Implemented Make a Dropdown Struct for Player Character Death

[Ametheliana]

I've found it difficult to know who is okay with a death of their player character and difficult to create true to life combat due to that. In the past I've had to walk back extreme body smushing and deaths because the players weren't okay with them and I respected that. I've also tapped players before doing so, but that felt like spoiling a surprise best left to be in RP. If we had a part of the struct that said if someone is okay with their PC being killed, it could help GMs a lot.

note: I'm using my experiences in the far past for this and my examples have nothing to do with my current players! even if Wes told me to kill one of them once it's not about that

 

[Soban]

Given how 'squishy' death is in SARP, I think the dropdown needs more than one option. I'd probably suggest something like 'noting really terrible', 'maiming', 'non-permanent death', 'permanent death' but those are just suggestions.

 

[raz]

As an advisory to the GM, this isn't a bad idea. It'd help players asking for a retcon when they don't like something.

But Player's Rights says: "Note: Player rights generally do not protect characters from bad things happening to them, including injury or death, or from criminal charges stemming from illegal actions (including deserting the military). Talk with your GM or thread OP to make sure you're on the same page."

So nothing will save you from Wes splattering your character like a bug for not posting

 

[Charmaylarg Dufrain]

I voted up because I'm more for the option than against it. Tho obviously it is of my opinion that we should also make the possibility of death outlined in plot pages if so too-to avoid any instances of arguments between a player pointing at a single line on the bottom of their PCs OOC section and a GM when it can be avoided to an equally existing line that your character can be rock-falled in RP expecially when people didnt read or dont agree with the rule or guideline or whatever it is about consequences or bad things not happening to them.

Especially since more or less everyone has a way to bring PCs back to life making there few IC repercussions beyond trauma the players may not even choose to experience

 

[Soban]

I make a distinction between permanent and non-permanent death. I'm generally not a fan of permanent death/maiming being on the table, but I'm pretty open on everything up to that due to the tech-level on SARP. So I feel like when discussing limits and such, that is a distinction that needs to be made.

 

[Ametheliana]

If your character is able to die permanently and you don't want that, just say no to death. Whether or not the death is permanent should be outlined on the character's page or orders threads and should not be something the GM is capable of changing.

 

[Arbitrated]

Okay okay when we first read this, we thought this was for player death.

Like. OOC.

But not you mean IC PLAYER CHARACTER deaths/wounds lmao, that makes. A lot more sense.

 

[Yuuki]

Should a "risk" dropdown be added to plot struct too, then?

 

[Rizzo]

Character Death really should be a thing. Hoping my dice system can make it fair.

 

[Wes]

Let's talk specifics:

• I'm assuming this request is for the characters schema so it's per character not per player, done in the style of the "Is this character adoptable?"
• What do we actually want to put as the text? I'm really hesitant to put "can this character be killed?" because now we're creating invincible characters who have magic OOC plot armor.
• Is it okay for GMs to straight up ban these un-killable characters from their plots?

 

[Arbitrated]

Let's talk specifics:

• I'm assuming this request is for the characters schema so it's per character not per player, done in the style of the "Is this character adoptable?"
• What do we actually want to put as the text? I'm really hesitant to put "can this character be killed?" because now we're creating invincible characters who have magic OOC plot armor.
• Is it okay for GMs to straight up ban these un-killable characters from their plots?

In order, based off of what I can see OR my own opinions:

• Yeah, definitely the intent. "Can this character be killed, injured, etc.?"
• My recommendation: "What level of injury risk can this character be exposed to?" With options being "Risk of permanent death", "Risk of temporary death", "Risk of major/crippling injury", "Risk of minor injury", "No risk of injury", and so on.
• GMs should be allowed to disallow characters to participate in their plots if the character's risk is "too low". Combined with having a more granular way of declaring how much risk a character can be in, this should be more acceptable (compared to having a binary "yes or no" system)

 

[Wes]

Should a "risk" dropdown be added to plot struct too, then?

I was thinking about it too, and that maybe we're coming at it from the wrong angle and that we should set death risk by plots not by characters, and it should be on players to decide what risk level they want to expose their characters, and that we should sort of align it with the RPG rating scale (L-S-V) where violence level has an implied risk level. The idea of a plot where the GM is like "this is a horror plot where all characters will likely die, except Andy, because he's got no death marked in struct" makes my lip curl. This is a military-focused war-centric RP community and I won't want to overly sanitize war.

 

[Yuuki]

Well it is more like
Characer Setting: Here is the danger level I consent to by default
Plot Setting: If you join this plot you are implicitly consenting to the danger level

so it overrides it

 

[Ametheliana]

I agree with Arbs until the last point.

I don't think it should be something GMs use to keep people out of their plots. We have a GMs uncomfortable with how few new recruits they get, we shouldn't be adding a way to keep them from getting new ones. Remember that writing a believable and realistic death or injury scene is a fun challenge to write, but so is working around a player that is uncomfortable with death or maiming, even. It just means you have to create more complex challenges and out of the norm consequences. We shouldn't keep players away from out plots because we'll have to activate two more neurons for them!

 

[Rizzo]

I was thinking about it too, and that maybe we're coming at it from the wrong angle and that we should set death risk by plots not by characters, and it should be on players to decide what risk level they want to expose their characters, and that we should sort of align it with the RPG rating scale (L-S-V) where violence level has an implied risk level. The idea of a plot where the GM is like "this is a horror plot where all characters will likely die, except Andy, because he's got no death marked in struct" makes my lip curl. This is a military-focused war-centric RP community and I won't want to overly sanitize war.

I love this idea though I am a bit concerned about how it may be used. If a plot is going to be taking place in a battle there is an ever present risk of great bodily harm or death by default.
If a plot is going to have low risk of death but heavily features combat we will have immortal characters with OOC protection anyway.

However, the obligation really should be on the game master to ensure that the story in his/her plot matches the correct violence level. The Mishu War NEEDS risk of death by default. Otherwise, they aren’t portrayed as scary, just puppets.

 

[Arbitrated]

It's worth mentioning that I said GMs should be "allowed to" exclude certain characters. They by no means would be forced to exclude a character, and it's their choice. If they want to make a plot and exclude characters by this limitation, they would be doing so knowing that it could limit the number of potential players in their plot.

I do like Yuuki's suggestion though, where a GM has "priority" over characters within their plot for a general stance/conflict between the levels of risk. Most GMs on SARP aren't buttholes. Even if there is a problem, though, it's worth remembering that we often have out-of-character communication tools to make sure things can be resolved if a problem arises - the Discord, Forum PMs, and OOC threads all apply. I think it'd be good to put some sort of note recommending utilization of those resources if necessary.

 

[raz]

However, the obligation really should be on the game master to ensure that the story in his/her plot matches the correct violence level. The Mishu War NEEDS risk of death by default. Otherwise, they aren’t portrayed as scary, just puppets.

Best way to avoid character death in war: make sure your character is a trained, experienced, and capable soldier

I do like Yuuki's suggestion though, where a GM has "priority" over characters within their plot for a general stance/conflict between the levels of risk.

This is what the original post is suggesting in the first place.

 

[Soban]

I don't think this is something to be a hard and fast rule about things or something that's set in stone. It's a tool to help players and GMs align their expectations. And it's something that can change over time. I know it seems plausible to me that even for a character made for a 'permadeath' plot to kinda not want to if it comes down to it through growing empathy and such with the character. Alternately, you might think a character who you thought would be immortal when you made them finally needs to die.

 

[Ametheliana]

I was thinking about it too, and that maybe we're coming at it from the wrong angle and that we should set death risk by plots not by characters, and it should be on players to decide what risk level they want to expose their characters

But the point is to make it easier for a GM to know which characters can be harmed, not for players to know which GMs will be doing harm. This is meant to be a tool for GMs to be able to know who they can write in their story dying or getting hurt.

I put forth the suggestion so that there are more deaths for PCs on SARP. I think a lot of people are acting like we have total party wipes and deaths all the time. We really don't but if GMs knew who could be killed without the player asking for a retcon or fighting it, there would be more.

I think a lot of people are saying "realistically players shouldn't be worried about it" but as Soban said, that's just not practically what happens. People get attached and are worried about their characters. Example: I'm worried about Mineko but I don't know if Wes knows that if she dies, no skin off my back and I'd work with it. Same does not stand for Hoshi if she were to show up on his plot and I'd want him to be able to check that before making GM choices.

Wes asked for clarity so:
I'm also thinking the struct could be "Player preferences for harm" or "Player preferences for risk" and options are "Risk of death or injury permitted" "Risk of only injury preferred" or "No risk of death or injury preferred"

This way we're not getting bogged down in levels of injury.

And also these are all preferences and not hard and fast allowances or permissions. If you're on a plot and the GM kills your character, that's what they did but they accept you as a player will fight them on it. I think my real reason for posting this is I just want to know who will be okay with it and not fight it. Example: I've killed a guy because I wrote enemies shooting at his head and he just shot back at them. He fought it but no, I'm not going to walk that back. You should have found cover for your character if you didn't want a gun two tiers above your PC's armor shooting a deadly round. So in that instance, sorry but your player preferences are overruled but I accept you'll argue it after.

I think I should make a wiki page for this explaining?

 

[Soban]

Wes asked for clarity so:
I'm also thinking the struct could be "Player preferences for harm" or "Player preferences for risk" and options are "Risk of death or injury permitted" "Risk of only injury preferred" or "No risk of death or injury preferred"

I'm going to harp on this because it's important. I think we need to separate out permanent and non-permanent death. Because I'm all for temporary death and injury, just not permanant.

I'll note that given the tech level of the setting, there is no such thing as a truly permanent injury which is why I didn't add permanent injury to the options. I prefer "Potential harm limits" for the name of the struct. Options should be "Permanent death fine," "No permanent death but injury is fine", "No Temporary Death but Injury is fine", "No death or Injury".

That said, I think we are mostly in agreement here and we are detailing out semantics.