Character Death

What's everyone's feelings on character death?

Okay with it and always ready with a replacement character or vehemently against, seeing it as waste of time and work invested into your creation? Somewhere in-between? Would only allow it by choice (yours) or are you okay with dying because of dice?

As an ST/GM, do you have these conversations with your players? Would someone rejecting the idea of death completely put you off a player (since they'd be coated in plot armor)? Ever had any disagreements about a PC biting the dust?

Any grand tales of heroic sacrifice or falling drunkenly in a tavern on your own sword?

Dying should be meaningful, but a chain of bad decisions is meaningful enough for me ;-)

Ambivalent. For a long time I was a fan of high lethality of combats, and in a way I still appreciate it as a concept. But on the other hand I shifted towards thinking that the lethal outcome by itself is more often than not detrimental for the overall quality of the campaign, because it cuts short various plots that are centred around that PC (e.g. all personal storylines, and many small-group ones). And personal storylines are often the most 'hooking' ones for the players, more so than the generic war against the dark lord or the like in which they are smaller cogs.

On a related note, I have grown less patient when it comes to fake lethality. This usually means cases where enemies are hyped as being equals of the PCs or even tougher, but then again and again PCs turn out to come out on top when all things are allegedly equal (or worse, when the PCs are portrayed as underdogs in each encounter), and once one looks at statistics, the hype turns out to be false yet the narrative keeps portraying the opposition as tougher. How exactly the hype turns out to be unfounded varies by system and GM.

So now I mostly prefer campaigns where death is rarely presented as a likely outcome, but when it is, the threat is genuine and then the PCs and players ramp up the precautions to ensure survival.

On another note, when risk of death is both genuine and high (and to a lesser degree when other unacceptable risks are high), that heavily incentivises players to ramp up the precautions, often at the cost of reducing fun. E.g. spending character creation/advancement resources on survival traits instead of narratively enjoyable traits, hoarding metacurrencies just in case there is a big fight near the end of a session, &c.

I think the most important thing is for the presence or even meaning of death to be discussed at the beginning of a game, or established by the GM. For example, most of my games include Character Death as a trigger warning; it is very much present and likely, and sometimes your death is just plain bad luck. But at the same time, I wouldn't expect it to be present in a Tales of the Loop game. Other systems and stories that lie in between warrant a discussion.

Option 4:

There can be no story without players.

What does this even mean? They didn't ask about player death, specifically character death.

To clarify:

Player Character death. It has a place but only as an end to a story arc. There can be no story without them.

8/9 members of the Fellowship survived.

I think there are systems that have character death baked into them, like a ttrpg roguelite kind of thing. You begin with multiple created characters because you will likely lose one. You know what you're getting into with those.

I'm more interested in ones where death has some meaning.
That sounds.. metagamey. And depressing.

So, you would be choosing "Not my preciaus" in the poll on the top, I guess?

Tangential question, but what makes a death meaningful in games? Drama? Could it be something as simple as revealing a deadly trap?

I don't think the death of a character should just happen in passing and be dealt with casually.

Instead, you can create a scene around it or incorporate the death into an existing situation in such a way that you can participate in it.

Never really understood the "You gotta have death for the game to mean anything!"-crowd.

Particularly given the modern practice of, when you die, you re-roll a new character at the same level.

Like... death doesn't mean anything there. That's not a negative consequence.

EXCEPT the end of a/that character's story. Right?

While the power gamers and builders just get an excuse to try out a new thing, the story-players lose their attachment.

So death only really means something to the folks who care about their story.

Like, that's not the dynamic I want to create at a table.

Punishing the ppl who care about their story isn't a good outcome imo

Plus I've had too many experiences where the "Ready to die"-crowd launches into a rules lawyering argument upon their death, or yes, moves on and creates a new character, but then also loses interest in the game, or stops playing it seriously.

It's a game by game, table by table thing. Ya gotta talk about it before it happens.

I do believe that Plato said something involving Sith and Absolutes. ;)

My character's death will never be canon unless it was planned by me at the end of that character's story for dramatic purposes. That being said, if the character dies in a random fight, then either I made poor decisions, or the game was poorly balanced. Either way, the game will be without that character, and that character will be without a game. I also don't make new characters for games that already went "off canon" like that.

At the same time, I prefer games where characters can actually die if they make bad decisions or don't pay attention. In games I GM, deaths won't happen because of a bad die roll alone. However, if the player allows their character to be checkmated after a series of poor decisions, then the character will die and I will hope that everyone at the table — GM included — will learn something from it.

Unlike real life where death is a tragedy — character's death in a game is more of a signal that the character and the game don't fit each other too well, and therefore the most constructive approach I see here is to accept it and move on to another game. Those who survived can always say that she was too good for that world and died young to be free from it. Sometimes I will remind myself of that too when nostalgia calls me back.

Out of the three poll options provided, I'd have to pick "Cold and Indifferent", although it's not completely accurate. "Stoic and Pragmatic" would be more precise.

Just not a fan of comedy. And thats what common death is.

I don’t make sad-face for dead characters (anymore), it’s all good. If I’m heavily invested, and/or if I’ve spent time making a deep background, then I might be a bit miffed. But I try and avoid those levels of investment these days.

Honestly some of the most emotional moments in games I've played have come from character deaths. Both on the PC and NPC side. Heck, we've done whole funeral moments for characters we really liked. The possibility of death makes those close moments where you survive that much sweeter. I'm sure you can make a fun game without character death, but I certainly know what I'm signing up for in most games. My characters will try to survive, but there is always a chance I'll need to roll up something else. That can be a fun thing in itself. Perhaps the first character didn't work out as well, and now you have a better feel for the themes of the game you are in. I can understand the fear of losing a long standing and loved character, but those emotions are some of the best parts of the game for me. It's when I'm taking the game the most serious.

Metagamey is an interesting choice of a descriptor for this, because those processes are already metagamey (character creation is nearly always metagamey, intentionally skewed towards the pitched campaign premise; metacurrencies are inherently metagamey; advancement is often divorced from in-setting training times and efforts and ruled by meta decisions.)

Essentially what happens is that players use those mechanisms to optimise for the kind of campaign that happens, but this is often less fun than a more 'permissive' (in terms of 'viable' builds) kind of campaign.

I think that very much depend on the game and the players. If it is a more crunch heavy, tactical game than making a solid build, thus metagaming by tailoring your build to the scenario, setting or campaign specifics, is part of the fun for everyone involved, I'd imagine. In more rules-lite, story-oriented games doing that same meticulous prep makes no sense. Games where the line is blurred can go either way. We've recently discussed these types of differences with @emsquared and @MaJunior when we were creating characters for Mage the Ascension game. It seems that a lot of people choose to increase their starting Arete so their characters could actually be useful and effective, to be able to affect the world with their magical skills, while I'd personally almost always go for 1 Arete, simply because there is much more story juice in advancement and seekings.
The problem here seems to be the group composition. Both munchkins and theater kids play for different reasons and look for different things out of the game, so it is not surprising that when they mix, such situations arise.
I'd actually play up the tragedy aspect. That's what can give a more random seeming death sense and purpose. For example:
The character accidentally steps into a trap and is "mechanically" killed, i.e lost all their health. The scene should be build around that - the trapped character bleeding and in pain, clinging desperately to their life, as their comrades try to save them, rushing for the dungeon's exit. Unfortunately the trapped expires before they reach the surface, leaving the survivors to mourn their passing and reinforcing the core themes of the game - that it is a bleak and inherently dangerous world, where one misstep can spell your doom.
This, essentially.