The thing is, the point of the game is for each player to have fun. Forcing a player to 1st level...geez, that's harsh. You're basically forcing the player to sit out a lot of combat, since at 7th level, the monsters everyone else is facing can murder him.
My favored approach is to just put the new PC at APL -2. It's a pain, but it won't produce a vicious cycle of deadness, or a horribly bored player who just goes into the other room and plays video games whenever a fight starts.
But if your players are fine with it, that's all that matters.
Well it sounds like you are killing a lot of characters. I would look into whether you are creating part of the revolving door by making death so commonplace. That or they are just not that careful. Though from reading your suggestion of putting level 1 PC's alongside level 7. I have a feeling you like really pushing the danger threshold.
If you are the GM and that many are dying and you think they should fail, force them to retreat or you will get your wish of a TPK. The power to fix this is completely yours. If only one or two of the party are left and more than half are dead don't send in PC reenforcements make them go back to town, resupply meet new PC and then find out that another group of adventurers dealt with the problem. Or that the time to strike has past and the outlaws have moved on, the dragon flew away and so on.
It depends on how you see "winning". An RPG is not linear like a board or video game. A long campaign may not ever be "won" if you build a world around it that lives and changes even when the characters are not active. A win may be an entire party making it through an adventure intact..before moving on to the next. Or it may be ensuring victory, even if it means "recruiting" new help along the way to replace fallen comrades. What would make it a "win" in the real world?
The 1st level characters may be able to hit..but their AC's, saves and hit points mean they are very easily toast..and an intelligent for would see that. I think that is the balance worry people mentioned.
The only real win in an rpg is everyone having fun.
When the PC's fail to complete an objective- whether due to just failing and retreating, or do to a multi-dead PC problem where one guy runs back to recruit more..
*have the Enemy advance their plans*.
Bad Guy isn't sitting there reading the newspaper while the PC's go back and return a week later for a redo.
Was he attacking a city? he sacked it. Was he robbing something? He got it.
Kidnapping someone? he has them. Murdering someone? They are dead.
This enforces that the PC's actions (even failing is an action, really) have consequences. It also puts a bone in their craw about that bad guy.
"Lord Kraw the Red Dragon Rider got away this time but we'll avenge Sandpoint and the Princess!"
Advance the plot, advance the story. Even a BBEG sitting in his throne room isn't going to just sit the scratching his big toe waiting for the PC's to come back. Guards will be reinforced, doors will be locked, Big Bad will be watching and waiting.
thats my .02 anyway
-S
Kobold, my players are pretty smart. The first level characters seem to do pretty well as a team against high level characters.
The 1st level wizard's buffs like Enlarge on the grappling monk works wonders and color spray still handles business, even in CR 6 fights, especially with enemy peons around.
Is this using the core rules because I am sure no 1st level characters should consistently be taking on CR 6 fights and walking away.
|
... most of my players are pretty attached to their characters and in many cases to the NPCs that surround them. Even if they can get resurrected it bugs them when their characters die.
Sounds like maybe this isn't the case with your players? If the players view their characters as disposable the nature of the game changes a lot.
Wraith, the last game had pcs including one 5th level character, 2 4th level characters, and two 1st level characters. Encounters included a fight against two Drow warriors, 4 Drow warriors, two Drow warriors with a 7th level cleric, and a fight with a 5th level Drow wizard who arrived to fight the round they finished off the last five Drow warriors. Basically they infiltrated a human ruins occupied by Drow, got into the main building, whacked the leader, and fought their way out.
Back when they were 1st level, I put them against a 6th level human ranger who they escaped from. At one point when they were all 2nd level, including 4 two handed weapon experts they charged a cr 9 green dragon in its cave and won (they all won initiative, all charged, all hit, all got an attack of opportunity when it flew back, and all hit again).
The first fight was mixed group so I can see that one.
Barring dice god intervention they don't wind the second fight, if I am the GM.
The green dragon should win unless it has a lobotomy or the dice gods intervene. At second level they might have a +8 to hit and that assumes an 18str, weapon focus, and a masterwork weapon. The AC of the dragon should be around 22ish. Most dragons have a least one buff spell for AC, usually shield or mage armor. Push AC to 26ish. Round 3 start killing PC's.
The dragon has blindsense out to 120 feet IIRC. Charging range never even takes place unless they buff before the dragon knows they are around, and the buff is one that improves speed. <--This assumes I am playing the dragon at 100% which may or may not happen depending on how hard I want the fight to be.
Something we did for a game where death was to be expected:
Give the players limited "lives." For us, we had each player create backstories for 3 PCs. They would choose one of these to play as (and had to stick with that one 'til it died) and in the event of death, they'd bring in one of their reserves. Everybody liked their characters, so nobody was throwing lives away for anything insignificant, but death could still happen.
Once their last guy died, they were out of the game, unless someone "lent" one of their reserves out, but this *was* something everyone knew from the start. After all the PCs died, (or once enough died that the remaining players did not wish to continue) the campaign was over, either b/c the PCs were all dead or retired.
I misread your post. It was 8 against 1. I was thinking it was 4 on 1. That is a lot of chances to hit.
PS: I have had my players(all of them) crit back to back to back..... against one monster. My vision of an epic fight foiled by lucky dice rolls.
Something we did for a game where death was to be expected:
Give the players limited "lives." For us, we had each player create backstories for 3 PCs. They would choose one of these to play as (and had to stick with that one 'til it died) and in the event of death, they'd bring in one of their reserves. Everybody liked their characters, so nobody was throwing lives away for anything insignificant, but death could still happen.Once their last guy died, they were out of the game, unless someone "lent" one of their reserves out, but this *was* something everyone knew from the start. After all the PCs died, (or once enough died that the remaining players did not wish to continue) the campaign was over, either b/c the PCs were all dead or retired.
That's not a terrible idea. I am a little surprised it works though.
I've always found that players either lose interest in the character they have almost as soon as they write up a new one, or they don't want the spare by the time they get to use it.
The people I'm running for now, in the cases of at least 3 of them, tend to see nothing wrong with just changing their characters names and keeping everything else the same, "I heard you needed another monk so the mayor sent me."
For the most part, the players only care about what they are doing, not who their characters are.
*shrug*
We've got people who look at all the different options present in PF and want to try as many as they can. We've also got people with a specific shtick who tend to stick with that. But almost everyone invests in their character(s) pretty heavily. I think part of the reason it works for us is the way our character interactions go: All the characters are synergistic, both in fluff and mechanics.
No two gaming groups are alike.
How did they sneak up on it? Even through the door they should have been heard. I am assuming they were wearing medium to heavy armor.
When the PC's fail to complete an objective- whether due to just failing and retreating, or do to a multi-dead PC problem where one guy runs back to recruit more..
*have the Enemy advance their plans*.
Bad Guy isn't sitting there reading the newspaper while the PC's go back and return a week later for a redo.
Was he attacking a city? he sacked it. Was he robbing something? He got it.
Kidnapping someone? he has them. Murdering someone? They are dead.This enforces that the PC's actions (even failing is an action, really) have consequences. It also puts a bone in their craw about that bad guy.
"Lord Kraw the Red Dragon Rider got away this time but we'll avenge Sandpoint and the Princess!"Advance the plot, advance the story. Even a BBEG sitting in his throne room isn't going to just sit the scratching his big toe waiting for the PC's to come back. Guards will be reinforced, doors will be locked, Big Bad will be watching and waiting.
thats my .02 anyway
-S
This. This. THIS.
Death in a video game or an RPG can be many things. Annoying. Painful. Frustrating. Boring. Routine. Unremarkable. Glorious.
If your battle-hardened fighter, who has survived many adventures, happens to die from a random critical hit from an ogre at the start of a session just because the DM rolled high on initiative and attack, then the death is meaningless.
Sure, it might make a decent story at some future point. But for now, you have a player who gets to just sit there for hours while everyone else rolls dice and struggles with basic math. Even a video game makes you endure the "game over" screen for just a few moments before you try again.
Not in our hobby. Here, it will be hours before there's a reasonable point in the story to introduce a new character. Or else it will take a fight or two before the PCs even have a chance to cast raise dead, assuming they can. And if you died that early, they might as well pack their bags and go home since so many resources have been expended.
You also could have "Grunt No. 3" suddenly answer the call to heroism. But if you push realism enough to kill lots of players, it doesn't make much sense that someone who was only good for carrying things suddenly knows how to use exotic armor, weapons and spells.
Many "save or die" spells were changed so players who failed could at least roll again on their turn, just so people don't disengage from the game. A single die roll can stop the entire flow of the game, for good or ill.
It always seemed odd to me that many of the people I know who don't bat an eye at the idea of killing a character don't have the world react to failure, as well. Dungeons remain dungeons, static as ever, and some monsters just seem content to wait in their room for slaughter. I'm not saying anyone here does this. I'm saying that many people I play with seem ... surprised ... that the NPCs remember who treated them poorly, that the enemies learn who always trips people with the weapon built to trip people, that some antagonists can be reasoned with or even befriended.
In short, many people I've played with treated the world like a video game because the world was run like a video game. If you don't want players to act that way, don't treat the world like that. If you want death to be permanent, than the other PCs probably would fall back so they can have a funeral. Mourn. Tell the next of kin. Bring in reinforcements (which the new character would probably be a part of) since the obviously couldn't handle it.
If you do things that way, then the player will get a chance to role-play with the rest of the party during these events. That makes sure no one is just surfing the Web on their smartphone, bored, because their companions decided to best way to honor the character's memory was to kill as many things as possible while various critters chewed on the corpse.
Now, beyond death, there are many ways the PCs can fail. Not all challenges have to be built on the idea that everyone in some complex must die (except for the hostages and DM NPCs).
Obviously, the game includes traps, haunts, puzzles and the like. Missions can include multiple steps, such as ransacking an evil temple, carrying that evidence to the rightful ruler, persuading him to take action against the group, finding out who in his court has hidden the truth, etc.
There should be chances to talk and reason along with fight, sneak and trick the enemy. And just because the other NPCs aren't evil, or the enemy, doesn't mean they should just do whatever the PCs say. It should take time or evidence to sway the authorities, unless con artists flourish in that country. Also, consider how towns and civilized areas feel about openly carrying armor, weapons and magic. That alone might make PCs less trustworthy.
In an example above, the PCs were attacking a city and wearing it down through sheer numbers. Every time one of them died, a new PC would spawn and attack the city that night. So, the only challenge for the PCs in that situation was how long it would take since they effectively had infinite lives.
There are many ways to deal with such a situation. A timetable is classic - if the PCs don't achieve their objective within so many days or hours, they lose. Either the town has been razed, the people killed, the McGuffin stolen, etc.
There's also capture. The wizard, rather than killing the PC, captures them for interrogation to find out where the others rebels are hiding. This lowers the PC manpower by one (can't respawn if you aren't dead!) and gives a backdoor timer on how long their base of operations is safe. Now, the PCs have a reason to go rescue the other PC, or change their base, or decide to fight in a different way, etc.
Option three: Overwhelming odds. The PCs, as brave and powerful as they are, cannot hope to defeat all the enemy forces within the city. So now they have to set priorities. Do they save people, try to assassinate the leader, attempt to sway some of the factions over to their side? This allows roleplaying and combat and can give you some interesting insight into your players' characters. Will the chaotic good character advocate poisoning the water or food supply? Will the cleric uses his knowledge of the healing arts to help spread disease in the enemy ranks?
This is how you really start to have fun in the game. When the PCs know they can, dice willing, kill everything you throw at them, their only response will be to kill. But if it looks impossible, then you'll see them start to plan.
The idea of ambushing the dragon is a good example. Dragons are known to be arrogant; they took advantage of its weakness and made sure to challenge it in a place where it couldn't use its strengths (flight and spells). That's good tactics and good roleplaying. That's the sort of things we should enjoy as players and DMs.
This is getting long and it is late. I have no idea how people will feel about all this, so I'll just sum up. It's easy to kill the players. As DM, we control every NPC, every deity, every ally, every monster, every enemy. If we decide a character will die, we can make that happen.
It's harder to challenge the players and the characters. Sometimes, we can obsess on the fact that Bob's AC is so high that we start to throw things with higher attacks more and more. We're annoyed at some trick the rogue uses over and over again. It seems difficult to make sure the PCs aren't coasting, so we just keep throwing things at them.
That's why the game isn't about killing them, it's about CHALLENGING them. OK, Bob can't be hit. So why should we punish Bob for being good at what he does? Let him shine for now, because things will change soon enough. Higher level monsters will hit him eventually, or else he will turtle so much they will ignore him. In the meantime, his family can be hit. So can his friends.
John, the guy who plays Bob, really hates it when people hide behind rules and laws to get away with things. So give him an opponent who is just as untouchable thanks to the law as Bob is thanks to his armor. Engage the player and the character and everyone at the table will have more fun. Or at least they do in my experience.
|
Death is a part of the game. Now if you want to houserule how death works in your game then that's fine but no kind of death is meaningless, it's just a part of the game. It does suck to die but that's just all part of the game and should not be lessened because someone doesn't find it fun. I don't find a lot of game rules fun but I don't change them because I want to play the game "as is" as much as I can. I have no problem with someone who does this but my in my personal opinion the game was designed to let the dice fall and go with what happens from there. I know the DMG part gives you "advice" on how to run different types of games but I like to play it fair on both sides of the field.
My player's don't like to feel that I am giving them any sort of advantage over their enemies unless they come up with a way on their own. They feel cheated if I have to go out of my way to make them better than the enemies --it gives them a sense of satisfaction that they overcame the challenge without my help.
|
I believe that players and GM need to agree on risk and the repercussions of death. I think the GM's job is to deliver on that agreement.
I'm currently running a very low-risk-low-reward campaign; after 25 sessions players are only just hitting level 5 however we've only had 2 deaths (and they were "paid" for using Prestige Awards).
In terms of the cost of death, what we have agreed on is a 10% levy on the "worth" of the character. Ordinarily that would be XPs and GPs, but we run without XPs so it's all GPs for us (in our campaign, players pay to go up levels an amount equal to the amount of wealth they would expect to have gained when they went up a level - i.e. 4.5K gp to go from level 4 to 5).
Richard
The dice sometimes dictate that something is going to happen. The dragon scenario would have ended quite differently if they didn't all get so lucky.
Out of character, I was pretty sure my monk was about to die. But things just didn't end that way.
I really don't recommend having new characters come into play at level 1. I used to have a DM who did that, and although I never ran into that problem, I watched one of my fellow players roll a 1 on a save, died, then entered into a cycle of constantly just getting picked off in fights because all it took pretty much was a baddie giving him a dirty look. Yes, it's true that eventually they will close the gap, but unless the DM keeps the kid gloves on against the lowbies, they will most likely die and just have to start all over again.
Plus, you mentioned continuity. Why on earth would a level 1 character party up with a group of 6's? He ought to understand that he will just be a burden and brings almost nothing to the team, and the party will definitely understand that, given that they know the difference of what they are now and what they were at level 1.
People have already recommended some good strategies on keeping your players from using respawns as a tool, so I won't go into detail on that stuff. I will simply recommend the capturing and time restrictions.
Careful of wealth bloat, too, if your players aren't attached to their characters. If they just nab whatever the dead have on them, they will quickly pass the WPL guidelines and you might have another problem entirely.
That won't change the mindset of a hard failure vs a soft failure though. CW realizes the death in PF is only a soft failure, and he wants a hard one.
Soft failure=minor setback.
Hard failure=really bad consequences including failing to achieve the goal.