Player Deaths


Advice

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

TrustNo1 wrote:

What should I do about characters who die and want to re-roll a character? I know this seems like a silly question, but when you think about it, there are penalties for resurrecting a character. For instance, a raise dead spell costs a lot of gold. Not only does it cost a lot of gold, but the character comes back to life with 2 negative levels, which costs gold to get rid of. However, there doesn't seem to be a penalty for re-rolling. When I suggested that the player re-roll a character with a smaller point buy they seemed offended at the idea. What should I do? I don't want to promote the idea that players can make poor tactical decisions, die, and have no negative repercussions because they simply made another character.

The reason I ask this is because I come from a school of thought that characters in my role-playing games are the main characters in a story. I hate a story were 'main characters' come in and leave without any impact. A death in the party was always something that had a significant impact on the party. We usually scraped together every bit of gold we had to bring the character back to life and back up to par. Now, I am DMing for a group that doesn't seem to care about PC deaths and think that they can continue without negative consequences. Any advice?

You should tell someone by audio or text about how you run the game. When players have died while I was GM'ing many chose to come back to life, some wanted new characters. It was never an attempt to game the system or avoid the difficult route. Maybe your player feels like the character is not equipped to survive in your game. Also there is no reason the new character should suffer for the previous character IMO. Now in order to keep things fair with regard to equipment you can give them the same gold as the party. If you have made getting equipment difficult then you can put some restriction on what they buy.

Just because you enjoy playing a certain way that does not mean others will. Did you ask the player why they wanted a knew character?


threemilechild wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
That's not how EXP works in Pathfinder. The people a level ahead will always STAY a level ahead. There isn't anything that allows a lower level character to "catch up".

This is a pretty common misconception. The XP needed for each level increases so drastically that a character who is behind catches up in levels without catching up in XP.

Here's an excerpt of the XP track:
Medium
2000 (2nd)
5000 (3rd)
9000 (4th)

Imagine that the party is 2nd level, at 2200 when Bob dies and is replaced with Bill, who gets set back to 1st with 0xp (the minimum). Bill catches up to 2nd level at +2000xp, before the rest of the party reaches 3rd level (+2800xp.) They may continue to level just before Bill does, but it depends on how big the chunks of XP get; his missing 2200 xp becomes less and less likely to make him fall just out of range as the numbers get bigger and bigger.

This allows you to be the same level as the group for certain periods of time, and the earlier you die the earlier you catch up, but if you die later it takes longer, and even when you get the same level, they will still level before, so you still never really catch up in the sense that others mean when they say "you never catch up".

In 3.5 you could actually catch up with the number of XP the party had, so you really could catch up.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Usual Suspect wrote:

I rather like the idea of replacement characters starting with NPC wealth. Especially if the party still has the old PCs equipment to divide up among themselves.

My groups don't tend to treat dead PC's as windfalls. If a PC's armor and weapon were signatory to them, it'll most likely be buried with them, or sent to the PC's heirs.


I think it's pretty inappropriate to penalise a new player with a lower point buy. That's a huge part of the character.

Personally, I just roll with what the player wants. It's in the resurrection rules that a spirit can't be forced to return to it's body if it doesn't want to. That's the player's call to make.

On the other hand,given that you're pretty determined to penalise a player for choosing to build a new character, some kind of WBL penalty a) offsets the advantage of handpicking perfect equipment, b) is easily correctable by inserting more loot so the party can redistribute a little more over time to the new character and eventually bring them up to par, and c) doesn't hamstring the character's overall abilities forever.

Ability scores are integral to a character. I implore you not to go that way. An xp penalty is not as bad, but still (as someone else mentioned) basically puts the new character in cohort land, for a good few levels at least.

Personally, I have rarely seen a player let a character stay dead because they wanted to avoid penalties. If it's a big issue, I'd back Rynjin's suggestion of doing away with resurrection penalties, but as you seem to like penalties for death and new characters, I think starting wealth is the way to go. Then you can control the speed of correction via treasure drop.

But I'd suggest meditating on how any of these options increase fun at the table, and make sure that's a factor in whatever decision you make. That is, after all, the point, n'est-ce pas?


wraithstrike wrote:
Just because you enjoy playing a certain way that does not mean others will. Did you ask the player why they wanted a new character?

Also, this. Are you sure they're angling for advantage? It could be that they a) are tired of their old character, b) think the death adds to the story and drama, c) don't want to burden the party, or d) some other reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Just because you enjoy playing a certain way that does not mean others will. Did you ask the player why they wanted a new character?
Also, this. Are you sure they're angling for advantage? It could be that they a) are tired of their old character, b) think the death adds to the story and drama, c) don't want to burden the party, or d) some other reason.

My home group has been doing CoT for just over 2 years now and I'm on only my third character. Since I can create a lot of characters in 2 years, death is bit of an opportunity but I don't think I could fairly be accused of reckless play or nefarious intent. I don't like it when my characters die but I also don't mind the chance to play something else cool.


born_of_fire wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Just because you enjoy playing a certain way that does not mean others will. Did you ask the player why they wanted a new character?
Also, this. Are you sure they're angling for advantage? It could be that they a) are tired of their old character, b) think the death adds to the story and drama, c) don't want to burden the party, or d) some other reason.
My home group has been doing CoT for just over 2 years now and I'm on only my third character. Since I can create a lot of characters in 2 years, death is bit of an opportunity but I don't think I could fairly be accused of reckless play or nefarious intent. I don't like it when my characters die but I also don't mind the chance to play something else cool.

Yeah, I've often found this ^^ to be the case. Never have I come across a player choosing to roll a new character purely for a numerical advantage.

Maybe that's just because I'm lucky enough to play with really cool people, but I suspect not.


Rynjin wrote:
TrustNo1 wrote:
I guess the real question is how to balance ~8,000g and 2 negative levels for a raise dead, versus just getting a new character sheet. I feel like a heroic death is a death nonetheless. I think a heroic death just means that the party will be more willing to chip in and help pay the cost.

The devs themselves don't even like that there's a cost for death. Most advocate either doing away with the monetary cost for the Raise line and the extra cost to Restoration to remove the negative levels, or making it a temporary cost (WBL by design is more mutable...things spent on consumables should be recouped once they're used).

It's not really necessary.

So maybe you're thinking in the wrong direction? Remove the permanent mechanical costs for resurrection.

Then they're even/

Raised: Negative levels, mental scarring

New char: Lots of time spent building, lengthy introductory scene.

I do notice they gave Witches (and Hexcrafters) access to the Life Giver Grand Hex that allows Resurrection for no material cost. (Plus Resurrection only imposes one negative level). In the spirit of capitalism, I would assume that some of these NPC's would undercut Cleric prices for bringing back the dead. A GM could use this as a way to allow a cheaper (but probably not free) way for players to be brought back. Finding such a Witch could even be a nice side quest.


I have had two characters I have played die, not in the same campaign. Our dm would have us roll a character one level lower than the lowest level character. In the games I run I offer this as well as possible reincarnation at same level as lowest level as if they just leveled. Had a player that played a ranger with favored enemy of halfling. He rolled on the charts I had created and came back as a halfling. He had to play as a conflicted ranger who hated himself and his new race. He did a really good job and liked playing a conflicted character. Luckily this change didn't disrupt the game terribly beyond players getting used to the character change.

Reincarnation of course shoild be discussed with your players, probably before any campaign starts. Get their opinion on it, if they hate it or are rather neutral about it then it probably shouldn't be brought in to the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TrustNo1 wrote:

What should I do about characters who die and want to re-roll a character? I know this seems like a silly question, but when you think about it, there are penalties for resurrecting a character. For instance, a raise dead spell costs a lot of gold. Not only does it cost a lot of gold, but the character comes back to life with 2 negative levels, which costs gold to get rid of. However, there doesn't seem to be a penalty for re-rolling. When I suggested that the player re-roll a character with a smaller point buy they seemed offended at the idea. What should I do? I don't want to promote the idea that players can make poor tactical decisions, die, and have no negative repercussions because they simply made another character.

The reason I ask this is because I come from a school of thought that characters in my role-playing games are the main characters in a story. I hate a story were 'main characters' come in and leave without any impact. A death in the party was always something that had a significant impact on the party. We usually scraped together every bit of gold we had to bring the character back to life and back up to par. Now, I am DMing for a group that doesn't seem to care about PC deaths and think that they can continue without negative consequences. Any advice?

My Advice is to let them bring in a new character penalty free. Honestly, this feels like 'Winning the game' mentality on your part. Does it REALLY matter? Is there some kind of bonus that the DM gets for killing a character and then having a chance to kill him again?

Personally, I usually make the decision at the time whether I bring the character back or whether I bring a new one. A lot of them wouldn't be interested in continuing the battle and is content with their heroic death.

What breaks the Roleplaying more? New guys joining the group at unusally times to replace fallen heroes... or the dead rising every other week? Honestly, THAT is what usually bugs me... THAT is when character death usually starts to feel cheap and pointless.

The real question to ask (if this is a constant problem. I mean WE don't see death THAT often...) WHY do the players not want to keep playing the same character? Why do they not care about Dying? Is the game boring, is the character Cookie-cutter? Are they bringing in the exact same build with a different name? Or did the character suck/rule and they wanted to try a different class/Bask in the epic death?

I'd say if you're INTENT on penalizing the player... Just charge him the same gold to bring in the new character as it did to raise him. I personally would never do that... but that way sounds like everyone wins...

TrustNo1 wrote:
And another thing... once you get to higher levels, I find it hard to believe that a level 15 character just happens along and joins your party. I feel like re-rolling and character deaths interrupt the continuity of the story.

Why? Everytime a hero throws a stick there's a BAD guy who's still a challenge popping out of the woodwork... why can't there be good guys doing it too?


I have a lot of characters I want to play, but I also want to at least get them to a certain point. If they dont get there I will play them again in the next game or try to have them rez'd in the current game.

----------------------- Changing topic--------------
Also if you feel like character deaths mess with the story then you might want to tone combat down. What you are trying to do is indirectly force the players to not change characters. Games that are lethal tend to have a higher turn over rate so it you may have to make some adjustments if you want the story to continue.

Rarely using difficult fights outside of boss fights so there is a lower chance of death might work.


Personally, I have never been on the DM side of this -- the game I'm running now and the games I've run in the past weren't particularly lethal. (I love my players having hero points, and I agree with wraithstrike that if your PCs are dying too much, tone it down.)

I have been on the player side of things. I keep saying it, and some other people have said it as well, but there's a power differential there between organic PCs and popped-into-existence-at-15th-level PCs, and that makes the game less fun for the other PLAYERS. The very best case is that the DM is running homebrew and has the time and inclination to tilt the game towards the original PCs' strengths, but that's a lot to ask even when it's possible. I've played the melee PC in a party where suddenly a summoner (not the class, this was 3.5) showed up and swift action summoned things just flat out better than me. Not so much fun, and there was nothing the DM could do that would challenge the summons but not murder everyone else while drinking tea.

All that's a digression from the original post, though. Honestly, he really seems like he wants character continuity and is upset that the game (for various reasons) encourages replacement characters instead. The very simple solution to that problem is just "no replacement characters."

ETA @wraithstrike: I love planning new characters, too. It's a lot of fun and a large part of why I sometimes hang out here -- I can tell other people what to play and pretend they'll listen. :)


My players have not yet lost one of their characters to death, but one PC did kinda go nuts. They were a true neutral cleric of Nethys who got a little too into it and tried to attack the other PCs one too many times. They tied him up and left him, along with his equipment, in the swamp they were exploring. I'm debating* whether or not to have him return as a villain NPC, an undead NPC or just a crazy but mostly benign hermit.

*NB: I do have the player's permission.

I generally agree with the advice above about having a temporary penalty for bringing in a new character, but having a well-defined way to catch up. They should not be at a disadvantage for more than a few sessions, unless the player wants to have a weaker character for RP reasons.


Every game is different; you need to find something that works for you, but also for your players. And it's not a case of you being 'right' and them wrong. Just who prefers what.

One old game I was in averaged about 1.5 deaths a session, this was playing at Uni so we got in about 40 or so sessions across a year, going from level 1 to 20.

Were there downsides? Sure! The amount of characterisation, development of the personalities, etc, was much reduced compared to other games I've been in (though hardly absent; each character did have a definite personality).

But there were also real upsides; it made us wary, it made us treat the situations we were in with respect, made us very tactical about what we were doing. And it meant that in those moments when you're standing outside the Dragon's lair, or other epic encounter, you glance at each other and you know that almost certainly one or more of you is not coming out alive. That added a sense of threat that's rarely been present in other games I've played, a sense that being an adventurer is a damn dangerous thing to be.

It also gave us a chance to play a lot of different builds, and gave us experience with quick character generation (we used to turn up to each session with a backup character or two). It was a lot of fun, and worked for both the GMs and the PCs there.

You want death to matter, to have a real cost. It does sound like you're mostly worried about people throwing away characters idly, about that not mattering to them, which as I've said earlier, is a wider issue and TBH isn't one in pretty much any game I've ever been in or seen.

But if it's a red line to you, then fair enough, you need to work out something that makes sense. But be aware your player's may have good reasons for wanting to play something different, that you may be really harming their enjoyment of the game by reducing what they get. I think the lower starting gold is probably the best option, as others say that can be smoothed out over time, whereas lower points buy or level or similar can't be.

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Player Deaths All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice
Is Paragon Surge OP?