|
Just an idle thought I head about character death and making a new character. Take the player out of the equation do you feel a new character makes sense? Yes, no, depends on the campaign? That is say you have party of 4 facing dark horrors from the forest depths and one of them gets eaten does it make sense in story/world terms for another new person to show up and join the group?
For me its very campaign specific and how well the GM sells it for example a group exploring a forest who have one die and find a lost person it makes sense to have them join. They know lots about surviving the jungle, there's no mysterious threat/reason to keep things secret and you know they just want you to show them the way out after you map the area. On the other hand a battle against a dark lord where a party member is killed and some random convenient person shows up it has to be sold really well as it would make sense to not trust a new person showing up right after a friend is "killed to make room" for the spy. It gets even worse when the party has some deep dark secret they don't want outsiders knowing about like an ancient artifact (one ring) they need to destroy and the only way it might work is if the backstory is "you intended to meet X here from the start we just didn't mention it before now."
I agree with most of what has been said earlier.
Likewise, a group of adventurers meeting in a tavern and deciding to do something incredibly dangerous together, which means trusting the others with there very lives, makes little sense either.
This can be got around if the players spend a lot of time and effort making joint backgrounds. While this is a great idea, as is anything joint, it is not often done.
It's not realistic but neither are fantastic medieval worlds.
1. Everyone needs to have a little bit of "suspension of disbelief". Things that normally don't make sense need to be glossed over and just accepted. Players quit, or are added, character die, new ones show up. people get tired of their character and swap it out. Just go with it.
2. After about 6th level, it's really hard to permanently kill of a character.
3. We've found that letting the character survive somehow, winds up being far more fun in the long run. By no means make it easy, or give them a sense of being invincible. take them down to -5 HP, So they are "dead" but still healable.
3. We've found that letting the character survive somehow, winds up being far more fun in the long run. By no means make it easy, or give them a sense of being invincible. take them down to -5 HP, So they are "dead" but still healable.
Sound thinking imho.
But if the GM is having to bend the rules to keep players alive often they are likely making things too difficult. I have been in campaigns where the GM is always putting us up against foes that will kill us all, then bend the rules so we stay alive, then do it again.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I feel the question is vague enough that there can be no answer besides "sometimes it could not make sense".
Consider the following questions:
How serious/realistic is the game? Does the new character needs to be introduced immediately after the previous one is dead? How good/creative is the GM? Where are the players? What is the theme of the game?
With different answers to the previous questions, the range would vary to "complete sense" to "absolutely no sense". The amount of suspension of disbelief also varies in the same way.
One thing to keep in mind is that Pathfinder is a game. The whole point of playing the game is to have fun with your friends. That should be the absolute top priority. Sitting out the rest of a session or worse yet multiple sessions because your character died is not fun. This is a good way to lose players.
I can see if the character dies at the end of the session it might make sense to wait till the next session to bring in a replacement. If there are any NPC’s with the group the player could be allowed to play the NPC until it makes sense to bring in a new character. What should not happen is the player is left for long periods of time without a character to play. If the player does not have a character ready and wants to use the time to create one, continuing the session while the player writes up the new character is also acceptable.
|
It depends on the campaign and group playstyle.
Our Carrion Crown campaign ended during the 5th part because our oracle died while traveling toward the Wpering Tyrant prison.
We could have tried to Resurrect him with a scroll, but he was completely against it, and there was no reasonable way to get a "replacement" in an area that was weeks from civilization and where teleport doesn't work.
Plenty of other campaigns had no problem with replacing a lost companion. The characters had enough contact and time to find someone trustworthy.
3. We've found that letting the character survive somehow, winds up being far more fun in the long run. By no means make it easy, or give them a sense of being invincible. take them down to -5 HP, So they are "dead" but still healable.Sound thinking imho.
But if the GM is having to bend the rules to keep players alive often they are likely making things too difficult. I have been in campaigns where the GM is always putting us up against foes that will kill us all, then bend the rules so we stay alive, then do it again.
Agreed - it takes a skilled GM to make things a challenge, without it being a TPK and not need to resort to bending the rules.
Our games have very experienced players, and after about 6th level, it becomes very difficult to permanently kill one of the party. (of course a GM can kill a party any time he wants, but in normal, fair play it gets difficult.) So the need to introduce new characters mostly only happens when we introduce a new player to our group, or someone gets tired of their character and desires a change.
Does it always make sense when introducing a new character? No, of course not.
Does it make sense some of the time? Of course it can.
Playing an urban campaign or someone died while you're near town?
Easy to find a replacement that just so happens to be "passing through town" and agrees with the groups cause so wants to help.
Harder to justify "I'm a level 15 paladin that hates the same people you do and I was born and raised in this town and I've been watching everything you do but not joining in 'cause... ummm.... reasons."
Playing a wilderness campaign and days away from any living soul?
Easy to find a hermit / escaped captive that has managed to survive in the wild and is looking for revenge and is therefore willing to join the group.
Harder to justify a Cavalier with a mount that looks like a dandy, is immpeccably clean, and has no idea how to start a fire on his own.
But it's a game.
Someone's character just died and they're probably frustrated because of it. Having them sit out for hours on end because "a new PC being here doesn't make sense" isn't fun.
Everyone knows it's a game, no one wants to be Paul sitting there watching everyone else have fun. Introduce the replacement PC ASAP so that everyone can continue having fun.
Depending on their answer I'll contrive some way to make it happen as a GM.
Hi, Mark! It's good to see your wisdom on the boards!
Out of all the things you listed in your post, I think this is the most important one.