attributed to them?

It's a common phenomenon in mythology and oral histories that the accomplishments of one person or group are conflated with those of a better-known or more popular one (for that matter, this is still the case with quotes and memes on the Internet).  All stories of tricksters become Coyote; the resurrection legends of conquered cultures all become Osiris.

I think the most direct way of implementing this would be the Zorro / Jackaroo / Dread Pirate Roberts conceit of a mask that defines the person behind it--although it could just as easily be a name, title, position or legendary weapon.  If one wearer dies, another takes the mask and gains all the influence and "character weight" of the legend.  The new wearer may not have all the strength and skill of the previous one; then again, maybe she has more.  What's important is her personal gravity, the way she bends things around her in the game world.

Which is to say that when your character dies, you roll up a new one who may have different stats and background, but has exactly the same level and SIS recognition.  Young Otis may be a Level 2 Peasant who's Good At Pig-Feeding, but everybody knows that The Caped Ghost is a Level 10 Vigilante who can Ride Like a Demon and Fence Like the Wind.  And when Otis puts on the Cape...

Okay, I'm not sure if I'm getting off topic here, but now I really want to write this game.

[LordSmerf]

Well, it's probably off topic, so let's not go too far, but I'll allow it for now...

You have an interesting suggestion, but it's totally not what I'm talking about here.  Here's why:  The statement-making ability of a character is not tied to what the imagined world knows about him, but about what the players know about him.

As players we know that Young Otis isn't the Caped Ghost, and any statement made by Otis's choices don't carry the same impact for the players that they would have if they were made by the original Ghost.  So, we're still not continuing player agency through a character after that character's death...

But, like I said, it's a pretty dang interesting idea for a game.

Thomas

[Brendan]

Well, I'm not sure we're totally diverging.  What I'm suggesting is that the player control a hybrid entity of two characters:  one that can die, and one that can only be forgotten.  As long as either of them is alive, some part of the other is preserved.  Young Otis might not have the same friends and experiences as the last wearer of the Cape, but they do have many of the same goals and conflicts.  They probably even have some of the same issues.

And as Otis grows into the Ghost's identity, the legends of past Ghosts become part of who he is:  others attribute those legends to him, and he learns from them and tries to live up to them.  When he reaches Level 10 (or substitute advancement metric of your choice), he and the Caped Ghost start gaining levels simultaneously, because he is now expanding the legend beyond what it was when he came to it.

In other words, the players may not know Otis, but they know the Ghost.  The symbol is changed but not lost.  Character death means, as you put it, "getting a new symbol and modifying the old one. "