This is split from Merits of Class Systems as it is really its own topic.

The question is over what makes it more workable for a system to be deadly - not in terms of the combat system, but what are elements that make it OK to have a PC die and the players still enjoy the game. This isn't about between D&D editions - but about RPGs more broadly, with the springboard being the comparison of PC death in Call of Cthulhu versus PC death in D&D, but death in other RPGs are totally on-topic.

Socratic-DM emphasizes the time taken for character creation, but I think it's only one factor. Players often enjoy creating a new character, so it's not necessarily an awful chore to make a new character that causes a player to quit. For example, Traveller character creation is time-consuming, but it is a fun mini-game in itself. And Traveller comabat can be quite deadly.

I think the archetypal-ness and expectations for the characters are something that makes players more invested.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on January 17, 2025, 05:48:01 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2025, 05:27:48 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 08:55:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 16, 2025, 08:31:08 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 06:39:53 PMVery quick character generation: Characters in Class systems tend to be quicker (given the classes are few and distinct) this has a knock on effect, my general belief is a system has to have a quick method of character generation for it to also be deadly, otherwise it's at best annoying or downright game ender to have a character die.

As a long-time Call of Cthulhu player, I strongly disagree. Call of Cthulhu is one of the most successful RPGs for over four decades, and it is both deadly and skill-based.

I never said class based systems were always faster or always fast in comparison to skill-based. I imagine it doesn't take very long to make a CoC character?

If it does, then regardless of the strengths I'd still dock points away from it on the grounds it should have a quicker means of character if it's going to be so deadly.

Chargen in Call of Cthulhu (CoC) is mostly about allocating points to skills. You have a few hundred points to divide among fifty or so skills. It's straightforward but can be time-consuming.

But from experience with Call of Cthulhu, I don't find that it is more of a downer or game-breaker for a character to die.

I think that's because time investment isn't the biggest factor in emotional investment. I think the archetypal-ness of classes and the "zero-to-hero" of D&D XP are bigger factors.

In Call of Cthulhu, you make a relatively ordinary person - not an archetypal hero. That makes it easier when your PC dies. Also, experience in CoC is much more incremental. In D&D, after a few levels it becomes very painful to give up the investment, whereas in CoC it's easier to fold in a beginning character.

I spoke strictly in terms of mechanics, whether a character is "easier" to accept dying is utterly subjective as far as I'm concerned.

I strictly meant in the mechanical sense, and it is clear to me CoC and many BRP systems don't exactly have breezy character generation. which makes their lethality simply annoying as opposed to having any sense of bathos.

the advantage of quick and random character generation is that the ones that survive long you feel (rightfully so) more entitled to care and think they are epic and as to what happens to them. than say some pre-planned min/maxed character build, because all of their greatness was set ahead of them even having been played.

another reason I make a distinction between old-school classes in games and new-school classes. because D&D 3.5 sucked ass through a straw and making characters was a tedious chore.

One of the things that bugs me about the D&D model of deadliness is the meta-gaming feel to it.

Characters at level 1 behave in brave or even foolhardy ways, and they shrug at the deaths of other PCs. But higher-level characters care about their lives and act more carefully. That can often feel artificial and contrary to what it should be like in the world. For immersion in the game-world, the characters should feel like real people who care about their own deaths.

Call of Cthulhu has some of its own meta-gaming feel, but I like the balance of investment in characters. I've had fun with characters dying at various points in their careers.

Perhaps not in the system itself but method of play, it's important that a player should be able to jump back in and participate quickly even if his character is taken out.  There are a lot of ways to deal with this.  In Paranoia each character has 6 clones and if one dies the next arrives immediately via a clone-apult or somesuch.  Silly but it works.  Ars Magica has grogs.  In D&D my group usually has 2 pcs per player, mostly for this reason, but also to keep players involved if the group must split.  In my current playtest, the players each picked a pre-gen and the 5 or 6 not picked are "guarding the boat."  If a pc dies the player can grab another pregen and be back in action almost immediately.

Quote from: jhkim on January 18, 2025, 06:12:42 PMThis is split from Merits of Class Systems as it is really its own topic.

The question is over what makes it more workable for a system to be deadly - not in terms of the combat system, but what are elements that make it OK to have a PC die and the players still enjoy the game. This isn't about between D&D editions - but about RPGs more broadly, with the springboard being the comparison of PC death in Call of Cthulhu versus PC death in D&D, but death in other RPGs are totally on-topic.

Socratic-DM emphasizes the time taken for character creation, but I think it's only one factor. Players often enjoy creating a new character, so it's not necessarily an awful chore to make a new character that causes a player to quit. For example, Traveller character creation is time-consuming, but it is a fun mini-game in itself. And Traveller comabat can be quite deadly.

I think the archetypal-ness and expectations for the characters are something that makes players more invested.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on January 17, 2025, 05:48:01 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2025, 05:27:48 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 08:55:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 16, 2025, 08:31:08 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on January 16, 2025, 06:39:53 PMVery quick character generation: Characters in Class systems tend to be quicker (given the classes are few and distinct) this has a knock on effect, my general belief is a system has to have a quick method of character generation for it to also be deadly, otherwise it's at best annoying or downright game ender to have a character die.

As a long-time Call of Cthulhu player, I strongly disagree. Call of Cthulhu is one of the most successful RPGs for over four decades, and it is both deadly and skill-based.

I never said class based systems were always faster or always fast in comparison to skill-based. I imagine it doesn't take very long to make a CoC character?

If it does, then regardless of the strengths I'd still dock points away from it on the grounds it should have a quicker means of character if it's going to be so deadly.

Chargen in Call of Cthulhu (CoC) is mostly about allocating points to skills. You have a few hundred points to divide among fifty or so skills. It's straightforward but can be time-consuming.

But from experience with Call of Cthulhu, I don't find that it is more of a downer or game-breaker for a character to die.

I think that's because time investment isn't the biggest factor in emotional investment. I think the archetypal-ness of classes and the "zero-to-hero" of D&D XP are bigger factors.

In Call of Cthulhu, you make a relatively ordinary person - not an archetypal hero. That makes it easier when your PC dies. Also, experience in CoC is much more incremental. In D&D, after a few levels it becomes very painful to give up the investment, whereas in CoC it's easier to fold in a beginning character.

I spoke strictly in terms of mechanics, whether a character is "easier" to accept dying is utterly subjective as far as I'm concerned.

I strictly meant in the mechanical sense, and it is clear to me CoC and many BRP systems don't exactly have breezy character generation. which makes their lethality simply annoying as opposed to having any sense of bathos.

the advantage of quick and random character generation is that the ones that survive long you feel (rightfully so) more entitled to care and think they are epic and as to what happens to them. than say some pre-planned min/maxed character build, because all of their greatness was set ahead of them even having been played.

another reason I make a distinction between old-school classes in games and new-school classes. because D&D 3.5 sucked ass through a straw and making characters was a tedious chore.

One of the things that bugs me about the D&D model of deadliness is the meta-gaming feel to it.

Characters at level 1 behave in brave or even foolhardy ways, and they shrug at the deaths of other PCs. But higher-level characters care about their lives and act more carefully. That can often feel artificial and contrary to what it should be like in the world. For immersion in the game-world, the characters should feel like real people who care about their own deaths.

Call of Cthulhu has some of its own meta-gaming feel, but I like the balance of investment in characters. I've had fun with characters dying at various points in their careers.

I respect you decided to make this a separate thread for this instead of us endlessly clogging an entirely different thread which our topic did not really pertain to. (anymore at least)

Point 1. character creation being fun, and it being quick are not mutually exclusive, you can have both, and I even admit I recall spending hours planning out Mutants & mastermind characters. it can be engrossing no doubt, but I've grown out of it because I generally find it sets poor expectations on the players parts, one of the reasons I disdain D&D 3.5 was it's focus on system mastery over player skill, and lengthy character creation with lots of options tends to support the notion of "system mastery" not always explicitly but certainly implicitly.

2. Which leads to point 2, Systems that support mastery and detailed character creation tend to make characters that either die less (because they are crafted as such) or make the player more cautious because it's their handcrafted avatar. it also means systems that are more lethal are punishing players who care because it's dashing any work they put into those characters.


3. Addressing the high level D&D paradox as to why level 1 characters act foolhardy while high level characters act cowardly. I don't believe there to be a paradox, people act like that in real life, if you have nothing to lose you can only punch up, and the more invested and prosperous a character is the more they have to lose. though early D&D addressed this problem with the idea of character retirement, because logically someone who is now a lord of a manor has much better things to do than dungeon delving, and now your new character is your old characters knight it sort of solved the problem.

Ars Magica would expound on this idea, with the idea of troupe play, where each player had more than one character, sometimes the wizards had to spend a season doing lab work, so you couldn't play them for that period, sometimes a knight had duties elsewhere, etc, so you had a sort of mini-roster.

4. What is the point of Death in a TTRPG? we should get at the question itself because it decides why a system should or should not be lethal. death is a fail state, one in which the failure is so bad the character is taken away from you. the question then should be how harsh should the fail state be? if character creation is long and detailed, then the more lethal the system is the more punishing to the players it is for failure cause they automatically have more to lose.

systems with breezier character creation with high lethality tend to feel more proportionate in this respect, and have a certain glamour about them. plenty an epic story has been told about a D&D characters that were total underdogs who ended up surviving to 20th level, D&D is quite good at the rags to riches type setup, and high lethality makes it feel more earned because it really was earned, the likely hood was failure but you beat the odds.

In contrast if I had meticulously speced and planned each phase of my character, only for them to die suddenly and randomly, while there is a degree of humor to that, even bathos, it's only in meta sense, as in universe the character was already epic to begin with, not having an epic death is just a let down and feels abrupt. 

Quote from: jhkim on January 18, 2025, 06:12:42 PMCharacters at level 1 behave in brave or even foolhardy ways, and they shrug at the deaths of other PCs. But higher-level characters care about their lives and act more carefully.

That's not because of level, but the time playing them. It's the same as how the death of a main character in the first episode of a 12-episode miniseries has little impact, but the death of that same character in the 7th episode has more impact. It's no different in real life. If you start a new job and on your first day hear that Bob died, you say "that's sad" but really you don't care. If you see Bob every day for a year and then he dies, even if you didn't like him much you'll feel sad.

When you've had time to get to know them, you'll miss them. That's not a function of the game system, but simple time invested.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the thread, but I think tone and style of the game is another factor that plays a large part.

Sticking with the traditional "Dungeons and Dragons" style game, going with something like DCC you have "Funnels" which are designed to kill characters quickly, which is why you're supposed to make like 4 level 0 characters to begin with.

Compare that to say, something like Pathfinder 2E which at level 1 has characters start with what is even double the HP of a level 1 5th edition character. Despite this, Pathfinder 2e has a reputation as being a harsh game.

Taking a step out of the world's oldest form of Roleplaying, if I sit down to play Call of Cthulu versus Champions, my expectations on my characters death are going to be very different.

If my Call of Cthulu character dies early on, I expect this as it's a Horror game, and the expectation is that characters will die.

But if say during the 2nd session of Champions the GM has a Villain ruthlessly execute my costumed Superhero after knocking him out, not even putting him in a death trap, just double tapping him... I might get a little upset, since that kind of thing doesn't typically happen in the 4 color Superhero genre.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on January 18, 2025, 07:20:38 PMIt's no different in real life. If you start a new job and on your first day hear that Bob died, you say "that's sad" but really you don't care.

Counterpoint: If you start a new job and see Bob brutally killed right next to you while on day one of the job, you will likely never forget Bob.

What I've noticed over the years is what matters even more than character build complexity for tolerating lethality is whether the adventures are set up to be episodic or serial.

Episodic adventures where there is little to no carryover; ex. professional dungeon delvers explore various dungeons in pursuit of profit; can be a lot more lethal in my experience, even if the complexity to build a character is higher, because the setting basically defaults back to a status quo as soon as the current dungeon/supervillain/etc. is dealt with.

Serial setups where elements from previous adventures; ex. ties to various NPCs; are an important part of the setting make death an extremely harsh affair since any new PC brought in has far fewer connections and can often feel like a "extra" compared to the other pre-existing PCs as a result.

You're that guy added in season three because one of the original leads needed to be written out. Technically you might be in the story longer but, to use a Cheers reference, very few end up like Woody, a lot more are Rebeccas... and the same goes for PCs who come into a serialized adventure late.

So it's not really a system matter, but a campaign style one. The fewer "resets" there are, the more a campaign needs to mitigate its lethality.

To put it another way, if a third of the cast of TNG rotated out every season it wouldn't actually affect the form it's stories took that much (indeed, Tasha Yar and the Crusher/Pulaski/Crusher situations highlight this), while once you got into the main Dominion War arcs having some new main character show up would have greatly disrupted the flow (to the point that it's actual late departure only got a new host while the symbiont survived so the "new" character had familiarity with both the rest of the crew and the story so far).

One consideration is that the relationship between character death and length of character creation is more correlation than cause/effect. We tend in these conversations to say that long character creation discourages character death, and it does. However, discouraging character death also causes longer time spent on character creation.

The player knows that they are more likely to be with this character for awhile. So they take more pains with it, worry more about things that can't change easily later (class options, low stats, etc.), and are more inclined to want to have an involved back story.

If you want characters to develop in play instead of dropping into the game already formed in the player's mind, then making it clear that characters can and will die in the game is a powerful push to get the player to learn about the character in play.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 19, 2025, 02:13:54 PMOne consideration is that the relationship between character death and length of character creation is more correlation than cause/effect. We tend in these conversations to say that long character creation discourages character death, and it does. However, discouraging character death also causes longer time spent on character creation.

The player knows that they are more likely to be with this character for awhile. So they take more pains with it, worry more about things that can't change easily later (class options, low stats, etc.), and are more inclined to want to have an involved back story.

If you want characters to develop in play instead of dropping into the game already formed in the player's mind, then making it clear that characters can and will die in the game is a powerful push to get the player to learn about the character in play.

I'd agree with that.

However, as a correlary to it, long running campaigns often become backstories in and of themselves that can prove detrimental to replacing PCs with random new guys.

One d6 Stars Wars (Tales of the Jedi era) campaign I was in started well enough, but then one PC died, then another fell to the darkside and murdered two other PCs before escaping... my PC and the one added literally the session before were the only survivors and mine was the only one with any motivations tied to the original premise.

That campaign died because it was a serial with a death rate too high to keep any momentum to the story. If it had continued I'd have had to be the lead PC by default because no one else would even have a connection to the existing plot elements or NPCs.

So, yeah, encouraging people through death to encounter their character in play is one thing, but it comes with a caveat that the adventures you're involved in can't require any continuity of purpose or character either.

That works for some settings (ex. you work for someone else pursuing their agenda... spies, military, etc.), but definitely not for others (anything focused around pursuing player motivations like a sandbox fantasy).

The worst variations as I see it are high lethality + serialized events, and, even worse, the no risk + purely episodic ("slice of life RP" is what I've come to call this... the vampire PCs do nothing but hit the club every night and get a few drinks, maybe do some karaoke... nothing happens because they never engage anything outside the bubble and resent the GM for allowing anything outside to intrude).

The former at least will tend to fall apart sooner and with fewer harsh feelings.

I'd say another thing to consider is how long the campaign has left to run, and how heroic the death is. A beloved character you've played for months or years dying heroically in the last ever session of the campaign would make for a great memory. The same character dying because he failed a saving throw, and you need to roll up a replacement to continue the campaign, is not going to go down so well with the players.

Quote from: Krazz on January 19, 2025, 04:56:41 PMI'd say another thing to consider is how long the campaign has left to run, and how heroic the death is. A beloved character you've played for months or years dying heroically in the last ever session of the campaign would make for a great memory. The same character dying because he failed a saving throw, and you need to roll up a replacement to continue the campaign, is not going to go down so well with the players.

It really comes down what the GM and players are looking for in their campaign and there's no one right answer either... even for the same player across campaigns.

For example; after finishing a long campaign involving the fate of the world, our group decided our next game should be a straight dungeon delve where we've been hired to explore and clear the dungeon in exchange for a share of the loot (by law it all belongs to the noble, but he lacks the ability to reach it).

It's easy to run it episodically as any losses are easily covered by new hires and even partially clearing parts of the megadungeon could set someone's heirs up for life (the average peasant makes maybe 30-40 gp in a year so a 300 gp windfall would be a decade of earnings).

But after we finish that out, I'm planning on running some M&M for the group (premise: last issue all the big heroes died saving the world... who will save it now?) and as is the norm for comic book tropes, death is pretty rare (it practically needs to be deliberate in M&M3e) and I do want complications/backstory and such to play a role... again to have a change up from what we're doing now.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2025, 11:10:52 AM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on January 18, 2025, 07:20:38 PMThat's not because of level, but the time playing them. It's the same as how the death of a main character in the first episode of a 12-episode miniseries has little impact, but the death of that same character in the 7th episode has more impact. It's no different in real life. If you start a new job and on your first day hear that Bob died, you say "that's sad" but really you don't care. If you see Bob every day for a year and then he dies, even if you didn't like him much you'll feel sad.

Counterpoint: If you start a new job and see Bob brutally killed right next to you while on day one of the job, you will likely never forget Bob.

Yeah, like HappyDaze says.

I realize that some people don't like having PC backstory as a preference, but there's a point where this comes across as meta-gamey. Any character (PC or NPC) should still come across like a real person who has a birthplace and family and a life. They shouldn't seem like they suddenly sprang into existence just to join an adventuring party.

This isn't an old-school versus new-school. There are plenty of old games like Traveller or HarnMaster where you generate a background for your character as a part of character creation.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 19, 2025, 02:13:54 PMOne consideration is that the relationship between character death and length of character creation is more correlation than cause/effect. We tend in these conversations to say that long character creation discourages character death, and it does. However, discouraging character death also causes longer time spent on character creation.

The player knows that they are more likely to be with this character for awhile. So they take more pains with it, worry more about things that can't change easily later (class options, low stats, etc.), and are more inclined to want to have an involved back story.

If you want characters to develop in play instead of dropping into the game already formed in the player's mind, then making it clear that characters can and will die in the game is a powerful push to get the player to learn about the character in play.

I think the push to only learn about the character in play comes more from "zero-to-hero" and having level-1 characters being killed by cats, while high-level characters are tougher and have more save options like Raise Dead.

In games where play keeps being lethal, players often try to get the most out of what time you have with a character. Thus, they try to start them out as interesting from the beginning, making the most of what time they have to shine in play.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 19, 2025, 11:10:52 AMCounterpoint: If you start a new job and see Bob brutally killed right next to you while on day one of the job, you will likely never forget Bob.

Not if that's the job. Soldiers didn't remember all the people they met at Stalingrad.

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2025, 06:34:18 PMI think the push to only learn about the character in play comes more from "zero-to-hero" and having level-1 characters being killed by cats, while high-level characters are tougher and have more save options like Raise Dead.

In games where play keeps being lethal, players often try to get the most out of what time you have with a character. Thus, they try to start them out as interesting from the beginning, making the most of what time they have to shine in play.

Well, I don't know about everyone, and neither do you.  But I can tell you that my preference for develop in play has nothing to do with what you just said.  I simply prefer that dynamic in any game.  Naturally, I do tend to gravitate towards games that fit that style better, but even when I ran Fantasy Hero that was the way we played it.  Likewise, when I run any game with life paths or similar mechanics, I prefer the pre-play info to be vague and lightweight.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 19, 2025, 07:32:47 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2025, 06:34:18 PMI think the push to only learn about the character in play comes more from "zero-to-hero" and having level-1 characters being killed by cats, while high-level characters are tougher and have more save options like Raise Dead.

In games where play keeps being lethal, players often try to get the most out of what time you have with a character. Thus, they try to start them out as interesting from the beginning, making the most of what time they have to shine in play.

Well, I don't know about everyone, and neither do you.  But I can tell you that my preference for develop in play has nothing to do with what you just said.  I simply prefer that dynamic in any game.  Naturally, I do tend to gravitate towards games that fit that style better, but even when I ran Fantasy Hero that was the way we played it.  Likewise, when I run any game with life paths or similar mechanics, I prefer the pre-play info to be vague and lightweight.

Dude, you are probably in the majority.   Recognize that jhkim will attack any general statement someone else makes, but will make sweeping absolute pronouncements as justifications for his opinions regularly. His anecdotes are universals, and your generalizations are invalid by default.