Kill the PCs?

[Warp9]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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' date=' they die, but I'm not trying to make it happen, I just won't stop it if it's a natural occurrence" one.[/quote']

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Kill the PCs?

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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' date=' they die, but I'm not trying to make it happen, I just won't stop it if it's a natural occurrence" one.[/quote']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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

I think the GNS thing is a good analysis tool' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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

 

I would agree to that.

[Warp9]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

Not that I'm asking anybody to wade through these' date=' 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...[/quote']

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]

llama = the new NSGist

 

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

[Warp9]

Re: llama = the new NSGist

 

I smell a lot of gamists on these boards. Filthy bunch' date=' the lot of them.[/quote']

*sniff* *sniff* *sniff*

 

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

 

 

 

 

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]

Re: Kill the PCs?

 

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 ) 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]

Re: Kill the PCs?

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Ole Bill would be proud

 

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]

Re: Kill the PCs?

 

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]

Re: Kill the PCs?

 

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]

Re: Kill the PCs?

 

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]

Re: Kill the PCs?

 

This is my preference as well... and at the "heroic" level' date=' 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.)[/quote']

 

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 . 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....