Viewpoint Risk of dying vs "plotline immortality"

[Afropuppy]

Lemme explain this: Would you rather join a roleplay that characters can actually die if they're stupid / clumsy enough, or join a roleplay where, even if they do the dumbest things in the world, they'll still come out alive? Probably wounded, yes, but alive and somehow fully recover.

For me, depends on what kind of roleplay it is. If it's an animal roleplay, i obviously don't want any characters to die, but then again if it's a post-apocalyptic roleplay or something similar, then I'd be fine with one or two people dying (just not of starvation, thanks!)

I haven't had a character die in... Well it seems like forever ago. Then again, that's how long it's been since I've played an adult human so that makes sence.

Anyways, what's your opinion on this? Do you prefer everyone to have "plotline immortality" or be able to die? I normally just try to avoid roleplays that you can die because I get too attached to all the characters usually ^^''

 

[defenderofberk]

Lemme explain this: Would you rather join a roleplay that characters can actually die if they're stupid / clumsy enough, or join a roleplay where, even if they do the dumbest things in the world, they'll still come out alive? Probably wounded, yes, but alive and somehow fully recover.

For me, depends on what kind of roleplay it is. If it's an animal roleplay, i obviously don't want any characters to die, but then again if it's a post-apocalyptic roleplay or something similar, then I'd be fine with one or two people dying (just not of starvation, thanks!)

I haven't had a character die in... Well it seems like forever ago. Then again, that's how long it's been since I've played an adult human so that makes sence.

Anyways, what's your opinion on this? Do you prefer everyone to have "plotline immortality" or be able to die? I normally just try to avoid roleplays that you can die because I get too attached to all the characters usually ^^''

Hmm, I do like rps where the characters can die (enough of the side characters certainly do) but I usually put in place some way for the character to be used again, like being summoned as a ghost (one accidentally got resurrected as a talking gopher and the role play was dead serious about it) or something similar. They can't literally just pop up back from the dead with no consequences and it always involves the other player having to basically go on a quest, but sometimes they're just flat out dead.

Gopher Power wins again
​

 

[Afropuppy]

Hmm, I do like rps where the characters can die (enough of the side characters certainly do) but I usually put in place some way for the character to be used again, like being summoned as a ghost (one accidentally got resurrected as a talking gopher and the role play was dead serious about it) or something similar. They can't literally just pop up back from the dead with no consequences and it always involves the other player having to basically go on a quest, but sometimes they're just flat out dead.

Gopher Power wins again
​

View attachment 689229

Oh my gosh i wish i was a taking gopher xD

that could be a fun idea to bring life to dead roleplays huh...

 

[Idea]

Lemme explain this: Would you rather join a roleplay that characters can actually die if they're stupid / clumsy enough, or join a roleplay where, even if they do the dumbest things in the world, they'll still come out alive? Probably wounded, yes, but alive and somehow fully recover.

For me, depends on what kind of roleplay it is. If it's an animal roleplay, i obviously don't want any characters to die, but then again if it's a post-apocalyptic roleplay or something similar, then I'd be fine with one or two people dying (just not of starvation, thanks!)

I haven't had a character die in... Well it seems like forever ago. Then again, that's how long it's been since I've played an adult human so that makes sence.

Anyways, what's your opinion on this? Do you prefer everyone to have "plotline immortality" or be able to die? I normally just try to avoid roleplays that you can die because I get too attached to all the characters usually ^^''

I mean, of course it depends, but gun to my head I'd prefer the "plotline immortality" type. I don't want my work to be wasted arbitrarily and front my perspective, if the realism shits on the narrative then throw it out the window, it's part of why I usually play fantasy and avoid historical, so I don't have to be bound by those rules. To entrust a GM with the power to kill my character without my own intent of that character being killed, I would need a GM that can do two things. One, they need to make it so that I am not left empty-handed and like my presence was or is pointless. Second, they need to really make the death of my character not only make narrative sense but matter in the narrative as well.

The first is hard, but I'm wholy unreasonable. I know that a GM can't possibly avoid me feeling frustrated at the loss of my character out of the blue. However, they need to have justification in hand that I can stand by (specifically, good foreshadowing that it could happen) and I need to gain something to at least mitigate the loss of my character. Just saying "you can make another character" is a sisyphean response, it's basically telling me I can waste my time and effort by making another character that might be killed off before it's time again. I think the chance of making another character is important, don't get me wrong, but there needs to be something more to make up for it, and to at least give something of a guarantee that it is actually worth continuing.

The second part requires a decent understanding of, and wish to implent, narrative structure. Foreshadowing the causes of death, helping it to make sense not only from a "this could happen" standpoint, but also from the point of view of the character and their nature and arc, creating impact from their loss... Even with this, I think I might actually need to discuss things with the GM to an extent, but that kinda goes against the premise in this situation.

The thing is though, there are very few people whom I would actually trust to handle this properly. Certainly not a GM I'm only meeting for the first time. Most people I meet on RPN have a very "come up with it as we go along" philosophy, by contrast with my more planning nature. This, while it can be fun in its own right, does not lend itself to creating structure, in fact it can only create said structure by sheer coincidence. Same goes with GMs who lend the story almost entirely to what the players come up with to do, rather than bringing their own sustainable material or overarching plot. Most GMs would kill my character to make a point, for shock value or to give a sense of “realism” where it is a flip of the coin at best whether I disagree or couldn’t have been possibly aware of it.

Having said all this though, I do think the question proposes a false dichotomy. You don’t have to either be immune from all serious consequence or allow the GM to kill your characters at their own discretion. So here’s what I’d prefer, outside of the strictly stated options:
-> A GM that does not treat death as a first resort, and uses it only if strictly appropriate. There are many ways of creating permanent consequences that do not require a character outright perish, thus forcing the other player to make a new character if they want to continue participating.
->An RP where death is not non-existent, but ultimately up to the players, with the GM potentially coordinating with a player should they find a death is appropriate for a given moment.

So I'm not really opposed either way, if I can put the trust in the GM to handle things properly. However, above either, I favor consequences that don't waste potential.

 

[Afropuppy]

I mean, of course it depends, but gun to my head I'd prefer the "plotline immortality" type. I don't want my work to be wasted arbitrarily and front my perspective, if the realism shits on the narrative then throw it out the window, it's part of why I usually play fantasy and avoid historical, so I don't have to be bound by those rules. To entrust a GM with the power to kill my character without my own intent of that character being killed, I would need a GM that can do two things. One, they need to make it so that I am not left empty-handed and like my presence was or is pointless. Second, they need to really make the death of my character not only make narrative sense but matter in the narrative as well.

The first is hard, but I'm wholy unreasonable. I know that a GM can't possibly avoid me feeling frustrated at the loss of my character out of the blue. However, they need to have justification in hand that I can stand by (specifically, good foreshadowing that it could happen) and I need to gain something to at least mitigate the loss of my character. Just saying "you can make another character" is a sisyphean response, it's basically telling me I can waste my time and effort by making another character that might be killed off before it's time again. I think the chance of making another character is important, don't get me wrong, but there needs to be something more to make up for it, and to at least give something of a guarantee that it is actually worth continuing.

The second part requires a decent understanding of, and wish to implent, narrative structure. Foreshadowing the causes of death, helping it to make sense not only from a "this could happen" standpoint, but also from the point of view of the character and their nature and arc, creating impact from their loss... Even with this, I think I might actually need to discuss things with the GM to an extent, but that kinda goes against the premise in this situation.

The thing is though, there are very few people whom I would actually trust to handle this properly. Certainly not a GM I'm only meeting for the first time. Most people I meet on RPN have a very "come up with it as we go along" philosophy, by contrast with my more planning nature. This, while it can be fun in its own right, does not lend itself to creating structure, in fact it can only create said structure by sheer coincidence. Same goes with GMs who lend the story almost entirely to what the players come up with to do, rather than bringing their own sustainable material or overarching plot. Most GMs would kill my character to make a point, for shock value or to give a sense of “realism” where it is a flip of the coin at best whether I disagree or couldn’t have been possibly aware of it.

Having said all this though, I do think the question proposes a false dichotomy. You don’t have to either be immune from all serious consequence or allow the GM to kill your characters at their own discretion. So here’s what I’d prefer, outside of the strictly stated options:
-> A GM that does not treat death as a first resort, and uses it only if strictly appropriate. There are many ways of creating permanent consequences that do not require a character outright perish, thus forcing the other player to make a new character if they want to continue participating.
->An RP where death is not non-existent, but ultimately up to the players, with the GM potentially coordinating with a player should they find a death is appropriate for a given moment.

So I'm not really opposed either way, if I can put the trust in the GM to handle things properly. However, above either, I favor consequences that don't waste potential.

Wordwall, but you have a point. Now that I think about it, having full immortality is something that I don't really do in my roleplays, even if I don't realize it. If a character is outright stupid and walks in a an active volcano, I wouldn't let them survive, and if it was already stated in their post that they made it, I would make it near impossible to get out. Only exception of course to this is if the character is just stupid enough that we all joke about it and don't get annoyed. Let me note that every time someone dies in a non-realistc roleplay, I give them the option to somehow come back (as a ghost or the team ressurects them or something)

For example, in one of my roleplays in a previous site one of the characters, a full grown adult by the way, "accidentally" fell off a bridge into a river and immediately started saying in the OOC that if we didn't save him (The rest of us were watching the whole scene and just looking at eachother confused) that they would leave the roleplay. They were literally swearing at one person that said "but can't you just swim out?" in the most polite tone they could type out.

As you can probably imagine, I wasn't having any of that. Since they apparently couldn't swim, something that wasn't in effect when we were at the pool the day before, I just let them drown. I mean, my character tried to save them with a branch, it wasn't my fault that it broke! (I'm joking by the way, it was entirely my fault that it broke)

The roleplay continued suprisingly smoothly after that, maybe even better than before actually

By the way, I commented about you writing a word wall at the beginning but I just did the same sorry xD

 

[Idea]

By the way, I commented about you writing a word wall at the beginning but I just did the same sorry xD

Pfft, no worries. It doesn't come close to qualifying as a "word wall" from where I'm standing.

 

[Syntra]

I vastly prefer immortality. I am not at all interested in realistic stories; I want emotionally gripping stories, and I want my characters to have meaningful arcs/development. I don't mind them dying, but it needs to happen on my own terms. Of course, this hinges on the players being reasonable and not doing stupid, unrealistic shit just because they know they are effectively immortal and thus can get away with it, which can be an issue as well. I still think there are better ways to punish such behavior than random deaths, though.

 

[Whisker]

I think there's a fine line depending on the roleplayers in the roleplay where both can certainly happen. I don't think it's necessarily always fair to force a player character's death if they're seriously opposed to the idea. That's a way to burn OOC bridges. There's always some alternative that can work, and usually maybe even a solid plotline or two that can come from coordinating on the matter.

Of course, if the player is being a shitlord and trying to take on 100 baddies at once or something of the matter in a roleplay that has CLEARLY STATED that player mortality and consequences are an aspect of the rp, I would talk to them and work on imposing a ruleset about how to proceed. Maybe they can get away with it once, but second or third transgressions will end in the players death. But at least your ass will be covered in that you tried to work with them and come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Afropuppy]

But at least your ass will be covered in that you tried to work with them and come to a reasonable conclusion.

In my defence, they were calling the other member very questionable and worrying names

Oh! Sorry if I got to say this, the site was supposed to be completely kid-friendly, no swearing allowed (Sorry, I forgot, my fault)

 

[Afropuppy]

Of course, if the player is being a shitlord and trying to take on 100 baddies at once or something of the matter in a roleplay that has CLEARLY STATED that player mortality and consequences are an aspect of the rp...

I mean... Is the middle of a wall of rules considered "clearly stated"?

 

[laceanddoodles]

I prefer the looming threat of death.

In one of my D&D groups, we are in a situation where at least one person is pretty likely to die. Probably my character, Del, or her identical twin, Dal. Let me lay the scene for you.

Del and Dal are 14 years old, they grew up in a small town (where the campaign started) with their hardworking single dad. Dal is a bard, and Del is a rogue. They started running around with a group of misfit teens in this little town, doing favors for the local priest and generally causing mischief. Anyway. The town gets attacked, because apparently a powerful artifact is hidden somewhere in it. The priest is killed, the twins’ dad is killed, and the town is burned to the ground. Our party decides to travel south to the capitol to warn the king and spread the news.

Dal has always wanted to see the capitol and start their bard career in earnest. Also, that’s where the twins’ mother lives. We know very little about her, she’s only come to visit us once in our memory. She knows she gave us up as soon as we were born, and that she actively denies that we exist because it might damage her career as a performer. There are a lot of things about her that we don’t know, for instance, she’d already stopped performing a few years before we were born, because she was married. We’re real actual bastards. Also, she has a sister, Voldel, who is the head of a mafia that controls the majority of the brothels, performers, and general entertainment in the city. Voldel is why we had to be smuggled out of the capitol at birth— she wanted us dead. She also has a de facto license to kill. Since so much of the guard are customers at Voldel’s brothels, when she kills somebody, she carves her insignia into their flesh so the guards know not to investigate.

So, anyway— Del and Dal learn that they have an aunt and that we should avoid her right before they reach the capitol. Luckily for us, one of our friends and party members, Damaris, is from a noble family and we are all invited to stay in the family home for as long as we need. Less luckily, on our first full day in the city, the twins are in the marketplace and happen upon Voldel.

Dal, in that moment, was distracted, but Del... Del just stared and hoped she wouldn’t notice the two of them. Which didn’t work. The moment Voldel saw two 14 year old, half elf, biracial, red headed twins she knew exactly who we were. And she walked right over! It only took a few moments after that for Dal to realize what was going on and instantly tell Voldel “oh I’m a bard maybe I can work for you!!”

Voldel offered Dal training with one of her higher ranking bards and asked us where we were staying— which Dal told her. It’s worth mentioning that Dal got all the confidence, and Del got all the common sense. Dal is impulsive and snowy and graceful and daring, while Del is cautious and quiet and reliable and giving. Anyway. Dal was summoned to the headquarters of Voldel’s gang (The Vixens) that evening, and Del came to make sure they weren’t, you know, McMurdered. Nobody else in the party knew where we were. (And little did we know, our party cleric was actually off joining a rival mafia, The Hounds.)

At some point that evening, Voldel managed to corner Del alone, and asked for a chat. She took the girl into a secret room, a small space behind the room where my twin was getting their lesson that actually looked into the space via a false mirror. Voldel told Del that while bards are a dime a dozen, somebody with her skills could be harder to come by, and offered her a job. Del was thoroughly terrified. She didn’t want to associate with Voldel, she didn’t want to be here, but she has one character motivation— keep Dal safe. So, she said “I’ll say yes if Dal says yes.” Which is the same as saying yes.

Long story short, we’re in the mafia now, and one of our party members is in another mafia. I’m gonna fast forward this to the last session we all played together, because... that’s where the looming threat of death gets a bit more intense.

Basically. Rundown. Another party member joined the Hounds, the two in that mafia were introduced to the leading players over there, and Del and Dal were introduced to the higher ups over at the Vixens, and are given a job. Basically, we have to take a box and leave it on the front steps of an address that we’re given. Really, we should have known it was a bomb, but the twins are 14 and dumb.

Little did we know, the tavern we were going to be bombing was the same tavern our two party mates were in, being introduced to their new coworkers. And, through pure happenstance (DM magic), all the other members of our party happened to be in the area/walking by at the same moment.

Bombing goes awry because one of our party members inside the tavern passed his perception check, the twins get injured and several of our fellow Vixens are killed. They flee back to the Vixens’ headquarters, and are met by the head of Del’s department, who tells them to go home. Dal feels unsafe around the party and chooses to stay, and Del’s boss waits until she’s alone with her and tells Del to go. That Dal will be safe. The twins have never so much as spent a night away from each other, but Del obeys.

And this is where things go from bad to worse. Alone with Dal, Voldel uses zone of truth and interrogates then about the members of our party that joined the hounds. At the end of it, she told Dal “your sister has been compromised” and locked them in a cell. She used modify memory to make Dal think that they got captured by the Hounds and Del abandoned them. Dal is bait, at this point. Del is the one she wants.

She’s going to die.

 

[Afropuppy]

I prefer the looming threat of death.

In one of my D&D groups, we are in a situation where at least one person is pretty likely to die. Probably my character, Del, or her identical twin, Dal. Let me lay the scene for you.

Del and Dal are 14 years old, they grew up in a small town (where the campaign started) with their hardworking single dad. Dal is a bard, and Del is a rogue. They started running around with a group of misfit teens in this little town, doing favors for the local priest and generally causing mischief. Anyway. The town gets attacked, because apparently a powerful artifact is hidden somewhere in it. The priest is killed, the twins’ dad is killed, and the town is burned to the ground. Our party decides to travel south to the capitol to warn the king and spread the news.

Dal has always wanted to see the capitol and start their bard career in earnest. Also, that’s where the twins’ mother lives. We know very little about her, she’s only come to visit us once in our memory. She knows she gave us up as soon as we were born, and that she actively denies that we exist because it might damage her career as a performer. There are a lot of things about her that we don’t know, for instance, she’d already stopped performing a few years before we were born, because she was married. We’re real actual bastards. Also, she has a sister, Voldel, who is the head of a mafia that controls the majority of the brothels, performers, and general entertainment in the city. Voldel is why we had to be smuggled out of the capitol at birth— she wanted us dead. She also has a de facto license to kill. Since so much of the guard are customers at Voldel’s brothels, when she kills somebody, she carves her insignia into their flesh so the guards know not to investigate.

So, anyway— Del and Dal learn that they have an aunt and that we should avoid her right before they reach the capitol. Luckily for us, one of our friends and party members, Damaris, is from a noble family and we are all invited to stay in the family home for as long as we need. Less luckily, on our first full day in the city, the twins are in the marketplace and happen upon Voldel.

Dal, in that moment, was distracted, but Del... Del just stared and hoped she wouldn’t notice the two of them. Which didn’t work. The moment Voldel saw two 14 year old, half elf, biracial, red headed twins she knew exactly who we were. And she walked right over! It only took a few moments after that for Dal to realize what was going on and instantly tell Voldel “oh I’m a bard maybe I can work for you!!”

Voldel offered Dal training with one of her higher ranking bards and asked us where we were staying— which Dal told her. It’s worth mentioning that Dal got all the confidence, and Del got all the common sense. Dal is impulsive and snowy and graceful and daring, while Del is cautious and quiet and reliable and giving. Anyway. Dal was summoned to the headquarters of Voldel’s gang (The Vixens) that evening, and Del came to make sure they weren’t, you know, McMurdered. Nobody else in the party knew where we were. (And little did we know, our party cleric was actually off joining a rival mafia, The Hounds.)

At some point that evening, Voldel managed to corner Del alone, and asked for a chat. She took the girl into a secret room, a small space behind the room where my twin was getting their lesson that actually looked into the space via a false mirror. Voldel told Del that while bards are a dime a dozen, somebody with her skills could be harder to come by, and offered her a job. Del was thoroughly terrified. She didn’t want to associate with Voldel, she didn’t want to be here, but she has one character motivation— keep Dal safe. So, she said “I’ll say yes if Dal says yes.” Which is the same as saying yes.

Long story short, we’re in the mafia now, and one of our party members is in another mafia. I’m gonna fast forward this to the last session we all played together, because... that’s where the looming threat of death gets a bit more intense.

Basically. Rundown. Another party member joined the Hounds, the two in that mafia were introduced to the leading players over there, and Del and Dal were introduced to the higher ups over at the Vixens, and are given a job. Basically, we have to take a box and leave it on the front steps of an address that we’re given. Really, we should have known it was a bomb, but the twins are 14 and dumb.

Little did we know, the tavern we were going to be bombing was the same tavern our two party mates were in, being introduced to their new coworkers. And, through pure happenstance (DM magic), all the other members of our party happened to be in the area/walking by at the same moment.

Bombing goes awry because one of our party members inside the tavern passed his perception check, the twins get injured and several of our fellow Vixens are killed. They flee back to the Vixens’ headquarters, and are met by the head of Del’s department, who tells them to go home. Dal feels unsafe around the party and chooses to stay, and Del’s boss waits until she’s alone with her and tells Del to go. That Dal will be safe. The twins have never so much as spent a night away from each other, but Del obeys.

And this is where things go from bad to worse. Alone with Dal, Voldel uses zone of truth and interrogates then about the members of our party that joined the hounds. At the end of it, she told Dal “your sister has been compromised” and locked them in a cell. She used modify memory to make Dal think that they got captured by the Hounds and Del abandoned them. Dal is bait, at this point. Del is the one she wants.

She’s going to die.

That is the saddest character development I have ever heard in my life

 

[laceanddoodles]

That is the saddest character development I have ever heard in my life

My group always keeps backup characters on hand, because this kind of thing... tends to happen.

 

[Afropuppy]

My group always keeps backup characters on hand, because this kind of thing... tends to happen.

I would never do that cruel of a thing to any of my characters damn xD

 

[laceanddoodles]

I would never do that cruel of a thing to any of my characters damn xD

I even left out some of the details, like the fact that Dal has always idolized their mother, and when the twins went to go see her and inform her that their dad is dead, she straight up told Dal that she doesn't love them and they need to move on. And then we discovered that the bard who'd been giving Dal lessons is actually our half sister. So. Y'know.

 

[Archie]

I'd rather join a roleplay that lasts long enough for this to even be a question. If you're at the point where you're actually looking to kill off characters, you've already succeeded.

 

[Jet]

Dying in RPs is unpopular. I've had optional death mechanics before, the opt-in % is tiny even when the risk is very low. I can understand the lack of interest, it's a lot of work to post for characters over and over. For them to die is a huge loss of cumulative effort toward character and plan building. I've had some characters in death mechanic RPs but I've never lost one. Idk if I'd be open to it again but it's intriguing, adding actual unpredictability so maybe one day.

Overall, I'm kind of "meh" on it.

 

[Grey]

As a player, I've volunteered to have my characters killed at least three times and twice used that to build on my next character and the overarching plot (for example, playing a character who had previously been an NPC who was inspired to join the fight by the heroic sacrifice of my previous character). It sometimes leads to cool scenes where characters reminisce about fallen friends.
If I go into a game of Call of Cthulhu or Shadow of the Demon Lord I expect that my character could die like a dog for no good reason.

As a GM I favour systems where players can die, but to date they've always taken that threat seriously so very few have died. I've maimed a few, though.

 

[Afropuppy]

I'd rather join a roleplay that lasts long enough for this to even be a question. If you're at the point where you're actually looking to kill off characters, you've already succeeded.

I must be doing something right then!

 

[Dirge]

If you’re scared your character might die don’t put them in situations with high chances of them dying without taking the same risk your character is and losing them. It kills the suspense.

For single person narratives (writing a solo story) plot line immunity is unavoidable for obvious reasons. But if you’re RPing and your generic level one OC is trying to fight a legendary dragon and they DONT die regardless of the reason for surviving, it is written off as plot armor. The more ridiculous the circumstances of survival based off prior knowledge of what the character can do, the more it screams plot armor.

If you’re in a zombie apocalypse and you had a chance of dying by running out into a horde to grab something, would you appreciate a higher power throwing you into that situation if you could avoid it? Pretty sure you wouldn’t. Pretty sure that’s how your character would feel about you doing that to them too if they were real.

 

[Onmyoji]

For roleplays I prefer "plotline immortality" if I want to keep playing the character but with a possibility to kill it if I want to quit the roleplay.

If I create a character for a roleplay I want to play that one, not some other if my character gets killed. So would be nice to not have it killed without GM asking me about it first.

I had an issue with a roleplay once where someone killed a few characters in their post without talking to other players. I quit that rp because I didn't want to create a new character and wasn't asked if I'm okay to have it killed.
One of the reasons I don't enjoy group roleplays, I don't like when people decide for me and my characters without asking.

The exception would be fandom rp where the character dies in canon. But in that case I would be prepared for it.

 

[Lorsh]

In my roleplays, the plot usually is based around survival, so if they didn't have a chance to perish it would be pretty boring.

I obviously give them some leeway when they make dangerous but necessary/smart decisions, but if they do something outright stupid they usually suffer or die.

 

[Crayons]

Can I be cheeky and say "plotline mortality"? Rather than death being a risk, death is more entered into as a story point. So there's no risk of dying unless you're ready to kill the character for the narrative.

Plot armour can be pretty boring if your character is in genuine danger and you have to create ridiculous work arounds to save them. Something happened to me in an RP recently where we had two characters in a duel during a battle. One of them had already been played in scenes taking place in the future, so he had to survive. The other one had to survive in order to win the war so that the characters owned by the RP's new leaders were ruling the nation. The scene was pretty torturous as we tried to find ways that these two didn't kill each other, and was extremely unsatisfying as a result. If there weren't OOC reasons to keep both of them alive, I probably would have been OK with my character getting offed at that point.

 

[spookie]

plot immortality for sure, though i'm not opposed to character death at all... as long as it's on my terms.

i love writing angsty, dark fantasy and death comes with the territory there, but if or when my character dies, i want it to be in a way that compliments their story and actually means something. putting in hours of work when a character can just die to a random low-level enemy attack or natural disaster? it isn't appealing to me unless that particular feature only applies to side characters who don't require so much effort to create. this might be different if i know i can trust the gm to only kill my character in a way that's at least fitting to their personal narrative, but i'd have to be quite familiar with them before i joined such a setting.

another thing is when i know my character can be killed for making any kind of mistake, it gets harder to write them properly. if the character is supposed to be brave, they should obviously act that way... but knowing i could lose all my hard work just by trying to fight the wrong enemy that my character would absolutely choose to fight can quickly turn them into overly-cautious and ooc shells of their original plan. i enjoy fully playing out every vice and virtue of my character, in a believable way of course, but that becomes more difficult when the goal goes from 'use this character to enhance and liven up the story' to 'keep them alive long enough to do stuff'.

now, as i've said before, i am not at all against killing off characters. most of the time roleplays die long before any characters can, but the few times i've managed to write a death scene, they've been impactful and added to the narrative.

in fact, i sometimes even create characters who are meant to die in a certain way later in the rp... like a spoiled secret dark prince character i'm currently playing who likely won't survive his adventure so long as the rp lasts long enough (knock on wood). but even with him, i wouldn't want some gm just killing him off from a random wolf attack or something... the death i have planned for him is a suitable ending to his character arc and one i hope will manage to evoke feelings even if he's inherently disliked by almost everyone.

honestly, if you make death optional and allow more than one character, i'm happy to make a sacrifice or two for your rp so long as i know you won't kill my main character without my permission.

 

[Afropuppy]

another thing is when i know my character can be killed for making any kind of mistake, it gets harder to write them properly. if the character is supposed to be brave, they should obviously act that way... but knowing i could lose all my hard work just by trying to fight the wrong enemy that my character would absolutely choose to fight can quickly turn them into overly-cautious and ooc shells of their original plan. i enjoy fully playing out every vice and virtue of my character, in a believable way of course, but that becomes more difficult when the goal goes from 'use this character to enhance and liven up the story' to 'keep them alive long enough to do stuff'.

To be honest, same. Here's an example:

i was playing as a foal for a deer herd roleplay once, and I was really enjoying it too! It was my second deer roleplay on the site and I was getting bored of playing wolves over and over again. I had made a really confident, curious, friendly and overall positive little deer and I was very proud of her. Her only flaw was that she couldn't understand when danger was nearby and didn't get scared easily like the other foals did, leading to her abandoning the herd for short amounts of time chasing butterflies and stuff. I knew that the deer could die during wolf attacks but that was usually the stupid ones who tried to fight 8 wolves at once or something. One day though, I quit it. Why? because that day the GM said this exact thing in the OOC:

"By the way, did I mention in the rules that all foal characters have a very high chance of dying? Realisticly speeking (Yes, he wrote the typo too) the wolves would go for the foals first so it only makes sence. Also, Spirit, (My username on the site was Howling Spirits so everyone called me Spirit) you should probably stick with the herd because you might wander too far off into danger and if you're all alone it's an insta-kill."

Lemme give you a hint: No, he didn't mention it. I really hope the GM just said something like "Snowflake wandered off into the forest, never to be seen or heard of again." and didn't hint at the 100% chance that she got eaten by wolves