Kill the PCs?

[zornwil]

In another thread:


Here's a thought, dark though it may be:

Can I suggest you occasionally kill a PC?

First off there is often a feeling of invulnerability: you might get KO'd or captured, but never killed, surely...well, in a world where people fling about the equivalent of small nuclear explosions (in some cases) in hand to hand combat, death should never really be too much of a surprise.

Secondly, it will really make players think about their limitations if the death is caused when Power Armour Guy is attacked by The Mad Slasher whilst out of armour, because it's down for trepairs, or stolen, or....

OK, it's a bit extreme but it certainly puts the balance in: you may only lose the armour one game in 10 or 20, but if that could prove fatal.... :D

If you don't actually want to kill someone how about beating them up so badly it takes weeks or months to recover - they can play someone else in the interim.

Part of the problem with the criticism of the FOCUS limitation is that the worlds we are playing in are just not dangerous enough...


I thought this was a great post. I'm just curious on thoughts in general. I'm divided - death should be a real possibility on some level, but then again in superhero genre and many, many others, it just "isn't done" and is counter-genre except when willfully retiring a character. But Sean raises a great point - there simply is a cockiness that sets in without the disincentive of death.

[RDU Neil]

Death is definitely a possibility in my games. PCs have died. Some have come back... others have not. I don't kill wantonly or casually, but it is a threat. Death should also be dramatic... that convention I do follow. In heroic level games like Cyber Hero or gritty Fantasy... death is cheap... but while I do kill in my supers level games... it is never cheap or easy. In many cases it is transformative to the campaign and all players (GM included.)

What I'm not going to do is kill a character as punishment for player behavior. In game action for out of game behavior is totally unproductive. If the player is that bad, I'll just boot him from the game.

What I want is for players to take death seriously... and that can be achieved without every really killing them... or even allowing a super-convention to bring them back... at least IMO.

If the players take risks with their characters, knowing that maybe they could bite it permanently... then they are truly taking risks and it is all good. You don't have whack too many characters to get this point across. F*ck 'em up really, really badly! Heck yeah! That works too, and you can do it more often!

Characters can die (even if rarely) and PCs WILL lose sometimes. Success is not guaranteed. Those are core Game Rules for my world... but they don't have to come up that often to be taken seriously.

[Dust Raven]

I've never noticed one in my games. Well, except when such cockiness is in character.

Since I started running Champions some 10 years ago, I have only ever killed 2 player characters. The first was way back when I was just getting started and one of the players didn't like her character... so I killed her. That was stupid, but so were my players so nobody seemed to care. The second time was much more recently. In this case, the martial artist picked a fight with the wrong villain (one of those battles where the master villain just stands and watches... unless some idiot actually attacks him). Turns out this villain isn't the type to leave survivors, and after knocking down the hero and having him a -3 STUN, he goes for the kill shot. I stop the game for a moment.

I take the player aside to talk to him about what is about to happen. I don't kill characters with overwhelming force. I run a heroic game where heroic things can happen. But there isn't much chance of something heroic happening here. To be saved, someone else has to intervine and save the character or he dies, and everyone else is busy saving a normal what could easily die in place of the character should anyone be distracted. I am the GM, however, and I can do anything. Some strange random action could block the final blow and save him, at least for that instant. The player wanted to think about it so I gave him some time. After awhile he said it looks like I'm taking a hit for the team, besides, I have an idea. It didn't surprise me much, it was his character's DNPC they were saving.

His idea was somewhat interesting. He was playing a ex-ninja, and has saved up quite a bit of experience points. He wanted to know if he could by the "only a ninja can kill a ninja" ability with the points he's saved up. I told him we could do better than that. He'd saved up enough for a Radiation Accident, and what better stimulus for altering one's powers is there than returning from the dead?

[Supreme Serpent]

PC's die in my superhero games as a result of:

*other PC action/inaction (PC in mortal danger, other PC could save, does not try)

*being told by GM course of action *bad* idea, given option to try something else, persist in *bad* idea.

*heroic sacrifice

[austenandrews]

I don't see the need for death in most Champions games that's not either deliberate or premeditated. In other words, without the player's cooperation.

Premeditated means the player has decided on a character arc in which the PC is going to die, generally colluding with the GM.

Deliberate can be a snap decision, but one with foreknowledge of the risk of death. A superhero can leap in the way of a death ray and sacrifice himself. That's the player's decision. (I would also classify wantonly stupid behavior here.)

Outside of these two conditions, I don't have any need or desire for PC death. If you want to show that Master Masticator is deadly, have him kill a significant NPC. Don't screw over your player just to promote a bad guy.

[Fox1]

In almost all my games, PCs have the threat of death hanging over them.

Typically the risk is from poor play, sometimes from exceedly poor luck.

The one exception is my Superhero games. There death is about on the same level as the comics, it may happen- but it would a) take a lot and b) may not be all that final.

[OddHat]

Taking out the PC requires no effort at all. If anything, you have to work to avoid doing it accidentally.

Killing the actual players, on the other hand, can be tricky.

[austenandrews]

But much more rewarding. :)

[prestidigitator]

Taking out the PC requires no effort at all. If anything, you have to work to avoid doing it accidentally.

Killing the actual players, on the other hand, can be tricky.
You have to get them when they're full of snacks. Oh, and either dropping for lack of sleep or so whacked out of their gourd on caffeine that they have no idea which way is up. ;)

[Ehreval]

In my current Hero game (superheroic, pc's started with 350 points plus disads and are now somewhere around 500 each) the players and characters take the issue of pc death very seriously, even the one with nine lives. Never you mind that I rarely kill characters in any of my games.

I make sure each player knows, before character generation, exactly what the prospect of pc death is. For this genre, pc death really isn't appropriate at all times, so I let the players know that they'd generally only die if they did something very stupid or literally asked for it. I also made the caveat that some foes and situations would be more dangerous to others, so sometimes "stupid" would be quite relative.

(On the other hand, in my Vampire: Dark Ages game, I made sure people knew that Final Death would happen often, sometimes without warning and sometimes even when nobody did anything stupid. In the past, I've sometimes warned players that death would sometimes happen if the party failed to be *brilliant*. In my futuristic gladiators game, cloning and brain-taping had been perfected, so it was unlikely for death to be more than an inconvenience, ever, but one of my pc's managed the final death anyway.)

I follow this up with a little talk during/after character generation with any player who makes a pc that's likely to be killed, especially if it's likely he'll be slain by fellow party members, like the "Worm From Beyond," a sentient slug from a Mythos universe who, while he was the closest thing to "good" his universe had, really wasn't all that pleasant in his habits, like eating the brain of a sentient and piloting around the being's corpus while he did so.

So when the superheroes dash across the street to stop minor villains from running a bank, my players know that I'm not going to have someone get run over by a Mack truck. Similarly, they know that if they're going to assault the Fuhrerbunker in a universe where WWII never ended, they're going to have to be very smart to avoid casualties.

While we haven't had many pc deaths in the time this game has been running there have been many, many npc deaths. Sometimes, innocents are killed and the pc's are powerless to stop it. Even when that's the case, though, I make sure they know that their actions directly effect the mortality rate of the normals around them. A strong, quick response to a disaster -- like the recurring plagues of demons they just put a stop to -- can keep down the npc carnage, while a poorly-planned, slow response heightens it.

I also opened a session with the near-death of the party npc in a way that would have slain practically anyone else outright.

So even before I hit the characters in the forehead with a fallen comrade whose passing they mourned (see below) they were still very much aware that death exists and is a real possibility. Yes, they're a bit cocky in some ways because it hasn't happened to a character who hasn't been set up for it yet, but they're also very careful in many other ways, and they keep it in mind as a possibility for the vulnerable mortals around them, always.

We also got a little roleplaying mileage out of the Worm's death that did occur. The pc who whacked the Worm was mind-controlled by a baddie at the time, but he still dealt with a good deal of angst regarding his actions. If that angst had been played out externally rather than taking place almost entirely in the pc's head, it would have been even better, but the particular pc in question isn't the type to act out much. This same pc also seems to angst over civilian deaths that aren't prevented, and that's good, too, maybe even better.

I also killed off a former pc whose player had abandoned the game. That one was well-respected and valued by the rest of the group, and the characters' reactions to his death -- shock, dismay, disbelief, wrath -- were much more fun to watch play out.

The bottom line with death, I think, is the same as it is for any other element of story-telling. It should have an effect, and the truly interesting part isn't the death scene, it's the aftermath. Our group got shortchanged a bit, because people were really stretching themselves -- letting their characters not notice things or think of the ramifications of things -- in order to *not* kill the Worm earlier, so there wasn't so much agony over its death, and since the Worm wasn't publicly acknowledged, ever -- and the Worm's two known shells weren't really high in the local public eye -- the public, themselves, didn't have much reaction to his passing.

What's really interesting, usually, is how the characters and world change as a result of the pc death. When the Worm's first shell was destroyed, her family showed up en masse for the funeral and to dispose of her property. This was mildly amusing, and could have gone far afield if the pc's had let them know about the Worm.

So while pc death may be a dramatic and effective storytelling device, I'd say that the important thing isn't the frequency, or shoving it at your players sideways. The important thing is how it plays out, how it affects the story, setting and characters involved.

(A major npc hero in a nearby city is slated to die in this game, off-screen. A nation will mourn, and players will have a chance to react to the death of a powerful hero.)

Now, if you absolutely *must* have pc death for the story you want to tell -- and sometimes it happens -- then you have a great opportunity to plan for it ahead of time.

Approach your best roleplayers or ask for volunteers at the end of a session. Be prepared to offer rewards for anyone who's willing to sacrifice a character for the sake of a story. I'd *start* with letting them build with the current points total of their pc or the average of all pc's, whichever is higher, then offer them a flat points bonus and often give a second bonus for how well-played a death is. (I tend to do this whenever a character dies a natural death in the first place, with the exception that I'll generally start them out at the level of the lowest-pointed pc.)

With prior planning, you can get the flavor of the scene down-pat, and if you haven't openly canvassed for volunteers to bite the big one, the player shock value should be large. You can also make sure that the sacrificing player has his new character ready to go or, perhaps, already worked into the campaign.

Just my thoughts,
Ehreval

[ParitySoul]

I find that 'breaking' the PCs is a much more satifying act. Killing family, friends, hopes, dreams and then in the process having their will and determination rebuild them over time is a great thing to witness.

I do the Campbell, desent into the underworld a lot. Things go bad, they get stronger, they get better!

Killing them is just so final and goes counter to good storytelling. I try to avoid it when I can.

[Mentor]

The closest our PCs ever come to death is when we deliberately put ourselves into such a position in order to save the world.

My Mentalist, Prodigy, had to prevent a nasty human sacrifice by an angry Mayan godling from making him an angry Mayan god. Since his VPP was in mostly defensive and movement powers, he didn't have the phase to spare to change powers and attack the enemy. IOnstead he was forced to throw his body over that of the screaming virgin (I guess) as the knife was descending. The GM, Blackjack, correctly decided that an already deadly weapon should ignore my PC's Combat Luck as Prodigy was trying to intercept the knife. He ended up with 1 BODY left based on the roll of the dice, but the sacrifice was prevented from taking place at the precise moment of optimum celestial alignment. If Prodigy had died, I could hardly have complained since I put him in that position willingy.

Most of our PC Superhero players are well aware that there is always a risk of death in what we do and that is what makes the characters heroes.

[ghost-angel]

In the cyberpunk games that I run (pretty much the only time I actually run a game) the lethality level is high. extremely high. Combat is dangerous, and I warn players beforehand that if they get into it too often someone will die. I've had to only kill a couple people ... and the whole party once when winding up a campaign - but that was sort of agreed upon by everyone.

In every other type of game, PCs tend to only die when they request it... most GMs I know are hesitant to actually kill a character off.

[Mike W]

I don't remember ever permanently killing a PC(Resurrection is SO easy in D&D), but I don't pull punches, so people do get hurt, sometimes badly. I've hospitalized more than one Champs PC, but none have died quite yet. But then, it's fairly easy to stop the bleeding before the PC dies and the villains either aren't bloodthirsty enough to finish up or, more often, concentrate on the heroes who are still hitting them back.

I did kill an NPC villain a couple sessions ago. And I almost killed Spiderman last month.

[Shubbie]

Knocking a character into a hospital for an adventure or two.. very much in genre..
Falling off a cliff to certain death only to return later.. very in genre..

Actual deaths of superhero's is so rare and genre breaking that it shouldnt be done unless you are playing a lethal style dark champions, not a real 4 color campaign.

I mean you can count on two hands the amount of real superhero deaths there have been. Im not counting independants or mature titles like rising stars, since they have high body counts at times which is fine if you are playing that style

[Lord Mhoram]

I thought this was a great post. I'm just curious on thoughts in general. I'm divided - death should be a real possibility on some level, but then again in superhero genre and many, many others, it just "isn't done" and is counter-genre except when willfully retiring a character.

I might the proud claim that as a HERO GM since 1986 I have never killed a character, and never plan to. The point for me is the depth and the experience of character, if I had a character killed for no other than tactical reasons I would walk away from the game - it would not be offering me what I am after.
I don't roleplay HERO for the tactical challenge of staying alive and "killing the monster" I left that with D&D.

Now losing is another matter, and can be as devestating as death but it can lead into more roleplaying.Death of a charcter does not help roleplaying, because said character is dead.

And I've been runnig both supers and Fantasy HERO in that mode for almost two decades.

[CourtFool]

From reading a lot of the previous posts I think to kill or not to kill is linked with gamist and narativist.

My observation, flawed as it is:

"Typically the risk is from poor play, sometimes from exceedly poor luck." = gamist = to kill

"Death of a charcter does not help roleplaying, because said character is dead." = narativist = not to kill

I like to emulate cinema when I role play so the 'good guys' always look cool and if they die they go down in a blaze of glory; not tripping over a rock and fumbling their weapon.

[zornwil]

From reading a lot of the previous posts I think to kill or not to kill is linked with gamist and narativist.

My observation, flawed as it is:

"Typically the risk is from poor play, sometimes from exceedly poor luck." = gamist = to kill

"Death of a charcter does not help roleplaying, because said character is dead." = narativist = not to kill

I like to emulate cinema when I role play so the 'good guys' always look cool and if they die they go down in a blaze of glory; not tripping over a rock and fumbling their weapon.
Interesting thought. I'd suggest that the ideal simulationist response would be (and I've seen this) the 'if they die, they die, but I'm not trying to make it happen, I just won't stop it if it's a natural occurrence" one.

[Dalt]

Hello everyone. Great topic.

I just joined up and thought I would add my 2 cents.

I move around a lot and am constantly dragging new players into games. One thing I like to do is run short campaigns with low point characters for newer players. This lets them learn the game and see what is out there without getting to attached to a character. Usually the campaign is based around normal people against an overwhelming odd where all the players get killed as the game progresses.

This lets newer players play a few different characters to get a feel for things. Once were all “deathed up” we remake everyone with higher point characters now that they have a feel for the gaming system. In my experience this also helps new players feel that the death of a character isn’t the end of the world and that its just a game. I’m sure everyone has had a player who was way to into it.

Nice to be here.

[Trebuchet]

Hello everyone. Great topic.

I just joined up and thought I would add my 2 cents.

I move around a lot and am constantly dragging new players into games. One thing I like to do is run short campaigns with low point characters for newer players. This lets them learn the game and see what is out there without getting to attached to a character. Usually the campaign is based around normal people against an overwhelming odd where all the players get killed as the game progresses.

This lets newer players play a few different characters to get a feel for things. Once were all “deathed up” we remake everyone with higher point characters now that they have a feel for the gaming system. In my experience this also helps new players feel that the death of a character isn’t the end of the world and that its just a game. I’m sure everyone has had a player who was way to into it.

Nice to be here.Nice to have you here, and welcome to the Hero boards. :)

[Storn]

I run fantasy. I'll let the dice kill characters, because lethality is very much part of this particular strain of fantasy. But it doesn't happen a lot... but seems to pick Neil's characters for sanction over others. Partly because the dice have been really, really, REALLY mean to Neil in my game... and partly because Neil is the first player to step forward and sacrifice a character if he feels that it is warranted. The characters who've died REALLY were put in Danger's Way. Sorry, Neil.

The last 4 years of my game have been very much driven by the death of 2 PCs and the incompletion of an important mission... so I got a great story out of the death of two great characters.

In Supers, I play my characters with the IDEA that they could die in superpowered combat. Even if it is unlikely. I want that spectre of the dice going badly or if I put my PC in such a pickle, that death can come knocking. I've lost a few characters.... but one is the avatar of Osiris...who's whole myth is about Resurrection... so that one isn't particularly painful. Commander got gacked fighting to save the world vs. Dr. Destroyer's main bad guy team... I had NO problem with it.

And as for my current character, Geist, who's power comes from the Dead... I'm not sure if death would stop the character... just might make him more powerful... if i can paraphrase a movie line. What Geist's death *might* do is make him an NPC along the lines of DC comics Spectre... because much of my enjoyment of the character comes from Dorian's (the civilian ID) humanity struggling with being an advocate for the Dead. That interplay between mystical necromantic spirit and anal intelligence paper pusher is really fun.

And in RDU, in NO uncertain terms, there are worst fates than death. There is something out there.... that even the dead fear....<g>

[Lord Mhoram]

"Typically the risk is from poor play, sometimes from exceedly poor luck." = gamist = to kill

"Death of a charcter does not help roleplaying, because said character is dead." = narativist = not to kill


I think you have a fair amount of it. I don't really buy into the whole GNS thing, but everyone has different reasons for playing -- mine is escapism. I want to enjoy being in an interactive story, I don't really want to work very hard (other than feeling the emotions of my character) I want to relax.
Other people have differing reasons for playing.

[Vanguard00]

I've never set out to kill a PC. I've only had a few die on me in all my years of gaming, and have had one of my own PCs killed (due to sacrifice, which later turned out to be but one of a couple options available, and the only fatal one--still, a good death).

I think if it happens, let it happen. I won't go overboard trying to save one but I will give the player/PC every realistic chance to back out of a bad choice.

[lemming]

Haven't killed a PC in years. I pretty much let the dice determine if someone dies, though there's always room for resurrection etc... if you follow comics enough...

There was one campaign I was in, Vikings though we were atypical vikings. Pretty much one die roll during a pivotal session got the entire party wiped out. The GM had planned earlier that we'd either succeed or all die and had prepared for either outcome. We all wound up going to Valhalla and continuing the campaign there.

[prestidigitator]

Interesting thought. I'd suggest that the ideal simulationist response would be (and I've seen this) the 'if they die, they die, but I'm not trying to make it happen, I just won't stop it if it's a natural occurrence" one.
That's where I tend to sit, though I'm not above fudging a few die rolls to avoid killing a PC when I don't think it's dramatically worth it.

Oh the other hand, if I notice one or more PCs doing something really stupid or arrogant, I might throw them into a situation in which continuing to act that way will (obviously) cause some major risk to their skins. For example, if they tackle absolutely every scenario by running in with their weapons flying, pounding and pounding to overcome any situation, I might have them run into an obviously powerful NPC who is not too eager to fight (so there are other ways to overcome the situation--such as diplomacy and/or guile). If they attack...well, they'll get what they asked for.

[Warp9]

From reading a lot of the previous posts I think to kill or not to kill is linked with gamist and narativist.

My observation, flawed as it is:

"Typically the risk is from poor play, sometimes from exceedly poor luck." = gamist = to kill

"Death of a charcter does not help roleplaying, because said character is dead." = narativist = not to kill


Interesting thought. I'd suggest that the ideal simulationist response would be (and I've seen this) the 'if they die, they die, but I'm not trying to make it happen, I just won't stop it if it's a natural occurrence" one.
Yeah, I agree with those perspectives.

And I do think that it is kind of important what perspective that the GM is coming from. If things basically happen by design (narritivist), then killing a character is going to have more implications.

I was actually going to make this same argument in relation to the question of how a GM should handle limitations. For example, people have suggested that the GM is responsible for making sure that characters lose their foci on a fairly regular basis, but this concept might be offensive from a simulationist point of view.

[Warp9]

I think you have a fair amount of it. I don't really buy into the whole GNS thing, but everyone has different reasons for playing -- mine is escapism. I want to enjoy being in an interactive story, I don't really want to work very hard (other than feeling the emotions of my character) I want to relax.
Other people have differing reasons for playing.
I agree that people are very complex and have many reasons for gaming.

However, I tend to think that from one perspective, everyone would fit into the GNS model somewhere. You may also be an escapist, but you would most likely be a Narativist Escapist (but there are other types of escapism, for example, people can be gamist escapists too).

Understanding where you are in a GNS model can be very helpful if you happen to be dealing with players who come from a much different position.

I once showed up to a game run by a simulationist GM. Action had already been in progress from a previous session and I sat around watching for most of the game. The problem was that changing the story to put my character into the game would not have been a natural occurance, so the GM didn't do it. I don't have a problem with that, but knowing that I was dealing with a simulationist GM (in advance) would have been helpful.

Telling me that your reasons for gaming involve escapism lets me know something about you, but knowing where you stand in a GNS model helps me know a bit more.

[zornwil]

Hello everyone. Great topic.

I just joined up and thought I would add my 2 cents.

I move around a lot and am constantly dragging new players into games. One thing I like to do is run short campaigns with low point characters for newer players. This lets them learn the game and see what is out there without getting to attached to a character. Usually the campaign is based around normal people against an overwhelming odd where all the players get killed as the game progresses.

This lets newer players play a few different characters to get a feel for things. Once were all “deathed up” we remake everyone with higher point characters now that they have a feel for the gaming system. In my experience this also helps new players feel that the death of a character isn’t the end of the world and that its just a game. I’m sure everyone has had a player who was way to into it.

Nice to be here.
Welcome!

The approach reminds me of the unplanned way we often did such things when first RPGing! But as I said, we didn't do that deilberately!

It's a very good idea, so long as everyone understands that going in, I like that. I'll have to steal it sometime...

[zornwil]

I agree that people are very complex and have many reasons for gaming.

However, I tend to think that from one perspective, everyone would fit into the GNS model somewhere. You may also be an escapist, but you would most likely be a Narativist Escapist (but there are other types of escapism, for example, people can be gamist escapists too).

Understanding where you are in a GNS model can be very helpful if you happen to be dealing with players who come from a much different position.

I once showed up to a game run by a simulationist GM. Action had already been in progress from a previous session and I sat around watching for most of the game. The problem was that changing the story to put my character into the game would not have been a natural occurance, so the GM didn't do it. I don't have a problem with that, but knowing that I was dealing with a simulationist GM (in advance) would have been helpful.

Telling me that your reasons for gaming involve escapism lets me know something about you, but knowing where you stand in a GNS model helps me know a bit more.
I think the GNS thing is a good analysis tool, but of course it's an ideal typology. People shouldn't feel like it's "no good" because they happen to be among those who might straddle all 3 categories equally. I have come to like the method, even though I think it shouldn't be the sole one.

[Just Joe]

This thread touches on a lot of related topics I've been wanting to discuss recently. I don't think I'm up to the task of addressing anything close to all of them right now, but I'll nibble around the edges.


I'd suggest that the ideal simulationist response would be (and I've seen this) the 'if they die, they die, but I'm not trying to make it happen, I just won't stop it if it's a natural occurrence" one.I'm not sure precisely what a simulationist is, but based on the root word and this quote, I imagine that I come close to being one. I think that the type of game (roughly the genre) should signifigantly influence the likely lethality, but that the course of events (including die rolls) should be the primary determinants of death or survival. I think that this way of handling things tends to increase the drama, make heroic acts feel more heroic, and ultimately lead to more fun. I also think that this way of handling things exploits the unique features of roleplaying as an art form, rather than duplicating more traditional narrative art forms.

[zornwil]

I've fudged once to save someone's life because I put them in that situation by not being explicit enough about the risks.

Another PC got killed by recklessness, a long time ago - but the player seemed to be truly offended. He's one of those guys who is actually very sensitive underneath but acts like he's not and pretends he's not. I really think, despite his claims to the contrary, this was one of two reasons he quit playing the game. I wish I had not let his character get killed, though he still should have been in the hospital or such at the least.

(PS - the player was very much a "closet munchkin", meaning he did things I know were metagaming and he really wanted an edge, although he also tried hard not to go too far and he did trule roleplay his charactter, very very well in fact, so it really wasn't a problem, but did learn a little bit from it)

[Lord Mhoram]

However, I tend to think that from one perspective, everyone would fit into the GNS model somewhere.

Yeah I can see that. We had a new guy in the group that had played for a year or two and took on the GMing. It was an absolute disaster. Our group was, in GNS terms, almost completely narritivist (and escapist, so we generally expected to win, no matter how stupid tactically we were, because we were telling a story about the stars of the movie/comic book whatnot - the winning wasn't imporatant, telling the story to how we won was). The GM was split almost 50/50 simulationist gamist - I found the GNS model described shortly thereafter and thought "a ha!" - and I agree it is a useful tool, but way to many people think it the end all and be all of gamestyle analysis. I get as much use of the "player archtypes" in the various champions books as I do the GNS.

My saying I don't buy into it, isn't saying there isn't useful info that can be gleaned from using those terms, it just doesn't explain everything. :)

[CourtFool]

I think the GNS thing is a good analysis tool, but of course it's an ideal typology. People shouldn't feel like it's "no good" because they happen to be among those who might straddle all 3 categories equally. I have come to like the method, even though I think it shouldn't be the sole one.

I guess it comes down to communication between the players and GM. It seems obvious in hindsight, however, I have never nor have I ever seen any other GM sit down with the players before the game and talk about these aspects. Sure you talk about point totals and the campaign world.

I think GNS is a great tool. I disagree with people that say they are 100% Gamist and 100% Narativist. To them I say, "You are 50% Gamist and 50% Narativist." Part of the problem here may be that some people think there is a negative stigma attached to one or all of the labels. In my earlier years I may have seen a stigma. Now I see them as equally valid. Not right or wrong, just different. The problem comes when the 100% Gamist plays with the 100% Narativist and they do not discuss their expectations before hand. One or both are angry/frustrated/hurt and claim that the other is 'doing it wrong'. I have certainly done that in the past.

On topic:
I do not kill PCs nor do I want my PC to be killed. If I am told before hand that death is a very real possibility then I will not put so much energy into background and personality and instead put that energy into building a character that can survive and using every tactical advantage I can squeeze out of the game and scenario. It is just my observation, but it seems like a lot of the problems people on these boards have with the rules and real or perceived balance issues is because their players are approaching the game with exactly that mentality (survive and gain every advantage I can).

[CourtFool]

My saying I don't buy into it, isn't saying there isn't useful info that can be gleaned from using those terms, it just doesn't explain everything.

I would agree to that.

[Warp9]

and I agree it is a useful tool, but way to many people think it the end all and be all of gamestyle analysis. I get as much use of the "player archtypes" in the various champions books as I do the GNS.

Understood. :)

[zornwil]

Not that I'm asking anybody to wade through these, but I wonder what people would think of me based on my write-ups of our games? I'm going to ask my group what they think out of curiousity...

[Warp9]

Not that I'm asking anybody to wade through these, but I wonder what people would think of me based on my write-ups of our games? I'm going to ask my group what they think out of curiousity...
This idea is just an impression, but I got the feeling that you were (more or less) a Narativist.


I also get the feeling that the majority (but not all) of posters here would tend toward a Narativist style.



For myself: in theory, I'm a hard core simulationist. That is certainly the type of game I'd most like to play in (but there are additional considerations). In practice, I do tend toward a more narativist style of GMing. And issues like the "killing of PCs" are the main reason for that tendency.

[CourtFool]

I smell a lot of gamists on these boards. Filthy bunch, the lot of them.

[Warp9]

I smell a lot of gamists on these boards. Filthy bunch, the lot of them.
*sniff* *sniff* *sniff*

No wait, that doesn't work! I'm a big eye-ball (no nose).

:rofl:



Actually I AM mostly a gamist when I build my characters, but a hard-core simulationist when I start playing my character (so maybe the GNS thing does break down just a bit there).

[Rover]

Hi All,


Narrative?

Too much can drain the life right out of a game. Which after all is supposed to be a communal activity.

I try(not allways successfully :D) to encourage gamers to help me develop the direction of the game and therefore the plot and effectively the narrative .

Gamist?

Let the players do what they want and then whack the characters when they get out of line. They're never going to learn if we nanny them.


Finally the point that caused me to post in this thread-

I noticed that a few people in this thread had made such statements as they tried never to kill the player's characters.

Miller's DD series. Can you remember the furor when he killed Elektra?

What impression did the death of Rorsarch in 'Who Watch's th Watchmen?'

I don't hold back when a player has put his character in jeopardy. But if the role playing was excellent I try to build some pathos around the character's death.


Whoops, gotta go!:)


Regards,

Rover.

[Lord Mhoram]

Narrative?

Too much can drain the life right out of a game. Which after all is supposed to be a communal activity.

Well, to a point, but if everyone is narrativisting* then they all help out, both in character, and in story. When I GM, the players influence the story as much as I do - or normally moreso. And as I stated earlier, players, and characters can lose, just generaly not fatally.

* hey a new word.



I noticed that a few people in this thread had made such statements as they tried never to kill the player's characters.

Miller's DD series. Can you remember the furor when he killed Elektra?

What impression did the death of Rorsarch in 'Who Watch's th Watchmen?'



Electra, IMO, was an NPC in that story. The GM killed the NPC to make a more insteresting role playing experience for the PC.

The second would be, in my eyes, a situation where the PC saw where the end of the story was going, talked to the GM and gave him a rundown on what the character did, and asking to die for a dramatic ending. I'll kill a PC if the player wants me to do so to further the story. I've done that as a player.

[zornwil]

This idea is just an impression, but I got the feeling that you were (more or less) a Narativist.


I also get the feeling that the majority (but not all) of posters here would tend toward a Narativist style.



For myself: in theory, I'm a hard core simulationist. That is certainly the type of game I'd most like to play in (but there are additional considerations). In practice, I do tend toward a more narativist style of GMing. And issues like the "killing of PCs" are the main reason for that tendency.
I think it's 45% Narrativist, 35% Simulationist, 20% Gamist, if I had to pick. Or maybe it's 50%-40%-10%. It's more in those ranges I believe, anyway.

I can see that, re your comments, makes a lot of sense. I think I come from a similar background as the setting for me and experiencing it drives it in a huge way, but I think I'm more Narrative as I've gotten older and that what has occurred is not just being that way as GMing practice and drawing out a story but also really in that the simulations I create now are all becoming more theme/story-evoking. Like the X-Champions world is about a world with mutation "issues" and so the simulation aspects are somewhat subservient to the Narrative from the get-go.

But I like to let people just explore, and try not to force any single storylines, but at the end of the day I want it to cohere into a rich, multi-threaded ongoing story, a narrative.

I think the gamist aspects are important in some respects in combat and in that it's a way to instill a little uncertainty and healthy competition, but that's really about it.

[OddHat]

I think it's 45% Narrativist, 35% Simulationist, 20% Gamist, if I had to pick. Or maybe it's 50%-40%-10%. It's more in those ranges I believe, anyway.

I can see that, re your comments, makes a lot of sense. I think I come from a similar background as the setting for me and experiencing it drives it in a huge way, but I think I'm more Narrative as I've gotten older and that what has occurred is not just being that way as GMing practice and drawing out a story but also really in that the simulations I create now are all becoming more theme/story-evoking. Like the X-Champions world is about a world with mutation "issues" and so the simulation aspects are somewhat subservient to the Narrative from the get-go.

But I like to let people just explore, and try not to force any single storylines, but at the end of the day I want it to cohere into a rich, multi-threaded ongoing story, a narrative.

I think the gamist aspects are important in some respects in combat and in that it's a way to instill a little uncertainty and healthy competition, but that's really about it.


I also became more narrativist as I got older. I started out trying to "win", and in my early and mid 20s I was seriously committed to creating a convincing and logical world, to the point that the player characters were no more important to me as a GM than any other part of the setting. These days I want to create Exciting Tales of Adventure in an immesive setting (not that I always manage it).

However, even as a "narrativist," I would remind players of the fairy tales where a king sends his first, second, and third son to retrieve the princess. You, as a player, have no guarantee that you're not the second son. ;

[RDU Neil]

I think it's 45% Narrativist, 35% Simulationist, 20% Gamist, if I had to pick. Or maybe it's 50%-40%-10%. It's more in those ranges I believe, anyway.

I can see that, re your comments, makes a lot of sense. I think I come from a similar background as the setting for me and experiencing it drives it in a huge way, but I think I'm more Narrative as I've gotten older and that what has occurred is not just being that way as GMing practice and drawing out a story but also really in that the simulations I create now are all becoming more theme/story-evoking. Like the X-Champions world is about a world with mutation "issues" and so the simulation aspects are somewhat subservient to the Narrative from the get-go.

But I like to let people just explore, and try not to force any single storylines, but at the end of the day I want it to cohere into a rich, multi-threaded ongoing story, a narrative.

I think the gamist aspects are important in some respects in combat and in that it's a way to instill a little uncertainty and healthy competition, but that's really about it.

Funny... but combat is where the Sim in me get a little lead time. I like the dice and strategy and setting to "play out" in combat, rather than have it shaped by Gamist need to win, or narrativist need for theme... but at the same time, I've allowed a heavy Nar mechanic (Luck chits) into the mix because the players like it. Able to re-roll a catestrophic "18" or use their "ice powers" in a unique way not actually on the char. sheet, etc. This bends the game much more to following a classic dramatic arc, and to allow players to drive the story. It can also have gamist element to it, in that there is a group urge to "step on up" and use the chit in the most surprising, unique, dramtic way. While it can be used to "just win" the real group impetus is to help make the game cool and exciting. (So while throwing a chit to make a roll a "3" and get double damage is acceptable... throwing a chit to turn a life draining villain's power back on him and "take him with you" as you collapse into darkness... that is cheered!)

And as much as I understand GNS, there is no denying that we all invoke all three... Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist... behaviors/decisions in every gaming experience... but what we tend to do the most often, over time, is the closest we could come to claiming one style over the others. (So, you would be Nar, even at only 45% of the time.)

[RDU Neil]

I also became more narrativist as I got older. I started out trying to "win", and in my early and mid 20s I was seriously committed to creating a convincing and logical world, to the point that the player characters were no more important to me as a GM than any other part of the setting. These days I want to create Exciting Tales of Adventure in an immesive setting (not that I always manage it).

However, even as a "narrativist," I would remind players of the fairy tales where a king sends his first, second, and third son to retrieve the princess. You, as a player, have no guarantee that you're not the second son. ;

While we all have a touch of gamist in us, I have to admit mine is small. From the beginning I hated the "rule playing" that can characterize Gamist play... really captivated by the Sim elements of exploring a world... and the Nar elements of story. Sim as a player... Nar as a GM. The idea of Nar as a "player" is a much more modern concept... empowering players to shape and control the world in ways that traditional RPGs never attempted. Now, as a player, if I don't have access to "GM Stance" or "Dirctor Stance" I'm not happy. Sticking with "Actor stance" is really hard, and not fun. (Comes from being the primary GM for 20 years, I'm sure.)

[zornwil]

Funny... but combat is where the Sim in me get a little lead time. I like the dice and strategy and setting to "play out" in combat, rather than have it shaped by Gamist need to win, or narrativist need for theme... but at the same time, I've allowed a heavy Nar mechanic (Luck chits) into the mix because the players like it. Able to re-roll a catestrophic "18" or use their "ice powers" in a unique way not actually on the char. sheet, etc. This bends the game much more to following a classic dramatic arc, and to allow players to drive the story. It can also have gamist element to it, in that there is a group urge to "step on up" and use the chit in the most surprising, unique, dramtic way. While it can be used to "just win" the real group impetus is to help make the game cool and exciting. (So while throwing a chit to make a roll a "3" and get double damage is acceptable... throwing a chit to turn a life draining villain's power back on him and "take him with you" as you collapse into darkness... that is cheered!)

And as much as I understand GNS, there is no denying that we all invoke all three... Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist... behaviors/decisions in every gaming experience... but what we tend to do the most often, over time, is the closest we could come to claiming one style over the others. (So, you would be Nar, even at only 45% of the time.)
That's why I say "in some respects" in combat, I think any combat situation has some competitive aspects in doing one's best. I don't think of it as GM vs PC at all, and I play the characters and make decisions more in a simulationist mode (i.e., they'll do what they should per character, not to win), but I think having semi-regular combats (particularly ones the heroes are over-powered relatively) triggers that "winning" feeling.

[Black Omega]

GNS? Hmm..never even heard of that before. I'll have to do a search on it.

Death wise I'm the killer GM in my group. The other GM has killed one PC in around 15 years. I've killed four in 10 years, not counting killed-resurrected characters in d20 games.

I waffle on death quite a bit though. I want players to put some effort into their characters and a high risk of PC death doesn't encourage that. On the other hand my next game will be a supernatural game and I'm not sure how to get the players feeling nervous without some threat of death for their PCs. I've been thinking on this alot lately to find the right balance.

[Sean Waters]

In an ideal (game) world, I suppose you want he characters to be aware of the real possibility of dying without ever having to take that ultimate step of killing them. IME 'nearly' killing a PC can accomplish this in most cases.

I have never killed a character in a normal Champions game (although two PCs killed each other in a game I was running - with my assistance: they grabbed each other and flew into Spain (yes: into) and I fluffed their velocity enough for it to be fatal. It was important that this happened at the time). I have killed characters in Dark Champions (half the team in one particularly explosive climax), and plenty of times in other games. In one game the whole party were killed by the villain right at the end. But it worked. The players enjoyed it. No one got bitter. That story was over, that's how it ended.

The important thing to me is the story and the enjoyment of it by the players. Sometimes that requires death. There are not many 'action/adventure' movies where characters that would be PCs don't die: it is part of the dramatic flow of the story.

Mind you I tend to run relatively limited story arcs and then we'll move onto completely new stories with new characters, so killing someone's favourite character is rarely too much of a problem - if it is important to the story. I suppose that I tend to run movies or trilogies rather than lifetime campaigns.

The question of whether death is acceptable probably has an awful lot to do with the style of play and the type of game you run.

I suppose the thing about superheroes in comics is that they are (quite unusually in entertainment media) characters that DO roll on for years and years, and so successful characters never get killed, at least not permanently. They are an ongoing source of income and you don't chop the head off the golden goose. This is both a strength and a weakness: there is continuity, but the players EXPECT that continuity. There is the ability to rely on the characters always being there, but, sometimes that is at the expense of believeablity: especially in the comics things can get very contrived. Sometimes that spills over into the game.

[RDU Neil]

Mind you I tend to run relatively limited story arcs and then we'll move onto completely new stories with new characters, so killing someone's favourite character is rarely too much of a problem - if it is important to the story. I suppose that I tend to run movies or trilogies rather than lifetime campaigns.


This is my preference as well... and at the "heroic" level, more often the case... but I've found that my players seem to very much want the long term character development than can last over years. To come to identify with a character, etc. That was what originally brought me to supers role playing as a GM... because it is one genre that I fee "makes sense" for a character to have a decade-plus long career doing high risk, crazy adventures. For almost any other type of character, I can't buy the "constantly surviving certain death" motiffe at all. Supers, I can, because it isn't certain death "for them!" It would be certain death for any lesser being, but they are "super" and thus can come out the otherside. (Not to say I haven't killed supers... but it is rare... more often, death is "transformative" rather than final.)

[Sean Waters]

This is my preference as well... and at the "heroic" level, more often the case... but I've found that my players seem to very much want the long term character development than can last over years. To come to identify with a character, etc. That was what originally brought me to supers role playing as a GM... because it is one genre that I fee "makes sense" for a character to have a decade-plus long career doing high risk, crazy adventures. For almost any other type of character, I can't buy the "constantly surviving certain death" motiffe at all. Supers, I can, because it isn't certain death "for them!" It would be certain death for any lesser being, but they are "super" and thus can come out the otherside. (Not to say I haven't killed supers... but it is rare... more often, death is "transformative" rather than final.)

It's just that I keep getting all these new ideas.....

I quite agree with what you say: back at University I ran a game that lasted about a year, theoretically playing about 4 or 5 hours once a week, in practice playing a couple of hours a day....we were practically playing in real time and it was really intense, so much so that a player's girlfriend approached me and said her boyfriends character was really upsetting him, and I needed to do something about it :nonp: . The player was playing this basically decent superman type who'd got completely twisted out of shape. He was 'playing' him brilliantly, from a role playing perspective, but he hated the character for what he'd become, and it was really getting to him. That was one of the two who crashed into Spain. It was bizarre: as it became clear that there was nothing but a 3km crater in the ground, it was like a weight had lifted: celebration!

Only one of the characters was ever played again, but the characters have since emerged as legends in future campaigns run by the other players. In terms of hours played that is probably the longest campaign I've ever run.

I do agree with your analysis of the attraction of superheroes, and as I mentioned in the post above I think this is very much in genre. It's just I've never managed that kind of long term commitment to a character or campaign. Maybe when I'm old....:)