Two characters per player - one dies

[pasko77]

I'm preparing an adventure for a new party of players. The setting is fantasy-horror.

Since the characters don't know eachother, i thought a nice reason to put them together: they're all part of a caravan. During the adventure, the caravan members die one after the other, until the PCs are the only survivors.

Now, everybody knows that this process implies a lot of DM fiat or stretched events, to let EVERYBODY BUT THE RIGHT PEOPLE die, so i thought one thing:
give everybody 2 characters, so i can kill one of them without worrying.

I don't know, though, how would players react. Sure having main characters die, and not only the redshirts, adds horror. I just wouldn't want to upset people by deliberately killing their creations.

How would you react playing a game with two characters, and have one of them die at half story?
Has somebody already run something similar? Do you have examples?

Bye, Pasko

[Tempest Fennac]

The problem is that it would take twice as long for the players to sort out their character sheets. Also, I'd personally get really confused if I tried that (my bookkeeping skills are poor). I'd say you'd be better off with NPCs getting killed, while perhaps giving the players a chance to avoid dying when they get attacked (how plausible this would be would depend on what would be killing people).

[valadil]

I think that if your players are playing in a horror game they should know that PC death is going to happen. That's the whole point of horror. Just make it clear that the reason they each get two characters is so that you can kill important PCs without leaving the players bored for the rest of the session.

[pasko77]

@Tempest: you're right, but i don't think it will be a problem, since they're all first level core characters. 10 minutes instead of five. Plus, the BG is somewhat fixed, since some of the characters are married/engaged/friends.

@Valadil: should i tell them? But in this case wouldn't it be obvious that i shall kill exactly half of the characters? I want a "OMG i'm dead", not a "WTF, i preferred the other".

[Tempest Fennac]

That is a good point (to be fair, my characters so far have all been core except for a Shapeshifter Druid). I agree that telling them would be a problem (incidentally, will it be completely random regardng which characters die, or will you make that decision? If it's random, there's a chance you'll end up with an unbalanced party.

[pasko77]

That is a good point (to be fair, my characters so far have all been core except for a Shapeshifter Druid). I agree that telling them would be a problem (incidentally, will it be completely random regardng which characters die, or will you make that decision? If it's random, there's a chance you'll end up with an unbalanced party.

Where they are married/engaged, i'm going to kill at least one per couple (yes i am evil :smallcool: ). Otherwise it is all random. Of course, when Character One dies, i will begin to DM fiat to save Character Two, but i hope they don't understand it :)

i don't really care for party efficiency. You know, i'm playing a juggler, a Bard specialized in throwing knives, so you can understand what i think about power playing :smallsmile:

[valadil]

@Valadil: should i tell them? But in this case wouldn't it be obvious that i shall kill exactly half of the characters? I want a "OMG i'm dead", not a "WTF, i preferred the other".

I would. The death will be a little less dramatic since they see it coming, but that's better than a player who is disappointed about losing a character. The last thing you want is a bait and switch where they think they're getting into a fantasy game and it turns into horror.

Also, I wouldn't stop at half the characters. Kill half off early on, but then kill off most of the rest during the big finale at the end. You always have one hero barely escaping alongside the doofy comic relief sidekick who really shouldn't have lived, but instead faces years of physical and psychiatric therapy. Let people hold on to their second character for 95% of the game, but cut things down towards the end. You always do have the option of adding in more auxiliary characters. Like the janitor who happens to show up for a good fifteen minutes to provide a sliver of hope. Or the cops who think it's just another false alarm until it's too late.

The thing that's cool about a horror game is that the players know their characters will die. This actually adds to the game. It means you're free to play something weird that wouldn't be interesting enough in a long term campaign. Last time I played Deadlands I played as Digger, the OCD undertaker. He hit on the table dancer by offering to bury her for a discount. He only lasted three sessions, but that was all he needed. I'd never play that kind of character in a year long D&D game, but knowing that whatever I played was doomed meant I could play something silly and fun.

[Tempest Fennac]

I take it that it will be impossible for the characters who are destined to die to avoid death, right? If I'm honest, I tend to hate those sorts of situations due to thinking that it's cheap unless there's at least a small chance the character will survive.

[Irreverent Fool]

I needed a way to illustrate to my players just how awful and depraved a certain group of NPC villains was (were?). So at the beginning of the first session, I told the players, "Give me your character sheets". I then handed out some pre-generated NPCs with bits of background and had them role-play running into each other along the road.

Then the BBEGs showed up and began demanding their goods and proceeded to murder them. A couple managed to get away. Those ones were reintroduced from time to time as true NPCs, which the players loved.

After the event (which was referenced by the locals occasionally), the PCs show up in town and the true adventure began.

I got the idea from some gaming article on player investments in plotlines. I found it useful and the players loved it. A variation might be helpful for your plan.

The moral of the story: Only NPCs should die for plot reasons.

[Benejeseret]

I like it. I would even say to kill off the stronger/more powerful of each character. Adventurers of the B-team always end up becoming more interesting and longer lasting in my experience as the players stop thinking with their wrists (the dice people!) and begin using their brains and wit. Underdogs are enjoyable, especially when they win.

[Irreverent Fool]

I like it. I would even say to kill off the stronger/more powerful of each character. Adventurers of the B-team always end up becoming more interesting and longer lasting in my experience as the players stop thinking with their wrists (the dice people!) and begin using their brains and wit. Underdogs are enjoyable, especially when they win.

It definitely fits the genre, too. I mean, who usually dies in horror movies? The army, the police officers, the 'tough guys'. The last one left alive is usually the underdog who has to swallow his fear and rise up against the dark things in the night.

[shadowdemon_lord]

I'm getting that the OP wanted to scare his characters by telling them "just because your PC's, you aren't immune to the giant monster of doom". So, tell them to all play two characters. Then put them into situations where their is an extremely high likelihood of killing off a character. Don't kill them with the plot hammer, you can plot hammer the NPC's, but give the PC's semi avoidable deaths at least. Always reward player ingenuity. Hell, you don't even have to save one PC per player, you could kill off two characters then let them roll up a new one from among the (still living) members of the caravan. As the caravan gets smaller and smaller, the PC's may start to wonder where their next character is coming from:smallamused: .

[Prometheus]

Shadow Demon Lord makes a good point, if your playing horror, there should be no safe bases. Often horror campaigns rely on indefinitely rolling up new characters.

Make sure your players want to play horror, its a very different game. For example, they shouldn't necessarily have any long term plans for their characters. One concern though, in culling the weak and breeding the strong, is that players will power-game and attempt to mechanically optimize their characters as much as you can. For this reason, make sure that RP decisions strongly influence their fate (left is uncertain but right is moderately dangerous; your odds of survival are a lot better if you enlist the aid of that NPC; don't trust that NPC; Like any other dungeon puzzle, except this one will likely kill you if you fail).

As a side note, I really like your idea Irreverent Fool.

[ladditude]

I would tell them that it is a horror campaign and to always have a spare character sheet ready. Then, you can kill them in the caravan while you have a large amount of NPCs on the side from which one can be their backup character. I hope that makes sense.

My point is that their deaths will be more surprising. More "WTF BOOM!" Instead of "Why didn't you kill the other one?"

[Tempest Fennac]

I really like Irrelevant Fool's idea, and shadowdemon_lord's is also really good (they would at least acomplish your aims without unavoidable character deaths).

[pasko77]

I'm getting that the OP wanted to scare his characters by telling them "just because your PC's, you aren't immune to the giant monster of doom". So, tell them to all play two characters. Then put them into situations where their is an extremely high likelihood of killing off a character. Don't kill them with the plot hammer, you can plot hammer the NPC's, but give the PC's semi avoidable deaths at least. Always reward player ingenuity. Hell, you don't even have to save one PC per player, you could kill off two characters then let them roll up a new one from among the (still living) members of the caravan. As the caravan gets smaller and smaller, the PC's may start to wonder where their next character is coming from:smallamused: .

That was good. Give the WHOLE caravan to the players?
I have to rewrite it all :)
I can harvest PCs from the prisoners of the previous caravan... SO... many... options... :)

yes i admit i was planning to kill some PCs in unavoidable ways. Now i realize it was a bad idea.

At one point i was planning to split the party, ie: one group tries to escape, and the other stays to investigate. Of course i was planning to divide the characters evenly among these two groups, and that both groups had a task to fulfil to save their day, but it was DEFINATELY too artificial.

What i don't like from the "whole caravan" approach is that the player doesn't even try to have the character survive, after a while. I noticed, playing Chtulhu, that high mortality tends to make players unaffective to their characters, using them recklessly. I would like to give them a second chance, but without spoiling them of the emotions in trying to save their CURRENT avatar, instead of rolling another.

So, i think i will go with a compromise. I can give them 2 PCs each, but not prevent both deaths too artificially. If somebody gets both characters to die, they'll roll another from the redshirts.