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

 

[Ametheliana]

What do others think about permanent death being a part of this specific struct?

 

[Rizzo]

I believe if a player makes a character that is incapable of being revived in a setting where ST and direct brain cloning are not only available but also commonplace and puts that character in battle he/she has consented to the possibility of Permanent death. 99% of the time I have seen a player make a bad decision that should result in death the GM and fellow players have warned them that death is imminent and can be avoided. I have had a character die on Wes' plotship. It is not that serious BECAUSE I chose a Minkan FOR THAT REASON.

 

[raz]

Honestly, I believe my first reply still encapsulates the long and short of it all. This won't change anything in roleplay except to help GMs avoid uncomfortable situations because it's a shortcut for the Player's Rights statement of "Talk with your GM or thread OP to make sure you're on the same page." All the GM has to do after this change is look at a struct point.

None of the concerns about invincible or immortal characters really seem relevant to me because it's never been a problem. I think everyone in this thread has at least one character among their roster who has never encountered significant harm so to see it brought up is kind of funny to read more than it seems like a legitimate concern.

 

[Rizzo]

Honestly, I believe my first reply still encapsulates the long and short of it all. This won't change anything in roleplay except to help GMs avoid uncomfortable situations because it's a shortcut for the Player's Rights statement of "Talk with your GM or thread OP to make sure you're on the same page." All the GM has to do after this change is look at a struct point.

None of the concerns about invincible or immortal characters really seem relevant to me because it's never been a problem. I think everyone in this thread has at least one character among their roster who has never encountered significant harm so to see it brought up is kind of funny to read more than it seems like a legitimate concern.

The only reason I disagree with you on that is because I frickin' LOVE carnage. So yeah, different philosophies but most seem to have no problem with this. Maybe a few softies out there, but ultimately a mature group.

 

[Ametheliana]

Anything else you need from me or the community @Wes ?

 

[Wes]

I'm still trying to figure out the levels of harm. I think you posted some before in the Discord but I lost track of it. I need everything to be in one place on the forum where I can find it.

Working list:

1. Peaceful Mode - Please don't hurt the character
2. I'm too young to die (Non-permanent injuries only please)
3. Hurt me plenty (Serious injuries okay)
4. Ultra-violence (Risking death)
5. Expendable Cannon Fodder - GM can kill off at will

 

[Ametheliana]

I just discorded these:

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"

 

[Soban]

I'm just going to note that I find the difference between 'death' and 'permanent death' an important one for us.

 

[Ametheliana]

I think yours is nice, Wes, but would change "Expendable Cannon Fodder" to something that is more positive lol. Adding this should help people say "sure kill my PC" not make them less likely to.

 

[Wes]

It's for characters like the ones in horror plots like my Freedom Down plot where they're going in expecting the characters to die before the mission ends, or for NPCs who are there as expendable background soldiers.

 

[Ametheliana]

Oh, this is more for regular players to note if they feel comfortable with their characters dying. I was hoping it would be something normal combat plots can use to help make the mortality rate more realistic.

 

[Rizzo]

I got better titles for Wes’ list:

1. Peaceful Mode - Please don't hurt the character
I’m just here for the catgirls.
2. I'm too young to die (Non-permanent injuries only please)
I can’t commit to relationships either.
3. Hurt me plenty (Serious injuries okay)
I wanna seem tough but not really.
4. Ultra-violence (Risking death)
Plays with Rizzo’s Combat System.
5. Expendable Cannon Fodder - GM can kill off at will
I hate my PC but can’t bring myself to give it a Rizzo style outro!

 

[raz]

Me on Kaiyo: Ultra-violence (Risking death)
Me on a crossover: I'm too young to die (Non-permanent injuries only please)

 

[Yuuki]

Killing crossover cameo characters is the most satisfying as a GM though

 

[raz]

Yeah, that's why I'd never trust Yamatai's greatest soldier with most GMs. Y'all can't help yourselves!

 

[Wes]

Based on usefulness and positive feedback, this suggestion has been implemented!

 

[Ametheliana]

Thank you, I really appreciate the support people gave this. It means a lot to me to see people like an idea I had :,)

 

[Yuuki]

What about for plots?

 

[Wes]

What about for plots?

It's not within the scope of this suggestion and was not voted on. You can always make your own suggestion thread.

 

[Wes]

Hey, I just want to remind people that this exists. On a recent check only about 10% of active player characters (about 27) had this option set for them.