Low survivability scenarios

[trevlix]

As a player, how would you feel about a scenario where the likelihood of survival or winning is extremely low?

I'm in the middle of writing a one-shot scenario where the odds of surviving are severely stacked against the players. In fact, in my mind, its a much more enjoyable (for the player) ending if they don't survive. I've even run a few scenarios in the past where they were written so the players could not survive and everyone seemed to enjoy it, so I don't think it will be a problem (as long as its a fun game).

My purpose for writing this is for a convention, where the characters will not be re-used. However, I wanted to get other Keepers' experiences and thoughts on this subject.

[jabonko]

I love scenarios where my character is put out of commission. However, I appreciate advance notice.

I enjoy the opportunity to work with the GM/Keeper to build a story in which my character spirals into madness or puts himself in harms way. I just don't like it much when it happens suddenly, without warning, and doesn't afford me the chance to work my own character's story up to that point.

For example:
I played in a game which ended with our characters being killed by a Mi-Go. Throughout the adventure, however, I kept building and building my character's fear of dying. So at the end when the GM was trying to kill us, I said "can't I go with it?" The GM liked the idea and since it fit his story, and fit mine exceptionally well, the Mi-Go killed my character's body, but took his brain and placed it in one of their infamous cylinders. This lead to a great "closing shot."

GM: Slowly you regain your sight, but the colors are all off, as if filtered through a strange lens. You can't shift your focus, your gaze is set straight ahead down a long corridor lined with jars and cylinders of various sizes. You see the large crustacean-like creature that brought you here and hear a faint buzzing and clicking sound. Then it turns to leave.
Me: No! No wait! Come back! You can't leave me alone here! Come back! NOOOOoooooooo

[doccthulhu]

What mortality rates players enjoy(?) is totally up to the players and, hopefully would meet their expectations. My own campaigns were relatively 'gentle' as I knew my players would not like losing their characterts every session or so.

But for tournament scenarios, I always let out the stops. Everybody dead at the end was usually more than satisfactory, though I made efforts to keep investigators alive for the better portion of the scenario, so they felt they got their money's worth.

I liked writing tournament scenarios.

Doc

[Karloff]

Generally speaking, one-shots (presumably with pregen characters) are expected to have a high mortality rate. It's the nature of the beast; everyone knows it's a horror game, and everyone knows that they're not going to revist either the characters or the setting again. Ergo: death rate skyrockets.

A campaign is different. The GM needs survivable scenarios, at least in the opening rounds; otherwise, plot-critical PCs could snuff it at the wrong moment. Later in the campaign, of course, (and particularly the climax) all gloves are off - but then, most players would expect as much.

[Robbie]

Personally I can deal with inevitable character death in a one-off, regardless of whether you spell out the fatality level before we play. However, both as a player and Keeper I veer towards there being a slim chance of making it through, perhaps not unscathed but alive.

Of course, sometimes it's actually a quite powerful device to present the the players with a situation where they have to choose to make the ultimate sacrifice (or not). Take for example a situation where the only way the nuke is going to go off is if one (or more) players remain behind to activate it? You get the idea? Problem is that if they all decide to flee -- and there is a way out -- you might end up with an unsatisfactory scenario conclusion where they don't complete their objective?

Only you know the parameters of the scenario and its set up.

[ProfSpender]

I quite enjoyed having my character die in tournament sessions. It may have been the way they went - one got hit by an asteroid while trying to take out a GOO with the dynamite strapped to his belt. It usually was satisfying from a dramatic point of view. As a Keeper, I try to avoid anticlimactic deaths along the lines of "You fail your climb roll and take 4D6 damage. Oh, you're dead?" However, I can't quite see how you would make sure about that in the writing of the scenario as opposed to the running of it - unless there is heavy railroading involved ("The doctor will die from the infestation at midnight of day three").

My two cents.

[Toad-Killer-dog]

I myself see no problem with high fatality con scenarios. Now if you are running them in a non-convention setting you should probably talk it over with the players and let them know it's nothing personal.

Ideally this should not be necessary, but I have gamed with a number of keepers over the years that took an adversarial attitude and ruined the experience by making it a keeper versus players affair.

Some of my favorite CoC moments have been my characters deaths ( never went permanently mad, go figure! ) but it's always more enjoyable when the players are in on the fun.

Happy New Year to all!

[trevlix]

However, both as a player and Keeper I veer towards there being a slim chance of making it through, perhaps not unscathed but alive.

I agree with this as well. I always like having some type of _slim_ possibility of survival. After all, thats part of the fun.

Of course, sometimes it's actually a quite powerful device to present the the players with a situation where they have to choose to make the ultimate sacrifice (or not).

Again, I have not fully written the scenario. Its in outline phase, meaning anything is subject to change. However, I envision the PCs getting captured and incapacitated in the end by the real bad guys. It is during this incapacitation the reality of what is going on is revealed. I want to give the players a chance to figure it out before the end, but I'm hoping to have the clues subtle enough that when they find out whats going on they all go, they clues are clear.

[neorxnawang]

Each game has an unspoken compact about how the GM will treat the players. My view on the CofC compact (which is harsher than many other games) is as follows:

1. If you do something obviously stupid/rookie mistake and die, c'est la vie.
2. I will try to minimize "splash damage" casualties, such as from stray gunshots, where you have played well.
3. Unless I tell you otherwise, there is a solution that is survivable.
4. I reserve the right to tell you otherwise.
5. I make no promises about abusing your investigators in other ways, short of irreversible death. Bad SAN losses, monsters getting chummy with you, etc. all fair game.

I have run a few games where I say right up front, channelling Sgt. Phil, "Ladies and Gentlemen, let's be careful out there." Then they're on notice that the compact is out of order for this session

[sglancy12]

I refuse to write (or publish) scenarios that have no way for the players' characters to survive. It's just not fair...

I know there are people who are going to say "Oh but the Lovecraftian Universe is unfair and if you don't kill your players every once in a while they won't respect you as a Keeper."

Fellas, if you have to kill your players to keep their fear and respect, then you ain't much of a Keeper.

I mean, seriously, the opposition is tough enough... the players are dumb enough... the game mechanics are unforgiving enough... there will be plenty of times where none of the players are going to get out alive. You don't have to design it that way.

[cpt_machine]

I prefer to one of two things
Usually when running or playing a one off game I dont mind a game where the odds are stacked against you, dying in something like that is never a problem.
When I get the chance to run a long campaign, I'm very gentle. I do usually end it with a high body count but I dont kill off players half way through if I can.

[Danharms]

I have similar feelings. Just remember, once you kill a character, it cuts down the possibilities on what terrible things you can do to them next.

[MrFilthyIke]

I don't like killing characters...torturing and driving them insane is faaaaaar more fun.

[GBSteve]

In convention games I'm always a bit disappointed if there is a high survival rate. I expect death and madness. In longer games it's much harder to manage character development and survival so I see conventions as an opportunity to get back to grass roots horror and death.

So I'm very happy for scenarios to be designed so that at least one character will cop it.

[justadame]

I guess if the Players know which kind of scenario their playing (ie high mortality or campaign style) then all is well.
If they know it's high mortality they won't 'invest ' too much in their characters and will enjoy it more............