Character Retirement, computer games and roleplay games and mine

 One of the interesting disconnects in C.RPGs is the 'new' character. When a player dies/retires their existing character, and brings in a new 1st level, how the system treats them.

Character "Retirement"

At some point, a character retires, or is forced to retire, or is physically forced to retire (death & no phoenix down). In more classic roleplay games, the player rolls up a new one, comes up with a plausible reason the heroes have taken on this new recruit, and goes on their way.

"Oh, all this time, I've been training this young apprentice, he'll inherit all my worldly worth, and my gear"

Yet in earlier computer games, fueled by 20c coins or quarters, Death was a means by which the owner earned money. So often games were a tad bit harder as the game progressed, players had to improve their concentration skills, memory skills or their wallets if they wanted to keep playing. But it taught us a valuable lesson, skills = reduced cost.

When Computer games dealt with death, they too had ways for the gear to be passed down. Diablo had the gear fall to the ground, to be picked up by the resurrected hero, but rather than having the player start again at 1st level, because there was no incentive for the start-over mechanic of coin-op games, and they were often competing with other games on the market, they needed to have players only temporarily lose equipment, to be pick up at a later point to continue.

Was this new character the resurrected one from before, or just another hero of an almost identical skill set, arriving in town, penniless and desperate to gain wealth.

The Psychological Aftermath

As a result, we have three styles of players in roleplay, one end of the spectrum, typically called rogue-like, mimic the coin-op games style of death = death, start a new character from scratch. This style of retirement based far more on realism, typically has toned down monsters, events and such, where is any given event can kill a player, there should be, or should have been some way out, if only the player was skilled enough.

The other end, more narrative play, has a auto-ressurection like style, when a players character dies, they roll up another, of equal level, gather up their fallen gear and get on with the adventure. The lives of the heroes are quasi-irrelevant, the plot is far more important. As a result, game styles can be far more extreme, more gonzo, more deadly since death is not the end

Then at some middle ground, we have the OSR styled games, death happens, and if you don't have the cash to buy a spell or magical trinket, you start again, new character, or as I started in the first paragraph, players sometimes have squires or apprentices, whom take on their masters role, trying to fit their shoes, so to speak. The concern here is that players sometimes feel trapped in the character or role, as their apprentice can only be a few steps of difference, else the loss in training or gear matching results almost in a whole new character anyway, as per the permadeath option

I have an issue with all three, from the first, we've taken everything away from the player, completely, if the player retires the character at the end of a mission, its as bad as dying, so might as well go out in a blaze of glory which also bleeds into the OSR style. Yet in both narrative and OSR styled games, players wanting to change characters will often suicide them to trigger the new character coming in, with part or all of the levels and gear of the former.

Karma, or How I deal with this

So, what I learned, from my many years of killing off players, so they could try other classes, and players walking away from the table, because their favorite character died when they attempted to fly off a cliff into a dragons mouth, was to award players for playing the character to their fullest.

When a player dies (or retires, see below), I multiply their level by the number of attended sessions, and they receive that much karma.. as a player. The player can use the karma to begin their next character at either a higher level, or with some added bonuses from the backgrounds system, or some physical wealth from their family fortune, or any other number of ways to 'start again, but with more'

A further advantage is, as a GM, having built my world, I can choose to rarify races, setting a karma cost to play something outside the ordinary. If players want something exotic, they need to play first as a standard classic race of the region, then retire them at a village and earn bonus +2 sessions +2 levels for karma purposes, more bonuses for some modifiers. Then they can use the karma to buy in for an exotic race / class / background, and since the GM has chosen these 'prices' they've already factored in the affect this will have on their world and priced accordingly.

Some players, take some disadvantages to their first characters, in order to increase their karma ratings, banking them over several campaigns, so that in some later campaign they can play as some extremely powerful and rare race combo.

I don't see players throwing away characters, they earn more for each session they survive and more for retiring, so its in their best interests to go for as long as they can, and bring their character home safe.

Death is still very real, the loss of the bonus retirement karma is enough to dissuade, and furthermore the gods will halve your karma if you suicide a character. (or commit evil acts too)

GMs can nudge games in ways, by pre-setting karma costs and benefits, without outright denying a player.

Furthermore, if a player plays well enough in one GMs campaign, and another GM has trust in the first GM, their karma can be 'transferred' allowing a GM a break.

Also, some GMs wanting a more powerful campaign can start their group with campaign karma, (non transferrable) to 'buy' a boosted character that will still be balanced, so the group can either learn with training wheels, or being powerful heroes for harder storylines.

This is one of the less tested parts of my game, as it happens so infrequently. So I will probably make some tweaks at some future point. 

 

Narrative Sharing, my two cents

Just Wanted to jump on the bandwagon of this wave on the interwebs.

You can look at the arguments across some of the forums, from here and here and here and here

TL;DR; If used sparingly, a narrative mechanic might work, but you gotta be a dang good GM to know how to use it.

Should Players have Narrative Control?

Sure, about themselves, their characters, their decisions, for the most part. When players suddenly decide their law abiding paladin decides to slaughter innocent children, I gotta ask the player.. "hey buddy, that makes zero sense for your character, should we talk about whats happening?" So maybe not 100%.

When it comes to asking the now famous question: "Do I see a rock nearby?" or the other "is there a Botany book in this library" Now we're getting to some of the problem.. I'm thinking, probably yes, but, ... and I'll get to that..

When a player starts saying things like, " I wanna play an elf" and I say, "sorry, but the campaign is set too far from any reasonable expectation of an elf being within dragon-spitting distance, let alone born here, what is it you want to play?" we're not talking narrative, we're talking setting.. so thats another point.. kind of a yes.. but.

If a player ask, in my Pratchettesque fantasy setting, " I want to buy a glock.38" then I'm going to look at him quizzically and say, "you do realize this is a fantasy game right? no guns?" so that's a plain.. No.

Working backwards:

Setting, I hope it doesn't need to be explained in detail, no-one is really arguing that a player insists on breaking the setting, and that a GM need to allow it. strike it off the list.

Bending the setting, When a player wants to create his character that's not really permissible. Early GMs might capitulate because they don't know or haven't experienced how sometimes saying yes to make the player feel good, will break the world. My example of an Elf above, would suggest, somehow against all logic and reason, some Elven parents managed to sneak into territory hostile to elves, have a kid, raise him, all the while disguising themselves and their kid until adult-hood, enough that he can now become an adventurer with the group. This is when my players can use my Karma system, what would be Fate/Bennies/points that could make this 'background' ok, why? Does that break my world? no because its setting, we haven't started playing, its developing their own character, their background, in a way that is interesting to the player and the group.

Ok, struck from the list.. Now for in-game player narrative..

Looking at the Idea, Is there a Book about Botany in the library. To start most would agree, It is pre-destined or it is unknown.  In the case of the pre-destined book existing we have the concept of, the GM pre-thought the books existence or non-existence, and is in his notes. "the Library contains only roleplay manuals". But realistically, a book about botany not existing in a library, sounds quite far-fetched, so maybe the GM takes a moment and thinks.. hmm, well maybe..

So we're left with the Schrodinger cat conundrum, Does the Book exist or not? Like many before me have spoken, There seems two camps of thought..The Book has a chance of existing, because the world has a statistical chance of it existing, or the Book exists because of Narrative reasons.

With the chance of existing, the statistical value is based on factoids that the GM mostly knows, but maybe the players might also know if its a published adventure world, such as forgotten realms or Warhammer40k. In this case, most GMs who follow this style of GMing would roll a percentile dice of chance to see if the book exists. If it does, it does, the GM didn't decide that it existed, the plot didn't decide, The statistical chance determined that is was there all along, the percentile roll only determined that the player found it. Actually, the roll might determine that the player didn't find it, but its still actually there.. If a tree falls in the woods, does the GM hear it?

From the Narrative point of view, the Books existence is based on the flow of the story. If the player has an idea and the idea doesn't directly break the GMs current world view, he allows it, because the player has more narrative control.. and this seems to be the whole argument..

Did the book exist? or did it pop into existance because the player, and not the GM determined it needed to exist.. will this break the world?

Some game systems and Improv Theatre roleplay groups insist that this be the norm, if the GM didn't previously state that it was not so, then the players should be able to include it, sometimes for some kind of point/luck/benny/fate cost.. 

Now sure, if a group decides together that this should be the way they play.. go for it.. find out the dangers and benefits, play to their hearts contents, but don't for a second expect me to listen to your story with any level of immersion, its like kids explaining how cool it is to play a game with god-mode on, or how cool minecraft is in creative mode.. no.. its not cool.. I'm not going to say that to their sweet little cherub faces of course, but I know deep down that they've missed out on the very reason roleplay games work.. 

Experience, creativity, boundaries and obstacles.

Its fun to figure out a puzzle, we get the boundaries and the obstacles, we use creativity and when we solve it we are wiser for the experience. If we can suddenly change the boundaries, how will be ever be able to learn how to solve the original puzzle? we've changed the puzzle and we solve, probably an easier version, probably we've changed it to something we've already done before, because its easier, so we don't even learn anything new.. 

Lets look at the rock in the above example..

The Player stands in a stream and says "Oh I need a rock, is there one nearby?"

Every GM says, of course there's likely to be a rock in a stream, and lets them have one. I say.. Hang on.. what is the player asking? I have an idea.. I want to use a rock for something.. spell component or throw it or.. something.. In a movie, there will be a rock if there needs to be, because we like luck to favour the hero. If the plot determines that a rock will make the event too boring too easy, then there is no rock.. but that's a movie.. Its understood by the writer and director where the movie is going so they can balance this exactly as needed.. but a GM, on the fly? with a player who hasn't told the GM what the rock is for yet? how can he judge if that rock is going to make or break the plot.. so its easier to determine.. likely that rock exists in reality, the player wants one.. so let him have it.

I might think also.. wait, is that player always 'coming up with ideas at the last moment? and using his fate/benny/luck to change the plot? how will a person grow, if he expect life to always have things ready for him.. so maybe the rock will be there, but not accessible, not right this very combat round.. so he thinks, next time, next time I'll get a rock and be prepared, have one in my pocket.. like a good adventurer should.

That's sorta "yes, and" but I've created an obstacle to what they wanted, because they thought of it at the last second and wanted 'god' to 'shift' reality to accommodate, which I hate to do, but they are heroes and they should be lucky, because roleplay is a little cinematic.. but they have to use the luck.

Why is this acceptable to me? because dice are fickle, and narrative is not supposed to end because someone rolled a 1 at the wrong time, but I don't want to bend the rules, because then it never ends.. and when I've played games with GMs who rule bend to keep the narrative, I got bored almost instantly.. why bother to try so hard if the GM is just going to allow me to do my cool thing because it fit the narrative or as much it didn't break the narrative. So I included a mechanic, dice are fickle, monsters and NPCs might die because life is like that, but you are heroes, so if you make a choice and it results in poor dice rolls, you can use your luck to take back that roll, and live another day.. but learn from your mistakes, because you have a limited pool and once they run dry, you've out of luck.

For systems without some kind of saviour, I don't see an answer. fickle dice will kill a straight simulationist story, but player narrative will destroy players agency in the long run, and make a game boring. finding the right balance is hard.. which is why people will argue about it.

Meta Gaming your Players

What I'm about to write, I have not read elsewhere. As a Games designer for computer games as much as for PnP Roleplay, this is something that I borrowed from threads and posts, took a good hard look at it and said.. why not? and morphed it into what I do as Gamesmaster.

Character Progression doesn't always have to come from play.

Meta Gaming

Wikipedia says : Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.

I'm not talking about that.

Meta Gaming in Video game terminology is about the game outside the game. The points you earn after each parkour run, that buys you speed boosts or the tower defence weapon upgrades or the Berzerk Ball world upgrades. Its the Game outside the game, that improves in inner game.

Its about the 'improvement to the game' that you earn by 'playing more often'.

So in that context, I give you: the Meta Gaming Rules I use, to make my roleplaying experience more enjoyable for players

Roleplay Points

In my older Posts I've mentioned Roleplay Points, Points I award players per session for several reasons:

• Roleplaying, and not Meta Gaming!
• Being there for that session
• Making a good quote, pertinent to the situation, which causes much hilarity or groaning
• Using Voices, drawing character models or 'adding' to the experience
• Being a good player

I also ask the players to nominate one player each week to get the 'player of the week' Bonus +2 roleplay points

Roleplay Points, are currently used to buy two things: Quests and Hero Points.

Quests allow players to nominate something their character wants to achieve in the next few sessions. They declare a quest, assign 5 roleplay points to it, and during any roleplay session, they may refer to the quest, to assign more roleplay points to it (it must be roleplayed to give it these points)

When the quest is completed, the characters gain a massive boost to their character sheets. Background Points, Karma Points (for both see below) and a chunk of Experience Points.

The Chunk of XP is typically at least half a levels worth for many game systems (often as much as a full levels worth of XP, if it was a 6 session quest for example) above and beyond the normal XP

In this, I no longer need to dole out XP as game rewards, XP is for doing what you should be doing.

Karma Points 

This is where we get real meta. When a Player Dies or retires their character, we add up the number of roleplay sessions we had with that character (approx 3/4 of number of weeks since we began for average) multiplied by their Levels gained (i.e. minus starting level if you didn't start at 1st) and if they chose (retired) we double it.

Karma allows that player to 'buy' a better character for the next session.

But when they have Karma.. Then, now things get interesting... Firstly, they probably buy some Background Points

Background Points

When I get a new player, they start as a Human, with a boring dead end job, who becomes a somebody. They decide one day to stop being who they were, and be something more than that, and join the adventurers/gang/group. This is all justly evened out using Background Points. Humans 0Bkgpts, Average parents 0Bkgpts, Average Job 0Bkgpts.

But after earning a few Karma, and buying some background points... they can choose a more interesting race, a more interesting beginning profession and maybe some contacts in some high places(or low places) a dash more starting cash.

Is your world primarily human? with some dwarves and elves? 0Bkgpts for them, but what if the player wants a half-Orc? are they rare? add a Bkgpt cost to them, are they slightly imbalanced? more Bkgpts, maybe you'd even allow a construct, with a soul of a dragon.. IF they spent the Bkgpts for it.

The GM can now 'balance' his world by making the harder to find races use up some of these points, so plays can see the benefits, match up with the costs.

Character Progression by Whimsycatcher on Deviant Art

We also use background points for flashback events, remembering the past and discovering your heritage, which are roleplayed events (more in my blog)

Back to Karma

But Karma has more going on, While Karma can buy into some nice Background points for that one character.. the best way is to earn enough to buy Karma bonuses. +1 to Strength for every single character you ever play in my game/campaign with friends who GM my world, or at Cons that I participate in.

Longer Term Gaming

Some of this I developed when I ran a games club, and wanted to entice players to come back time & time again.. but its also a great way to reward players who realise that their character is getting old, or just plain dead. So, While I may have balked at Meta Gaming in its negatives, I'm glad to have looked past to see the positives.

Thoughts?