Systems You Might Not Need: the Designated Survivor

A weird thought came over me. 

"What if players could keep a character from dying?"

It was an odd thought, especially as I'm specifically designing a game where characters can, and will, die; it might not be some OSR-fever dream, but it certainly is intended to be far more lethal than 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, where I have almost never actually seen a character die. 

And yet the thought didn't go away. It nagged, and nagged. So I tried to describe it. A character who, quite simply, wouldn't die if they were killed. 

Which is to say, if they were in a position where death "could" have occurred--a fall into a chasm, a broadsword from a warrior, buried under an avalanche--they would be assumed to have, somehow, survived. The mechanism is up to the GM: they are taken prisoner, they are swept away by the current and washed up somewhere else; they fall to the ground but later awaken and drag themselves deeper into the swamps...

At first I called it "plot armor," but quickly realized that wasn't what I wanted. Eventually, I realized what I wanted: a designated survivor. 

The Designated Survivor is sort of like the mapper or the quartermaster, the party inventory manager: a character, chosen more or less by the party, to perform a role that makes the game work better even if it is slightly abstract. It might be more abstract, in a sense; the mapper is assumed to mimic a character actually making a map, or at least represent the ability of the human mind to get its bearings in an actual 3D space. The quartermaster is assumed to be able to actually look at the physical possessions the party has.

The designated survivor, on the other hand, is purely abstract. In theory it actually does nothing: any character can face these outcomes. It is always the GM's discretion to decide a character that falls off a cliff doesn't actually die, or that a character is kidnapped rather than butchered after defeat. Even so, death is a real possibility--Snakebite is intended to be a moderately-lethal system, and the GM is not expected to be particularly merciful. If it makes sense for a character to survive, they should--but often it does not. Character generation is intentionally quick, and players always have a pool of characters to draw from. 

Only one character is somewhat protected from this fate: the designated survivor is always assumed to, in some way, survive. This does not mean they return to be playable, at least in the short term! They might be captured; they might turn traitor. They might return later, with a scar and under the enemy's banner. They might be missing an arm. The players may decide this person from their past is of no interest to them and let them return to anonymity. But that is their choice--the character, though lost, was very much still alive. 

Why would I want this? 

It seems an odd mechanic. Snakebite is not meant to protect characters; there are no Fate points or similar mechanisms. Death is real and simply happens; like in Call of Cthulhu, you accept that the moment your character takes form. 

But I have a few reasons I like the idea. 

The first is that, simply, it could be helpful for a GM. Snakebite assumes expeditions can fail, but it also assumes that a campaign will go on. It is a setting meant for long-term, faction-heavy play! The loss of a single party is a setback to the player faction, but it is not game-ending, nor even should it be a huge disaster. In a sense, it should open the way for more adventure, not less.

Having at least one character guaranteed to survive can help with this. They can require rescue or ransom; they can be a vector for returning news of the failed raid to the rest of the faction. They are, in a sense, a guaranteed hook that can keep the game running even after a worst-case scenario. A good GM can, of course, always have a few such tricks up their sleeve, but GMing is hard. Why not add a mechanic that makes sure they need one fewer? 

The second is more subtle but, in my mind, more pressing: some players will really want it. 

"But they chose a death-heavy game?"

I know! And most players are okay with that. But I've looked into the eyes of a lot of nerds and I know sometimes, some characters stand out. And while they might be okay with that character dying, they might genuinely, really prefer they don't. And asking? Some people will. But not everyone; and frankly, I don't want to ask. It could be embarrassing, acting like you care about this fake character. I always, ALWAYS want to let people save face. You, personally, might not need it. But I've known people who I think would; and everyone in the group realized it, and there's simply no way to give them that without it coming off as condescending. 

This could be a helpful little stairway for them. Their character might not be unscathed, but at least they can know they're still out there; and there's a good chance they might see them again. They might even have a few new adventures under their belt. 

In that way, I think it's pretty sweet. 

Alright, some questions

Isn't this blurring GM/Player lines?

Yes, I think it is. But I'm okay with that. It's a group, social game. I don't really like games where players make up a lot of the external world themselves, but this isn't that. This is just them designating a character that will have a greater weight in the narrative. I don't think it's a huge diegetic problem. Obviously the stakes are way different from like, consent cards, but it's the same relational principle: the GM still sets a stage, the players still act on it; the players just also gave a note to the GM about one particular set dressing. 

Would it be better if it's a resource?

No, I don't think so. Not for this. I don't want it to be actually a part of the game strategy! It's not a mechanic meant to preserve characters. They can still be lost! It's purely a narrative tool; the fact the character might return to the party as a playable character afterwards is purely incidental.

If it's a narrative tool, shouldn't the GM have it?

I mean, the GM already does. They can always choose to do this! This is a mechanic that lets the players control it. 

Who even needs this?

I don't know. But I think some people might. And if you're not someone who does, it doesn't really have any effect on the game itself; at least, it shouldn't. And GMs aren't all-seeing; in fact, given how much they already have to do, it might be easy for them to miss that the party seem to have a particular character they want to see survive even a catastrophe; or that a particular player is fond of. 

Shouldn't the player just ask if they really don't want a character to die?

I mean, yes and no. Yes, always make your needs clear! But...no. That's lame behavior, to be honest. This is a game about risk, and without loss risk isn't real. What, you're upset the fake barbarian is dead? What did you expect, nerd?

...But people are all a little lame, sometimes, and we do get attached to certain characters, or at least find them compelling. There is a lame streak in all of us, and I want to accommodate that lameness, just a little. Most characters will die. But once per expedition, one of them won't. 

Do you really think this is a good idea in practice?

I have no idea. But I don't hate it. And to be honest, I like the idea of trying systems that you don't think you need. This one is pretty low-cost and lightweight; it might require you to do a little metagame thinking, but to be honest I think most people already are. If you really don't like it, you don't need it. 

But you never know who else might.