My regular campaign features a lot of PC death. We don't worry about it; the campaign barely experiences one of these passings as more than a speed bump. None of the original PCs remains, and each player has been through about four or five different iterations by now. The party is in other words like a Ship of Theseus, every piece of which has been replaced on numerous occasions. Not in any sense what it originally was, it sails on regardless, paradoxically retaining its identity for all of the changes that have taken place.
There are three interesting ways to think of this (some of which were very briefly mentioned here) and perhaps game-ify it in a very light-touch, non-agency affecting way:
1 - The PCs are each like Moorcock's Eternal Champion, being endlessly created and recreated (without realising it) in different guises, for some transcendent purpose which they do not perceive or understand. Method of game-ification: stat inheritance. At the start of the campaign, each player may designate one of his PCs' stats to be a permanent one, which is 'inherited' by all subsequent PCs. (Iron man mode: the permanent stat is randomly determined by 1d6 roll.)
2 - The party of PCs are akin to Kim Stanley Robinson's use of the jati concept in The Years of Rice and Salt. Their souls are immortal and reappear across time in very different forms but with the same basic personalities and roles (and bearing very similar-sounding names). Method of game-ification: All the new PCs for each individual player are created with the same first initial and alignment.
3 - The party of PCs are like the cast of the Viriconium novels; they are always different, but the same archetypes - knight, lieutenant, dwarf, princess, etc. - must always reappear. Method of game-ification: At the start of the campaign, the players make a list of archetypes that is one longer than the number of PCs. (For example, if there are four PCs - an aloof, sociopathic elf; a shy fighter; a charismatic magic-user; and an honest halfling - then the list of archetypes might be the aloof/sociopathic one, the shy one; the charismatic one; and the honest one, plus one more: the aggressive, excitable one.) The first time a PC dies, the player in question takes the next archetype from the list. (Hence, if the aloof/sociophatic elf dies, his player has to create an aggressive/excitable PC. Then, if the charismatic magic-user dies next, his player has to create an aloof/sociopathic one, leaving the 'charismatic' slot empty. And so on.)
Of course, in all the first two cases you can't imagine the PCs being literally reborn as babies; instead, you probably have to think of some form of transposition of the soul from one physical vessel into another. Perhaps the multiverse makes sure that when an Eternal Champion dies, there is a person not too far away of the appropriate age and ability into whom the Champion's psyche can migrate, or whatever. (Which brings to mind Being John Malkovich somehow - a different kettle of fish entirely.)
Hmmmmm, the way I'd go about this is to have the PCs be a part of a larger group and losses are replaced from the larger group so the identity stays intact. For example:
ReplyDelete1. The PCs are scouts within a military unit and losses are replaced from within that unit.
2. PCs are a clan's toughest warriors and the dead are replaced with clan youths.
3. Or the whole system in Delta Green. If a member of your cell dies your handler just sends a new recruit at you. DG has answers to "why is thus collection of misfits going on adventures together?" baked into the game pretty deeply.
4. One I've used in the past is the PCs are the brute squad of an out of touch noble. The PCs like their job because the noble is out of touch and easy to manipulate but he always hires more muscle if some dies.
Good approaches that don't require any metaphysics! :)
DeleteThis feels like a fundamental campaign "tone" choice. If you're aiming for an "mythic" campaign, go for option 1. A more PC narrative-centric campaign could use 2. as this feels like the option that gives the players the greatest sense of continuity. 3. is my favourite, and allows for continuity in tone that you don't often get in a game with high PC turnover.
ReplyDeleteI do like the utility of @Bosh's suggestions, particularly 1. All PCs being of the same unit/army/campaign is a game I've never played before.
Maybe more campaigns should use session zero to discuss the tone (Moorcockian etc).
I also like the OSR standard of promoting a henchman/merc. The PCs will have a henchman or two with them, and maybe mercs or whatever on the payroll. The players then have some control over who they will play next, in a resource management sense. Recruiting good candidates almost becomes a minigame in itself.
This is an interesting bit because it is revealing about your GM outlook. A desire for an overarching harmony or theme as a sort of beat to the adventures. It is probably not all too different from the gradually fleshed out campaign setting that arose from my B2 game.
ReplyDeleteEither you impart reason narratively or you do so in setting.
Interesting ideas. I wonder what you think of the widespread way to handle the death of somewhat accomplished characters in the early, "old-school" days of D&D: spend a lot of gold to pay for resurrection or reincarnation magic. These are not so different from your options, but use features already present in the rules. Acquiring lots of gp becomes something like a video game "1-up." Also common was making a character with the same class, level 1, and using the same name with the subsequent number: Bob 2, Bob 3, Bob 4...
ReplyDeleteAs one of the players in noisms' campaign, I have to say that resurrection sounds a bit like cheating, and also the most boring choice. I don't think it would benefit the game, and I feel a bit sorry for anyone quite that attached to their character and unwilling (or, in the cases of Bob's 1, 2 and) to come to with a new one.
DeleteThat said, I am beginning to wonder what to do with all this gold.
Actually, I think a way that resurrection would work in this context is by resurrecting characters (or NPCs) from much earlier in the game, so that it is less a case of "I don't want to lose the character that I've managed to get up to level 7" and more something that feeds into the ongoing story.
I agree, Dan: it's boring. I never played that way and I always have regarded PC death as final. Still, it was very common for D&D players to resort to paid resurrection in the days hallowed as "old-school," one of the baked-in features of the original and AD&D rules that has seen no renaissance. As for Bob 5, 6, and 7, I think that reflects a very hands-off attitude to play: the PCs are not much more than chits on a board. Put another quarter into the machine and try again for a new high score. Pac-Man as Eternal Champion. My impression is that even players emulating a putative "old-school" like more depth than that: dare I say (with you) "story"?
DeleteAs for all your gold: build something, I guess. :)
Don't get my wrong - when I played as a kid, resurrection was commonplace, damn right we didn't want to lose our high level PCs! But as an adult, it seems a bit pointless.
DeleteAnd for buildings... well, we already have a pyramid and a clubhouse... what else could we possibly need? 🙃
Don't get my wrong - when I played as a kid, resurrection was commonplace, damn right we didn't want to lose our high level PCs! But as an adult, it seems a bit pointless.
DeleteAnd for buildings... well, we already have a pyramid and a clubhouse... what else could we possibly need? 🙃
There are two different strands here, which should not be conflated.
Delete(I) NPCs casting high level spells for the benefit of the PCs. Here you should apply the rules (e.g. resurrection survival check, Con loss, costs) along with common sense (can you find someone who will do it, and if so, how often, given that they age?) And in 1E AD+D, there are mechanisms such as training costs, stronghold maintenance, to drain cash. There was a big incentive to keep this in-party, and use hard won scrolls and magic items.
(ii) The endless line of Bob the Fighters is a reflection of the deadly nature of TSR era low levels, and ease of character creation. Some rulings, whether official or otherwise, can help here: a (shortish) period of grace to revive a poisoned character via neutralise poison, hovering on death's door rules, etc. But not too many as adventuring is a dangerous business. But if Bob the fighter made level 4 or so, he became Robert Ironfist and was a well regarded asset.
I don't allow resurrection and nor do I allow grace periods - when you get below 0 hit points your character is dead and that's it. I also have PCs roll for their hit points from level 1 as standard. It works really well.
DeleteAn entirely reasonable and consistent position. You have accepted the attrition rate.
DeleteI like Bosh's suggestions to justify the stream of replacements, keeping things at a mundane level. Indeed it might be as simple as the "council of the wise" with representatives from the military, nobility, religious organisations, wizards' guild, thieves' guild have decided they have to be seen to be doing something, and "volunteers" keep coming. Your players might decide they are increasingly reluctant volunteers if losses mount.
@Anonymous, you are quite right that these are two different things. (I didn't treat them as the same them my initial comment.)
DeleteIn AD&D 1e, the fact that there were such rules as you mention (resurrection survival check, etc.) testifies to how frequently resurrection, etc., were used in the old days and that it was a regular expectation of the game. The 1e DMG even considers resurrection normal: "The character faces death in many forms. The most common, death due to combat, is no great matter in most cases, for the character can often be brought back by means of a clerical spell or an alter reality or wish." (p. 15) Players were told this up front, under "Constitution" in the PHB (p. 12): "...if a character has an initial constitution score of 15, he or she can never be brought back to life by a raise dead or resurrection spell more than 15 times." This sets the expectation that such solutions were trivially common. DMG 1e p. 110 acknowledges that the game will become boring if there is no final death after 9+ revivals. I agree with others here that that's a high bar before the risk of death becomes boring.
As Noisms says, the DM can just say no, but as Dan said here, when he was young, resurrection was commonplace. The 'zines of the old days also make that clear. My point was that there were "old-school" solutions to this kind of thing that were built into the original rules. The orthodox AD&D way was different from the creative solutions on offer in the blog post above.
As for Bob the Fighter becoming Robert Ironfist at level 4, that's a good way to do it.
The campaign is all that matters. It is the earth. The players are the souls passing through it in various incarnations. Threads of the tapestry, but not the work itself.
ReplyDeleteI do love the Ship of Theseus thought experiment. For me, it brings to mind Darth Vader and Obi-Wan's stipulation that he was no longer Anakin Skywalker, having had too much of his mind, body, and soul replaced (with machinery and evil). Of course, this proved incorrect in the end (duh, it's a heroic story)...but at some point, perhaps? Cyborgs are always interesting considerations...from RoboCop to that Ghost in the Shell lady-cop. It's fascinating to me...and probably the reason I dig manga like AppleSeed.
; )
Great topic. When starting a campaign, it's a good idea to have an idea where replacement characters will come from. But I agree with Anon that the source need not be supernatural.
ReplyDeleteFurther mundane examples are Gygax's Keep and Hommlet. Both are jumping-off points that attract a steady supply of young adventurers.
Yes, there is that as well. An adventurers' guild is also a good option.
DeleteIn my experience, a lot of people tend that way even without prompting or consciously trying to emulate something like the Eternal Champion or The Years of Rice and Salt: the guy who always plays a dwarf dies and rolles yet another dwarf.
ReplyDeleteIndeed! I used to know somebody who always seemed to end up playing a wild magic-using kobold.
Delete