PDA

View Full Version : Alternatives to character death



Thrawn4
2018-09-26, 03:58 PM
Lately I have given some thought to character death. In many cases, and especially in fights, we want danger and consequences, but we also don't want the campaign to end for a character. Now I know there are ways around it, but I am not really happy with those... maybe someone would like to give me some input?

The way I see it there several ways of avoiding character death:

1. Permanent Disadvantage
Instead of killing off a character, the character receives a lasting flaw. Maybe their hand was maimed, their overall health suffers (less HP), they suffer from nightmares or another loss off resources. Some unlucky characters might accumulate several disadvantages over the course of a long campaign.

2. Long Critical Coma
When a character is severly injured, they slip into a long coma, but may still be revived as long as one party member survives, because dying takes a looong time. Either everyone makes it or nobody.

3. Intentional Murder Only
Coma as above, with the additional rule that everybody wakes up eventually as long as they were not actively killed (wild beast eating them, assassin hired to murder target). Can be more realistic when the DM designs encounters around ulterior motives instead of live-or-die fights.

4. Story Consequences
The players fail at a vital task, and either face additional difficulties in the near future, or the story ends badly alltogether. An unhappy ending, if you will. The group didn't save the princess or solve the murder in time.

5. Meta Currency
Fate Points or what-have-you that amount to a get-out-of-jail-card.


Now, personally, I usually go with lose-or-die fights, because I consider it the most realistic way, but I would also make a case for 1. permanent disadvantage and 4. story consequences, although the former still reeks of immortality and the latter is sometimes hard to pull off.

How do you handle it?

kyoryu
2018-09-26, 04:33 PM
I'm all about #4.

I consider it being hard to pull off a warning sign that maybe there shouldn't have been a fight in the first place.

Mastikator
2018-09-26, 04:36 PM
Are we strictly talking about the player losing some battle and being forced to relinquish control of their character, or can this also be the player voluntarily giving them up so they can play some other character?

MoiMagnus
2018-09-26, 04:40 PM
My opinion:

1) I personnally hate that one. (Unless the character is about to leave the party anyway, so it allow some transition session where the character prepare its retirement). But I prefer death. Permanent disadvantages have the same feeling of unfair as random stats.

2) Sure. At high level, that's equivalent to death anyway.

3) I prefer that one to 2.

4) I really like story consequence, though not always easily possible.

5) I like them if they are justified by the scenario (you've please a divinity of time, so you gain one "roll back the round and start again" for the campaign, you've please a divinity of protection, so you gain one "stop an attack" for the campaign). I'm not a fan when they are just some purely meta stuff like "fate points" that just postpone the problem by giving you extra lifes.

I will add some mixed version:

6) Mental traumatismes. So in between "1" and "4". They are permanent disadvantage that are only relevant when the story need them to be relevant.

7) No-playing time. If your character is dead/coma, that mean you will not play for the remaining of the fight (or until someone take the time to resurect/revive you, or until your clone arrive from the clone factory, ...). Not being able to play for the remaining of the fight (and maybe the following scene) is already a significant penalty. You don't necessarily need to add another thing on top.

8) Semi-definitive penalty. Like "1", except the penalty only last for the remaining of the session and the following one (or whatever time period giving approximatively this play time).

Thinker
2018-09-26, 07:20 PM
You have a few more options you may not have considered:
Take away an ally, a base, a contact, or equipment - so long as it is valuable to the character/player, this can be bad without killing the character off. Justify it as the character failing to protect whatever it is.
Give the player a choice between two bad things happening - the character survives, but the bad guy slips away, the character survives, but his sword/armor breaks, and so on.
The character is disarmed and at the mercy of the villain - the player can choose to resist, but doing so would be fatal.
An ally turns on the party - overwhelmed by greed, fear, or some other emotion, the NPC decides s/he's joined the wrong side and switches.

Dragonexx
2018-09-27, 12:17 AM
#4 is where I would start with. Not every fight has to end with one team dying. Perhaps the adventure turns takes a different rout. For example, you instead of dying, you get knocked out and taken prisoner so they can sacrifice you later. Thus now you have to escape and get back your gear!

Arbane
2018-09-27, 12:20 AM
9: Fall down, the character is out of play for three minutes, and comes back smouldering, full of holes, crumpled up like an accordion, etc.

Thrawn4
2018-09-27, 07:39 AM
I'm all about #4.

I consider it being hard to pull off a warning sign that maybe there shouldn't have been a fight in the first place.

I think this is utterly dependent on the expectations you set for the campaign. My basic rule is "Fights are always a solution, but rarely the best."


Are we strictly talking about the player losing some battle and being forced to relinquish control of their character, or can this also be the player voluntarily giving them up so they can play some other character?
The former. In the latter case, death is not really a problem.



My opinion:


4) I really like story consequence, though not always easily possible.

I agree. It would be my favourite option if it was easy to pull off.

ZikkaFriday
2018-09-27, 07:39 AM
I'm thinking Coma or maybe, if the story/environment fits it and the player REALLY was attached to that character and doesn't want to let go of said character, the player's dead avatar follows the party around as a ghost for giggles XD
maybe the GM can give said spirit-of-deceased-character some spirit-abilities, like being able to communicate with the rest of the still-alive party via spooky messages or send visions (if the GMs allow it) of impending danger ahead?

Tabletop is all about creativity after all, and the "haunted party" trope would add a lil' extra juicy flavor to the campaign if it's a horror or supernatural themed campaign!

Nifft
2018-09-27, 11:19 AM
5. Meta Currency
Fate Points or what-have-you that amount to a get-out-of-jail-card.

I've had success with this, in D&D and other systems.

Hand_of_Vecna
2018-09-27, 02:28 PM
Variant on meta currency.

When I start new games that I expect to be dangerous I often have a plan for one DM fiat save your bacon moment. Basically it's the same sort of thing people often complain of in sloppy railroad games, but it's planned out and hopefully executed with more grace. It also helps if the saviour isn't super powerful, but just arrived in time to turn the tide.

Another possibility if I feel that the incoming character death is largely due to luck and/or me misjudging the party's strength rather a player's mistakes is to give the would be dead character a leg up. Bring them back as a cyborg, or have them be told their the chosen one in a dream. They were the one that almost dies so obviously they weren't the strongest party member.

kyoryu
2018-09-27, 02:51 PM
I agree. It would be my favourite option if it was easy to pull off.

The way I do it is make sure that all of my fights are about answering some kind of question in the first place. By putting that front and center, story consequences are always an option.

awa
2018-09-27, 02:58 PM
one i have started doing, is temporary penalty. So like in my last campaign a player went down and suffered a movement penalty for the rest of the adventure. I picked a thing that would hurt him but also not prevent him from doing his thing.
I also often combine this with story penalties. At a latter point the party was being overwhelmed which resulted in an ally who was staying in reserve joining the fray, as they were weaker they ended up dying (off screen) but this meant the PC won their fight. This ally had been with them from like the second session and was well liked. To clarify the npc was normally sitting in their home base unless they wanted to use her tracking abilities but the fight happened to be in their base.

Slipperychicken
2018-09-27, 02:59 PM
You could just have the baddies loot their stuff, write the word "LOSER" on their bodies, and leave them for dead.

Though if I was planning on something like that, where enemies don't actually execute the PCs, then I'd demand the players agree to a similar set of guidelines to help establish the game's tone. That is, if enemies don't kill PCs outright as a genre conceit, then PCs don't kill enemies outright either. We'd agree not to have a batman/joker type situation, and players might have to think a little more about the fate of the foes they defeat.

Another thing is to have the players actually flee or give up instead of fighting to death like suicidal madmen for the pettiest reasons. I dunno, you could have them agree to a morale system or something to determine when both they and NPCs are required to disengage or surrender.

I'd also look at a game like RuneQuest(now called Mythras), Wild Talents, or ACKs, where there's a spectrum of physical disability that can potentially result from doing poorly in a fight.

If you have a luck stat in your game, then you can just subtract from its maximum value each time the character would normally face death or disfigurement. It would literally represent their luck running out after facing situations that should by all rights have maimed them, and also give the players multiple chances and warnings to figure out how to not die. Another plus is that it would allow you to be more merciless, since the players effectively have "lives" to draw on.

Berenger
2018-09-27, 04:34 PM
I usually go with lose-or-die fights

That's a rough deal.

Nifft
2018-09-27, 04:41 PM
That's a rough deal.

Excellent incentive to avoid fights though.

kyoryu
2018-09-27, 04:45 PM
Excellent incentive to avoid fights though.

More of an incentive to ensure that you absolutely overpower every fight you get into.

Nifft
2018-09-27, 05:04 PM
More of an incentive to ensure that you absolutely overpower every fight you get into.

Not sure how that helps, given the two possible results are "lose" or "die".

Knaight
2018-09-27, 07:42 PM
Excellent incentive to avoid fights though.

I figure the only things that fit that description are deliberate suicide attacks against people trying to take you alive (and probably captive). If you're in that situation in the first place you're probably committed to winning. That's not a tactic used by people who aren't majorly dedicated (except when it's used by literal bees).

That said, if your full campaign combat potential is one suicide attack you probably want to spend it well. Maybe it's just combined with cheap resurrection.

Thinker
2018-09-28, 10:46 AM
I like the way that Monster of the Week handles meta-currency:
During character creation, every character starts off with 8 luck points. Luck points can be spent to either decrease a wound just suffered to 0-harm (harm is their version of HP) or to retroactively change the result of a roll to a 12 (a roll of 10+ being a full-success). When you have marked off all of your luck, the GM is allowed to hit you with more bad stuff. Fate will be looking for some payback.

Basically, it amounts to monsters that might maim start to kill, an unfortunate destiny might begin to unfold, and things that might have turned out OK (partial successes) turn into utter defeats (failures).

aaron819
2018-09-28, 11:20 AM
In my post apocalypse game, surrendering characters may have all their stuff stolen (merciful enemies may leave them with some water to make it somewhere safe) or possibly be captured to later be sold (or hopefully escape).

Frozen_Feet
2018-09-28, 01:42 PM
My players avoid character death mostly by doing things or acting in a way where failure isn't lethal.

If you find yourself looking for alternatives to death in situations which should be lethal, ask why your players are having their characters do so many lethal things in the first place.

Nifft
2018-09-28, 01:48 PM
My players avoid character death mostly by doing things or acting in a way where failure isn't lethal.

If you find yourself looking for alternatives to death in situations which should be lethal, ask why your players are having their characters do so many lethal things in the first place.

It's because the DM and players are all made of human.

Humans are imperfect in judging risk -- this can go sideways from both sides of the screen, both in terms of presenting a challenge (imperfect judgment of real risk, imperfect presentation of risk), and in terms of engaging the challenge (imperfect reception of risk presentation, imperfect judgment of PC prowess).

Because humans make mistakes both in judging and communicating, there are at least four systemic sources of risk which cannot be removed unless you remove all the humans... and now we know exactly why Roll20 evolved into SkyNet.

Lapak
2018-09-28, 04:20 PM
My preferences vary from edition to edition, but to throw another idea into the mix I'll throw Dungeon World out there. It that system, when a character loses all their HP they have a vision of death, and get to make one final unadjusted roll on 2d6:

On a failure (6 or less) they die.

On a full success (10 or more) they are incapacitated but will survive the wound.

On a partial success, Death offers them a deal. If they accept the deal, they are incapacitated but alive, as with a success, but they come back with some geas to fulfill - to retrieve an object, or to slay some one that has cheated Death somehow, or whatever else the DM decides Death wants them to do - and they are potentially marked in some way by their brush with the hereafter.

BeerMug Paladin
2018-09-29, 01:11 AM
I've been contemplating a system of my own and just recently considered what would happen at 0 HP. I think a good option is receiving a serious injury and not being able to participate in the rest of the current battle.

The injury would be something with a lasting consequence, but should be possible to address, resolve or fix with some means. Something a little like option 1), but with a story-based way back to their earlier state. If the character receives another serious injury before their first is addressed, they have a chance to die from it, which increments the more injuries received.

Of course, this would either require on-the-spot determination of the nature of the injury, or some kind of injury table to refer to.

Thrawn4
2018-09-29, 02:53 AM
Not sure how that helps, given the two possible results are "lose" or "die".

An amusing little mistake :smallbiggrin:
Should have been "win or die".


More of an incentive to ensure that you absolutely overpower every fight you get into.

That's kind of the idea. To be fair, in my current campaigns fights are mostly optional.


I should probably also admit that the one time I PC would have died, I had prepared a backup plan (magical transformation based on the characters background, resulting in some permanent penalties).

kyoryu
2018-10-02, 12:56 PM
I've been contemplating a system of my own and just recently considered what would happen at 0 HP. I think a good option is receiving a serious injury and not being able to participate in the rest of the current battle.

This is similar to Fate, where if you're Taken Out (effectively, run out of hp), it's up to the player taking you out to determine what happens. That can be death, but doesn't have to be.

The presumption is that there's some kind of question at stake in the fight in the first place, so losing that is already inherently a "punishment" and to be avoided.

Reversefigure4
2018-10-02, 06:04 PM
1. Permanent Disadvantage
Instead of killing off a character, the character receives a lasting flaw. Maybe their hand was maimed, their overall health suffers (less HP), they suffer from nightmares or another loss off resources. Some unlucky characters might accumulate several disadvantages over the course of a long campaign.

The problem is that such a character can end up actively useless over the course of a long campaign. Losing permanent HP, for example, makes it more likely you'll lose the next fight, and lose more HP, which means you'll lose the next fight... eventually, the character passes a "better off dead" threshold, where the player would have more fun just having them die and picking up a new character who can actively contribute to the party and the game.