Viewpoint Character death

[still watching fma]

Now I'm not a bundle of optimism. I've had moments where I was like, "why try if these rp's die right after I make my character"? So my attachment to characters is lesser than my attachment to plots and ooc chatter. But I've noticed this even in DnD videos: people hate character death.

But why? Some of the best scenes in a narrative story come from sacrifice. Some of the most infuriating moments stem from death. There shouldn't be such an aversion to character death in my opinion. If my character is staring down two fire drakes and his party is running for their lives, that 10 seconds he'd buy are the greatest 10 seconds of my characters life.

But I'd like to ask you all. With the short shelf lives of rps, high turnover rate, and lack of progression in rps. Why do people hate the idea of their character dying so much?

 

[Ace Cream]

I personally find it hard to find the right situation that is worth my character dying, or maybe I just still have story about that character to tell. I'm fine with rapid character death in a real time tabletop RPG, I can roll another one in the next two minutes but in a forum RP a character and their development is my brainchild for weeks so I want their end to be at least satisfying for me.

 

[CrowOuttaHell]

Ace Cream has the right idea here imo. In a fast-paced, action style tabletop RPG (or, in general, a fast-paced action style RP) where character death is expected, players are more likely to be accepting of character deaths. However, in a longer, narrative style forum RP, a lot of players spend a lot of time working on their character and want to tell a story with them so they'll be naturally aversive to having their character die a death that doesn't satisfy them.

I personally have a character who I actually planned to kill during the RP proceedings at a certain time, and even I admit that I'd be pretty annoyed if she died earlier than the time I planned.

 

[still watching fma]

I don't think either of you has ever played a table top game. There's just as much, if not more wieght on the gm to not only be fair, but to make an encounter challenging. The difference between fun and challenging is razor thin if you care about your encounters.

But I ask, why are you so invested that nothing bad can happen to your characters? Where is the fun in being so conflict averse, that you know everything that will happen to your character?

I do genuinely not get the appeal of knowing my character will just always exist ans be fine. Wheres the tension, excitement or purpose in that?

 

[CrowOuttaHell]

I don't think either of you has ever played a table top game. There's just as much, if not more wieght on the gm to not only be fair, but to make an encounter challenging. The difference between fun and challenging is razor thin if you care about your encounters.

True enough, I don't do tabletop. However, I do have a friend who does. The idea of what is "fun" here is very subjective-- if you find more fun in taking challenge after challenge and seeing whether your character emerges alive or not, then that's fine. Tabletop GMs generally have more concern with how the campaign goes and less about the players within it, but in a narrative forum styled RP, a GM has to weave these players into the main premise of the RP.

But I ask, why are you so invested that nothing bad can happen to your characters? Where is the fun in being so conflict averse, that you know everything that will happen to your character?

I do genuinely not get the appeal of knowing my character will just always exist ans be fine. Wheres the tension, excitement or purpose in that?

It's less about "knowing that nothing bad can happen to your characters" than it is just going into an RP expecting not to have your time in the RP cut shorr because of a sudden character death. Again, the RPs on this site put more focus into the narrative and telling a story than it is making a game for other people to play.

Personally, I believe in something called "GM neutrality" where a GM won't kill your character (or let them be killed) without your express permission unless stated in the RP that character death is a thing. I'm not invested in the fact that nothing can go bad-- if I'm in an action RP and I know that my character dying can and will happen, I can live with it. However, when I'm in an RP where character death and conflict is not an integral part or is otherwise not an expected outcome, I just consider it am act of common decency and GM neutrality for the GM to not start killing characters left and right without getting a say from their player. At the end of it all, you control your character, and you decide what happens to them, not the GM. At least that's how it goes (mostly) around these parts.

 

[Zero Two]

I'm new to roleplaying, and I have to agree. 100%.

I've always wondered why more people don't kill off characters, or make two and have one as a kill off character for dramatic effect and to add emotional effect later in the roleplay. I feel like death makes things feel so much more realistic and emotional in literature. I understand, you don't want your character to die because you've spent time building them and developing that character over the course of the story. That's fine, I'm guilty of that too. If I make a good character, that turned out even better than I imagined and developed well, I probably wouldn't kill them off either.

However,

I personally would like to see a roleplay where the GM could kill your character off at any second, and can be killed by other players, in a realistic manner that would fit the roleplay though, of course. Not just killing characters because you can. It would be nice to actually have to think about what you're going to do in a deadly situation, because the GM if so fit could kill your character. - I don't know, something like that but done much better by a much better GM than me lol. I enjoy having roleplays where I don't have to worry about my character dying, but I'd like to have my separate roleplays where my character could die at anytime. - Could be fun, rewarding, emotional and just something new. I don't know, just my two cents

Edit: I don't know man it's not that serious, all I'm sayin is that I understand how everyone feels

- but I, myself, would like a rp where my character can die at any second, even without my consent. I know that is taboo and I don't want every roleplay I'm in to be that way.

 

[SCSaya06]

Multiple reasons. As some have already pointed out, most players are not opposed to character death per se, but rather, they just don't want their characters to die in just any random situation. They want to have the opportunity to determine at which point in the story will they be comfortable in letting their character die.

I'm new to roleplaying, and I have to agree. 100%.

I've always wondered why more people don't kill off characters, or make two and have one as a kill off character for dramatic effect and to add emotional effect later in the roleplay. I feel like death makes things feel so much more realistic and emotional in literature. I understand, you don't want your character to die because you've spent time building them and developing that character over the course of the story. That's fine, I'm guilty of that too. If I make a good character, that turned out even better than I imagined and developed well, I probably wouldn't kill them off either.

However,

I personally would like to see a roleplay where the GM could kill your character off at any second, and can be killed by other players, in a realistic manner that would fit the roleplay though, of course. Not just killing characters because you can. It would be nice to actually have to think about what you're going to do in a deadly situation, because the GM if so fit could kill your character. - I don't know, something like that but done much better by a much better GM than me lol. I enjoy having roleplays where I don't have to worry about my character dying, but I'd like to have my separate roleplays where my character could die at anytime. - Could be fun, rewarding, emotional and just something new. I don't know, just my two cents

Having multiple characters with the intention of letting some of them bite the dust can work but you have to consider other factors. Sometimes, RPs do not allow a player more than one character. Other times, there's a limited number of roles. It's also hard to control multiple characters all at once. It's easy to lose track of them, focus on developing every single one and just create more than one in the same RP.

Also, I don't think a lot of roleplays ever actually last long enough to have situations for character deaths, at least in a forum, narrative style RP. You can see a lot of people asking how many forum RPs others have been that actually reached the end. Nor if they've seen any RP that actually made it past the first few rounds of introductions or battles. You can't just kill off characters right out of the gate since that would leave you with almost no one. Even as a GM with the ability to kill characters any second, you need a good sense and the right timing. Players can kill other players but unless you establish a good system for resolving conflict, fights could go on forever if both parties involved refuse to back down. You could step in as GM but you need to be comfortable in taking a side and letting someone go.

Comparing it to tabletop is kind of moot. It's a different medium. If your tabletop actually meets physically in real life, you get more commitment from the players. It lasts longer. Roleplays on the web well, it's easier to just drop posting and ghost if people no longer feel like continuing the RP. Sure, you can kill them off as GM if they do so but for me, it's no longer as engaging.

There's also genres of RP stories here where death just has no place in the setting. Not every RP is action.

So to summarize my perspective: Players aren't that opposed to character deaths per se but they most likely just want the proper timing or moment. Also, not a lot of RPs last that long to get to that point in the first place.

 

[Kazami42]

If a character I have is in a logical circumstance with no way out, I tend to be as casual as Kane when "vaporized" in his temple in one of the C&C games. Though back when tabletop was an available option to me, 3/10 times I just end up getting revived by the GM. They usually had a reason beyond "lol nope", which I tended to use IC as a running gag in one recurring campaign thing. I died in one like ten fuckin' times. It was humorous, and my God cried. The whole game took longer than the time we played the Campaign: For North Africa. I believe similarly here, that rather than randomly, players should know it may be a thing, as well as not shockvalued randomly for the lulz.

But otherwise it's just absolutely annoying. If I do a RP and we are all trapped in no mans land, it is a few hours before the night ends, and our own line will murder us because they cannot identify us, I damn well expect to be shot if we casually walk up to it. If I get caught in a trap house with a slowly lowering spiked ceiling, and my partner is actually a spy trying to kill me and I broke the only way out, I expect to die a crushing and impaled death before it raises and I'm a piñata for the next guy to look at.

Mind you, most if not every creation sheet I make is hyper detailed beyond the norm. One history section needed five "act" spoilers of novel posts like ten paragraphs to complete. Every nation, every faction, every guild, every character, down to every idea has weeks, months, or for some, years of thought put into them ready to go. And I still prefer logic over logic breaking instances of preservation. One of my "race" templates I plan on making and using widespread is the Kane of it all. While they can still die, if all you do is murder the host body, they'll eventually just find a new one that may or may not be willing. If you kill it but the host is intact, [granted if the infector didn't burst out their head or something and died before reforming the head. Thus causing the host body to start bleeding out due to nothing left stopping it.] Then that character continues on. Albeit if unwilling they'd be super traumatized. Therefore, players can keep doing their stories, as well as die, without having to rewrite in another character.

Honestly some of my characters I'm planning up with that and other templates I was kinda inspired by through another roleplayed. A person created a faery named Umbrie, and took the time to hyper detail them and what they can and cannot do. Their weaknesses, strengths, appearance, etc. Seeing them on this site and reading some of their posts in old ass threads, as I read from page 1 to whatever present page the thread is on for every thread I participate in, inspired me to wanna make up my own creation too. Accidentally, this single template here solves both the preservation and death issues. However it will take longer to get the more "unique" thing I want out of it, as well as adding additional weaknesses and strengths to be as flexible for use.

I believe if a player does something stupid and there is no way out of it, at least by dice, we determine if they live, get injured, or they die. If it is one thing I've learned in my time, a small percentage don't want to die just because, and mask it as another reason. Therefore, I believe a injury and death system with or without dice is a mandatory asset for and beyond character dedicated and focused RPs. The players with a functional brain can carry on, while the more stupid characters, or in rare instances the actual player, will get that character killed. However, even a better off character can die if there is no other way logically or they choose to do so. Again, stating in even a interest check that they can die and all makes it a little bit easier.

However say a slice of life RP if depression isn't involved or some such, is no place for character death. Also on RPN a lot of the RPs die and have a lack of a long term commitment. There is a thread asking if anyone even been in a RP that ended. Apparently some other sites have a similar problem but wasn't a big deal for me. So in some longer RPs you never make it to that point. What my guys used to do was online, if one RP died, we wait a month then made a sequel that carries out another portion of the story from where or a little after we left off, or make a entirely new storyline for it. People still died because of it in later ones, but it never got a real IC ending.


Yeet yeet dab.

 

[Ace Cream]

why are you so invested that nothing bad can happen to your characters?

that you know everything that will happen to your character?

I don't think I ever said something along that line. For me, a forum RP is less of a thrill-seeking game and more of a brain flexing activity. I don't expect things to be easy but I expect to be able to play around with my character for quite some time.

Players aren't that opposed to character deaths per se but they most likely just want the proper timing or moment. Also, not a lot of RPs last that long to get to that point in the first place.

I agree with this, and that point about RPs not last long enough is a good one.

 

[spookie]

as stated by a few people already, i'm not against having my characters die. however, i want to be sure that when they do, it's by my own choice and done in a way that's fitting and adds to the story.

dying in a heroic sacrifice or tragic bout of madness? sure, that's a satisfying ending for a character i put time and effort into.

death by random falling rocks thrown into the rp by a gm trying to prove how harsh their world is, or a player who simply doesn't like emos and so kills my character specifically (which actually happened once, forever ago... ah, 12 year olds...)? no thanks. i spent at least an hour writing, coding and crafting that character, and it would be super frustrating to have them die in such a meaningless way.

in roleplay settings that require character death, having the players make one main character they can get attached to and one to kill off makes sense, it's the best of both worlds and unlikely to cause drama since it was all agreed upon beforehand. i do this, and i'm fine with joining rps that use this rule. even then, the gm usually allows you to pick the general method/cause of death, which is appreciated.

another reason character death is unpopular is that unless you have two or more characters in the setting, once you die, you're out of the rp. finding one that lasts long enough to get to such a point is a feat in itself, but to lose that setting after your character is killed? probably frustrating beyond belief.

now if allowed, you could just join with a new character, but if most of the others have been a team/group/whatever for a long time, playing the outsider might not be as fun as one of the originals who had already formed relationships and memories with said group.

plus, i'll be honest and say i don't like the idea of another person being able to just erase my character... unless handled very well, it would feel a bit godmod-ish imo.

could such a setting be done well? probably, but it would require an excellent and fair gm, great communication all around, and the right audience. i'd actually enjoy reading such a thing as it would be so different from the rp 'norm', but it isn't the type of setting i could really see myself joining.​

 

[still watching fma]

True enough, I don't do tabletop. However, I do have a friend who does. The idea of what is "fun" here is very subjective-- if you find more fun in taking challenge after challenge and seeing whether your character emerges alive or not, then that's fine. Tabletop GMs generally have more concern with how the campaign goes and less about the players within it, but in a narrative forum styled RP, a GM has to weave these players into the main premise of the RP.



It's less about "knowing that nothing bad can happen to your characters" than it is just going into an RP expecting not to have your time in the RP cut shorr because of a sudden character death. Again, the RPs on this site put more focus into the narrative and telling a story than it is making a game for other people to play.

Personally, I believe in something called "GM neutrality" where a GM won't kill your character (or let them be killed) without your express permission unless stated in the RP that character death is a thing. I'm not invested in the fact that nothing can go bad-- if I'm in an action RP and I know that my character dying can and will happen, I can live with it. However, when I'm in an RP where character death and conflict is not an integral part or is otherwise not an expected outcome, I just consider it am act of common decency and GM neutrality for the GM to not start killing characters left and right without getting a say from their player. At the end of it all, you control your character, and you decide what happens to them, not the GM. At least that's how it goes (mostly) around these parts.

You couldnt be more wrong. Sure there are people who only focus on the process, but a good gm cares about his players and his plot equally. Ive never once made a plot point that wasnt based on what my players were looking to explore. So to simply write off table top rpgs as being less narratively driven is completely and objectively wrong. Lol

Who says your time has to be cut short with death. You just get back on the saddle. As ive said, as a geoup rper who has seen rps die at creation. You just create a new character and move on.

I do whatI can to talk to my players, warn them about the danger and expect them to be looking out for trouble. If they die, its because they didnt notice that a normally dingy dungeon, is clean due to a monster that eats dust(and people) was cleaning it.

And ive rpd years with this gm neutrality bullshit. All that leads to is me going, " so I cant hurt them. I cant hurt the npcs. I cant hurt the monsters. I cant do anything except know that I will not die no matter what".

When a gm takes up the stance that you cant die without the player's consent. Then youre basically playing a slice of life rp. With no real stakes or conflict.

 

[still watching fma]

as stated by a few people already, i'm not against having my characters die. however, i want to be sure that when they do, it's by my own choice and done in a way that's fitting and adds to the story.

dying in a heroic sacrifice or tragic bout of madness? sure, that's a satisfying ending for a character i put time and effort into.

death by random falling rocks thrown into the rp by a gm trying to prove how harsh their world is, or a player who simply doesn't like emos and so kills my character specifically (which actually happened once, forever ago... ah, 12 year olds...)? no thanks. i spent at least an hour writing, coding and crafting that character, and it would be super frustrating to have them die in such a meaningless way.

in roleplay settings that require character death, having the players make one main character they can get attached to and one to kill off makes sense, it's the best of both worlds and unlikely to cause drama since it was all agreed upon beforehand. i do this, and i'm fine with joining rps that use this rule. even then, the gm usually allows you to pick the general method/cause of death, which is appreciated.

another reason character death is unpopular is that unless you have two or more characters in the setting, once you die, you're out of the rp. finding one that lasts long enough to get to such a point is a feat in itself, but to lose that setting after your character is killed? probably frustrating beyond belief.

now if allowed, you could just join with a new character, but if most of the others have been a team/group/whatever for a long time, playing the outsider might not be as fun as one of the originals who had already formed relationships and memories with said group.

plus, i'll be honest and say i don't like the idea of another person being able to just erase my character... unless handled very well, it would feel a bit godmod-ish imo.

could such a setting be done well? probably, but it would require an excellent and fair gm, great communication all around, and the right audience. i'd actually enjoy reading such a thing as it would be so different from the rp 'norm', but it isn't the type of setting i could really see myself joining.​

Most of your frustration is based on assumption. You ask a gm if you can rejoin if you die before playing lol.

As for a gm killing you with a random rock. That is hyperbolic, but also something no competant gm would do. As the gm, you can spawn a million dick monsters to fuck your players, bur thats not satisfying for anyone.

But these assumptions and cynicism that goes straight to the worst possibility are really unhealthy lol

 

[rae2nerdy]

To be honest none of my roleplays would make sense for their to be random death. It’s mostly people working in shops, on farms, doing school exchanges, etc.

My focus is mostly on fluff as a way to decompress for the stress of my life. So just shoehorning trauma in for trauma’s sake seems unnecessary.

That said in my murder mystery roleplays I will absolutely kill my character off. Sometimes it’s even part of the plot from the beginning. But in those cases there is an actual narrative reason for their to be a death and it fits the overall theme of the roleplay.

 

[still watching fma]

To be honest none of my roleplays would make sense for their to be random death. It’s mostly people working in shops, on farms, doing school exchanges, etc.

My focus is mostly on fluff as a way to decompress for the stress of my life. So just shoehorning trauma in for trauma’s sake seems unnecessary.

That said in my murder mystery roleplays I will absolutely kill my character off. Sometimes it’s even part of the plot from the beginning. But in those cases there is an actual narrative reason for their to be a death and it fits the overall theme of the roleplay.

Im not saying to shoehorn in death in your farmers market rps. But I see people wanting to play rps that have combat with the assurance that they cant die no matter what

 

[Kazami42]

Im not saying to shoehorn in death in your farmers market rps. But I see people wanting to play rps that have combat with the assurance that they cant die no matter what

It also makes matters worse that they could just as easily do that in the Colosseum, making it pointless to do in an actual narrative RP. It's pretty self defeating and weird as all hell.

 

[Pith]

I mean, I don't really think the WHY is rocket science. People get attached to characters. Death might be narratively satisfying and appropriate, you might get a really cool moment out of it and all, but I think people grow genuine attachments to the characters themselves. To me the plot is ultimately secondary to my fondness for the characters involved. The plot could be just about anything and if it was the characters I loved then I'd be happily engaged.

Now, I agree that if the characters literally cannot die, it does take some of the investment in. Tabletops in particular do have some associated risk, and it's important to know no one has plot armor so that they make sensible decisions. (Unless the character isn't sensible. Then it's on them.)

 

[CrowOuttaHell]

The difference between fun and challenging is razor thin if you care about your encounters.

You couldnt be more wrong. Sure there are people who only focus on the process, but a good gm cares about his players and his plot equally.

Make up your mind on whether or not a GM should care about their encounters.

Some of your points have been addressed by other people in the thread, so let's go over them.

- Basically anything about tabletop RPGs: As mentioned by SCSaya06 , it's a moot point. It's a different medium, with different rules and players than you would a forum.
- "If your time gets cut short, just get back on the saddle": spookie and SCSaya06 both mention that getting back on is not an option. Saya's point mentions that some RPs don't allow you to come back. Spookie also further mentions that the experience overall won't be the same.
- "GMs basically resign themselves to playing slice of life" and "I've seen combat RPs that don't have character death": And what's so wrong with that? GM neutrality at this point to me is just something called common decency. It's stated multiple times by other people in this thread: players generally don't mind their characters dying, but it will be under their own terms because ultimately, it is their character and the idea of just letting a GM do what they want with that character may be uncomfortable. It's also part of being a GM to outline what may or may not happen in an RP and never force your players into anything that they may not want to write, as you yourself mentioned.
Not to mention, again, what's wrong with a slice of life? Maybe people just want to experience the adventure or RP to de-stress, like rae2nerdy does. Sometimes, that's enough for people. If that's not enough for you and you must have the thrill of danger and characters dying, that's you.
- "Most of your frustration are based on assumption...": Not a response to my point, but couldn't help but notice. You also made assumptions about the idea that RPers just don't like getting their characters hurt even when we made absolutely no mention of that earlier. That's pretty unhealthy too, methinks.

Overall, the general point is: We don't care whether we die or not, we just want to die on our own terms. Write what you like, write what we like.

 

[still watching fma]

Make up your mind on whether or not a GM should care about their encounters.

Some of your points have been addressed by other people in the thread, so let's go over them.

- Basically anything about tabletop RPGs: As mentioned by SCSaya06 , it's a moot point. It's a different medium, with different rules and players than you would a forum.
- "If your time gets cut short, just get back on the saddle": spookie and SCSaya06 both mention that getting back on is not an option. Saya's point mentions that some RPs don't allow you to come back. Spookie also further mentions that the experience overall won't be the same.
- "GMs basically resign themselves to playing slice of life" and "I've seen combat RPs that don't have character death": And what's so wrong with that? GM neutrality at this point to me is just something called common decency. It's stated multiple times by other people in this thread: players generally don't mind their characters dying, but it will be under their own terms because ultimately, it is their character and the idea of just letting a GM do what they want with that character may be uncomfortable. It's also part of being a GM to outline what may or may not happen in an RP and never force your players into anything that they may not want to write, as you yourself mentioned.
Not to mention, again, what's wrong with a slice of life? Maybe people just want to experience the adventure or RP to de-stress, like rae2nerdy does. Sometimes, that's enough for people. If that's not enough for you and you must have the thrill of danger and characters dying, that's you.
- "Most of your frustration are based on assumption...": Not a response to my point, but couldn't help but notice. You also made assumptions about the idea that RPers just don't like getting their characters hurt even when we made absolutely no mention of that earlier. That's pretty unhealthy too, methinks.

Overall, the general point is: We don't care whether we die or not, we just want to die on our own terms. Write what you like, write what we like.

Lmao. A good gm gives a shit and doesnt set 30 shadows to kill his players. But a good gm doesnt fudge his dice to let his players live.

 

[Damafaud]

Because if my character dies, the story ends for me. I mean, it's a widespread rule in RP where characters can die the RPer can make a new character... but it's not the same?
Sacrifice is a great tool for character development, sure. But do I want my character to die so others can develop? Why does it have to be my character and not Karen's?

This is the difference between RPing and writing a narrative imo. When writing along, you write a whole story so even when you kill off some characters the story continues on for you. In RP, once your character dies, the narrative ends for you. That's it. Oh, perhaps the other characters get some development and it's cool, but you aren't part of it.

In short, death in RPing sucks.

 

[Crayons]

Whenever I have suggested that I'm OK with my character dying if it makes things more interesting, everyone else in the RP has been shocked and outraged. XD
I'm usually fine with character death if I feel like it would serve the story and I feel like I've had sufficient time RPing with that character, or if I'm not that into them.

I think CrowOuttaHell pretty much summed up everything else.

 

[still watching fma]

Because if my character dies, the story ends for me. I mean, it's a widespread rule in RP where characters can die the RPer can make a new character... but it's not the same?
Sacrifice is a great tool for character development, sure. But do I want my character to die so others can develop? Why does it have to be my character and not Karen's?

This is the difference between RPing and writing a narrative imo. When writing along, you write a whole story so even when you kill off some characters the story continues on for you. In RP, once your character dies, the narrative ends for you. That's it. Oh, perhaps the other characters get some development and it's cool, but you aren't part of it.

In short, death in RPing sucks.

How about if you and karen both die. Will it satisfy you then? Or must your character be rey from star wars before youre satisfied. I see no little difference between a narrative and an rp. If you sacrifice actual consequences and gain artificial immortality. Then what kind of narrative are you looking for?

 

[Grey]

Why doesn't Edward Elric get killed off midseason? Ridiculous. I can't be invested in the tension of this story if the protagonist is going to survive to the end of their narrative arc.

 

[still watching fma]

Why doesn't Edward Elric get killed off midseason? Ridiculous. I can't be invested in the tension of this story if the protagonist is going to survive to the end of their narrative arc.

I was upset that alphonse didnt die after sacrificing himself at the end of brotherhood. I was equally upset when ed sacrificed himself at the bones adaptation and he ended up seeing his brother anyways in the movie.

 

[Damafaud]

How about if you and karen both die. Will it satisfy you then? Or must your character be rey from star wars before youre satisfied. I see no little difference between a narrative and an rp. If you sacrifice actual consequences and gain artificial immortality. Then what kind of narrative are you looking for?

The one where I can still contribute to the writing.

 

[Pith]

Uh, nothing about those points seemed passive aggressive to me, and yeah--if you start a discussion thread I think it's fair to expect continued civility. They did admit to a lack of knowledge in tabletop gaming, but I will say for a thread that's asking for opinions you're certainly approaching all replies from the vantage of your opinion being the correct one--that being that plot trumps characters.

YOU don't get attached to characters. That's fine. It also sounds like your experience is with quick turnover and short shelf-life in games, so that's to be expected. Plenty of people DO get attached because they either get fond quickly, have things they want to explore with that particular character, or are playing a long game.

Again, I'm with you on plot armor sometimes making things less interesting because there's no stakes, but some people genuinely enjoy pure character driven games. I'm in one where if someone dies they get auto rez'd next session because that's just how the guild WORKS. The point of that game is a sort of trial-and-error dungeon crawl. My others, I could die at any moment. I don't care if I die and it's my fault, but I've also had a character die just because the GM felt like being a dick and erasing my character from the world. For some people playing a character is very personal, and it's much harder for them than some bootstrap mentality.