Death and Storytelling

[5ekyu]

What is your experience in reconciling PC death and storytelling?

More detail on my question.

RPG's usually have a random aspect to the cooperative storytelling, that regards combat and that determines whether, notably, PC's will survive or die in battle (or in other situations such as traps).

However, most popular heroic fantasy storytelling in particular, outside of gaming, does not usually see its main protagonist(s) die: Conan, Drizzt, Bilbo, Aragon, they all survive their ordeals. In a game where each player's PC is the main protagonist, how to reconcile PC death with the storytelling?

Also, what do your games look like with regards to personal agendas/quests for PCs, as opposed to common quests? I love it when PCs have individual reasons to be in the story, and individual goals, as long as the group has reason to stick together and pursue a common goal of course, and the personal agendas don't interefere too much. Does this happen in your groups? If so, how do you reconcile the loose ends, or unifinished chapters of those personal agendas or quests, when those PC's die?

There is a thread presently running on the question of fudging dice, and this topic somewhat coincides with this one: in my experience, a lot of die fudging by DM's occurs to avoid PC death. I have no survey to rely my assumption on, but it seems to me like a DM saving a PC from death by fudging the dice, has little to do with avoiding the creation of a new PC by the player, a task that is usually quite enjoyable. I think it probably has more to do with (a) the DM expecting that the player is attached to his or her PC and would not take well to the PC dying (I won't go into this aspect here), and (b) to the point of this thread, that the story spun around that PC will not work anymore.

Of course, the tension in the RPG is often a result of the possible death of PC's. There is suspense in not knowing whether you PC will survive, as a player. And you must select your strategies when you enter battle, instead of being foolhardy or disinterested, if only because you wish for you PC to surive - notwithstanding having fun playing and wanting to create an interesting story during that battle also. So the possibility of death is always present and, moreso, is an interesting part of the game.

That said, I've played in several short and campaigns of the last 4 decades where no PC died. And in others where many PC's died. In both cases, there is the real or perceived impression that the PC's can die at any time. This is part of the RPG premise, at least in a vast majority of games presumably. Have you played in games where PC's simply don't die? Where the DM deploys sometimes obvious efforts to make PC's survive? (I have.) If so, does this kill the suspense and otherwise negatively affect the gaming experience for you?

So, in the end, how do you reconcile death with the storytelling? Not all deaths are heroic gestures that save the day to the expense of the PC's life. Some seem pretty insignificant, sometimes the consequence of a sequence of unlucky rolls or bad decisions. The PC death is likely to leave some loose ends and unfinished business: that PC had reasons to want to achieve the general goal, and reasons to interact with some PCs and NPCs that are still part of the story. How do you reconcile that, in your gaming groups?

(I suspect, incidentally, that answering this question might in fact partly answer why those that fudge dice, do it.)

Fudging v Death - As a GM, i roll no dice. The players make all rolls. Been doing it that way for decades. GMs who see fudging dice and killing PCs in any linkage are imo putting way too much credit/power into those dice and often that shows as excuse... they died by bad dice, not by my choices.

That said, death is not the enemy or even adversary of storytelling unless you make it so - again - by choice - not by the random.

More robust settings, adeversaries and allies combined with more resilient plots are key.

Dont just plop your two prize bulls in a pen and see what the rolls are without being prepared for the outcomes.

 

[Umbran]

That said, death is not the enemy or even adversary of storytelling unless you make it so - again - by choice - not by the random.

Death is not the enemy or adversary of storytelling in general. But, death (final, un-cheated death) does put an end to the story of any given character, the story that the given player is most apt to care about. It is all well and good to speak about how death isn't a problem for your story, when it isn't your long-term investment in that story that just got put six feet under. As GMs, our investments are diffuse, spread over many NPCs, most of which we see as disposable. The player typically has only one rather deep, investment.

 

[5ekyu]

Death is not the enemy or adversary of storytelling in general. But, death (final, un-cheated death) does put an end to the story of any given character, the story that the given player is most apt to care about. It is all well and good to speak about how death isn't a problem for your story, when it isn't your long-term investment in that story that just got put six feet under. As GMs, our investments are diffuse, spread over many NPCs, most of which we see as disposable. The player typically has only one rather deep, investment.

"But, death (final, un-cheated death)" is a choice put into play and onto a PC by the GM (or by the players and GM in more abstract sense in the setting deginition stages) and not an absolute.

If a GM doesn't want that to be, they can have setups where not dying or at least not-unreversible-dying is plausible outcome for the various types of failure. It requires fore-warning, pre-seeding in some cases, maybe a little more work in booking but its not that hard.

The GM may be just as invested in that storyline as the player, heck so may the other players - it doesnt have to be us vs them or even them and me.

My last 3.5 game, i instituted post-dead scenes in afterlife which featured character specific choices, temptations reveals etc. Also added feat trees for "post death" and cults who hunted or revered those "once dead". Had a player at the end of campaign lament having never had their character die. Dead and back added lots to the stories and nobody missed "irrevocable dead" not happening in the game.

Mythology, scifi, horrow, pulp adventure etc etc etc all provide example after example of how dead is not the end of story in their genres and even is often a key element in the genre heroic saga. Others tend to substitute "left for dead" or "rock bottom" as the precursor for the rebirth stage.

There is just no shortage of examples, so if one doesnt want the story to end, one just doesnt give away your options within the genre.

 

[Umbran]

There is just no shortage of examples, so if one doesnt want the story to end, one just doesnt give away your options within the genre.

With respect, if you have to specifically design your metaphysics and embed options before play begins to not have death be an end to a story, that says to be that death is not particularly friendly to story. It weakens the "not an enemy" posit considerably. "You aren't my enemy, but I have to behave *just so* around you so as to not have you bite my butt." Maybe not an enemy, but it is an aggressive animal staring at you and growling

For D&D at least, there's already elements design for this - this is what resurrection and raise dead are for. No further work needs to be done in the game to make it not the end of the story. If you really need the character in play, some benefactor can do it an exact a price.

But, as a general thing... being present after death is a game conceit that is a poor fit for many stories. My Ashen Stars game, for example - the game itself does not have a specific "come back from death" mechanical element. But it is Space Opera - there could be a clone, or someone from an alternate universe, an uploaded version on a computer, or some time travel shenanigans to bring the character back. But most of those would read as pretty forced, unless the PCs initiated them. It just doesn't quite fit.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

All good stories need an ending, and they aren’t all happy. At least, that’s what I tell myself when a character dies!

Sure, as a player, character death can be a bummer. But I certainly remember my 1e paladin that died sacrificing himself so that the rest of the group could escape the Githyanki fortress, when countless other characters from that long ago have faded into blurred vagueness.

Death is not the enemy or adversary of storytelling in general. But, death (final, un-cheated death) does put an end to the story of any given character, the story that the given player is most apt to care about. It is all well and good to speak about how death isn't a problem for your story, when it isn't your long-term investment in that story that just got put six feet under. As GMs, our investments are diffuse, spread over many NPCs, most of which we see as disposable. The player typically has only one rather deep, investment.

 

[the Jester]

What is your experience in reconciling PC death and storytelling?

At the most basic level, my answer is- D&D is a game, not a story. The story is an emergent property. It's what you tell after the game, about how the game went.

More detail on my question.

RPG's usually have a random aspect to the cooperative storytelling, that regards combat and that determines whether, notably, PC's will survive or die in battle (or in other situations such as traps).

However, most popular heroic fantasy storytelling in particular, outside of gaming, does not usually see its main protagonist(s) die: Conan, Drizzt, Bilbo, Aragon, they all survive their ordeals. In a game where each player's PC is the main protagonist, how to reconcile PC death with the storytelling?

A game is not a book or movie. If you want to ensure that your favorite character survives, write a story instead of playing a game. (Of course, this ignores the fact that, perhaps not often but certainly some of the time, the main protagonist doesn't make it to the end of the story. Witness Samuel Jackson getting eaten by a shark out of nowhere.)

Also, what do your games look like with regards to personal agendas/quests for PCs, as opposed to common quests?

Pc agendas can move in and out of focus depending on the party's actions and choices. I run a fairly hardcore sandbox, so pretty much everything is directed by the party members' agenda(s), though it might be informed by any number of plot hooks, npcs that they are allied with/invested in, etc. If their interests are threatened, they are likely to move to defend them.

I love it when PCs have individual reasons to be in the story, and individual goals, as long as the group has reason to stick together and pursue a common goal of course, and the personal agendas don't interefere too much. Does this happen in your groups? If so, how do you reconcile the loose ends, or unifinished chapters of those personal agendas or quests, when those PC's die?

Not everything gets tied up nicely. If a pc dies while questing to find her mother and father, and the rest of the party isn't interested in following up on that quest, so be it. It's possible that the pc's parents will be working their own agenda, which might later intersect with the pcs, but it's equally possible that they will never come up again.

Have you played in games where PC's simply don't die? Where the DM deploys sometimes obvious efforts to make PC's survive? (I have.) If so, does this kill the suspense and otherwise negatively affect the gaming experience for you?

Yes. If the game has no chance of death, I lose interest very quickly. I'm fine with a game with real risk of pc death, but no actual pc death occurring because of the party's luck or (especially) skilled play, but if the DM will go to great lengths to keep me alive if I do something suicidally stupid, I'm not long for that table.

So, in the end, how do you reconcile death with the storytelling? Not all deaths are heroic gestures that save the day to the expense of the PC's life. Some seem pretty insignificant, sometimes the consequence of a sequence of unlucky rolls or bad decisions. The PC death is likely to leave some loose ends and unfinished business: that PC had reasons to want to achieve the general goal, and reasons to interact with some PCs and NPCs that are still part of the story. How do you reconcile that, in your gaming groups?

There is nothing to reconcile. The death is part of the story of how the game went. Even a TPK is part of that.

 

[the Jester]

I'm going to actually go off on a tangent with this, which is the D&D-significant availability of coming back from death. D&D makes it easy.

I'd argue pretty fiercely that this is a function of playstyle. In my game, there are simply no npcs out there who are easily available who can raise the dead (or cast other, higher level, spells). You want that? Find a pc who can do it.

 

[the Jester]

3.5....



That is not my experience. If a combat encounter's CR is equal to the average party of the player, they'll be alright. A character only dies if their health drops below -10 HP, which takes a while.

An orc with a greataxe can easily kill a first level pc with a critical hit. That d12 is a tough mean damage die when tripled.

 

[Umbran]

All good stories need an ending, and they aren’t all happy. At least, that’s what I tell myself when a character dies!

"That's what I tell myself..." means, "That's how I rationalize something that may not be so good." If we need a comforting mantra, maybe we should instead look at our practices, and see if they meet our needs.

Sure, as a player, character death can be a bummer. But I certainly remember my 1e paladin that died sacrificing himself so that the rest of the group could escape the Githyanki fortress, when countless other characters from that long ago have faded into blurred vagueness.

Of course. Strum Brighblade stands on the parapet, ready to face down Kitiara as she comes in on Skye at the High Clerist's Tower... that was a worthy death, a fine end to a character.

But then, that death was planned by an author. I mean, earlier it is foreshadowed. He's told, "We do not mourn the loss of those who die fulfilling their destinies." Weis and Hickman said, quite candidly, "We did not "kill" Sturm arbitrarily. The noble Knight of Solamnia was intended to be a tragic hero from the first inception of the project."

A death by choice, a death engineered to be part of the story, is somewhat different than the dice just handing it out at some point. Which is not to say you can't just hand them out by dice fiat. But that death-by-dice probably doesn't serve the story in any particular way. It doesn't hook into heroic messages or fictional themes, like Sturm's death does. Again, this is not to say it is badwrongfun, but if we are considering impact on the story, the point ought to be made.

 

[Umbran]

An orc with a greataxe can easily kill a first level pc with a critical hit. That d12 is a tough mean damage die when tripled.

This is an oft-mentioned point... but.... A first level character is not one for long. You can quickly cease being 1st level without ever having seen an orc, much less one with a greataxe, much less one that happens to get a critical hit. How many campaigns go without this happening? I daresay most campaigns go without a 1st level death by critical hit by an orc with a greataxe. That scenario... is pretty darned specific, and pretty easy to avoid. So I am not sure it is a solid argument to make.