In-game character death resolution

[JSDiamond]

I'm thinking of something like this for resolving character death in the "fantasy heartbreaker" I'm making.  I think I might even add it to my existing opus.  Here's the rules.

Left for Dead
Player-characters don't die, instead they are simply "left for dead" by their foes, or narrowly escaped a deadly situation.  Upon which the player must immediately choose one of the following outcomes:

1. Character's body is looted for all valuables with the exception of clothing or armor.  Character wakes up, damn that was a close one!  Or...
2. Character wakes up and still has all their belongings, but permanently loses a level of experience (according to whatever system you're running).  If the game has no *levels* in the usual sense, then this can be translated into across the board loss of skill by one step (or level of ability).[/list:u]
In role-play terms, the character is left for dead and wakes up either where they were, or else being tended to by a kindly farmer, a peasant, healed by an acolyte in a nearby temple, rescued by a wayward space scout who just happened by after the battle, etc. --that kind of thing. Loss of items = They were looted.  While loss of levels = Trauma due to massive injury.  Luckily the character pulled through, but rehab is going to take a while (regaining lost exp. level)

The point being, you get to keep playing.

[Andrew Morris]

So what's the question or topic of discussion? (Would this work? Has this been done before? Etc.)

[TonyLB]

On the "Would this work?" front... I think it can work wonderfully if it's justified strongly by genre.

For instance in my old Castle Falkenstein game there was a very low mortality rate.  There is a very high rate of people falling off of cliffs into the churning waters below, and having their foes look down, shake their head grimly and say "Nobody could possibly have survived that fall!"

[Doug Ruff]

I think this could work wonderfully - but I also think you could include some more options.

The core concept behind this appears to be "you don't lose your life, but you lose something else". If so, then "something else" could cover a whole range of options. For example:

- loss of effectiveness: this could be the "level" loss you mentioned, or characteristic loss, or a nagging "war wound" that impairs the character in some way.

- loss of possessions, which you've already covered.

- loss of liberty: the character is captured. They lose their freedom and their possessions, but they've got a chance of getting both back.

- loss of time: the character is delayed by their injury. Works well if you have a time-critical plot and you can fast-forward some of it to prevent the player losing too much spotlight time.

- loss of relationships: especially good if the character has been "missing, presumed dead" for a while. People have learned to live without the character. This can have some very interesting consequences if the character was previously married or had other close ties. A similar outcome is loss of position - the guards have a new captain, or the thieves' guild out someone else in charge of your operations.

- loss of spirit: the character wasn't just defeated, they feel defeated, and must find a way to get their confidence back.

[JSDiamond]

Those are good.  

And yes, I was wondering if it's something you would use; or regard as a "pro" for choosing a particular game.  The thing I was thinking when I wrote this rule --and maybe this should be in the GNS Theory threads, is that character death is kind of pointless, unless it directly advances the plot/story arc/etc. beyond the lament of "Aw damn, I died."  You know, the whole player as character illusion.  So why die at all?

[Doug Ruff]

Yeah, character deathgenerally sucks, unless it's meaningful character death. Even if the meaning is "your strategy sucked" (which is the only concession to GNS I want to make in this post.)

But two of the biggest problems with removing character death are:

- The game becomes less exciting, because there is much less risk.

- The players can't make "a last stand".

Some of the first problem is addressed by replacing loss of life with a lesser risk.

For the second, consider the option of allowing a player to trade in their "plot immunity" for a bonus in a dangerous conflict. The character gets a greater chance of winning, but if they lose, then they're dead.

So if (for example) the player wants to save their character and save their NPC friend, then they may choose to risk everything.

Note: this work best if the player doesn't have totally free rein over what they lose if they lose a conflict. So, if an NPC is in danger, then this should be part of the stakes,  not just as an option for the player to exercise if they are "killed".

Hope this helps.

[Resonantg]

I guess I don't understand the resistance to character death in game.  I may be very old school, but if death isn't a threat to a player where they can lose their favorite character, they act differently and with impunity to consequences for their behavior.  It could just be the groups I've been with, but the instant some players figured out the GM will always bring them back, the game lost a lot of drama, because there was nothing to fear, and no chance of real loss since all material goods could be gained back, friends found and enemies surprised.

The point of death in game IMHO, is that it ends a character's saga, and a natural result of circumstances.  Death is also a behavior controller in games to players with a tendancy to behave badly.  For me, if I know my character can't die, it really diminishes the drama for me.  I know there's nothing I can do that will end up with me having to roll up a new character regardless for how stupid I was.  Maybe this isn't an issue for Gamists or Narrativists, but for Simulationists like me who want to get "in the moment and scene" of the character's situation, it's a big deal.  I don't care about the character's story or "winning" as much as being able to act appropriately for the character if they actually were in this situation.

Ultimately, I don't feel character death is something that must be avoided.  If you die, you can always "plug another quarter in" and start a new character and new saga.  If it screws up the game, well, time to figure out where the game is going, now.  Of course, this is more of a simulationist view, where the story and winning is secondary to the experience.

For what it's worth. :c)

[Andrew Morris]

I have no bias toward or against character death. It makes sense in some games and for some play styles, but not for others. For example, in Shadows & Light (my LARP system under development), character death is not impossible, but it's very difficult. I want long-running characters in that game, with lots of scheming and betrayal and time for grudges and insults to build up. That can't happen if characters are dying and the players are coming back as new characters every game.

On the other hand, one of my main problems with most boffer-style combat LARPs is the lack of permanent mortality. Feel like running into the enemy in a suicidal charge? No problem, a friendly cleric will just come by later and raise you from the dead. Bah. It takes away quite a bit from a game that deals mostly with combat.

I think that the "PCs can't die, unless they are willing to risk their life for some gain" model is a pretty good way to go.

However, one thing sticks out about your original post. Why can't clothing and armor be looted?

[JSDiamond]

Guys, those are all good points and I am going to copy and paste your responses to my list of notes to further tweak my system.      

To clarify, I don't have a problem with character death, per se.  But likewise I just don't feel any strong support for it either based on my experiences.  It just seems that the significance of it relies too much on the quality of role-playing of your GM and group.  Having an "end to the saga" of a character's life is one thing, taking a dumb sword-through-the-head lucky roll by some mook-kolbold is another!

Also, with all of these typical RPG "cures" to character death already being used (and abused) then the risk IMHO has already been removed.  We just suspend the disbelief up until the point our character dies and we turn to our buddy sitting next to us and say, "Get me rez'd, okay?"  On the other hand if the risk is real and final, then immediately rolling up another character is also a way of getting back into the game. So what are we saying then?  Is the death significant, or is it really that the character is not?  It's almost a circular argument. I don't think that finality makes it significant --unless the player has to leave the game and go home. But that's a bit silly, after all it's just a game.

However, one thing sticks out about your original post. Why can't clothing and armor be looted?

I just didn't want the character to be *totally* bankrupt of all valuables.  It was just a personal judgement call --me thinking as a GM.

P.S. I realize I'm drifting into other subjects, so thanks for bearing with me.

[Valamir]

Yeah, these issues are those that MMORPGs wrestle with all the time and have led to such silly solutions as racing back to your body to get your loot.

IMO MMORPGS would be vastly enhanced by 1) not using the leveling treadmill / progressively tougher monsters paradigm and 2) making death permanent.  That would reduce much of the super silly play that is common on MMORPGs that I detest.  (it would also cut revenue drastically because I'm pretty certain I'm in a minority on that issue).

Pirates of the Burning Sea (Beta rapidly approaching...finally) has an interesting approach.  In that game the ship, with all of its upgrades, and custom flags and sales and the like is as much a character as your avatar.  IIRC the current plan is when you lose a ship your ship character is "dead" which provides the dramatic loss factor, while your avatar character automatically makes it to the nearest friendly port in a life boat which provides for the continuing play.

[Nogusielkt]

I've been working on a similar task, but for a different reason and I have a slightly different outcome.  My intention isn't to remove death, but to allow defeat BEFORE death.  In a standard scenario, when you are reduced to 0 or less HPs you fall unconscious for the remainder of the battle, unless healed of course.  The difference is that there is no number below 0 which immediately kills you (any static number is silly, but I wouldn't be opposed to a dynamic one that keeps pace with your normal hps).  You can also remain at/under 0 for as long as the fight lasts, and not be under threat of death.  Where death comes into play is when someone takes time out of combat to specifically kill you.  99% of enemies would rather help fight an existing threat than take care of a non-existent one.

The reasoning is simple: There is too much of a focus on what kills a player and not enough of a realization that, for the most part, people don't want their characters to die.  Instead of fudging the rolls on the GMs part, individual players can be defeated in battle, but the fight can still go on.  There is still the threat of death.  If all of your characters are defeated, the enemy can finish you off.  However, there is still a chance for a GM to interrupt that process, and it holds a slightly less "hand of god" factor.

[Justin Marx]

I would agree with Nogusielkt as far as allowing defeat before death. Let's face it, in junior-high school D&D play, it is very difficult for a player to allow his character to be captured or surrender. Instead he would constantly fight and fight and fight, until the GM either killed him or let him escape. Does that make any sense? I admit that this sort of playing style is not so prevalent any more, but it is with powergamers in mind that I design a game to avoid rampant abuse (and that, certainly, is where death mechanics come in to it as well).

In the same way that loss of hit points or wounds or whatever involuntarily takes the character out of the control of the player (through death, unconsciousness etc), why can't morale be used in the same way? There are several threads that argue against system mechanics that define player character action in that it takes away agency from the player - but so does health and death mechanics. When a character reaches zero morale they give up, or run away. That makes a lot more sense to me - it makes combat less lethal (because the players, who often fight to the last, are going to give up before dying) and also makes last stands, when they do occur, that much more poignant (because to make the glorious last stand requires some major chutzpah on the part of the character, to keep their morale high in the face of death).

Anyway, that was my simulationist solution.

[Nogusielkt]

Yes, it is the mindset of the player that forces such a situation in, at least in part.  Originally I had come up with this design for an online rpg.  During testing I found that weaker people would generally not give up in a fight unless the odds where very drastically out of their league (and they found out).  So this system was a way for people of higher level, or anyone in general, to put an end to a fight with dignity and without having to kill a "newbie".  It's there to stop the perceived arrogance of the higher level players.

On the morale issue though, players see their characters in a different way.  Most of the players I have seen want their characters to be fearless in battle (and outside of battle for that matter).  One of the problems with morale is that it is too difficult to gauge on a character to character basis without defined personalities.  I may be willing to run only if the value of the kill isn't worth the kill (thus having nothing to due with the difficulty, at least on the surface).  Someone else might run if they think they have a chance to die or be seriously injured.  Someone else yet might decide to retreat only after they are injured, and some won't care if they ARE injured.

What morale comes down to, in my opinion, is a mechanical reason for a plot-point.  The only reason to have morale is so the players will retreat.  The players would only retreat if they were going to lose.  The players would only lose if you put them against dire odds, or in rare cases... if they were unlucky before they came about someone they could normally handle.  In essence, you are just taking the ability away from the player to say "I can win this fight", but are leaving in the ability to say "I cannot win this fight".  The character can always flee, even at high morale, but must flee at low morale.  With all the circumstances, it's safe to say that morale only comes in effect when you want it to, and in that sense you might as well make them flee for another reason, or let them come onto it on their own.

In short, morale doesn't work without defined personalities to modify how morale works for that character.  Even then, it gets mucky.  I've thought about making a "stress" stat for a game I am developing, but have decided against it for this very reason.

[Justin Marx]

Nogusielkt - actually the morale system I was thinking of using was pinched directly outta a computer game - Dawn of War. When your cutesy little space marines ran out of morale, they did not run away - however, they suffered severe modifiers to their attack and defense ratios (around 10% effectiveness I think), which was then an indirect way of saying to you, the player, that they cannot fight anymore (because unless you want them to die, you have to pull them out).

As for defined personality mechanics, yes I understand it is more complicated, but then again the health and death system I am working on is equal in complexity, in so far as I don't intend to use linear values like Hit Points and Morale to describe their actions. I was instead going to factor it into difficulty number determination, meaning that when your morale is low, it becomes much much more difficult to get things done. This mechanic I was thinking of running through the game, but I think that is a side point. As for mandatory retreats and the like, I had not figured out how pre-defined it will be, I am still working on it. If nothing else, a morale system is good for GMs when running NPCs, so you can have a good idea when people will run away or stand and fight (some GMs have invincible shopkeepers and the like, which really gets my goat - if the PCs are heroes, they should be so in contrast to the normal inhabitants of the world).

I hope this is not too off-topic, I am just trying to argue why I think morale systems can work. Yes, players like to think their characters are fearless, but they also like to think they are invincible. The morale system I was using was for a style of play that would chastise foolhardy players without killing their characters, instead having a far worse result - humiliation.

Not everyone's cup of jo, I know.

[JSDiamond]

Nogusielkt wrote: In a standard scenario, when you are reduced to 0 or less HPs you fall unconscious for the remainder of the battle, unless healed of course... If all of your characters are defeated, the enemy can finish you off.  

I have encountered this exact rule as a house rule many times.  The accepted scenario that would follow is that the last survivor "binds wounds" on the fallen and the party lives to fight another day.  My only problem with this is that I like to account for things such as party members getting separated, or the occasional solo adventure.  The "sole survivor" rule is good, but since it's already removed from the pure sim aspect, IMHO why not chop it further to "left for dead" ?    

On the morale issue though, players see their characters in a different way. Most of the players I have seen want their characters to be fearless in battle (and outside of battle for that matter). One of the problems with morale is that it is too difficult to gauge on a character to character basis without defined personalities. I may be willing to run only if the value of the kill isn't worth the kill (thus having nothing to due with the difficulty, at least on the surface). Someone else might run if they think they have a chance to die or be seriously injured. Someone else yet might decide to retreat only after they are injured, and some won't care if they ARE injured.

I was thinking of this too, once.  But as you say, players don't want to think of their characters as anything but utterly fearless.  Additionally, even when rules for fighting or fleeing are solid, players often stop playing while they wait for the fleeing part to be over.  It's also erroneously assumed that the enemy no longer pays attention to a fleeing character.  I can't even think of a single time when a GM didn't simply refocus the enemies' attention on someone else after their first target had been hit with a fear spell, or suffered a morale penalty.

So yes, it's nigh impossible to gauge morale from character to character.  It seems to be more of a "how to role-play" these sorts of occurances than a need for a rule.        

Valamir wrote: ...when you lose a ship your ship character is "dead" which provides the dramatic loss factor, while your avatar character automatically makes it to the nearest friendly port in a life boat which provides for the continuing play.

Exactly, just as players often associate their *kewl* sword with their character.  The player's choice aspect of being Left for Dead is simply an offshoot of my always wanting to have choices as a player.  Plus, I like to think that those choices give the players more creative input and GMs more info on what a player really cares about, which hopefully makes for a better game.

Justin Marx wrote:...because to make the glorious last stand requires some major chutzpah on the part of the character, to keep their morale high in the face of death.

Think Lord of the Rings --the last stand at Helm's Deep. For those kids who *had* to take up arms and fight it was their *first* and last stand.  Not one of them wasn't scared.  But none of them ran, or refused to fight.  That's why I see morale mechanics as tough to write and tougher to accept.  

You guys give me lots to think about.  IMHO I need to set a bar and then decide what slips underneath with regard to believability, or at most the tip-of-our-fingers grasp at suspension of disbelief.