Dealing with PC deaths..

So.... how do you guys all deal with character deaths? Do you allow new characters at same level? How do you handle wealth of the new characters?

I've been chewing on this problem for a few years now. Our group allows new characters at wealth by level, starting with xp equal to what the character that died had. I dont like this because it tends to encourage character suicide when a player isn't completely happy with their character, and often the wealth by level for a given level is higher or more flexible that what would otherwise be available. Also, after 3 years of playing together, we still have not figured out what to do with the loot on the dead character.

So, I'm curious on what other groups are doing, and what has worked well and what has not. I'm back to GM'ing again, so I have an opportunity to change this, so I'm eager to see what others do.

"It lets players who aren't having fun create new characters they will actually enjoy playing" doesn't seem like that much of a downside to me.

Fair enough. So, how would you handle players that show up with different characters to every other play session?

"It lets players who aren't having fun create new characters they will actually enjoy playing" doesn't seem like that much of a downside to me.

The downside is that it encourages exploiting just so players can feel overpowered and trvialize encounters, something which it seems the current GM does not want to have happen (and would therefore cause him to not enjoy the game). The GM's happiness is just as important as the players' happiness, and if the PCs aren't liking certain aspects of their character versus not liking their character at all, I'm sure the PCs can work with their GM to find a middle ground regarding character aspects so the PC becomes more enjoyable. If the GM is absolutely unreasonable, then we got bigger problems besides "My character's nose is too big."

With that being said, remember that not all characters in parties are of equal power, or even equal equipment. Not all of the equipment of the first PC will be applicable to the newcomer PC, for starters. This means that whatever equipment does become applicable, should be subtracted from the newcomer PC's WBL to help counterbalance the exploiting.

Secondly, adventurers aren't cheap to come by; I imagine that if the PCs want the new character into their group, they need to give some incentive, and for those of the mercenary type, the only means to do that would be to sell the old person's gear to come up with enough gold to 'hire' the newcomer, which that PC can then use for whatever means (for mechanical purposes, this composes the rest of the WBL for the newcomer PC to utilize to gear their character).

I think this solution would best solve your problem.

I allow replacement characters at 3/4 XP and 3/4 Wealth-by-level of the recently departed. This amounts to a 25% wealth-and-XP tax for death. This is for any replacement character, whether for death, retirement, or a new player.

In my COTCT game one of my players created an oracle that after a few levels they didn't want to play anymore. She was good at pretty much everything outside of combat but when it came to combat she didn't wanted to be more effective. The player expressed all of this to me and we came up with both an intro strategy for the new PC and an exit strategy for the old PC.

The old PC holed up with the church of Abadar who she had ties with and effectively became an NPC contact (still kind of played by the PC when they ran into her). And since the PC's were doing for hire work for the City guard Cressida Croft (their employer) put them in contact with the new PC and vouched for his trustworthiness.

Basically talk to your players and work something out with them that will be equitable for the both of you.

If a player was switching out PC's every other session thought that would be a problem in terms of consistency of play and i'd probably ask that player to either stick with one character or find another group. If every character they played was a suicidal/death wish having PC in order to facilitate playing a new PC every other session? I'd ask that player to find another game. They'd really need to take that level of passive agressiveness somewhere else.

I just let them join in at the same level as the party. I like keeping my players at the same level, don't want anybody to over-kill or get killed (or just not being able to do things) because of it. Early levels, one level is a huge difference. Later levels it doesn't matter as much and maybe they'll start at one level under. Of course players are allowed to start at lower levels if they want.

Starting wealth depends on the party's wealth. It shouldn't impact their current balance. If the party is dirt poor they won't come in with a huge amount. Or if the party is rich they won't come in dirt poor.

Character suicide isn't a problem in my group. We have, however, had players change character, simply because they don't enjoy their's that much. If we didn't allow this there would probably be meta-gaming suicide.

And for the dead member's loot. It's loot unless RP resons.

This is how I do it in the current campaign, not a perfect formula that I will not always use.

The biggest problem with a player bringing in a new PC is that his items can be tailored perfectly...this is typically a huge advantage over the other PC's...even if the total of his items has less worth than the PC had before or the other PC's have. The other PCs will be at least partially stuck with equipment they found or were able to buy...if the GM is running anywhere near the normal rules. You could let the PCs have more gold to spend on their rebuilt PC, BUT have a limited selection of "expensive" random items to choose from that are unknown to the player till after he built his new PC. And some sort of XP/level penalty compared to the dead PC needs to be there...but IMHO it shouldn't be severe.

That's why I have the 25% tax for new PCs. Sure, their gear can be perfectly tailored, but they only get 3/4 as much. It works out about the same, and prevents PCs from being suicidal to get better gear .

We just ignore the issue and let lower loot levels balance out the WBL going forward. Sometimes we'll send it to next of kin (or the profits from its sale) or bury it with the deceased.

EDIT: We also allow full item availability (as long as you can get to a big city) and have never seen any balance issues from it. So that helps mitigate a lot of the supposed impact.

There all sorts of method to this madness. The truth is, for a death a player didn't particularly want or to replace a single character that just isn't working, I'd prefer to allow them come back at full strength. At the same time, you want to limit abuse of this. I might just use my discretion based on the situation as it presents itself. It's not fun playing a weaker character in a party.

On the changing characters topic, it’s good for the characters to be free enough as to change characters not only when they die. If, for some reason, they want to change it, either because it’s not longer that fun, or they want to test another character, it’s alright for them to do it. Death shouldn’t be the only situation in which the PCs can change characters. Besides, at higher levels death isn’t even a situation in which the PC has to change characters. They can leave the party if they want, or if they receive a call from another group (a paladin serves to a church, after all, just to put an example). For the characters to suicide because the player wants to play another character is metagaming.

Some times, players want to test many different things. When I started playing, I did that. I didn’t play characters, I played this feat, with that item, with those class features. They are mechanics, not characters. For those kinds of players, you can build an organisation of adventurers, and have them send with the party an adventurer once in a while for a work in the field. That way, there is an in-game option for those players.

About the loot...Have you seen The Gamers, by chance? The options I know are for the party to take the loot and use it, or to sell it, so they can buy stuff that they’ll use. If you think that this increases way too much the party’s level, then make the deaths in such a way that the loot is beyond their reach. The character dies eaten, falling into a pit, disintegrated, sent to another plane, to name a few. Moreover, the items could be specially crafted for them, linked to their essences, and so if they die the item loses its functioning. The linking could be so strong that the objects only work when the specific character is wielding it, so that disencourages stealing from still living characters. There are rules in the Core for items that only work when the wielder has certain features (by race, class, alignement, etc)

25% less seems like an awesome trade for ideal equipment...in my mind, but if it is working as enough of a penalty to keep your players from feeling rewarded for dying at your table...so be it. That is really my only point...PC death NEEDS to sting a little. Allowances should be made for inexperienced players and just plain repetitive bad luck so none ends up too far behind in either level or equipment. I agree they need to be very close in level if not exactly the same at very low levels...i have played in groups where some are level one while others are level 3 and it just blows for the 1st level guys.

25% less seems like an awesome trade for ideal equipment...in my mind, but if it is working as enough of a penalty to keep your players from feeling rewarded for dying at your table...so be it. That is really my only point...PC death NEEDS to sting a little. Allowances should be made for inexperienced players and just plain repetitive bad luck so none ends up too far behind in either level or equipment. I agree they need to be very close in level if not exactly the same at very low levels...i have played in groups where some are level one while others are level 3 and it just blows for the 1st level guys.

Why does PC death need to sting? Most people like their characters, so death will already be painful without rules punishing death further. Not to mention the "I don't get to play" time while you make a new character and the DM leads in to the moment they join the party (probably at least half a session worth).

Just give them a character of matching level, xp, and loot and make their entrance plausible.

Ideal item choice is, IMO, a bit overvalued.

If someone is playing their characters as throw-away puppets, that's a separate problem entirely. If you're going to impose punishments to avoid that kind of activity, impose them if and ONLY if the player has already done such a sacrifice AND you have given appropriate warning (well before the action was taken and/or just before accepting that they are committed to the action).

We extract the corpse and find a cleric we can pay to Raise Dead. It usually involves selling off gear we could normally have used.
Or at higher levels we're prepared for deaths with plenty of Diamond Dust and multiple characters that can do something (UMD a scroll at worst).

What, exactly is the difference between a PC living through a battle and one that dies and can comeback with the same gear and levels??? Couldn't they than, under your rules, just come back with the same exact build?? Just with any flaws in there original erased?? That is straight up incentive to fight recklessly. People will tend to A)do what's easiest and B)what's selfish. Why tempt them? And more importantly where's the fun of having no real risk? Without risk why try to build a decent PC at all?

What, exactly is the difference between a PC living through a battle and one that dies and can comeback with the same gear and levels??? Couldn't they than, under your rules, just come back with the same exact build?? Just with any flaws in there original erased?? That is straight up incentive to fight recklessly. People will tend to A)do what's easiest and B)what's selfish. Why tempt them? And more importantly where's the fun of having no real risk? Without risk why try to build a decent PC at all?

You play with some strange players.

At our table, even if you're suboptimal, you just keep playing. If it's really bad we simply retcon your character's build a bit and keep going. We'd rather let someone swap out a couple feats for free than have a bad time.

Do these retcons happen a lot? It depends. One person had a single retcon in a 1-15 campaign because they kept dying and couldn't deal much damage. Another had 3 in the same campaign and afterwards concluded that they probably shouldn't play casters. The other players had 0.

Do not treat your players like children to be punished for their misbehaving. If you do so, don't be surprised if they start to act like misbehaving children. Treat them like adults and you may be surprised at how reasonable they can be.

If continuity is the issue, I would institute a rule like this:

If you write a compelling story for why your current character leaves the group, and what (s)he does afterwards, and also write a compelling story for how and why your new character meets up with the group and joins it, (s)he comes in with full XP and WBL.

If you just suicide your character and bring in a new one without any strong connection to the party, you come in with 75% XP and 75% WBL.

I now play only PFS games...but i was part of several other private games. It would be nice if no one ever wanted to hog the attention or be the most powerful...but it seems fairly common and has a domino effect as the other players feel left out and start to feel the need to compete with their own power/meta gaming. Again i am not arguing for severe penalties...just enough to keep it from being a reward. And i notice you still haven't address the risk/reward aspect of my last post...not everybody enjoys the same aspect of RPGs as much as each other. Some may tolerate it as just an excuse to be social. Others may just love the RPing, but many like me also like the attention we get at times and the satisfaction of a successful build and battle strategem...this does not make us immature or insensitive..any more than enjoying the competition of a ping pong game would or successfully cooking a new recipe would.

I now play only PFS games...but i was part of several other private games. It would be nice if no one ever wanted to hog the attention or be the most powerful...but it seems fairly common and has a domino effect as the other players feel left out and start to feel the need to compete with their own power/meta gaming. Again i am not arguing for severe penalties...just enough to keep it from being a reward. And i notice you still haven't address the risk/reward aspect of my last post...not everybody enjoys the same aspect of RPGs as much as each other. Some may tolerate it as just an excuse to be social. Others may just love the RPing, but many like me also like the attention we get at times and the satisfaction of a successful build and battle strategem...this does not make us immature or insensitive..any more than enjoying the competition of a ping pong game would or successfully cooking a new recipe would.

If players at the same table are playing the game for extremely different reasons, the right approach is to talk to each-other and figure out a compromise that makes the game fun for both.

Punishing the guy who likes to try out different builds for doing so is him not having fun. Allowing continuous suicides with mysteriously-accepted-without-thought replacements bothers the RP-focused player. Only your specific group can come up with the solution that works for them, but you won't find the right solution without engaging the players, asking them what they want from the game, and asking them to cooperate with you in ensuring that everyone can get what they want from the game.

It lessens my enjoyment as a player if no real risk is involved..just as it does when i throw darts against a novice...thats not an uncommon result...where's the challenge??

That depends, Meager.

What do you mean by "against"? ;)

I think it would be difficult to assemble 4-6 RPGers that would ALL enjoy riskless encounters. And changes can always be made to a PC(or swapping) without applying a death penalty...there really isn't much of a downside to a bit of incentive to stay alive but plenty to gain(or downside to avoid) with it. Hey if what your doing works for your group, great. But the rules are written as is for good reason...ignore the intent behind them at your own risk.

The risk of dying is that your character never gets to achieve his goals.

If I bring a character to the table, I have a specific vision for what his end-game is. If he dies, that vision never gets to come to fruition. That alone is the incentive to stay alive.

Likewise, I've played a campaign where my character was able to achieve his goals earlier than I thought, so he no longer had any reason to be out adventuring. It would have made no sense story-wise to continue playing the character, as staying with the party would have meant abandoning the one thing he had always hoped and dreamed about. So I retired him and statted up a prominent NPC to take over for the rest of the campaign.

against = the challenge to survive...the challenge to succeed at the mission. Sooner or later in the majority of decent sized groups riskless encounters will end up resulting in a player acting the way OP describes. This has a negative effect on the whole table...no?? But more to my point, why should i care as a player if we beat the bad guy if there isn't any risk?? Where's the emotional motivation...the fear. That fear directly affects the satisfaction from winning. Few have ever sprang up to give someone else a high five yelling "i beat the 6 year old at chess!" Its just not human nature. Is everyone this way...no, but most of us are to a point. The whole point of encounters is not just to succeed but to succeed AND survive.

Frankly, getting a character killed just to switch is terribly uncreative in almost all cases. See if you can be more creative! Sometimes it's more interesting if the PC survives as an NPC, for instance. Or having them go missing can be an excellent plot hook for later. An inactive PC is a wonderful tool for both the GM (great fodder for a sympathetic NPC) and the player (great backup PC for later on in the campaign when it's harder to bring in a total stranger).

I think it's best to just work out an in-story reason to move the PC out. Let the player make his new character without any penalties (except possibly that -25% loot angle).

The only exception I would make would be if the campaign is approaching the finale. In that case, I'm much more eager to set a desperate tone of "the lone heroes", so adding a new guy then is just silly. If there's already a good backup around, swell. Otherwise, some sort of drawback (like a one level penalty) seems appropriate.

Losing an ally makes things harder and increases the risk of a TPK. The end of a campaign is the one time when such a Bad End is appropriate, so I'm inclined to enable it. For instance, in my Age of Worms game, I'm planning on certain advantages (Action Points, for instance) not being available to replacement PCs at a certain very late point in the adventure path. By then, though, resurrection will be readily available, so it's not such a harsh blow. Still a bit dickish, but that shouldn't come as any surprise to my players at this point. ;)

I allow players to make new characters that the same level as the lowest level PC with wealth equal to an NPC of that level. I do not allow the new character to receive any pre-existing party items (except 1-use items)for several sessions.

StabbittyDoom
Why does your group even have battles??? Just for the role-playing? Or the off chance of a TPK? So what if if 3 out of 4 go down playing stupid? BING! they are all right back, but this time better set up for the next leg of the campaign. Seems kind of pointless to me..why no just roll a d20 and see if 1=TPK?? The players/PC strategy really doesn't matter...because there isn't going to be any downside the vast majority of the time.
The whole game(and any game really) is all about risk vs reward...taking one of the biggest risks out seems silly and unneeded. Players aren't suppose to like their PCs dying...and if they get too far behind adjustments can be made, heck the non-diers that get out too far ahead can have levels drained or equipment destroyed or their PCs altered if their build is just vastly superior. Fix the problem of vast inequity for whatever reason...please. But there is no reason it has to be done so by eliminating all penalties for PC death. You can have your cake and eat it to. To me THIS is the way to keep all types of players happy..not cowing to the few who can't handle even the smallest penalty for a PC expiring.

StabbittyDoom

Why does your group even have battles??? Just for the role-playing? Or the off chance of a TPK? So what if if 3 out of 4 go down playing stupid? BING! they are all right back, but this time better set up for the next leg of the campaign. Seems kind of pointless to me..why no just roll a d20 and see if 1=TPK?? The players/PC strategy really doesn't matter...because there isn't going to be any downside the vast majority of the time.
The whole game(and any game really) is all about risk vs reward...taking one of the biggest risks out seems silly and unneeded. Players aren't suppose to like their PCs dying...and if they get too far behind adjustments can be made, heck the non-diers that get out too far ahead can have levels drained or equipment destroyed or their PCs altered if their build is just vastly superior. Fix the problem of vast inequity for whatever reason...please. But there is no reason it has to be done so by eliminating all penalties for PC death. You can have your cake and eat it to. To me THIS is the way to keep all types of players happy..not cowing to the few who can't handle even the smallest penalty for a PC expiring.

You seem to have missed my entire point: What this game is "about" is entirely dependent on the people playing it. To me (and my group), the purpose of the game is to get together with friends, hang out, and stab a few monsters. The particulars of living, dying, or "winning" or immaterial. We just want it to be interesting. Usually, dying and replacing the character is not very interesting, so we prefer not to replace the character. As such, we ALWAYS revive the dead where possible, and on TPK we just do a new campaign since it feels cheap to have a new group take over where they left off.

This is why I said to talk to your group. If everyone feels the way you do about what the game is "about", then perhaps it *is* appropriate to put a punishment there, or at least have a gentleman's agreement that you're only allowed to effectively suicide if it would be totally awesome (as voted by the table). But this is NOT true of all tables, nor necessarily even most tables. And at some tables, it would be the worst possible idea! But you won't know without that dialog. If you're table has already had that and agreed, then more power to ya.

The OP came here asking for examples of how we deal with death in hopes of finding a way that sat well with them as a player and/or DM. My answer is: whatever the entire group agrees is reasonably fun. Shoot for a compromise if necessary. This thread is perfect for ideas to bring into such a discussion, but nothing here can be considered the "right" answer. Heck, there may even be a group out there where "if you die, you're out until we all die" is the right answer. Unlikely, but possible. And if they found that fun, they wouldn't be wrong.

So, to answer your question: We have fights because we find them interesting.

I always allow people to make replacement characters at level with full WBL. I have never been in a home game as player or GM that didn't see the PC's exceeding WBL slightly. Between crafting feats and thievery the players always seem to get ahead of the chart. Being at WBL instead of ahead of it is the penalty for retirement in our group.

Oh i agree with pretty much with everything you said...and already acknowledged people play for different reasons, i will even say there are groups who's gameplay won't be affected adversely by no death penalty...or even the "death bonus" yours seems to play with. But i contend most, will be.....givin enough time/player turnover. And If a the penalty is appropriately designed for the group's taste without elimination of it altogether with the proper limitations....what is the downside? I am not trying to tell you to change how your group uses it...but to warn others who want to try it your way, it can have poor results...as it did with one of the groups i played with.
If a group is considering the elimination of all death penalties...i would advise a subtler change to those rules...and that if they are trying to address problems of PC inequity, there are other ways of doing it. Often these Inequities have other origins that will not be fixed by elimination of ALL death penalties....It may be an attractive "quick fix", ignoring the real problems while very possibly creating a new one.

StabbittyDoom
I never at any point suggested that a GM should not consider his player's opinions when deciding how to structure a rule or that there is one right answer for every group. But that there are reasons for the death penalties, and i tried to explain them in case others haven't had the experience of playing without them as both of us have. Playing without any death penalties can work....it can also fail spectacularly.

There are two main scenarios to a permanent PC death: 1) the player wanted to switch characters for Reasons, 2) the PC's body is unrecoverable or bringing them back isn't possible.

For the first case, I would much rather the player come to me and say, "I'm not having fun with this character" or "I really think the party needs a healer" or whatever the reason is. The game's much better when everyone's having fun and continuity of characters' plots helps me as a GM. It's better, IMO, to tweak and adjust an established character (even going so far as to completely rebuild him) and leave his story arc intact than suicide the character, or just decline to be resurrected, for entirely fixable reasons. The story goes on, everyone has fun.

Obviously, if a player is steadfastly intent on abusing this and remaking their character every week, I'd have a talk with them. Perhaps they're looking for a different kind of game than what I'm running or there's some other underlying cause. I zealously avoid, as a friend likes to say, "playing with jerks" so it's never been an issue.

Permanently dead through in-game events is something else entirely. Sometimes, the dice just hate you. Or the GM rolls 17s all night. While I avoid intentionally putting the PCs in unwinnable, inescapable situations, random chance means terrible things are going to happen. When it does, it's a terrible event, so further compounding the sadness and hard feelings isn't productive.

I always bring in replacement characters, regardless of circumstance, at average level and wealth. If possible, the new PCs trades across the dead PC's gear for equivalent items. The dead rogue's +2 shortbow becomes a +2 longbow for the new fighter. The dead ranger's +4 armor becomes +4 bracers of armor for the new sorcerer. And so on. Anything that doesn't have a reasonable analogue gets liquidated and the player can buy something class-appropriate with it. The dead PC's gear then exits stage left in some RP-appropriate manner, assuming it still physically exists. This keeps the new PC at the same wealth and approximate gearing that the old one had.