Character Death in your games...

[Treebore]

With recent deaths in games I play in, and my running Ravenloft again, this "discussion" has come up again amongst my gaming circles. As a result I have been evaluating how much adding "Luck Points" to my game has helped reduce how many times PC's die. I am happy to say it has reduced it a lot. It hasn't stopped it, but it has definitely cut down on the frequency. I would estimate it has prevented at least 3 PC deaths for every one that has occurred. Plus Luck Points have had the very effect I was really going for, by cutting down on failed rolls at critical times, the PC's seem noticeably more "Heroic". Sure, not dying certainly helps with that, but it has also helped my players characters succeed more often. Not always. All too often they roll like crap twice in a row.

So how has Character Death been going in your games?

[serleran]

Characters die. New characters are created. Game goes on.

[ThrorII]

I haven't had a chance to run a game in about a year now. When I did, character death was a constant reality. Out of 6 players, over 7 months, we had (if I remember correctly) 5 deaths (1 character was killed twice?!?). All but 1 death was player induced by poor judgement.

Gnome Bard--Rushed ahead of the rest of the group to challenge the cleric of Nerull. Killed by a Cause Serious Wounds.
Gnome Illusionist--head bit off in a group fight against owlbears. (1st death--resurrected)
Dwarf cleric--decided to try to jump from a pier in to a rocking boat, over a river of acid.
Human Rogue--stuck his head in to a cloudkill, to see what it was. (ressurrected)
Gnome Illusionist--challeged a devourer instead of running away and leaving the ethereal plane. (2nd death--permanent)

Death must be a real threat, to make the rewards valuable. If the players do not believe death is a possibility, the challenge is lessened and the rewards are not so sweet.

[Lord Dynel]

Character death in my games are a real and constant threat. Whether they happen a lot is a different story, or course. Resurrection services are available, usually, and players have the option on using them. Sometimes they can't afford such options (a 3rd level barbarian getting critically hit by a boar) and sometimes they simply choose not to.

Action/Luck/Character Points are an option I've toyed with for many years. Up till now, I haven't used them. I think that even if I instituted their use, I wouldn't allow their use to cheat death. I think one aspect of fantasy role-playing that is exciting (at least for myself and the people I've gamed with over the years) is the danger of death, fear of the unknown, and the possibility of an encounter going awry in some form or fashion. I think that the points, if available, would afford players to be less cautious in certain situations where death should be a concern. Only when said points were exhausted would these types of scenarios elicit a proper amount of caution. No offense to Tree or anyone else who uses these. These are my particular issues and don't reflect others feelings or play experiences.

Anyway, players in my games have usually sought means to return their characters to life, assuming they have the resources to do so. I don't discourage this, as I understand their desire to continue playing that particular character. I might not always want them to, but that's another story. But my players know that death is a possibility. For many years, it was assumed that I loathed killing characters. After an artifact blowing up and killing two characters and the aforementioned "boar to the chest" (as my players affectionately refer to that fateful day as) they now have different opinions and approach most situations with the correct amount of caution.

[Omote]

I use Fate Points and Luck Points in my games, and have been doing so for, probably, two decades now. It decreases beinning character death, which I like. Players have a chance to build a character, and have it mean something to them. When those PCs pass away, it has an impact. We have often roleplayed out these situations going so far as to have funerals, and meaningful adventures based on the loss of a memorable or beloved character. But when the points run out, they are gone. If a PC perishes at that point, it was meant to be. Roll new. Roll on.

~O

[Treebore]

Thatsx a large part of why I run my games as kind of a "living" game. I will use old PC's as NPC's, whether my own or my players, because every setting I use has tons of people in it. Heck, Forgotten Realms has millions. So I need NPC's, and lots of them. Plus this helps me more easily determine ways in which players can get their PC's raised.

For example I have a very high level Priestess of Thor who often receives visions of great warriors falling in battle, and being worthy of being brought back to life, as long as they swear to convert to Thor and live from then on accordingly. I used her to give a raise dead to two PC's that died during the Saltmarsh segment of my current campaign. Their "price" being to convert to Thor and live accordingly. The two Priests of Thor who are also part of the party were charged with making sure they stick to their oaths.

As for Luck Points cheating death, they are usually not used to directly avoid death, but they can be. Normally they save a PC by allowing a re-roll that would have otherwise killed them. They can cheat death by permanently burning a Luck Point (They refresh every so often in my games) to turn death into "At Deaths Door" instead. Still no guarantee, as my players found out, because if a Fireball goes off once your at Deaths Door, you die.

Another House Rule that I have kept a PC from dying just two sessions ago. I allow PC's, and only PC's, to go negative their Con score, plus Con bonus. So if you have an 18 Con you can go to -21 in my games before actually dying. So when one of the PC's were taken down to -16, they lived.

[Omote]

A good point that Treebore brings up is that by not killing character, you could have a plethora of NPCs, based on old characters for previous campaigns that can populate the world. I'm running a direct sequel to a Rappan Athuk campaign from about 3 years ago. The players created all new C&C characters but the older, surviving PCs are now sprinkled throughout the cities and lands as NPCs that are statted up and full of personality. That's always useful.

~O

[Treebore]

A good point that Treebore brings up is that by not killing character, you could have a plethora of NPCs, based on old characters for previous campaigns that can populate the world. I'm running a direct sequel to a Rappan Athuk campaign from about 3 years ago. The players created all new C&C characters but the older, surviving PCs are now sprinkled throughout the cities and lands as NPCs that are statted up and full of personality. That's always useful.

~O

I even use PC's that died. Give them a new name, and they are a new person. They just may seem very similar to someone the players may have encountered before, maybe even adventured with. Still, by this point, I have no need to re use an old PC that my current players have "met" before, except maybe my own kids. They have been gaming with me about 10 years now, so I have to be careful with them, sometimes.

[serleran]

A good point that Treebore brings up is that by not killing character, you could have a plethora of NPCs, based on old characters for previous campaigns that can populate the world. I'm running a direct sequel to a Rappan Athuk campaign from about 3 years ago. The players created all new C&C characters but the older, surviving PCs are now sprinkled throughout the cities and lands as NPCs that are statted up and full of personality. That's always useful.

I'm sorry, but inspiration does not require the character to have died to be usable. But, killing them off makes for (in my experience) more interesting "stories" when players start thinking "is this that... no, it can't be. We dropped a mountain on him. But, he's got the same name, talks the same... even carries that same damn sword."

Either way, keeping a character from death does not mean you can only use that concept once, ever.

[kreider204]

I like my fantasy a little on the pulp side of things, so I prefer characters not to die too often. I have a couple of house rules regarding damage and healing that makes things a little easier on the characters, but other than that, if they die, they die.

[Omote]

I'm with Serleran on this, even though he quoted me in the above post wrong.

When a good character dies, when a memorable character dies, I never reuse them. That what makes the characters so great! They are CHARACTERS! Stats and stuff like that, sure. Rinse and reuse. But character personalities and qualities that end up on in the dead pool, really shouldn't come back.

This is actually one of the reasons it takes a lot to GM a good game, in my opinion. Having interesting and unique personalities in the game to make each campaign feel different. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I try to make each campaign feel as different as possible, even if we're playing in the same setting.

~O

[Julian Grimm]

In my games you can die but, I borrowed some ideas from some D20 games on this. First, your negative hp you can go to is your Constitution score. Second, you can make a Con save every round to stabilize. Yeah, it softens character death a bit but it has worked so far.

[Ancalagon]

Characters die. New characters are created. Game goes on.

This.

[finarvyn]

I think sometimes it comes down to the group demographic.

Back in high school we played with the "die and roll over" idea and it worked out great for us.

Nowadays I play with family, and a lot of kids. I've softened "death" a lot to become "fall unconscious" where a character could still bleed to death but can be saved by the group if they act quickly. Now my players cover each other's retreat to get the body, drag it to a safe place, and bind wounds. They know that they don't have a lot of time, however, and this adds some urgency to the story.

[Arduin]

Characters die. New characters are created. Game goes on.

Correct. I didn't hear players whining like little girls about this until the late 90's. Different, softer generation.

[Julian Grimm]

I think sometimes it comes down to the group demographic.

Back in high school we played with the "die and roll over" idea and it worked out great for us.

Nowadays I play with family, and a lot of kids. I've softened "death" a lot to become "fall unconscious" where a character could still bleed to death but can be saved by the group if they act quickly. Now my players cover each other's retreat to get the body, drag it to a safe place, and bind wounds. They know that they don't have a lot of time, however, and this adds some urgency to the story.

I like that! It has a feel of a war movie with combat going on while the medic or other team member works to get their friend back up. It's a good way to keep the group together. Consider this borrowed.

[Sir Ironside]

Nowadays I play with family, and a lot of kids. I've softened "death" a lot to become "fall unconscious" where a character could still bleed to death but can be saved by the group if they act quickly. Now my players cover each other's retreat to get the body, drag it to a safe place, and bind wounds. They know that they don't have a lot of time, however, and this adds some urgency to the story.

For the longest time, (Pretty much around the early '90's when I was finding new games.) I changed my hardcore stance about death to the negative numbers, like what was mentioned above. I still was a little harsh, in that, each negative number equaled rounds of unconsciousness. The unconscious player was still "in play" as long as they were in the battle (Other characters could fight around him to ward off any other damage, until either they manage to drag him away for healing, he gets some kind of magical healing while still in the war zone, he dies from further wounds or he dies of natural wound causes. Because he didn't get healed enough before dropping to -1 over his negative hit point value.)

So a fighter gets hit and suffers 8 points of damage (He has 16 hit points.) He only had 4 hit points (At the time of the damage done.) which leaves him at -4 and goes unconscious. In 4 rounds he'll be dead with no intervention. Now on the surface it may seem unfair that he'd die in 4 rounds because he has 16 points of hit points and if another character had 8 hit points, but has been also reduced to 4 hit points and also got to -4 and the same rules apply. I have always viewed it that although the same hit was of the same severity, the fighter took it a little better and is in a position that if he is struck again, at negative hit points the fighter can still absorb another -12 hit points before auto-death. Where as the guy with 8 only has -4 till auto death.

Then there is a kind of arms race between heal and damage. If the negative hit point character is still in a combat zone. Hits and healing still count against each other until the character is dragged to safety. Using the example above, both the 16 hit point character and the 8 hit point character are healed to -1 hit points, but are still in the danger zone. Both then get hit again for 8 points of damage. The fighter drops to -9 but still has 7 (negative) hit points and although unconscious can still avoid death for 7 more rounds, were as the other character, with 8 hit points, would die from his wounds because he could only absorb another 7 (negative) hit points but received -9 for auto death.

So, basically I'm saying that a deathblow, is a deathblow as long as it hits a negative number, but the lower the negative number the easier it is to heal the character back to positive numbers, no matter how many hit points a character has. The real advantage is any subsequent damage done before healing to positive hit points is greater for the fighter than the character with 8 hit points. I view this as a pretty huge advantage when the characters are in combat.

I've found that this method introduces a certain element of desperation that you don't get if you play auto-death at zero hit points. Which forces the group to change their tactical position, or make hard moral decisions.

[Go0gleplex]

Players almost always have the option of not proceeding into a situation where they know that they may get slaughtered. Who am I to deny them the right to face death? *WEG*

No luck points or fate points or such. It's their tactics against my fiendish minions. Though I do admit...I do not play my minions as viciously and intelligently as they might actually be. I'm just a softy that way.

[Treebore]

One thing I really do wonder about, more PC's die in my games than anyone else's, yet nwelte is the one everyone calls nasty names. Weird.

[finarvyn]

A couple of folks have mentioned in seperate posts that the 1990's appear to be the pivotal time when whining over character death became more common.

It would be interesting to look at Dragon magazine for that era to see if there were articles or editorials that influenced this. I know that AD&D 2E came out roughly at this time, and I never think of them as "whiners" about such things, but perhaps there were changes in the rules that prompted this.

I sort of wish I'd been more active with current gaming at that time instead of being stuck in the OD&D era; while some of my friends switched to AD&D none of us really played much 2E.

[Arduin]

A couple of folks have mentioned in seperate posts that the 1990's appear to be the pivotal time when whining over character death became more common.

It would be interesting to look at Dragon magazine for that era to see if there were articles or editorials that influenced this. I know that AD&D 2E came out roughly at this time, and I never think of them as "whiners" about such things, but perhaps there were changes in the rules that prompted this.

I sort of wish I'd been more active with current gaming at that time instead of being stuck in the OD&D era; while some of my friends switched to AD&D none of us really played much 2E.

It wasn't the version that caused it. I played OD&D, 1st & 2nd during that time. It was the people who had grown up playing video games where one had "lives". (born in the 70's to early 80's).

[Julian Grimm]

I cut my teeth on 2e and 90's AD&D as well as video games. I never felt like there needed to be lives or constant resurrections to make the game fun. Hell, later on we removed all dead raising spells from the game as we felt it softened death to go to a cleric and get a dead PC back.

As I see it, there was a shift away from dungeon crawling and toward more epic story telling and plot lines. Along with video games we were reading books like LOTR, The Elric Saga and legends of King Arthur, Robin Hood and Arabian Nights. We were also into comic books and some of the epic story lines like Days of Futures Passed had an influence; not on rules but on story.

So saying that this is some sort of 90's generation thing (Yes, by definition I am Gen-X) is an over generalization or just plain wrong. I would look at the shift in fantasy literature of the day and many players having a falling out with the 'old-school' paradigm of strict rules adherence and so-called Gygaxianism.

[Treebore]

I don't know of anyone who likes it when their PC dies. That said, I have only ever had one person do anything like "whine" when their PC died. I presume that is because I make it very clear that PC's die in my games, so those who know they can't "handle it" don't agree to play in my games in the first place.

All I know is its "fun" to keep playing a character you like. That is why I give as many options as I can to keep a liked PC alive, via Luck Points, God Calls, and Reincarnate, Raise Dead, etc... I leave it up to my players to say when "enough" is. They decide how often their PC dies and is brought back. They say "enough" when the fun isn't there for them anymore, and its time for a new character.

After all, this is a game, not reality, so treating it like that doesn't hurt anything. Besides, we do play a game where "miracles" are a reality within its context. Anyone who reads the spells should have that figured out right away. The fact that we accept that spells even work is the biggest miracle of all. Then we accept that there are gods who grant their clerics spells, by directly answering prayers is also big.

So taking that the full distance, that is why I allow Luck Points. After all, gods of "luck" are real, they do answer prayers, so why not luck points to represent that "real" manipulation of luck that presumably goes on? Luck Points just takes it from being "presumed" to a mechanical reality. Sooner or later that "luck runs out" and fails to save them anyways.

Besides, the only place I have even seen a regular occurrence of gamers whining/crying about PC death is on message boards. Where game masters will out right admit, and defend, the fact that they tell their players they will not die. That the "story" is more important to keep going than to allow something like PC death to screw it all up. Like you, I do not get that. In good stories, heroes make the ultimate sacrifice. Hopefully in some hugely noble and awesome way, but usually as ignobly and fickle as death usually is. In good stories, that death of one of the heroes is then some how made to be meaningful.

Personally, I look at such games as being a bunch of people who never learned to lose. To never deal well with death, real or imagined. The only decent reason I have ever seen, on a message board, was they had enough real death in their life, so they don't want to "play" with characters dying, because it simply does hit too close to home. I can understand and respect that. I am sure we have all lost people we know and love, otherwise known as friends and family. I can see how that would make even pretending to deal with death getting too personal, too emotional.

So I am glad I don't have anyone who it hits that personally in my games. Yet, if I did, and I knew they had that kind of connection going on in their heads with PC death, I would do my best to be sensitive to that. I like to think I would still kill their PC. I'd just do my best to help them deal with it, and move forward. After all, its a game, our characters only exist on paper and our imaginations, and I think its important people are able to make that "disconnect"" from their imaginary characters. So I would hope I could help them do that.

Besides, I think we all know the real reason we like for their to be PC death. Without it, without that chance of the ultimate "loss", we don't get that adrenaline rush when rolling our dice. We don't get that excitement of "beating the odds". We wouldn't have those quasi magical moments when we know we beat the odds, and our PC lived even when it probably should not have.

I think those moments are the real reason all of us are gamers. Why we stick with this hobby like we do. Bottom line is we are adrenaline junkies and we love the rush we get from those game moments. I know I do. I know my players do every time they yell in victory, or groan in defeat. When I see my players jump up and yell in excitement, I know I did my job. Even in my online games, when I have my online players tell me how their wives "talked" to them about how noisy they were getting, I know I did my job. I gave them a moment where they got a nice big rush of adrenaline. Moments that would be nearly impossible to give if they didn't know they could "lose", that their PC could die.

So yeah, I use Luck Points, I use God Calls, I make Reincarnate and Raise Dead possible whenever my players want, but their characters can still die, they know that, and we still have those great moments where we get caught up in what is going on, and we let out those victory cries or curses of defeat. We got our adrenaline rush. I don't know about you, but that is what I game for. Those moments. That is what my goal is every time I run a game. I build the events to give us those moments.

[Julian Grimm]

I think my death rules comes from death being fairly permanent. While we don't have raise spells active I have had the occasional true prophet or Angel show up and raise a character because the PC still had something to do or Deus was wanting to make His presence known.

And Treebore has what I think is the correct approach to the idea.

[Just Jeff]

As I see it, there was a shift away from dungeon crawling and toward more epic story telling and plot lines.

This, except for the epic part. I didn't see a rise in games that I thought of as epic, but there was a big rise in the idea that the random death of a character ruined the story.

I hate losing a character, but I find survival much more entertaining if I believe a character could have died. Nothing drives that belief home like losing some characters, and I'm willing to sacrifice some short-term fun if it provides more fun over the long haul.

[Julian Grimm]

Personally I like a balance between the two. In recent years I have had a falling out with so-called Gygaxianism and have grown bored with endless dungeon crawls, megadungeons and the 'old-school' mentality. On one hand I have death as pretty much permanent but on the other, I make it a bit harder to die.

I don't see this as any type of 'entitlement' or coming from any idea that death is 'unfair'. I see it as more of an evolution of my personal gaming style.

[Treebore]

Personally I like a balance between the two. In recent years I have had a falling out with so-called Gygaxianism and have grown bored with endless dungeon crawls, megadungeons and the 'old-school' mentality. On one hand I have death as pretty much permanent but on the other, I make it a bit harder to die.

I don't see this as any type of 'entitlement' or coming from any idea that death is 'unfair'. I see it as more of an evolution of my personal gaming style.

I've never been a fan of endless dungeon crawls myself. I find them extremely tedious, and ultimately boring. Certain "mega Dungeons" I have enjoyed, but most are largely just like an endless dungeon crawl, tedious.

For me, the definition of "old school" mentality is do it however you need to to make it fun. So I will always be "old school", at least my definition of it.

As for "Gygaxian", I have no idea what that is even supposed to be. As for how I am expected to run and play my games? I have always referenced a very good quote from the 1E DMG whenever I feel I need a reminder:

"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do."

-1E DMG, page 230

The bolding is mine.

[Sir Ironside]

My own personally feelings is if the players know, that no matter what they do, there is a slim chance that there character will die, they are more apt to throw caution to the wind and just use fight 90% or the time and rarely consider flight. Before any new campaign, I make sure to note that as a GM/DM/CK/referee I'm mostly on their side and it is my job to make sure everyone has a good time, but I'll let characters die if they choose to put themselves in precarious situations and let the die rolls run its course.

I've found, giving them this information creates an atmosphere of more role-playing and caution and smaller just wading in and let the sword do the talking.

I also try to make the death have some sort of meaning, rather than have a character get randomly killed. This gives the player some kind of satisfaction upon their characters death and makes it easier to accept.

[Lord Dynel]

A couple of folks have mentioned in seperate posts that the 1990's appear to be the pivotal time when whining over character death became more common.

It would be interesting to look at Dragon magazine for that era to see if there were articles or editorials that influenced this. I know that AD&D 2E came out roughly at this time, and I never think of them as "whiners" about such things, but perhaps there were changes in the rules that prompted this.

I sort of wish I'd been more active with current gaming at that time instead of being stuck in the OD&D era; while some of my friends switched to AD&D none of us really played much 2E.

I think you have a point, sir. I came into the hobby a few years before 2e hit, starting with BECMI and then switching over to 1e not terribly long after that. I definitely noticed a change in demeanor after the switch. PC's seemed more heroic. Also, there was a bigger story focus it seemed, overall. I think these two things contributed to the shift away from the deadly and unpredictable days of 1e and the heroic, sweeping epics of 2e. That's my opinion, though.

[kreider204]

I don't know, I remember lots of whining back in the late 70s and early 80s. Heck, I think I did most of it myself ...