Thorny Questions: Handling PC Death in LARP

Thorny Questions is the series that addresses aspects of game that are complicated and don't present easy answers.  This one is about the complicated question of Player Character Death in LARP, focusing especially on the worrisome issue of PC on PC violence.

I have seen players driven from games based on mishandled PC deaths.  I have also seen games fall apart because unkillable PCs dominated the game and could not be removed.  I have seen games that did not allow PCs to die at game.  I have seen games where the senseless killing of PCs was treated like hunting for sport.  I have seen PC deaths that have reverberated through narratives.  I have seen PC deaths that were instantly forgotten.  I have seen PC deaths that ruin games for third parties.  I have seen PC deaths that have transformed people's characters for the better.  All of this death has given me some strong feelings on the subject of the killing of PCs, but not necessarily clear ones.

1. Consent is Sexy

So, my first big thought on the issue is that basically, PC death should be consensual.  This isn't to say the the character should agree, few characters are invested in their own death, but that the player should be given a chance to consent, especially when another PC is holding the knife(directly or indirectly).  Part of this is having a read of the game and requiring notice.  Essentially saying, no PC can kill another PC without prior permission and discussion.  The player(s) who want to do the killing talk to the Storyteller and the Storyteller can then consider.

There are a number of potential avenues at this point, as well.  Sometimes, a target is not necessarily specific[we need a human sacrifice to appease the volcano!] and the Storyteller might know about another player who has expressed an interest in switching characters.  Then consent can be immediate.  Sometimes, there might be weird assumptions [we must kill the rabbit!  he has all our cereal!] and the Storyteller might be able to encourage further investigation and prevent a ridiculous and painful misunderstanding.  But at that point, the Storyteller can speak with the potential victim about the death of their character.

This should be true for similar consequences that aren't technically death, but have the same effective result[staking vampires and hiding their bodies away comes to mind].  If the player is not on board, then the killing does not go down.  Now, I generally think that there is a long time window that should be observed.  If a player is considering such an act, then they should give at least a days notice ahead of time, so that narrative space can be cleared and Storyteller time can be devoted to this potential event.  Now, Crimes of Passion become a different story.  A situation that fairly escalates to mutual attempted murder is one that can potentially be negotiated in a shorter time frame, but even then, consent is key.

2. Sic Semper Tyrannis

However, there is a flip side to this consent based approach.  Yes, a player should not have their player killed without their consent, but on the flipside, this is theoretically open to abuse.  Ultimately, there is an important narrative balance to be struck and immunity to death should not be immunity to consequences.

To spin out a nightmare scenario of this sort, the prince of the city is a tyrant and rules with an iron fist.  But nobody can take him down, the political structure doesn't allow for democracy, only violent overthrow, and even pooling all their money to hire the best assassin in the universe doesn't work because the player of the Prince refuses to consent to their character being killed.  This leaves other players frustrated with the game and feeling like they lack agency.

A situation like that is extreme, but highlights that there are times when there is a narrative need to kill.  Not all situations where a character would kill another represents a narrative failure.  They can instead be narrative climaxes, the point where an extreme event is required for an extreme situation.

To that end, nobody should have perfect plot armor, in that nobody should be able to abuse a system to escape narrative consequences within game.  This is a difficult situation, but one that is important to understand, because without narrative consequences, extreme power imbalances can develop between players and those extreme power imbalances can lead to disinvestment in the game.  To that end, it's important to sometimes let people know that while their character's story isn't done, a chapter is and then try and work together on making the next chapter one that the player is interested in.

But nobody gets plot armor that protects them from ruining other people's fun.

3. You Get What Anybody Gets.  You Get A Lifetime.

So, how does one approach this in practice?  As a player, as an ST, etc.  Well, there's no universal approach, but there are a few potential tips.  Your mileage may vary on these, but they are the best I got.

As a player, try to have a sense of your character's narrative role and place in their personal journey. Is dying now being cut down in their prime? Is it falling right before they achieve their goal?  What would their last thought be?  Try and be a meaningful presence in other character's lives and be the Eddard Stark you want to see in the world.

On the flip side, as an ST, try and reward the player who dies gracefully.  Recognize that they are making a personal sacrifice for the good of the story and also recognize that this is the kind of player that you want in game.  Overall, you should make sure that losing a character does not deny them participation in the greater narrative of the game and try and find a way of incorporating a new character that gives them a good way in. Also, if appropriate, consider a funeral scene.  Fictional closure works the same as real closure.

Also, an important aspect of this is to make sure there's not significant splashover.  I once spent an entire game trying to protect a character from assassination.  At the end, I learned that the player had decided not to play the character any more and that no matter what I did, the character was going to be killed, even if the STs had to bend reality in order to make it happen.  The whole experience left me deeply disinvested in the game, because it felt like my efforts meant nothing and I'd wasted my time all game long.  If I'd known ahead of time, I would have played the entire night differently and gotten a satisfactory experience out of it.  Sometimes, things affect more than one person.

Overall, this is about transparency and forethought.  Having a plan for dealing with eventualities is an important part of running games.