The Threat of Death

I'll be discussing different gaming systems, some in a favorable light and others not so much.  The topic is infusing mortality into a game.  The fact is some systems do this and other systems just suck at it.  This is not a declaration that one system is better than the other, but better at developing a sense of mortality.  Danger!  Some got it.  Some don't. 

A sense of mortality is an element that is ever present in my game.  I GM a semi-realistic world, with a medieval European, and Asian, historical influence.  Literary wise, the books that most reflect my way of thinking are the Thieves World books, The Warhound and the World's Pain and throw in nearly any story of Dostoevsky or Kafka and you'll get a snapshot of where I am coming from.  Dark, gritty and unforgiving with occasional elements of wonder.

Some rule systems are more forgiving than others.  Off the top of my head I can think of the last two editions of D&D with their healing surges.  The party can go head-to-head with a batch of giant flaming skeletal, vampires mages, take a short break (or as I call it, taking a knee) a and jump back into the next fight.  This aspect of the game eliminates consequences of a battle.  I personally disdain this mechanic.  

Even Dragon Age/Fantasy Age, systems I really like have a similar mechanic and even allow characters to first aid during battle.  Are you fricking kidding me?  While I am not a stickler for hardcore realism, I do appreciate a little common sense.  If you have any experience with either fighting and/or first aid, you know that shit ain't happening.  It's hard enough to patch someone up who is holding still let along getting arrows shot at them or dodging axe blows.  Dragon Age claims to be an unforgiving, dark fantasy world, but with ability to first aid during a battle, taking a knee mechanic, along with heal spells, it's not.  The content may be dark, but getting when you get into a battle there are many safety nets in place.

These systems favor a heroic fantasy.  The system encourages epic battles and campaigns.  The mechanics allow a character more chances to get to the point of some epic accomplishment.  Absolutely nothing wrong with this.  I love Dragon Age.  I really enjoyed playing 5th edition D&D, but it wasn't until we started playing Pits & Perils that I felt that rush of "Oh shit, this could be it."

But even Pits & Perils is a more forgiving than old OD&D.  Pits & Perils works on a simple, but elegant system of hits.  A fighter has 10hp + say 3 armor (2 for chain mail and 1 for the shield). Weapon damage is either a 1 or 2.  That means a 1st level fighter can take between 7 to 13 hits before dying.  And they die once they hit 0hp.  None of this death saving throw.  No minus your Con score and then you are really dead.  Nope, 0 is dead, dead.  Amen!  But, look at an OD&D fighter with about 8hp, weapons do an average of 1d6.  So 2 hits can send your character into the afterlife.  And again, 0 hit points means its time to roll up a new guy.  Getting into a a fight can be very deadly.

And if you look at the healing mechanics for both these games, it is not easy to recover from a battle. If the party gets into a big fight they can't just take a knee and then charge into the next battle.  It takes a couple of days to recover, often longer.  Characters have fewer healing resources to burn through and they are not replenished as often.  So when they take on that ogre, a party using these systems has to consider the consequences because it may delay their travels for a week.

Some may complain this sounds boring.  It is definitely a matter of taste.  And there are also arguments about what hit points really represents, which I will not get into, because when you run out of them you're dead, not tired. 

Combat is of course the most obvious.  I also like having poison where it is save vs. death.  I often include disease in my games.  Imagine playing a game where the Black Plague is the backdrop.  Every village, home or encounter could end with infecting the party members.  Again, in newer versions of D&D, a cure disease or a paladin can take care of it fairly quick.  While in Pits & Perils and OD&D these curing disease options are fewer.  While a cleric can cure a person that takes up precious spell slots.

Again, this is my overall preference.  Going into a village infected with a plague become a lot more interesting if the party feels they could be next.  Some may find this kind of game boring, I can see their point.  Sometimes you just want to be the badass and wade into battle, damn the consequences because its not a matter of life or death, but how many you kill and how much you drink to your many victories.  But for me, for the victories to mean anything, there has to have been a chance, a big chance, that I would fail.  And failing can be interesting, it is often more interesting that succeeding. 

PC Death

I know I've blogged about this before and I will probably do it again, but I've seen a few posts on it lately and thought I would add my thoughts.  I am sorry I missed the GM badge thing.  I saw them floating around everywhere, but I am a little slow on figuring out what they were.  Those are cool.  Okay, back to death.

It is simple for me as a player and a GM, if death is not a possible outcome then the game is not fun.  Death doesn't necessarily mean the physiological limits of a character have been reached, but something that makes him unplayable.  Rabin insanity, limbs gone missing, or he has a combination of so many disadvantages that he has become useless as an adventurer.  When I take my character into a massive ruin of some forgotten god I would hope there would be some risk involved.  If it is predetermined that I will lose hit points, but there is no chance of losing my character than the monsters should just hand me the loot at the door and apologize for inconvenience. 

I know the argument about players losing interest if their characters are killed.  Maybe just maim them instead.  Which is a possibility and one I also use, but I think the argument that players lose interest is weak.  I know the other argument is what if a player does everything right and he dies due to crappy die rolls.  Sorry, that's the way the game goes.  How much fun is it when a player does everything wrong, but the dice rolls are with him and he gets away. 

But all this hinges on the expectations of a player and a GM.  This is something I write about frequently.  If a GM and players are not interested endangering their characters and they play a wound, but not kill game and have a blast I say excellent and enjoy.  We each chose what type of game we like best.  And all the things I have mentioned above is the way I like to play best.  It's not the only way of course, but a way I prefer.

Death is a huge part of gaming.  Many times it's either kill or be killed situations.  It's always cool to roll up a new guy and see what kind of trouble you can get your new guy into.

Horror Comes in Small Packages

I'm not sure about all of you out there, but it's the small things that creep me out the most. Zombies have become a 'how many cool ways can we kill them' past time. Skeletons were never very scary to begin with. Vampires get more moody as the years go by and are more annoying than frightening. Dragons are now a staple at arts & crafts shows. Not so scary. And all those goblinoids that make up the majority of the enemies in a fantasy campaign are trees waiting to be chopped down. But what about the small enemies? Enemies small enough that a sword or mace is useless. These are the enemies that crawl inside of you. Become a part of you. They cause the most horrible and agonizing deaths.

I'm talking about the Ear Seekers, small insects that search for a warm place to lay their eggs. Ears are their favorite place, but an open wound will do nicely also. While you sleep they lay 9-16 eggs and in less than a day the eggs hatch and start feast on the flesh around them.

And I'm talking about Rot Grubs. These little beauties burrow into your skin and tunnel through your body until they reach your heart. It takes1-3 turns for these grubs to finish the job giants could not do.

Here is the problem I have. In both cases the MM says both can be rid of by a Cure Disease, but neither is a disease. The PHB describes disease as a parasitic, bacterial or viral nature. Even though both would qualify as parasitic in nature I don't see as they qualify as a disease. The remedy is already give in the MM that rot grubs need to be burned off and some sort of similar thing I believe would need to be done for the ear seekers. A steady handed player with a red hot needle plunging into the infected player's ear.

These creatures are more difficult to deal with because of the harm that comes with defending oneself from them. The difficult part as a GM is using these creatures and having the possibility of having one of the players die because insect eggs in their ear. Depending on the realism you promote in your campaign this might not be an option. Heroic campaigns don't want their heroes dying from disease or infestations, but leading a battle against insurmountable odds. Not dying in their bedroll the night before the battle.

It's good to change up the expectations of the players. Any group can prepare to go against a stronghold of ogres, but have them go against the creepy crawlers and you'll see those same big badass heroes screaming like little girls running for the door.

This is a great comic from http://badgods.com/rotgrubs.html.

PC Deaths

It happens. PCs die. It should happen fairly regular since they constantly place themselves in danger by battling monsters and horrific undead creatures or delving into dungeons dark and dangerous. Deaths will occur, but how should the GM handle it? How should the players handle the death of a character?

I've read suggestions that a GM should fudge his dice rolls when the players are having a run of bad luck. Don't do this. It's a lazy solution. You shall be flogged with Slim Jims (the big ones) if you do this. It's easy to be heroic when all the rolls are going your way. Only when the players are desperate, on the edge of defeat and yet manage to overcome the situation, is the term heroic, appropriate.

Here's a not so quick example:
Situation: The party enters a room and a portcullis falls into place blocking the exit. A group of orcs are behind another portcullis. The party is getting their ass handed to them as the orcs riddle them with arrows. The fighters can't engage, the mages are having trouble getting a spell off, and the thief and ranger are not doing enough damage to kill a dust bunny.

1. The players can try to lift either portcullis.
2. The fighters make a shield wall and wait until the orcs exhaust their arrow supply.
3. The GM can have one of the orcs raise the portcullis because he believes the fight is already won and wants to finish them off. Some may argue that this would be another way of fudging die rolls but I would argue the GM is not solving the problem by fixing the dice rolls, but providing the players a chance to overcome the problem.
4. Should the players be reduced to unconscious heaps of flesh, the GM could have them captured. Warning, have a very good reason why the orcs should not just slit their throats and strip them naked. The orcs can make extra cash by selling them into slavery, maybe they need a sacrifice to their dragon boss, or possibly use the players as entertainment.
5. If the party is overwhelmed by the orcs then let it happen, otherwise there is no danger in battle. These deaths will give the dungeon a sense of personal history among the players. A death of a favorite character is great fodder for future adventures and in a way that character can live on through the continuance of the campaign, becoming a part of the mythology.

In the end the GM must make the players feel like they had a chance. There must be a possibility of death when players explore these places or you do them a disservice. If players know the GM will pull their ass out of the fire then, for me, you might as well go play Candy Land.