PC Death

[GutterFace]

I have some friends staring a new, long term campaign.

we need some way to keep players invested in their characters. without having them kill themselves off with reckless behavior.

does anyone have a way, or ideas on how to penalize players upon death.

ie your level 5 and always charge into battle without thinking and die and want to start over. should you lose a level? stat penalties?

[Stront]

I have some friends staring a new, long term campaign.

we need some way to keep players invested in their characters. without having them kill themselves off with reckless behavior.

does anyone have a way, or ideas on how to penalize players upon death.

ie your level 5 and always charge into battle without thinking and die and want to start over. should you lose a level? stat penalties?

I always assumed it was standard practice to start new characters a level below the lowest level character in the group.

[Illarion]

the problem with having the reckless player roll a new character one level behind the party is that they are now less effective at their role and that is a penalty to the whole party, not just the player. nerfing the new characters stats has the same effect, though not as drastic.

if this is a problem with just one of your players, try pulling them aside and seeing what they are trying to accomplish.

[HunterOfJello]

I always assumed it was standard practice to start new characters a level below the lowest level character in the group.

That's a popular idea in some circles, but one not ever heard of in others. I had one DM who assumed that's what always happened, and I told him that I was leaving if that was the case. (I ended up not showing up again anyway. It was a fairly boring game and the reason my ECL 2 character got attacked 4 times in 1 round and died was so his girlfriend's character wouldn't get harmed by the CR 6 monster.)

~~~~~~

You can have them start a level lower, but that usually doesn't help a lot. I'm not sure what a good solution to this hypothetical problem would be.

[ArcturusV]

Well, one thing I generally do? The first character a guy rolls up has some perk that is beyond normal character creation. They might have a character background that has some particular benefit (And penalties) that I wouldn't normally give out. Or start with an heirloom item that puts them a bit ahead of WBL, etc.

Your second (Or beyond) characters don't get this perk. You have to do things by the book only (And what I allow in that particular campaign). So you lose your shiny thing which generally means people guard their first character really, really well. But if they're on the second character it's not such a big deal.

If a player gets really, really crazy with throwing away characters (And slowing down the game as they roll up new ones or want me to introduce new characters) I usually start dropping off options of what they can be for new characters. Which shortens creation time and also gives them some incentive to stop throwing it away before the only thing they are allowed to play any more is a Half-Orc Monk.

[Darth Stabber]

Interesting issue, never has come up for me. My players tend to get attached very easily, so having a character die is drawback enough.

Get your players to give you backstories, ones that you can easily draw sideplots from. By involving those you can foster the attachment you want.

[Stront]

That's a popular idea in some circles, but one not ever heard of in others. I had one DM who assumed that's what always happened, and I told him that I was leaving if that was the case. (I ended up not showing up again anyway. It was a fairly boring game and the reason my ECL 2 character got attacked 4 times in 1 round and died was so his girlfriend's character wouldn't get harmed by the CR 6 monster.)

~~~~~~

You can have them start a level lower, but that usually doesn't help a lot. I'm not sure what a good solution to this hypothetical problem would be.

I should throw in the disclaimer that if it wasn't a "ME STUPID" death; I would normally let them start at the beginning level of the lowest level character in the group. I wouldn't bone someone just for having bad luck or for sacrificing themselves for the group.

[ArcturusV]

But when you have someone who pokes the sleeping dragon "Just for laughs" until it wakes up and kills a few party members (Himself included)... I would be less lenient. :smallbiggrin:

[Triaxx]

Everyone has a character die. If it happens once or twice, you'll have to excuse that. If it happens on a regular basis, I prefer a disproportionate punishment.

4th character death: Wait, don't re-roll a new character, let's try resurrection. Okay you're back.

5th: Ooh, the resurrection wasn't perfect. Your legs did not get resurrected, you're always prone.

6th: Congratulations, you are now a left arm.

7th: Going to take care of the new one? Good.

---

I also have a couple of modified Reincarnation tables. Most people find playing as a Chinchilla disconcerting.

[Darth Stabber]

I also have a couple of modified Reincarnation tables. Most people find playing as a Chinchilla disconcerting.

Depends, as a non-gish psion I would be quite happy being a chinchilla.

[Story]

Why are they playing such suicidal characters anyway? I think most characters would do their best to stay alive.

[ArcturusV]

*shrug* Some people like to have characters that make things go egg shaped. So they don't care if their character dies, so long as they can get another one and cause things to go wonky yet again.

Most people don't like that guy.

[Rhynn]

the problem with having the reckless player roll a new character one level behind the party is that they are now less effective at their role and that is a penalty to the whole party, not just the player. nerfing the new characters stats has the same effect, though not as drastic.

Single-level differences (or even 2-3 levels once you're past 5th) aren't big enough to make that much of a difference.

So yes, if someone dies and creates a new character, they start out one level below the lowest-level member of the party (or just one level below the average level, if that's more convenient). It's sensible and fair - they'd be losing a level if they were raised, anyway.

If a player is intentionally killing off their characters to cause trouble, though, you need to get the player to stop acting up. If you want to be nice about it, talk to them about why they're acting up - they're probably bored and want something else from the game. (Or they're a ****, in which case you should kick them out of the game.)

[navar100]

If your players are so reckless with their characters then you have an out-of-game problem that needs an out-of-game solution. Look to see as DM if you're contributing to the behavior due to how you see a PC's place in the gameworld. If you care nothing about them, why should the players?

It's sad enough for a player's character to die. Don't punish the player for it.

[Rhynn]

It's sad enough for a player's character to die. Don't punish the player for it.

Why is it sad? :smallconfused:

When did it become sad? It used to be standard. PCs dying on every expedition is how you knew you were dealing with a dangerous dungeon and that you were a hero if you survived it and conquered it...

[ArcturusV]

Well yeah, but back then the standard thought was generally the more difficult it was, the greater reward (Personal, OOC wise) it was to have finished it in one piece. Being able to say you crushed the Tomb of Horrors without dying to some No-Save trap (Particularly if it was on your first time), even if the rest of your team did fail. Being one of the few survivors to rescue the Baron's Daughter from the Demon Spawn summoned up by the local Goblin Cultists. It made for great stories of overcoming long odds. When you finished it, you felt ACCOMPLISHED, which made you feel good.

Newer style is more about the joys of the character rather than in overcoming adversity. While you still can, the default seems to be more about your character achieving some ideal as the persona, OOC reward. This is the whole idea of PrCs, Epic Level content, the popularity of "builds", etc. This isn't better or worse. Just different. But that style demands sort of a lower lethality which has lead to things like the popularity of starting at mid-high level (Something pretty much unheard of in my early DnDing years, now SOP), and that killing a character has much higher consequences, because it's preventing a primary source of enjoyment (The character based enjoyment) from happening.

Thus, sad to lose a character.

[Rhynn]

Newer style is more about the joys of the character rather than in overcoming adversity.

Ugh.

Just... ugh. :smallyuk:

Why is that, though? It's not like it's built into new players - it's something they learn.

[DonDuckie]

I try not to penalize unwanted behavior, but rather reward wanted behavior.

I give small bonusses that don't transfer to a new character. Depending on level it could be a 0 level spell as a spell-like ability 2/day, or a bonus feat, or 5 points of energy resistance, or a skill bonus, or something else small to keep them invested.

when a character dies(permanently) a new is rolled up with the same amount of xp but without the bonusses the old character earned through adventuring.

In short: Better to reward long lasting characters.

Current game:
And because of few(two at the moment) players at the table, each has one or two "sidekicks" which they take over if their main character dies... I don't like them "suddenly running into" a new party member in the middle of nowhere, so new characters are only introduced in safehavens. And I don't want to be afraid to kill them(or their sidekicks) in a grand encounter.

[Zanthy1]

My DM and myself generally have the player roll up a new guy at the lowest level of the party, minus some xp. So they are a level below the lowest, but halfway to their next level.

Also, in another campaign that I did, you had 1 life. If your character died, you were out. This however was not a typical campaign, it was a hunger games style thing where there was going to be a winner (maybe). This only lasted like 2-3 sessions because of technical issues and the fact that dnd is not entirely meant for pvp. Still a cool concept, we all tried not to die, just like in real life!

[GutterFace]

this is all good stuff! thanks everyone

i agree for the most part about imposing penalties to level/XP.

i need to somehow keep these new people (they are also dear friends) invested in using teamwork and wit.

they are off of the video game era. you die go back to your last save point

also always having new characters meeting up with an established group is trying.

[Edenbeast]

this is all good stuff! thanks everyone

i agree for the most part about imposing penalties to level/XP.

i need to somehow keep these new people (they are also dear friends) invested in using teamwork and wit.

they are off of the video game era. you die go back to your last save point

also always having new characters meeting up with an established group is trying.

Well one thing to make sure is to have them understand that it's not a video game. Some video games may be based on D&D, but even in those games you normally play through the whole game with the same character. And if you want a new character you have to start from 0 again.

One thing that helps and has been mentioned several times, is the background, let them write something that is inspriring for both them and you.
Use special rewards during the campaign that make them proud of the character they are playing.
If their character dies, always look at the reason why. Normally if a player wants to switch character he'll talk to me before hand and then we look at how we can make the switch, which doesn't necessarily have to be character death. If it was bad luck, and they wish to make a new character and not be resurrected, well don't penalise them.
I always let players make a new character at the same level as the group. Depending on the situation, they may start without equipment. That's the hardest penalty I used, but it resulted in good roleplaying from the player's side, who started as a prisoner.

[Psyren]

Why are they playing such suicidal characters anyway? I think most characters would do their best to stay alive.

This. In 3.5/PF, character creation takes so long and there's so much planning involved that players become invested as a matter of course. If your players are trying to kill themselves off, typically there's some other factor at play here - maybe the DM is forcing them into a race/class combination they don't like, or maybe they rolled poor stats and rerolls aren't allowed. If there's some element about their character that they don't like and that's out of their control, players may want to play suicidally out of protest or to try and get better luck of the draw on the next one.

[Story]

they are off of the video game era. you die go back to your last save point


Tell them it's a Rougelike.

[ArcturusV]

Rhynn:

Why? I can't say why. I can guess a bit. It probably has more to do with the new information technology than anything else. Forum boards like this, etc. I mean when you think of say, even playing 2nd edition back in 1992 or so, there wasn't really an internet as we think of it, and pretty much no one had it. There were Dragon and Dungeon Magazine... but I never knew anyone who had an actual subscription to it. It was more something that we'd see a copy (And only A copy) of in a specialty store (Couldn't find it at local bookstores or magazine racks). So there wasn't a greater community awareness. You didn't necessarily know that you were missing out on something. No one was there to open up your eyes to a new build idea, or homebrew classes, or even just he weird, wonky, and often broken stuff from Dragon magazine. So there wasn't so much a focus on optimization, builds, etc. Because if that culture existed, you weren't aware of it. And outside of whatever tricks you could think up yourself, you'd never find it.

Not to mention system wise it was a lot harder to break things open like an overripe melon. Multiclassing worked differently, Dual Classing was wonky and had a huge delay before it became powerful, etc. There was nothing quite like being able to "dip" in a class for the 1 best feature and having characters who had 20 levels in 9 different classes.

So by the time 3rd edition kicked along, it made it a lot easier to try and break the game by playing certain builds, and the internet was up and kicking, communities out there dedicated to DnD, etc, which showed you how and were just one quick search engine result away. So it lead to a rise in optimization, builds, etc, that really didn't exist prior to that (in my experience). It was a new novel thing, so people jumped on it. Thing with builds were, if that's what was getting your DnD rocks off, you needed 2 things really to happen that were practically unheard of before. Lower lethality to survive until your build kicked online and/or starting at mid-high level.

I mean there's nothing wrong with it. Just a theory however. It has given rise to a lot more story element usage and character development than I used to see back in the day as well. Instead of having just the one guy in a group who really got into the narrative and story I see at least half of the group into it (Since their joy is character based after all), which I like seeing. I mean finally all the stories I have cooked up for campaigns are finally getting used and explored rather than just being, "Just tell us where to go, who to kill, and what loot there is".

[Bhaakon]

On a related note, how do you like to deal with the economic power creep from introducing new characters into an existing game?

What I mean is that established characters in a campaign tend to have accumulated whatever loot the DM has handed out, and, unless the group has recently gone on a crafting spree or been shopping in a large city, it's not always an optimized loadout. The new character, OTOH, will have spent their money on the perfect items to compliment their build, which can add up to a not-trivial difference in power. So do you just let that stand, do you try to nerf the new character's buying power, do you force them to use the dead character's equipment, or something else?

[Edenbeast]

On a related note, how do you like to deal with the economic power creep from introducing new characters into an existing game?

What I mean is that established characters in a campaign tend to have accumulated whatever loot the DM has handed out, and, unless the group has recently gone on a crafting spree or been shopping in a large city, it's not always an optimized loadout. The new character, OTOH, will have spent their money on the perfect items to compliment their build, which can add up to a not-trivial difference in power. So do you just let that stand, do you try to nerf the new character's buying power, do you force them to use the dead character's equipment, or something else?

Depending on the party's alignment, I see no harm in burying the old character with all his equipment. I don't allow metagaming. What I do is look at what the party has on average per player. Then the player gives me a list of gear he'd like to have, and I look at what's fair/possible to give him. Maybe there are GM's with a different solution, but this works for me.

[ArcturusV]

I go bare minimum to be effective myself. If you're not fighting something with DR/Magic, you don't need magic weapons. I don't run "Magic Store" campaigns where Magic is Technology anyway, so it doesn't make sense for them to start off with magic items when they are more rarefied and you don't need them (Maybe some potions/oils/salves). Fighting a bunch of lycanthropes in the campaign arc? They might start off with Silvered weapons. Going into Hell to kick Asmodeus in the teeth? Good Aligned weapon. Who would outfit themselves to go into the Fae world and fight their twisted denizens without Cold Iron weapons, etc. I use that sort of logic.

They start off weaker. But I find it makes sense in the context of the campaign world I'm normally running. And most parties just give them preferential loot choices (First pick of magic items, etc) until they are considered on par. Or the team Cleric/Wizard goes and makes them appropriate items, etc.

Breaks WBL charts perhaps. But it doesn't hurt the game (in my experience). Also avoids some power creep issues where the players looted the dead PC and now have a new PC with the exact same amount of wealth. Nor does it force a "clone" situation where you have to make a character who can use all your old PC's items. Also prevents people from using WBL to be more item optimized than their teammates. Forces them to be part of the team (Asking favors from the spellcasters, asking for first dibs, etc). Which I don't see as a bad thing.

[Dr.Epic]

I always assumed it was standard practice to start new characters a level below the lowest level character in the group.

What if the dead PC is level 3, and the lowest living character is level 5?:smalleek:

[SowZ]

I usually do start them a level behind if we are at level 4+. But they end up catching up to the party and being the same level as everyone else within sessions, so it is no big deal.

[Stront]

What if the dead PC is level 3, and the lowest living character is level 5?:smalleek:

I have never had that happen in a campaign. Generally most characters are a level apart and often the same level. I don't worry too much about exp and make sure everyone levels when some big story arch is finished.

If the lowest level character was level 5, the PC would always be level 4 at the lowest. This would only be due to really stupid mistakes too. Again, I don't penalize bad luck or heroic acts.

[navar100]

Why is it sad? :smallconfused:

When did it become sad? It used to be standard. PCs dying on every expedition is how you knew you were dealing with a dangerous dungeon and that you were a hero if you survived it and conquered it...

It's called empathy.

If a PC is killed on every expedition then the DM is doing it wrong. It's not his job to kill PCs.

[Stront]

It's called empathy.

If a PC is killed on every expedition then the DM is doing it wrong. It's not his job to kill PCs.

I hate killing PCs; as most of them spend a lot of time building their characters. Unfortunately, I don't track their hit points and roll dice in front of them. If they suffer bad luck, they do die - but I don't sweat it too much. That is what makes the game exciting.

[Onerai]

On a related note, how do you like to deal with the economic power creep from introducing new characters into an existing game?

What I mean is that established characters in a campaign tend to have accumulated whatever loot the DM has handed out, and, unless the group has recently gone on a crafting spree or been shopping in a large city, it's not always an optimized loadout. The new character, OTOH, will have spent their money on the perfect items to compliment their build, which can add up to a not-trivial difference in power. So do you just let that stand, do you try to nerf the new character's buying power, do you force them to use the dead character's equipment, or something else?

Depends upon your campaign, but in my experience most DMs are generous enough to grant loot with a net worth over-and-above WBL. This is partly because, as mentioned, it isn't all going to be tailor-made useful for the party. It's also because it's reasonably expected that some of it will have been spent on consumables (potions, scrolls, wands, alchemical gear etc).

If the new character's potential WBL-purchased gear would easily be the equal or better of what the current party has, scale back his starting cash a fair bit. This too could form part of the penalties for introducing a new character.

[Stront]

Depends upon your campaign, but in my experience most DMs are generous enough to grant loot with a net worth over-and-above WBL. This is partly because, as mentioned, it isn't all going to be tailor-made useful for the party. It's also because it's reasonably expected that some of it will have been spent on consumables (potions, scrolls, wands, alchemical gear etc).

If the new character's potential WBL-purchased gear would easily be the equal or better of what the current party has, scale back his starting cash a fair bit. This too could form part of the penalties for introducing a new character.

I must admit, on one occasion I had a very irritating player that kept killing his character off to play something else. He would do this religiously every other game session roughly.

Final, on his fourth attempt at this - I had him found bound and violated in the dungeon where the party was at (including the former PC's character who just vanished). His new PC started literally naked and had to beg, borrow and plead with the current party to offer up some items he could use.

He didn't make a new character after that. As the lesson seemed to have been learned, I implanted a few of the items he wanted to start with throughout the dungeon.

[Onerai]

I hate killing PCs; as most of them spend a lot of time building their characters. Unfortunately, I don't track their hit points and roll dice in front of them. If they suffer bad luck, they do die - but I don't sweat it too much. That is what makes the game exciting.

This. If there's one thing I learned in my first couple of games as a DM, it's that you can't pull your punches.

Of course it's sad when a PC dies; that's kind of the point. If their endeavors don't have a chance of failure, if there's no real danger, their struggles become meaningless. I'm still learning how to handle bringing back a character or adding a new one when a death occurs, but hey, so long as the players are having fun it's not so bad.

[Rhynn]

It's called empathy.

For what, a piece of paper?


If a PC is killed on every expedition then the DM is doing it wrong. It's not his job to kill PCs.

It's not his job to not kill them, either. Making a dangerous dungeon/adventure and letting the PCs die if they will is the job.


If they suffer bad luck, they do die - but I don't sweat it too much. That is what makes the game exciting.

Exactly. It's not like death sticks too well in 3E-4E D&D, anyway.


If the new character's potential WBL-purchased gear would easily be the equal or better of what the current party has, scale back his starting cash a fair bit. This too could form part of the penalties for introducing a new character.

Generally, WBL increases so much between levels that, unless a large percentage of the party is dying between every level, you can just have them not find quite as much treasure to make up for absorbing the dead PCs' stuff: add up the full value of items kept and the sale value of items sold, divide that as a treasure reduction between the next level or so of adventuring, and balance is maintained.


Of course it's sad when a PC dies; that's kind of the point. If their endeavors don't have a chance of failure, if there's no real danger, their struggles become meaningless. I'm still learning how to handle bringing back a character or adding a new one when a death occurs, but hey, so long as the players are having fun it's not so bad.

Exactly. I am very glad to see there are still many people who hold to these old ways...

Adding new PCs always depends on the campaign model, but it's one reason I've come to love the "adventuring company with a contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code#Articles_of_Henry_Morgan_and_other_buc caneers)" model. When the company is low on members, they go recruiting.

Finding prisoners (alluded to by Stront above, in a nasty way...) in dungeons is always an option, too, and a traditional one - the first Dragonlance module, DL1, has something like 3-4 NPC prisoners in the dungeon who will join the PCs, and 1-2 in the wilderness to be found.

In older editions, there was a very simple solution: henchmen. Henchmen are NPC followers who get a ½-share of XP (so they're one level behind, basically). Each henchman "belongs" to a specific PC. The solution is obvious: when the PC dies, the henchman graduates into a PC. The change is completely out-of-character, too, since IC the henchman was already getting a full share of treasure and was, essentially, a full-fledged member of the party - just, up to then, he was technically following the PC.

[AuraTwilight]

For what, a piece of paper?

You've never felt any sort of emotions of any kind for a fictional character, at all? That's depressing.

[Triaxx]

So far the only person I've ever had end up with the Chinchilla is a Monk. Have you got any idea just how hard it is to KILL a Chinchilla Monk?

He got killed by a lucky cleave attack that rolled critical in a final battle at the end of a dungeon. He chose reincarnation over resurrection because it was cheaper. This happened around level 7. He finished the campaign at level 22. By the end, 20's were the only thing hitting him. It was both awesome and horrifying at the same time.

---

I make it a point to discuss the lethality of a campaign before I start DMing. I always anticipate at least a 30% casualty rate for one of my campaigns, and everyone knows it. Of course, the dice have a mind of their own, and I had one game that was supposed to be a starter dungeon (I always play from level 1), where I had a 90% casualty rate.

I find that if the players are prepared to lose their characters at any time, it makes the loss easier to take. Of course, the other DM's tend to be of the touchy-feely never want to lose a character type. I just encourage builds not reliant on 'Just in Time' power.

[Yahzi]

Wow, I am the groganard here.

I start characters over at the same place they started: level 0.

Welcome to the sandbox!

[Xenogears]

Wow, I am the groganard here.

I start characters over at the same place they started: level 0.

Welcome to the sandbox!

The problem with that (in 3.5 at least) is that by level 8 or so that basically means every combat for the next 4+ sessions (until they sort of catch up) consists of the rest of the party telling them to sit in the corner and try to not die since they literally cannot do anything useful and will die in 1 half-hearted hit.

[ArcturusV]

Depending on class. A level 1 Cleric or Wizard could easily still contribute. Though would try to stay away from all the pointy bits of metal. Even a level 1 bard could make worthwhile contributions.

[Story]

A level 1 Marshal could potentially help too.

[Rhynn]

Wow, I am the groganard here.

I start characters over at the same place they started: level 0.

Welcome to the sandbox!

I'm actually leaning towards this (well, level 1) for my sandboxes, but it's also why I encourage my players to have henchmen (as many as they can & dare; remember, that Cha limit is henchmen over your lifetime, not at once!) that can be transitioned into PC status.

But it definitely only works well for sandbox games, and mostly not for 3E and onward.

In AD&D 1E/2E, a level 1 PC with a party of level 6-9s who's still getting a full share of treasure would hang back in the fights and participate in other portions (the meat of the game) for one expedition, and would probably be getting five-figure XP (treasure + share of combat XP). Because of the way older D&D experience progresses, you'll generally catch up with PCs below 9th level before by the time they gain another level. It's almost like it was designed to let 1st-levels catch up...

[Kesnit]

Because of the way older D&D experience progresses, you'll generally catch up with PCs below 9th level before by the time they gain another level. It's almost like it was designed to let 1st-levels catch up...

As someone who went through something like this, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

My first experience with D&D was 2nd Ed. (It was after 3.5 was out, but the DM liked 2nd.) The party was LVL 8 (I think); I came in at LVL 1. Which meant I spent every combat for several sessions "sitting in a corner, trying not to die." It was boring beyond belief. I would sit there and try to think of something I could do to contribute, but since getting close to the combat meant I would almost certainly die, there wasn't much I could do. (I ended up helping the Ranger calculate his attack rolls since he could not work THAC0.)

The RP parts of the game were great, and I liked the other players, so I stuck around. Eventually, the DM took pity on me and set everyone to the same level. (The rest of the party gained a level and I was leveled up to equal them.)



Back to the OP...

There are some other questions that may need to be considered.

Are you going to treat all PC death the same? So the person who sacrifices themselves for the group and the person who "pokes the sleeping dragon" will get the same penalty, even though the circumstances are very different? What about the PC who dies because of sheer bad luck? ("OK, I need to make this save. I only have to roll a 6 or higher to make it. Oh crap, I rolled a 4.")

What about the player who just isn't having fun, or built a character that just does not work for the current campaign? For example, the player who comes in with a Monk in a party with a Cleric, a Druid, and a Sorc? Or the person who rolls up a perpared caster, then determines that they don't like the bookkeeping issue? Or the Rogue player in an undead-heavy campaign. (Yes, I know there are ways around the last one, but it is still an issue.) Are you going to penalize them for not having fun?

[Rhynn]

My first experience with D&D was 2nd Ed.

Was there XP for treasure (1 XP per 1 GP value) and was it evenly split? The biggest problem with 2E compared to 1E, IMO, was the loss of "XP for GP" as a standard mechanic (it's an optional mechanic offhandedly mentioned at the end of a paragraph next to the XP-for-HD table). Treasure should be the main XP source IMO (which also means you can just avoid fights, like a smart person, if you don't stand to gain treasure directly from the fight, or unless the enemy is something you're specifically looking to kill).

Anyway, with a ranged weapon, you could be doing the same damage (excepting magical attacks) as most party members and hitting decently (since AC doesn't scale hugely unless you're fighting dragons, demons, and devils)...

If the party is just about 8th-level (say, 150,000 XP, putting the warriors and clerics at 8th, wizards at 9th, and rogues almost at 10th), you'd be up to 8th level by the time the rangers/paladins got to 9th (they need a total of 300,000 XP for 9th, you'd need 150,000 XP to get to the levels above; with a wizard you'd equal their level, with a rogue you'd pass them!), if XP is divided evenly (and it should be)... and from there on you'd be a level or half a level behind. It's a natural rubber-band effect that I've never seen cause to monkey with.

The other problem is that 2E was generally (judging by Dragon Magazine letters and articles) played much more combat-focused than older editions, which were generally more exploration-focused. Being able to figure out the trap, the door, the clue, or the puzzle was a bigger contribution than dealing a lot of damage.

[Cirrylius]

I must admit, on one occasion I had a very irritating player that kept killing his character off to play something else. He would do this religiously every other game session roughly.

OH GOD THIS. I knew a girl who sacrificed herself/killed herself/died like a dumbass over and over, for attention. It didn't last long.


So far the only person I've ever had end up with the Chinchilla is a Monk. Have you got any idea just how hard it is to KILL a Chinchilla Monk?
Maybe he was some kind of Vorpal Bunny crossbreed.


For what, a piece of paper?

Right?? Once in school I had to visually examine a bunch of papers that someone had typed "Romeo & Juliet" onto the cover. I was all like "why does everbody look so moved, we're just mentally translating patterns of ink into mental phonetics! It's not like anything REAL is happening."

[Rhynn]

Right?? Once in school I had to visually examine a bunch of papers that someone had typed "Romeo & Juliet" onto the cover. I was all like "why does everbody look so moved, we're just mentally translating patterns of ink into mental phonetics! It's not like anything REAL is happening."

Hey, that's totally comparable to getting your character killed in a game where death isn't permanent. What an analogy!

It's not like it's even comparable to a book. I can seriously say I've never been sad over the death of a character in a game, whether tabletop or computer or board.

So, yeah. "D&D PC dying = sad" is a bizarre equation to me. That's what they do, if you play them long enough.

[AuraTwilight]

Hey, that's totally comparable to getting your character killed in a game where death isn't permanent. What an analogy!

It's not like it's even comparable to a book. I can seriously say I've never been sad over the death of a character in a game, whether tabletop or computer or board.

So, yeah. "D&D PC dying = sad" is a bizarre equation to me. That's what they do, if you play them long enough.

Except that's not what you said. You were trying to defuse the possibility of emotional loss by calling them pieces of paper, not "characters that can come back whenever you want."

Also, what if the DM banned resurrection magics? Does the sadness suddenly matter again?

[TuggyNE]

So, yeah. "D&D PC dying = sad" is a bizarre equation to me. That's what they do, if you play them long enough.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but ordinary people in real life also die if you follow their life long enough. And that's generally considered sad. Just saying.

(I don't consider fictional characters on the same level as people; however, emotionally, the fundamental likeness is enough to produce a significant reaction in most people, because that's how empathy works.)

[Bhaakon]

I don't consider fictional characters on the same level as people; however, emotionally, the fundamental likeness is enough to produce a significant reaction in most people, because that's how empathy works.

Come now, people don't get sad when their pawn dies in chess. Not every dnd game is super serious.

[TuggyNE]

Come now, people don't get sad when their pawn dies in chess. Not every dnd game is super serious.

You sure? I see what you're saying, but nearly all D&D characters, even the OSR-style, have considerably more depth and empathic potential than a chess pawn. And if you're dealing with a "new school" style of character, this is intensified by one or two orders of magnitude.

I don't think it varies much based on whether the game is serious, but on how much time/effort you've spent developing the character. It's perfectly possible to run a very serious, very lethal OSR dungeon, and it's also possible to run a light-hearted and humorous 3.5 social adventure in which death is almost inconceivable.

[Cirrylius]

Hey, that's totally comparable to getting your character killed in a game where death isn't permanent. What an analogy!

I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No) said (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong) that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole)? HEY THANKS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony). Anyway.



I can seriously say I've never been sad over the death of a character in a game, whether tabletop or computer or board.

D&D characters are a touch different.
1) Characters are part of a players creative impulse; in a non-Raise Dead setting, losing a character is akin to losing a game of poker where the stakes are the other player gets to set fire to a piece of your creative writing.
2) Part of the player's job is to put themselves in the character's place, and react to the world through their eyes. If you seriously don't experience even a small degree of contact emotion when they suffer pain, loss, setback, or outright oblivion, then you're not roleplaying. You're high-resolution wargaming.