Re-thinking PC death and storytelling

[Sunseeker]

Lets start with the obvious:
The more of anything you have the more complicated it all becomes. Books like "A Song of Fire and Ice" are good because they have a lot of complexity that keeps you interested. This is great for novel READING, it's a highly strenuous and tasked way of WRITING. Which is exactly why books of such caliber are few.

First off, you're suggesting multiple characters. Now I'm sure we've all participated in multiple games simultaneously, but how many can you realistically fit into your schedule? For me, it's 2 good games, or 3 mediocre games. It's a lot of information to keep track of, what all your characters are doing, what's going on in the current storyline, what other players have been doing, ect...

Second, there's the issue of time. Creating more characters to engage in more escapades is tantamount to creating new games. If each of your players has 1-3 characters, all involved in their own adventures, that essentially means you're running 2-3 adventures, maybe more depending on if those alt-character groups break up into smaller sub-groups. You're cramming more and more game into a single session, or you're alternating sessions, which can slow down the overall feeling of the game. Otherwise you're adding MORE sessions.

The more you're doing and the more players are doing, the faster you will find yourself facing burnout. Some players have epic gamer constitution scores and they can play 24/7, others, that one session a week and that one character are all they can handle. You would need an incredibly dedicated and skilled group to be able to handle the level of content you'd be attempting to put out.

Which brings us to the subject of content, even with a highly player-driven universe, 2-3 games worth of simultaneous content is a LOT of content to push out on a regular basis. I mean, think about how look books like "A Song of Fire and Ice" and it's sequels/prequels took to write. That's a LONG time in development and even more in fine tuning.


Long story short: while this sounds like an epic idea, I think the odds are against it. The amount of content you need to produce, the amount of content you need to remember, the time involved, ect... You COULD do it, but you'd need one heck of a group and a whole ocean full of spare time and creativity. Impossible? No. Improbable? IMO: yes.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I am currently playing in a campaign in which each player controls multiple characters. I have four. The campaign uses 3rd Edition D&D rules. I have also DM'd such campaigns.

First off, you're suggesting multiple characters. Now I'm sure we've all participated in multiple games simultaneously, but how many can you realistically fit into your schedule? For me, it's 2 good games, or 3 mediocre games. It's a lot of information to keep track of, what all your characters are doing, what's going on in the current storyline, what other players have been doing, ect...

We play in five hour sessions every other Sunday afternoon. Keeping track of information is actually quite easy. Each character has his/her own folder (we all use laptops so it is very easy to organize information), within that folder is the character sheet, a list of NPCs that the character has interacted with, a list of quests/goals that the character is pursuing, a map of the area the character is in, and a calendar tracking the current day. Accessing information is as quick as clicking on an icon.

Note: none of this is any different than what I do when running one character in a single adventure.

Second, there's the issue of time. Creating more characters to engage in more escapades is tantamount to creating new games. If each of your players has 1-3 characters, all involved in their own adventures, that essentially means you're running 2-3 adventures, maybe more depending on if those alt-character groups break up into smaller sub-groups. You're cramming more and more game into a single session, or you're alternating sessions, which can slow down the overall feeling of the game. Otherwise you're adding MORE sessions.

This is partially true. The pace of our campaign is, without question, slower than a typical four or five person party. Whether this is a feature or a bug depends on the individual, of course. For us, it is most certainly a feature.

However, this method of gaming does not require more crammed into a given session nor does it necessarily require more sessions. Characters can freely retire at natural points in their adventuring career. The natural course of this style of campaigning starts with each player controlling many characters and then, as time passes, character death and character retirement pushes the campaign toward a more traditional one player/one character set-up. The difference is, should a character die, it is quite easy to bring another out of retirement and have him fit naturally into the narrative.

Edit: It also allows us to continue adventuring within the same campaign should one player not be able to make the current session. For example, if we know Ryan is unable to play this Sunday, the rest of us can continue with another group of characters without disrupting the adventure that Ryan is participating in. Since we are interacting in the same campaign world, though, we are still able to advance the narrative of the campaign.

The more you're doing and the more players are doing, the faster you will find yourself facing burnout. Some players have epic gamer constitution scores and they can play 24/7, others, that one session a week and that one character are all they can handle. You would need an incredibly dedicated and skilled group to be able to handle the level of content you'd be attempting to put out.

As I said above, we only play for five hours every other Sunday. From what I gather, that is less D&D than many (most?) posters here claim to play. I'm not sure why it would be neccesary to play this style of campaign 24/7.

While it may be true that there may be some players that cannot handle playing more than one PC at a time, my experience tells me most D&D players are quite capable of multitasking. Individual DMs need to know what works best with their own players. If they have players that cannot handle this sort of game then they should not partake. However, I have run these campaigns very successfully with players who were pretty darn green.

Which brings us to the subject of content, even with a highly player-driven universe, 2-3 games worth of simultaneous content is a LOT of content to push out on a regular basis. I mean, think about how look books like "A Song of Fire and Ice" and it's sequels/prequels took to write. That's a LONG time in development and even more in fine tuning.

Mythic: Game Master Emulator is your best friend. Once you become skilled in the use of its system, pushing out content is very easy. The key is good note taking.

Long story short: while this sounds like an epic idea, I think the odds are against it. The amount of content you need to produce, the amount of content you need to remember, the time involved, ect... You COULD do it, but you'd need one heck of a group and a whole ocean full of spare time and creativity. Impossible? No. Improbable? IMO: yes.

Really, it is not that difficult; nor is it that time consuming.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I woudn't play in game that follow plot like those books. That would create depressing, angsty setting where everything constantly falls apart. That makes interesting novel, though one complite to my tastes, even if his writing skills are very good.

However, it does make very motivating gaming. Sure understanding basic idea of OP it probably is about cutting encounters that are just combat fillers.

If you still want characters to level, then just give expo based on plot and complited events. My other gm always gives exp that way. I mean all those tiny parts of particular chain-of-events not just major ones. Add up parts where character actually train their skills outside the typical to D&D combat encounters.

However, personally I would avoid Runequest way, because it sucks. No double oldie AD&D way either first grind dungeons/pay to train.

It's pretty valid reflection of real life. You can either learn stuff at school or then by doing doing it. School naturally being better for theories, practice better for speed/effeiency.

It is also very important that your group is into this type of low-combat storytelling. I know couple of people at least who would find it very boring ultimately.

 

[Loonook]

Yeah, death is a serious thing and should be treated as such... But no death? Where's the fun in that?

Really I feel that you should allow for death, dismemberment, etc. to be part of your games no matter what.

Spoiler

Long John Silver, Roland Deschain The Onion Knight, Jack Shaftoe (Half... Well... You know ), Frodo Nine-Fingers, Lindsey McDonald, Charles Xavier, Ashley J Williams )), Zatoichi...

We need to stop accepting that loss of limb or fitness makes for a horrible character.

Dead characters don't make a difference? Tell that to

Spoiler

Yoda, Mufasa, Eddard Stark ...

The death of a character can lead to new and fantastic heights, inspiration, and even some fantastic scenes.

Personally? Don't make 'death' -10 HPs. Something Happens at -10. Riding off into the Sunset leads to a great little quest... Or you can go elsewhere. Perhaps you get the offer to go On or come back with something (good or ill). Perhaps you lose something vital and make yourself come back. While there are always though eager to die, you could find some interesting sideways maneuvers. In the campaigns where I've offered Something Happens I've had the following occur:

- A Paladin loses his faith, gaining a monkey on his back from seeing.. Nothing at the end of it. It led to the Paladin finding it to be a Job's bargain situation. His deity and the deity's nemesis had chosen to lay out their battle over this specific soul. The party came to gain an interesting character who hated the gods he had once served and all others. An unbelieving ex-paladin smiting angel and demon alike, and leading to some interesting moments in the campaign and some great interactions during the approach to the Epic end of the game.

- A mid-level fighter losing her hand. The player took the penalty but began to develop elsewhere, going from a two-handed warrior to a weary, skilled tactician and one of the coolest fighter/rogues I've seen.

- A Druid became his 'grove's' Sacred Guardian. Players who had been involved used that place (a high mesa where the battle between the party and a group of draconic brigands) as a base of operations, forming an organization that would go to start a war winding up with a severe lack of the scalykind in that setting for some time.

- Two brothers battling the Big Bad Evil Knight... And the fighter brother proceeds to fall valiantly. The mage, a completely craven but familial Illusionist, pretty much requests a Dresdenesque Death Curse . . . and takes the bullet for the fighter. The BBEK is driven insane by an endless series of hallucinations, and the legend of the Brave Coward was born.

There are hundreds of different paths to take, and the player should be awarded. Make the 'penalty' similar to what the PC would gain from that Raise Dead, but you have now gained a great little side-quest that can be acted on alone or with party, and lead to a nice little time in the spotlight for the character (or those involved). If you have the right PCs and players you can make for an amazing tale where your PCs will actually become the kind of characters who stories are made of, and you don't need to worry about open up Boot Hill every couple of sessions while making the game fun and difficult.


EDIT: Love Jacob Marley's discussion of his campaign and have been looking to build one of that type. I like the idea of an actual adventuring company, touching on multiple points in the game. Really there is so much downtime occurring in the average adventure that it would seem natural to (rather than saying "We're going to spend 4 weeks doing X") to be able to take that downtime and do a "Meanwhile at the Ranch" sort of going forward. 4-5 players with a few characters each, made into separate groups could easily allow for each group to have natural downtime, detract from the hour-long adventure day, and allow characters to have a little taste of each group. Do we want to play the dungeon crawling group who is grinding out battling the Lich King of Whogivesadam, look into the rogue's gallery fighting the political machine of Whatthehecisthatia, or train the raw recruits and followers at Camp Wher'ar'we?

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Hand of Evil]

What make Game of Thrones work is that is the campaign, yes a lot of other stuff happens but each and every character is has the goal of the throne in their sights. So, you can remove characters and replace them. This is under the control of the author.

To make that work in a game, you will have to have the players backing, each one will have to have the big picture and a goal in mind that is defined by you, the DM. The problem, players become attached to their characters and not a goal, you will be killing characters that the players have invested time and emotion into. You will do this over and over.

Good luck but be warned.

 

[Lwaxy]

First off, you're suggesting multiple characters. Now I'm sure we've all participated in multiple games simultaneously, but how many can you realistically fit into your schedule? For me, it's 2 good games, or 3 mediocre games. It's a lot of information to keep track of, what all your characters are doing, what's going on in the current storyline, what other players have been doing, ect...

My main campaign is in season 8 now (of approximately 13) and every player has 13 main characters and a few spin offs. Works great. Some PCs fulfilled their quests and dropped out, new ones come in.

Yes, it is lots of sessions, but we are still on track of the overall epic story arch.

Same can be said about my years long Greyhawk/Faerun campaigns. The Golarion one is heading in the same direction.

What we usually do is have a handful of anchor PCs who are mostly protected from dying (unless the death turns out to be epic). All other PCs are fair game, and usually each player has at least 2 characters. What I also do is i8ncluding the players in the story building. I found the stories kinda develop themselves, too. Not always into what you have planned, either.

If I look at the Faerun game, it started out as "let's be the great heroes changing the world" of all good aligned characters who, of course, wanted some fame. Mainly we wanted to play all (or at least all the interesting) published adventures for this setting. What it is now is a bunch of disillusioned PCs who were never really appreciated for anything they did, no matter how heroic. Instead, others got the credit for a lot of their work or it was just taken for granted or had to be secret. And the story arch behind it all has turned into them being the pawns of a secret organization trying to preventing the apocalypse. Do PCs die? Yes, albeit rarely, but we always have replacements ready way before that happens. Everyone has 2 characters, anyway, so even if someone dies, there is no lull for the player.

You have to get creative with getting sessions in, though. We do utilize email (and at one time forums) and split group/one-one sessions to get the story moving, and we have logs where others can read up on stuff (well, usually). There is a lot of discussion about the games while we are doing other stuff (board games, sauna, field trips) and some of the backstory is developed by players just talking about it all, not in game.

Admittedly, I have way too much free time on my hands, being chronically sick and all that, and same is true of my stats guru. But it is possible

 

[NewJeffCT]

Janx - don't worry, Book 5 (A Dance with Dragons) is all sweetness and light. Everything turns up rosy in the end, with Lannisters, Starks, Baratheons, Tyrells, Martells and Greyjoys all joining hands and singing Kumbaya together, skipping hand-in-hand to King's Landing, and then bending knee to Daenerys. ;=)

end spoilers

Some excellent ideas, though.

However, I think it could be difficult for some gaming groups like mine who only have a limited amount of gaming time. Adding in an extra set of PCs could complicate things and detract from them caring about their PCs (oh, he died, but at least I have a backup PC next week...)

I'm currently trying out the idea of a length of time between major events in my current game as well, though my group is still tied to the idea of pushing on ahead as quickly as possible, despite my dropping hints and suggestions that they don't have to.

 

[Lwaxy]

However, folks like me run a dangerous path. It could lead to railroading, and it could lead to us avoiding letting a precious PC die to save a storyline.


So, I'd like to discuss ideas on how to enable storytelling in an RPG, yet remain decoupled from trying to keep PCs alive so the precious plot can be maintained.

If you develop the basic story with your players, there should be less of an issue for them to stay on track (on the railroad) when needed.

Options to keep the story going:


Have anchor PCs who are somewhat crucial to the success and let them find out in the course of the story that they need to be especially careful to stay alive as they have a destiny to fulfill. Let the PCs be aware that they have a duty to protect those anchors. Just make sure the players are fine with either being an anchor or a protector.


Make the story arch driven by an outside force. Ideally, the PCs should find out about them being manipulated by this group a good time into the game.


Have them be honor bound to one quest, but to fulfill it they find themselves solving other problems for different people for reasons they never thought possible. If they find themselves in a bind over following their honor quest or doing something crucial like saving a realm from evil, all the better.

You need to be adaptive with the story arch though. Same is true for the players.

 

[Lwaxy]

Adding in an extra set of PCs could complicate things and detract from them caring about their PCs (oh, he died, but at least I have a backup PC next week...)

Not if the extra has been running in the campaign for a bit. At times, it is the extra that dies first, leading to everyone mourning the poor fictional being because he/she never really lived up to their destiny

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Janx - don't worry, Book 5 (A Dance with Dragons) is all sweetness and light. Everything turns up rosy in the end, with Lannisters, Starks, Baratheons, Tyrells, Martells and Greyjoys all joining hands and singing Kumbaya together, skipping hand-in-hand to King's Landing, and then bending knee to Daenerys. ;=)

Funny.
Yet were that rpg-story, rather than 5 book, even if that would be true, I don't think game would last all that long time. Yep maybe with some multi-character playing it could work out (not something my group would care for).

Otherwise it's just depressing. And would make stylistically IMO very bad roleplaying experience.

I used to play lot of angsty storylines when I was younger and I am so tired of it. Plus I don't like storylines with too much "mundanity": Those books have very mundane feel to the world. All fantasy elements are played very low-key.

Well-written books, I kinda enjoy reading them, though I partially despise the story and find world kinda boring. Not to mention I don't care for any of the characters since book 1 but I am curious about their next personal torment.

Not to dismiss, they are well-written books. And I know at least one person who would love that kinda storytelling.

I bought pin that says "thank you for turning a simple adventure into nightmare that will haunt me rest of my days" just for him.

If it rocks your both, it's not bad source material.