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).


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.

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

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!"

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.

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?

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.

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)

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

Resonantg wrote:
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.

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 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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Jack Aidley wrote: 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.

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.

Nogusielkt wrote: 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?

Nogusielkt wrote: 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.

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.

Nogusielkt wrote: 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.

Nogusielkt wrote: 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.

Nogusielkt wrote: 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.

Master Marx wrote:
Of course it is different, but it plays up the drama. After you woke up and realize that your friend has robbed an innocent cinema cashier, would you still be friends with him? Would you feel bad about it? If you want to play up morals, you can do it full-throttle or watered down. It's up to you. And, it is a technical detail.

Master Marx wrote:
There are many ways that players can have fun playing out the moral dramas of having conflicting interests. I have also grown tired of groups of adventurers hanging together for no reason. In terms of AD&D alignments, will a group consisting of Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good characters stick together without external pressure? Some groups might, but it doesn't smell of good realism in my opinion. You might differ, and that is ok, too.

Master Marx wrote:
The difference between good and bad karma are as yet undecided, as well as how much it actually effects the dice rolling. But it wouldn't be fun if it DICTATED role playing, a mere INFLUENCE is good enough. You want an influence that is strong enough to bring drama but not strong enough to force the players hands.

Master Marx wrote:
To get back to where we started from, A Karmic system representing a way to (in game mechanics) reward non-lethal conflict resolutions.

I don't know what kind of groups you play with, but my groups generate their characters as a group, taking the other players and their characters, as well as the theme of the campaign, into account, when making up the morals and code of ethics of their own characters.

After all, this kind of karmic system demands a fitting game world in which players tend towards the good side. Players enjoying this style will like this kind of mechanic. Players who prefers not to worry about morals or the killings of NPC's tend not to play these games. And any rule is optional.

Nogusielkt wrote: Yes, I would still be friends with him, if he ever gets out of jail. The point was that our justice system would not punish me because they know that I couldn't have prevented it, much like the unknown consumers in the theater couldn't stop it.

Nogusielkt wrote: Just having the intent to do wrong doesn't make you bad, they would actually have to know about it.

Nogusielkt wrote: I'd have to wonder if the drama is brought about by the thought of bad karma more than the karma itself. You could be backing the GM into a corner, even with a small influence. Even if the influence didn't get bigger as you made it to the extremes of karma, it'd probably interfere with the story at some point.

Nogusielkt wrote: There are, however, many different ways to reward players for non-lethal conflict resolutions. There could be bounties for bringing him in alive, the party might need information from someone (which will probably require him being alive), he might belong to an organization that they wouldn't want to get on the bad side of.

Nogusielkt wrote: We also create our characters in a group over here. Do you take everything into account, but purposely make characters that have conflicting moral codes, such as having a pacifist and a blood-monger in the same group just to have drama?

Nogusielkt wrote: I already have agreed that the world should agree with the system. Too bad for all the war heroes though... they would likely never get out of the bad karma.

As I envisioned it Karma would have only one in-game effect: it stops you being killed by the your foes when they could kill you. So it goes both ways and produces a reciprocal effect; you can choose to kill your foes when you don't have to - that's OK, they can choose to kill you when they don't have to.

As to your Nazi killing example that is exactly what I intend the system to avoid (by rewarding the not doing of). The whole idea is to move the game away from the notion that it's just fine to kill needlessly - and that applies whatever group the foe is of.

Karma sounds neat-o .. but it brings up a question in my mind: Is this a system to help moderate / influence character behaviour or is it a mechanism for extra in-game control?

In the first model, you decide what counts as 'good' and whats 'bad'. This cound be tied into a really nice thematic background (crusading paladins, buddist monks, etc). I'd guess you'd want to continue adding in karma awards for other general behaviour? Would you evisage karma becoming a resource to spend (The characters arrive in a small town, and there's no healer available to help them .. well, for 20 karma there might be ...)
or purely to avoid the grim reaper?

In the second model, it seems to become a 'you spare the big bad guy / go along with the plot and I'll spare you're worthless lives at some later date'. Still pretty funky, but maybe a little less flavourful.

Ooo, spending Karma to help create the world I want. In effect, players trade allowing the GM to save his villians for extra control over the game world at a later date - excellent idea, Dave.

I think there is a real danger of a Karmic system being used a player-beating stick. In order to avoid that I think it needs to have tight, clear mechanics so that the players know in advance what will or won't give them good/bad Karma (or raise/lower a single Karma score) and the effect that Karma will have so that they can make their own realistic choices. Karma by fiat would I think be too capricious and too prone to creating dissent.

Jack Aidley wrote: As I envisioned it Karma would have only one in-game effect: it stops you being killed by the your foes when they could kill you. So it goes both ways and produces a reciprocal effect; you can choose to kill your foes when you don't have to - that's OK, they can choose to kill you when they don't have to.

Master Marx wrote:
Naturally. But that is besides the topic of a karmic retribution games mechanic, which is the point of the topic. We can perhaps move the discussion of wether to have it or not to another thread?

Nogusielkt raises some interesting points there.

It seems to be that the whole call for a Karma device here is to add flavour. Sure, the PC's could be finished off by foes when helpless. Sure, they can decapitate all of the npc's to stop repeat villains. Sure, the GM can just make up newer, badder, more hit-pointy bad guys when his favourites are killed. But stopping those things happening might, in the right kind of game, add significant amounts of falvour to the settings. Certainly from a player point of view a version of D20 (for the sake of argument) where I get some sort of recognised benefit from rp'ing and get neat recurring villains that I love to hate - all supported by the game system - would be appealing to me.

Jack, as much as Karma could be a PC beat-stick, it seems like it could be a free pass for PC's to become untouchable. Sir Nice-A-Lot builds oodles of karma from giving alms and sparing his foes, and spends it to avoid all sorts of deadly situations. Defiantely something to watch out for.

I know it was touched upon eariler in the thread, but would karma be fixed for the game, or per player? Does the questing paladin earn karma the same way as the wandering monk? Are karmic rules written in stone, or is this a method of measuring a PC / character following 'thier path'.

Second, would this be a group pool as suggested, or individual, or a mixture of both?

Noguiskelt (do you have a real name we could use, please?),

You are correct that this system would constrain the possible GMing styles; but that in and of itself is not a flaw - it is better that a system do what it does well than attempt to please all comers. Where I see you as being incorrect is in your suggestion that this would prevent GM planning. In the example you give where the players refuse an opportunity to heal, the answer is already in the system: the enemies* attack and win, but Karma stops the players being killed. And that is another possible benefit: it allows the threat level to be higher without killing off the party. In any case, this problem itself is only a product of a certain style of GMing.

I guess in essence, Karma seeks to convert Death into Defeat. As to why that is desirable; I think Dave describes it nicely in his post above.

Dave,

The sir nice-a-lot problem is certainly one. The other is the posibility of a player banking good karma so they commit negative karmic acts free of consequence. The answer, I fear, lies in the mechanics; which is what I don't have and what the idea badly needs.

My feeling is that Karma fits most naturally an individual resource; although the world-changing concept you proposed earlier would work best on a group level. As to individual Karma mechanics for individual characters; I feel that character goals are best dealt with through an individual experience mechanic akin to TSOY's keys.

- Jack.

*I use the term 'enemies' rather than 'monsters' because I see this system operating under the circumstances where players primarily opposition consists of intelligent, thinking foes.

Jack,

This all looks pretty good so far. Summarising looks something like:

Every PC has a numeric karma score
Karma is earnt / lost through a defined rules set
+ This is the same for every character
Karma is spent through a defined rules set
+ This is the same for every character

Karma as a term has a some baggage associated with in, but in essence I think the suggestion is that karma is earned through sparing lives in combat / accepting surrender of foes in combat. I'm guessing that aiding the weak could be in there too. What about obeying the law / 'natural law'? I guess some settings might have a 'mandate of heaven' ruler whose law carries karmic weight.

What would you envisage karma being spent on, life or death situations or for one-shot dice modifiers?

The issue of abuse of high karma characters could be taken care of with a 'one strike and you're out' system .. karma is hard to build, and a single bad karma action might wipe out all that good work.

Another idea: karma only persists for a single session. At the end of the session all karma totals are weighed up and dealt with. If you've good karma you get something, if not, then a penalty?

I think someone asked me if Nogusielkt was my real name in another thread. I also think I've seen people use other people's real names when posting, which was confusing at first. Nogusielkt is pronounced Nawg-oo-sealkt, but Nog is fine. I'm afraid my real name might be just as hard to pronounce. I'm sure I'll know if you are posting at me no matter what I'm called.

Ok, I've been having a think and I think I've come up with something workable. Let's start by considering what the goals are, as I see them:

1. We want to reward players for letting villians lives, so they can recur.
2. Trivial character death is rarely a good thing, so we want to do something about them.
3. Glorious deaths are kind of cool, so we want to allow for them.

I believe we can hit all three with the following (purely metagame) system:

* When a character has a villian at his mercy, the GM can offer a Karma Point for the player to let them off. If the player accepts every relevant character gets a Karma point (i.e. all the characters who could choose to kill the villian do), if a different character does the killing no points are awarded.
* When a character is threatened with death by a villian, the player can pay three (or however many is necessary to keep a lid on the number of points) to commute that death to a lower level of defeat (captured, knocked unconcious and left for dead, etc.)
* If a player wishes their character to die a glorious death they can cash in any Karma points they have to make their death glorious - the mechanics of how this would work would depend on the rest of the system but the idea is that characters who have a lot of Karma points outstanding could get a more glorious death.

What do you all think? This is more narrow than some of the ideas we've considered and doesn't yet deal with the I've Been Good Time To Be Bad problem, but I think its focus could also be its strength, it does deal with the issues I originally intended it to, I think.

Incidently, I'm reminded of Buffy's Drama Point system (where the GM can but their villian out of trouble by paying the players drama points) although my system maintains player choice and keeps a much more narrow focus. Does anyone have any experience of Buffy's system in action?

Ok, I've been having a think and I think I've come up with something workable. Let's start by considering what the goals are, as I see them:

1. We want to reward players for letting villians lives, so they can recur.
2. Trivial character death is rarely a good thing, so we want to do something about them.
3. Glorious deaths are kind of cool, so we want to allow for them.

I believe we can hit all three with the following (purely metagame) system:

* When a character has a villian at his mercy, the GM can offer a Karma Point for the player to let them off. If the player accepts every relevant character gets a Karma point (i.e. all the characters who could choose to kill the villian do), if a different character does the killing no points are awarded.
* When a character is threatened with death by a villian, the player can pay three (or however many is necessary to keep a lid on the number of points) to commute that death to a lower level of defeat (captured, knocked unconcious and left for dead, etc.)
* If a player wishes their character to die a glorious death they can cash in any Karma points they have to make their death glorious - the mechanics of how this would work would depend on the rest of the system but the idea is that characters who have a lot of Karma points outstanding could get a more glorious death.

What do you all think? This is more narrow than some of the ideas we've considered and doesn't yet deal with the I've Been Good Time To Be Bad problem, but I think its focus could also be its strength, it does deal with the issues I originally intended it to, I think.

Incidently, I'm reminded of Buffy's Drama Point system (where the GM can but their villian out of trouble by paying the players drama points) although my system maintains player choice and keeps a much more narrow focus. Does anyone have any experience of Buffy's system in action?

This is very much like Top Secret's "Fortune Point" system, except you know how many you have. In TS, only the GM knows how many you have because some day, your luck may run out. I always thought this was quite a good way to handle things. You could also spend experience points to get a 1d4 extra fame points. The fame points were good for "miraculous saves and rerolls".

So, it's quite a good system with a good track record IMHO.

:c)

Jack,

that seems to hit all the right buttons, it's simple and to the point.


Something I came up with which might cover similar ground, and spins off your reference to TSOY keys (which I love, Sweet 20 is the way to go)

If you introduce a free Key, something like the Key of Villainy Returned, when players spare a decent NPC. Every time the npc pops up they get to activate the key, scoring xp. The kicker is that if the villain is killed they not only don't get a key-loss payoff, there may be penalties associated with it.

Similarly a Key of Survival (or something suitably cooler sounding) that the PC's get for free. If they keep on living then it does nothing, but if they are in a position where they could 'get off lightly' the key is traded in until they buy it again (possibly with the proceeds from the above key).

I'm sure there would be more details to work out if you went for that kind of solution.