Player Character Death and Trust

[luke]

Hi folks,

this thread is a split from Judd's very interesting Do You Give NPCs Artha (http://burningwheel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=704)

In the course of discussion for that thread, NPC artha, fudging, and player character death came up a lot.

So I have a few questions:
Do you only fudge (or want fudges as a player) when death is involved?
What other occasions are fudge worthy? Please give us examples from your game.

When is player character death acceptable? When is it not? How do you create or voice acceptable and unacceptable conditions? Can you imagine playing a BW game where the players agree that their characters will not die?

Lastly, should the game avow a sanctioned fudge mechanic for GMs? Some games use drama points or dramatic editing or whatever. Does something like this help control fudging and increase enjoyment?

I'd like to discuss this within the realm of Burning Wheel and its mechanics. Examples from othe games are fine, but try to keep it focused. Also, I'm not proposing any new mechanics. I'm just interested in your opinions; Burning Wheel is a consequences heavy game. Death is the ultimate consequence. When is it acceptable and why?

-L

[Thor]

Lastly, should the game avow a sanctioned fudge mechanic for GMs? Some games use drama points or dramatic editing or whatever. Does something like this help control fudging and increase enjoyment?

Isn't this precisely what Artha is? At its rawest, Artha is a measure of the amount of story-power you can bring to bear. It's not fool-proof. But that's what it is.

In fact, it's more or less how Drama Points work in Cinematic Unisystem, or Hero Points work in HeroQuest. You earn them through roleplaying and taking your lumps, and you spend them in that desperate moment when you really need to succeed, or stave off some sort of horrible failure.

Combined with the complicatons rule that Kaare has been playtesting, it seems to me that's all you need.

[Judd]

Do you only fudge (or want fudges as a player) when death is involved?
What other occasions are fudge worthy? Please give us examples from your game.

I'm fine with a character dying. I'd like the death to mean something and not have the character die a meaningless and/or boring death but rather than fudging I'd rather that every encounter meant something and I was never in a fight in-game in which I wasn't sure why I was a part of it.


When is player character death acceptable? When is it not? How do you create or voice acceptable and unacceptable conditions?

Its acceptable when its cool and it should always serve some purpose, be it reinforcing the viciousness of the world (drowned scholar in Midnight, I'm looking at you) or a show of sacrifice or the risks involved in the PC's endeavor.


Can you imagine playing a BW game where the players agree that their characters will not die?

I can't help but think that would sap all of the energy out of combat.

I just got through a really combat heavy night of The Riddle of Steel and the combats were so cool because they were so tense and death awaited behind every arrow, crossbow bolt and sword-stroke.


Lastly, should the game avow a sanctioned fudge mechanic for GMs? Some games use drama points or dramatic editing or whatever. Does something like this help control fudging and increase enjoyment?

I think Artha is a fudge-mechanic but once it is a mechanic it ISN'T FUDGING ANYMORE. To me, fudging is when the rules say a conflicted is resolved in one manner and the GM decides to resolve it in another because the conflict resolution isn't where they wanted the game going.

I say GO THERE. If the GM is uncomfortable, it is usually a good game decision. I know my best game ideas are the ones that make me a little edgy and itchy because they are the most dramatic.

[luke]

Isn't this precisely what Artha is? At its rawest, Artha is a measure of the amount of story-power you can bring to bear. It's not fool-proof. But that's what it is.

Yes, I understand that. Which is why I'm not looking to develop any new mechanics for this phenomenon.

How about these questions, though:

When is player character death acceptable? When is it not? How do you create or voice acceptable and unacceptable conditions? Can you imagine playing a BW game where the players agree that their characters will not die?

thanks!
-L

[Viper]

I have no problem with PCs dying, I just don't like "insta-deaths". For example, from d20 sytem, when a character is at 0, he's incapacitated, and if he bleeds down to -10, he's worm food. Similarly, I like the bleeding out mechanics in BW, but I don't like the instant death rule, if you take a hit higher than your MW. I think there should always be a chance to survive. The 'will to live' artha takes care of this quite well, puts the decision in the hands of the player (provided he has the artha). The way I read the rules, though, if he takes a wound higher than his MW, he is killed outright- no will to live, nothing. That's the only thing I don't like.

The thing is, in a game like D&D, at least in the campaigns I used to play, raise deads, ressurections, etc. were pretty common place, especially at higher levels. If you screwed up and your character died, it wasn't the end. If you were satisfied with how he died, and wanted it to be his legacy, no problem either, roll up another character.

BW is a lot grittier- death is death. Nothing wrong with that, but I think players deserve at least a chance to preserve a character they've worked very hard on building and playing.

I don't think there needs to be an endorsed mechanic for avoiding player death- there's already will to live. I'd just take away the instant death from right to mortal. Make it cost 2 persona points, or even a deeds point to recover from, and even if the character manages to recover, he is forever changed. He loses 1D of health, permanently (can still be advanced by tests), perhaps even 1D of steel... he has looked death in the eye and it has shaken him to his core. Even if it's not written into the rules, this is probably something I'd allow my players to do.

As for a BW game where it is agreed that players don't die, well, if everyone agrees, I don't see a problem. Not everyone plays for high drama... I've known a lot of people that have a perfectly good time hacking and slashing their way through dungeons, killing dragons before breakfast and arm wrestling gods in the afternoon. Not really my style, but hey, if it floats your boat... BW's not especially suited for this kind of play, but it's possible, especially with lighter shades.

As far as fudging goes, I don't really think it's necessary in situations other than player death, and again, if you work within the mechanics, you probably won't need to. If there's a task that you absolutely want a player to fail for story purposes, just give it a very high obstacle, (and a good reason why it's so high), if they absolutely need to succeed, then set a low one.

[luke]

Hi Rich,

Two quick things:
Right of Mortal doesn't equal total death. Page 114 of the CB> Right of Mortal> the last paragraph refers you right to Surviving Mortal Wounds. I know it's not perfectly clear. Will fix.

One of the design tenets of BW is to give players options (with real weight) both inside and outside of combat. And to lay out clear consequences to those actions. You usually know if something's going to kill you before you get into it in BW.

But isn't this case in all violent RPGs? A mildly experienced player of any game can tell when something's going to kill him or not.


What if a player willingly gets in over his head. What if it's not "the end of the campaign"? What if it's something in the middle and the PC dies? Is that death acceptable and appropriate?

And what do you think the effects would be on the players if they simply agreed not to have death as a result of their actions? Does this change the game? Would other themes be explored? Or does it turn into a video game?

-L

[Viper]

Hi Rich,

Two quick things:
Right of Mortal doesn't equal total death. Page 114 of the CB> Right of Mortal> the last paragraph refers you right to Surviving Mortal Wounds. I know it's not perfectly clear. Will fix.

One of the design tenets of BW is to give players options (with real weight) both inside and outside of combat. And to lay out clear consequences to those actions. You usually know if something's going to kill you before you get into it in BW.

Oh, ok. I read "killed outright" as meaning no chance for survival, no will to live, etc. Makes more sense now.




But isn't this case in all violent RPGs? A mildly experienced player of any game can tell when something's going to kill him or not.

Most definitely, with the proper reading of the rule, my issue has evaporated.



What if a player willingly gets in over his head. What if it's not "the end of the campaign"? What if it's something in the middle and the PC dies? Is that death acceptable and appropriate?

Depends on the story you want to tell, I guess. As you said in this thread (or maybe the other one), BW combat more often ends in incapacitation or fleeing than outright death. If a player deliberately gets in over his head, in the middle of things, then you as a GM have an option. You can give him an opening to flee, or deliberately script to incapacitate rather than kill (i.e., locks, etc.) That's if the PC's life is important to you and/or the player. If you kill the guy, you'll find out if the player wants him to live, because if he does, he'll spend the persona points. If he's incapacitated, you can give him the option of making a new character, or play it out and see if he can escape his captors.

Genrally, when my PCs run into an encounter that they have time to prepare for, they will try to gauge the strength of the opposing force, sometimes they just ask "Does my character think he can handle this?" I tell them honestly whether I think they can or can't. If I tell them they probably can't, and they want to try anyway, they'll suffer the consequences.

On the flipside, though, how often as a GM are you going to send your PCs into an unwinnable encounter? If you desperately want them to sneak into the castle instead of use the front door, and you put 10 trolls on guard in front to discourage them, aren't you going to have hooks that lead them to the secret entrance anyway? If they're suicidal, or obstinately believe they can whup 10 trolls, they deserve what they get.


And what do you think the effects would be on the players if they simply agreed not to have death as a result of their actions? Does this change the game? Would other themes be explored? Or does it turn into a video game?

-L

Well, even if their characters don't die, you still have the recovery time mechanics to deal with. If they get traumatically wounded (say you're counting MWs as traumatic for this example), they're going to be out of the action for a while. You can skip over recovery time between sessions, or even in game, but if you as a GM have time-sensitive plot points they're going to have to be careful.

As players, it would probably inspire them to take more risks, do more wild and foolish things in combat. Alternatively, it might inspire them to find other and more creative solutions to their problems other than combat.

Take a game like Vampire (white wolf). You're playing characters that are functionally immortal, and many of your adversaries are too. It takes a lot of work to kill a vampire. You can do things like walk through a hail of bullets, enter into combat with multiple opponents confident that at worst, you'll just need some time to heal up, because they don't have the proper weapons to kill you with. I haven't played it in years, but I do remember that killing (or was it killing and feeding off of?) a fellow vampire had serious consequences vis a vis the game world's social structure.

It doesn't so much make it a video game as it forces you as a GM to find other consequences for your players' actions. Imprisonment, loss of prestige/social consquences, material losses, even maiming and crippling.

[luke]

So full disclosure: I fudge a lot, too. Or at least I did. In our long running game, I think I came out and said: "You're not going to die. You're going to finish what you set out to do." The heavy implication was, "you're going to finish my campaign.

It changed the tenor of the game, slightly. I think for the worse.

But I since revised my opinion about PC death. It came from a conversation I had with one of my players where he described to me his character's goals. They were much cooler than any of my campaign ideas, doubly so because these were choices he made based on actual play. I realized that the fate of this character -- could he accomplish his goals or not -- was far more interesting than anything I had to offer. And in order to ask that question poignantly and legitimately, I had to set down clear guidelines of acceptable and unacceptable behavior and outcome in the game -- one of those guidelines stated that "you can die, permanently and irrevocably", a simple bow shot will do it.

I think that decision reinvigorated that game...

To be my own devil's advocate: When I finally did deal out my first Mortal Wound under this new philosophy, it nearly broke the game. I don't know if he wants to talk about it, but the player pretty much all but quit the game. It months of time and convincing to bring him back to the table.

Once again, my thoughts on PC death were shaken. At this point, I still don't quite know where I stand.

In another game I run, I say outright I'm gunning to kill the PCs. But I haven't actually been able to do it yet. And I know, that if Rich's knight died, it'd ruin the game for him. He's got a huge investment in that character.

So what to do? Where's the art? Where's the line? What should be in the open? What should be left to arbitrary GM fiat?

-L

[Thor]

How about these questions, though:

When is player character death acceptable? When is it not? How do you create or voice acceptable and unacceptable conditions? Can you imagine playing a BW game where the players agree that their characters will not die?

thanks!
-L

I think it's all a matter of the Social Contract and is something that should be agreed upon before play begins. It's got to be decided group-by-group, I think.

I can imagine playing in a BW game in which the players agree that the characters won't die. But it will not be a game with combat in it. For me, the possibility of death (should the characters do something in which death would be a possible outcome) is utterly essential.

Why? To me, the core philosophy of Burning Wheel is about making hard choices (I know you feel the same, because every mechanic in Burning Wheel, from character burning onward, takes that idea as its very foundation).

If you take death away as a possible consequence in a game that features combat or other dangerous environments, you rip the heart and soul out of the game.

In Aaron's game, I threw my character into a duel with another guy because he insulted my character's fashion sense (Proud and Sharp Dresser can be a nasty combination, especially when paired with the instinct: "Challenge to a duel if insulted"). Neither of us were armored. It was a duel, afterall.

Everybody at the table saw right there that my character was extremely brave, arrogant and reckless. And it would have been a totally empty gesture if my character couldn't die. (As it happened, I ran the other guy through the guts. Presumably he lived after he surrendered.)

Personally, I try not to throw deadly force at the PCs until it means something. They might get roughed up, imprisoned, incapacitated, etc.. But I try not to put the characters in a situation where I think one of them has a chance of dying until it is dramatic and the character's death actually means something.

A character dies from a random encounter going from point A to point B? That sucks. Not interested. A character dies defending a door while his comrades scramble to safety? AWESOME!

[foxandwarlock]

It's definitely part of that initial sit-down when you say, "What do you want to play?"

I mean are you going to take your old D&D epic level characters and convert them to BW complete with Resurrection scrolls and Healing Potions? GM doesn't have to worry about anything here. Whack away because the players are like bad pennies - they just keep coming back.

Or are you going to get all gritty and make a bunch of 2-3 LP Urchins turned Thugs and live out some dark days in the alleys? I'd say, ever play Call of Cthulu - better make 2 or 3 characters while you're at it because you're not likely to live through the day armed with a knife and no armor and a tavern full of scumbags. Welcome to the Vulgar Unicorn.

Or are you going to pull out some TROS type ideas (i.e. Destiny) and say the goal of the campaign is to destroy the Dark Lord? Well, then in a sense, you could be setting what's acceptable here. Are the players under the impression that if they die, it will be on the end of the Dark Lord's pike? Well, you'd better have that conversation and set the rules down.

Ultimately, I guess I'm saying that I think this boundry is up to the individual group and the game that they're in. PC Death can be bad, it can be devastating to the campaign, to the other character dynamics, but it can also add a flavor to the story that you can't simulate or write in, it may catapult you into disaster or reinvigorate the campaign with an unforseen twist. To me, safeguarding the character by saying that they won't die means that your experiences are going to have less severe peaks and troughs (sp?) - where as opening Death's Door almost ensures that you're bound for some great times or horrible experiences.

[Kublai]

To be my own devil's advocate: When I finally did deal out my first Mortal Wound under this new philosophy, it nearly broke the game. I don't know if he wants to talk about it, but the player pretty much all but quit the game. It months of time and convincing to bring him back to the table.


This was a strange case, though. You once promised your players you would never "kill" them in an email. So a trust was created there. The trust was broken when you did exactly that. The character was killed via email, which is much different than playing it out in-game. Many details are left out in an email, especially if written in haste. Unfortunately, it was the lack of details that resulted in the Mortal Wound. I believe that player rarely writes emails anymore since the trust is lost.

But while in-game, the trust is there.

[luke]

I can imagine playing in a BW game in which the players agree that the characters won't die. But it will not be a game with combat in it. For me, the possibility of death (should the characters do something in which death would be a possible outcome) is utterly essential.

I agree. Death seems like an acceptable possible outcome for violent conflict. BW loves acceptable possible outcomes and enforces them.


Ultimately, I guess I'm saying that I think this boundry is up to the individual group and the game that they're in.

This observation is now only beginning to sink into my thick skull. So, when burning up characters and creating the scenario for your game, the consequences of decisions within the game should be paramount to the discussion and set up. In order to keep play interesting and consistent boundaries need to be set before every game. Changing those boundaries in game, arbitrarily, breaks trust and threatens the game.

Corollary to that, let the boundaries influence and enhance what you are about to play. If you don't want death, don't play a scenario where death is on offer -- either play a social game, or play heroics in a mundane world.

Hrm. I think this is something I've always known but been completely unable to articulate.

And I think it ties into the issue with the PC death that Kublai mentioned. Established boundaries arbitrarily crossed.

-L

PS In my defense, the murder was done via email because we weren't playing that game for a while and it all would have been lost had we waited. My interest in story overrode the player-character-story line and caused a disconnect in the game at large. Ahh....

PPS I've killed all the characters of that gamel in email once. No where is safe! And each time it caused a hideous row.

[Thor]

This observation is now only beginning to sink into my thick skull. So, when burning up characters and creating the scenario for your game, the consequences of decisions within the game should be paramount to the discussion and set up. In order to keep play interesting and consistent boundaries need to be set before every game. Changing those boundaries in game, arbitrarily, breaks trust and threatens the game.

Corollary to that, let the boundaries influence and enhance what you are about to play. If you don't want death, don't play a scenario where death is on offer -- either play a social game, or play heroics in a mundane world.

Hrm. I think this is something I've always known but been completely unable to articulate.

Yeah. That's exactly it, I think. Everybody has to be on the same page from the get-go. As an additional bonus, aside from preventing hard feelings later on, that lets you really craft a character to suit the game being played.

If we all accept that we're going to play a social game in which death is not going to be an outcome, you design a character that has huge SOCIAL stakes on the line. You won't be fighting toe-to-toe battles with physical death as the penalty for failure. You'll be fighting tooth-and-nail socially with social death as the penalty for failure.

[Bob Goat]

Hey,

Now I have yet to run a BW game, but in everything else I have run character death is up to the Players, as a group. When a character is put down we have a frank discussion once the scene is over about the character and if this is an appropriate place for him to pass on. I run my games like a TV mini-series, so it is all about drama and scene framing which I think lends itself to this kind of game play.

Keith

[Kaare Berg]

I'm hung over so pardon my rambling.

I'm going to go back to the first bit for a moment. If you create a mechanic for the GM to fudge it isn't fudging. I've seen different types attempts at this, the most resent one being D20 Spycraft where each time the GM awards the players bonus dice, he takes three times as many for himself.

IMO this is redundant. Like Paka said fudging is based on GM instincts

To me, fudging is when the rules say a conflicted is resolved in one manner and the GM decides to resolve it in another because the conflict resolution isn't where they wanted the game going.
and you can not quantify these instincts by giving them point values or dice pools. These you only learn through time.

Another such thing that one learns through time is how to kill PCs.

Not mechanically (that's easy), but in a way where the players can sit back and say that rocked. For this to work, like Luke pointed out, you need trust.
One way to establish such trust is to discuss the boundaries pre-game.

Another is by carefull fudging and the illusion of imminent death.

So within the realm of BW I killed a character. Yup, I did. The player made a poor choice and he was Doomed.


In the silence around the fireplace Liam spoke "It was in the sad boughs of Cribannogwend sir Locklear had his doom pronounced when he brought evil into the Healing House."

My players all expected me to stricke this character down where he stood. Instead he was doomed in an elvish way. The character was dead, just not yet.


The dragon Gostiaur lifted the brave knight and unleashed its ancient wrath upon him.

This was ten sessions or so later. Locklear distracted the dragon for the others to run. He died a heroes death.

Howeveer there was a lot of fudging going on tbehind the screen where yours truly did his best to keep Locklear in the fight until the others realised the battle was over and ran. Here the player had seen his moment, I had seen it and we had a quiet agreement: here Locklear dies. The other players refused to give up on this character and nearly made his sacrifice an empty gesture by not running away. Eventually he got the death he wanted.


So what to do? Where's the art? Where's the line? What should be in the open? What should be left to arbitrary GM fiat?

It is the burden of the GM just those questions. I guess what you got to do is to listen to your players, move the line back and forth depending on the situation, move out from the screen to tantalise and then hide behind it to scare them and realise you are God, but only as long as the other players let you.

[ShawnLStroud]

I've got some strong feelings about character death and trust. I have to admit that I haven't run a BW game (sorry Luke; I bought Riddle of Steel and BW the same year... just sat through a demo of the scripting this GenCon and am now evaluating , but I think my opinions, given in a mostly non-rules specific fashion, would still be appropriate.



When is player character death acceptable? When is it not? How do you create or voice acceptable and unacceptable conditions? Can you imagine playing a BW game where the players agree that their characters will not die?


I believe that character death is acceptable when the player knows that death is on the table, and chooses to contine. I do that in my games by giving numerous in-game and in-character hints. NPCs start to say things like, "Dude, that's suicide. Bad Guy X never takes prisoners!" or "It's a fact that Bad Guy Y is a cannibal!" If I'm gonna throw an ambush at the party/PCs, the PCs get a chance to twig to it so they have a chance to split before the fireworks start, or turn the ambush around on the ambushers.

I believe that character death is unacceptable when it's due ONLY to random die rolls -- I can think of an RPG game on which we all probably cut our teeth that fosters such a death -- I'm opposed to that, because I don't think it's fun.

And no, I can't imagine a FUN BW game where the characters couldn't die. Going from my own experience in your BW "Poisonous Ambition" demo this Gencon: If I'd known that my character (the Named) couldn't die, I wouldn't have been concerned after the guy just BARELY squeaked out a resistance to the extremely virulent poison "He that Cooks" laid into Named's dinner. The fact that a character I was having a good deal of time playing was down, but not out, made for a really fun last half hour of the game! When the final beat down happened, the Named went down scratching and clawing, 'cause I wanted to make the event memorable. No possible death in that situation = not really fun gaming.

Part of this hobby is simulating a heroic experience. We mime going through hideous experiences (Tolkien talked about it in "The Hobbit") because it's a part of the literature we're emulating in the games. The literature we're emulating includes heroic, memorable deaths -- deaths that stand out and further our warrior-past heritage. If we're gonna run games that are FUN to play, we have to have a safe way to emulate that heroic mold.

Hence, death NEEDS to be on the table if we're to be emotionally sated by the experience. However, just as in good literature, the death has to be dramatically appropriate -- or I think we run the risk of not having fun. And why do we come to the table if not to have fun?