Eventually, I got sick of players deliberately killing themselves so they could come back with some absurd build deliberately minmaxed to peak at their current level or just because their attention span was too short for them to bother playing a single character for more than a few levels before getting distracted by some other shiny feat or something. So I brought back the oldest rule in the book:
New characters are new characters. They start at level 1 with starting equipment.
This also makes death scary. Even with this edition's insanely easy access to guaranteed resurrection, at least it makes recovering the body important - and removed the ridiculous scenario of "Oh no, our eighteenth-level cleric Bob just died, he was the best cleric in the entire land and we're running out of time, wait what's this, here comes another high-level hero of whom we've never heard before despite his supposed power and importance, goodbye verisimilitude forever."
It's tough, but fair. Low-level characters need far less experience to level and get more experience than their high-level allies, so they catch up in levels quite quickly, especially if they go off on a sidequest. Besides, to players with actual cleverness and imagination, their most powerful weapons aren't what's written on their character sheet, and even a first-level character can be a powerful asset to a twentieth-level party. And it just makes sense; you shouldn't have a high-level character if you haven't done anything with that character yet.
But when I reintroduced this rule, a couple of my players started to grumble. Yes, they were munchkins, and I explained to them that it was my game and my rules and they could take it or leave it, but I wonder if any of you have had similar reactions?
How does having a new character make them better than the one they already had?
It is still the same number of feats, skill points and so on.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread makes me want to play a reincarnated druid.
In game solutions rarely work. Have you tried sitting down and talking with the offending players?
And no offense, but unless you are making combat more than hack and slash (ie, usage of environment, combat maneuvers, etc), or having more ways to gain XP besides combat, cleverness won't get them very far. The burden of rewarding cleverness is always on you, the GM, so you have to encourage that kind of play. Or else the game won't evolve past killing the orc and taking his pie.
And really, no matter how clever you are, a level 1 bard with +8 Diplomacy will do diddly squat to anything CR 12+.
Any GM who doesn't do such things has no business being a GM. Clever play is the soul of the game.
A level 1 bard with +8 Diplomacy will only do diddly squat against anything of CR 12+ if the bard's only plan is to stab it with a sword.
Once the rest of the party engages in combat what else do you expect the bard to try to do. Actually what do you expect the bard to do out of combat if the enemy is intent on being hostile, in order to prevent combat?
Sounds like your players aren't very clever then. Might explain your haste to criticize my "intelect".
You mind telling us how they would survive then?
It also isn't the same as feeding everyone sauerkraut and toadstool sandwiches.
|
Making some of us winners and some losers doesn't help that. It might break it. I don't see the point.
Being high level isn't a reward for not dying; you just go up levels to have more toys to play with and to be able to deal with bigger threats. Sometimes we even start the campaign above 1st level. Does that make us all entitled?
I have to disagree with your second point here - keeping the same character while leveling up is a reward for successful playing. That is - continuing their story while increasing in power, ability, progression, etc.
That being said - I think the idea "winning and losing" in rpgs is a bad one. I have had several players lose their characters - some from bad luck, other from bad decisions and some because they sacrificed their characters to save other players or NPCs. I don't see those players as "losers" in the game. I actually appreciate the hard decision the player made to get to that death, and when he comes in with a new character at -1 level the group - if it was a "noble" or "hard" death (going down swinging like a badass) then he will come back with a small permanent boon to reward that memorable play. Not an incentive to kill off his guy, just a thank you from the DM for providing such a damn good story. If it was a bad luck or decision death, they will still come back at -1, possibly without a boon (just depends).
To restate what I said in my earlier post - killing off your characters because you are tired of your PC or want to build a new one is bad gaming. Period. But that can be rectified by discussing why you would want to swap out a PC with the player just having a conversation about why they want the change and if they can retcon it or make a rebuild to adjust for new content by working with the DM. I can see how the revenge attitude of "oh, you killed off your character on purpose, so here the penalty" conflict came about between this DM and his players. This cycle and exchange is just symptomatic of a bigger underlying player/DM problem of communication and expectations.
There's this lovely book called "Ultimate Campaign" coming out that might have something in it to address characters desiring to "rebuild" or "retrain" without having to hari-kari themselves (due in large part to feats being permanent once selected).
Might want to take a gander at the affordable PDF when it comes out, as a suggestion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of insane troll logic do you use to make you think you are entitled to the same level character? If it is your way or the door: get out. You have no entitlement. You died. You are losing. The winners - players whose characters haven't died, deserve to be ahead of you. Themsdabrakes.
It's a cooperative game Crane. There are no winners. At all. You are all cooperating toward the same goal.
Funnily enough, by bringing in lower level characters you are not just punishing a player for the gross sin of being unlucky or dying while completing the group's mutual goal, you are punishing the rest of the party as well with a lower level character who is not able to pull his weight as effectively.
It's a lose-lose for everyone but the GM who likes to cackle at his player's misfortune and then pour salt on the wound because he can.
There's absolutely no reason for this rule other than an attitude like that.
See, this is a MASSIVE difference in playstyle.
Most people I know don't play D&D to 'win or lose' they play it to have fun with their friends and share a fantasy adventure with one another.
That means you don't punish people just because the dice killed their character. Do you see the distinction there? I didn't die, I'm still here playing the game. Character X died. Character Y is completely unrelated to character X.
This isn't about having 'my way.' It's about being fair and fun. F+%~ing someone over because a character dies is neither fair, nor fun, and I for one would gladly take the door.
Hear, hear! (Did I spell that right?)
I've never had a player die so they could build a new character. I have had, however, people saying "I'm kinda bored with this character, and it's not what I wanted, I'd like to change it". Which is fine. I'm hesitant to force someone to play a character they don't want to play (because I wouldn't like that myself).
With our new campaign, I've simply said to my players, "Hey guys, I'd like to keep the same characters around to get a sense of continuity going in this campaign. So we should all get together, work out our characters as a group, and keep continuity as much as we can from here on out."
Surprise surprise, my players (AKA my friends) took my wishes into account and now pretty much everyone has the same character they started with. And I'm quite happy with the way it's going (I assume everyone else is, too - can't ever be 100% sure).
I don't see why something like that wouldn't work here. Just say "Hey guys, I'd rather if you didn't purposefully die so you could build a new character, it's kind of irritating to me." Assuming the people you game with are your friends, or at least care about what you want, then the problem should be remedied fairly easily.
Just as a side note: When I'm a PC during a game, I don't consider it "winning" if we beat the encounter but another character dies. I call that "losing" for the whole team. Not to mention, in my eyes, the player who lost his character "won" more than anyone - his death probably meant someone else lived. That's the kind of heroism players talk about years after the campaign is finished.
I think it is a fun idea, but it is difficult to make work. Previous posters mentioned the differences between PF and original D&D. For one, the whole need to have appropriate CR to match an APL, and having the loot be based on the WBL guidelines... all of that stuff is more recent. The drive for large scale plotlines that level you up from level 1-16 on a nice narrative track are more recent. The idea that a character who is level 1 is a boring normal mortal, while a level 7 has surpassed the bounds of normal reality, and it only gets worse does nothing to help that fact either.
Maybe you could put them in as level 1 characters, and run a solo-campaign that happens at the same time as the main campaign, and whenever they feel like joining in officially, they can make the plunge.
(A level one rogue playing his small part as a spy for such and such family, eventually hears of the party, and after completing some mission, seeks out the party to join it). The problem is then they have nothing to do during the normal session, and it is not a punishment.
Similarly, you could just tell them not during a game that you have to approve all of their decisions for the new character, and let them know that the higher their max, the easier it will be to exploit their minimum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is any of this even a discussion?
Your players are annoying you by intentionally killing themselves.
You are *punishing* them by forcing them to play a character who is mechanically impossible to operate depending on the level of the rest of the party.
Note the keyword, *punishing*. It's not your job as a DM to punish.
Instead of being an adult and discussing the problem with your group and trying to find solutions, you've gone a vindictive power trip that punishes your good and bad players alike.
Wouldn't play at your table.
{sigh}
I really wasn’t going to respond to this thread because it had already become such a insult festival before I found it.
However, it is about a subject that also bothers me.
Both as GM and as a player, I have been with players purposely get themselves killed because they want a new character or at least play very recklessly because they don’t care even slightly about dying. I have been with players who want to make up a new character almost every few sessions. I do feel it takes some of the fun away. But it also makes it harder for me as a GM or player when I have no idea what to plan on.
Just a few weeks ago I had planned a major encounter around the parties capabilities.
- One PC had flight but was a horrible combatant. So I was setting it up so her flight could allow them to not be ambushed and destroyed in the first couple of rounds.
- It would allow the cavalier a chance to fight from horseback which he was itching to try.
- Most of the mooks were the rangers favored enemies.
- There was even some stuff specifically for the telepath to find out to help in the fight.
By the time the party got there, none of those characters were present or had at least been retcon’d so they didn’t have those special factors. I almost didn’t catch myself in time. If I had run it as I had written it, TPK in 3-4 rounds. I had specifically made it to be nearly impossible. Only survivable because of the special combination of these destined heros, blah blah blah…
So they encountered a couple of dire boars and stomped on them.
It takes me a while to come up with things like that. Unlike some, I can’t just pull a whole matched encounter out of my ash perfect and ready to go. I was starting to try and make up a new encounter for the ‘destined heroes’ but I don’t know if I even want to bother. For all I know, the characters will be different by the time they get there again.
I do NOT agree with the ancient editions where you had to restart at 1st level. Because you never really did catch up completely. And until you did mostly catch up, you were ridiculously fragile. The other players would either have to work very hard to protect you (putting themselves at risk or just boring) or you would just die again. And again. And again.
I believe that is even more extreme now than it was then. If I bring even a 1st level barbarian into a fight that is challenging to a 7th level group, my odds of surviving are extremely low. You can say I just wasn’t playing smart, creative, or blah. But that simply isn’t true. So many area affects, spells, AoO, reach, missile fire, etc… Even without anyone actively trying to get me, I am likely to die. If anyone should be smart enough to start on the weak link I have zero chance. Any attack is likely to succeed and probably 1 shot me. I have lousy AC, HP, saves, equipment, etc…
Now the -1 level is much better. But I do understand the view that then I will always and forever be weaker than everyone else because I was willing to guard the rear while the others escaped. I don’t want to be gimped forever for a bad role or a heroic death.
On the other hand I also do not want me or anyone else to have to keep playing with a character they don’t like. I have had character concepts that don’t work worth crap, even if they work well I find aren’t that fun to play, don’t fit the campaign, don’t fit the rest of the party, etc…
I will say right now, I do not know of a decent way to handle it in game that doesn’t cause even more long term problems than it causes.
The best I have been able to do (with very mixed results) is just talking to the players before the campaign starts.
“I don’t want anyone to have to keep playing a character they don’t like. But it also makes it difficult and un-fun for me if the PC’s change all the time. I will let you retire your character (with his share of wealth) and bring in someone new. But I would rather you try to see if a minor retcon will give you a character you want to keep playing.”
For some groups that has been enough to keep things going smoothly. For other it seems to have almost spurred them on to make more changes than they would have otherwise done.
When my players bring in a new character, it's with the penalties for:
Reincarnate (randomly-rolled race, 2 permanent negative levels, -1000 GP)
Raise Dead (2 permanent negative levels, -5000 GP)
Resurrection (1 permanent negative level, -10000 GP)That way they're not gaining an advantage over their old character.
What would you do with a level 3 replacement char? Would he have to choose reincarnation or would he start without any equipment, 2 negative levels and a 2000gp debt?
I once had my pc die at third level and having him raised destroyed a geart part of the party's wealth. It took a long time for the party to recover from that.
As a dead level 3 character, I would not expect to be raised. I would reroll level 1 and rejoin the group at not too great a disadvantage.
But under noobxqb's rules you can't do that. You get a random-rolled race, with 2 permanent negative levels and 1000 below WBL, since he couldn't afford the penalties for Raise Dead. At 3rd level, I assume. I don't know if he'd let you use the rest of your WBL to pay to remove the 2 negative levels or if you'd have to do that in play.
It's not clear what would happen with a dead 2nd level character? You're just not allowed to make a new character?
I never really thought about that before.
It's kind of weird that they do 2 CON drain for 1st level (1100 GP + spellcasting services) but 2nd level needs a reincarnate + restoration (2000 GP + spellcasting services) in order to be brought back to life with more severe penalties.
Following my rules, I guess you could apply the effects of Reincarnate, but use the Rich Parents trait to pay for a Restoration spell. The end result would be: No starting wealth, random race, 1 permanent negative level, 1 trait must be Rich Parents. That would suck a lot, though, unless you were a Monk.
I guess, assuming there was simply no way to keep the original character alive, I'd probably throw the player a bone and allow him to create a new 2nd level character with a randomly rolled race and the starting wealth of a 1st level character. It's not a situation that's ever come up (and I hope never comes up), though.
As for allowing the removal of permanent negative levels, the PC has to do it in game (to give benefit to True Resurrection, which I forgot to list), so he/she must seek out a way to cure the negative level(s) (i.e. find a 7th level Cleric at the nearest city and pay him/her 1280 GP to cast Restoration), assuming he/she wishes to cure the negative level(s).
What kind of insane troll logic do you use to make you think you are entitled to the same level character? If it is your way or the door: get out. You have no entitlement. You died. You are losing. The winners - players whose characters haven't died, deserve to be ahead of you. Themsdabrakes.
That's ridiculous on its face even if you're playing a totally tactical game. A baseball manager doesn't bench a guy because he got put out on a sacrifice bunt, he pats him on the back for doing what's best for the team.
I will say right now, I do not know of a decent way to handle it in game that doesn’t cause even more long term problems than it causes.
I hear you. Our old group solved this. So I may as well share what we used, it may do someone some good.
House rules:
- When you die (or retire) you can restart at one level below the lowest level member of the party or level 1 whichever is higher.
- Characters who fall behind in level due to any number of reasons (permanent level loss, dying, missing too much bonus XP) gain +20% to experience earned till they climb back up to average party level. This means you should catch back up after about 5 levels.
- In the event of a heroic death or meaningful retirement (decided by 2/3 majority vote) You may restart at the same level of your previous character.
|
"Let me help you make it better. This is a good place to add in my creativity."I can tell because someone can post a full page about things that really happened in their game and get zero replies - that isn't interesting to people who wait all day for someone to be wrong on the Internet.Well, what else can you say to someone who is right, except...'you are right'?
Yeah, we get that around here, but usually over in the adventure path discussions...
I will say right now, I do not know of a decent way to handle it in game that doesn’t cause even more long term problems than it causes.I hear you. Our old group solved this. So I may as well share what we used, it may do someone some good.
House rules:
- When you die (or retire) you can restart at one level below the lowest level member of the party or level 1 whichever is higher.
- Characters who fall behind in level due to any number of reasons (permanent level loss, dying, missing too much bonus XP) gain +20% to experience earned till they climb back up to average party level. This means you should catch back up after about 5 levels.
- In the event of a heroic death or meaningful retirement (decided by 2/3 majority vote) You may restart at the same level of your previous character.
That's not bad. I may have to steal and try that.
I will say right now, I do not know of a decent way to handle it in game that doesn’t cause even more long term problems than it causes.I hear you. Our old group solved this. So I may as well share what we used, it may do someone some good.
House rules:
- When you die (or retire) you can restart at one level below the lowest level member of the party or level 1 whichever is higher.
- Characters who fall behind in level due to any number of reasons (permanent level loss, dying, missing too much bonus XP) gain +20% to experience earned till they climb back up to average party level. This means you should catch back up after about 5 levels.
- In the event of a heroic death or meaningful retirement (decided by 2/3 majority vote) You may restart at the same level of your previous character.
My problem with this (albeit a minor one as it is not that big of a deal to me....so I would not even complain if I saw it as a player..) that death in a rpg could be bad luck.
Also just a clarification it is one level the lowest level member that is alive right? Not the character that just died?
I never really thought about that before.
It's kind of weird that they do 2 CON drain for 1st level (1100 GP + spellcasting services) but 2nd level needs a reincarnate + restoration (2000 GP + spellcasting services) in order to be brought back to life with more severe penalties.
Following my rules, I guess you could apply the effects of Reincarnate, but use the Rich Parents trait to pay for a Restoration spell. The end result would be: No starting wealth, random race, 1 permanent negative level, 1 trait must be Rich Parents. That would suck a lot, though, unless you were a Monk.
I guess, assuming there was simply no way to keep the original character alive, I'd probably throw the player a bone and allow him to create a new 2nd level character with a randomly rolled race and the starting wealth of a 1st level character. It's not a situation that's ever come up (and I hope never comes up), though.
As for allowing the removal of permanent negative levels, the PC has to do it in game (to give benefit to True Resurrection, which I forgot to list), so he/she must seek out a way to cure the negative level(s) (i.e. find a 7th level Cleric at the nearest city and pay him/her 1280 GP to cast Restoration), assuming he/she wishes to cure the negative level(s).
That's pretty rough. It's basically worse than being a 1st level character, since it'll probably take longer to earn the cash for the Restoration than to go up a level and you'll have no gear the whole time. Not too mention you don't even get to pick your race.
Yeah, that's why I said I'd throw the character a bone by starting at 2nd level w/ 1st level wealth (no negative levels or anything).
It does work to be honest.All of you that are talking about leaving his game.
What makes you think you would be invited in the first place?
I use a lower level rule but I also bring the monsters down.
Sigh...he came here on a public forum to ask people's reaction to a houserule he is using. So in theory he did invite us all to his game. And for alot of us it is a deal breaker.
But if it works for you and your players go for it.
Sure for YOU and YOUR players.
That is a important distinction that people keep forgetting around here.
My group does not have any problems with character commiting suicide to make a new character or whatever. So we don't need this rule.
But lets look at solutions for stopping players not caring or getting involved with their characters.
Actualy the best way to handle this is to have a waiting list. Granted it only works for areas with lots of players...but if somebody dies it is his turn to sit on the bench and somebody else gets to play. I guranteer no one will just kill of their character and start caring if their characters lives or dies.
Another way, is to have a time out. If you die, you can't rejoin till the party reaches a new benchmark in the game. Or say you can't rejoin till next campaign.
How about actualy letting a player stop playing a character he is not having fun with?
I know this might shock alot of you...but ever try talking to your players about what bothers you?
What kind of insane troll logic do you use to make you think you are entitled to the same level character? If it is your way or the door: get out. You have no entitlement. You died. You are losing. The winners - players whose characters haven't died, deserve to be ahead of you. Themsdabrakes.I wasn't going to respond to this thread but:
You don't deserve to get even. You died.Please explain by what convoluted insane troll logic that you came to this conclusion.
So...Pathfinder is a game of players competing against players to 'win' and 'lose' even while in the same party? And somebody deserves to be ahead of me because they were luckier in dice rolls? And the 'winners' deserve to get ahead, and therefore remain more likely to remain 'winners' while the 'losers' are behind and therefore at further risk of being further behind?
Strange, I thought Pathfinder was a game of cooperative adventure and storytelling.
I don't subscribe to your everyone is a special snow flake and should feel good all the time philosophy. GM isn't the same as giving back rubs.
Wow...that's one hell of a strawman