|
I know a good many of you out there have been running low-magic (aka no magic Wal-Mart) games and I was wondering how you handled the issue of character death and redistribution of the dead character's items and/or the introduction of replacement characters who may enter the game better equipped than their surviving counterparts.
When running the last two of my low-magic games, I noticed that character death was almost celebrated as the party became a pack of vultures and claimed everything of value off their dead comrade's corpse. Since resurrection / raise dead was unlikely in my world, the dead characters did not have backstories that would indicate surviving relatives should receive some sort of magical inheritance and the party was mostly of a chaotic bent, I couldn't see a reason why looting the dead guy shouldn't be allowed. However, this ended up putting a good deal of loot back into the party's hands. Of course, a character died but even if the perishing character came in a level lower than everyone else, it had the net effect of one character trading one level of XP for an entire character's much-coveted magic item stash. With the rarity of magic items in the game, a find of even a small collection of useful magic items in one convenient pile was a godsend.
The problem was further exacerbated when the player of the dead character would create a new character using the wealth-by-level guidelines and come back into the group with much better equipment than anyone else had. I considered toning down the amount of starting gold granted at character creation, but faced a wholesale player revolt when I attempted this so I backed down (my fault I know). Nevertheless, death was now doubly beneficial: a dying character not only generated a treasure trove for the group, but returned (albeit a level lower) with better equipment than his higher level character had when he perished. It got bad enough that my newest game I decided to run with the RAW / Wal Mart approach, which has really limited this sort of thing, but I am seeing the flaws in that system as well and wish there was some happy medium out there.
Has anyone had similar experiences with character death in low-magic games and if so, what have you done to address them?
Well, deaths aren't usually celebrated at the table (that is metagaming at its worst), but I have seen your phenomena and knew that I would have to nip it in the bud before beginning my AoWAP game.
Want to keep the items that the old character had before he/she died. OK. The new character is starting play with nothing more than pants and desire for adventuring. I usually avoid this situation by somehow ruining all of the PCs gear in the manner in which the PC died (incinerated, disintegrated, shattered, melted, etc.)
First off, characters don't get "Wealth by Level" - in fact, they get hardly any cash: enough to fill up a backpack with mundane goods. What they get is hammered out between the player and the DM, and its less than what the character had before.
Second of all, I grant "Baldur's Gate"-like abilities (maybe an ability point here or there) to characters as the story progresses every 3 or 4 levels. New characters get these perks going forward, but have lost out on them retroactively; stated differently, your new PC can never have as many Ability Points as your original PC.
That said, I noticed thhat the power curve STILL moved in favor of new characters. Why? Because they were:
a) armed with knowledge of the adventure and built their character accordingly.
b) Complete-type books totally changed the playing field, making new characters more powerful than their earlier counterparts.
Now, Im a harda$$ as a DM, but usually players dont have that much of an issue with this.
IMC, we spend most of our time out in teh wild, with no chance to make/purchase items. I have seen several deaths, and yeah, they do come back stronger due to meta-game reasons, mostly knowing what they are facing. But the older characters still all hold thier own, and I usually do nerf the "starting gear" allotment to 85% or so. My players have yet to complain, and if they do, I remind them its MY world. New supplements aren't allowwed unless I own them (even pdf is fine) and the individual feat/spell/etc is run by me first. But my party is all in thier 20's, so player maturity has a lot to do with it too. They respect the balance of my world, and I give them a pretty free hand in making characters they have fun with.
|
Long ago, and far away, I had a valiant attempt at a Birthright campaign. Not only is there no magic Wal-Mart in Birthright, the players were lucky to have a +1 weapon between them at level 5.
When the same phenomenon happened to my group, I enforced new chars get max starting gold x new level.
2nd edition didn't exactly have wealth per level tables that could be pointed at though. Although it was customary to start people with close to the same wealth as the rest of the party.
In your case, I would argue that wealth per level is for adventurers, who are actively adventuring. That means taking risks. There is no risk invovled in the new character's history, no matter how well written, obviously the guy survived to this point. Does the new character deserve the same amount of wealth as someone who really (pretended) to risk life and limb?
If that doesn't work, I would have the ghost of the dead guy haunt his boots. Then again, I am vindictive.
Long ago, and far away, I had a valiant attempt at a Birthright campaign. Not only is there no magic Wal-Mart in Birthright, the players were lucky to have a +1 weapon between them at level 5.
When the same phenomenon happened to my group, I enforced new chars get max starting gold x new level.
2nd edition didn't exactly have wealth per level tables that could be pointed at though. Although it was customary to start people with close to the same wealth as the rest of the party.
In your case, I would argue that wealth per level is for adventurers, who are actively adventuring. That means taking risks. There is no risk invovled in the new character's history, no matter how well written, obviously the guy survived to this point. Does the new character deserve the same amount of wealth as someone who really (pretended) to risk life and limb?
If that doesn't work, I would have the ghost of the dead guy haunt his boots. Then again, I am vindictive.
Dragonmann, kudos to you on running a Birthright campaign. It was a great setting that was tragically misunderstood by the masses.
In terms of looting corpses, players in my game rarely have the time to do so, as I intentionally have them outnumbered or in some other real danger to keep this time-killer low. Treasure troves and intentional assassination are the main sources of swag in my games.
In a home brew I dabbled in, I had this set up to handle this problem exactly:
Treatment of the Dead and Funeral Rites
The treatment of the dead varies considerably among the population of Eldarr, depending on the religion that the fallen follows. For the followers of the AllFather and the Mother, it is considered to be a grave insult to the dead to perform their funeral rites differently than is expected for their religion.
The worshipers of the AllFather consider the soul to be something apart from the body, and to be a gift bestowed by the AllFather himself. As such, funerals are performed by a priest of the AllFather. The priest needs to perform the last rites for the fallen to enable a conduit for his soul from earth to Heaven. If the last rites are not performed, the soul is believed to be caught in Purgatory and unable to pass to Heaven. If a soul is caught in Purgatory, it is considered to be vulnerable to being taken by the forces of Hell. The body is then entombed with their ancestors (possibly a carryover from the worship of the Mother by the inhabitants of early Eldarr) and a marker place over the tomb denoting the name of the fallen. These markers vary from a simple headstone of wood for a commoner to an elaborate mausoleum for a king. The individual possessions of the dead are passed on to the family of the fallen, and failing that, become the property of the Church of the AllFather to help in the fight against evil.
For the worshipers of the Mother, the soul is immortal and death simply a passing from one world to the next and the places of the living and the dead are continually exchanged. As such, the possessions of the dead are considered needed by the fallen in the afterlife, and are buried with the fallen for use in the afterlife. The warriors are buried in their chariots with all their weapons, animals, and household possessions, as well as their rank insignia. The tomb is then covered with a funeral mound, known as a tumulus, and often a statue is placed on top. It is considered to be a grave misfortune and ill luck for the body of a fallen worshiper of the Mother to be burned, and worshipers will go to great pains to ensure that a dead body is not burned, as the body is needed in the afterlife.
For the followers of the demons of Hell, the body is commited to the flame and burned. Fire is seen as a symbol of the fires of Hell, and is thought to pass the body and soul to Hell that much quicker, and as such into the possession of their fell demon patrons. The possessions of the dead fall to whoever is strong enough to take them and keep them from being taken.
I don’t have any problems with characters looting their companions. They do it to the enemy, why not friends too? Isn’t this acquisition of nifties part and parcel of the game? Why bar them from it just because the fragged corpse used to be one of their own? Do you think modern military guys forebear from “looting” weapons, ammo, food and other necessaries from the body of a downed buddy? Not really. They might not sell wedding rings or boots, but the main equipment is up for grabs. Let the game group do it too.
As far as replacement characters and the inherent difficulties of inserting one goes; I try very hard not to introduce a character as strong as the party average. I go for having the replacement a level or two lower than the group (unless very necessary for story continuity) so that he has to work to earn his position. It gives players a chance to back away from the main story to “muscle” the new guy up some, and get to know him, before they plunge back into the main action. If, on occasion, a newby happens, by dice luck, manages to get a better magic item than currently in the group, then that’s just his fortune and now the fortune of the group. No big deal.
I don’t have any problems with characters looting their companions. They do it to the enemy, why not friends too?
On principle I wouldn't have a problem with this argument. The problem is bourne from allowing this exact scenario, however. By virtue of allowing your characters to loot themselves, they are double-dipping where wealth and power is concerned. The wealth (and power) they acquire from enemies are factored into the PCs progression through an adventure - the wealth they take off their homies are not.
I don't feel that the analogy to reality you make with soldiers applies in the case of a fantasy game. I would be very wary of any fellow soldier of mine that would hope for my demise so he/she could take the extra three ammo clips and new jungle boots I was wearing for their own or so he/she could sell them on ebay for profit.
Not to flame....just politely disagreeing.
|
|
The OP seems to have functional wealth/level guidelines that are lower than the standard. First, I'd recommend that he codify those levels and bring any new characters in at those levels rather than at the arbitrary levels suggested (note that word) in the DMG.
Second, I'd recommend that you do periodic character wealth audits and adjust the amount of treasure given out so that the group drifts back toward your expected levels. Even one level of very limited treasure may be enough to compensate for a treasure bounce from looting a former comrade's stuff.
Note: If you are losing so many characters that you can't rebalance wealth in a timely manner, that might point to a different problem. 8-)
Not to flame....just politely disagreeing.
Understood, and no offense taken. I understand the argument. I was just trying to point out though, that looting is a function of the game. Characters progress through killing and the acquisition of wealth (money) and power (magic items, for the most part). The party does it everywhere else, why keep their own members (voluntarily or by DM decree) out of the equation?
I think that acquisition of these items is indeed part of “…the PC’s progression through an adventure”. Their companion got that piece during the adventure (or during character creation, which amounts to the same thing, really) and should be allowed to benefit from its use or sale. If nothing eles, the one PC's death is part of "progression through" the adventure.
What if the group comes across another “adventuring” party…say a mix of races and classes substantially similar to themselves? This group has magic armor, wands, weapons, scrolls, amulets, potions, rings and all the other paraphernalia to be found in any well equipped and successful party. If the PCs lose, this group will happily loot them and past experience shows me that if the PCs win they will definitely loot their fallen foes. The same “progression through an adventure” specter, when applied here, shows that the “double-dip” you cite is prevalent here as much as if it were a fallen party member, just more of it. What if the opposing group is a several Drow (or any other such race) packed to the gills with magical stuff? Are the PC's prohibited from looting them? Where is the line to be drawn? How can you enforce preventing party members from doing the looting?
The original question was how to insert new characters into a party short a body (pun intended) without blowing balance because of table foibles in character creation. I was suggesting reducing the level of replacement characters into an ongoing adventure to limit the number and power of nifties entering play. This provides the group the incentive to cough up some of the dead party member’s stuff to this new guy to bring him up to snuff with the group. This solves the “what do we do with this junk” question quickly and reduces the amount of unbalancing extras that come with the new character.
I would be very wary of any fellow soldier of mine that would hope for my demise so he/she could take the extra three ammo clips and new jungle boots I was wearing for their own or so he/she could sell them on ebay for profit.
You would be wise.
Listen you stingy a$$ gm's. Peole get frustrated enough at work / school with bosses telling them "you can't have that etc. etc."
Instead of running a "low magic" campaign, why don't you try running a normal or high magic one. then when you're done, ask the players which one they enjoyed more. Heck, ask yourself, but only after you run it. I did it and I was suprised by the answers.
I've found that the only people that enjoy the "low magic" games are the GM's, and that's only before they tried running the game as written. Admittedly, I have a low sampling (3) but instead of whining "I'm pissed that my players have items" put your effort in finding ways to challenge them more.
my 2 cents.
Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. And beyond that, I'd say this depends on the kind of story you're trying to tell, and what kind of people you're playing with. If your players want nothing more than to be walking gods, every now and then you should humor them. But honestly, to say "you should simply challenge them more" becomes somewhat difficult when the characters are Godlike by level 5.
Plus, low-magic can add a wholly unique feel to a campaign that you don't get in Monty Haul campaigns. Would Conan the Barbarian have such a grim, gritty feel to it if Conan wielded a +25 Sword of Firey Doom and Rectum Pillaging, and could kill his foes by sneezing on them from the proper distance?
Would The Lord of the Rings have felt so epic if they'd simply been able to poke Sauron once with the Vorpal Spork of Wrathly Vengeance, and offed him in the first 10 chapters?
Athe old saying goes, "Too much of a good thing can be too much." If powerful magic items and equipment is freely availible, they lose their uniqueness. I remember my early D&D sessions, and praying every time I found a new item that there would be a hint of magic to it. Once I finally got one, it was like winning the lottery-- only geekier.
If every weapon I'd ever found was magic, I'd start to take them for granted.
As for the Teamlooting issue, I'd try and find a way to discourage this behavior. If the Lootee has no problem with it, then fine. But D&D is a cooperative game, and I personally feel that the anticipation of waiting for a teammate to get whacked so you can jack his Boots of Awesomeness takes away from the cooperation aspect.
If this is a problem, definitely do something to fix it. If you really want to keep your campaign low magic, then impose some sort of restriction or penalty on the looters, such as a curse brought forth by the gods for disrespect for the dead, or destroy the items in the process of death, as mentioned by someone else.