Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 20:57:29 GMT -8
I've got a Pendragon 4th edition game set in Ancient Rome that has been running for around 15 Sessions. I have 4 regular players. There are very few fights within the game and only one character has died within the game. Prior to his demise I let the player know that I would be taking the gloves off and that he might die. When the character died he accepted it and was ok with moving on to another character but I wonder if my warning was a good idea. The death might have been more impactful if I had not given a warning. One of my other players said that he did not expect character death from week to week and was glad that he did not have to worry about his character dying. I wonder if my players are too secure and if a little more character death might enhance the game but at the same time I don't want to end the lives of well developed characters and turn off the players. What's a good amount of death? How scared should the players be for there characters? Thoughts?
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Jul 1, 2013 21:41:58 GMT -8
There is absolutely nothing wrong with character death. If death is not a possible outcome, then it isn't an adventure - it's play-group-sharing-carebear-happy-rainbows-pretend time.
Also, a death isn't dramatic if the character isn't well developed. When a well characterised, narratively important character meets their demise, it is high impact, exciting stuff that legendary campaigns are made of.
That's how I feel about it anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 6:27:25 GMT -8
I'm with you on that but there is such a thing as too much death. If you kill a character an adventure you will get to the point where players have very little character investment. The question is how much is too much and is it acceptable to telegraph to players when things have gotten really dangerous? Also is there such a thing as too little character death?
My group does not like player death without purpose. They are not into the tappy " I was walking down the hall and next thing I know I was dead in one hit" situation. In case of my players death in the above game he was being blackmailed by a major villain. He killed the villain even though he knew the villains henchmen were all around. I told him before the adventure that the gloves are coming off. He was subsequently killed. Should I have said the gloves are coming off? I think my players appreciate the heads up but it does that statement reduce the impact of the sudden death to much?
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jul 2, 2013 6:53:39 GMT -8
Depends on your group I think. If they're used to being in no danger whatsoever, it's probably a better idea to tell them that this game might be dangerous and that they might die rather than just kill them. I wouldn't make a habit out of it though. You've already killed one, so they should be aware that they can't brave every situation and that death is a possibility (doesn't mean it's going to happen often, but it can happen). Maybe give them in-game warning signs next time. The character is behaving aggressively towards the villain? How about the villain having a right good laugh, asking the character if they're serious, waving an arm around to point out all the henchmen. Stuff like that. Your player atacking the villain and accepting death for roleplaying reasons can be incredibly awesome too, so it's not like attacking the villain while being vastly outnumbered is bad in itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 8:15:27 GMT -8
It really does have a ton to do with your group and what they're looking for. I love the L5R actual play. The combats have a nice feeling of danger to them and yet no character has actually died. That's what I'm trying to capture. Unfortunately our group history is almost no player death. That gives the group a sense of security that I'm trying to break down without doing a TPK or destroying the game. I want my players coming to sessions with second characters on occasion. I'm not there yet with my group.
|
|
jfever
Journeyman Douchebag
FEVAH!!!!
Posts: 218
|
Post by jfever on Jul 2, 2013 10:02:30 GMT -8
I think telling your player that you're "taking the gloves off" is ultimately okay, but only conditionally. And here's why:
As has been said by many so far, character death is totally fine. It does bring an immediacy and urgency to the game that is important for immersion.
One thing trumps this though: the players having fun.
If you were unsure as to whether the player would be pissed and walk out if he were blind sided by character death, letting him know that shit was about to get real was a way of assessing how that player enjoys the game. It was a safe choice to make to preserve fun at the table.
Now. . . . . . if you have been gaming with this person for a long time, and knew how they felt about character death, you may have been able to afford not telling this person.
Personally, if I had a player that I HAD to warn if character death was a possibility, I wouldn't game with them.
But, like I said, fun needs to be paramount. Whatever floats your boat.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jul 2, 2013 11:00:36 GMT -8
The question that leaps to mind for me is, does the "gloves coming off," constitute a policy change? If you have changed something in the game to make it more deadly than some kind of notice to the players is warranted. If it's not a change of policy about the way the game is being played but I wanted to give a warning of some kind to the players I might kill someone close to them as a reminder that shit can get very real very fast. I would not shy away from killing a character if that's what happened in the game.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 13:54:22 GMT -8
The taking the gloves off comment is not so much a change of policy for the game as it is a change of policy for our group. We don't kill chracters very often in our group. The comment was made as an extra warning to a group that does not have much chracter death in its past. The game itself is maybe 15 sessions old we play short sessions about 2 hours long so it is not a very "old" game.
The truth is that rarely do my players put themselves in situations were they are likely to get killed. I never set off to kill a chracter and rarely put them in a situation where they are likely to die. If I'm going to do that as I did in this case I wanted to make sure the player knew things could get ugly quickly. Given what the normal group policy is I thought that was a good idea. Now I question whether I stole the impact of the experience of the death by adding the warning.
|
|
jfever
Journeyman Douchebag
FEVAH!!!!
Posts: 218
|
Post by jfever on Jul 2, 2013 14:05:34 GMT -8
Would any of the players rage quit if you didn't warn them?
If yes, than it was a good idea.
If not, then it wasn't a good idea.
If you weren't sure, then it was a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jul 2, 2013 14:25:41 GMT -8
Agree with jfever, it's better to be save than sorry in this case. Even if the player would not have rage quit, I can see how he might be a little pissed off that you "blindsided" him. As a one-off warning for the first time it's entirely fine given your group's habits, even if it may have diminished the impact a little. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 14:38:13 GMT -8
I don't think we would have had a rage quit. The player in question is a mature nice guy who hasn't flipped a monopoly board since we were kids... that said blindsided is a good word. I might have got a sarcastic "that was a great game. Thanks for killing my character jack ass". With the warning I got a "I wish that had worked out better. I wish I could have lasted a little longer.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Jul 2, 2013 15:25:23 GMT -8
"I wish that had worked out better. I wish I could have lasted a little longer." Were those his exact words? I'd be interested to find out whether he meant his character in the story, or himself as a player. Or said another way, was he a sad panda that his character's story was over, or that he as the player 'lost the game'?? One thing with character death that can get forgotten is that as a player, once you die you can end up sitting there with your thumb up your ass for the rest of the session. In games where death is an ever-present risk, it is wise to have your next character already rolled up and sitting in reserve As the GM, you could try having a sell-sword/rescued prisoner type character written up behind the screen that you can just hand out if one of the characters is killed, then they can run that for the rest of the session.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 16:03:11 GMT -8
From the context of the conversation I understood him to mean he would have liked the character story would have gone on longer. His death ended the session that night so he did not have to sit around. He came back next week with his dead characters brother as a pc. What he wanted was for the character to escape the henchmen slip out of rome and hide out in the countryside plotting his his return and revenge.
|
|