PDA

View Full Version : Is there a good way to handle a permadeath campaign?



Mystify
2012-03-10, 02:11 AM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over. Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.
Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?

One way would be to have a very short campaign in the first place, so the amount of time they spend dead is low. Say, if its a one-shot. In fact, wearing down and killing the party maybe their primary lose condition, and whether or not they survive is really indeterminate. This still leaves the issue of what to do with the players for the next few hours, but hopefully the session is interesting enough for a spectator.

Anyone have a way to handle this more elegantly? Or have it work with a longer term campaign?

Zeful
2012-03-10, 02:14 AM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over. Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.
Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?

No. Your set up precludes players automatically continuing, thus any death has the potential to end the campaign for the player, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

Grinner
2012-03-10, 02:45 AM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over. Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.
Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?

Yeah, with that wording, a player would be unable to continue playing at all, since he would have no character. You might at least consider letting him have an NPC.

Nero24200
2012-03-10, 05:15 AM
One possibility may be to let the player play as a Ghost of their PC (though probably a toned down version otherwise it might be considered a buff) and thus able to do things like give advice.

Edit: Another idea might be to give the party several animal companions or some such and just allow the Player to control one after death. Though a problem arises if they start to drop as well.

Bagelson
2012-03-10, 05:24 AM
I'm confused. Doesn't most games preclude resurrection? If you die you stat out a new character that fits the plot, and the GM introduces him to the party when it is reasonable for the narrative.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-10, 05:32 AM
I'm confused. Doesn't most games preclude resurrection? If you die you stat out a new character that fits the plot, and the GM introduces him to the party when it is reasonable for the narrative.

No, I'm fairly sure most games actually rely on some form of resurrection to bring the player back to life. Even very gritty "death is final" games like WoD have loopholes (Promethean being the main example).

Acanous
2012-03-10, 05:36 AM
Death-is-final relies on a certain type of player to make work.
We did this once in an Eberron campaign. My bard spent levels 5-21 searching for a way to resurrect the Warforged Barbarian.

Never found one, even after ascending to godhood.

STsinderman
2012-03-10, 08:11 AM
Perhaps in stead of outright banning them from coming back it might be an idea to either limit the number of times a person can be brought back (before an inevitable comes down on them) or have them gen three character at the start and after burning through those three its sit out time.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-10, 08:22 AM
No, I'm fairly sure most games actually rely on some form of resurrection to bring the player back to life. Even very gritty "death is final" games like WoD have loopholes (Promethean being the main example).

Oddly, Promethean (once, ever), Geist (trade Morality for extra lives at a harsh rate), and one ability in Hunter (makes you crazy) are the only NWoD games I can think of that can actually revive the dead. It's fairly trivial to heal someone from the brink of death, but actually bringing back the dead isn't doable in any of the primary gamelines.

Need_A_Life
2012-03-10, 08:36 AM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over.
Most games I've been in have been like this. Great fun.

Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.... what? So there'll be a player sitting at the table who is told that he cannot do anything? In that case, I'd leave the campaign, whether it was my character or not. That's just stupid.

Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player? No. Not unless you give them something to play.
They could get to control an NPC, help control monsters or *gasp* make a new character.


One way would be to have a very short campaign in the first place, so the amount of time they spend dead is low. Say, if its a one-shot.In a one-shot, sure, you could do that. In a campaign, no.


hopefully the session is interesting enough for a spectator.Yeah, because most roleplayers show up to watch other people do cool things while being a mere spectator.

How does death lose its impact in your game?
In Vampire, you're losing all the prestige and boons your character has built up.
In Shadowrun, you've lost a lot of contacts, resources and reputation, since those belonged to your old character, not your new one.
In Dark Heresy, you've lost equipment (which matters a lot more in that game than one might think), reputation and the trust of your colleagues. You're the new guy, suck it up.
In resurrection-less D&D, you've lost allies, equipment and a level.
In Exalted, you'll have lost all the resources, allies and contacts your former Exalt built up.

If you ignore all those things, then death won't have much of an impact.
If played right, then even death in a resurrection-OK world can have impact. OotS recently showed how even the death of some NPCs could carry campaign-changing weight. Now, realize that PCs are a lot more awesome than that and adjust accordingly.

joe
2012-03-10, 09:29 AM
If I was going to do a game like this, I would let the players whose PCs died play some of the monsters during combat.

This has a few advantages, the most obvious being the player is still playing. Additionally letting them do this will take some of the stress of you as a DM. Playing monsters gives players a chance to try something new and different, which is always a bonus. Lastly, I think that allowing the players to run the monsters actually makes them more ruthless, as they aren't going to be as merciful about not killing off other players. (This sort of depends on the player, but I think that if I was to do this my monsters would become a lot more dangerous.)

Obviously you wouldn't want to have them play plot-important baddies, but I would definitely allow for them to run some of the mooks each fight to keep them involved.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-10, 09:48 AM
Oddly, Promethean (once, ever), Geist (trade Morality for extra lives at a harsh rate), and one ability in Hunter (makes you crazy) are the only NWoD games I can think of that can actually revive the dead. It's fairly trivial to heal someone from the brink of death, but actually bringing back the dead isn't doable in any of the primary gamelines.

Actually, in Promethean, you can technically come back to life as many times as you want. You're a mortal. You die. Someone turns you into a Promethean. You complete your Pilgrimage and become mortal again. You die. Someone turns you into a Promethean. Rinse and repeat until the crushing depressiveness of it all drives the entire table to mass suicide. :smallbiggrin:

Actually, Hunter has TWO abilities that let you resurrect someone. One is the Benediction you refer, the other is a Worm Pipe that lets you come back to life at the cost of being significantly more susceptible to Vampires. It's an Aegis Kai Doru artefact, if I remember correctly. I once used it on a game for a PC that roleplayed his transition from Mortal to Vampire by going on a mad quest for vengeance against the people that killed his lover. Then I had the lover brought back with that Worm Pipe *just* so they were irresistible to the newly Embraced PC's charms. Oh, and this was after the PC finally got over their death and found someone new. I used to be evil back in the day, but I got better. :smalltongue:

I believe a Mage with sufficient Life can bring people back from the dead. If they can't, I'd be incredibly surprised, because I heard Mages can do anything. Also, technically, you can Embrace corpses, provided it happens within minutes of the death (and you can drain them of blood fast enough. Though most violent deaths are by blood loss anyway).

Changeling lets you revive people if you manage to score a contract with Death, IIRC, but it's one of those "you KNOW the price to pay will be overwhelming" things. EDIT: Also there's the Death Dream in one of the books, you complete a quest for some Antropomorphic Representation of Death and you get a free resurrection. Or three. I can't really remember.

Werewolf... yeah. I am not too familiar with werewolf, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was an obscure Gift or rite somewhere that brought back someone from the brink.

Mortals are the only ones that get screwed, really. And even then, who's not to say Plot Magic can't do it? WoD is very liberal with Plot Magic, after all.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-10, 10:01 AM
Actually, in Promethean, you can technically come back to life as many times as you want. You're a mortal. You die. Someone turns you into a Promethean. You complete your Pilgrimage and become mortal again. You die. Someone turns you into a Promethean. Rinse and repeat until the crushing depressiveness of it all drives the entire table to mass suicide. :smallbiggrin:

That's not coming back to life though, because becoming a Promethean obliterates almost all memories of your mortal life. You're very explicitly not the same person you were when you died (or people, for Frankensteins), even if the parts are being recycled - it's no different than rolling up Bob-Joe Fighter The Third to replace Bob-Joe Fighter The Second, for all that the only thing you changed is the name on the character sheet, it's still a new person.



Actually, Hunter has TWO abilities that let you resurrect someone. One is the Benediction you refer, the other is a Worm Pipe that lets you come back to life at the cost of being significantly more susceptible to Vampires. It's an Aegis Kai Doru artefact, if I remember correctly. I once used it on a game for a PC that roleplayed his transition from Mortal to Vampire by going on a mad quest for vengeance against the people that killed his lover. Then I had the lover brought back with that Worm Pipe *just* so they were irresistible to the newly Embraced PC's charms. Oh, and this was after the PC finally got over their death and found someone new. I used to be evil back in the day, but I got better. :smalltongue:

Okay, 2 ways for Hunter.



I believe a Mage with sufficient Life can bring people back from the dead. If they can't, I'd be incredibly surprised, because I heard Mages can do anything. Also, technically, you can Embrace corpses, provided it happens within minutes of the death (and you can drain them of blood fast enough. Though most violent deaths are by blood loss anyway).

Maybe at Life Arcanum 6+, but that's into ST homebrew territory. It's not possible pre-Archmastery, because Life 5 is needed just to regrow missing body parts and very explicitly cannot be of indefinite duration. As for Vampires - Final Death is irreversible in any circumstances, and a Mortal Embraced as a vampire is undead, thus pretty much the direct opposite of being restored to life.



Changeling lets you revive people if you manage to score a contract with Death, IIRC, but it's one of those "you KNOW the price to pay will be overwhelming" things. EDIT: Also there's the Death Dream in one of the books, you complete a quest for some Antropomorphic Representation of Death and you get a free resurrection. Or three. I can't really remember.


Well, obviously ST Fiat is always possible, but there is no Contract of Death printed.
EDIT: Okay, but plot-specific elements like that aren't much off of ST fiat anyways.



Mortals are the only ones that get screwed, really. And even then, who's not to say Plot Magic can't do it? WoD is very liberal with Plot Magic, after all.
See above, regarding ST Fiat. If the ST says it happens, it happens. That doesn't mean it's considered a normal, regular, or even expected possible occurrence in the game.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-10, 10:08 AM
That's not coming back to life though, because becoming a Promethean obliterates almost all memories of your mortal life. You're very explicitly not the same person you were when you died (or people, for Frankensteins), even if the parts are being recycled - it's no different than rolling up Bob-Joe Fighter The Third to replace Bob-Joe Fighter The Second, for all that the only thing you changed is the name on the character sheet, it's still a new person.

True, but I personally still count it as resurrection.


Okay, 2 ways for Hunter.

The artefact, however, can end in the hands of any of the other factions. It can appear in a Mortal's game, too. There's printed rules for it, and STs are encouraged to use things from other gamelines to throw curveballs at players. I'd wager such an artifact is valid for the entirety of nWoD.


Maybe at Life Arcanum 6+, but that's into ST homebrew territory. It's not possible pre-Archmastery, because Life 5 is needed just to regrow missing body parts and very explicitly cannot be of indefinite duration. As for Vampires - Final Death is irreversible in any circumstances, and a Mortal Embraced as a vampire is undead, thus pretty much the direct opposite of being restored to life.

Well, colour me surprised. I thought Life 5 would do it. Can't you use a conjunction thing? Like Life+Spirit or Life+Death?


Well, obviously ST Fiat is always possible, but there is no Contract of Death printed.

True, but see my edit, there's a book whose name escapes me (the one that has the Skein and the five types of dreams) and you CAN get free resurrections if you're crafty enough. It's a one-of-a-kind deal, though, IIRC.

EDIT: I dunno if it's plot-based. There are rules for it, just like Raise Dead in D&D.


See above, regarding ST Fiat. If the ST says it happens, it happens. That doesn't mean it's considered a normal, regular, or even expected possible occurrence in the game.

I dunno, I always try to avoid talking about things that are "regular" or "expected" or "normal" because every table is different and we've all had different experiences. I'd rather stay within the more objective realm of discussion and discuss simply what's "possible" and what's not. After all, someone might be a fan of "death is permanent" in games and avoid resurrections because they diminish the impact of death, while someone else may be a fan of them because they get attached to their characters and the things they've accumulated and accomplished throughout the game, and so what's normal and expected for each of them will be very different.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-10, 10:14 AM
For me, at least, I count 'Possible' only as RAW. So of all those examples, the only 100% valid ones would be the Hunter Benediction, the Pipe you mentioned, and the Changeling Quest for Death (venue-specific). Anything else requires at least moderate fiat, which can't be counted on in any specific game and so has a hard time fitting into a discussion. It's just disputing your quote:



No, I'm fairly sure most games actually rely on some form of resurrection to bring the player back to life. Even very gritty "death is final" games like WoD have loopholes (Promethean being the main example).

That bringing back dead characters is in any way typical for a 'death is final' game. WoD isn't a "you can never come back ever", but the exceptions are few, far between, mostly limited (only one is actually valid outside its gameline, and not even universally there since it wouldn't restore a Vampire or Prommy, and would require ST ruling on if it could bring back an Awakened Soul or a Sin-Eater whose Geist might have issues with the interference).

Shadowknight12
2012-03-10, 10:28 AM
For me, at least, I count 'Possible' only as RAW. So of all those examples, the only 100% valid ones would be the Hunter Benediction, the Pipe you mentioned, and the Changeling Quest for Death (venue-specific). Anything else requires at least moderate fiat, which can't be counted on in any specific game and so has a hard time fitting into a discussion. It's just disputing your quote:

That bringing back dead characters is in any way typical for a 'death is final' game. WoD isn't a "you can never come back ever", but the exceptions are few, far between, mostly limited (only one is actually valid outside its gameline, and not even universally there since it wouldn't restore a Vampire or Prommy, and would require ST ruling on if it could bring back an Awakened Soul or a Sin-Eater whose Geist might have issues with the interference).

Ahhh, okay. Yeah, you're right, that's quite valid. However, most of the other gamelines (Vampire, Promethean, Geist) are valid ways to bring back someone who died even if it's only a pseudo-resurrection. Yeah, they are undead, constructs or only-technically-alive, respectively, but they are ways for a player to keep playing their character after death.

Also, that book on antagonists has the revenant, which is designed to be playable (as a ST wouldn't care about micro-managing the Revenant's passions (or whatever they're called) and just assume they have as many as they need at any given time). Granted, you could say that it requires ST approval, but any of the previous suggestions ("Well, I'm dead, I wanna play a Prommie now!") is also ST-approval-dependent. There's also the Ghost template, but that one does sound like it was written solely for STs (it's still playable, though, and if you have Geists in the setting, you can still interact with the world of the living). Speaking of Geists, didn't Underworld have a realm where you can bring a ghost back to life (like the Orpheus/Eurydice myth)?

I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I recall ways to have a character come back to life. And the thing about WoD is that they put story above mechanics as a general rule, so if it makes for a good story, the setting actively encourages to defy death to bring someone back. It certainly gives you lots of possibilities to do so.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-10, 10:31 AM
I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I recall ways to have a character come back to life. And the thing about WoD is that they put story above mechanics as a general rule, so if it makes for a good story, the setting actively encourages to defy death to bring someone back. It certainly gives you lots of possibilities to do so.

Okay, that's a good point. But it's still a very different environment than D&D with its Revolving Door afterlife to the point that a 'perma-death' campaign is considered exceptional enough to warrant the existence of this thread. In WoD, perma-death is the norm, and resurrection the exception if it furthers the cause of the story.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-10, 10:51 AM
Okay, that's a good point. But it's still a very different environment than D&D with its Revolving Door afterlife to the point that a 'perma-death' campaign is considered exceptional enough to warrant the existence of this thread. In WoD, perma-death is the norm, and resurrection the exception if it furthers the cause of the story.

All right, point taken. Still, there are people who play a "death is permanent" type of campaign in D&D and seem to presume this is the norm, if I'm reading some of the above posts correctly. There is some variance among the players, even within the same game, when it comes to the grittiness, lethality and permanence of death. Which is good, of course. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

Mono Vertigo
2012-03-10, 10:56 AM
Yes, nWoD just isn't the good kind of setting to consider the resurrection of a character. In fact, I'm almost certain that in Mage, Death is one of the few fundamental laws of the universe, and the death of a person cannot be reverted once it happens (which means a lot in a setting where you can otherwise mess with matter, energy, fate, time, etc...).

Well, there's Genius: the Transgression, where Exelixi 5 explicitly allows resurrection (and even turn the newly-resurrected into a supernatural, generally a Promethean or vampire). But it isn't easy, frequently involves dramatic losses of dots of willpower, morality and supernatural advantage, and induces derangement. All that for the Genius, the dead guy, or both.
... of course, keep in mind Genius is a fansplat, and doesn't quite qualify as RAW.

Rakmakallan
2012-03-10, 11:04 AM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over. Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.
Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?

One way would be to have a very short campaign in the first place, so the amount of time they spend dead is low. Say, if its a one-shot. In fact, wearing down and killing the party maybe their primary lose condition, and whether or not they survive is really indeterminate. This still leaves the issue of what to do with the players for the next few hours, but hopefully the session is interesting enough for a spectator.

Anyone have a way to handle this more elegantly? Or have it work with a longer term campaign?

On a very simple note, you could just not kill characters. Before the game starts, gather the group and include in the social contract that characters will not be killed, unless the player explicitly desires them to or allows them to in order for the narration to progress. This is slightly harder to achieve in randomness-relying games and settings of course.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-10, 11:08 AM
All of my campaigns were permadeath ones. Death is the end of the road, there are no ways to raise the dead. This means that each time someone dies, it's much more meaningful than in a typical DND game of afterlife revolving doors.

However, I'm also playing very nonlethal games at the same time - mostly Mutants and Masterminds, where the default state of a downed character is "knocked out", not "dead", and DND 4e, where it's ridiculously hard to die after you get reduced to 0 HP. Combine this with pretty competent players in general, and I've never had a PC die in a normal fight.

Jay R
2012-03-10, 12:39 PM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over. Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.
Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?
...
Anyone have a way to handle this more elegantly? Or have it work with a longer term campaign?

There is a way, but you have to be very careful so the players don't catch you at it.

Don't kill the PCs. That's all it takes. Death is permanent in that world, but that fact doesn't effect the party until until a PC actually dies.

Ideally, they come close to death often, but cleverly save themselves each time until the final episode, when half the party or more dies as they finally defeat the BBEG.

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-10, 01:08 PM
Suppose you want a campaign where if a character dies, they stay dead.Take your pick, there's dozens of options.


Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one. Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?Okay, no, that one's gonna be problematic. No offense intended, but this is genuinely one of the most awful ideas I've heard.


This still leaves the issue of what to do with the players for the next few hours, but hopefully the session is interesting enough for a spectator.Doubtful.


Anyone have a way to handle this more elegantly? Or have it work with a longer term campaign?Don't shut the players out of the game because their character died?

Snowbluff
2012-03-10, 01:16 PM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over. Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.
Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?

One way would be to have a very short campaign in the first place, so the amount of time they spend dead is low. Say, if its a one-shot. In fact, wearing down and killing the party maybe their primary lose condition, and whether or not they survive is really indeterminate. This still leaves the issue of what to do with the players for the next few hours, but hopefully the session is interesting enough for a spectator.

Anyone have a way to handle this more elegantly? Or have it work with a longer term campaign?

Normally I'd say no, but this has happened to me. I got blown up in a nuclear meltdown and had to roll a new character, which is what I would say to do. If they die, have them take a session to roll up a new one. Sure it's a compromise, but I love making compromises. :D

Mystify
2012-03-10, 01:33 PM
I do realize that if it is just played straight, campaign ending for the player when they died, then it would be a bad idea. Not necessarily the "No resurrection" clause, but coupled with the "no new character" clause. That is why I started this thread, to see if there were non-obvious ways to do this. The discussion on how the revolving door afterlife is atypical in RPGs is meaningful in that removing resurrections from the game does not have to be a problem. In fact, I was kinda hoping somebody had played a system where they handled it in a clever manner.


If I was going to do a game like this, I would let the players whose PCs died play some of the monsters during combat.

This has a few advantages, the most obvious being the player is still playing. Additionally letting them do this will take some of the stress of you as a DM. Playing monsters gives players a chance to try something new and different, which is always a bonus. Lastly, I think that allowing the players to run the monsters actually makes them more ruthless, as they aren't going to be as merciful about not killing off other players. (This sort of depends on the player, but I think that if I was to do this my monsters would become a lot more dangerous.)

Obviously you wouldn't want to have them play plot-important baddies, but I would definitely allow for them to run some of the mooks each fight to keep them involved.
This is probably the best suggestion so far, as it is actually a suggestion on how to handle it. It would keep the players involved, at least. If the game is more RP based, then this can be less meaningful.


On a very simple note, you could just not kill characters. Before the game starts, gather the group and include in the social contract that characters will not be killed, unless the player explicitly desires them to or allows them to in order for the narration to progress. This is slightly harder to achieve in randomness-relying games and settings of course.


There is a way, but you have to be very careful so the players don't catch you at it.

Don't kill the PCs. That's all it takes. Death is permanent in that world, but that fact doesn't effect the party until until a PC actually dies.

Ideally, they come close to death often, but cleverly save themselves each time until the final episode, when half the party or more dies as they finally defeat the BBEG.
If death never happens, then the risk of death is lost. The entire point of doing it like this would be to have death carry such a huge weight that they will take every possible measure to prevent it. I've seen many players who didn't care if they died in the least. Their character is sitting there at -9 hp, sourrounded by enemies, an they are just like "meh, whatever, I don't care if he dies, I have other characters I could play." That should be a very tense situation that calls for desperate measures, not a casual dismissal of the character's death.
Of course, the major flaw in this is that randomness can occasionally be a bigger factor in a character's death than anything the player did.


Yeah, because most roleplayers show up to watch other people do cool things while being a mere spectator.

I've watched several campaigns as a pure spectator before, for a variety of reasons. Generally, what goes on at a D&D table is interesting enough to watch, and you still get to socialize with everyone. Granted, its not as fun as actually playing in the campaign, but its not exactly boring.


Another ways to handle this:
The player does get a new character, but it is only at a plot-convenient time, and you essentially get an NPC to elevate to PC-hood. The DM designs it as a NPC, builds it to whatever concept he deems fit, and lets the player step in and take over. From that point, they have control over it, but its not "their" character as much, and is weaker than a typical PC. However, they do get to keep playing.

eggs
2012-03-10, 01:34 PM
Fiasco lets players with dead characters keep playing. Players just have to keep their subsequent scenes in the timeframe before the character croaked. For certain types of games, that's an option.


Re: the OP:
Jack Chick probably isn't the best model for your DMing. No matter how hard Black Leaf had it coming.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-10, 01:41 PM
If death never happens, then the risk of death is lost. The entire point of doing it like this would be to have death carry such a huge weight that they will take every possible measure to prevent it. I've seen many players who didn't care if they died in the least. Their character is sitting there at -9 hp, sourrounded by enemies, an they are just like "meh, whatever, I don't care if he dies, I have other characters I could play." That should be a very tense situation that calls for desperate measures, not a casual dismissal of the character's death.

Another ways to handle this:
The player does get a new character, but it is only at a plot-convenient time, and you essentially get an NPC to elevate to PC-hood. The DM designs it as a NPC, builds it to whatever concept he deems fit, and lets the player step in and take over. From that point, they have control over it, but its not "their" character as much, and is weaker than a typical PC. However, they do get to keep playing.

I feel very, very sorry for your players, since I have yet to meet a single person who would actually have fun in the type of situation you want to attain, leading me to believe such people are not exactly very common in the slightest.

I just hope you realise you are punishing players for not showing the emotions you want them to show at the table. If you didn't realise that, please think carefully about what your game goals are.

At the very, very least, warn the players in advance. I am in general a fairly unemotional person, and if I was going to be punished at the table for not caring about my characters (as a general rule, I don't get attached to them, unlike most people I know), I would like to know in advance so I could sit that campaign out. Just a matter of common courtesy, that's all.

Mystify
2012-03-10, 03:01 PM
I feel very, very sorry for your players, since I have yet to meet a single person who would actually have fun in the type of situation you want to attain, leading me to believe such people are not exactly very common in the slightest.

I just hope you realise you are punishing players for not showing the emotions you want them to show at the table. If you didn't realise that, please think carefully about what your game goals are.

At the very, very least, warn the players in advance. I am in general a fairly unemotional person, and if I was going to be punished at the table for not caring about my characters (as a general rule, I don't get attached to them, unlike most people I know), I would like to know in advance so I could sit that campaign out. Just a matter of common courtesy, that's all.
You misunderstand me. I'm not intending to throw this at players. I understand how awful of a principle it is. I am setting aside my initial gag reflex for the concept to see if I can gleam any insight from it. I mean, my starting premise is "This is a horrible idea, can you alter it so it is functional". It is not something I ever intend to subject players to, its a game design thought experiment.

Mystify
2012-03-10, 03:05 PM
I feel very, very sorry for your players, since I have yet to meet a single person who would actually have fun in the type of situation you want to attain, leading me to believe such people are not exactly very common in the slightest.

I just hope you realise you are punishing players for not showing the emotions you want them to show at the table. If you didn't realise that, please think carefully about what your game goals are.

At the very, very least, warn the players in advance. I am in general a fairly unemotional person, and if I was going to be punished at the table for not caring about my characters (as a general rule, I don't get attached to them, unlike most people I know), I would like to know in advance so I could sit that campaign out. Just a matter of common courtesy, that's all.
You misunderstand me. I'm not intending to throw this at players. I understand how awful of a principle it is. I am setting aside my initial gag reflex for the concept to see if I can gleam any insight from it. I mean, my starting premise is "This is a horrible idea, can you alter it so it is functional". It is not something I ever intend to subject players to, its a game design thought experiment.

Grinner
2012-03-10, 03:37 PM
If you want to create fear, I think removing the wealth-by-level mechanic might go a long way. Also, combine this with modified resurrection rules: Reduce the cost of the high-level resurrection spells slightly and eliminate low-level ones altogether.

The problem, as I see it, is that D&D is an extremely predestined game. By RAW, the DM has little power over how the players progress, since he is required by WotC's rules to give players certain benefits just for playing. Now, if the player can be relatively certain about the future as far as his character is concerned, then he will have no fear, for uncertainty is the basic element of fear.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-10, 04:00 PM
You misunderstand me. I'm not intending to throw this at players. I understand how awful of a principle it is. I am setting aside my initial gag reflex for the concept to see if I can gleam any insight from it. I mean, my starting premise is "This is a horrible idea, can you alter it so it is functional". It is not something I ever intend to subject players to, its a game design thought experiment.

The problem is that you're not clearly defining your goals. If you have problems with a Revolving Door Afterlife, you have been cited several examples where that's removed and it's not a problem (with the main caveat being the player is allowed to play a new character). No game (to my knowledge) ever explicitly forbade a player from making a new character after their current one dies. So if that was your goal, that's your solution. Make death permanent, yes, but let the players remake their characters (with the only 'penalty' for not taking better care of themselves is waiting for the DM to introduce the character when it makes sense for the plot).

Now if your goal is "I want players to display this or that emotion," then the most ethical solution is "become a better storyteller." Enhance your plotting abilities, improvisational skills, delivery, narrative, dialogue, and so on. Get to know your players and find ways to engage them in the game provided that's what they want. If they don't want to be engaged in the game (and they have every right to be that way), you'll never get a strong emotion out of them, and if such a thing is terribly important for you, then you might want to find other players. Try recruiting at a drama class or something (and the drama class itself will help you become a better actor, and therefore a better storyteller).

Now, if you want your players to behave in certain ways, just talk to them. Tell them you don't have fun if they treat death so lightly. Tell them you have a right to have fun and them not really caring about what happens to their characters ruins the experience for you. I can't speak for them, but that would personally fly leagues and miles better with me than coming up with "ideas" or taking "suggestions" that remove choice away from me and "encourage" or outright force me to behave the way you want.

boredgremlin
2012-03-10, 04:04 PM
I'd say the best way to handle this idea is to make the characters part of a big adventuring or mercenary company and pre-stat most of the company. And totally give up the idea of making the player watch everyone else game. Thats just a dumb, mean idea. Let that character be perma-dead and they play someone else in the company of their choice.

Then you make the story about the whole company and its adventures rather then about any real individuals. Something along the lines of the black company or gaunts ghosts novels.

TBH you dont need them to die to switch in this sort of campaign either. You let them know what sort of missions the company needs to perform for their current place in the story and let them decide as a group which ones they want to play through and with who.

Then you just meta the missions they didnt choose in a way you want for the story thats still consistent with their own actions and success or failure.

ericgrau
2012-03-10, 04:10 PM
One alternate rule is to say that characters don't die at -10. They usually get knocked out or some other effect. One system I saw made it a fort save to determine the effect.

Another is for players to have a lot of backup characters. New characters start 1 level behind the party but they can catch up over time.

Another is to give extra HP but have some debilitating effect that makes the character want to leave or have to leave combat after taking the amount of HP damage that might normally kill them. For example maybe players are allowed to go much deeper into the negatives. For such as system you need to eliminate insta-kill spells, or have them drop the player to 0 or whatever the threshhold for the extra HP is. Save-or-sucks are fine since after taking the normal amount of damage (the amount before the HP boost) the player sucks even more.

Rakmakallan
2012-03-10, 04:51 PM
Sooooo you're saying that your player wouldn't give a monkey's behind about dying. Sorry, but I would have walked away from that game. Though it may seem pretentious, a roleplayer should be attached to their characters as living-breathing entities in the game universe. The character knows they are on the brink of death and has no idea that they shall be spared or that the GM twists the narration to accommodate for its progress, hence the character should still try to avoid death and despair in its face. The player on the other hand should attempt his best to incarnate this drama and mortal struggle.
(Then again I might have been delving too much into narrative gaming lately.)

Take a look at Polaris for instance. Until a knight grows weary and dies or become corrupted, they won't die in any of the scenes. However, when their number is up, finita la musica, passata la fiesta, goodbye knight. Gaming in such ways requires some degree of maturity, trust among the group members and seriousness.

Mystify
2012-03-10, 05:00 PM
Sooooo you're saying that your player wouldn't give a monkey's behind about dying. Sorry, but I would have walked away from that game. Though it may seem pretentious, a roleplayer should be attached to their characters as living-breathing entities in the game universe. The character knows they are on the brink of death and has no idea that they shall be spared or that the GM twists the narration to accommodate for its progress, hence the character should still try to avoid death and despair in its face. The player on the other hand should attempt his best to incarnate this drama and mortal struggle.
(Then again I might have been delving too much into narrative gaming lately.)

Take a look at Polaris for instance. Until a knight grows weary and dies or become corrupted, they won't die in any of the scenes. However, when their number is up, finita la musica, passata la fiesta, goodbye knight. Gaming in such ways requires some degree of maturity, trust among the group members and seriousness.
You can justify a lot of shadey game design by saying the players should just ignore it role play it properly. A good role player can role play regardless of system, but I think the two should reinforce each other. Creating seperate expectations for the players and the characters is something I try to avoid. Yes, you can say that there should be no metagaming, but I don't like to be presented with the choice of doing the "correct" action, and what the character should realistically do. It becomes a tradeoff of mechanical advantage for roleplaying. The mechanics and the role playing should push in the same direction, not opposed directions.

Reluctance
2012-03-10, 05:03 PM
One of the legacy issues with 3.5 is that life is indeed cheap. Not many other systems can have your life and death come down to a single dice roll, and most of those where it can have simplified chargen so you can field your next disposable minion ASAP. Easy resurrections are the "balance" for easy spontaneous death.

Of course, your problem doesn't sound like your characters have no fear of death. It sounds like they're minimally engaged in the game period. Spend your next session or two watching your players. Ideally, making notes on when they're engaged and how enthused they are. Maybe a change of system would freshen things up. Maybe you're failing to grab their attention. And maybe they're just doing it casually/to hang out with friends/out of force of habit. If they want a casual game night and nothing more, it's probably better to embrace that than to "force" them to feel more attached than they actually do.

Mystify
2012-03-10, 05:08 PM
Of course, your problem doesn't sound like your characters have no fear of death. It sounds like they're minimally engaged in the game period. Spend your next session or two watching your players. Ideally, making notes on when they're engaged and how enthused they are. Maybe a change of system would freshen things up. Maybe you're failing to grab their attention. And maybe they're just doing it casually/to hang out with friends/out of force of habit. If they want a casual game night and nothing more, it's probably better to embrace that than to "force" them to feel more attached than they actually do.
Its not the campaign. They have the same attitude in every campaign I've seen them in, even though they care about the plot and are interested in it, they have so many character concepts to try that having to use a new one is not unappealing. I sympathize, I have piles of character's I'd like to try sometime. It makes character death almost a perk, since you get to try to use your other characters. It also sounds like they are just very used to characters getting killed from previous games, and hence don't form that level of attachment with their character. I had a case where I was trying harder to save their character than they were, and I felt worse about their character getting squished between the gears of mechanus than they did.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-10, 05:18 PM
Though it may seem pretentious, a roleplayer should be attached to their characters as living-breathing entities in the game universe.

Why? Can't I have fun without caring what happens to my character? After all, I don't really think anyone's entitled to tell another person how to roleplay their character. So long as they're having fun, what's the problem?

Reluctance
2012-03-10, 05:53 PM
Its not the campaign. They have the same attitude in every campaign I've seen them in, even though they care about the plot and are interested in it, they have so many character concepts to try that having to use a new one is not unappealing. I sympathize, I have piles of character's I'd like to try sometime. It makes character death almost a perk, since you get to try to use your other characters.

Hmm. The PCs are members of an organization. Allow every player a three-character tree, so that they can swap characters between missions. Keep missions to one or two sessions max.

Then, offer the player metagame currencies for reaching certain personal goals, where your character has to check back in for the points to count. It's a bit more game-y than Deep Immersion Storytelling, but that sounds like it's what'll help keep your players from feeling too disconnected. While at the same time, allowing them the variety they crave.

tcrudisi
2012-03-10, 06:09 PM
My immediate thought is a simple and elegant one: let the players of the dead PC's play the monsters. Then they have incentive to play the monsters well and make it more of a challenge for the players.

Bagelson
2012-03-10, 07:07 PM
No, I'm fairly sure most games actually rely on some form of resurrection to bring the player back to life. Even very gritty "death is final" games like WoD have loopholes (Promethean being the main example).
I suppose I could've phrased myself better. It seems the topic has been debated quite a bit, so I'll say no more.



The problem is that you're not clearly defining your goals. If you have problems with a Revolving Door Afterlife, you have been cited several examples where that's removed and it's not a problem (with the main caveat being the player is allowed to play a new character). No game (to my knowledge) ever explicitly forbade a player from making a new character after their current one dies. So if that was your goal, that's your solution. Make death permanent, yes, but let the players remake their characters (with the only 'penalty' for not taking better care of themselves is waiting for the DM to introduce the character when it makes sense for the plot).
I believe Dread does state that once your character is dead, you're out of the running. But then that's a game explicitly about characters dying in the most spectacularly gruesome manner available. It's also a game made for brief one-shots.

I'll chime in with the people who believe in better ways to get players engaged. When me and my friends first started out roleplaying we switched characters quite a bit. In a scenario design where all we did was travel from one place to the next for short adventures we had no reason to care about the setting or our characters. That changed when we switched to a campaign with a different format. While we still travelled, our adventures were centred around the city we made our home. When the NPCs knew us; we had a reputation and successful lives even outside of the adventuring; when characters and plots from our individual backstories kept showing up. In that way we got attached to both the characters and the setting, because our characters really mattered; just by being there they changed the world around them. Character switching pretty much stopped there and I only lost one character in the six years we were playing that game.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-10, 07:25 PM
I believe Dread does state that once your character is dead, you're out of the running. But then that's a game explicitly about characters dying in the most spectacularly gruesome manner available. It's also a game made for brief one-shots.

I have no idea what Dread is, so my statement remains true. But yeah, it would be a very poor game if players were actually left with nothing to do when their character died. If it's a very quick game, I do suppose the time spent idling will be minimal, but to be fair, who would want to spend all night watching other people play? Why, off the top of my head, I could think of several different things I'd rather be doing. At the very least, don't complain if the player in question goes off to watch TV or engage in self-amusement with their phone or laptop.

prufock
2012-03-10, 07:33 PM
Ghost or other undead.
Roleplay the afterlife.
Co-DM, running some NPCs, monsters, etc.
Have him play a singular NPC hireling or tagalong or follower of lower level (including animal companions, cohorts, familiars).

Frozen_Feet
2012-03-10, 07:36 PM
Well, my last (current, too, BTW) campaign followed these rules. Here's how I handled it:

1) After getting above level 3, you can hire yourself a henchman who is two levels lower. If your main character dies, you can switch over to playing your henchman.

2) If you die before level 3 and/or don't have a henchman and/or they die with you, you can assume role of any previously introduced support character at level 1.

3) If there aren't suitable side-characters, you'll have to create new one from scratch at level 1.

In any case, you are out of the game until the point where your character can reasonable enter play.

Example 1: you have a henchman. Your main and your henchman exist at the same scene. When your main dies, you can immediatly start playing your henchman.

Example 2: you don't have a henchman. However, your ship has 80 level 1 crew members. You elaborate on one of them, and can return to play immediatly if others are on or near the ship, or when others return to the ship.

Example 3: you and your friends are spelunking in a dungeon. You die, and have no henchman. It's been previously established no-one lives near the dungeon. Your character thus can't enter play before rest of the group returns to civilization.

In practice, no-one ever had to wait out more than one session due to character death, which evened out because it was a big group and not everyone was present at every session or for the whole time anyway. Death was always pretty dramatic and just before the campaign ended, my players saw a lot of trouble to research Raise Dead to resurrect one of the most-liked characters, but the spell was never used on anyone.

However, death was also invoked by my players on several points. One of the PCs amassed a whole lot of debt, and ended up unable to deal with it, so the player made the character commit suicide-by-dragon (reasonable, all things considered). This conveniently freed rest of the group from unfavorable payback conditions, but also allowed the player to assume role of a previously GM-introduced sage who'd shown interest in their doings, and ended up a major driving force for the early campaign.

Very few players survived with same characters from start to the end - and only one of those characters was alive after the end as well. Most players went through at least three characters, and usually ended up playing radically different characters than they started with. Since it was a new group, I considered beneficial for them to have a lot of "pre-planned" roles to try on in form of GM-introduced NPCs and henchmen, and a fair few started creating much more colorable characters as a result, which I'm happy about.

valadil
2012-03-10, 08:31 PM
Anyone have a way to handle this more elegantly? Or have it work with a longer term campaign?

Here's how I'd do it. Remove the GM's obligation to introduce a new character mid-adventure. Happening to find a lone wanderer who seems trustworthy in the middle of a dungeon is contrived anyway. Let the players hire a replacement when they go back to town. But until that happens they have to get through the adventure understaffed. I'd keep the adventures in the 3-4 session range so that nobody misses too much play time.

Another option I've seen is instead of not allowing new characters into the game, keeping a waiting list of new players. You stick around for as long as you can, but if you die you have to go back behind the other 10 people waiting for a chance to play. I never played with that GM, mainly because I like more control of who I play with, but from what I heard the players took the survival of their characters very seriously.

Slipperychicken
2012-03-10, 08:32 PM
One of my DMs (3.5 dnd) rolls with level loss for new characters. If the death was exceptionally not their fault and universally recognized as unfair (abysmal rolls, drunk DMing, etc.), the next might could have only lost half a level.


Kicking the player out of the game permanently just seems really unfair. Dying is bad enough as it is.

big teej
2012-03-10, 10:08 PM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over. Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.
Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?

One way would be to have a very short campaign in the first place, so the amount of time they spend dead is low. Say, if its a one-shot. In fact, wearing down and killing the party maybe their primary lose condition, and whether or not they survive is really indeterminate. This still leaves the issue of what to do with the players for the next few hours, but hopefully the session is interesting enough for a spectator.

Anyone have a way to handle this more elegantly? Or have it work with a longer term campaign?


the only viable method I can think of is to 1) be VERY upfront with people about this, and they be okay with it.

and by "it" I mean

'hey, if your character dies, you've gotta sit out until the campaign is over."

similar to an idea I had for a 1 shot or mini-campaign...

invite every last gamer I know, get them all in one room, have everybody roll a character, and have everyone draw a card from The Deck of Many Things.

those who are slain/removed by their cards are excused from the game.

the survivors will play through adventures based on the cards drawn.

/ramble

eggs
2012-03-11, 12:28 AM
I have no idea what Dread is, so my statement remains true.
It's a pretty beer-and-pretzels friendly horror game made for one-shots with a game engine based on Jenga.

So it's not quite the same as sitting quietly at the table with a character sheet you spent three hours plotting out, hoping that the DM sees fit to introduce your character sometime this week, maybe.

There's a bit more spectacle, a bit less at stake, and an expectation to BS around the table while the werevoles hunt down the remaining players.

ChaosOS
2012-03-11, 01:46 AM
In addition to the character roster idea to fix your actual problem, to roll with your original idea make a 1-shot where your characters start out playing characters doing something like trying to hold off an invasion of a city. When characters die you switch over to playing the enemy forces. OR, zombie apocalypse, once dead (infected), they switch over to playing special infected that you can rip straight out of Left 4 Dead or just have fun making your own special zombies.

Friv
2012-03-11, 02:39 AM
If you really want to get the players to start worrying about death, this would be my suggestion. Build a frontier town on the absolute edge of civilization, populated mainly by low-level adventurers. These adventurers have to defend the town, so only a few are available for actual questing (or alternately, the other adventurers also quest). Have the players each build three or four of these guys to act as the town's NPCs, depending on your game's lethality - enough of them that the players don't feel alone, a small enough .

Then, during the first session, the town loses contact with the outside world. The NPCs who are present are literally the only backup that the town has. If a player dies, they have to pick their replacement from a slowly shrinking pool of people in the area who matter. Very occasionally, let their actions also cause the deaths of NPCs who aren't quick enough. Maybe add an extra three or four NPCs of your own so that you can once in a while have people not come back from adventures.

The plot of the game is to figure out why they lost contact, and go from there. Major milestone rewards can include recruiting new NPCs to fill the town with, but only rarely. Make it so that there is an escape clause for the players, and they know that, but they also know the clause is sparing. If there are too few NPCs, there won't be enough people manning the walls, the town will be overrun by monsters, and TPK - that way, if the group has no NPCs left, you can shake your head sadly and declare game over. This also creates a lose condition for the setting.

Your players will either love this game or hate it, I expect. Make sure they like the idea before springing it on them.

Mystify
2012-03-11, 04:14 AM
If you really want to get the players to start worrying about death, this would be my suggestion. Build a frontier town on the absolute edge of civilization, populated mainly by low-level adventurers. These adventurers have to defend the town, so only a few are available for actual questing (or alternately, the other adventurers also quest). Have the players each build three or four of these guys to act as the town's NPCs, depending on your game's lethality - enough of them that the players don't feel alone, a small enough .

Then, during the first session, the town loses contact with the outside world. The NPCs who are present are literally the only backup that the town has. If a player dies, they have to pick their replacement from a slowly shrinking pool of people in the area who matter. Very occasionally, let their actions also cause the deaths of NPCs who aren't quick enough. Maybe add an extra three or four NPCs of your own so that you can once in a while have people not come back from adventures.

The plot of the game is to figure out why they lost contact, and go from there. Major milestone rewards can include recruiting new NPCs to fill the town with, but only rarely. Make it so that there is an escape clause for the players, and they know that, but they also know the clause is sparing. If there are too few NPCs, there won't be enough people manning the walls, the town will be overrun by monsters, and TPK - that way, if the group has no NPCs left, you can shake your head sadly and declare game over. This also creates a lose condition for the setting.

Your players will either love this game or hate it, I expect. Make sure they like the idea before springing it on them.
That is an interesting idea.

Dimers
2012-03-11, 06:05 AM
death was also invoked by my players on several points. One of the PCs amassed a whole lot of debt, and ended up unable to deal with it, so the player made the character commit suicide-by-dragon (reasonable, all things considered). This conveniently freed rest of the group from unfavorable payback conditions, but also allowed the player to assume role of a previously GM-introduced sage who'd shown interest in their doings, and ended up a major driving force for the early campaign. Very few players survived with same characters from start to the end - and only one of those characters was alive after the end as well. Most players went through at least three characters, and usually ended up playing radically different characters than they started with.

That reminds me of the mechanic for switching who you're playing in the boardgame Small World. Most games, everyone will switch two or three times, letting the previous units fade away (or even using the new units to kill them for fun and profit). It's nothing but a calculated maneuver in the boardgame ... not at all evoking the idea that death is something bad and to be avoided, which is what the OP was trying to accomplish.

I'd say that if there is any way to continue control as a protagonist, some players will find a way to not take character death seriously. Maybe even if they don't get to be protagonists. For example, in Betrayal At House On The Hill (also a boardgame), somebody could have a grand old time becoming the antagonist and killing all the other PCs. I think the only ways to truly accomplish the OP's purpose will begin with "Don't play with people who suck."

Analytica
2012-03-11, 07:20 AM
Hmm. The PCs are members of an organization. Allow every player a three-character tree, so that they can swap characters between missions. Keep missions to one or two sessions max.

Then, offer the player metagame currencies for reaching certain personal goals, where your character has to check back in for the points to count. It's a bit more game-y than Deep Immersion Storytelling, but that sounds like it's what'll help keep your players from feeling too disconnected. While at the same time, allowing them the variety they crave.

AD&D Dark Sun suggested character trees for this purpose, you continually keep backup characters active in the world but present elsewhere, then swap them in and out. Ars Magica has similar things going. If one dies, switch to a passive character and eventually introduce someone new to fill out the roster.

Alternately, make a new character on the opposing side. Split the group. If that one dies, make a new hero. Repeat.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-03-11, 09:49 AM
Just to chime in late here, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on "how to make death meaningful". The premise in the OP is essentially "making death meaningful by punishing the players whose characters die", which is not really cool. Rather, you should be looking at "making death meaningful by asking the players to play a character they care about rather than a disposable set of numbers" or "making death meaningful by making it have an impact on the story", both of which are system-neutral and simply require a little extra investment on the part of both players and GM.

Shadowknight12
2012-03-11, 09:51 AM
Just to chime in late here, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on "how to make death meaningful". The premise in the OP is essentially "making death meaningful by punishing the players whose characters die", which is not really cool. Rather, you should be looking at "making death meaningful by asking the players to play a character they care about rather than a disposable set of numbers" or "making death meaningful by making it have an impact on the story", both of which are system-neutral and simply require a little extra investment on the part of both players and GM.

Or, conversely, "making death meaningful by making life awesome."

Nerd-o-rama
2012-03-11, 09:55 AM
Or, conversely, "making death meaningful by making life awesome."

The easiest one to do in D&D, admittedly.

Jay R
2012-03-11, 11:08 AM
If death never happens, then the risk of death is lost. The entire point of doing it like this would be to have death carry such a huge weight that they will take every possible measure to prevent it. I've seen many players who didn't care if they died in the least. Their character is sitting there at -9 hp, sourrounded by enemies, an they are just like "meh, whatever, I don't care if he dies, I have other characters I could play." That should be a very tense situation that calls for desperate measures, not a casual dismissal of the character's death.

Of course, the major flaw in this is that randomness can occasionally be a bigger factor in a character's death than anything the player did.

That's why I said you have to not let your players catch you at it. My suggestion is that the threat of death be omnipresent, but never quite materialize.

If their character is sitting at -9 hit points surrounded by enemies, then you have failed at this. Ideally, if they are at -9 hit points, the other PCs manage to rescue them.

A movie can be very suspenseful, even if nobody dies, as long as the movie-makers make the audience believe somebody is going to die.

A permadeath campaign is equally suspenseful, as long as they believe characters could die.

Ideally, the first death occurs in the second-to-last adventure, and some of the PCs die in the last one, as the party defeats the BBEG.

Autolykos
2012-03-12, 07:51 PM
Most systems either have some sort of resurrection (like D&D), or aren't built for long campaigns (so characters can be replaced and rotated between sessions). Shadowrun is one of those typical "permadeath" systems (and dying is pretty easy in the first place). But the characters are just hired for a job and go their separate ways after the session (the movie "Ronin" is a typical example of how a run should work). While some groups will always use the same character, we usually had multiple characters for each player with the GM deciding which one to hire (well, he'd have the last word but if the players suggested a feasible and well-balanced team it would be accepted). Dead characters would be out, but the player could just take another character for the next job. I usually had at least half a dozen ready characters with me, covering most specializations (and retired more characters myself than I got killed).
Not giving players with dead characters any way to continue playing might work at conventions (where the player can just go to another table), but isn't practical with most groups.
EDIT: GURPS has a quite interesting way of keeping the threat of dying without actually killing off characters en masse: The "health bar" is five times as long in the negatives as in the positives which, combined with "blow-through" rules that limit the damage a single hit to a certain body part can do means that taking characters out of a fight with a single unlucky hit is a very real possibility (unless you're playing very cinematic or superheroes), but "insta-kill" only happens with excessive force (like taking a .50 cal machine gun burst or a tank gun to the chest). Without modern medicine, magical healing or superhuman constitution you're still quite likely to die once you end up in the negatives, but technically you can survive quite a lot of abuse without going flatline.

ken-do-nim
2012-03-14, 03:15 PM
What I have seen before D&D-wise is saying that new pcs must be started from 1st level and can't join the party until the party returns to town. This generally makes the player quit the group if the party is above level 5 and many sessions from town.

I would never have a player sit there with nothing to do. First of all, all of my players run multiple pcs, so if one goes down they still have another. Second, I play systems where rolling up a new pc is fast and fun, and I give the new pc half the xp of the dead one.

Mystify
2012-03-14, 03:46 PM
What I have seen before D&D-wise is saying that new pcs must be started from 1st level and can't join the party until the party returns to town. This generally makes the player quit the group if the party is above level 5 and many sessions from town.

That sounds like a horrible idea. Being 1 level behind can suck, but how would you even try to be a level 1 in a group of level 15s? I don't even understand the logic behind it, unless you are trying to claim that everyone not in the party is level 1?

Autolykos
2012-03-15, 06:04 AM
That sounds like a horrible idea. Being 1 level behind can suck, but how would you even try to be a level 1 in a group of level 15s? I don't even understand the logic behind it, unless you are trying to claim that everyone not in the party is level 1?The way the experience scale works, you'll be on the level the group was at when you joined by the time they gain another level. Just look at the multiclassing rules in AD&D, where you have to level your new class past your old one just to have access to your old abilities (which seems pretty harsh but is usually done in one or two sessions).

Mystify
2012-03-15, 06:20 AM
The way the experience scale works, you'll be on the level the group was at when you joined by the time they gain another level. Just look at the multiclassing rules in AD&D, where you have to level your new class past your old one just to have access to your old abilities (which seems pretty harsh but is usually done in one or two sessions).
Then why have that level where you will self-implode if something looks at you funny? It seems like it is more likely to randomly cycle characters until one is lucky enough to survive to a competent level, instead of just putting them in the group at a sensible level. it makes 0 sense to start them at level 1.

Frozen_Feet
2012-03-15, 10:55 AM
On the contrary, it often makes most sense to start them at level 1, since those are the most ubiquitous characters in a typical setting. :smallwink:

But yes, in D&D, the Exp curve is made so that even a weak challenge can make a starting character's level skyrocket, and they'll attain usefulness just as the other characters are about to level too.

The thing is, when the game is played like this, it's assumed the players can pick and choose their fights a bit, and not all fights are level-appropriate for the high-level characters. They need to have the option to "train" the weaker character, and/or the weaker character should be able to come up with something to do along his friends that doesn't place him in direct danger.

For example, there are many dangerous monster with fairly miserable spot. A reasonably skilled level 1 rogue might be able to sneak past and snatch the McGuffin while others fight the thing. Or the Rogue hides in the shadows as others weaken the monster first, and only emerges to deliver the Coup de Grace.

Mystify
2012-03-15, 12:24 PM
On the contrary, it often makes most sense to start them at level 1, since those are the most ubiquitous characters in a typical setting. :smallwink:

But if you are a party of level 15 adventurers, why in the world would you pick a level 1 rogue to bring along, instead of finding one of similar level?


For example, there are many dangerous monster with fairly miserable spot. A reasonably skilled level 1 rogue might be able to sneak past and snatch the McGuffin while others fight the thing. Or the Rogue hides in the shadows as others weaken the monster first, and only emerges to deliver the Coup de Grace.
That is a problem with the system where you have to actively train skills to counter other skills to even begin to have a chance of countering them at any level.

Frozen_Feet
2012-03-15, 03:47 PM
But if you are a party of level 15 adventurers, why in the world would you pick a level 1 rogue to bring along, instead of finding one of similar level?

Because there isn't one to find. This is a fairly legit answer in many settings. There's a limited amount of high-level characters, and finding and persuading one of them to join a rag-tag bunch of misfits might not be much easier than just rearing up one from your lower level followers.

For example, in my last campaign, it was rare for the players to meet any human NPC higher than level 5, but they had 80 level 1 sailors on their ship alone. In almost any circumstance, it was faster to level up one of the sailors rather than go specifically searching for a suitable high-level character.

Mystify
2012-03-15, 07:05 PM
Because there isn't one to find. This is a fairly legit answer in many settings. There's a limited amount of high-level characters, and finding and persuading one of them to join a rag-tag bunch of misfits might not be much easier than just rearing up one from your lower level followers.

For example, in my last campaign, it was rare for the players to meet any human NPC higher than level 5, but they had 80 level 1 sailors on their ship alone. In almost any circumstance, it was faster to level up one of the sailors rather than go specifically searching for a suitable high-level character.
You never ever fight NPCs? And if you do, they are always low level? Cause otherwise, you are running into higher level characters all the time, so finding one of them who won't kill you shouldn't be that unreasonable. If it is a stretch, it is a tiny stretch, and vastly improves the gameplay.

Frozen_Feet
2012-03-15, 07:57 PM
Most high-level opponents in that campaign were ancient dragons, bound demons or giant animals and thus ineligible for player characters.

Humanoid NPCs were mostly level 1. Finding people above that was uncommon, and finding people above level 5 very rare. At any given point of the game, there were dozens more 1 level characters available than even level 2 characters. Since dragging along level 1 character on a moderately difficult adventure usually made them jump to level 3 or 4 at least.

Mystify
2012-03-15, 08:16 PM
Most high-level opponents in that campaign were ancient dragons, bound demons or giant animals and thus ineligible for player characters.

Humanoid NPCs were mostly level 1. Finding people above that was uncommon, and finding people above level 5 very rare. At any given point of the game, there were dozens more 1 level characters available than even level 2 characters. Since dragging along level 1 character on a moderately difficult adventure usually made them jump to level 3 or 4 at least.
If you are at that big of a divide, a level 1 can't even get experince anymore. IF you are above CR 10, its not even within your ability to learn from the absurdity that is going on around you anymore.
In fact, I'd strongly argue that being able to drag a level 1 into a high level combat zone and power level them breaks the verisimilitude of the setting far more than finding somebody on-level. Imagine this scenario: A SWAT team is escorting a reporter through a highly dangerous area, and they get into several firefights. By the time they get to their destination, the reporter is suddenly a skilled gunman. The experience point system is meant to have a corrective effect to bump people back up to the rest of the party, not slingshot people from low level. Using it in that way is a bigger absurdity than than finding somebody else that is a similar level to the people in the group.

Libertad
2012-03-16, 01:32 AM
An interesting take on PC death is in the Ghostwalk Campaign Setting. Basically, PCs can rise as ghosts and continue adventuring and gain spirit-like supernatural powers.

I don't know how workable or balanced the system is, but it could have potential.

Lord Torath
2012-03-16, 07:33 AM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over. Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.
Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?

One way would be to have a very short campaign in the first place, so the amount of time they spend dead is low. Say, if its a one-shot. In fact, wearing down and killing the party maybe their primary lose condition, and whether or not they survive is really indeterminate. This still leaves the issue of what to do with the players for the next few hours, but hopefully the session is interesting enough for a spectator.

Anyone have a way to handle this more elegantly? Or have it work with a longer term campaign?
I suppose it depends on what your overall goal is. If you want players to treat death more seriously, I'd recommend this essay:
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/resurrection.htm
Pay special attention to the 5th paragraph.
TL/DR: If you've got a great PC who's an asset to your group, why would you want to keep them out? If you want to impress them with the seriousness of death, there are things you can do to make it so.

Many people are fine with a campaign where characters die permanently, but unless they can create a new character when the old one dies, they're going to get bored and quit.

Games are most exciting when the challenges are at the edge of what the characters can handle. This means that if you're running the game right, characters ARE going to die.

I guess it comes down to what you're really trying to accomplish with your "no restart" game.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-03-18, 10:24 PM
Its not the campaign. They have the same attitude in every campaign I've seen them in, even though they care about the plot and are interested in it, they have so many character concepts to try that having to use a new one is not unappealing. I sympathize, I have piles of character's I'd like to try sometime. It makes character death almost a perk, since you get to try to use your other characters. It also sounds like they are just very used to characters getting killed from previous games, and hence don't form that level of attachment with their character. I had a case where I was trying harder to save their character than they were, and I felt worse about their character getting squished between the gears of mechanus than they did.

If this is the real problem, perma-death is probably not the best way to go about it. No new characters in the middle of a dungeon? Sure. Waiting until an appropriate point is good, even a narrative necessity, at higher levels, but that point should come very soon. Even if it means twisting the campaign plot, it's the DM's job to get the player back in the game as soon as possible. You can't have fun if you're not playing.

My "fixing what you think the problem is" advice for addressing the situation you describe above is to encourage the use of resurrection. Yes, it softens the blow of death, but it sounds like your players are already not worrying about it. Make it easy for them to keep playing the same character. And then make them care about their characters. Have NPCs and plots that engage characters on a personal level. Introduce real NPC friends. Have plot-related rewards that can't easily be transferred to a new character. And while you're doing this, don't make things too lethal. Break your players of the habit of expecting death.

My "making sure everyone has fun" advice is that it's the DM's job to make a game that's fun for everyone. If your players are the sort who get bored with a given character, roll with it. A few people have mentioned the idea of playing a mercenary company, with rotating bands of heroes. Something along those lines sounds like a great way of accommodating everyone's desires-- you can tell a story your players will enjoy, and they can try out a constant array of new heroes.

Mystify
2012-03-18, 10:52 PM
I guess it comes down to what you're really trying to accomplish with your "no restart" game.
Honestly, nothing, I was mainly interested in seeing what people would say about it. I was kinda hoping somebody would surprise me with a cool game mechanic I had never ran across before.

LibraryOgre
2012-03-18, 11:37 PM
In Hackmaster, death is usually pretty permanent. While you aren't explicitly barred from being in new characters, it's frequently suggested that you maintain proteges... characters of somewhat reduced level compared to your own, but who get those bits of extra gear and in whom you invest some of your XP. While you level at a slower rate, your protege tends to keep pace, and has an established reason for joining the party... though it may take them a while to get there.

Otherwise, yeah, I think handing someone an NPC, with the limitations of that, is a good way to encourage people to keep characters alive.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-03-18, 11:52 PM
This discussion sort of reminds me of Pendragon. In that game, when your character dies, you pick up play with a descendant of your character. (Part of the character generation process involves actually creating a family for your character, and growing that family is something which happens throughout gameplay.)

However, part of what makes this work is the fact that Pendragon has no level system. There is a much smaller power gap between a veteran knight and a young knight, especially compared to the difference between a Level 5 and a Level 15. However, you could still employ a similar principle in D&D. Pick up and play a character who has some connection to the now-dead character. They'll enter play a few levels beneath the party; it's assumed that they've been training and growing on their own.

This will require preparation in your campaign. Each player will either have to write up a family, or else have relationships with NPCs, some of whom will have potential reason to start adventuring with the party, should the PC die. And suspension of disbelief is no longer violated.

Fitz10019
2012-03-21, 06:58 AM
PbP
Players of killed characters can drop by the forum to catch up on what's happened since their death whenever they want to -- without being bored by the process of not contributing to the action.

Mystify
2012-03-21, 07:13 AM
PbP
Players of killed characters can drop by the forum to catch up on what's happened since their death whenever they want to -- without being bored by the process of not contributing to the action.
That is an interesting point.

Krenn
2012-03-21, 11:07 PM
Suppose you want a campaign wear if a character dies, they stay dead. No resurrections, just game over. Furthermore, to make this even more meaningful, you don't automatically get a new character to replace your old one.
Is there a way to handle this so that losing the character doesn't end the campaign for the player?

One way would be to have a very short campaign in the first place, so the amount of time they spend dead is low. Say, if its a one-shot. In fact, wearing down and killing the party maybe their primary lose condition, and whether or not they survive is really indeterminate. This still leaves the issue of what to do with the players for the next few hours, but hopefully the session is interesting enough for a spectator.

Anyone have a way to handle this more elegantly? Or have it work with a longer term campaign?


Two basic options:

1. All new characters are 1st level, regardless of the difficulty of the campaign. To make this work, you'll need to kill off your players slowly enough to maintain a suitable 'average' party level, and use an RPG that allows first level characters to maximize their abilities in one specific area, so that they're still useful to a higher level party.

That's actually a pretty fair description of how the current version of Hackmaster works.

2. Allow Character Proteges: higher-level characters can send money, equipment, and maybe even sacrifice some of their experience points as 'gifts' to a lower level character: probably their younger brother or something.

Then, when their high-level character 'dies', if they're smart and planned ahead, they've prepared a backup character who's about half their previous level.

The old version of Hackmaster had that set up, and we've been getting hints in the new PHB that a similiar system will be introduced eventually for the new edition, it just hasn't shown up yet.