Okay, I'm Dead. Now What?

[IMAGinES]

Hi, everyone,

One question I have that's not really answered by the text is, what does a group do with a player whose character has died - he may have spent a Persona on Will to Live, but still failed his Health test, or maybe just decided that his character has gone as far as he can go, story-wise - but the player himself wants to keep playing? Is it a decision that should be left to each group? Have any of you folks been in that situation?

One thing that I heard on a gaming podcast somewhere (I think it might've been Sons of Kryos) is the idea of letting a player keep his last character's XP, simply because the player earned it through good play. Are there any pitfalls with doing that with Artha, if nothing else? Artha seems to be the most direct reward for good play under BE.

[luke]

Character's dead and out. Player can play his character's second in command/bodyguard/lieutenant/assistant if he had one.

If not, the player's out for the phase. He can jump in again with a fully burned up PC at the start of the next phase.

-L

[Kublai]

I meant to ask this, but why does he have to wait for the end of the phase? That would really suck if you intended on playing only one phase to begin with! And phases can take months to play out. That means you can't game for that long, which is terrible.

What would be the harm in creating a new character immediately if he had great BITs that tied him into the story without a wrinkle?

[luke]

I meant to ask this, but why does he have to wait for the end of the phase? That would really suck if you intended on playing only one phase to begin with! And phases can take months to play out. That means you can't game for that long, which is terrible.

What would be the harm in creating a new character immediately if he had great BITs that tied him into the story without a wrinkle?

Thanks for asking, Pete! This a common question and should be addressed.

Ya can't come back in with a new character in the same phase because of the way the game is set up from the beginning. It's a competitive race to the end. Killing your opponent's characters is one way to cripple the opposing side.

Popping in new characters when ever convenient would destabilize that competitive balance.

-Luke

[Kublai]

So in this aspect, the game is very much like a board or video game.

Final analysis: Don't die and if you do, read a book or go home.

[Merritt Baggett]

How about letting him play mook # 462? As a mook, you wouldn't get a real character's allotment of scenes, or a real say in anything, but you could get in a little dialogue if a real PC addresses you and maybe get to roll if a real character gets into a conflict scene and then your real PC unit commander scripts something that might grant you an Individual Action.

[luke]

Scenes and helping dice are a real and valuable commodity in this game. Granting them willy nilly undermines the victor's successes.

How about this scenario:
"Hah, I finally killed that bastard Forged Lord! That's it all of your figures of note are dead! We've won! Hurray for humanity"

"Actually, you're going to have to fight through their mook army. And their clones. Did I mention their clones?"

-L

[khelek]

Though I have no problem pushing for a Win as GM (my most likely position given my group) and really sticking it to the players. Combioning Character Death (which generally sucks) with having to play out a mook (i.e. a pre existing body guard) and having no story inter action for what could be weeks on end. Would make me very hesitant to kill a character. I can see how it would be considered mean spirited, after all they can kill my figsd of Note and I still have a number of players in the NPC stable, though they may not have as much ummpphh.

I think it would really tick me off in early in the phase the GM killed my character and I had to sit out. Where if my character died and I could still make a new one I would be okay with it.

At the same time, I woundn't want to be soft on the players, nor as a player would I want the GM to hold his punches, as I feel that it is taking away my right to lose (in a blaze of glory!). I want them to try and kill me, and if they succeed, I want to try and come back and keep the fight up.

[Ozark Tim]

I remember Luke mentioning a mechanic from the Buffy game, where the GM buys off a villains death with bonuses for the characters and gets to keep his villain alive. A soft-hearted GM might do something like that here, letting the players pay out artha and maybe a stat point or three to keep their beloved comrade alive.

[luke]

You guys are whimps.

1) If you don't want to kill a character in BE, you don't have to. Ever. Ever. Ever.

2) If it's a situation of deadly force, you better damn well go for the throat. We're not talking about sitting out from a year long campaign. We're talking about getting aced while fighting for the glory. Sometimes death is on the line. And if you can't handle that, I know plenty of other games you can play.

[Countercheck]

Would you argue that allowing them to fudge the roll to live, assuming they spend the aratha, would be reasonable? That way their character doesn't die, but they're knocked out until they can recover, they've lost significant aratha, they've probably lost equipment that needs to be rebought, and most likely, if they got in a situation where they were taking lethal amounts of damage, they either lost the engagement and are running or have been captured and need to withstand interrogation.

[luke]

It's much easier and more profitable to be a good GM and not use overwhelming force against your players when it's in appropriate than it is be a bad GM and undermine everything that your players are working for by fudging the dice.

If you're just going to make the dice say whatever you want, why bother sweating the conflict mechanics in the game at all? Just tell the players what happens.

Anyway, everyone who's lost a character in Burning Empires raise your hand. I see one hand.

Ok, you there, in the back. Did you have to sit out the remainder of the phase? Yes? Ok, how long was that? Half a session? Must have been painful.

Anyone else actually lose a character while playing Burning Empires?

Stop worrying!
-L

[Drozdal]

Anyway, everyone who's lost a character in Burning Empires raise your hand. I see one hand.Was that the "loading dock incident" - when we were deep into playtesting and haven't had all of the mechanics figured out yet?

[IMAGinES]

Character's dead and out. Player can play his character's second in command/bodyguard/lieutenant/assistant if he had one.

Hmm. Hmmm, okay, yeah, seeing it in context of the competitive nature of BE, it makes sense. The player's created at least one character he has a relationship, probably the head of his retinue like Lord Faisal's Sgt. Eliazar, so having that character step in would be cool and give a nice sense of community; it'd also likely be powerful enough that the hit to the group's resources would be lesser while still palpable. (Does that make sense? I don't kike how it's written, but can't think of better.)

If not, the player's out for the phase. He can jump in again wih a fully burned up PC at the start of the next phase. ... Ok, you there, in the back. Did you have to sit out the remainder of the phase? Yes? Ok, how long was that? Half a session? Must have been painful.

Point taken. And if it's longer, you can always give the player an inviting glance and say, "So, honey... How about some one-on-one world burning?"

Oh, wait. Yeah, sorry, folks, I'm married to one of the players I'd like in my campaign. Mightn't work as well for those under different circumstances.

My other players? Oh. Right. Hmm. No, wouldn't work so well if one of them got killed out. Still, there's always Dogs in the Vineyard. On alternate weeks, of course.

Stop worrying!

Yeah, but - it's a nuclear device, goddamn it! How do you expect me to love it?

[Thor Olavsrud]

Seriously man, getting a character killed in Burning Empires is really, really hard. Unless someone is specifically trying to kill a specific character it won't happen. The defending side always gets to choose who receives a shot, except in Close Combat and I Corner Him and Stab Him in the Face situations. If you don't use those and you don't force them into a Firefight where the only forces are the PCs (without their troops), you won't kill a character. You have to work pretty hard to engineer a situation where an important character can die.

If one character kills another character in this game, the player meant to do it. As the GM, you don't have to pull the trigger until the last session of the phase, if you do at all.

[jenskot]

Would it be unfair if the Player whose character died played one of the GMs Figures of Note? Would this work well with the whole players can be split between Human and Vaylen side option?

[jenskot]

Would it be unfair if the Player whose character died played one of the GMs Figures of Note? Would this work well with the whole players can be split between Human and Vaylen side option?

Thor's completely right. In almost all cases, you have to put your character in a situation where they can be killed on purpose. This just isn't going to happen because of a bad random roll. This isn't that kind of game.

That being said, I could see situations occur where it is thematically cool for a player's character to die and it be a decision they push for (again, not a random thing). It would be cool if you could push for this, still participate in the game, and not undermine the competitive nature of the game and the resource balance. Does the dead player character replaced by one of the GM's Figure of Note option make sense in this case?

[IMAGinES]

Sorry, Thor. It must be holdover paranoia from Heavy Gear and other "harsh" sets of rules. That, and trying to play without playing, I think.

[luke]

[quote=jenskot] Does the dead player character replaced by one of the GM's Figure of Note option make sense in this case?

If you're playing another science fiction roleplaying game, sure.

Come on, people! Let the deaths be meaningful! Let them have an impact on the game! They are not a matter of inconveniece! They are a "holy shit!" moment. And the next scene is the funeral. It's an immensely important moving event. It's not just losing one of your lives in a video game or a matter of waiting to respawn. It's the freaking death of a protagonist! Let it push the game forward.

And as far as participation goes: If this is an issue at your table, state the consequences at your table. "Death is serious business in this game. You die, you're out. I cannot just cheap shot you and give you a 'bang, you're dead result,' but if the situation arises, I might have my FoNs try to off you."

I just can't imagine playing a Usurpation or Invasion phase game in which the kidnappings, hullings and deaths were mitigated with "Hey, why don't you bring in another 8-LP Hammer Lord?" Oh, now that makes all of the crazy shit that's happened up to this point meaningful, yes it does...

Stop worrying!*
-L

*BTW, the other place to really sweat it is piloting a vehicle in a Firefight. There are potentially catastrophic results there! :roll:

[Thor Olavsrud]

*BTW, the other place to really sweat it is piloting a vehicle in a Firefight. There are potentially catastrophic results there! :roll:

But again, only if it's the sole actor on your side of the fight. ;)

[cmoeller]

So here's something that occurs to me. If I'm captured by one of the GM's figures of note, can he have me executed? I'm thinking of the end of the demo you ran for us at Gencon, in which we all screwed up and were jailed. I can see staging a rescue operation, exploring legal options, trying to bribe someone, etc... But what it all that fails, and we're walked to the incinerator and pushed in?


-Chris

[luke]

So here's something that occurs to me. If I'm captured by one of the GM's figures of note, can he have me executed? I'm thinking of the end of the demo you ran for us at Gencon, in which we all screwed up and were jailed. I can see staging a rescue operation, exploring legal options, trying to bribe someone, etc... But what it all that fails, and we're walked to the incinerator and pushed in?


You'll note that there are no execution mechanics. This is where I point up to a larger entity and to pages 610 to 625. You're all friends (it says so in the book!) and you've got the game mechanics laid out before you. Sure, you're captured, displaced, or whatever, but nothing (and I do mean NOTHING) in the rules says you can't continue to use your various scenes to continue the conflict.

So you've got this situation, one's right, one's wrong:

Version 1
GM: You're captured! Awesome, next scene, he spaces the lot of you!
Players: Buh?!

Version 2
GM: You're captured! The Baron makes it clear he's going to space. Say your last words.
Players: Can we take a couple of building scenes to set up a rescue and then smash in there with a Firefight?
GM: Of course! Because that's conflict that drives the story forward! You do realize though, that if you fail in this conflict, that's it, right?
Players: Got it.

Even the player "on the inside" can try to make Circles tests or engage in a DoW. When the time comes, the GM writes his objective like so, "You fight your way through the spacestation, but it's too late, your friends have already been dumped out the airlock."

Player Who Actually Reads the Rules: Hey, I couldn't help but notice from the EVA rules, that you only take an H16 for being out in space. Can we recover his body? I've got a lab and a Surgery of 5...

And so it goes.
-Luke

[The_Tim]

I can only think of a few games that it's harder to kill PCs in than Burning Empires. Even with a GM determined to win by offing all of the characters it would be a fucking momentous challenge without cheating.

If death were easier in the game there would be lots of legitimate complaints about how having to sit out sucks—because it does.

Given that, I'd be tempted to still let the player have Color and Interstitial scenes, to be optionally exercises as flash backs with the other players. Mostly it would be a chance to get some color in terms of notes, unfinished projects, and the like. But honestly, I doubt it'll come up.

[Paka]

Why kill a PC when you can hull them?

:twisted:

[The_Tim]

Why kill a PC when you can hull them?

:twisted:

Seriously. It's such a waste.

[IMAGinES]

Heh heh! Okay, guys, I consider my lesson learned! The lesson is: Shut up and play!

Which I will.

In a couple of weeks.

I hope...

Best,

Rob

[Shosuro Kando]

I have a related question.

Bob's character is the FoN for the Usurpation phase of the game. The GM wins the Infiltration phase with the phase goal "Remove Figure of Note from play," targeting Bob's character. Is Bob's character now out of play during the Usurpation phase (and the Invasion Phase unless the players manage to bring him back in as the phase goal for Usurpation), or can Bob still play his character, but not as a Figure of Note?

[luke]

That's up to the situation at your table -- what happened in play? What was the compromise?

-L

[khelek]

I guess that the difference is that in soem conflict scenes the stakes are limited to what the players choose for that conflict.

Where in contrast in Fire Fight Death is a Meta-Stake., You do not have to agree to it, and you may even "Win" the firefight and still perish.

I think this is a big break in the Conflict/Stakes mechcanic. I am not saying that it is bad! just saying that it is something the players and GM need to remember and consider.

[Shosuro Kando]

That's up to the situation at your table -- what happened in play? What was the compromise?

-L

The easiest way to approach this, I think, is to assume the most basic result - GM wins, no compromise, FoN out of play. Does Bob get to continue playing his character by default, or by default does he not, and have to make it part of a compromise in order to continue playing?

My take on this, based on the title of the effect ("Force a FoN out of play") and comments so far on the death topic, is that unless Bob can work a compromise with the GM and make continued participation by his character a part of that compromise, Bob's character is out of play. Is this correct?

[/i]

[luke]

I'm sorry Shosuro, those questions were my answer. There is no "correct" answer to what you're asking.

-L

[Shosuro Kando]

I'm sorry Shosuro, those questions were my answer. There is no "correct" answer to what you're asking.

-L

Sorry to be thick headed, but I'm just starting my first game and I want to make sure I have this right. Is the following statement substantially correct?

Within the game mechanics there is no clearly defined rule for what happens to a PC Figure of Note who is removed from play via the "Force a figure of note out of play" phase objective, other than the effect that the PC cannot act as a Figure of Note unless reinstated via a subsequent phase objective. Whether the PC can continue to be played as a non-Figure of Note is totally up to the play group. Even in situations where no compromise is needed as part of resolution of the phase objective, the play group can decide whether the PC can continue to be played, or is effectively out of the game until reinstated.

[Shosuro Kando]

Anyway, everyone who's lost a character in Burning Empires raise your hand. I see one hand.
-L

I'm curious about this. I've been going over BE and preparing for my first campaign. I've also been trying to wrap my head around the "play to win" aspect of GMing.

Looking over the rules it seems to me that, particularly in the Infiltration phase, it is extremely cost effective in the long run to try to kill off as many of the Figures of Note as possible, thus denying the other side the use of their dice in affecting disposition in future phases. Effectively it acts as a free "remove Figure of Note from play" phase objective.

Since Player Characters are frequently Figures of Note, wouldn't it be an effective strategy to try to kill as many of them as possible as soon as possible?

For example, in the campaign I am starting all three Figures of Note are PCs. It seems to me that I should at least be targeting the FFoN for the Usurpation phase

I know that through the use of Artha PCs become more difficult to kill - does it make them sufficiently difficult to kill that it is not worthwhile to pursue this strategy? Or am I simply not doing the math correctly regarding the benefits of killing the Figures of Note early?

What am I missing here?

[luke]

Page 409 clearly states that forcing a FoN out of play prevents him from rolling for his side's Prequel in the next phase. That's it.

And to answer your other question: Killing FoNs is also an effect way to undermine the opposing side. But it's not a matter of simple math. If in your world it's just a simple matter of pointing at the other FoNs and saying "enemy! kill!", then you're not playing Burning Empires.

Because that enemy FoN? He's your father and you love him. Or he's your mentor and you could never imagine that he betray you. Or she's your wife and has nothing but your best interest at heart.

-L

[Thor Olavsrud]

For example, in the campaign I am starting all three Figures of Note are PCs. It seems to me that I should at least be targeting the FFoN for the Usurpation phase

I know that through the use of Artha PCs become more difficult to kill - does it make them sufficiently difficult to kill that it is not worthwhile to pursue this strategy? Or am I simply not doing the math correctly regarding the benefits of killing the Figures of Note early?

What am I missing here?

It's a valid strategy, but it's difficult! Firefights aren't really enough (since defenders get to choose who receives the shot), unless you can close to Close Combat, which is incredibly risky! The only really effective way to accomplish it is through the Infiltration of an assassin or similar who can then pull off I Corner Him and Stab Him in the Face! In worlds with crazy security measures, that's easier said than done.

As for your initial question, in one of our playtests, we successfully pushed a Figure of Note out of play. He was the Forged Lord who was unwittingly aiding the Vaylen. By removing him from play, we prevented Luke from having him available to add his skill roll to the Vaylen disposition for the Invasion. However, Luke was free to use him as a character for the Invasion, since he wasn't dead. He'd been forced out of power. And, according to our epilogue, was hulled by the Vaylen.

So just because a Figure of Note is removed does not necessarily mean that he's dead, nor does it mean that he can't be used in the next phase of play. He just can't make the initial roll to add his skill to the Disposition. Color-wise, that Figure of Note has been removed from his power base.

[Shosuro Kando]

[quote]
It's a valid strategy, but it's difficult! Firefights aren't really enough (since defenders get to choose who receives the shot), unless you can close to Close Combat, which is incredibly risky! The only really effective way to accomplish it is through the Infiltration of an assassin or similar who can then pull off I Corner Him and Stab Him in the Face! In worlds with crazy security measures, that's easier said than done.


I'm glad that it isn't an end-all, be-all strategy. If its a legitimate way to go about things, but not significantly better than other strategies that can net you similar effects, that's fine with me.


So just because a Figure of Note is removed does not necessarily mean that he's dead, nor does it mean that he can't be used in the next phase of play. He just can't make the initial roll to add his skill to the Disposition. Color-wise, that Figure of Note has been removed from his power base.

Thanks. That gives me a good indication of how to play that out.

[Shosuro Kando]

Page 409 clearly states that forcing a FoN out of play prevents him from rolling for his side's Prequel in the next phase. That's it.


So, in fact, there is a default answer - FoN stays in play but not as a FoN. That's what I needed to know. Thanks.



And to answer your other question: Killing FoNs is also an effect way to undermine the opposing side. But it's not a matter of simple math. If in your world it's just a simple matter of pointing at the other FoNs and saying "enemy! kill!", then you're not playing Burning Empires.

Because that enemy FoN? He's your father and you love him. Or he's your mentor and you could never imagine that he betray you. Or she's your wife and has nothing but your best interest at heart.


I agree with this wholeheartedly when applied to PCs killing NPC FoNs. Additionally, you can get some great roleplaying conflict in when Player A knows that FoN #1 is an evil bastard, but Player B still thinks FoN #1 is a beloved mentor.

The situation is a bit more variable when it comes to NPCs gunning for PC FoNs. Sure Hammer Lord Sharon loves her father, the influential head of the Miner's Guild, and he loves her. Sure he would never do anything to hurt her. Unfortunately for him he isn't the one driving his body around since he got hulled, and the naiven in the driver's seat only sees Hammer Lord Sharon as a threat who needs to be dropped into a very deep mine shaft and covered up with rocks.

Obviously not all NPC FoNs, even those on the Vaylen side, are going to be actively promoting the Vaylen cause - some are dupes. But I just don't see the Vaylen or their active supporters having much compunction about hulling and/or killing one of their host body's relatives.

[BPW86A]

So in this aspect, the game is very much like a board or video game.

Final analysis: Don't die and if you do, read a book or go home.
What I took away from it is if you are worried about it make sure you have a second in command or some other lacky that, while perhaps not particularly powerful, gives you an active seat at the table. I think you just need someone, anyone, to justify a building scene. Where your character's influence reaches out beyond the grave. Say your PC at least died a big, messy martyr for the cause. That seems to have an air of coolness about it.