On the Importance of Mortality

[Mallus]

In a game where the pace is slower...or even where there are breaks between major arcs....PCs can have relationships, children, etc. They can create & develop a stable of interconnected characters so that, when someone falls, his lover, or brother, or daughter, or friend is ready to stand in and take his place. If characters are rotated already in parts of the game (i.e., you play Erac in Adventure A, and Erac's Cousin in Adventure B, then go back to Erac for Adventure C), this can be especially strong. Where death is a temporary setback, it could well be that Erac's Cousin is only there to help bring Erac to the Temple of Life, after which he again becomes a supporting character.

I hadn't considered something like that... that's interesting. I like it, it's a fine solution to the death-related narrative troubles I sketched out.

It's no less of a contrivance (and I don't mean that in the pejorative sense) than the sort of death-proofing design I was talking about, but I will admit it's one that may lead to more interesting play.

 

[Mallus]

I've seen players swap characters mid-stream both involuntarily and voluntarily. The story gets worse if the removed character was the linchpin or centerpiece of the story, because now you have to explain why they aren't there. However, if the story isn't dependant upon one specific PC, a new character can introduce a cool and different dynamic. It's been done well a couple times.

So have I (I try to qualify/pre-backpedal my initial statement with words like "almost" and "usually" ).

My opinion here is really informed by an attempt to run games where there isn't a single "story", rather several overlapping, player-character driven ones. I'm not worried so much about the loss of a linchpin character, I worried that a replacement character's personal storyline/story goals will be less rich, less connected, and plain old less fun (not to mention harder to integrate).

I probably should mention that the game I currently run doesn't actually support what I saying here. Two characters that joined mid-game (run by ENWorlders shilsen and Atlatl Jones) are just as interesting and perfectly integrated into the campaign. But the game is highly unusual, to say the least. I think my point about the negative narrative consequences of death apply more to certain styles of play (hello obvious!). And perhaps, that my lovely, crackpot campaign, full, as it is, with terrific players, is the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I hadn't considered something like that... that's interesting. I like it, it's a fine solution to the death-related narrative troubles I sketched out.

It's no less of a contrivance (and I don't mean that in the pejorative sense) than the sort of death-proofing design I was talking about, but I will admit it's one that may lead to more interesting play.

I'm not going to argue that you don't see characters having family & friends as a contrivance, but that seems a little odd to me. The "unassociated" nature of some D&D characters seems far more artificial than characters being people linked into family, community, etc. Likewise, taking time to achieve the heights of power seems less contrived to me than the 1-20 Rocket that 3e espouses.

Needless to say, though, I agree fully that it is a fine solution to the death-related narrative troubles you sketched out. The question is, how do you get your players to buy into it?

(1) Include a Legacy mechanic, where the accomplishments of one character can affect his or her progeny. The simplest form of this is to allow goods to be inheritted. A more complex form allows a character to establish a line, and declare one of his feats a Legacy. Any of his progeny who qualify for that feat get it for free. A character can only gain one feat by this mechanic, but if s/he qualifies for more than one, s/he chooses which one to take.

(2) Allow each player to have a character pool. Half of all XP earned goes to the character who earned it, the other half can be divided among the characters in the pool however the player desires.

(3) Institute Seasonal Turns. A Seasonal Turn is a turn that takes place over a three-month period, and allows PCs to do things like spend the winter in a warm city. Each PC has a menu of things that can be accomplished during the season, depending upon what season it is, from investing to gaining extra skill points, from magical research or item crafting to working his or her way up in society. Secret cabals might offer special training, and there might be incantations or rituals that require a whole season to complete. Characters can heal, fall in love, marry, have kids, etc. It is important that Seasonal Turns do not take too long to resolve; you want to take 10 minutes at most per Seasonal Turn and then get back to regular activities. Because characters gain benefits, and too much valuable game time isn't wasted, players like Seasonal Turns.

(4) A newborn child becomes 18 in 72 Seasonal Turns. In order to make the best use of this system, it is important to have a campaign setting in which time is supposed to pass. This means that the Seasonal Turn system works far better in a Sandbox than in an Adventure Path......but the Seasonal Turn system can work quite well for a series of Adventure Paths, where each AP takes place a generation after the previous one.

(5) Finally, use of the Seasonal Turn system mandates that the DM is ready and willing to deal with the passage of time in the campaign world. Things must change. If the PCs leave the campaign starting area for five years, and then come back, not everything will be as it was. When using the Seasonal Turn system it is incumbant upon the DM to ensure that the players gain an actual sense of the passage of time.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I probably should mention that the game I currently run doesn't actually support what I saying here. Two characters that joined mid-game (run by ENWorlders shilsen and Atlatl Jones) are just as interesting and perfectly integrated into the campaign. But the game is highly unusual, to say the least. I think my point about the negative narrative consequences of death apply more to certain styles of play (hello obvious!). And perhaps, that my lovely, crackpot campaign, full, as it is, with terrific players, is the exception that proves the rule.

I have no difficulty integrating new characters. I think, perhaps, that this is a problem only with the "Adventure Path" style of play.

RC

 

[Mallus]

I'm not going to argue that you don't see characters having family & friends as a contrivance, but that seems a little odd to me.

I don't see friends or relations as a contrivance... I see friends or relations that are capable, level-appropriate adventurers --whenever you so happen to need them-- as a contrivance, but again, your solution is no less cool for that fact.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't see friends or relations as a contrivance... I see friends or relations that are capable, level-appropriate adventurers --whenever you so happen to need them-- as a contrivance, but again, your solution is no less cool for that fact.

I'm glad you think it is a cool solution. A couple of mitigating factors on the "contrivance" issue:

(1) Any character in a player's pool started at level 1, and grew because the player invested in that character. No characters "just happen along".

(2) In a sandbox setting, you might not always be using the same PCs in every game. When the goblins attack Wildgate, you might use your lower- or mid-level PCs to solve the problem. When you are facing a more dire threat, you might use higher-level guys. Or not. The players decide which characters to use. (This also removes the "why don't the more powerful guys sort this" problem....the players control the more powerful guys, and know what they are doing while their lower-level characters struggle!) Anyway, the point is that not only are these characters invested in, they are often used in play long before they are "needed".

(3) They are only level-appropriate if the player has made them so. If not, too bad, so sad.


EDIT: BTW, this system adds another element of resource management. For those who like resource management, that's great. For those who don't, it isn't recommended!

RC

 

[shilsen]

I hadn't considered something like that... that's interesting. I like it, it's a fine solution to the death-related narrative troubles I sketched out.

It's no less of a contrivance (and I don't mean that in the pejorative sense) than the sort of death-proofing design I was talking about, but I will admit it's one that may lead to more interesting play.

I'd actually considered the method RC mentioned and played a version of it in a short-term game, and I think it's got some interesting possibilities and I could enjoy playing it. But my ideal method is still the one I/we use.

I have no difficulty integrating new characters. I think, perhaps, that this is a problem only with the "Adventure Path" style of play.

I don't think there's any correlation between the two. My Eberron game is very far from the Adventure Path style of play, and I'm playing in a bunch of Adventure Path games where there's no difficulty integrating characters.

For me, personally, it's not so much about the difficulty to integrating a new character, since I'm sure I could integrate one fairly easily. It's simply a case of wanting to ensure that players get to play the PC they want. If one of my players got sick of the current PC and wanted to bring in a new one, I'd definitely let him do so. But as long as he doesn't, there's no good reason that I can see to stop him from playing it. That's by far the main reason for my approach to death in the game. All the other advantages to continuing with the same set of PCs are just icing on the cake.

 

[Afrodyte]

I concur with shilsen, with a few things to add.

As a player, I find death as the only consequence for failure to be . . . dull. I put a lot of effort into giving my characters something to care about besides their own skins, even if they are neutral or evil. They have people, goals, and values they're attached to, so there's more to motivate them than the constant threat of being killed. So, for me, defeat can have a variety of meanings aside from "roll a new character."

 

[Raven Crowking]

As a player, I find death as the only consequence for failure to be . . . dull.

I have never, in over 28 years of gaming, heard anyone promote death as the only consequence for failure.


RC

 

[Reynard]

I have never, in over 28 years of gaming, heard anyone promote death as the only consequence for failure.


RC

Or in this thread, for that matter.