If only, right?Well still lots of good stuff being posted
But I still feel that raising characters is to easy and cheap let's be real most pc's have 7k going spare by the time there able to have casters of a level high enough to cast raise dead.
And death needs to be something to fear otherwise players just act recklessly never fearing the consequences of their actions.
So how about the players lose a % of there total xp when they die enough to be a pain but not so much that they are forever a lvl behind the party
Or they could just not receive any xp for the fight they died in , or just have a limit on how meny times you can be brought back to life
It's just that I've seen to meny players who's characters just charge at anything they meet safe in the knowledge that so long as someone survives the fight they'll be brought back.Hmmm. How about, instead of the permanent loss, we give them a penalty or condition that can't be healed immediately?
Like a couple negative levels. Only one can be restored per week, so you're stuck with one for awhile, unless you can just sit around for a week. I've played plenty of games where we'd gain multiple levels in a week of game time.
how is this not a "punishment"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because he sucked at staying alive.Oh, it's worse than that. I'll fix it:
I would rather not play, than be forced to play a character who got nerfed because a previous character sucked at staying alive vs. an encounter the GM created - and then punished me.Nicely done. :D
I've been stuck with GMs like this, it isn't fun.
Me-Well, you have succeeded in killing my character yet again with your unlimited resources, congratulations. My character is now FIVE levels lower than the rest of the party. That will teach me to try and fight things to gain levels, silly me.
GM-Hah hah, yeah, guess you better try harder huh?
Me-Actually I was thinking that this level disparity is a bit much, it wouldn't really make sense for my level 2 Sorcerer to stay with a party like this, their COHORTS are three levels higher than me. I'd like to make a new character please.
GM-Okay, but since you are changing characters by choice, and not because you are unable to raise your existing one, you lose a level. So feel free to roll a level 1 character of your choosing.
Me-*door slams, sound of car starting*
be sure to drink the DMs milk on the way out.
I suppose the question is, what is the objective behind penalizing players for raising their characters? Is it because you don't want raise dead to be a viable option? If so, that would probably work. As a GM, do you want that character to come back and be in the game? If so, then permanent penalties are a powerful incentive to just make a new character instead.
So as GMs, the question that should get asked is: what do I want to accomplish by making it more difficult to bring dead characters back to life? Now, I'm not criticizing this at all, I don't think there's a bad or wrong answer here. Just saying having an overall goal in this case is useful.
I will answer this, since i am clearly in the "He's dead, Jim" side of things.
Death being more permanent, punishing or relevant is not to make your players act in a certain manner, it is not to change the story, it is not to demonstrate something to your players.
It is to seek a thrill. This is what this game is about. And there is no thrill without a risk.
The question then becomes, what constitutes a thrill for YOU? The chance to lose something substantial might not be your thrill, but might be for others. So lets hear it.
Me? If there is no risk of actually losing something, then there is little thrill. The winning/losing of a simple match in a game might be thrill enough, if the competition spirit is present.
In Pathfinder, the feeling of my character making it through REGARDLESS of what choices I make feels very boring (to me). It feels unrealistic and plainly just bad story telling. I hate movies about "chosen ones", media with "special powers" just because and returning characters from the death as a plot device without extremely good reason/foreshadowing.
My cup of tea. Yours? What is your thrill in Pathfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think TOZ's is true for most everyone.
As for risk...I don't think personal risk is the only kind. Even with Raise and Regenerate in play, risk of failure is risk enough. Especially when a character dies during a time crunch. No need to ban Raise when, when it really counts, detouring to get it cast may result in catastrophe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a principal that GMs and Players should both subscribe too in terms of the game, but especially in terms of handling players deaths is as follows:
Don't waste my time.
A GM is not the boss of a player. They are not a parent or authority of anything beyond the game. And to even entertain the idea of punishing a player is to overstep the boundary of the game.
The player has devoted their time to the game in creating a character and playing that character, and while the GM has devoted more time and is thus given more of a say on the game, wasting the player's time is not acceptable.
If a player dies, they create a new character. If resurrection magic is available they can pursue that option instead. Whichever is more suitable for the players and GM's setting is fine as long as it's established before hand.
"Death is supposed to matter in this story, so no resurrection."
"Okay."
"I want you to be able to keep your characters all the way through, so resurrection"
"Okay."
That's about as far as it should go.
Don't waste my time.
See I feel the people who say things like, "We want death to be final and have real consequences" don't mean what they say, because I'm assuming that the player just brings in a new character. And that the only thing stopping the new character from being the old character with a different name is...? The only way for death to be final is that the player is forced to stop playing. But that doesn't make for a nice game. Having to pay to raise dead is a real consequence. Getting a free rebuild is a bonus. "Oh hey you died, it's okay you rez him and he comes back to life an gains 20,000gp." That feels almost like what you're doing to make "death to be final and have real consequences"
See I feel the people who say things like, "We want death to be final and have real consequences" don't mean what they say, because I'm assuming that the player just brings in a new character. And that the only thing stopping the new character from being the old character with a different name is...? The only way for death to be final is that the player is forced to stop playing. But that doesn't make for a nice game. Having to pay to raise dead is a real consequence. Getting a free rebuild is a bonus. "Oh hey you died, it's okay you rez him and he comes back to life an gains 20,000gp." That feels almost like what you're doing to make "death to be final and have real consequences"Well, the answer to that is to bring new characters in at lower level. Either a level down, usually. In extreme old school cases, back at 1st level. "You have to earn it".
Insert reiteration of "You do realize you can't catch up to other PCs when you're a level behind in Pathfinder?" here.
See I feel the people who say things like, "We want death to be final and have real consequences" don't mean what they say, because I'm assuming that the player just brings in a new character. And that the only thing stopping the new character from being the old character with a different name is...? The only way for death to be final is that the player is forced to stop playing. But that doesn't make for a nice game. Having to pay to raise dead is a real consequence. Getting a free rebuild is a bonus. "Oh hey you died, it's okay you rez him and he comes back to life an gains 20,000gp." That feels almost like what you're doing to make "death to be final and have real consequences"
In my case, it's that I want to feel the penalty for failure myself (as a player) not that I want my character to experience a penalty in-game.
I don't experience being poorer or losing a level or two to be a penalty, really - the current wealth/power/whatever of my character or party is just what it is. If I'm rich, I'm rich. If I'm poor I'm poor. It doesn't really impact on whether I feel I'm progressing in the game or not. What I don't like is losing my character with his story, goals, personality, etcetera.
One thing I always find strange in these discussions is that it's portrayed as the DM's choice, whereas I think it should be the players' preferences that really matter in this area. As a player, I like it if death is a real possibility and if it's permanent - with relatively easy raise dead options, I just don't care about my character as much. As a DM it's of no consequence to me - hopefully the players can find some mutually agreeable position.
If a PC dies, generally a new one can be inserted in the next session. Either into the story with some work (GM/player need to put some throught) or "hey he was traveling with you all along" depending on the group, story or mood. In general, catering to the player's necessities. Personally, at some point I ask my players to have a backup character ready. Specially if what is coming ahead is deadly (in the case of APs it is sometimes quite easy to predict..).
Everything I mentioned is with the caveat that the players know and have agreed to whatever terms before starting to play.
I suscribe to death being more on the permanent side also because if you need to spend 7k gold that will put you behind and make you more susceptible to future death. It is then up to the Gm to throw that extra gold or favour to make up the lost 7k. I also think that a quest or true ressurection/wish should be available somewhere in the story, however not with a "hey ima charge this ogre, cause ressurection" with I think is what people try to avoid.
In the end, at any given table there are several types of people with all different ideas of what is exactly the sweet spot and what is a fun night of gaming for them. Even the same person at a given role (Gm-player) might have a different view (I am more for permanent death when being a player for example).
It is also worth discussing the difference between a pre-written adventure and a self written adventure. The first creates a foreign entity that can be blamed, the second the GM is the sole orchestrator and therefore responsible for deaths/TPKs entirely (/joke, even when the player was doing something extremely ill advisable). I certainly feel worse when something I made up kills and PC than when something someone else made up kills a PC.
Totally agree with you TriOmega Zero, fun is the most important thing. Though as it happens with these interesting topics is that there are many roads to fun, with sharp, perilous, cliffs right besides ending up in very not fun.
We ban any ability to bring a dead person to life.
Has nothing to do with penalizing anyone, though. We just don't like the afterlife having a revolving door. We want death to be final and have real consequences, but not mechanical ones, like a penalty to your level or costing resources. It fixes some in-world inconsistencies and forces players to be more careful and tactical, but most importantly it feels right to us, that's just the type of game/world/setting we want to play.Lol. You're so funny.Yes, death should be final. It's so in the real world and we fear it because of that. Death being final adds drama and verissimitude to the game, so in the name of fun, I ban all rez spells.
And that is just the beginning...
You see... Losing your hearing or sight is a permanent life-altering event. And we fear it because of that. So, in the name of drama and verissimitude, I ban all spells that heal blindness and deafness. Fun!
Additionally, losing a limb is a permanent and life-altering event. Therefore, in the name of drama and verissimitude, I remove all sorts of regenerative effects. Fun!
Similarly, losing all your money may not necessarily be permanent, but it's a very serious and life-altering event. So we fear it. Therefore, in the name of drama, every time my PCs lose money for whatever reason, I make sure they work in-game months (maybe years) to recover it. It's very dramatic. Fun!
Also, learning new skills is difficult. No one wakes up a mage or elite warrior. Every player has to play as an NPC class for in-game years before they are allowed to play the class they want. Fun!
It's truly enhances drama and verissimitude... It's awesome! My players LOVE these house-rules! Or at very least, they will, once I find someone willing to play with me...
Then why won't they play with me???! D:
The Game "expects" you to spend a fair amount of coin on consumables and ordinary gear. Most players I've seen don't do that. Thus losing 7000 in consumables every so often is expected for wealth.
so what is a "real" consequence for death?
I'm somewhat irritated by resurrection being banned because "muh drama". I find much more interesting if the would is built keeping account of the fact that resurrection is possible.
And still the TPK is a true "game over" regardless most of the time.
Dunno. Maybe try loosening those houserules a bit?
But how will they enjoy a game where not every single condition is exactly as serious as it is IRL? How will my players tolerate such an obvious lack of realism in my game about unarmed gnomes slaying undead dragons?
D:
Perhaps if the Dm shares in the loss of the players? If there is a TPK, the DM disposes of the module/AP/figures. Since the AP can't be played again by the group, it makes perfect sense as a 'This multidimensional version of the world falls to evil' or somesuch.
I've been lucky that over the many game sessions I've GMed the majority of my players treat death as something to be avoided at all costs and tend to make plans and use tactics to minimize losses whenever possible.
Death, when it does occur, can be more difficult to overcome depending on the particular game world we are using. Some have different/reduced magical rules going on so Raise and Resurrect are not common and require some effort to obtain.
Others treat death a lot like the Vlad Taltos books where you might be killed as a warning from someone and being brought back, barring destruction or soul removal, is fairly easy.
i think, as always, the answer the this question depends on your players. If they are not fond of the idea of dealing with the ramifications of death (loss of character, being behind, etc) then make bringing characters back easy and move on. Talk to them and find out is my usual MO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think any of the options discussed could work fine. I think the important thing is for GMs to inform the players before the campaign begins as to what his/her policy on character death is. That way each player can decide if they're on board with it and ready to play, or if they want to pass on the campaign. Different people want different things after all.
I'm somewhat irritated by resurrection being banned because "muh drama". I find much more interesting if the would is built keeping account of the fact that resurrection is possible.
And still the TPK is a true "game over" regardless most of the time.
Don't worry, at least "muh drama" isn't the 'official' rule like it is for take 10 now. As the GM decides if you can or not based upon tension and drama.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I kill characters, sometimes I don't even require that they get a Raise Dead spell. I ask players "do you want your character to die?"
If they say they are ready to move on, they make a new character. If they want to hold on though, I give them the opportunity, at a cost.
My favorite cost is for some divine being to approach them in the afterlife and offer them a bargain. Promise to do X for me and I return you back to your body kind of thing. It's always something to do with the character's story, but sometimes represents a hard choice or doing something in a different way. The cost is that the character's story starts to become dictated by outsiders (literally and figuratively). They can of course refuse and make a new character.
This is currently particularly relevant because we're playing E8. Raise Dead is a ritual, but a Cleric can only cast it 4 times in their life, each time it becomes harder and more costly. The 5th and following times the ritual can fail and/or the Cleric can die. Clerics only use Raise Dead on people who are REALLY worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone here insists on no resurrection for the sake of realism. I know I don't.
I suppose I should have added "drama" as well.
BTW, I get the sarcasm. I got it from your first post.
I thought you did. It was (intentionally) very, very obvious, and I generally assume the posters in this forum are smart people. I may disagree very, very vehemently with some of them, but I have yet to see someone who I thought was stupid (maybe willfully ignorant on occasion, though. :P).
Maybe it and the hyperbole are justified, I skipped some posts, but if you're just poking at my posts then I'm not sure why as I never said anything about realism.
Neither did I, 'til my 3rd post... I'm equally unconvinced that "drama/tension/whatever" is a good reason for banning rez spells. There are too many "random-roll-death-LOL" effects in Pathfinder, and IME, it's simply not very fun for players. YMMV, of course.
For people wanting to prevent their players from just rerolling instead of being raised: How about giving raised PCs a boon instead of punishing them.
Like a free trait or a bonus to one saving throw.
"The experience of dying toughened you giving you a +1 bonus to fort saves."
For people wanting to prevent their players from just rerolling instead of being raised: How about giving raised PCs a boon instead of punishing them.
Like a free trait or a bonus to one saving throw.
"The experience of dying toughened you giving you a +1 bonus to fort saves."
I guess encouraging players to have their characters commit suicide is a valid play style too... XD
There are so many anticlimatic deaths in Pathfinder, and penalizing the player whose character died overlooks the fact that his death is to blame on the whole team more often than not.
There are two obvious bookends to how to treat PC death:
1) Death and resurrection are too cheap if a character who dies and is raised is better off than one who never died at all.
2) Death and resurrection are too expensive if the revived character is worse off than a brand new character joining the game would be.
Since the usual standard is not to put new characters too far behind existing characters, you really have a fairly narrow range of costs for reviving dead characters.
If you wish to prohibit or discourage raising the dead, you implicitly want to limit how often player characters get killed (as the continuity of your game's storyline will suffer if nobody is around who remembers the group's original mission).
I guess encouraging players to have their characters commit suicide is a valid play style too... XDFor people wanting to prevent their players from just rerolling instead of being raised: How about giving raised PCs a boon instead of punishing them.
Like a free trait or a bonus to one saving throw.
"The experience of dying toughened you giving you a +1 bonus to fort saves."
With decent players that should not be a problem.
1) Death and resurrection are too cheap if a character who dies and is raised is better off than one who never died at all.
I've.... never seen that in any tabletop RPG at all except for as part of an origin story in mutants and masterminds. Please clarify what you mean by this.
|
1) Death and resurrection are too cheap if a character who dies and is raised is better off than one who never died at all.I've.... never seen that in any tabletop RPG at all except for as part of an origin story in mutants and masterminds. Please clarify what you mean by this.
It was in reference to a suggestion a few posts up to give an edge to raised characters in order to convince players to raise them instead of rolling up entirely new ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like The Alexandrian death houserules. You don't immediately go unconscious until you're below your negative max hitpoint value. Healing spells work no matter how many negative hitpoints you have. You're not permadead until you've been past your death threshold for 24 hours. Rez spells don't exist, because there's no need for them to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like The Alexandrian death houserules. You don't immediately go unconscious until you're below your negative max hitpoint value. Healing spells work no matter how many negative hitpoints you have. You're not permadead until you've been past your death threshold for 24 hours. Rez spells don't exist, because there's no need for them to.
Interesting, but this has weird ramifications.
1. If you don't even go unconscious until below your -MAX HP, then it is effectively doubling everyone's HP. Barbarian with 80 HP who is not unconscious until -80 HP really simply has 160 HP to work with. That's a HUGE advantage unless you give it to the monsters too.
1a. If you do give it to the monsters, then EVERYBODY on both sides of the fight has this advantage, so NOBODY gains any advantage from this but all fights take 2x as long to finish.
2. The idea of never needing rez spells because everyone is in a coma for 24 hours before dying is fun, but far from any sense of reality:
King Henry VIII: Off with Anne Boleyn's head!
Headsman: Whack!
Anne Boleyn's head: Thunk. Burble.
Henry: Now I'm off to marry Lady Jane Seymour.
Headsman: Uh, sire?
Henry: What is it?
Headsman: Well, uh, you see sire, you can't marry her for 24 hours you know.
Henry: Why not?
Headsman: You see, uh, Your Majesty is still married.
Henry: Still married? My (allegedly) adulterous wife is dead. I'm a bachelor again.
Headsman: Well, sire, not really. Not yet anyway. Her Majesty is not really dead yet, sire.
Henry: What? Not dead? Is that not her head lying there in the basket?
Anne Boleyn: burble...
Headsman: Yes sire, it is. But she's only in a coma sire.
Henry: A coma? That's preposterous! Her head is off man! You did it yourself!
Headsman: Aye, I did sire. But see for yourself. Her body breathes, her heart beats. She lies still as death but yet not dead, sire.
Henry: Drat. Lady Seymour will have to wait. A day you say?
Headsman: Aye, sire, a day should do it.
Henry: Couldn't we speed this up by burning her body to ash?
Headsman: Lady Seymour sire?
Henry: No you half-wit! Her Undying Bloody Majesty!
Headsman: Oh. Well. Actually, no sire. Her ashes would yet live for the rest of the day anyway. You wouldn't want living ashes, sire. It wouldn't be pretty.
Henry: Double drat!
Anne Boleyn: burble...
Actually, come to think of it, Henry DID actually wait a whole day to get engaged to Jane Seymour. Hmmmmm, you may be onto something here...
|
Interesting, but this has weird ramifications.
1. If you don't even go unconscious until below your -MAX HP, then it is effectively doubling everyone's HP. Barbarian with 80 HP who is not unconscious until -80 HP really simply has 160 HP to work with. That's a HUGE advantage unless you give it to the monsters too.
Yeah, but you're eventually going to fail the Fort save to stay conscious. You also don't get to full attack, so your combat effectiveness is hampered pretty bad.
While you’re disabled, you must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + the number of hit points below zero) each time you take damage (including the damage which resulted in you becoming disabled). If you fail this save you fall unconscious.
The way I see it, it allows cure spells to keep repairing your body even if you've been minced into tiny kibble. A pile of hamburger might have -1000000 hp, but pump enough healing into that meat patty, and it'll reform into a person again. Within the 24 hour limit.
That's what Resurrection does, right?
I guess if you really wanna permakill something immediately, you'd have to vaporize it so that nothing remains. Or CDG it a few more times so that it's feasably impractical to heal it enough within 24 hours.
@DM_Blake, your hyperbolical sketch, while funny, isn't accurate. A character with the Alexandrian death houserules would still be dead past their negative max HP, not in a coma. The 24 hour limit just means they're healable.
at that point you exceed negative HP though... anyways, I don't see Coup De Grace working with that system... unless you call a headless barbarian running around killing people as "working"...The way I see it, it allows cure spells to keep repairing your body even if you've been minced into tiny kibble. A pile of hamburger might have -1000000 hp, but pump enough healing into that meat patty, and it'll reform into a person again. Within the 24 hour limit.
That's what Resurrection does, right?
I guess if you really wanna permakill something immediately, you'd have to vaporize it so that nothing remains. Or CDG it a few more times so that it's feasably impractical to heal it enough within 24 hours.
@DM_Blake, your hyperbolical sketch, while funny, isn't accurate. A character with the Alexandrian death houserules would still be dead past their negative max HP, not in a coma. The 24 hour limit just means they're healable.
Worked for the Green Knight.