I had an idea for an RP that I'm unsure as to whether or not it would work in practice, and I'm hoping that people more experienced than myself could give their opinion on it. I'm very willing to bet that I'm not the first to have this idea, but i flipped through many of the RPs on this site and haven't found one like it yet.

The gist of it is having a handful of characters locked in some sort of dungeon with multiple levels, and the only way to progress to the next level is for one of the characters to die. Choosing which character gets the axe would be determined through a game or trial, specifically designed to encourage players to try and outwit one another. I thought that utilizing PMs would be a core mechanic, similar to mystery RPs that I've seen.

For example, one trial could involve the GM sending a private message with a certain word to each player. The goal for every player involved would be to get one of the other characters to say that specific word, and the first one to say one of those words would be marked for death. Doing things this way would of course require the cooperation of everyone involved, and would hinge on a good faith clause that the players don't simply PM each other to spoil things. Which could be a pitfall.

Smaller non-lethal trials could be interspersed to give the characters room to develop and interact with each other, hopefully endearing themselves to some of the other players, and maybe to keep the players guessing which trials can result in death and which ones can't.

Trickery and forming alliances would be a big part of the RP, and I'd be a bit worried that it could result in people getting pissed at each other, which is the last thing I would want. But other than making it ABUNDANTLY clear in the OP that no character is safe from death, I'm not sure how else one could try to prevent that kind of thing. I'd be leery of letting a player create another character if their first one died, because that would trivialize the danger of character death and undercut the whole idea.

Anyway, if anyone has an opinion I'd greatly appreciate it. I just wanted some feedback on the general idea before even considering doing an interest check.

Strange concept. Could possibly intrigue some sorts of people.

What do you imagine happens to the players whose characters die? is there any reason in your idea for them to stick around?

I think it would be necessary for a player whose character has died to no longer participate in the RP. I'd thought about having some sort of second chance clause, like letting them create another character, but I think doing that would be counterproductive. If there's no penalty for dying, then there would be no real impetus to keep themself alive, other than a sense of attachment to their character I guess.

The way I had it in my head is that the RP would be almost completely based on character development and interaction. Would a player want to try to form bonds and create allies, be a loner, or an opportunist who would throw another character under the bus to live through the round? Trust, guile and suspicion would all be equally important.

It's a tough road.

Your idea is novel in itself, but not unique in RPing. I'm currently running a (very slow) murder mystery. It's no secret that the player characters are among the targets, and nobody has died yet. I've also seen games based on the Werewolves/Mafia parlour game (in which players have to vote to kill off a secret traitor, who is working against them).

Honestly, if you clearly explain that characters are going to die and that other players will have a hand in it, and somebody throws a tantrum because they got murdered, show them the door. Healthy player competition is what will force players to ally themselves with one another and play tactically - technically, this is metagaming, but some people (like me) don't have problems with it in some games (like this one).

The problem you're going to have is balancing keeping true to the Anybody Can Die principle and not scaring people off. I would definitely think twice about making a decent character and commit to an RP whose second page I might not even get to. I'm not saying it would stop me (it hasn't stopped the players in my Murder Mystery), but it might thin out your interest. If character deaths being influenced by the other players is a plot-point, you may have to think about what you do if a player drops out.

In principle, mandatory character deaths can and do work. On a side-thought, God knows I've GM'd games and killed off player characters whose players have dropped out (either spitefully or with their blessing!). The only difference here is that it's working the other way round.

I appreciate your feedback.

I agree that it would be a precarious balancing act to keep things tense without scaring off too many potential players. I did have the idea of introducing 'lesser trials' that would not result in character death. The idea was that players would not always know whether or not a trial will result in character death, and hopefully this would both lengthen the amount of time that players get to remain in the RP and encourage them to take care in how their character attempts to help or trick other characters. I would imagine that if 'A' betrays 'B' in an effort to save himself only to find out that the trial didn't cause 'B' to die that it could create problems for him in the future. Thought it might add a layer of strategy and encourage caution in how characters and players interact.

If a player drops out in the middle of the RP, the only course of action I've thought of so far would be to write them out and (hopefully) replace them with another willing player. Though this would bring its own set of problems: it's unlikely that the new character would fare as well as the established ones that have been there from the beginning. Players probably wouldn't feel nearly as attached to new blood as they would characters that they've worked with (or against) from the start, and it would be kind of shitty if they were introduced just to be quickly killed off. It's an issue I'll have to think about further.

It's definitely not an idea that everyone would enjoy or be interested in, but I'm very curious to see if it can bear fruit.

I agree that it would be a precarious balancing act to keep things tense without scaring off too many potential players. I did have the idea of introducing 'lesser trials' that would not result in character death. The idea was that players would not always know whether or not a trial will result in character death, and hopefully this would both lengthen the amount of time that players get to remain in the RP and encourage them to take care in how their character attempts to help or trick other characters. I would imagine that if 'A' betrays 'B' in an effort to save himself only to find out that the trial didn't cause 'B' to die that it could create problems for him in the future. Thought it might add a layer of strategy and encourage caution in how characters and players interact.

---

If a player drops out in the middle of the RP, the only course of action I've thought of so far would be to write them out and (hopefully) replace them with another willing player.

My instinct would be to reduce the size of the group dramatically, and have not every trial result in a character death.

What this means is that you have fewer players to try to keep tabs on, and you can manipulate the game to kill players off at a gentler pace, guaranteeing that they get some bang for their buck. Of course, if somebody does drop out, then that's going to be a bigger hurdle to overcome, but I think you would struggle to persuade another player to take over the same character, especially if much of the game has been about metagame strategy and subtle interactions with the GM and/or other players.

Reducing group size is definitely an option. In my head the ideal size of the group would be 6 people, but perhaps limiting it to 4 or 5 would be a better idea.

An RP like this could have more than one 'round' of play if enough people show interest. Perhaps doing an initial run with a smaller group of people while increasing the amount of trials would be sound. It'd help everyone get into the groove of things and give me a chance to work out any kinks.

Of course that all depends on whether or not the idea catches on, so that's a wait-and-see kinda thing.

Killing off a player's character is an easy way to kill off an RP itself due to people thinking that they're being targeted. People will take time and effort to create their characters and naturally they want them to survive as much as possible to hopefully be the hero in the end. It's a neat idea by all means and would be great in a Hunger Games like Roleplay, but that what you as the GM would have to do is sever that connection between the Player and Character from the get go.

Thinking about it and like what was touched on above, you will probably find that a small, or very small group would work well, and maybe they have to create multiple characters. Let's say you have 5 players with 3 characters each. That's 15 possible characters to kill off. Not all have to die in the end, but the magnitude of knowing that your character may "die" is a fear that could keep the RP going for a long time.

I would also suggest playing, or watching Danganronpa (Game and Anime). It's a school where the students have to kill each other and starts off with 16 but ends with about 5 who survive. Even though 5 people survive, it has you hooked from the get go because that character you may like just may die in the next scenario.

Thank you for weighing in on the matter.

There will certainly need to be a disconnect between player and character for the idea to work as intended. Since camaraderie, trickery and attempting to endear oneself to others are big parts of the idea, characters would need to be as separated from their creators as possible. Otherwise it might facilitate players just playing favorites with one another rather than doing in IC. One idea I've been mulling over that might aid that would be to have a two-part character screening process.

The first part would be for a player to publicly post the more obvious attributes of their character, namely what one would notice about them at first glance, or how they would be viewed by someone who didn't know them. For the second part, the player would PM me the more in-depth facets of the character's personality and backstory. I was thinking that keeping the nuances and more complex components of the characters hidden from the OOC thread would force the players to organically reveal and discover them as the RP progresses. This would hopefully help the characters come into their own and keep them divorced from their creators, make them feel more like real people that you learn more and more about rather than a pre-made mannequin that the player is acting through. Ultimately though, some good faith and good sportsmanship will probably be required. As GM I'd be as impartial as I can, but I can't guarantee the same for anyone else involved.

Honestly I'm reluctant to allow players to create more than one character if they'd be running at the same time. The reason I got interested in the idea to begin with was figuring out a way to maximize the consequences of character death, and I think allowing a player only one character, emphasizing interaction and growth, and stacking the odds against their survival would cultivate a sense of loss if they fail. Making a character's death feel like a punch in the gut is what I'm going for, frankly. I'm not completely unreceptive to your suggestion, though. Allowing multiple characters might keep people engaged and help protect against any one player being ganged up on just for the hell of it. It might be necessary if the support for my current idea isn't there.

EDIT: Forgot to explain why I picked the 'only one survivor' rule: I was afraid that if more than one character is given the chance to live to the end that it'd compel people to buddy up for the whole length of the RP without fear of betrayal, or at least there'd be much less of a chance that alliances could change. If two people pair up when there'll only be one survivor, they both know that one of them won't make it, keeping some tension between even the strongest friendships that might've been able to go unchallenged in a different format.

I'm aware of Dangan Ronpa though I've only seen parts of it, and kinda forgot it existed until you brought it up. I'll give it another whirl when I get the chance.

The first part would be for a player to publicly post the more obvious attributes of their character, namely what one would notice about them at first glance, or how they would be viewed by someone who didn't know them. For the second part, the player would PM me the more in-depth facets of the character's personality and backstory. I was thinking that keeping the nuances and more complex components of the characters hidden from the OOC thread would force the players to organically reveal and discover them as the RP progresses. This would hopefully help the characters come into their own and keep them divorced from their creators, make them feel more like real people that you learn more and more about rather than a pre-made mannequin that the player is acting through.

This has definitely been done and definitely works and I completely endorse this for a secretive game. My own game runs on this system and, because we're a tight-knit group, I can trust my players not to leak info. I simply asked players for pictures, presented the pictures and first names to the group in-public, and when they all met for the first time, suggested they state in OoC any objective, observable features like expressions and accents. That was all the players had to work on going in.

One thing I used was a Canon Cut-off. That was, any and all facets of that character could be considered important to their being or likely to come up were to be PM'd to me before the player's first post. Until then, they had as long as they wanted to tweak and discuss their character with me, but, from their first post, the information was locked down and unchangeable. They didn't know what their characters would be faced with when they made them, and were obliged to stick with it.

The reason I got interested in the idea to begin with was figuring out a way to maximize the consequences of character death, and I think allowing a player only one character, emphasizing interaction and growth, and stacking the odds against their survival would cultivate a sense of loss if they fail. Making a character's death feel like a punch in the gut is what I'm going for, frankly.

I don't know enough about your game's content, but, if a player was to create more than one character and one died, you could perhaps have the corpse turn up later in a particularly brutal, Saw-esque fashion. I think if I were to see one of my creations who was taken from me turn up later, dismembered and degraded, that would be rather cutting - but, if I had another character, at least I would still be able to enjoy the game.

It's a fascinating idea, though not like anything I've ever tried or seen before. I'd suggest you give the whole game a test run with a group of RP friends, that way communication won't be as hard and you won't be uncertain about anyone dropping out unexpectedly, and (hopefully) camaraderie will overrule any of the hostility that comes with trying to kill each other. With a setup like that I think it could be rather fun.

I'd be interested in doing a test run, but truthfully I have almost no real RP friends. At least not on this site. At the moment it looks like the first attempt will be the test run. The best I can really do considering is just make it clear that this is my first go at it and that everyone needs to bear that in mind if they choose to participate.

Good luck to you. I hope it works out, even if you don't get it on the first try.

Thank you, here's hoping! I have a pretty one-track mind so if nothing else I'm persistent enough to stay dedicated to it.
@Jig Glad to hear that the 'canon cut-off' works. Also, your last paragraph gave me a delightfully sinister idea that I might use. Not quite as gruesome as Saw, but something in a similar vein.