How to prevent Player "respawn"


Advice

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So I've been GMing for my group for quite awhile, and nearly all of that in D&D and Pathfinder.

The group is a mixed bag of roleplayers and roll-players, but the following issue keeps coming up.

A) Party encounters a "Mega threat" that the GM clearly says OOC is intended to push them off. Ie. do not engage, this will kill you. Party engages, because they "think they can do it anyway". Win or lose, party members die.

B) Party encounters a situation where their characters don't die, but lose an item, or take permanent stat loss....etc.

In either case, the player creates a brand new character...sometimes with the same stats and equipment. In fact, the statement has been made by the players that loss of equipment is a valid reason to "respawn" because "Why would I play a character that is $X behind the rest of the party?"

All in all, this results in the party rushing headlong into any situation, as they will either win...or make new characters.

Has anyone else run into similar situations, have any thoughts on how to deal with this?


if you do not want your players to act in this manner tell them that everytime they die or reroll a character, they take an xp and gp penalty. Then dying has an actual negative impact on them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"As a GM I sometimes simply kill the players when they move to engage when they shouldn't -- now I'm upset that they still want to play the same character in the same campaign and I've not provided a way for that to happen, so they simply reskin the character and play them again."

I'm sorry I'm seeing a disconnect here between what you are doing and what you are expecting as a GM.

Your players are explicitly telling you what they want -- to continue playing their current character so make it possible without respawning.

When in doubt give them what they want -- much like a GM they'll find a means of getting it anyways.

This isn't anything to do with the game and everything to do with mismatched expectations and miscommunication.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't you need to approve the new character before it comes in? You're the GM here, tell them no new characters unless theirs is dead. Make them work to undo whatever other stuff is going on (find someone to cast restoration or whatever).

And if they do die and make a new character, put them at a lower level so they have to catch up.

Make dying a bad thing.

Silver Crusade

thepuregamer wrote:
if you do not want your players to act in this manner tell them that everytime they die or reroll a character, they take an xp and gp penalty. Then dying has an actual negative impact on them.

Good suggestion.

I was going to suggest requiring them to make a completely different character the next time. ie New house rule to promote variety: Nobody can play two characters in a row of the same class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait they create the exact same character? I have seen lots of people create a NEW character after death (though never after the loss of equipment). I wouldn't allow it at my table. Obviously death is a good reason for a new character but it is NEW not the same one re-created.

Since obviously you dont approve of this as dm, just tell them this isnt an option. If they are really concerned with the loss of equipment, just indicate to them that you will over the next couple of sessions make it up to them with cool new gear to be found. Then include an item specifically tailored to that player character sometime soon. If they know that it will be replaced eventually they are less likely to get as upset about equipment losses.

And for death explain to them that the new character must be new, with different class and feat/skill choices. And that they will have to rebuild their relationship with the party and any important npcs.


Coriolis Storm wrote:

So I've been GMing for my group for quite awhile, and nearly all of that in D&D and Pathfinder.

The group is a mixed bag of roleplayers and roll-players, but the following issue keeps coming up.

A) Party encounters a "Mega threat" that the GM clearly says OOC is intended to push them off. Ie. do not engage, this will kill you. Party engages, because they "think they can do it anyway". Win or lose, party members die.

B) Party encounters a situation where their characters don't die, but lose an item, or take permanent stat loss....etc.

In either case, the player creates a brand new character...sometimes with the same stats and equipment. In fact, the statement has been made by the players that loss of equipment is a valid reason to "respawn" because "Why would I play a character that is $X behind the rest of the party?"

All in all, this results in the party rushing headlong into any situation, as they will either win...or make new characters.

Has anyone else run into similar situations, have any thoughts on how to deal with this?

Uh...you're the GM. Simply say no. Perhaps cater to them by having fewer situations where their characters seem disposable or gimped.

I had a player make a bad decision and die with his new character. It was, plain and simple, a stupid choice. I provided a Scroll of Reincarnate for him to come back in the loot. He didn't like losing 2 STR for 2 CON when he changed from Human to Dwarf, but it sure as heck is going to be what he deserves for his poor choice. :-p

Honestly, who rages, then charges a cavalier on a bear mount when you've only got 4 HP prior to the Rage and no Raging Constitution in your build? >.> 11 AC vs 3 natural attacks from a large bear animal companion? Not so hot.

The Exchange

Sounds to me like the players are stuck in the mindset that death should have no real consequences. I concur with Jiggy: the most recently created character should be "given" fewer XP than any other member of the party.

Althogh my knee-jerk reaction to Abraham's post was to snark at it, he does raise a good point about the need to communicate. Tell your players directly that you expect intelligent play and the discrimination to, for example, not assume that their brand-new character can whip the monster that just ate the city wall. Make sure they know that those who fail will still be 're-skinning' their 29th first-level character when the rest of the party has hit Level 5. Once they understand that it's devil-take-the-hindmost I think you'll see a greater commitment to sticking with a character.

And, if not, they can always go back to online "RPGs."


*shakes head unbelieving*
In our game it´s unusual and extremely nice of the GM, if a new character is level-par and not more than 1 level behind the others.
Until the average party level is 3+, a new char usually starts at 1st level again.
And creating a new char, while the old one still LIVES ? Not even decencency to banzai/harakiri the old ones? Because of lost equipment?
*Lost for words in digust*


Coriolis Storm wrote:
In either case, the player creates a brand new character...sometimes with the same stats and equipment. In fact, the statement has been made by the players that loss of equipment is a valid reason to "respawn" because "Why would I play a character that is $X behind the rest of the party?"

Tell them to calculate the wealth of the previous character. That's the amount of starting equipment the new character has -- along with a GM's final choice on the equipment purchased (to prevent player stupidity). Tell them that the recommended character wealth by level is simply a recommendation. It's a tool to help GMs balance their treasure output -- period.

Shadow Lodge

I always start re-rolls out at the minimum XP for the level, and I'd never give them more than the minimum amount of items, by the rules. The loss of one item wouldn't make it worthwhile...

Dark Archive

Coriolis Storm wrote:

A) Party encounters a "Mega threat" that the GM clearly says OOC is intended to push them off. Ie. do not engage, this will kill you. Party engages, because they "think they can do it anyway". Win or lose, party members die.

B) Party encounters a situation where their characters don't die, but lose an item, or take permanent stat loss....etc.

In situation A, perhaps you are not being as clear as you think you are.

To use an extreme example, I find it hard to imagine a situation where the GM says "Incidentally guys, I've put a great wyrm red dragon in the Hills of Doom. It is CR 23 and since you are only 9th level, stay away from it as there is no way you can beat it at the moment"

only for the players to respond, "Nah, I'm sure we can beat it with a few lucky rolls. You are bound to be wrong on this one, GM, even though your information is much more complete than ours is. Let's go kill the dragon."

Or are the party encountering it through no fault of their own? If so, maybe consider not having these impossible threats on your wandering monster tables? There are arguments for and against having "realistic" wandering monster tables, but if it is causing a problem for the game then I would suggest it's an easy fix to make.

Point B is an interesting one. Are the players so competitive that none of them are willing to play a character that is slightly worse than the others? Or so egotistical (I'm trying not to disparage anyone, but I can't think of a better word) that they will only play what they consider to be 100% optimised characters.

If that was the case with my group, I'd try and get them to come round to my way of thinking - that it is okay for a character to pick up a few scars and flaws along the way, that the characters are not competing against each other, and everyone will get a chance to shine regardless of what it says on their character sheets.

If that didn't work, I'd ask them how their *characters* feel about the high death rate among the party. Bob4 may have been replaced by Bob5 but Bob4 was a friend and comrade, whereas Bob5 is a stranger.

If that also didn't work, then I'd suggest removing loss of equipment and permanent stat loss and the like from the game altogether. The players won't accept it - and are likely to find attempts to force them to play "weakened" characters (e.g. by making replacement characters be lower level) even more unpalatable.

If that doesn't sit well with the GM, then we might have an insurmountable problem of incompatable play styles. I suppsoe you could try and compromise by promising permanent stat drain would be very rare, on condition the players accepted it if it did happen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Institute a "new characters only get 1st level character starting wealth, regardless of their level" policy and it'll sort itself out pretty quick.

Then once your players are used to not playing like d-bags you can gradually walk that back to something more reasonable.


Actually, I usually allow my PCs to respawn, provided they are below 9th level (raise dead level), and/or don't have access to a reincarnate. That is purely a function of time, we don't want to wait for someone to create a brand new character. We've been gaming for 35+ years, been there, done that.

When you come back, you are naked. You get the dead PCs equipment, nothing more. Of course we have never even looked up WBL, believing it is a useless rule, unless you are starting a party at more than 1st level, which we never do. And the idea that someone would respawn because they lost an item - when they come back, the item is still gone. That seems non-negotiable.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Institute a "new characters only get 1st level character starting wealth, regardless of their level" policy and it'll sort itself out pretty quick.

It certainly will, since every player who has a character die will quit the group.

Silver Crusade

In our game, no one wants to die... but we don't have any penalty on character creation, since dying is already a big enough punishment in itself. We all love our characters too much, and only the DMPC changed several times due to gruesome deaths or no way to come back. (His mad inquisitor became an angel (well, it will, after 100 years of daily penitence for his too litteral interpretation of religion), and his mad vivisectionist/master chymist became a formaldehyde jar monster.

Sometimes, dying is a condition that will only last some sessions if you participate greatly to the group's roleplay, to the story and to the table ambiance. And even then, finding a way to get someone back to life is a sub-quest that may fail or turn wrong. For demi-a&@~+@$s, people lacking attention during game or blank characters, there is most of the time no way to get out of death, and it's back to character creation again as to get more inspiration this time.

Reward the players who keep a character despite big sucker penalties like energy drain, lost equipment... with something better than they had before, or something they wished they could have someday. In all good RPGs, it's when you lose something important that the cool reward comes most often as a final recompense for going through the trouble.
Punish the players who immediately want to change characters by creating them at lower level, or with wealth equivalent to what the previous character had.

And, even better : make a game where your players don't DIE when they try a cool, desperate move, especially if they love their characters. Being captured, spared because "too weak", sold as slaves,... all of these are nice plot devices that will surprise your thought-already-dead players's characters.


We houseruled many things about death in our game to make the death a serious threat, and to keep the fear of death.

First, we brought back a "System Chock" table as old D&D. For those who don't know what it is, it's the fact that, based on the character's constitution, there's a chance the character doesn't support the chock of the ressurection, and therefore, can't be raised anymore.

Second, we completely remove any ways to clear a negative level from death. That means that even a Wish or a Greater Restoration can't bring back a level lost from dying.

Third, if any player want to create a new character, he will be one level lower than the lowest member of the party.

This way, you can't win at dying. If you die, you will forever be under average of the party unless they all die once.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's consider another point -- by forcing them to change characters you are already punishing the player. These players obviously want to play their initial character, to the point they'll reskin it to play it again in the same campaign.

Forcing them to play a different character on death -- is already punishing them by not letting them play what they want. Why go another step or three by also reducing their new character in power more by not making them the same level or by not giving them gear?

Also if all they have is the gear their dead character had -- of course they are going to re-skin -- the equipment is for that character type!

Now I'm not trying to say that players deserve everything they want -- but listen to what their actions are telling you! and actually think about the message you are actually sending with your actions instead of the message you want them to take home.

Also some horrible ideas here, "YOU FAILED! So we are going to punish you more by making you suck more! Obviously that will make you do better!"

Because punishing them for coming back is obviously going to help them not have to do it again, making them weaker will certainly help them survive better, and punishing their new character for something that happened is the best possible choice cause then it certainly won't happen again.

I got a new guy from a different group once -- he quit the other group because the only way he ever leveled was when his character died again and advanced to the lowest party member's level -1. It was a never ending circle for him -- his first character died, and then he was easier to kill next time, so he died again, until he ended up being the joke red shirt character -- of course each death was viewed as, "his fault" so he never even got a break from the cycle. I'm glad he left the other group because he's been a great contributor at mine.


A lot of the suggestions are really ignoring what the players want as well, and really seem to be more concentrated on punishing the player for wanting the 'wrong' kind of fun. Unless you actively choose to be the weakest character, playing a gimped character isn't any fun. You don't contribute as much as the other players and are a hinderance as opposed to a benefit.

Like what happens in most unbalanced situations, something that would challenge the strongest player, the weakest player can't do anything about it.

Silver Crusade

You die, you play something new, it's as simple as that.

Reskinning is the lamest thing you can do at a table. I would not accept someone playing the exact same character, it shows total lack of imagination.

If someone did that at my table I would point blank tell them no, you should do likewise.

Shadow Lodge

Maxximilius wrote:
And, even better : make a game where your players don't DIE when they try a cool, desperate move, especially if they love their characters. Being captured, spared because "too weak", sold as slaves,... all of these are nice plot devices that will surprise your thought-already-dead players's characters.

That's what I like to do. I personally call it "choosing between Death and A Fate Worse Than Death." A player might stupidly send a PC to his doom (usually of the "sneak away from the party and take on the BBEG all by himself" variety) and fall in battle. At that point, I'll say, "He can die, or he can be captured."

In one case, the player decided to be captured instead, and ended up tormented by the bad guys (involving what, essentially, was an orc priestess of Calistria), charmed into being their lackey, and fighting the other PCs. The other PCs saved him, but they really didn't trust him afterward.

The trick is to make Fates Worse Than Death be both fun to deal with, and really suck.


FallofCamelot wrote:

You die, you play something new, it's as simple as that.

Reskinning is the lamest thing you can do at a table. I would not accept someone playing the exact same character, it shows total lack of imagination.

If someone did that at my table I would point blank tell them no, you should do likewise.

To be clear I'm good with this idea -- it's pretty basic but it provides a clear cut point where you are.

Yet another thought -- could it be that it's simply high enough level where it is too much of a hassle to make up a character of that level again?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding creating characters when a current character is not actually dead:

I've never had someone want to re-create a character because of a loss of stat or equipment, but I did run a game where many players decided they didn't like how they built their character and decided to switch characters---and there began further talk of "well, if this doesn't work out, I'll switch to...." and I foresaw an endless see of characters constantly coming and going and making the plot cohesion disintegrate.

So I made two rules for the group:
1. You have ONE (1) chance to change your character to a different character. Once you switch to that character, they are with you till they die (fortunately, I do not have players who try to get their characters killed because they're unhappy with something).

2. You may revise your build within reason upon leveling. I.e., say at first level, you took Weapon Focus. And then you realized, you really should have taken Power Attack instead. When you hit level two, I will allow you to change your feat. Other reasonable changes might be swapping around some skill points or changing a spell known. I've never had to limit it terribly as no one's really asked for much more than that.

In short: limit character swapping when character death is not the reason to make a new character. If someone begins to play recklessly to kill their character off, have a chat with them. Or, in the worst case scenario, find a better player.

Regarding WHY they want to switch characters

1. Equipment: I admit I'm a bit boggled at someone wanting to switch characters because of an equipment loss. I've had characters lose a choice item before. They did a little searching, a little sidequesting, a little bargaining, and in the end found something usually better than what they started with--and had some fun to boot with a sidequest and some extra roleplaying opportunities. Party was on board with it because we're always on board with making sure we all can support each other as effectively as possible. In fact, folks in my gaming group often go out of each other's way to make sure everyone's equipped well--if someone's lost something, usually the party will dig into the party stores or pitch in gold to get at least a temporary replacement. So this experience of mine leads me to two questions:
----Do you as GM allow them opportunities to recover/replace lost equipment? While it should not be an immediate thing, surely they don't exist in an equipment vacuum; if they needed to, within reason of the storyline, there should be ways they can find/loot/trade a replacement. And even if the initial replacement is not as good, encourage the PC to make it a long term goal to upgrade and make that part of the character's motivation to adventure. In other words, this should be turned into an adventuring opportunity, not a loss.
----How's the player cooperation in this group? Are the other PCs not offering to help their impoverished comrades, and if not, why not? I realize there might be in game reasons--maybe it's an all-evil party and they don't want to share. But Pathfinder is not a competitive game and party success requires teamwork. If there isn't a lot of teamwork in general and it makes sense for there to be, maybe an OOC chat about the importance of party cooperation is in order.

In summary: an individual PC should never feel like they're so very behind the group because they lost the Axe of Diablo-slaying, and there should be solutions available over the long term to make up for the loss, offered by the party and/or the plotline itself.

2. Character takes some kind of permanent penalty. Really? I need more information on this one. Pathfinder doesn't have a lot of permanent penalties, so either some nasty stuff is happening on an unusually frequent basis, or there's some major houseruling going on. That's in itself not a bad thing--but I need a better sense of the kind of losses a PC is taking that they're thinking that it's a fate worse than death. Because on one hand, if the PC becomes paraplegic, I can see why they might prefer to reroll rather than deal with that challenge in a high adventure game (although some might just go with it). But on the other hand, if they take a -1 penalty to Charisma that they might be able to later make up for with some easily obtained headband of Charisma, that seems a little petty.

If these penalties are happening a lot because of your houserules and the players aren't happy with the houserules, it might be time to have a chat with the players about what they're comfortable with and what you would like to keep without compromising their having fun---but also without you compromising your fun either.

As for what if they die...
If they died because of the kind of scenario you described--you were clear it was a death trap, they decided to walk into it regardless---they knew the risks and they accepted them. No coddling. They reroll a character with starting WBL equipment for that level and they like it. Although if they want to keep their old character but you want to keep spells like raise dead rare... they could sit out for a session while the party specifically goes on a special quest to find the very rare and special gem of dead raising and or goes on a quest for the PC's soul in the planes or whatever... if players are cool with that, that could be another option. The thing is, make them work for it and make it worthwhile and fun for all of you.

And don't make new characters a level lower than everyone else. Why? Because it makes more work for YOU to design challenges for a multilevel party. Seriously, don't torture yourself like that. The fact that that kind of "hardball" tends to bum out players is actually secondary.


When characters die, they can make whatever they want as long as it fits the in-game situation. So, if a character dies in a dungeon, their replacement is often something like a captured prisoner, marinated, seasoned and tenderized in preparation for the ogre's next meal. Only some gear, and always some XP behind. Heck, it's often the case where they're in a race-restricted area... such as the catacombs beneath a Dwarven city, so they have to play a Dwarf.

When a PC dies, I give limited options. Suck it up, buttercup, and play the role. This is a role playing game after all.

To the OP: I wonder how old your players are. If we're talking grade school, I guess I can understand. If they're adults, I weep for you.


I thought about your issue a little more and came up with the following solution:

"Sure, you can re-roll your character. Since it's a different person, however, you'll have to be introduced whenever I have time. You can go play XBox for a while. I'll let you know."

At the end of the session, let the player know that you weren't able to squeeze it in, and next session isn't looking much better.

Alternatively, rocks fall and sunder your shiny things as soon as the new guy comes in, destroying it. Seriously, for a friggin' ITEM? I understand that nobody likes to lose wealth. However, this is not a computer game and people need to use these sorts of things as opportunities for growth rather than an opportunity to game your system.

Honestly, you need to just have a frank discussion with your players. If they ignore that, though, you need to step up. The simple fact is that their decision to do this is detracting from your fun (at least, so I assume, since you appear bothered by it enough to post here) and you are the lynchpin to the game. Your fun is important too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:


"Sure, you can re-roll your character. Since it's a different person, however, you'll have to be introduced whenever I have time. You can go play XBox for a while. I'll let you know."

At the end of the session, let the player know that you weren't able to squeeze it in, and next session isn't looking much better.

If a DM did that to me, I'd take it as a sure hint that he's passive-agressively telling me that I'm not wanted in the game any more and it's time to find a new group, and likely new friends...

Contributor

Make them start with a new character at either one level behind party average, or at minimum XP of party average. Plus, only let them join back in once it's appropriate for that new character to appear in a plausible manner. That's how I've handled it in the past.


Coriolis Storm wrote:

So I've been GMing for my group for quite awhile, and nearly all of that in D&D and Pathfinder.

The group is a mixed bag of roleplayers and roll-players, but the following issue keeps coming up.

A) Party encounters a "Mega threat" that the GM clearly says OOC is intended to push them off. Ie. do not engage, this will kill you. Party engages, because they "think they can do it anyway". Win or lose, party members die.

B) Party encounters a situation where their characters don't die, but lose an item, or take permanent stat loss....etc.

In either case, the player creates a brand new character...sometimes with the same stats and equipment. In fact, the statement has been made by the players that loss of equipment is a valid reason to "respawn" because "Why would I play a character that is $X behind the rest of the party?"

All in all, this results in the party rushing headlong into any situation, as they will either win...or make new characters.

Has anyone else run into similar situations, have any thoughts on how to deal with this?

I have never seen anyone try to "respawn" due to equipment loss,and it smacks of cheating at best. I would sit down with the group to ask them at what point they should be expected to be held accountable for their actions. If they don't want to be held accountable then maybe it is time for one of them to GM.

Other options are not respawns just because they want to, or that respawning now imposes penalties. You could also do the same thing for bad guys.

players:....but we already beat this guy.
GM:In my game all the characters have access to the same options. He did not want to be dead. :)

Dark Archive

step 1: look at them like they're stupid

step 2: ask "What the hell do you think you're doing?"

step 3: chuckle a little then say "Hoo-haa, NO!"

the DM decides what happens and what players get, what makes the players even think they're ALLOWED to do this? Put your foot down as GM and stop the madness.

Grand Lodge

I've seen this in players who move from computer RPG's to table top games. It was a big change for me when I started playing World of Warcraft because character survival had been a key point for years. However, if a character dies in WoW, the worst that happens is that they have to run back to their body.

If you want to change that mindset, you need to make dying painful. New characters should definitely come into the game with less XP than existing players. Wealth is tricky, because if new players can select exactly what they need, they can be better equipped than current players, even with a lower wealth value.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

or flip the tables on them.

"Oh, yeah you pick up that sword. You're over WBL. Roll a new character."


Curse them with reincarnation.

You respawn, in a new body. Oh, and you're a badger.


Use point buy. Every re-roll is at 1 less point then the last time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont see why people feel the need to punish players for dieing. As if losing a character wasn't enough of a blow, now you want them to be reminded it every session by sucking it up. Especially since in pathfinder there is no mechanism to 'catch up', you are essentially putting the player behind permanently. That seems plainly antagonistic to me and smacks of vindictive gming. Do you all play with people you are unable to have a reasonable conversation with about the mood and style of the game and instead have to smack them with arbitrary penalties in order to get them to use caution or take part in the style of game you want? Does no one play with their actual friends anymore?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Abraham, you say, eloquently, that the GM should pay attention to what the players want. I think it's pretty clear what the players want: a painless do-over. That's not acceptable to the GM, and it wouldn't be in my campaign, either.

But you have a great point: that punishing the player with a weaker character isn't a good answer, because it leads to repeated death and unhappiness.

So, how about this:

Going into an encounter, a group of players can, by unanimous choice, choose to lower the risk/reward scale. Doing so (a) gives each PC a couple of hero points (or whatever plot-influence mechanic you want) to lessen the chances of PC death. But it also (b) reduces the normal amount of usable reward loot to about half until the characters rise in level.

If you make that option clear and explicit, then the party choosing to go into the encounters without putting on the safety helmet, is choosing to risk damage and death. It may make the OP's players feel better about losing a PC --because they decided to risk it-- and move on to the next character.


Kolokotroni wrote:
I dont see why people feel the need to punish players for dieing. As if losing a character wasn't enough of a blow, now you want them to be reminded it every session by sucking it up. Especially since in pathfinder there is no mechanism to 'catch up', you are essentially putting the player behind permanently. That seems plainly antagonistic to me and smacks of vindictive gming. Do you all play with people you are unable to have a reasonable conversation with about the mood and style of the game and instead have to smack them with arbitrary penalties in order to get them to use caution or take part in the style of game you want? Does no one play with their actual friends anymore?

He did say at the beginning that his players are abusing the system by dieing and just rebuilding the same character. Thus since there's no penalty they're willing to take on encounters way over their level, even when warned against it.

I agree that the first step should be talking to them, but since those warnings were given OOC they may already be passed that point. Still worth trying, I'd say.

It may also be a different sort of assumption clash going on here, if the GM is running a more simulationist game where the characters are expected to pick and choose encounters they think they can win, while the players expect a more railroaded adventure where they need to deal with what's put in front of them, that could lead to similar issues.

If talking doesn't work, maybe a TPK, followed by a restart at level 1 might help get the point across. If they are winning these fights, even with some losses, they aren't too far out of their league. Maybe that's why they think they should keep pushing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
I dont see why people feel the need to punish players for dieing. As if losing a character wasn't enough of a blow, now you want them to be reminded it every session by sucking it up. Especially since in pathfinder there is no mechanism to 'catch up', you are essentially putting the player behind permanently. That seems plainly antagonistic to me and smacks of vindictive gming. Do you all play with people you are unable to have a reasonable conversation with about the mood and style of the game and instead have to smack them with arbitrary penalties in order to get them to use caution or take part in the style of game you want? Does no one play with their actual friends anymore?

It not as simple as you make it sound.

On one hand the GM is tired of the "no consequences" style of play. That should be discussed, which I did recommend. If he is not the "discussion" type of GM then other options were presented.
As far as loss of characters go, not all the characters died. They justed wanted to avoid dealing with their decisions. It seems to me like they "expect to succeed", which is not always a bad thing, but the GM wants them to earn it.
I think a discussion is the way to go. What the GM wants to run is not what the players want to play, seems to be the issue.

PS:The players are also partly to blame for ignoring blatant advice. This is not a one sided issue.


Chris Mortika wrote:

Abraham, you say, eloquently, that the GM should pay attention to what the players want. I think it's pretty clear what the players want: a painless do-over. That's not acceptable to the GM, and it wouldn't be in my campaign, either.

But you have a great point: that punishing the player with a weaker character isn't a good answer, because it leads to repeated death and unhappiness.

So, how about this:

Going into an encounter, a group of players can, by unanimous choice, choose to lower the risk/reward scale. Doing so (a) gives each PC a couple of hero points (or whatever plot-influence mechanic you want) to lessen the chances of PC death. But it also (b) reduces the normal amount of usable reward loot to about half until the characters rise in level.

If you make that option clear and explicit, then the party choosing to go into the encounters without putting on the safety helmet, is choosing to risk damage and death. It may make the OP's players feel better about losing a PC --because they decided to risk it-- and move on to the next character.

These options could work -- my primary point is that instead of just 'deciding' to talk with the people involved.

As I stated in my first post this problem is one of mismatched expectations and miscommunication.

At our table if someone is dead we put it pretty straight forward -- do you want to come back, or do you want a new character? We are good either way but if you get a new character your old one is buried with everything they had except for possibly one item (if it was a plot item or something actually special instead of just another magic item).

Personally I would say it's time for a talk, something that starts with, "Hey guys I'm not out to screw you. Death happens sometimes and sometimes items get lost -- but I'm not going to hang you out to dry for the rest of the game simply because stuff happens. The whole point of this is for everyone here to have fun. I'm not really digging the re-spawning, especially over something as trite as a magic item. How about instead you give it a go for a while and we'll see what happens. If this doesn't work out we can try to come to a gentleman's agreement where I won't use some options and you don't use some in return."

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Couple thoughts came to mind while reading your dilemma:

1. Are you just telling players OOC that they should run, or are you explaining to the players? How are you explaining this? Do they see a big monster (same size or type as the others), or do they see it rip a person in two and eat a house? If that's not working, maybe a free sense motive check is in order?

2. Have you considered not killing them? Perhaps having them get knocked out, body dragged off and then locked up? That gives them a chance to play as someone different for a little while, and then save their compatriots.

3. If they do ignore every in-character and OOC sign that says "Don't attack", that's their choice. However if they are dying off and then just making the same character, talk to them and explain that it bothers you. You'll probably find out why they are doing this (maybe they want a higher level game, maybe they didn't get your hints in character, maybe they didn't think this was a "bad" thing to do, etc.)

4. How hard is it to reincarnate in your world? My players used to never do it at all, because the power drop mixed with the XP cost and GP cost just killed the game for them.

I made up a rule that reincarnate was the only spell for 3.5 that didn't cost XP. Players would use reincarnate and I didn't have to keep reintroducing new characters. The changing races and GP cost was enough to stop them from consistently doing it.

5. Players encountering a "run away" encounter and fighting it out (with poor results) one to three times is their fault. After that it's your fault. Your players don't want to run from fights with their imaginary characters. Running away is not heroic. Therefore, they won't run away. If you think they'll learn otherwise, you're wrong.

6. Finally, a lot of people have mentioned adding "punishments" to new players as a way of stopping players from doing this. Sometimes that will work, however usually you have to make it clear before it happens, and not have changed your mind in the middle of a game.

It can backfire too: This can lead to people dropping your game due to hating always being behind (what's the point of playing a hero in your game if I'm too weak AND scared of death to do anything heroic).

Or your players just won't be heroic at all, since the cost of death is too high in your game and it isn't fun.

I had a DM impose very strict limits on how I could continue playing in his game. I learned about this after he DM fiated my death in order to RP save the party (also he didn't like the character).

I could either make a new character 2 levels behind (the equivalent of 2 real years of gaming in his game), be raised 2 levels behind, or play an NPC near full level. The NPC was a horrible character and I eventually dropped because of it. You may say I'm petty, however I wasn't having fun, so I left. If all your players did the same, would you be happy you were right or unhappy since you no longer have a game.


I have a standing rule that all my players know about, which is that whether you are just joining the game, or you are creating a new character after a loss, the new PC starts half a level lower than the average party level. There are many advantages to this, not the least of which is that it makes the player of the new PC work harder and contribute more, and it honors the work put into it by the players who have been in the game longer without gimping anybody too badly.

And yes, I adjust the campaign accordingly.

All that said...

Abraham spalding wrote:

"As a GM I sometimes simply kill the players when they move to engage when they shouldn't -- now I'm upset that they still want to play the same character in the same campaign and I've not provided a way for that to happen, so they simply reskin the character and play them again."

I'm sorry I'm seeing a disconnect here between what you are doing and what you are expecting as a GM.

Your players are explicitly telling you what they want -- to continue playing their current character so make it possible without respawning.

When in doubt give them what they want -- much like a GM they'll find a means of getting it anyways.

This isn't anything to do with the game and everything to do with mismatched expectations and miscommunication.

I suspect Spalding is right. It also feels to me like there are some mismatched expectations. You are playing one kind of game, and they are playing another. For one, the issue of opponents or encounters that cannot be overcome was always a contentious one with our group, and I suspect it is so with most any group where it comes up. Most players take it for granted that such a situation cannot exist, since they are the "heroes," and the heroes always overcome. On the very rare occasions that I include something like this (usually where Cthulhu is involved), I advise that such a situation may be in the campaign before we start the campaign, but I never reveal which situation it is, exactly. But the important thing is, I make sure we are all on the same page and that everybody understands and agrees. If not, we retool and play a different game.

Players are usually cool if their characters die fairly. They are also cool if they agree to a Cthulhu-type killer game ahead of time. But they don't like somebody stopping the game to tell them OOC that they shouldn't go to where the campaign has naturally brought them, and they don't like having a TPK game pulled on them from out of nowhere.

Getting back to "respawning," that term itself might point to the expectations of these players. If they are used to video games, they might simply have a different expectation for a tabletop game than a GM who has invested time in making a realistic campaign. That's neither good nor bad, but it's worth discussing those expectations with the players.


Coriolis Storm wrote:

So I've been GMing for my group for quite awhile, and nearly all of that in D&D and Pathfinder.

The group is a mixed bag of roleplayers and roll-players, but the following issue keeps coming up.

A) Party encounters a "Mega threat" that the GM clearly says OOC is intended to push them off. Ie. do not engage, this will kill you. Party engages, because they "think they can do it anyway". Win or lose, party members die.

B) Party encounters a situation where their characters don't die, but lose an item, or take permanent stat loss....etc.

In either case, the player creates a brand new character...sometimes with the same stats and equipment. In fact, the statement has been made by the players that loss of equipment is a valid reason to "respawn" because "Why would I play a character that is $X behind the rest of the party?"

All in all, this results in the party rushing headlong into any situation, as they will either win...or make new characters.

Has anyone else run into similar situations, have any thoughts on how to deal with this?

On point A... Try not placing high level threats in areas the players can reach. Not without making it obvious they are trying to commit suicide.

On point B... What?! That makes NO sense. With the exception of permanent stat loss the new character will start off at a disadvantage anyway... You aren't letting them make a character at the same XP as the one they lost are you!?

In our group the rule was that you started at the minimum XP for a character one level lower than your old one. That often meant less treasure and less power than your friends. But since you will earn more XP because of your lower level you will catch up after a certain point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Min2007 wrote:

In our group the rule was that you started at the minimum XP for a character one level lower than your old one. That often meant less treasure and less power than your friends. But since you will earn more XP because of your lower level you will catch up after a certain point.

In pathfinder, XP doesn't work like that. How much you get isn't dependant on what level you are, so you will never catch up.


Quote:
In our group the rule was that you started at the minimum XP for a character one level lower than your old one. That often meant less treasure and less power than your friends. But since you will earn more XP because of your lower level you will catch up after a certain point.

As Skyth said, Pathfinder experience does not work that way. Experience awards are either a set number depending on CR, or are divided by the number of characters. The players level never enters into it. So in Pathfinder, if you fall behind in experience, you will stay behind in experience (unless the GM is nice and decides to award you extra for something, or runes you through your own little adventure or something.)


Skyth wrote:
Serisan wrote:


"Sure, you can re-roll your character. Since it's a different person, however, you'll have to be introduced whenever I have time. You can go play XBox for a while. I'll let you know."

At the end of the session, let the player know that you weren't able to squeeze it in, and next session isn't looking much better.

If a DM did that to me, I'd take it as a sure hint that he's passive-agressively telling me that I'm not wanted in the game any more and it's time to find a new group, and likely new friends...

Let's be fair. The players are the ones being passive-aggressive. The real solution is to talk to them about the issue first. The issue at hand is that the players appear to want a world without negative consequences and the GM wants to actually have some teeth in the world. The players are working to circumvent the GM.

That situation is simply not acceptable. If they're not willing to be reasonable, the GM has every right to enforce consequences until they start being reasonable.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Min2007 wrote:
On point A... Try not placing high level threats in areas the players can reach. Not without making it obvious they are trying to commit suicide.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the OP's game so I'm not going to comment on it. I am going to disagree with this point though. If you put together a soft world where there are no real threats, then players just sort of bash through everything and nothing is dangerous. I'm not a fan of having really dangerous stuff on random encounter tables, but players should have things they avoid because they are too deadly. It's also entirely appropriate to have encounters that are too dangerous that they need to find a way to avoid or sneak around. What's the fun of overcoming adversity if you are always guaranteed to be the baddest, nastiest thing around?


@Serisan -- because forcing people to be reasonable (from one person's point of view at that) always works right? (Just a gentle ribbing, but come on really does anyone thing that actually works at all?)

************************************************

To the bigger point -- yeah there's got to be something you generally avoid in a campaign world -- I'm down with that. At the same time it can't be a comic book of 'that was our deadliest battle ever up until tomorrow when we have our even deadlierest battle ever!' which is just as boring. Part of getting to the higher levels is finally being the big boys on the block (even if you aren't the only big boys, or that there are still others that are bigger still) -- sometimes you have to give the PCs time to flex and feel out those new abilities and powers to simply see how much more they really have become.


I agree with Dennis baker. High level encounters should be there, and players should be able to reach them. Creatures don't just magically appear when the players have a chance of defeating them in combat, only to disappear when the encounters become too weak to be a threat.

The 3.X Dungeon Masters Guide specifically said to put in encounters the party had no chance of winning. They should be roughly 5% of all encounters by their guidelines.


Ok so part of the problem is Pathfinder's less than flexible XP system. Just give people a 15% XP bonus for each level below APL they are. That should fix it.

Oh Dennis, all I am saying is the big dangerous threats shouldn't be placed where the PCs are. They would have to go out of their way to get to the threat... Like a King you never see because your characters are not important enough at this level to gain an audience or a dragon that lairs on the TOP of a volcano. The PCs have to go WAY out of their way to even see the threat.


wraithstrike wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
I dont see why people feel the need to punish players for dieing. As if losing a character wasn't enough of a blow, now you want them to be reminded it every session by sucking it up. Especially since in pathfinder there is no mechanism to 'catch up', you are essentially putting the player behind permanently. That seems plainly antagonistic to me and smacks of vindictive gming. Do you all play with people you are unable to have a reasonable conversation with about the mood and style of the game and instead have to smack them with arbitrary penalties in order to get them to use caution or take part in the style of game you want? Does no one play with their actual friends anymore?

It not as simple as you make it sound.

On one hand the GM is tired of the "no consequences" style of play. That should be discussed, which I did recommend. If he is not the "discussion" type of GM then other options were presented.
As far as loss of characters go, not all the characters died. They justed wanted to avoid dealing with their decisions. It seems to me like they "expect to succeed", which is not always a bad thing, but the GM wants them to earn it.
I think a discussion is the way to go. What the GM wants to run is not what the players want to play, seems to be the issue.

PS:The players are also partly to blame for ignoring blatant advice. This is not a one sided issue.

I wasn't really referring to the OPs case (my apologies for not being clear on that) but on all the responses indicating that they punish character death regardless of circumstance with lower levels and less less gear. I agree that the players in the OPs example are abusing the system, the answer there after a conversation on the subject is to simply say not to the 'respawn' attempts.

What concerns me is all the people indicating that legitimate character deaths to be replaced with actual new characters ought to be brought in at lower levels and under geared. All that will lead to is more character deaths for the player. I dont think that is reasonable.


Jeraa wrote:


The 3.X Dungeon Masters Guide specifically said to put in encounters the party had no chance of winning. They should be roughly 5% of all encounters by their guidelines.

This is bad advice from the 3.5e book.

Trust me I have run 3 popular campaigns going from 1st level to 20 something. I have had ONE total party kill and that was mostly because I poorly designed the encounter setting making it hard to get away if things went poorly. High level threats that exist just out of sight of the characters are the best kind. The world feels real while the stuff your characters run into is better balanced.

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How to prevent Player "respawn" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.