Death during Character Generation

[SpaceBadger]

Heck, I let my players generate their characters by just about any method they want to use, but then level the playing field by referring back to what the end result would have cost with point buy, and requesting some toning down if that is way out of line with what the other players have (or that they could choose to add some skills if below the average).

To quote my Character Generation Rules:

My prime rule for character generation is that I want each player to have a fun character that he/she will enjoy playing, yet not so overpowered in skills and attributes as to impinge on the enjoyment of other players by being the Best at Everything.

 

[rancke]

I see suiciding in CGen as different from suiciding in play. It was the latter I object to, not so much the former. (Tho', sometimes, the dice conspired to leave me with a character that was anything but what I wanted to play. Still, I played them, and had fun.)

S4 was talking about getting rid of a character he didn't like. I take that to mean a character he wouldn't have fun running. I don't dispute that you can have fun running RAW generated Traveller characters, but that's not really relevant. Unless you're going to claim that there is no such thing as an RAW generated Traveller character that isn't fun to run.

If I'm running CT (without the short term option on), or MT/MGT with the death option turned on, you play the first character to survive to muster out, or you don't play.

And if I play in a game, I play a character I enjoy playing or I don't play.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Unless you're going to claim that there is no such thing as an RAW generated Traveller character that isn't fun to run.

I've never found one.
I've found players who didn't try - but I don't game with them.

 

[rancke]

I've never found one.
I've found players who didn't try - but I don't game with them.

Ouch! :rofl:


Hans

 

[Limburger59]

I've told my players that roleplaying is like Improvisational Theatre.

Here is the list I've used, and constantly tweak, which do doubt was borrowed from half a dozen sources over the years. (Hopefully that doesn't violate somebody's copyright.) Some are worse than death.

SURVIVAL
This is part of your character. If you survive you need to role play it
Failure occurs halfway through your term if not determined otherwise..
3d6 -3 + # of Terms

3 Eaten alive
4 Horrible, painful death
5 Slow, agonizing death
6 Quick death. Suddenly you are sub-atomic particles
7 Mental Breakdown : INT -1, SOC -1, limits on mustering out and you must play the role (paranoia, coward, an obsession, etc.)
8 Severely injured : STR -2, DEX -2, END -2
9 Loss of an eye & SOC -1, DEX -1, and some skills may decrease
10 Poisoned & END -3
11 Irrational & overwhelming Phobia results in less than honorable discharge: Fear of heights, Zhodanis, running out of oxygen, blood, etc. (Chosen by the ref...)
12 Loss of a limb & STR -1, DEX -1, and some skills may decrease
13 Injured : STR -1, DEX -1, END -1
14 POW : roll 1d6 + 3 for number of years lost. When you are released you are medically unfit to continue in your service and you are mustered out a hero. Due to prison conditions the effects of any Aging are automatic.
15 Jailed : you committed a crime. Roll 1d6 +3 for prison term. Pick up one clandestine skill, but NO mustering benefits
16 Jailed : you were falsely accused of committing a crime. Roll 1d6 +3 for prison term. Pick up one clandestine skill, but NO mustering benefits.
17 Vendetta : the mafia is after you. You are on the run with half of your mustering out benefits
18 The Fugitive: falsely accused and on the run from police with only one mustering out benefit.
19+ Dishonorable discharge – SOC -3 and only one mustering out benefit.

 

[atpollard]

So for 3 (Eaten alive) does the character begin play in the belly of a whale (like Pinocchio)?

 

[rancke]

I've never found one.
I've found players who didn't try - but I don't game with them.

But seriously, if you've never had a player who didn't have fun unless it was utterly his own fault (or been that player), you can be forgiven for not realizing that people sometimes don't have fun without being to blame for it.

It doesn't even have to be a particularily bad character in itself. If it doesn't have a role to play in the party, it can be dreary to play. I'm not really much interested in who is to blame when someone isn't having fun; I'm more interested in promoting a good time for everybody. As long as a player isn't having his fun at the expense of somebody else's enjoyment, I don't see the harm involved in letting him play a character that he likes.

Mind you, I perfectly understand your stance. I used to be that way myself when I first started out as a GM. And if you've never spoiled the fun for any of your players, you've been luckier than I have.


Hans

 

[Limburger59]

So for 3 (Eaten alive) does the character begin play in the belly of a whale (like Pinocchio)?

If the player had already named their character Pinocchio or Jonah I could entertain that, but I just figured that would be something the player could brag about so starting a new PC wouldn't be depressing.

 

[aramis]

But seriously, if you've never had a player who didn't have fun unless it was utterly his own fault (or been that player), you can be forgiven for not realizing that people sometimes don't have fun without being to blame for it.

It doesn't even have to be a particularily bad character in itself. If it doesn't have a role to play in the party, it can be dreary to play. I'm not really much interested in who is to blame when someone isn't having fun; I'm more interested in promoting a good time for everybody. As long as a player isn't having his fun at the expense of somebody else's enjoyment, I don't see the harm involved in letting him play a character that he likes.

Mind you, I perfectly understand your stance. I used to be that way myself when I first started out as a GM. And if you've never spoiled the fun for any of your players, you've been luckier than I have.


Hans

I had a character once who looked most unfun - Int 1, Edu 1, no skills of note... no appendages of note either, due to the tables for random aliens...
But, a combination of "Play what you roll" and a really descriptive GM, and a group who said, "Let's watch him solo," then they cheered me on... As my blob ate first a child, then its mother, then a policeman, and finally a police robot (who resulted in a terminal case of indigestion).... Not every character is a fit for every situation... but that's the GM's call, not the player (note the singular), and maybe the group.

The character lasted just over 2 hours of play. There was speculation and even betting on what I'd eaten.

Truth is, tho', my preference for MT comes from it generating characters with more choices than CT, but still random enough to get people off the "cabon copy number ___" path.

 

[rancke]

A friend and I once had a lot of fun at a carnival with only one ti-øre (a very small coin) between us. You couldn't buy anything with it, but we were in a silly mood and enjoyed ourselves immensely for hours trying. So I know for a fact that it is possible to have fun at a carnival with almost no money. Still, if someone were to complain that going to a carnival with only one ti-øre was no fun, I'd believe him. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't enjoy a repeat of that experience.

What's my point? My point is that (as I've pointed out several times already) the original post assumed that the player wasn't enjoying playing the character and wanted to get rid of it. Hence any example of people who had character that they didn't want to get rid of are irrelevant.

So, once again, I repeat that I believe that forcing a player to have a bad time for whatever reason is bad GMing, pure and simple. This includes forcing him to play a character he does not like to play.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

So, once again, I repeat that I believe that forcing a player to have a bad time for whatever reason is bad GMing, pure and simple. This includes forcing him to play a character he does not like to play.

I see your point, but I think we can go too far in that direction. In my last Conan campaign, I picked up a new player. You may remember, because (I think) I ranted about it here.

Basically, he told me that if his character died, he would quit the game. He didn't want to roll up a new character, and he didn't want to continue with an NPC in the same storyline. He'd still play the Conan RPG, but it would have to be an entirely new campaign. It would have to do nothing with the original campaign.

That really crawled under my skin, as a GM. I felt like he was holding me hostage to favor his character in order to keep him in the game (because I did enjoy playing with him otherwise--decent roleplayer).

His point: When he reads James Bond, if James Bond dies, there's nothing to read. To him, his character was the star of the show--and there is no show if that character dies.

While I can see his point, I was raised on the old school character generation. I remember in AD&D that you got one shot at rolling your stats, and if you wanted to play a Paladin, you couldn't unless you rolled very, very high on several attributes.

I always liked that. The argument is that the player should play what he wants, but I like the sense of achievement one gets from rolling high and being allowed to play the Paladin when others could not.

Same thing with Traveller chargen and being killed if Survival is bricked. The player has a choice. He can be reckless with the character and risk death, or he can play it safe and muster out.

That's a nice decision for a player to have to make.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Other factors like how well you know each other, familiarity with the game, familiarity with roll playing, the pace of the game and other things can be factors too.

If you don't know each other well, are not that familiar with the game, and are inexperienced in role playing you already have some hurdles so adding "forced to play whatever comes up" could very well kill the deal.

If the pace of the game is slow, maybe the group only meeting for a couple hours a month, someone may not have the time to get into the swing of playing a character they are not comfortable with and lose interest.

If the pace of the game is too fast, the player may not have the time to do the research to properly play a type of character they are unfamiliar with. Not every player is a brilliant, well read, well rounded, jack of all trades who can just ease into any role.

Not every actor can play any type of character. Some get typecast because this is in their wheelhouse or comfort zone and what they are good at.

So maybe your the type of GM that would not allow a less experienced or capable role player into their group. That is probably good. They likely would have no fun with a GM that is not capable of accommodating them. It's better they find a group where the GM is better skilled at optimizing the game to suit the players so they have the most fun.

The length of commitment and campaign could also play a part. You want me to play this character for the next two years of my life? vs Ok, give it a try and if you don't like it we can have the character exit stage left and you can generate a new one.

But fear not players. There is a tried and true method of disposing of characters one does not like. If all else fails, one could simply have their character commit suicide by putting themselves in danger acting heroically, acting foolishly, or even just jumping out a window because they get depressed.

 

[Marchand]

I've never actually sat down with a group and all diced up our characters together in the first session. But even if you did, doesn't compulsory PC death in chargen just lengthen the rolling-up phase of play? i.e. people will just keep rolling til they get what they want, even if forced to abide by PC death.

 

[rancke]

Basically, he told me that if his character died, he would quit the game. He didn't want to roll up a new character, and he didn't want to continue with an NPC in the same storyline. He'd still play the Conan RPG, but it would have to be an entirely new campaign. It would have to do nothing with the original campaign.

That really crawled under my skin, as a GM. I felt like he was holding me hostage to favor his character in order to keep him in the game (because I did enjoy playing with him otherwise--decent roleplayer).

A roleplaying game is a cooperative undertaking. It cuts both ways. If giving his character "special snowflake" status would ruin something for you, he shouldn't insist on it (Also, it would probably also ruin something for the other players).

This does open up the possibility that two people can't participate in the same game. That's too bad, but I'd say it's better than one or the other having a rotten time.

His point: When he reads James Bond, if James Bond dies, there's nothing to read. To him, his character was the star of the show--and there is no show if that character dies.

But when he reads a book or watch a movie with an ensemble crew of protagonists, it's quite possible that some of them will die.

While I can see his point, I was raised on the old school character generation. I remember in AD&D that you got one shot at rolling your stats, and if you wanted to play a Paladin, you couldn't unless you rolled very, very high on several attributes.

I always liked that. The argument is that the player should play what he wants, but I like the sense of achievement one gets from rolling high and being allowed to play the Paladin when others could not.

As I said earlier, I used to feel the same way myself.

Same thing with Traveller chargen and being killed if Survival is bricked. The player has a choice. He can be reckless with the character and risk death, or he can play it safe and muster out.

That's a nice decision for a player to have to make.

But that's not what I advocate changing. I'm advocating allowing a player to scrap an unsatisfactory finished character and roll a new one without having to waste time and effort on committing "suicide" with the first character.

Mind you, I've come to prefer allowing players a greater degree of influence on his character than vanilla Traveller character generation allows. Best of all is a good point buy system. But I wouldn't insist on something like that.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

I have mixted thoughts about all this.

On one hand, as role playing, sometimes we don't play the rol we'd like, and it's quite credible to have to play the character you roll, not the one you want (otherwise I'd suggest to play a game where carácter are bought by points, not rolled).

OTOH, as a co-player of mine said years ago, "if I cannot be better in the game than I am in real world, then why to play?", and I als oguess the player must feel at least a Little comfortable with its character for the game to be fun.

 

[mike wightman]

I've noticed that the games they rave about on rpgnet these days all (various versions of FATE, Cortex+ etc) have one thing in common, combat is narrative and rarely deadly unless agreed upon.

It's all about telling a story and... bleh

Give me Traveller or D&D or Runequest where you know that a fist fight could end up with your character dead.

 

[Supplement Four]

I've never actually sat down with a group and all diced up our characters together in the first session. But even if you did, doesn't compulsory PC death in chargen just lengthen the rolling-up phase of play? i.e. people will just keep rolling til they get what they want, even if forced to abide by PC death.

Remember, the suicide of a character is one of the methods a player has for direct input into his character. That, and he gets to choose what table to roll on for skills. If a player wants to keep suiciding until he gets something that he wants to play, then more power to him, I say.

The key is to play the rules as written.

Remember, a player gets to attempt the career of his choice only once. If he fails, his character submits to the draft (I've forgotten what happens in Supplement 4--I think it's the same).

This represents the idea that we don't always travel in the direction of our goals in life.

And, we don't pick the skills a character gets. We pick the table, then we roll for the skill. In other words, opportunity may not avail itself. Life gets in the way. Other opportunities arise.





Suicide as a Career.

Taking the suicide route is one method where the player has a bit of control, in a random generation system, over what type of character he gets. But, suiciding is not a 100% proposition.

Let's say a player wants a Pilot character. He rolls stats, then attempts enlistment in the Navy. Fails that, and has to submit to the Draft. Ends up in the Army, one of the easiest careers to survive.

Then, the player attempts to kill the character by continuing to re-enlist, goes seven terms, makes all seven Surivival Throws, and then must retire. That player is stuck with that character, plus the aging penalties. So, Suiciding can backfire.



But, most likely, a character attempting suicide will make it, and I'm all for that. Let the player do what he can to get a Character that he wants to play.

It won't take all night. On about the third try, the player will start to realize that he can't have everything he wants, and he'll evaluate the pros and cons of his current character. He rolled stats that are pretty low, and he was thinking of suiciding this character, but the character got into the Navy!

Hmm...that gives the player something to consider. His stats aren't high, but he did finally get into the Navy. Then, wham, he gets Pilot-1. The player has his pilot!

So, he settles. He decides not to suicide this character because he doesn't know when he'll get another chance to play a pilot.

That's how the suicide system ends up working, most of the time.

I think it works brilliantly.

The Ref just needs to be patient and allow the character to suicide a character or two. You'll even see some regret on the player's part, having killed characters that are better off than the one he's chosen to play.

A roleplaying game is a cooperative undertaking. It cuts both ways. If giving his character "special snowflake" status would ruin something for you, he shouldn't insist on it (Also, it would probably also ruin something for the other players).

Yep. Let's just say that he no longer plays with us.

Getting rid of him wasn't easy, either. It hurt our friendship. He got pissed that I insisted that character death, although not desirable, is part of the game--especially in a game set in Conan's gritty Hyborian Age.

 

[Timerover51]

I have mixted thoughts about all this.

On one hand, as role playing, sometimes we don't play the rol we'd like, and it's quite credible to have to play the character you roll, not the one you want (otherwise I'd suggest to play a game where carácter are bought by points, not rolled).

OTOH, as a co-player of mine said years ago, "if I cannot be better in the game than I am in real world, then why to play?", and I als oguess the player must feel at least a Little comfortable with its character for the game to be fun.

You have hit the nail on the head. The whole object of the game is for the PLAYER to have fun.

 

[rancke]

That's how the suicide system ends up working, most of the time.

I think it works brilliantly.

Most of the time.

But I'm not talking about situations where the character generation system has worked, brilliantly or otherwise. I'm talking about when it hasn't worked. You failed to get into the career you wanted, was drafted into a career you didn't want, made the survival roll, got a skill you didn't want, failed to reenlist, rolled a Low Passage on the mustering out tables, and now you're expected to play the character fate gave you, at least until you can have him killed off in the course of play.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

OTOH, as a co-player of mine said years ago, "if I cannot be better in the game than I am in real world, then why to play?", and I als oguess the player must feel at least a Little comfortable with its character for the game to be fun.

Most of the time.

But I'm not talking about situations where the character generation system has worked, brilliantly or otherwise. I'm talking about when it hasn't worked. You failed to get into the career you wanted, was drafted into a career you didn't want, made the survival roll, got a skill you didn't want, failed to reenlist, rolled a Low Passage on the mustering out tables, and now you're expected to play the character fate gave you, at least until you can have him killed off in the course of play.

Who wants to play Traveller with a character that has physical stats of 222? That happened in one of my multi-year campaigns, and the character was brilliant.

Not always does a player want to play a character upon first look. I think this is where the Ref steps in to guide that player and show him how cool the character can be. Show him the character's strengths.

At first, the player was disappointed. He didn't try suicide, but he knew all his stats were low. He didn't say it, but I think he was considering not playing the game.

Then, I went to work....

Together, we made up this incredibly cool back ground for the character. The player, in real life, fought a disease when he was young. I tied into this and made him empathize with the character--to feel the character's struggle. The character was also stricken with a disease--that's why his stats were so low. The character had had it since birth.

The character became a doctor. We used Supplement 4 for chargen. He ended up with Medical-5.

So, now, we've got this Stephen Hawking-thing going with the character. The background plot evolved. The character went to work for a top secret department in the Imperial Navy. The character was looking for a cure for the very disease that affected him. And, this is when the character found out that the Imperial Navy meant to weaponize the bug. This, we reasoned, was why the character mustered out.

So, he started the game, semi-sorta hunted by Naval Intelligence, and he signed on this tramp freighter to loose himself in the crowd--to lay low.

For a long time, the player and I kept this background secret from the other players. I turned his background into a plot thread for the game (the Imp Navy guys found him).

I even gave the character a neat toy (used muster money to purchase it): He got this neat grav chair I designed for the game. It had a laser pistol and battery pack integral to the chair arm. On planets, the other players would often send the doc up ahead to scout, since the doctor could use the chair not only to move fast but also to elevate above trees and obstructions for bird's eye views. I remember the doc getting into trouble, scouting, running into these Zhodani grav-remotes that I had designed, and we had a heck of a time doing a chase through the forest, the doc in his grav chair, blasting away with his laser pistol, with the remotes hot on his tail, dodging trees and rocks right and left (flying above the forest eliminated the doc's scant cover--it was hard for the remotes to dodge around, too).

Man, that was a fun night. The doc raised the others on the comm, and they got the ship ready, which flew to his position, hovered with the cargo bay open, as the doc rose out of the mist and green of the forest, landing right into the bay. One of the remotes got inside the ship and started to do some major damage. I ran the combat hard against the PCs and the remote shot up the interior of their ship and nearly decimated the entire crew. The players were astonished when the remote just went dead on its own and dropped to the deck. They figured out that the remote signal was lost as the ship sped away. The players were extremely relieved--I don't think they knew how they were going to take the remote out.

Extremely fun times.

This doctor character became the single favorite character the player had ever played.

And, even with the 222 physicals, the character survived the entire multi-year campaign that we played. The player liked the character so much that he was very cautious about putting him into harm's way (and still, the character saw lots of action).





So, my answer to the above is that, if a player rolls up a character that he doesn't like, then it falls to the Ref to help that player find something extremely cool about him.

The discovery of something new, something unexpected, is often much more fun for a player than playing the same old hero type he's played a thousand times before.

Encourage players to be roleplayers who can play any type of character. Stats should not matter.

I believe that any type of character can be fun to play. Sometimes, players just need a little helping hand to see it.