My players are very much the "let the dice decide the fate of the character" type of gamers. They never had a problem with character death. No whining. "Bad stuff happens during a game, we're all adults, none of this story is more important nonsense - death is the story, baby - just roll with."

Now, a couple of days ago, in the opening episode of the third season of our Hunter campaign, one of the characters while trying to save an innocent npc, nearly got killed. I say, nearly because I put the character in a coma. Now the dice, says he should die. But, because it was near the beginning of the session, I allowed this character to remain in a comatose state and allowed the player, to roleplay/roll dice for some of the npcs in the session. It was all good. The session ended with all the pcs gathered around the comatose body of this admired character in the hospital's ER unit.

After the session, I told the players, not to worry, their precious let the dice roll philosophy was not compromised and that the only reason, I didn't kill of the character because it was too early in the session, and I thought it would be nice if there was a big send off scene. Their reply (to be clear, three of the seven players) : "Maybe he does not have to die?" Needless to say, I spent a few minutes recovering my jaw from the floor.

Now, this character is an awseome character. He is the linchpin of the group for this campaign anyway. A few of the players have storylines connected to his, but the main thing that draws, inspires the whole group, is that this character is the moral center of the campaign. That the player roleplays the character well - okay damn freakin' well - goes without saying.

On another level - and knowing my players this is an issue, but not of any real importance - is that this player has discovered a few of the secrets of the campaign, and has not really shared any of it, with the players for various in game reasons. I didn't set out to make it so, he has some answers, it just happened. His behaviour as a character (and player) - unafraid to take chances, noble, brave extremely active - allowed him insights into the campign, that the others may have missed out on.

He is (was?) the center of much activity and all the other players really liked that. They were not jealous or resentful, and really thought that his character was what made (besides my GMing of course) really awesome.

So, what am I to do. We are in the discussion stage right now. The player whose character this involves has abstained from contibuting saying only that he still believes in the "roll with it" philosophy. Three of the other player think an exception should be made and the other three think that although they really like this character, they think, that allowing him (the character) to live even though the dice says otherwise is a mistake.

So, what's a GM to do.? Thoughts?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSo, what am I to do. We are in the discussion stage right now. The player whose character this involves has abstained from contibuting saying only that he still believes in the "roll with it" philosophy. Three of the other player think an exception should be made and the other three think that although they really like this character, they think, that allowing him (the character) to live even though the dice says otherwise is a mistake.

So, what's a GM to do.? Thoughts?

Regards,
David R

The player of the vegetable should be put the question.  I don't think it's a good idea to leave it up to committee, because it's his character.  He's already expressed that he's a roll-with-it guy, so I'm (as an outsider) thinking that he's abstaining simply because he doesn't want to get into this argument.

As GM I think you need to cut through the BS here and get a quick answer from the guy and be done with it.

EDIT: Also, it's a good idea to prep your campaign for the idea that the lynch-pin dies.  Since that's what involves the most work from the GM, it's inevitably going to be what happens.  

Guy in question sounds like a good player.  I doubt he'll turn into shit just because he's running a new character.

You've been running with a rule for a while now and it's treated you very well.  Gen up the new PC and whatever issues some players have will be forgotten by the time the beer gets warm.

(Or they'll have a shit hemorrhage and storm out.  Then you wouldn't want them around anyway.)

Just let him live, but with some permanent injury, a limp or whatever.

This was something that came out of a Recon campaign... our characters won a shitload of medals, more than almost anyone historically. Why? Because the system had no rules for crippling injuries. If it didn't kill you on the spot, then you'd get better.

Whereas historically, if people do the sorts of things you need to do to get a medal, they'd usually be seriously wounded. If the wound didn't kill them, then it'd have a permanent effect. And that permanent effect would get them a medical discharge from the military.

So the guy lives, but he's impaired in some way. Depends on what kind of wound he has, but "nerve damage" can account for a lot.

Personnaly, I say that chosing to make a 'fatal injury' instead 'crippling and incapacitating' isn't doing a damn thing towards violating the 'dice'.

Game designers and GM's are often very quick to pull the 'you must die at this point' card.  The dice said he was fucked up, you, the GM, fucked him up.  If the gamble is so precious to you, roll for it, high he lives, low he dies. Otherwise, have the doc's patch him up and bring him back to the game.  Heroes don't die in the hospital after being in a coma... they always recover to fight (and possibly die...) another day.

Heroes get killed on the battlefields themselves, often in horrific ways. If you were gonna kill him, that's where ya kill him. :pundit:

Quote from: SpikeHeroes get killed on the battlefields themselves, often in horrific ways. If you were gonna kill him, that's where ya kill him. :pundit:

:shrug: It was an unlucky roll(s) against an insignificant mook of the campaign's elusive BigBad - hardly a hero's death.

Redfox. I get where you are coming from. Normaly as a group, we discuss things like this. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the group as a whole used to subscribe to the "roll with it" philosophy and derived much fun from it. Now, as one of the long time player said, "maybe it's time to amend the philosophy".

Needless to say, this has fuelled a friendly if lively discussion around the gaming table. We are the kind of group that knows a compromise will eventualy be reached, one that is acceptable to all. The point of my post is to get feedback, and maybe even a couple of ideas as to how to resolve this issue. I'm sure most folks have dealt with something like this before, I want to hear about it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RNeedless to say, this has fuelled a friendly if lively discussion around the gaming table. We are the kind of group that knows a compromise will eventualy be reached, one that is acceptable to all. The point of my post is to get feedback, and maybe even a couple of ideas as to how to resolve this issue. I'm sure most folks have dealt with something like this before, I want to hear about it.

Regards,
David R

Oh I don't think you should shut-down discussion.  If you want to talk to them about the policy change, I think you should.

But this PC; it's important to get his opinion, because regardless of bigger issues, it's his character.

I mean, you're getting suggestions in a vacuum of ideas as far as what the player wants.  You're hearing stuff like, "cripple the PC but let him live," but for all we know, the guy could be the type to absolutely hate playing a guy with nerve-damage and would rather roll up a wizard now.  *shrug*

Quote from: RedFoxBut this PC; it's important to get his opinion, because regardless of bigger issues, it's his character.

Very true. I think at the end of the day, it's really up to him. Everyone knows this, I'm sure, but for the moment we're just just discussing the bigger issues

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThe point of my post is to get feedback, and maybe even a couple of ideas as to how to resolve this issue. I'm sure most folks have dealt with something like this before, I want to hear about it.

Well... I've not had the same situation, because for as long as I've had an actual GMing philosophy - since I realised the GM wasn't there just to look up tables - I've never let rules or the dice run the game.

I'm the GM. Not a few hundred pages of over-priced badly-organised sloppily-written saucily-illustrated book, and certainly not some funny-shaped blocks of plastic with numbers of them. As GM, I master the game, the game does not master me.

I usually begin each campaign with, "I assume that if you create the characters, you must want to play them, right till the end of the campaign. So they won't die unless you're persistently stupid, or it's appropriate to the character. A paladin might die slaying a lich, and a thief might die stealing the largest diamond in the world, because that's what paladins and thieves do. But you won't fall in a ten foot pit it on your way to the crapper one night and break your neck. On the other hand if you walk off a cliff, what can I do. And none of them means you can't be injured permanently maimed, or humiliated."

That's how I set out from the start. I've honestly never consulted players on whether they like this or not. I assume they must like it, because they keep turning up for sessions. Of course, this is in the context of cosed-ended campaigns of 10-20 sessions. I suppose if I were planning to have 200 sessions over four years I might feel differently.

There sure as shit have been a few players whose characters I'd have been delighted to kill off, unfortunately whenever I was pissed off with them, they started playing cautiously and I didn't have a plausible excuse.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm the GM. Not a few hundred pages of over-priced badly-organised sloppily-written saucily-illustrated book, and certainly not some funny-shaped blocks of plastic with numbers of them. As GM, I master the game, the game does not master me.

This used to be my style of GMing. When I strated running games for my current crew, they made it very clear, that they got a lot of fun from the "roll with it" philosophy. At first I was a bit sceptical...but after awhile letting the dice fall where it does, gave me a kind of freedom...I didn't really have to worry about the pcs anymore. Shit happens and they dealt with it. Everyone was happy.

Now, it seems, some think that perhaps my old style of GMing has some merit, and they want to explore that I'm good either way, but I think, exploring new methods of play should be left in their hands.

Regards,
David R

My own experience as GM letting the linch pin die really hammers home the point of leathality in a campaign. If you have great Gamers who make great characters there should be no trouble at all.

My experience as a Player was a little different. I create a character that I really enjoyed and who challenged the religeous beliefs of others. He was competent and the Native Guide for the adventure. He was killed defending another PC and died instantly. (Let the dice fall where they may).

Unfortunately I lost my next character in short order much to my chagrin. Let us know what happened.



Good luck

QM

If your group or the player doesn't reach an agreement, let the dice decide the fate of the character. You could go with "heads he lives, tales he dies" for example.

I recomend near death comas that allow characters to "nearly die." You get the best of both worlds: the players still have a reason to play cautiously since every near death could be their last but you don't kill off characters so dang quickly.  

Wierd story: I GMed a game in Mythic Europe, a land where botched chiurgy skill rolls can kill the patients outright. After a particularly gruesome attempt to cauterize a tinywolf scratch, everyone decided to eschew medeval surgery whatever the cost, if only to preserve the corpse for proper burial.
No doctors! No doctors! :flameon2:

QuoteThis used to be my style of GMing. When I strated running games for my current crew, they made it very clear, that they got a lot of fun from the "roll with it" philosophy. At first I was a bit sceptical...but after awhile letting the dice fall where it does, gave me a kind of freedom...I didn't really have to worry about the pcs anymore. Shit happens and they dealt with it. Everyone was happy.

Now, it seems, some think that perhaps my old style of GMing has some merit, and they want to explore that  I'm good either way, but I think, exploring new methods of play should be left in their hands.

No rule to handle this in the game you are using? Crappy. Shadowrun has had one for a while. SR3 had the once only per character Hand Of God. SR4 has a somewhat more flexible permanently lowering your Edge Attribute avoid certain death, though you don't avoid all the consequences. It doesn't have rules in place to implement JimBobOz's great suggestion that he ends up with limp or other permanent injury. But it is handwavable sort of.

Then there is Burning Wheel where the rules work exactly that way as written. When the character recieves a Mortal Wound the player can either choose to let the character die or spend a point of Persona Artha (if they have one) to invoke the Will to Live rule. The character is then going to end up in a comma until they've had time to heal up, afterwhich a unanamous vote by the players could bestow a new Trait, typically somehow based on the type of injury, to the PC.

EDIT: I'm sure others can bring up some more examples of rules that work along these lines.

Since these are rules centric people maybe you should bring in a rule here. Frame it as an existing rule, but just being imported from another system. Name it after the character so when someone invokes it they remember that this rule is for heros, and also are reminded of all the cool things this PC had done. But you'd do well to mould the rule carefully lest you screw up the Threat of Death in the game too much. Sort of what TheQuestionMan is talking about. You don't want their experience of changing the rules to be one that devolves into screwing up the feel of the game, which I assume they like?

Just an idea, in this world could there be a McGuffin that the other characters could obtain/do to help the other character out of the coma? That might be a nice plot twist to throw in, if they have to work to save their buddy it'll probably help ease any "cheating" feelings the other players might get.

Or let him die, that's good. Biting it during a heroic attempt to save an innocent? “This is a good death, there is no shame in this.” Hell of a lot worse ways for a PC to die. Or recover and retire from play to some sandy white beach somewhere.

since the player of the character in question seems to be indifferent to the outcome, i would say let him have a neat death scene in the hospital.  the dice have "decreed" that he goes, and the players know this.  and since the group seems evenly split on the whole thing, i would say to stick with your previous practice.

the fact that he was taken out by a mook should make the rest of the group more careful.  lesson learned.  the fact that he is/was the lynchpin of the group, moreso.  his loss should inspire the other characters.  

my refereeing experiences have never been in the "story is more important" category, tho.  sure, there's a story of sorts.  but no one gets immunity.  some heroes die a noble death, some don't.  

i'd say if you wanted to change your philosophy on the matter, it should be done at the start, before something like this happens.  to change it mid-stream alters the mood of the campaign.

Quote from: David RSo, what's a GM to do.? Thoughts?

First, if they are the ones who asked for, "Bad stuff happens during a game, we're all adults, none of this story is more important nonsense - death is the story, baby - just roll with," then you need to mention that, if you let this character live at their request, how should you handle similar situations in the future?  Is this a one-off exception or going to happen again?

You mentioned, "His behaviour as a character (and player) - unafraid to take chances, noble, brave extremely active - allowed him insights into the campign, that the others may have missed out on."  That's the sort of thing that puts a character into this sort of situation again and again.  It's going to come up again.  What are you supposed to do next time?

A few ideas and suggestions.

With respect to, "On another level - and knowing my players this is an issue, but not of any real importance - is that this player has discovered a few of the secrets of the campaign, and has not really shared any of it, with the players for various in game reasons," that can be dealt with without saving the character if you don't mind borrowing a Hollywood cliche.  While the other characters are in the hospital, the character wakes up out of the coma, spills his guts, and then flatlines.  Not only does that transfer the knowledge but it gives the character the sort of heroic death being killed by an unlucky roll robbed him of, especially if you let the player play the scene out.

With respect to whether it's going to come up again, I don't think that calling this a one time exception will probably hold.  Like I said, with that sort of character, it's probably going to come up again and you also have a split of opinion within the group so I think you need to consider setting a policy.  I think there are a few ways you can handle it (this list is by no means meant to be exhaustive):

• If the death is unheroic (e.g., at the hands of a mook because of a lucky roll), give the character a "Save vs. Stupid Death" roll.  That way, the character is never guaranteed to come back (for that "roll with the dice" feel) but has less of a chance of dying a stupid death than they otherwise would (a more cinematic feel).  Adjust the odds of death for this roll to suit what the players want or maybe how stupid the death is.  This might help keep death serious enough for the ones who want to go with the dice and cinematic for the ones who don't.
• Give them some sort of Fate Point that they can use to stop a death.  Give each player 1 (or maybe more, if you really want) that they can spend to save their own character from a death result or give it to someone else.  This puts everything in the hands of your players but makes it a limited resources.  They might not like the feel of this (because it makes it a choice rather than random) but it's an option that a few systems go with.
• Go with the idea of giving the player a choice between the character having a permanent wound or disability (reflected an attribute drop or disadvantage of some sort) or dying.  This is sort of what D&D does by taking levels away for characters being raised from the dead and I agree with JimBobOz that this is more realistic than death or full recovery.  But there are players for whom a disabled character is not worth playing (they don't find it fun) so the player should probably always have the option of death for their character.
• Some combination of the wound and either the Save vs. Stupid Death roll or the Fate Point so that the character never survives without paying a price for it.

ADDED: Of course you can always just let the character die an change nothing, especially if that's what the player wants.  The above suggestions are alternatives to that quite viable option.

Make sure to let us know how you resolve it.