[RPGs] Minor Rant (Not fair, completely biased, and YMMV)

[pyrephox]

From BRPS, not commented there because it would be diverting the discussion from the topic of the post. But.


1. The ability to play a character in a setting where it's kill or be killed is limited. Sooner or later you die, you lose the character and the time you wasted creating the character is gone.

I HATE THIS. Yes, I use the big, scary caps of doom. I hate it. Time playing or creating a character is not 'wasted' if that character dies, damn it. If you're having fun, then the game is doing what it's supposed to do: be a game. You play.

It is not an investment. (Yes, you are investing time. However, the payoff is immediate: fun and interaction with others. That is all there is.)

I hate the line of thought that says it only matters if the character survives. Stop worrying about the damned character.

Play the game. If you didn't spend so much time bending over backwards to try and negotiate your way out of harm, or whining about the danger that you character might die, then you MIGHT be able to seize the moment and get some roleplaying done.

The code of Bushido says something along the lines of, "A samurai must accept that he will die. Death is inevitable. It is only by accepting death that he can live in the present moment, and attend to the battle right here and now. Fear of death distracts. It's only by understanding that you /will/ die that you can learn to truly live."

In RPGs, at least, it makes sense.

Comments

[cpip.livejournal.com]

Well said. I've never grasped the idea that "my character's death means I've wasted time." If I had fun, well, heck, why does it matter? Am I so attached to a character that I simply can not come up with another idea to play in the world? Did I get everything I wanted? Nah. But, hey -- that's life, and that's gaming too.

(On the other hand, I've been trying hard NOT to kill off PCs in the DL game, for instance. Possibly because, at present, bringing in replacement characters would be a bitch. Things will change, I suspect. But that's my own ramblings.)

[sariel-di.livejournal.com]

I dunno -- kill-or-be-killed doesn't appeal to me, mainly because my best characters are the ones I A) have some kind of emotional investment in (read: I enjoy playing them, I like the concept, and I don't have very much trouble figuring out what they'd do reliably on short notice) and B) have involved in plenty of subplots in addition to the main plot. And, yes, in that situation a character death is a 'lost investment' and a 'waste' -- because even if the subplots are still active and I can tie a brand-new character into them, I can't finish them with that character, and I can't keep playing the character I enjoy until I no longer enjoy playing it and can tie up enough loose ends to bow out of the game.

On the other hand... I don't play kill-or-be-killed, typically. And while I'd ask the GM if s/he was open to negotiation about retconning or deus-ex-machinaing so that my character could still be played (if not necessarily in the best of shape...) if the death wasn't voluntary, I would suck it up and deal if the GM said no period, even if it wasn't plot-mandated. (And if it was plot-mandated or voluntary, I wouldn't even ask.)

So, uh, yeah. There is a valid mindset that says 'character death == waste' and 'kill-or-be-killed =/= fun', IMO, but that mindset stays out of kill-or-be-killed games and sucks it up and deals when the GM says 'make a new char sheet'. [snrks]

(Also, I disagree with the statement that "the ability to play a character in a kill-or-be-killed game is limited", specifically because there are people who can have a lot of fun doing that sort of thing and don't mind the chance of character loss. If you're cool with that, you can have a lot of fun. Manipulation! Dramatic Death Scenes and Combat! Ruthless characters, or Highly Moral character angst as they deal with the need to kill-or-be-killed! Et cetera. I'd still prefer 'there is a chance you may possibly die, and there is a chance you may be able to talk the GM into helping you fast-talk your way around it if the GM likes you and feels merciful and it works with plot' over 'yeah, you've basically got 50-50 odds of survival at chargen, after that depends on how many warm bodies you can get between you and the guys with guns and how long they stay there', but that's purely a personal preference.)

[zamiel.livejournal.com]

You miss the most obvious counterpoint:

When my character dies, I have to stop having fun.

I've invested time and effort and caring into that character. I want to see them get to the end of their personal developmental arc. That's where a chunk of the fun is. If the character dies before then, the arc is broken and worse, the fun is over with that character, and I have to go back, create a new character which, by design, I won't have the connection to and whose arc is pointedly just starting. I have to do work, and then work my character back into a changed group dynamic.

Or I cam just go home and say "screw you" to that kind of mess.

Do you expect Frodo to die in a landslide on the way to Mount Doom? No. Why should Filcho, 12th Lvl Thief?

There are certain setups that necessitate a very kill-or-be-killed approach: Survival Horror, for example. But the necessary niches are a lot fewer than we, as players, get saddled with.

(From a GM perspective, I seldom run kill-or-be-killed. Its boring. Its done to death. And dead characters can no longer be tormented, and where's the fun in that?)