To begin, I should note that this discussion can apply to Shadowrun but is not exclusive to Shadowrun. PC death is a volatile topic and most people stand firmly on one side of the fence. PC's having potential to die adds tension to the game and makes decisions matter, risk versus reward is fiercely enforced. Ideally, the GM will be able to plot out an excellent campaign and finish with an exciting conclusion. The best chance to reach that conclusion is if the entire party survives up until that point. A skilled GM examines the background, personality, stats, gear, etc of each PC and plans his campaign out accordingly, likely building up various relevant story elements to reach the most dramatic conclusion possible. Each time a PC dies, a part of the ultimate story is low with them and the GM must now adapt to keep the quality of his campaign intact, likely tweaking things based on whatever new PC took the place of the deceased. The further you are into a campaign, the less likely the GM will be able to match the quality of his original plan because inveitably very fresh characters don't have a lot of time to get established over a short span of time near the conclusion. Because of that, the player is likely not going to enjoy the second character as much as the first, nor will the group or the GM. The GM must now to decide if he should end his campaign when he originally planned to or make changes to allow for the new PC to have sufficient time to be incorporated into the story in a manner that will please the entire table.
Sometimes a player is very attached to his character. He took the time to draw a full color portrait, write 10 pages of background, outline his entire wardrobe, spend his money meticulously and so on, everything was perfect and the player is deeply involved in his character. Most of the time when this kind of character dies the player will not have a good experience. This of course varies greatly from person to person but in my experience PC death has caused a lot of inner table conflict and soured the mood of the game, often resulting in the campaign dissipating in the process. Ideally, a PC that does die will at least die in a manner which is saitsfactory but many times in gaming that will not be the case, the circumstances of the death will be disappointing. However, some deaths can be quite memorable and enjoyable although I would wager that this is not likely. Most games have some sort of rule that allows a PC to survive, whether it be burning Edge, making stabilization rolls, spending a Fate point, a resurrection spell, and so on. These methods have value but ultimately I wonder if such an extreme event should be governed by random chance. If a player is going to become very upset, thus no longer having fun, is it really a good idea to kill his character? Additionally, if the GM has a wonderful conclusion to his campaign in mind and he has been plotting towards it for months, is it a good idea to allow a PC to die if it is detrimental to the story? These are difficulty questions to answer.
On one hand, I value realism, I value grit. Death is a dramatic event, one that is sure to spark an emotional response. It is an interesting avenue to explore but at the end of the road you will usually reach a dead end. Handling PC death requires maturity but certain people simply do not enjoy having their character die under any circumstances, yet we will hope that anyone could sit at the table and have an excellent time, after all, these are games we're playing and intended to be an escape from real life. Going back to realism, having PC's never die has a strange feeling attached to it. Many gaming groups will say things like "In over 10 years of gaming together there has never been a PC death in our group." In almost any system, if you play enough sessions, eventually someone is going to die by the rules. Many GM's feel pity for their players and reach into their bag of tricks to bend the rules and allow the PC to live. Some players find this apalling and insist on maintaining the integrity of the dice and the rules. Others place a higher value on the enjoyment of the game and favor the story over the realism. The variation in opinions is vast.
Looking back over the 2 decades I've spent roleplaying, the most enjoyable campaigns I recall were the ones which had no PC deaths. The campaigns that had PC deaths often did not get finished and almost always had some degree of bitter feelings. I have killed PC's, my PC's have been killed, and though it was been a rare occurence, it is something I remain unsure about. In my early to mid years of roleplaying I had a tendancy to fudge dice rolls and keep PC's alive. In my recent years I transitioned to a more brutal style and allow for PC death though I never intentionally sought out to make it happen. But since yesterday I've been thinking a lot about this topic and whether or not it is a good idea to kill PC's. I believe that losing battle is always going to be a consequence in itself, whether you are fired, fail to collect your rewards, have some or all of your gear pilfered, sustain an injury or disease, lose your humanity, face imprisonment, etc. The list of possibilities are exhaustive and surely enough for the GM to make his game feel brutal without needing to kill a PC. But of course, realism is knocking on the door with a heavy fist. In many cases it would make sense for someone, or everyone, to die. While I believe realism is important, I do think it should take a back seat to the story. If there is any reason to justify the group staying alive, I think it's a good thing. Real life already gets in the way of finishing campaigns as it is. People come and go, get sick, have health troubles, need to work over time or move to another city, there are so many barriers we must face as role players, is it a good idea to add major complications such as PC death? This could surely kill the interest of your game and absolutely prove to be detrimental to your story.
Speaking more specifically about Shadowrun, we have the option to burn Edge. This rule allows PC's to stay alive in the majority of cases, and while it feels like it is overly generous, it does drive the story extremely effectively. The rules of Shadowrun are brutal, you can easily die, but this particular rule likely means that you won't. There are debates about the truth of that statement but I have noticed that the majority of groups I've witnessed only rarely, or sometimes never, have a PC death. One thing I dislike about this rule though is that it punishes high Edge PC's since they're effectively losing more Karma than a low Edge PC any time they burn Edge. The only time this is not the case is when someone is running out of Edge, but most likely they will be able to earn enough Karma to maintain at least one point of Edge and stay alive. This leads me to another point which I find unfortunate. When we make a character we must decide what will be most fun, however, someone who plays a 'tanky' character is more likely to live than a physically weaker character. While that is realistic it strikes me as unfair and disappointing. The physically weaker character will likely need to burn more Edge to stay alive, which is another reason I find this rule to be fairly inadequate.
Then I began to think about whether or not burning Edge is fun. It is realistic (in a sense) but nobody enjoys going backwards in Karma, especially a large chunk of Karma that represents potentially months of playing. I began to think it might be better to allow a PC to avoid death by instead gaining a Negative Quality. That way they are punished but now qutie going backwards, plus I have more control over the outcome. After that I began to think about the idea of not having any harsh consequences of this kind and instead focusing on consequences such as failing to complete the run, gaining Notoriety, incurring expenses from bodily damage or gear damage, losing honor or face, having gear stolen, and so on. This way the story moves forward and everyone should be happy.
One final note, which is a bit off topic, is the idea of losing gear. Having things stolen is an obvious consequence to being knocked unconscious. Of course the ganger would take your Fairlight Excalibur. But that item represents months or even a year or playing and probably will make the player very unhappy. A nother example is the Unarmed Melee Adept vs the Drone Rigger. Both runnes lose a fight together, the Adept loses his fancy suit while the Drone Rigger loses 200,000 nuyen worth of equipment. The adept is not too concerned because he can easily buy another suit, but the Drone Rigger lost a huge chunk of his power from the decisions he made during character creation. The amount of punishment for the loss was so high that he is practically screwed unless the GM finds a way to 'fix it'. So let me ask you, how do you handle theft? Do you dance around it and find other solutions or do you focus on realism and let the rules and balance of the game be damned?
Thank you very much for reading, any insight is much appreciated.
P.s: This is too long to proof read. I am sorry if there are typos
