Character Death

I am just thinking a bit here - so don't take this as a hard-and-fast opinion, it is just me ruminating about character death - possibly the least fun aspect of a game.

Is part of the suspense of an RPG the uncertainty of character life & death?

In the movies, we know Indiana Jones will win... yet we watch, enthralled. We know Perry Mason will win the case... yet his cases are filled with suspense. We know the character from Die Hard will win, but it is a suspenseful movie.

The suspense comes from wondering what the hero will have to sacrifice or put at risk in order to win.

Should RPGs have that same sort of 'mechanic'? Should we presume at the outset that the characters will win if they choose to? That there is no character death unless a choice to die is made? (such as Ben Kenobi's death in Star Wars)

Should the game mechanics revolve around a "cost" or "sacrifice" or a "risk" instead of around hit points and skill points? That if you are willing to "pay" or "risk" more than the baddies, you will win? Thus the character who is more motivated, more determined to win will actually win - because that character is willing to risk more in order to achieve that victory.

Then, the RPG will have the same thing as a movie or book: The suspense comes from wondering what the character will have to sacrifice or put at risk in order to win.

Perhaps choosing to die will give another person "points" to win later - like Obi-wan's sacrifice, or Gandalf's.

Just a thought. Not sure how it would work or if it would even be possible - or desirable.

The answer to your first question, "Is part of the suspense of an RPG the uncertainty of character life & death?" is most certainly yes.

However, it is my opinion that you can't legitimately use Indiana Jones or Perry Mason or Die Hard as foundations for your supposition. These are (with the possible exception of Mason) action movies and not very suspenseful at all. We watch these sorts of movies because we are thrilled with the action and the daring scenes, not because we really feel that the character is in actual danger. We watch how the hero is going to get out of the predicament he is in, but we never are in suspense about his actual well being, only about how he will escape or succeed in the scene.

The most successful suspense in movies has little to do with the above suspense. The most successful suspense is based upon a fear of death that is most realized when we know as viewers that danger lurks for the hero, but the danger has not yet been arrived at. After all, when our characters engage in combat, the fear of death is somewhat diminished. It is the anticipation of the oncoming death struggle that makes our palms sweat and our bowels churn.

Therefore, I would take issue with your eventual conclusion, that it is the hero's sacrifice that tantalizes us. Take the movie Jaws for instance...

We anticipate a mighty struggle of life and death with the shark as the hero goes out to sea, but the suspense is in the search, not in the sacrifice we anticipate. It is the unknown that we fear, that keeps us on the edges of our seats. When the shark appears, the suspense wanes and is replaced with the shared feelings of struggle. Like a man might take reflexive swings with his fists while watching boxing, he is no longer engaged in suspense. He is engaged by the struggle. Sacrifice is not an issue. Winning at all costs is the issue. There can be no suspense about what the hero will lose if we already know he will give it all up to win, and in movies most likely will win.

Therefore, the only possible way to maintain suspense throughout the fight is to maintain the sense of the unknown, not to hinge the whole thing on how much the hero is willing to sacrifice. A hero might very well be willing to sacrifice all, but this does not assure victory. Actually, it is rather more suspenseful to us if we know that the hero does not wish to give up his life, for in this way his life maintains value! Using Jaws as an example again, we never really feel remorse or fear for the salty old shark hunter. He is not really afraid of death. It is the guy who is afraid, who values his life, who isn't totally willing to give it all up, that captures our attention.

Grimhelm said:

It is the anticipation of the oncoming death struggle that makes our palms sweat and our bowels churn.

Click to expand...

Ah! That is the answer I needed; the ingredient I knew was missing! Thanks!

Okay - next thought - should a character get bonuses if something is at stake? Does a skilled warrior fight harder if he is defending his child than if he just out for a walk? Does a mama bear fight more ferociously if she is defending her cubs? If a ruler's city is at stake, should he have improved odds than if he knows his city is in safe hands?

InzeladunMaster said:

Okay - next thought - should a character get bonuses if something is at stake? Does a skilled warrior fight harder if he is defending his child than if he just out for a walk? Does a mama bear fight more ferociously if she is defending her cubs? If a ruler's city is at stake, should he have improved odds than if he knows his city is in safe hands?

Click to expand...

I would say that a man fights harder in these situations, however, I would also think that the player himself will be playing harder, thus there is no need for a rule to boost the character's fighting. The player will likely think harder about how to overcome his foe. He will use his character's potential fully...

InzeladunMaster said:

Ah! That is the answer I needed; the ingredient I knew was missing! Thanks!

Click to expand...

Well, sorry it took so long to say it. I am all about building suspense. It makes the bad guys that much badder...

I know. I was just trying to conceptualise make combat and engagements all more narrative and less mechanical. I just left built-up suspense out of the concept, so I need to re-conceptualise.

InzeladunMaster said:

I know. I was just trying to conceptualise making it all more narrative and less mechanical. I just left that out of the concept, so I need to re-conceptualise.

Click to expand...

I don't know what "it" and "that" refers to here, but good luck!

I've been wanting to comment on this thread since yesterday, but it is such a broad subject that I have been having a hard time narrowing my thoughts down. So here I sit, stuffed full of turkey and half-asleep. Let's see what I can come up with.

There are basically two kinds of role-playing games you can run as a GM. A game where players get attached to their characters and a game where players don't. In the first type of game, death should be rare, meaningful and heroic. In the second type, death should be random, easy and meaningless.

In the first type of game, players can have fun building a character up, exploring the character and feel free to role-play. In the second type of game, players can have fun overcoming obstacles, raking in the treasure and reveling in combat.

In the first type of game, a character is a persona the player adopts while in the game. In the second type of game, a character is a set of numbers on a page, easily replaceable.

As as converse to the above though, is the fact that a GM who makes death random, meaningless and easy is saying "Don't get attached to these characters, you won't have them long." A GM who makes death rare, meaningful and heroic is asking the players to spend some time and investment in these characters.

Personally, I enjoy playing in the first type of game more than the second.

Vince, I think you bring up an interesting point, that I will call "investment." In recent years, there has been a trend in games away from "let the dice fall where they may" toward giving players more control over random game events. I think this is also a recognition that playing an RPG is an interactive experience. Whether through fate points, or action dice or dramatic editing, which is White Wolf called it in Aberrant D20 and Adventure D20, players are given the tools to do more to take control over their character and shape events to their liking.

Depending on the rules in use, players can choose to "invest" those bonus dice, fate points, dramatic editing points at any point in the game, changing the outcome of a particular die roll, reshaping a scene more to their liking or making something happen that a straight reading of the rules probably wouldn't allow. A player, by the very act of choosing when and where he would like to use that power, shows what he values.

If I hoard my points until the fight with the big bad guy, then spend them to kill the bad guy in combat, I am showing that killing him would be a valuable moment in the game to me. If I use them to open the lock that I could not normally open, then I am saying that is a valuable moment in the game and it is worth it to me to invest those points to get the result I wanted.

I can think of several times in Conan, where the ability to alter the result of a die roll using fate points made a massive difference in my enjoyment of the game. Playing "dice fall where they may" and my character is dead or a wimp who can't hit when it counts. Using a fate point, and my character is a hero.

So coming back to the original question, I think these new systems do a lot to show what your investment is. Maybe in a D20 game we need a group of motivational feats, that give you bonuses in certain psychological situations. Such as:

Underdog: +2 to AC when you are fighting a vastly stronger foe.
Defender: +2 to AC when you are fighting to protect someone else.
Protector: +2 to AC when you are fighting to protect your home or family.

Or you can have a GM whom you trust to understand when the crucial important moments are so that he can allow for heroic play. This is not difficult. In my recent campaign there were times when characters might very well have died, but I do not kill characters unless sheer stupidity is involved, especially if the overriding resolution fight has not yet taken place.

My personal feeling is that allowing for fate points is a total letdown. It's like being given a takeback in chess. I play a game that is fairly even, then make a dumb move. My opponent gives me a takeback and I go on to win. Whoopee. In this instance I would only feel like I had been handed the game. This is just how I would feel if I was suddenly "dead"--- but no!--- I use a fate point! Bah. This sort of win has nothing to do with skill or how I ultimately played. It's like being given an extra life without saying "resurrection".

At least if we leave it to the GM there is the element of uncertainty. Did he fudge the dice? Maybe. Who knows? Thus the verisimilitude of fate and the uncertainty of battle is maintained, not by allowing some cheesy euphemism for resurrection to rule the day.

Or, wait... did you want to know how I really feel?