Monday, November 13, 2023

Death by Misadventure

Barrett's Raiders, the Twilight: 2000 campaign I am currently refereeing, is just a little shy of two years old, our first session having been December 6, 2021. Like my House of Worms Empire of the Petal Throne campaign, now in the middle of its ninth year, we play more or less weekly. That's possible in part because there are seven (down from eight originally) regular players, which means that, even accounting for real life interruptions, it's rare that we don't have enough people to play each week. 

Sometime toward the end of summer, one of the campaign's stalwarts undertook some new responsibilities that prevented his playing for an extended period of time. Fortunately, there were six other players to pick up the slack and we've soldiered on – pun intended – without him. Nevertheless, his presence is very much missed, both because we enjoy the company of the player and because the character he plays (Sgt. Tom Cody) is an important part of the unit under the command of Lt. Col. J.D. Orlowski. 

Indeed, Sgt. Cody is so important to the unit that, even in the absence of his player, he's continued to participate in – and lead – military operations in eastern Poland. Recently, for example, the characters received intelligence suggesting that one or more NATO soldiers were being held captive in Kraśnik, a town not far from their current position. Orlowski tasked a small number of his men, under the command of Cody, to engage in reconnaissance near Kraśnik to determine if the intelligence was accurate and, if so, to assess the difficulty in liberating the NATO captives.

Since Cody's player was still unavailable, one of the other players, whose character was not assigned to the mission, took over playing him for the next few sessions. That's when I joked, "It'll be a shame when [Cody's player] returns and you'll have to tell him that Cody died bravely defending his comrades." We all laughed, because I clearly meant it as a joke. At the same time, combat is Twilight: 2000 can be unpredictable and there was no guarantee that Cody wouldn't die, even if the likelihood was small. Likewise, the player who took him over for those sessions is thoughtful and clearheaded, so he wasn't the sort to do anything too foolish.

The funny thing is that, in my youth, it was not at all an infrequent occurrence for someone's character to die while they weren't present – and it was rarely funny. In those days, we played RPGs a lot and there was an unspoken pact that we'd always be in attendance for every session of every game. To not be there, even for a perfectly legitimate reason, was seen as a rejection of the game or campaign being played, an acknowledgement that it just didn't matter all that much. What can I say? We were young and, as adolescent boys often are, prone to finding any excuse to haze one another.

One of the forms such hazing would take is killing off someone's character when they didn't show up for a game. "Sorry, dude, your fighter died last night, but, don't worry: he died covering our escape from a horde of ghouls." That sort of thing. Of course, as we played D&D in those days, there were innumerable ways to return a dead character to life and we rarely hesitated to make use of them. I think that was a big part of why no one ever hesitated to kill the characters of absent players – we all understood that death wasn't permanent. Thus, the proper response to learning that your character died while you were visiting your grandparents or on vacation at Disney World was not whine and moan, but rather "Oh yeah? That's cool. Have you raised him yet or is that our next adventure?"

While I don't advocate for the killing off of absent players' characters, let alone allow it in games I referee, I still make jokes about it. I wonder why that is? I suppose it's that, as puerile as it was, it was part of my earliest memories of roleplaying games. Those were days of wild-eyed, reckless adventure, when we first began to understand that RPGs gave us the ability to "do" anything we wanted – and a lot of what we wanted was foolish and occasionally cruel. We grew out of that initial childishness in time, but I almost feel as if it were a necessary stage in our development as roleplayers. To become more "serious" as gamers, we first had to indulge our unbridled ids a bit.

Maybe I'm wrong and this isn't a phase that everyone goes through when they're first introduced to this amazing hobby. All I know is that my friends and I did more than four decades ago and, try as I might, I can't say it wasn't fun, after a fashion. Good thing I outgrew it, eh?

15 comments:

  1. Alas! This brings me memories of when we were playing B4 The Lost City, I think we were about 10 years old, and during one (rather desperate) absence the gamemaster gave my beloved warrior Cormac to the younger brother of one of our players (who was about 6 and dumped there to everyone's horror). Of course Cormac was killed by a trap, being used as cannon fodder by the other players, and I was informed only one week later. I can still conjure the anger and resentment I felt! To add insult to injury, my new character, of whom I have no recollection whatsoever, had to get into the city alone and play on his own looking for the group in what, to our young minds, appered to be a huge dungeon. He managed to do that and it was a slow, grinding process but .... such an accomplishment! That was 40 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a surreal coincidence – I’m running a multiyear campaign that has predominantly been spent in B4-The Lost City and we just lost our first character in combat last week. My party has explored the bulk of the Temple (but has not yet encountered Zargon) and spent a lot of time in the Lost City. Subsequently I’ve had to restock the portions of the Temple that they smashed through with new guardians recruited or acquired by the Cult. The leader of my player party, a charming bard, opted to follow what he thought was a guard (but was really an Elder Oblex impersonation) away from his companions, and was quickly killed by it. The rest of the party caught up and killed the slimy beast but now are faced with the hurdle of a dead companion. Do they explore avenues for resurrection? Does the player gen up a new character and we integrate it into the mix? Do I let the player take over one of the NPCs they’ve encountered over time? My player has been very grounded throughout and is not devastated by the loss of his character, but it will change the dynamic going forward. I’m going to keep quiet and see what the players want to do during the next session….

    ReplyDelete
  3. Allowing someone to play the character of someone else in his absence is one of the biggest "no-no" we always had in place.
    This meant that the character was either momentarily absent - if the fiction allowed it - or "out of phase", a ghostly presence that could not actually partecipate and more or less passively shared the fate of the party (different DMs had slightly different takes on this: no fighting, only fighting in self-defense and rolled by the DM, only roll saves for area-effect stuff...) .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes yes yes, but what happened to Cody? ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Sorry there are no magic items on your character sheet now. Some NPC thief stole them, I guess."

      "But...it's Twilight: 2000. I didn't have any magic items."

      "Yeah, we...I mean, the NPC was pretty pissed about that, I hear."

      Delete
  5. The inverse of this was when someone went off for holiday and brought along their favorite character to play with cousins over Christmas or another group at summer camp. I don't remember anyone from our core high school group getting killed per se on one of these side adventures, but I do recall the annoyance of our campaign DM when I returned with mithril armor and a few new magic items that gave us a significant edge in his world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! I remember that happening at least once during my youth.

      Delete
    2. I didn't encounter that exactly. What did happen is that when I started gaming at MIT (while I was still a high school student - the MIT games club was open to all), most of the MIT campaigns were open and players could move characters between campaigns freely, subject to an audit by the GM when bringing a PC in from another campaign, or returning to your "home" campaign. Sometimes as GM, I would disallow items or tone some down. When transferring PCs, there was always a level range allowed so we rarely dealt with inflated XP totals.

      Delete
  6. With VTT play sometimes a character disappears mid combat due to bad connection or a interruption from home life.

    In those cases the character takes no actions but is still subject to damage and death.

    We all makes the same jokes when the log back on. "You died" or "your magic sword was stolen" or some cheap joke. Old habits die hard.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This was a constant danger, since I lived in a different centre from my group, making it hard to attend games, and I liked to play thieves. The usual cause of death was not taking any precautions at all when finding and removing traps or scouting ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  8. These days when a player misses a session, usually their PC is played by others. Usually they aren't shoved up front unless it really makes sense for the PC. We DO joke "well, your PC didn't die..." or "don't worry, we won't kill your PC!" when a player announces they will miss a session and sometimes we will joke "We'll push your character ahead" or whatever. But always we are reasonable about the actual actions the PC takes.

    I THINK early on, we DID once or twice subject the PC of an absent player to extra danger, but not to the extent of flippantly getting them killed because the player was absent.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually lost some gaming companions forever when they decided to kill off my ranger character while I was away in boarding school. Unlike others here, who had it blamed on the ghouls or whatever, they actually killed my character in-game and told me later he was too much of a goody-goody for their liking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is actually... pretty mean.

      When our party bumped off an arrogant knight — a prince who everyone felt had become corrupted by his lust for a mythical sword that would ensure his return to the throne — they at least had the cohones to assassinate him when the player was at the table.

      (I should say "half the party" as they rest of us were off at college and only found out about the character's murder months later. To be fair, it DID create a new major storyline over summer break as the rest of tried to uncover the mystery of what happened to the prince, and had repercussions for the rest of the campaign. So there WERE consequences for bad behavior.)

      By the way, we're all still friends, so...

      Delete
    2. That actually sounds like an intriguing way to handle the situation, letting the characters sort out their allegiances and whether they could make amends.

      What did the Prince's player do for the rest of this campaign? Did he play a ghost?

      Delete
  10. Paranoia capitalized on this occasional, "puerile" urge to torch another player's character by making it a central feature of the game. My gaming group certainly played Paranoia for this reason. It's just FUN to kill each other every now and then--especially in a light-hearted RPG where everyone expected such behavior and no one was going to get all huffy about it.

    ReplyDelete