Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
PERMANENT CHARACTER DEATH IN YOUR STORY?
Posts
polarcactus
View playlists
Closeauthor=CashmereCat
Ideally, the character should explode into a vat of XP and coins when they die. That way, everyone wins.
This made me lol so hard. That would be pretty hilarious in a parody game.
author=emmychauthor=LibertyO-Or, you keep them from dying because they're beautiful flowers and don't deserve to die a-a-and the world is better w-with them around and a bLOO BLOO BLOO BLOO ;____;
My stories are entities of their own. I'm not changing them when they work, just because someone is pussy-footed about losing a character they might grow attached to. Fuck that. I write a story where a character dies? As long as it works for the story and makes it better, I'm not going to change it. Of course, if it doesn't work then I'll definitely consider it, but sometimes you just gotta shank your characters. Sad truth, but truth all the same. If the story calls for it, then do it because you should.
Killing characters is literally the worst and I am so fucking bad at it, because I always end up SUPER ENDEARED and just want my characters to be happy. OTL I agree, though, that permanent character death is A Thing that should happen if it moves the story forward.
I'm just... a huge wuss about it...
That's why you should kill off your characters - if you get too attached then it stagnates your writing a bit. I'm not saying go on a killing spree, but at least play with the idea so you can get a feel for it. People die - they do. You can't save them forever.
Essentially, every character has a piece of you in them so killing them is killing yourself and you should do that a few times when it comes to your writing so that you have that experience to draw from. It can be hard, but it is worth it in the long run.
A good idea is to make a timeline and write out passages from it. Personally I like to pick birth, marriage (or falling in love), biggest loss, sex scene, being trapped, death and a few other bits and bobs. Then I write. It helps you a lot with your writing skills to be able to use such things.
You might not ever use it in a game or story about those characters, but just knowing how they die, what their first love was, where and how they were born... that makes them a lot more rounded-out in your mind and you can communicate them across so much more than if you just know the generic 'age, gender, religion, etc'. It makes them more realistic.
And you should at least kill one or two off as an experiment. Plan how you'd do so and how you'd change the game after their death in order to make it work. You don't have to actually put it in the game, but it can help point out issues that you never noticed (like one person being overpowered and thus game-breaking on comparison to other characters) and just make you a better writer and game dev.
Oh, and it isn't enough to kill off people you don't like. You have to kill off the ones you do. That gives you a feel for how your players - who should grow close to those characters - will feel about their deaths and about the character in general. You won't learn much from killing off someone who doesn't resonate with you - but killing off someone you hold near and dear? That will teach you a lot about yourself as a writer, person and game developer.
emmych
817
Eh, I've killed off characters (or, at least attempted to in roleplaying and stuff) before and it's just... man I do not like it. Death is just this very final thing, you know? You can't DO anything with a character after they die: like, that's it, game over, there's no where else they can grow.
Personally I'm more interested in seeing a character hit rock bottom and climb their way back out of it. I think that's more interesting than just ending someone's life, and I'm REALLY not a fan of killing off characters for the sake of other characters' arcs.
Overall I prefer non-lethal stories and writing losses that aren't death (relationships ending, losing a home, losing ability of some kind, etc.). Generally when I kill somebody off, it's because they've gone down such an irredeemable path that they can't really bounce back from it (and I have characters like this that I really love and adore!).
Personally I'm more interested in seeing a character hit rock bottom and climb their way back out of it. I think that's more interesting than just ending someone's life, and I'm REALLY not a fan of killing off characters for the sake of other characters' arcs.
Overall I prefer non-lethal stories and writing losses that aren't death (relationships ending, losing a home, losing ability of some kind, etc.). Generally when I kill somebody off, it's because they've gone down such an irredeemable path that they can't really bounce back from it (and I have characters like this that I really love and adore!).
Xenomic
1752
A lot of the deaths in my current game are for character and story development hands-down. Some of which are a lot of people's favorites (and a couple being mine too), so it hits a bit harder for those people (of course, if you don't know the series, then it probably won't mean as much as the game doesn't expand on character backstories like you'd expect in other games. It is a fangame after all so...but that doesn't mean I don't try with other characters!). There's one particular character who pulls a Galuf and is supposed to be a big character to the story in general (you get to use her from the 1/3rd point of the game to the 2/3rd point of the game, but a lot of the actions that have happened throughout the game have been because of her working behind the scenes. I'm having a hard time working with her though since I need to develop some good backstory to her as well as not make it seem like nobody will miss her too much if she's gone. It's not easy, lemme tell you.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Liberty
Of course, if it doesn't work then I'll definitely consider it, but sometimes you just gotta shank your characters.
See this is what I'm saying.
I don't get attached to characters much- they're characters, so their death isn't going to change anything to me- but I feel like protag death deserves a lot of impact in a story, to the point that it should be treated as a major, fundamental aspect and planned around.
It's not a minor change, and I've seen way too many stories that treat it as such, because it was a convenient way for the plot to go, and nobody really took a moment to consider any alternatives. (Triply bad when they bring the dead character back later because "the story calls for it!" painted them into a corner!)
Yeah, uh, did you read the full post? Because that's essentially what I said. That, and to experiment. You never get good at something unless you try it over and over again. You don't need to put it in your game but even just coming up with the death scenario works well to help you enhance the characterisation as well as your skill.
And you should at least kill one or two off as an experiment. Plan how you'd do so and how you'd change the game after their death in order to make it work. You don't have to actually put it in the game, but it can help point out issues that you never noticed (like one person being overpowered and thus game-breaking on comparison to other characters) and just make you a better writer and game dev.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I feel like at this point we're both kind of responding to something beyond what each other is saying anyway. :/
I think perhaps we're missing each others' points maybe. XD
We both agree that in the case of using a major character death, you should plan that shit out in many different ways - not just the story but also the gameplay, correct?
We both agree that in the case of using a major character death, you should plan that shit out in many different ways - not just the story but also the gameplay, correct?
RyaReisender
200
Permanent character death can completely ruin a game for me up to the point where I just stop playing it forever and never look back.
It depends which character dies, if it was my favorite character and he/she was always in my main party it's the worst.
If it's a character with a horrible personality that sucks so much in battle that I'd never even take him into my main group, I don't care too much.
I think that movies/series often manage to handle this much better by always adding something to the story that makes the character unlikeable before he/she dies.
It depends which character dies, if it was my favorite character and he/she was always in my main party it's the worst.
If it's a character with a horrible personality that sucks so much in battle that I'd never even take him into my main group, I don't care too much.
I think that movies/series often manage to handle this much better by always adding something to the story that makes the character unlikeable before he/she dies.
Jeroen_Sol
Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. A game of betrayal, where the most suspicious person is brutally murdered? How savage.
3885
author=Sooz
It's not a minor change, and I've seen way too many stories that treat it as such, because it was a convenient way for the plot to go, and nobody really took a moment to consider any alternatives. (Triply bad when they bring the dead character back later because "the story calls for it!" painted them into a corner!)
While things like that are definitely bad writing, I can think of a few scenarios where anything BUT killing off a certain character would be bad writing.
In the game that I work on and off on, one character, my favourite, is indoctrinated and truly devoted to his cause and goddess. Eventually the party learns that that goddess has double-crossed them and decides to turn against her. The character who is indoctrinated however, cannot possibly fathom that the goddess he held in such high regard could be anything but benevolent. At that point he naturally feels betrayed by his party, and anything but killing him off while throwing himself into a hopeless fight against that which he believes needs to be destroyed would be weak, would destroy his character, and I would even argue it would be disrespectful to him.
^Exactly.
Sometimes your characters and the plot give you no choice but to kill them. It would be wrong not to do so, for many reasons. No matter how hard it may be to kill them off, no matter how much you love them and want to see them have a chance to live and change, sometimes they just have to die.
A game I had makes it so that there are two worlds that are slowly erasing each other. You have to choose one to survive, but with that survival comes the loss of at least one member of your party who is from each world. One is your brother, the other is your best friend/possible lover. The player, as the main character, has to make that choice because she is the lynchpin, the one who set the destruction into motion. She has to take responsibility for what she did and in so doing, destroy a part of herself.
Who does she condemn to death? Which world full of people you've learned to love do you destroy? The whole game focuses on sacrifice - from the choice she makes early on where she saves her best friend but allows the princess to die (which throws the country into chaos as she's the sole heir and they were supposed to protect her) to the killing of a monster who was spared by 'the evil guy' because it was a mother protecting her babies. The choices made in the story all lead up to that ultimate choice which is left in the players' hands.
That's another thing - making the player choose who dies or not. I've used this idea in a few games (that haven't been released). Think The Walking Dead where you have to pick to save one person or the other. It changes small things in the story and it can be very, very effective. It also gives the player a chance to get rid of a person they like over someone they don't (or tear their hair out over having to pick between two well-loved characters) and makes for compelling story.
Killing your characters is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you do it right.
Oh, and fuck making them unlikeable before you kill them. That is the cowards' way out. If you write a character and they have to die, don't suddenly make them hated by the player. It lessens their death and is disrespectful towards both the player and the character. Don't cheapen a death, ever. If you must kill off a character that is likeable, eke every bit of pain from it that you can and turn it into a reason for the player to keep going in the hopes of revenge. If the player leaves the game because of it, that's their issue.
(That said, it helps not making just one likeable character. None of your main party should be annoying or easy to hate, especially if you have plans to kill off one of them. There should always be at least one other character who is just as likeable as the dead one.)
Sometimes your characters and the plot give you no choice but to kill them. It would be wrong not to do so, for many reasons. No matter how hard it may be to kill them off, no matter how much you love them and want to see them have a chance to live and change, sometimes they just have to die.
A game I had makes it so that there are two worlds that are slowly erasing each other. You have to choose one to survive, but with that survival comes the loss of at least one member of your party who is from each world. One is your brother, the other is your best friend/possible lover. The player, as the main character, has to make that choice because she is the lynchpin, the one who set the destruction into motion. She has to take responsibility for what she did and in so doing, destroy a part of herself.
Who does she condemn to death? Which world full of people you've learned to love do you destroy? The whole game focuses on sacrifice - from the choice she makes early on where she saves her best friend but allows the princess to die (which throws the country into chaos as she's the sole heir and they were supposed to protect her) to the killing of a monster who was spared by 'the evil guy' because it was a mother protecting her babies. The choices made in the story all lead up to that ultimate choice which is left in the players' hands.
That's another thing - making the player choose who dies or not. I've used this idea in a few games (that haven't been released). Think The Walking Dead where you have to pick to save one person or the other. It changes small things in the story and it can be very, very effective. It also gives the player a chance to get rid of a person they like over someone they don't (or tear their hair out over having to pick between two well-loved characters) and makes for compelling story.
Killing your characters is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you do it right.
Oh, and fuck making them unlikeable before you kill them. That is the cowards' way out. If you write a character and they have to die, don't suddenly make them hated by the player. It lessens their death and is disrespectful towards both the player and the character. Don't cheapen a death, ever. If you must kill off a character that is likeable, eke every bit of pain from it that you can and turn it into a reason for the player to keep going in the hopes of revenge. If the player leaves the game because of it, that's their issue.
(That said, it helps not making just one likeable character. None of your main party should be annoying or easy to hate, especially if you have plans to kill off one of them. There should always be at least one other character who is just as likeable as the dead one.)
It was exactly because Aerith was so likeable that her death had so much impact. (though really was she because when I replayed ff7 i was like "dumb ho go away" everytime she appeared bcuz tifa>aerith)
Same thing applies to Tellah the Sage (although you don't see many more 70 years old sages in RPGs anymore) but Tellah was a really likeable character. When he died I was like *pant* *pant* *pant*
Half of the designers I know, though, would rather kill of Vicks and Wedge xD
That's cheap.
Same thing applies to Tellah the Sage (although you don't see many more 70 years old sages in RPGs anymore) but Tellah was a really likeable character. When he died I was like *pant* *pant* *pant*
Half of the designers I know, though, would rather kill of Vicks and Wedge xD
That's cheap.
I despise permanent character death in stories. Generally, I like the "comic book" death (so named for comic books where X was dead, but five issues later underwent some supersecret return appearance, where they are much stronger). And I generally like stories where even if the character dies, there's something like the Farplane or reincarnation going on.
Harry Potter is a good example. J.K. Rowling decided to kill off a bunch of characters for the "emotional impact". It just came across as pretentious and stupid. Tonks and Lupin were really too cool to die, the twin (forgot even which one) nah, Dobby and Cedric were the only memorable deaths. The rest just struck me as heavy-handed and pointless.
Let's compare Magic Knight Rayearth. Two characters die. Emeraude and Zagato. Zagato was the "big bad" only in a shocking twist he actually wasn't. He was trying to make a world where the Pillar (basically, the support of the entire world) didn't have to constantly pray for peace and happiness. And Emeraude died so she could be free, and be with Zagato, who she loved. They both sacrificed for a world where "flowers could grow without the Pillar." So when the New Pillar came (no spoilers), she wished to abolish the Pillar system. (1) People had an afterlife, and (2) no senseless deaths.
Oh yea, and I hate permadeath dungeon crawlers with a passion. Killing random nameless characters just for "realism" or something.
Make no mistake, I don't get prissy about murder and disease. I've had characters whack off townspeople because they insulted them. It's the idea of knowing that this character has hopes and dreams and goals, and just throwing them away. That just makes you a twit, not anything dramatic.
Harry Potter is a good example. J.K. Rowling decided to kill off a bunch of characters for the "emotional impact". It just came across as pretentious and stupid. Tonks and Lupin were really too cool to die, the twin (forgot even which one) nah, Dobby and Cedric were the only memorable deaths. The rest just struck me as heavy-handed and pointless.
Let's compare Magic Knight Rayearth. Two characters die. Emeraude and Zagato. Zagato was the "big bad" only in a shocking twist he actually wasn't. He was trying to make a world where the Pillar (basically, the support of the entire world) didn't have to constantly pray for peace and happiness. And Emeraude died so she could be free, and be with Zagato, who she loved. They both sacrificed for a world where "flowers could grow without the Pillar." So when the New Pillar came (no spoilers), she wished to abolish the Pillar system. (1) People had an afterlife, and (2) no senseless deaths.
Oh yea, and I hate permadeath dungeon crawlers with a passion. Killing random nameless characters just for "realism" or something.
Make no mistake, I don't get prissy about murder and disease. I've had characters whack off townspeople because they insulted them. It's the idea of knowing that this character has hopes and dreams and goals, and just throwing them away. That just makes you a twit, not anything dramatic.
Uh... gonna have to disagree with you on that one, bb. I hate the old 'not really dead' shtick. Even the comics laugh it up when they kill a character off because the emotional impact is gone no matter who they kill. Any life or death situation a main X-men character is put in is halved in emotion because you just know they're coming back. It has little to no impact at all.
Kill them off, keep 'em dead. People die. Characters are people and should die (and I don't mean over and over in a 'not really dead, lol' way.) When you're dead you should stay dead. Unless, you know, zombies.
Harry Potter's deaths were quite well done. The issue with the deaths at the end wasn't who was killed but the short amount of time between the deaths, but then, that's war for you. People falling all around you, you become numb to it. It replicated the emotional severance quite well.
You... probably shouldn't play any of my non-realeased games (not that you can, but, you know... XD ) I'll kill the main character - I don't give a fuck! I had one game recently where the Hero of Legend, the Chosen Child who was supposed to take down the big bad... well, he dies within the first few minutes of the game because a kid taking on a big bad? Not likely to survive.
There was another which I was making for a competition where all the main party dies. They are fighting against mega bad guy and he beats them because he had a thief steal the sword of mcguffin the night before and replace it with a replica. Cue the main character not having a weapon during the fight. With their death the rebellion is crushed and they are branded traitors, remembered in history as evil terrorists who tried to take down the rightful leader (may he be praised!)
Shock factor ain't a bad thing, btw. Dunno why so many people hate it. Probably because they haven't seen it done right that often or get too attached. God forbid any of you read Game of Thrones.
Just... don't. Save yourself the heartache. Or do, and learn to appreciate how artistically someone can rip your heart out and slam it against the floor.
Also, don't play SubStar. You wouldn't like it. It's just as your last line says.
Kill them off, keep 'em dead. People die. Characters are people and should die (and I don't mean over and over in a 'not really dead, lol' way.) When you're dead you should stay dead. Unless, you know, zombies.
Harry Potter's deaths were quite well done. The issue with the deaths at the end wasn't who was killed but the short amount of time between the deaths, but then, that's war for you. People falling all around you, you become numb to it. It replicated the emotional severance quite well.
You... probably shouldn't play any of my non-realeased games (not that you can, but, you know... XD ) I'll kill the main character - I don't give a fuck! I had one game recently where the Hero of Legend, the Chosen Child who was supposed to take down the big bad... well, he dies within the first few minutes of the game because a kid taking on a big bad? Not likely to survive.
There was another which I was making for a competition where all the main party dies. They are fighting against mega bad guy and he beats them because he had a thief steal the sword of mcguffin the night before and replace it with a replica. Cue the main character not having a weapon during the fight. With their death the rebellion is crushed and they are branded traitors, remembered in history as evil terrorists who tried to take down the rightful leader (may he be praised!)
Shock factor ain't a bad thing, btw. Dunno why so many people hate it. Probably because they haven't seen it done right that often or get too attached. God forbid any of you read Game of Thrones.
Just... don't. Save yourself the heartache. Or do, and learn to appreciate how artistically someone can rip your heart out and slam it against the floor.
Also, don't play SubStar. You wouldn't like it. It's just as your last line says.
author=bulmabriefs144
Oh yea, and I hate permadeath dungeon crawlers with a passion. Killing random nameless characters just for "realism" or something.
If you think they do that for realism then you're totes missing the point ;w;~
Just out of curiosity, has anyone gotten player feedback of "I quit playing after Character X died. They were my favorite and I lost interest in the game" or something similar? That's kind of my greatest fear when it comes to character death, especially if you're killing off a really likable character.
Never, unity. I've never, ever heard anyone say that about a game before. Even if they had, unless there were more than one person saying it (like 5-10), I wouldn't pay attention. Sometimes to tell a story you have to stick to your guns on things like character death.
(Ah, reminds me of a community game I was going to/may one day make called Pilgrim~)
(Ah, reminds me of a community game I was going to/may one day make called Pilgrim~)
author=Liberty
Never, unity. I've never, ever heard anyone say that about a game before. Even if they had, unless there were more than one person saying it (like 5-10), I wouldn't pay attention. Sometimes to tell a story you have to stick to your guns on things like character death.
(Ah, reminds me of a community game I was going to/may one day make called Pilgrim~)
Well, that's a relief. The closest I've gotten is a PM saying "Character X was my favorite and I liked their skills in battle. You should undo their death immediately!"
author=Liberty
I had one game recently where the Hero of Legend, the Chosen Child who was supposed to take down the big bad... well, he dies within the first few minutes of the game because a kid taking on a big bad? Not likely to survive.
There was another which I was making for a competition where all the main party dies. They are fighting against mega bad guy and he beats them because he had a thief steal the sword of mcguffin the night before and replace it with a replica. Cue the main character not having a weapon during the fight. With their death the rebellion is crushed and they are branded traitors, remembered in history as evil terrorists who tried to take down the rightful leader (may he be praised!)
Liberty, that is amazing! I didn't know you were so big on deconstructions (though I could have guessed it). Please make and finish more games with such concepts. I want to play!
author=bulmabriefs144
too cool to die
While I somewhat agree with you concering some of the deaths in HP, which just felt arbitrary and like an anticlimax, I think this is a very odd viewpoint. In many cases, the death of a positive character is supposed to feel unfair, because otherwise it loses all impact on the reader/player. This is of course not a justification for a writer to randomly kill off characters just to hurt his audience. But artificially keeping characters alive whose death is essential to set the tone and atmosphere is harmful to the entire story.
Sometimes, characters are too cool to live - their death (if done the right way and at the right time) will have a stronger emotional impact than any of their actions could ever have if they stayed alive.
Though, to make things easier for players and/or readers, I think it's often good to prepare them a bit for the loss, or just let the deaths occur at the end of the story. The effect will usually still be there, but it will be less frustrating on a gameplay level, and quitting because of the death of a loved character pretty much becomes a non-issue. Although I think doing that is a pretty childish move anyway.
Neok
3602
author=unity
Just out of curiosity, has anyone gotten player feedback of "I quit playing after Character X died. They were my favorite and I lost interest in the game" or something similar? That's kind of my greatest fear when it comes to character death, especially if you're killing off a really likable character.
Well my cousin quit playing FF7 after Aeris kicked it. I think it's pretty possible if you've got a really likeable character on death row.
