In-game character death resolution

[Nogusielkt]

The blunt reason why I am not in favor of systems that leave people steadily heading towards death is because that creates conflict between players.  I did say "for the remainder of battle" in my last post.  The whole reasoning behind not having a set limit that automatically kills someone and a set round limit for someone unconscious and dying is to keep the players united and focused.  I didn't exactly mention it, but I did imply or meant to imply that they would die eventually if left unattended.  However, the time limit could be upwards of an hour.  It's not that I don't want them to die or that I don't want them to fear death, but that I want them to be able to give it their all and not worry another player if they fall.  Although it does at a tiny layer of strategy having to heal fallen character during battle, it starts to weaken the chances of victory on the party that is already down one or more allies.  I never liked feeding someone an expensive healing potion, only to have them fall the next round and be in danger of dying and me out another round of damage.

[JSDiamond]

Okay, I get it.  And I definitely understand the wasting of potions thing. That could apply to any kind of healing ability wasted on a character that is going to repeat another series of bad tactics.  I see this happen in tabletop RPGs and online in World of Warcraft.

[Valamir]

That's why I see morale mechanics as tough to write and tougher to accept.

Morale rules that effect the character never work except in cases where the player has no emotional attachment to the character (as in war games where there is little emotional attachment to any single counter representing some battallion).

The key to effective PC focused Morale rules in an RPG is to target the morale of the PLAYER not the character.  Most games already do this with the negative stick "run away or your character will die" is REALLY not about the character at all, but about taking something valuable away from the player.  Of course you're also taking something valuable away from all the other players as well (the effectiveness of that character and the participation of that player) so often the other players will conspire to "let it slide" and so the negative becomes much less of a negative and thus totally ineffective at player morale.

Better than offering a penalty for not running (death) I think is offering a benefit for running.  Tempt the players into voluntarily fleeing and you'll see it start to happen.

There are many ways this could work.

In a D&D dungeon crawl game you can have a rule that says "If you are below X% hit points and you flee you automatically are awarded 10% of the value of the monster's XPs, whether it was defeated or not.  You can make a tiered system where holding out to the last minute offers a bigger XP reward (but a bigger chance of mistiming and dieing) while bugging out earlier is safter but less XPs.  What an interesting social exercise that would be to see which players regularly leave early to get their nice safe XP reward and which cut it right to the wire.  Very similiar distribution to real morale only substituting gambling for fear.

In a game where betrayal and mistrust is more of a feature (like a Mountain Witch or a Reservoir Dogs kind of thing) you can have a round clock.  Each round of combat a token is added to a pool.  If the monster is defeated than every character gets a number of points equal to half of the number of tokens in the pool.  The first character to flee takes all of the tokens for themself.  The second character to flee gets a number of points equal to 1/2 of the tokens.  But if the monster is defeated anyway, the characters who fled lose all of their tokens.  This would encourage an environment where when the going gets tough and there's really no hope of winning, that someone will start to think about salvaging something from the loss by being the first to flee and grab the tokens.  The tokens for second place will tempt someone else to say "man, I better grab those while I can, or I'm going to be left with nothing".  The loss of two characters in the fight will probably make the situation go from almost impossible to win to totally impossible to win and cause the remaining characters to flee to save themselves...getting the cascading effect so common to morale.

I could come up with a couple other examples, but hopefully that gives you some ideas.  If you think characters should flee from time to time...don't threaten the characters, bribe the players.

[Resonantg]

Just going to sound off a little on the use of morale and how I'm working with it in my own system (GAMM-D/Orion's Arm).

When we started working with the system, we took the concept of "direct to traits" damage.  No HP, or abstract life points.  Damage went direct to a trait and thereby confired a penalty right there.  We've been experimenting with how this will be applied, after some playtests showed problems, but the theory is sound for our purposes.  When a trait (currently) reaches a value = to -WILlpower, the character's body and mind are no longer capable of functioning, and the effects incapacitate the character.  For example, if this happens to his ENDurance trait, they fall into unconsciousness.  Or AGiLity, causes them to be paralized (temporarily they hope).  This is the concept at least for how damage works.

Next, we create three sets of 5 traits; Behavioral, Cognitive and Physical.  Each trait dealt with the Force, Speed, Accuracy, Stamina and Toughness of a character's ability in these spheres.  So began a long wrangling over traits and what they do.  Essentially, we decided that the Beavhioral Trait for Stamina was Morale.  In this method we incorporated bravery and fear directly into traits.  So now, in combat, the character can be "damaged" directly to his bravery without physically or mentally harming him.  And if he's damaged bad enough, he's going to be permanently scarred in some way.  Those rules are yet to be figured out, but we're getting there. ;c)

In this method, we incorporated "running away like a little girl" into the damage system.  Of course, other outcomes can occur too: shell shock, catatonic states, berzerker rages, fainting... all sorts of stuff. I don't know if this is helpful to you JS, but thought I'd mention it just in case.

IMHO, unless you force some players, especially the less experienced, or those more interested in gamist goals than narrativist or simulationist, they rarely act as if they are afraid or penalize themselves for particularly horrifying events.  This may provide you with the mechanism in which to enforce a "defeat before death" system, without abstractly eliminating the threat of death.  "Oops, you're out of morale points, time to flee."  Palladium uses their Horror Factor save, which is quite useful too, but it acts more like a fear based "turning" similar to D&D Clerics, so I don't know if that helps either.

Regardless, I'd suggest you consider always keeping the threat of death out there for players, no matter how removed.  It's still a good GM housekeeping tool for bad or disruptive characters and players.  Lord knows, I've had to kick players out of my group and found it a quite effective tool to let characters get killed and then refuse the player to make a new one.  Sort of a subtle ushering out that sometimes allows a nice saving of face on all sides.

Hopefully I've given some useful points for you to consider. :c)

[Nogusielkt]

Regardless, I'd suggest you consider always keeping the threat of death out there for players, no matter how removed.  It's still a good GM housekeeping tool for bad or disruptive characters and players.  Lord knows, I've had to kick players out of my group and found it a quite effective tool to let characters get killed and then refuse the player to make a new one.  Sort of a subtle ushering out that sometimes allows a nice saving of face on all sides.

Bad or disruptive characters?  I don't have those.  Besides, I don't think an outright death is the way to deal with those characters.  Having a boulder drop from the sky and kill a character won't help the player learn as much as an event would.  The threat of death should be in just about every system, which is why it's still possible to die in mine.  However, random death or death occuring from unforseeable circumstances or death occuring from poor luck hurts both the players and GM/story.  If I were to setup a trap on a door, but not a deadly trap... then I obviously want the players to pass through that door.  If they were to die from that trap, my story would have to be changed and they would have to re-enter the story as someone else.  Unless character creation is the funnest part of the game, that isn't something you want to do often.

[JSDiamond]

Thanks Resonantg, that "direct-to-attributes damage" is good.  Because when you think about it, that's what extreme damage does.

Nogusielkt wrote: "However, random death or death occuring from unforseeable circumstances or death occuring from poor luck hurts both the players and GM/story

That's why I have the retirement option in my other game, Orbit.  Because it's an alternative to dying and it offers a future chance for the character to ride off into the sunset with one last adventure.  It's also a face saving solution for so-called "bad players" because chances are, sooner or later they will use poor tactics and get in that position (E.g., die or retire).  

For my fantasy heartbreaker, at the core of its char-death mechanics I do know that I want to keep the player's choice options in there.  What those specific choices will be are yet to be determined.  You guys have given me a lot to think about.

[Nogusielkt]

That retirement option sounds sort of cool.  I guess that's where you get your large supply of retired adventurers with old war wounds like bum legs and heavy scars.

[daMoose_Neo]

I just had the neatest idea.
The whole idea of "falling off a cliff" reminded me of so many soap operas where the character fell off a cliff/otherwise incapacitated and left for dead, but washes up with amnesia. Be a neat trick in a game like D&D where the character "dies", the player rolls up a new one and rejoins the party sometime later and slowly finds him or herself to be really their original character.
Hmmm...might be using that...

[Jack Aidley]

I've been thinking about similar things for my forthcoming game. An idea I've been knocking about but haven't managed to shape into anything usable yet is what I'm calling 'Karma'. The idea is that players earn Karma when they show mercy towards their enemies by accepting their surrender, letting them flee or not killing them after they've been disabled and then use, or spend, Karma in some way when they themselves are defeated to allow their capture rather than death, or to be allowed to flee. Thus providing both a mechanic for players to control what happens in these circumstances and a reward mechanic for players to let the villians escape and recur another day. I've yet to get a clear system for this in my head; but I expect someone else here can either spot the fatal flaw or jam off the concept.

[Nogusielkt]

Maybe... is there a reason to kill them?  Any benefit at all?  If there is no benefit, then they will likely let anyone flee, unless they were REALLY dangerous or hard to defeat.  If I kill them, I'll just have to fight a different enemy, but if I set them free I get karma.  The problem I see is that PCs always fight enemies and it makes little difference if you knew them already or not.

[Jack Aidley]

here's always a reason to kill them: so they don't tell the others; because they killed Jimmy; because that's what PCs just seem to do. I find re-occuring villians add a lot to a game, helping build storylines, emnity and interest but they're hard to do because the players just keep on killing 'em.

[Master Marx]

The idea is that players earn Karma when they show mercy towards their enemies by accepting their surrender, letting them flee or not killing them after they've been disabled and then use, or spend, Karma in some way when they themselves are defeated to allow their capture rather than death, or to be allowed to flee.

This is an excellent idea, actually. As pointed out, this mechanic can easily be misused unless it is introduced with certain "checks and balances". In order for the players to get Good Karma (GK) for sparing enemies and acting charitably they should also get Bad Karma (BK) for killing their opponents (in this, I use the word "killing" to mean 'permanently incapacitate'). Ideally it should be a graded system where characters get 'scraps' for sparing enemies that are not so important (i.e. goons) while getting major points for sparing arch enemies.

Most players are really protective of their characters, and kill to prevent the risk of future danger, usually they will go out of their way to score that extra overkill, the final volley of missiles or the haymaker swing of the axe. Introducing a rule like this will be great as it will make killing more "meaningful", and potentially upsetting than just the roll of a dice.

Of course, the system should affect the group as a whole, which encourages group dynamics, adds countless oportunities to role playing situations and even the concept of guilt as a mechanic. To stand by idly as your fellow team members liquidate the spy of the evil Witchking will give you bad karma just as if you had held the blade yourself.

This system, Karmapoints, can be tracked on a special graph sheet, to illustrate the group's current karma status in a nice and colourful way.

For character generation karma can either be neutral, or rolled randomly, or better yet, tied in with character generation: if your character is trained assassin with low morals, give him lot's of Bad Karma to start with (but reward him with expendables like XP points, gold pieces, enchanted items or perks and contacts: anything that makes sense). On the other hand, if your character is an Orphan raised in a monastary and trained as a physicians helper venturing out on his first taste of adventure, give him extra Good Karma, but lower some of his scores, assests or cash.

Because the team karma is dependent on the karma of all the individual members, introducing a new memeber (or even a long term NPC) in your team will lower or raise your karma score depending on the new members score before entering. This will make players interested in accepting new members with roughly similar Karmic statuses (unless they are on a quest to redeem themselves and it would be good to find a saint to guide them and give them a quick boost of much needed karma).

Needless to say, this system works best if it's built into the game world: a fitting religious or spiritual background would be prefferable, for example a firm beliefe in heaven/hell, reincarnation, budhhism etc etc.

I plan to use this system myself, although I haven't playtested it yet. In my game the karma of any characters will be carried over into the new character in case of character death (reincarnation). Never mind the time discrepencies, I have that covered but I don't want to bore you about that right now.

Opinions?

[Nogusielkt]

I agree that it would have to be heavily anchored into the worldly environment to work.  Like I said before, in a system where you are rewarded for sparing someone and possibly punished for killing someone, the only people I would kill are the ones that I had so much trouble with, that I deem it impossible for my victory to happen again.  I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who can naturally become invisible and has 50% magic resistence with melee skills to match the best in the group, but anyone I defeated in normal combat would be spared.  PCs are always in a fight with someone.  If the only difference is that the other guy knows our party, then that is how it shall be.  There are other, easier, ways to keep villians alive for reoccuring rolls.

I really disagree with the "party member kills him is the same as you killing him" deal.  Will an unconscious party member receive bad karma for something his teammate does while he is out?  In the end, it all boils down to a plot-point.  You, as the GM, predetermine the people that the party should kill.  Sure, they have to make the choice, but you are forcing their hand.  It all comes back to karma, which plays right into your hand.  It turns a system that rewards players for defeating tough bad guys, into a system that punishes them for wanting to kill tough bad guys.  Are evil people just screwed in the system you are talking about?  You'd think that if everyone who did bad things died in a way that was unfitting of his reputation/skill, that there wouldn't be many bad people.

[Master Marx]

I really disagree with the "party member kills him is the same as you killing him" deal.  Will an unconscious party member receive bad karma for something his teammate does while he is out?

Off course he will. Once he wakes up and realizes what his friends have done. If he wants to get rid of the bad karma, he should leave the group, or try to influence them to mend their ways, (never do that again, sacrifice at a local temple, give alms to the poor etc...) This is what gives the drama. Otherwise we will have the situation with two characters disagreeing about killing a captured enemy, and one of them just turning his back and pretend not to the gruesome murder. If you join a group you take responsibility for what they do.

Are evil people just screwed in the system you are talking about?  You'd think that if everyone who did bad things died in a way that was unfitting of his reputation/skill, that there wouldn't be many bad people.

Of course they will suffer bad karma, that is what being evil is all about. Naturally, by killing all these people they might gain fortune and live out their wicked days in luxury. If you don't reward characters for being heroes, or if you are not even interested in the good/evil perspective, a karmic system based on the moral quality of actions is not what you are looking for in the first place.

Unfortunately I was unable to understand The second section of above quote. Please forgive me for refraining to comment on it.

[Nogusielkt]

Turning your back and being physically unconscious and unable to prevent a death are two different things.  It's much less of a deal, in my mind, if someone were to simply look away.  PC-1 said I'm gonna kill him, and PC-2 turned his back.  He could have taken ANY action... however, PC-3 is lying on the ground dying and cannot do anything.  That's like saying me and my friend went into the movies, I slipped and fell on the floor and he robbed the place.  I had no intention of robbing the place, and after I fell (unconscious), I couldn't stop it.

So, is karma only group based?  Only kept in a pool that affects the whole group? ... nah, it'd have to be seperate so you can change it after someone leaves, but the groups is all together in a pool while they travel, right?  I think what will happen, in many situations, is that groups will either predetermine what kind of karma they want (and never argue because of it) or they will each come into the game thinking what is acceptable and what isn't.  I don't know what kind of gaming groups you have, but the last thing I would want to do is turn my players against themselves.  You almost leave them no choice.

If PC-1 wants to kill someone and PC-2 doesn't want to, his options are to stop PC-1 (which is unlikely, because PC-1 has made up his mind) or to leave the party.  If he leaves the party, the game stops.  He likely fundamentally left because he doesn't like the affects of bad karma (whatever they may be) and felt it was a poor decision to get bad karma.  Perhaps you should explain exactly what good and bad karma do.  I'm imagining that you will gain good karma by doing good things, but spend it just as fast because of it.  Meanwhile, bad karma will mount up until you are defeated... not by an enemy, but by your karma.