Every month I get emails and messages about Conquering the Barbarian Altanis campaign; usually comments or requests to clarify what actually happened.
A few months ago I received a question that required some marination:
My question is one for you and your players. Modern sensibilities in gaming frown on beginning player death, and support a myriad of ways to increase survival and heroism. ... I believe hearing from you and especially your players about their characters many deaths would be great data to clear the air regarding the notion that character death is unenjoyable, and that character death does not support long term play and is unwanted by players. I hope you and your crew can address this topic in a posted piece discussing your thoughts and feelings through actual play.
Background
As of session 70, 64 player characters met their end:
| Fate |
Count |
% |
| Dead |
50 |
78% |
| Uncertain |
6 |
9% |
| Retired |
8 |
13% |
| Sum |
64 |
100% |
With the following causes:
| Cause |
Count |
% |
| Monster |
42 |
66% |
| Character |
9 |
14% |
| Trap |
7 |
11% |
| Environment |
4 |
6% |
| Disease |
2 |
3% |
| Sum |
64 |
100% |
Character related reasons are the most common cause for retirement, while monsters and traps were responsible for most deaths. Numbers (in percentages) are quite similar to the character death analysis shared by Lyle Fitzgerald in It's a good day to die (Dragon Magazine #20).
Note 1: detailed causes of characters death can be read here.
Note 2: above numbers do not include retainers. That'd double the numbers of deaths.
We currently have 14 players with 25 active player characters, with three players each controlling three active player characters. Everyone except the most recently joined player lost at least one character.
I run Wilderlands as an open sandbox where players have the ultimate freedom to do as they wish. I never fudge dice. The world is alive—it is shaped and shapes the characters in return.
Players' responses
Moss, 2 dead, 2 retired, 1 uncertain:
Character death being a real possibility (and something that actually happens, and frequently) really instills in me a desire to play smart and pay attention. It makes even the small successes matter and feel rewarding, because I know that it is actually possible for my character to fail.
And the big successes make you feel like you've actually accomplished something as real as if it were in real life. On the other hand, I will say it can be frustrating, and does require some adjustment and patience. But for anyone who does have the patience, and the desire to get good at interacting with the fiction to succeed, it brings a satisfaction that I've never encountered in games where death is either ultra rare, or non-existent.
I'll add this: I believe I might enjoy it more if there was a more frequent risk of various injuries instead of instant death.
Though I realize there is such a risk in the Wilderlands, just in my experience it hasn't happened often.
Snoop, 12 dead, 1 retired, 1 uncertain:
Yea, I like dying.
Sleazy_b, 3 dead:
I'm only controlling two characters now, Barad and Derennan. RIP Hist. There have been deaths I've enjoyed and those I haven't. Fairness, and narrative both play a role in my enjoyment of a character's death.
The character's I've played that died are: Hist, Mano Stern, and Ulster. Ulster felt bad. We were surprised and lost initiative and there was a very powerful enemy. Mano Stern died in the same encounter and set himself alight from within a fungal monstrosity which was pretty badass.
Hist was a mix of both. He got poisoned on an attack that dealt 1 HP of damage. He drove off the barbarians with an arrow but had no ability to cure himself. I don't know how I might have played that differently.
Nevertheless, I imagine him leading the band back to Ahyff, sick, dying, but still brave and committed.
Mostly to me it's about expectations. I expect my characters to die quite a bit so it's not the end of the world when they do. To elaborate on this, I think the ease of character creation and the fact that we don't do elaborate backstories helps.
But this is all to say that if Derennan dies I'll cry.
I appreciate that the game is hard. I wish I'd played more BX before getting into it and was a more knowledgeable player but I've learned a lot and enjoyed it a ton.
Idle Doodler, 1 dead, 1 uncertain:
Speaking as presumably the current holder of the Shortest-Lived Character record, I say take the dice. If you ain't going to accept their results, why bother rolling anything? Though nothing wrong with a few phantom rolls to keep players on their toes.
I've enjoyed reading through the session summaries as an account of an adventuring company, rather than as a collection of individuals living their adventuring lives parallel to each other. Old school gameplay is for an ensemble cast, and the best ensemble stories are ones that can survive a rotating cast of characters.
BloodyHand, 10 dead, 3 retired, 2 uncertain:
I thought about the question and this is my answer.
PC death is one of the big allures of OSR gaming. The main reason, I think, is that the threat of death represents a fail-state. Old school games can be lost, and PC death is equal to losing the game. If there is winning and loosing, then D&D becomes far more game-like, with real stakes, rather than the more story focused methods of modern gaming, which essentially cannot be lost, and are mere exercises in amateur dramatics. This gives the player a heightened sense of accomplishment and verisimilitude, which most OSR gamers find enthralling.
There is a fine balance with this though because PC death should always be a risk that is taken relative to some reward, or win-state. This is why procedures are so important because they allow the player to take informed risks. Dying in combat is always a reasonable assumption, so the party of players must take the (hopefully) informed decision whether to engage in combat procedure when it arises. The hydra lair was a perfect example of this, we knew there was a huge pile of gold coins in its lair, so we took the risk of entering, even though we knew from experience it could kill us very easily.
When it comes to fudging die; I think the reasonable time to do this is when there is an arising game state where a PC death is imminent with no-win state, or no way for the PCs to make a choice. In a sense this situation is no more a game than the amateur dramatic kind of D&D I mention earlier. The most common way this emerges in OSR games is via random wilderness encounters. Gygax recommends fudging these in the DMG exactly for the reason, that there is no real victory condition, or a hard won victory is negated for no apparent reason.
Kublaibenzine, 2 dead:
What made me move back to OSR was not only the flexibility and cleanliness of the system but the harshness of character existence. No one likes to see their character bite the dust (unless he had crap stats and shouldn't have been adventuring in the first place) but I object to 5Es mechanism that makes characters almost unkillable. Stupid deaths may be a bit frustrating, but I like the idea of the dice landing as they land. So, when Vincensini got dropped by the Roc from a great height, I was a bit saddened but then looked forwards to the next character and playing experience. As my boardgame buddies like to say, it's about telling a good story in the process!
Snoop later added:
I like character creation cause it’s fast and special roles are fun to roll up.
Never_plays_elves, 3 dead, shared after publication of this article:
I read the article on character death, it was interesting and I agree that PC death is not as closely linked to skill at it seems. I mean that it is not connected so much to personal skill but to party skill.
If the party makes the wrong decisions (by vote or caller decision) or some PC manage to turn powerful factions against the party everybody will suffer and sometimes the ones who die are not the PCs of the player who made the wrong decisions. Sometimes the ones causing the problem are the ones who flee first. It also can encourage passive play. “I stay out of trouble, follow along and get a share while risking less while other PCs die.”
How to stop this: PCs (not players) could try to resolve these issues. You know try to get them beyond the “my character would do that.” Such attitudes are passable for less risky narrative focus games not for OSR or classic play. Also rules that foster comradeship and bravery (not recklessness) instead of individualistic play can help.
BTW these are not reflections based on my experience in this campaign; that is a general problem.
Also PC death and campaign continuity. Yes that can be a problem. If players get stuck at 1–3 level forever you cannot really move on to the good stuff. I don't say take them by hand but that is where AD&D can help. AD&D PCs are less flimsy for exactly this reason. Also AD&D play is less based on strict procedure implementation. It allows the DM to be more flexible with random results.
That is why you need the DMG. It shows you both the procedures and where you need to deviate from these procedures and how to do it, for the good of the campaign, not for the fun of the players (like in newer editions).
On the other hand even BX parties who are united and fight systematically as a military unit can survive a lot (my Dwimmermount experience, I never had a PC die in there although he did lose some beloved henchmen). I have been in deadlier campaigns than yours btw... A unique setting with interesting locations, NPCs and rewards can do much to keep the players coming even if it is deadly.
Reflections
As a Judge I root for my players.
There is a lot of advice in Dragon Magazine to fudge the dice when character death feels unfair. And we had several of those. Even though I felt sad with my players, I did not alter the results anyway. I like seeing them win, but I prefer not to alter “the reality” to make them win. In my mind that would be akin to cheating them out of their victory. My grandpa always crushed me at chess. Each of my victories felt so good, because I knew I earned them.
One would expect number of deaths to correlate with player skill, but I haven't been seeing that. The most reliable predictor has been the number of sessions played. Play long enough and you will die. Makes sense... From what I can see at the moment, player skill becomes a better predictor once character hits levels four and above. That too makes sense, since that is the time they are resilient enough not to day from a single slap from an unfortunate roll.
Finally, I must draw attention to the selection bias. Above data also includes numbers from players who joined for a session or two, lost their character, and then left the game. Since they left they couldn't respond to the question posed by the reader. Did they leave because they hated their character dying? Something else? Who knows. Are current players playing because they are masochists? No, I don't think so.
After 70 sessions I can't say that frequent character death impedes long-term campaign play. As long as someone lives they'll be able to recruit more adventurers and continue their career. Hydra Company survived its many members—it fled Antil and lives on in Hara. At the same time, would we have a better game or more fun if less characters died? Who knows. What I do know though is that those who live to see high levels will damn well have deserved it!
#OSR
Subscribe to get the latest post in your inbox. No spam.
Comments
