PDA

View Full Version : Ressurection is worse than DEATH



the hogfather
2015-10-23, 02:46 AM
So I have a problem with my campain. Every time a player character dies, I make this one on one scene where the PC is a ghost and is watching his dead body, and I at that time play DEATH, the PC has a conversation with DEATH and then they ussualy agree to go in to the great next. Last time we played however, and here is where my problem comes in, one of the pcs (who died because of his ignorance) begged DEATH to bring him back. I agreed to do so but under the condition that he brings 320 inocent souls in return, untill he does so he shall always be ressurected when he dies. Here's the twist however, each time he is ressurected, he looses a level and there is less of him left every time. Now some time has passed and he realy wants to play a new character. The question is, do I allow him to do so, or should he learn to not dabble in powers that are out of his hands. On one point I want for every one to have fun, but on the other I want the players to take the campain more seriously.

Kelb_Panthera
2015-10-23, 03:16 AM
Any particular reason the character can't just walk away from the rest of the party and disappear into the sunset, making room for a new character?

Never..... ever..... force a player to play a character they don't want to play. That's the number 1, cardinal sin of P&P rpg's. If he's grown tired of the character to the point that his inability to stay dead is the only reason he's still playing the character, it's time to retire the character.

Mr Adventurer
2015-10-23, 03:26 AM
Yeah. Wanting the players to take the game more seriously is a separate conversation to have with your players.

Honest Tiefling
2015-10-23, 01:46 PM
The goal of the game is not to teach your players or their characters a lesson. The goal is to have fun. He's not having fun. So the simple answer is let him roll a new character.

Punishing the characters for OoC behavior or different expectations is not a good policy at all. If your players are not taking things seriously, speak to them about it, out of character. Otherwise, they'll probably resist all attempts to do so otherwise. They'll probably treat it as a challenge to overcome, or a quirk or a temporary thing because of that lack of communication.

mephnick
2015-10-23, 02:11 PM
Any particular reason the character can't just walk away from the rest of the party and disappear into the sunset, making room for a new character?

He could even come back as a very compelling villian. Maybe a recurring one that the players/whoever keep killing. As he loses physical power from his deaths, he compensates by building up a cult following as an "immortal" and draws more powerful allies to him as his legend grows, creating more and more problems for the PCs. Now your player's failure to take death seriously has created a major force in your setting.

Crake
2015-10-23, 02:53 PM
I personally just don't allow re-rolls. If someone wants to mix up their character or play something different, that's what character rebuilds are for, but if they want to re-roll to escape bad roleplay decisions they've made, that's when I just start a new campaign and everyone re-rolls from 1, and epilogue the other players' characters for them. Either that, or I continue the campaign without that player, if the other players are happy to continue, running it alongside the new, level 1 campaign. If a character dies irrevocably, then damn, sucks for that character, same deal, epilogue/continue running in parallel. I hate the idea of "character A leaves, oh look, character B conveniently happens by, is roughly our same level, and is willing to help", that's just to corny for my liking.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-23, 03:15 PM
I agree with let him leave. Either let him try to break his contract with Death, or have him leave to find some way to do it. Maybe he comes back as a villain, suffering from personality problems from dying several times, maybe he becomes a scholar shut away, searching on information on previous people with his fate.

Maybe he decides he's immortal, and goes off to live as a God king somewhere.

Questions: what happens when he dies off old age? And how many life's does he still need to take?

Zale
2015-10-23, 06:09 PM
I personally just don't allow re-rolls. If someone wants to mix up their character or play something different, that's what character rebuilds are for, but if they want to re-roll to escape bad roleplay decisions they've made, that's when I just start a new campaign and everyone re-rolls from 1, and epilogue the other players' characters for them. Either that, or I continue the campaign without that player, if the other players are happy to continue, running it alongside the new, level 1 campaign. If a character dies irrevocably, then damn, sucks for that character, same deal, epilogue/continue running in parallel. I hate the idea of "character A leaves, oh look, character B conveniently happens by, is roughly our same level, and is willing to help", that's just to corny for my liking.

So if the player really dislike their current character their options are: Quit, Start A New Game or Do Nothing While We Play?

Sounds pretty harsh.

Keltest
2015-10-23, 07:33 PM
He could even come back as a very compelling villian. Maybe a recurring one that the players/whoever keep killing. As he loses physical power from his deaths, he compensates by building up a cult following as an "immortal" and draws more powerful allies to him as his legend grows, creating more and more problems for the PCs. Now your player's failure to take death seriously has created a major force in your setting.

I like this plan, though you should make sure the player is OK with you doing things with his character once he's retired.

Piedmon_Sama
2015-10-23, 07:37 PM
The way I see it, you gave him a second chance with explained provisos, which he accepted. Until he collects the aforesaid souls or finds another way out of the bargain, he should be subject to those terms. HOWEVER, he should also be free to dump that character and roll up a new one, just as I would expect if I had made a mechanically ineffectual character or just found that a concept was a lot less fun than I'd expected. Now he shouldn't necessarily be free to do it any old time---if the party's in the middle of a dungeon, he can't just have his character evaporate and then his next PC turn up in a wine cask in the next room. I don't think it would be unreasonable to say okay, you can bring in a new character and your current one will depart, next time the party's in town, or at the next resting point between encounters, or whatever.

TheThan
2015-10-23, 08:12 PM
I would have gone with 320 innocent souls each time he dies.



He could even come back as a very compelling villian. Maybe a recurring one that the players/whoever keep killing. As he loses physical power from his deaths, he compensates by building up a cult following as an "immortal" and draws more powerful allies to him as his legend grows, creating more and more problems for the PCs. Now your player's failure to take death seriously has created a major force in your setting.

This is the plan I would use. Sure the player can retire the character, but I get to use it as a villain later in the game.



Punishing the characters for OoC behavior or different expectations is not a good policy at all. If your players are not taking things seriously, speak to them about it, out of character. Otherwise, they'll probably resist all attempts to do so otherwise. They'll probably treat it as a challenge to overcome, or a quirk or a temporary thing because of that lack of communication.

How is this punishment exactly? He effectively has an immortal character; sure he drops in level every time he dies, but that can be overcome, hes got incentive not to be so careless with his now immortal character. Unless the Dm has put a time limit on how long he has to collect souls, I see no punishment. He could simply not fulfill his contract until hes done adventuring. He could try to bow out of the contract or possibly re-forge a new contract with Death somehow. Or even better yet, turn it into a rise/fall/redemption story; he's got a good opportunity to play a bad guy and get away with it. I'd totally run with it if it fell into my lap; or as others have suggested, he could wander off quietly into the night.

goto124
2015-10-24, 01:15 AM
if the party's in the middle of a dungeon, he can't just have his character evaporate and then his next PC turn up in a wine cask in the next room.

And now I want to try this.

Piedmon_Sama
2015-10-24, 03:56 AM
It was a prior DM of mine's rule that basically if you died or created a new character or anything, your new character could never enter the game in a way that had any shred of dignity. Trussed up in a closet, hanging upside down from a snare, naked and tied to a meat spit...

Piedmon_Sama
2015-10-24, 03:57 AM
...Magically preserved in a pickle jar, lost in the teleporting room, pinned with a rock on your chest...

Sredni Vashtar
2015-10-24, 06:50 AM
Can't he just refuse to be resurrected? I thought that was baked into the concept from the word go.

the hogfather
2015-10-24, 10:33 AM
He could even come back as a very compelling villian. Maybe a recurring one that the players/whoever keep killing. As he loses physical power from his deaths, he compensates by building up a cult following as an "immortal" and draws more powerful allies to him as his legend grows, creating more and more problems for the PCs. Now your player's failure to take death seriously has created a major force in your setting.
I like this idea very much. This way the players gets to have fun, rolls up a new character. DEATH on the other hand, who is a self aware individual that can see trough the fourth wall, says:"Woah buddy, I see what you did there, and I feel cheated ... No one f****s with ME!" and he gives the old character a new meaning to teach the player a lesson (turning in to a game which both I and the players will enjoy)
-thanks to all for such great advise :D

Honest Tiefling
2015-10-24, 11:46 AM
How is this punishment exactly? He effectively has an immortal character; sure he drops in level every time he dies, but that can be overcome, hes got incentive not to be so careless with his now immortal character. Unless the Dm has put a time limit on how long he has to collect souls, I see no punishment. He could simply not fulfill his contract until hes done adventuring. He could try to bow out of the contract or possibly re-forge a new contract with Death somehow. Or even better yet, turn it into a rise/fall/redemption story; he's got a good opportunity to play a bad guy and get away with it. I'd totally run with it if it fell into my lap; or as others have suggested, he could wander off quietly into the night.

The punishment for the character is fine and dandy, and it is a punishment because the character becomes weaker and weaker. The DM also seems unwilling to allow the character to go into the night (which is the course of action I would allow). The problem is, the DM seems reluctant to allow the PC to have a new character because he wants the players to take the game more seriously. The idea of messing with a character or other in-game elements to demonstrate or enforce something on the players is what bugs me. Talking to them would probably have a better effect, and might make the player more willing to embrace this, and accommodate the DM's preferences.

Keledrath
2015-10-24, 02:19 PM
Can't he just refuse to be resurrected? I thought that was baked into the concept from the word go.

This isn't so much ressurection as, when he dies, DEATH shows up, takes a level, and shoves him back into his body. Oh, and reminds him what the debt is at.

I personally second the plan of letting him retire the character, and using it for yourself. However, one extra note: make sure the player is okay with that. I've seen people who have very strongly held opinions on who gets to use the character they wrote. It can literally be a landmine waiting to blow, and you don't want to get into that argument with someone

BWR
2015-10-24, 05:19 PM
It can literally be a landmine waiting to blow, and you don't want to get into that argument with someone

Remind me never to get into a character argument with you!

Keledrath
2015-10-24, 05:26 PM
Remind me never to get into a character argument with you!

Oh, I'm not the one who had the issue. I ran into this with one of my old players. Almost ruined the friendship. It's just surprising the things that some people hold close to their hearts.

5ColouredWalker
2015-10-24, 06:21 PM
[QUOTE=the hogfather;19985696]-snip-/QUOTE]
Let him.

You now have a new NPC, his old character. If he says you're doing anything out of character, you can say out that he's gone insane killing the innocents, loosing himself, and loosing PC status [The point the mental break occurred.].

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-10-24, 06:24 PM
A game is supposed to be fun. Consequences to character's actions are awesome, generally, but if they make someone want to quit the game, they're no longer fun. Give him a way out of the contract (if that is indeed why he's bored with this character) or let him roll up another character, I'd say. I might start speaking differently if making a new character becomes a habit for this person, but one time...

Crake
2015-10-24, 06:54 PM
So if the player really dislike their current character their options are: Quit, Start A New Game or Do Nothing While We Play?

Sounds pretty harsh.

The way I see it, re-rolling a character is starting a new story, why not just start a whole new game along with it? I personally don't see how a player would let their character get to the point where they really hate the roleplay aspect of their character. If they screwed up big time, then fixing the problems they made is just part of the growth of their character. As I said, if it's a mechanical issue they don't like about their character, that's what character rebuilds are for.

Keledrath
2015-10-24, 07:15 PM
The way I see it, re-rolling a character is starting a new story, why not just start a whole new game along with it? I personally don't see how a player would let their character get to the point where they really hate the roleplay aspect of their character. If they screwed up big time, then fixing the problems they made is just part of the growth of their character. As I said, if it's a mechanical issue they don't like about their character, that's what character rebuilds are for.

Say the group was level 5 when this happened. You died the first time, and came back at level 9. Now you're more likely to die, and whe you do, you come back at level 8. The more you try to help, the more you die, and the more you die, the harder it is to help without dying.

Eventually, you're level 1 in a group of level 12s. Why is the party even bringing you anymore? At this stage, your contribution consists of walking in the front and triggering traps and ambushes, because presumably, since you can't die (after all, you owe DEATH), you'll still get back up. You are literally the muskrat 5000

Sredni Vashtar
2015-10-24, 08:49 PM
The way I see it, re-rolling a character is starting a new story, why not just start a whole new game along with it? I personally don't see how a player would let their character get to the point where they really hate the roleplay aspect of their character. If they screwed up big time, then fixing the problems they made is just part of the growth of their character. As I said, if it's a mechanical issue they don't like about their character, that's what character rebuilds are for.

You could have the best idea in the world and still get bored with it after a while. I mean, yes, it's a storytelling game, but it's also a game, and there's no reason to force other people (who in all likelihood are enjoying the game) to stop because one person isn't. Especially when that enjoyment can easily be rekindled in the one.

enderlord99
2015-10-24, 10:50 PM
Oh, I'm not the one who had the issue.

:smallconfused:You don't have an issue with people planting landmines in your house?:smalleek:

Knaight
2015-10-24, 11:06 PM
The way I see it, re-rolling a character is starting a new story, why not just start a whole new game along with it? I personally don't see how a player would let their character get to the point where they really hate the roleplay aspect of their character. If they screwed up big time, then fixing the problems they made is just part of the growth of their character. As I said, if it's a mechanical issue they don't like about their character, that's what character rebuilds are for.

Sometimes it's not the mechanics though, and is instead that the character as a person has become someone you have no interest in, either because the interesting aspects of their concept petered out or you did what you could with organic character growth and grew to dislike them, or whatever else. As this probably only happens to one player, just getting that character replaced makes a lot of sense.

By analogy, consider other media with a serial format, whether it's a series of books, anything which has episodes, a series of films, or even something like one long novel with a number of arcs. Characters get written out, sometimes even protagonists. Others get written in. The same thing can happen with RPGs for a lot of the same reasons.

Crake
2015-10-25, 02:04 AM
Say the group was level 5 when this happened. You died the first time, and came back at level 9. Now you're more likely to die, and whe you do, you come back at level 8. The more you try to help, the more you die, and the more you die, the harder it is to help without dying.

Eventually, you're level 1 in a group of level 12s. Why is the party even bringing you anymore? At this stage, your contribution consists of walking in the front and triggering traps and ambushes, because presumably, since you can't die (after all, you owe DEATH), you'll still get back up. You are literally the muskrat 5000

Well, that's an issue with dying and being brought back in general, so my advice there would be to stop dying. If I did allow re-rolls, they would come in a level lower anyway, otherwise it would be like a free true res and a rebuild.


You could have the best idea in the world and still get bored with it after a while. I mean, yes, it's a storytelling game, but it's also a game, and there's no reason to force other people (who in all likelihood are enjoying the game) to stop because one person isn't. Especially when that enjoyment can easily be rekindled in the one.

Characters are more than just ideas, they grow beyond that.


Sometimes it's not the mechanics though, and is instead that the character as a person has become someone you have no interest in, either because the interesting aspects of their concept petered out or you did what you could with organic character growth and grew to dislike them, or whatever else. As this probably only happens to one player, just getting that character replaced makes a lot of sense.

By analogy, consider other media with a serial format, whether it's a series of books, anything which has episodes, a series of films, or even something like one long novel with a number of arcs. Characters get written out, sometimes even protagonists. Others get written in. The same thing can happen with RPGs for a lot of the same reasons.

Honestly, if you don't like where your character has gone, find a reason to change them. Just as you don't like what your character has become, the character can just as easily not like what they've become. I find though, that most of the time in games I'm not DMing character re-rolls are just an excuse for a cheap escape from roleplay issues (unless the player just wants to try something else, in which case, rebuilds). If you want a clean slate to work with, that's what new games are for.

But hey, that's just how I run my games, and it's worked so far. I tend to encourage my players to roleplay heavily though, and none of them are afraid to try and solve the issues they make with their characters. I haven't had a player ever even ask to re-roll their characters, because they all feel the same way about it anyway, none of them like to start characters at higher levels, if a player doesn't like where their character is at, they'd rather quit than bring in a new character with a fraction of development as the other characters, because in my games if characters had "roleplay levels", that'd be like being a level 1 character in a level 20 game.

BWR
2015-10-25, 02:24 AM
Oh, I'm not the one who had the issue. I ran into this with one of my old players. Almost ruined the friendship. It's just surprising the things that some people hold close to their hearts.

I was talking of the use of the word 'literally' in relation to landmines and RPGs.

Knaight
2015-10-25, 04:46 AM
Honestly, if you don't like where your character has gone, find a reason to change them. Just as you don't like what your character has become, the character can just as easily not like what they've become. I find though, that most of the time in games I'm not DMing character re-rolls are just an excuse for a cheap escape from roleplay issues (unless the player just wants to try something else, in which case, rebuilds). If you want a clean slate to work with, that's what new games are for.
Maybe you can, maybe you can't. It really depends on the particulars of the character, particularly if you care about maintaining a coherent character arc. Moreover, just because the option of dramatically retooling an existing character exists doesn't make it the best option; that could easily be the introduction of a new character. You could hypothetically write a book with an extremely limited cast, where every time a new character is needed an existing character is slowly morphed into them. That doesn't somehow make it wrong to just use a new character.


But hey, that's just how I run my games, and it's worked so far. I tend to encourage my players to roleplay heavily though, and none of them are afraid to try and solve the issues they make with their characters.
Ah, the good old, "It's just my opinion, as the superior role player" defense, with a nice side of "If you aren't doing it my way, you're just too afraid".

While no doubt emotionally comforting, this argument is fundamentally unconvincing. In my experience, it's the people who really put the effort into roleplaying and who have well developed characters who most often want to switch at some point, either because that particular character is a comparative flop, or because that particular character's major points of interest (potential character arcs, notable inner conflicts, notable ties to the setting, etc.) have been largely resolved and there's little point in just milking that character yet further when new and interesting avenues exist.

Anonymouswizard
2015-10-25, 04:46 AM
The way I see it, re-rolling a character is starting a new story, why not just start a whole new game along with it? I personally don't see how a player would let their character get to the point where they really hate the roleplay aspect of their character. If they screwed up big time, then fixing the problems they made is just part of the growth of their character. As I said, if it's a mechanical issue they don't like about their character, that's what character rebuilds are for.

What if a character's story is done? Do you say to the others 'sorry, Rob won't be playing with us for a while, he decided his character's story was finished before the campaign's was'. Or would you allow the following:

Dave the fighter has been trying to clear his name. When he succeeds in getting a royal pardon due to helping save a village from a golem army, he decides to stay with the village to rebuild, and settles down there, eventually marrying and so on. To replace him, Jeff the over levelled town guardvasks to sign on with the party, having a similar build to Dave.

Keledrath
2015-10-25, 08:08 AM
Well, that's an issue with dying and being brought back in general, so my advice there would be to stop dying. If I did allow re-rolls, they would come in a level lower anyway, otherwise it would be like a free true res and a rebuild.

But how do they stop dying? Especially if you have, say, a frontline fighter (the most likely person to die). Now he's underleveled, and his JOB is to be between the party and the enemy. So what is he supposed to do? Completely ignore how he built and stand behind the WIZARD plinking at the enemy with a bow that he's hardly trained with for what, 2 months while osmosis XP catches him up? If he tries to do what he's built to do, he's going to keep dying, which puts him further behind.

Seriously, the "get good scrub" mentality is very hostilefor a GM-player relationship.

Sredni Vashtar
2015-10-25, 09:26 AM
Characters are more than just ideas, they grow beyond that.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Even in the most well-developed fiction, characters are ideas. They may or may not grow into more complex ideas that ask various questions and teach a multitude of lessons, but at their core, they're ideas.

And in RPG's sometimes they start as "I wanna play a Dragonborn to see how it is".

Knaight
2015-10-25, 12:43 PM
But how do they stop dying? Especially if you have, say, a frontline fighter (the most likely person to die). Now he's underleveled, and his JOB is to be between the party and the enemy. So what is he supposed to do? Completely ignore how he built and stand behind the WIZARD plinking at the enemy with a bow that he's hardly trained with for what, 2 months while osmosis XP catches him up? If he tries to do what he's built to do, he's going to keep dying, which puts him further behind.

I suspect in this case "stop dying" is more system side than anything; the lethality of various systems varies a lot. To use just D&D examples, in 1e you get knocked to 0 HP and are dead, in 5e you get knocked to 0 HP and won't die until the third round at the earliest unless someone wants to finish you off.

Raimun
2015-10-25, 07:41 PM
Couldn't he just... you know, not die? At least stop dying so much? Only die if it is absolutely necessary?

It's pretty easy. You just have to keep living and avoid dying. It's not rocket science.

Crake
2015-10-25, 10:35 PM
Maybe you can, maybe you can't. It really depends on the particulars of the character, particularly if you care about maintaining a coherent character arc. Moreover, just because the option of dramatically retooling an existing character exists doesn't make it the best option; that could easily be the introduction of a new character. You could hypothetically write a book with an extremely limited cast, where every time a new character is needed an existing character is slowly morphed into them. That doesn't somehow make it wrong to just use a new character.


Ah, the good old, "It's just my opinion, as the superior role player" defense, with a nice side of "If you aren't doing it my way, you're just too afraid".

While no doubt emotionally comforting, this argument is fundamentally unconvincing. In my experience, it's the people who really put the effort into roleplaying and who have well developed characters who most often want to switch at some point, either because that particular character is a comparative flop, or because that particular character's major points of interest (potential character arcs, notable inner conflicts, notable ties to the setting, etc.) have been largely resolved and there's little point in just milking that character yet further when new and interesting avenues exist.

Afraid was used there in the same way I would say "i'm not afraid to get my hands dirty", it's not about literal fear, it's about distaste. Some people don't play rpgs to have to dredge through mistakes their character made, and that's fine, nothing about being a superior roleplayer, it's about preference.


What if a character's story is done? Do you say to the others 'sorry, Rob won't be playing with us for a while, he decided his character's story was finished before the campaign's was'. Or would you allow the following:

Dave the fighter has been trying to clear his name. When he succeeds in getting a royal pardon due to helping save a village from a golem army, he decides to stay with the village to rebuild, and settles down there, eventually marrying and so on. To replace him, Jeff the over levelled town guardvasks to sign on with the party, having a similar build to Dave.

My campaigns tend to be very sandboxy games, where the story is driven by the players. If a player decides his story is done, that was the campaign story, so yeah, game's over in that case anyway.


But how do they stop dying? Especially if you have, say, a frontline fighter (the most likely person to die). Now he's underleveled, and his JOB is to be between the party and the enemy. So what is he supposed to do? Completely ignore how he built and stand behind the WIZARD plinking at the enemy with a bow that he's hardly trained with for what, 2 months while osmosis XP catches him up? If he tries to do what he's built to do, he's going to keep dying, which puts him further behind.

Seriously, the "get good scrub" mentality is very hostilefor a GM-player relationship.

I didn't mean to imply the onus of responsibility was entirely on that player, it's equally up to the party to ensure they don't engage in overly dangerous engagements with that player, and up to the DM to give the players the opportunity to engage with enemies that are challenging, but not overwhelming, as much as it is up to the player to not put themselves in dangerous positions.

Hawkstar
2015-10-26, 10:34 AM
Oh, I'm not the one who had the issue. I ran into this with one of my old players. Almost ruined the friendship. It's just surprising the things that some people hold close to their hearts.
But where did the landmine come from?

Keledrath
2015-10-26, 10:50 AM
But where did the landmine come from?

I think his dad was a military supplier or something.

themaque
2015-10-26, 09:57 PM
The way I see it, re-rolling a character is starting a new story, why not just start a whole new game along with it? I personally don't see how a player would let their character get to the point where they really hate the roleplay aspect of their character. If they screwed up big time, then fixing the problems they made is just part of the growth of their character. As I said, if it's a mechanical issue they don't like about their character, that's what character rebuilds are for.

This could also really limit experimenting with new ideas or characters.

Let's say I want to try playing a Cleric of GoodyGoody. Now I normally like playing a rogue but I'm trying to branch out. I really don't like it. In fact it leaves such a distaste in my mouth that I want to play something new, but everyone else in the party is enjoying themselves, their characters, and the campaign. Yes, I could try to change the personality, class, and everything but at what point does it just make more sense to have a new character instead?

It would appear that If that person isn't allowed to drop this character he either plays something he doesn't enjoy, purposefully looks for ways to die, or forces everyone else to abandon a game they are enjoying.

Crake
2015-10-27, 01:06 AM
This could also really limit experimenting with new ideas or characters.

Let's say I want to try playing a Cleric of GoodyGoody. Now I normally like playing a rogue but I'm trying to branch out. I really don't like it. In fact it leaves such a distaste in my mouth that I want to play something new, but everyone else in the party is enjoying themselves, their characters, and the campaign. Yes, I could try to change the personality, class, and everything but at what point does it just make more sense to have a new character instead?

It would appear that If that person isn't allowed to drop this character he either plays something he doesn't enjoy, purposefully looks for ways to die, or forces everyone else to abandon a game they are enjoying.

Well, the question is how deep into the campaign did we get before you realised this wasn't the character you wanted to play? Did it really take you several months? Or did it happen within the first few weeks. If it was the latter, then I'd be happy to let players reroll (probably at a lower level though), but if it was months into the game, then I dunno, how did you let things go that long? The main reason I don't let players re-roll is because I run a very low level world, so I hate introducing new characters that seemingly come out of nowhere at a level that puts them beyond even the top 1% of the game world, but if the game is still low level, then that's less of an issue. Some might say its bad attitude to have, but I believe that if players want to play high level characters, they need to work their way to the top, no freebies. If they want to start at higher levels, there are other people willing to DM that for them, my games are all about the journey from low to high levels, and my world reflects that.

All that said, I did mention that I'm happy to run a new game in parallel with the old one (which people seem to ignore), so everyone wins, having both the old game running and a new game that everyone can play in, which works for me because some of my players don't enjoy high level play anyway, so it's not like the other players are forced to abandon the game, and the unhappy player still gets to play in the new game. I tend to be able to put together a group and game within a week or so, so there would be at most a single week of gaming lost for the unhappy player.

themaque
2015-10-27, 01:21 AM
Well, the question is how deep into the campaign did we get before you realised this wasn't the character you wanted to play? Did it really take you several months? Or did it happen within the first few weeks. If it was the latter, then I'd be happy to let players reroll (probably at a lower level though), but if it was months into the game, then I dunno, how did you let things go that long? The main reason I don't let players re-roll is because I run a very low level world, so I hate introducing new characters that seemingly come out of nowhere at a level that puts them beyond even the top 1% of the game world, but if the game is still low level, then that's less of an issue. Some might say its bad attitude to have, but I believe that if players want to play high level characters, they need to work their way to the top, no freebies. If they want to start at higher levels, there are other people willing to DM that for them, my games are all about the journey from low to high levels, and my world reflects that.

All that said, I did mention that I'm happy to run a new game in parallel with the old one (which people seem to ignore), so everyone wins, having both the old game running and a new game that everyone can play in, which works for me because some of my players don't enjoy high level play anyway, so it's not like the other players are forced to abandon the game, and the unhappy player still gets to play in the new game. I tend to be able to put together a group and game within a week or so, so there would be at most a single week of gaming lost for the unhappy player.

And you're up front about it from the get-go, so I don't think you are wrong.

My experience has been mostly dealing with odd schedules, rotating player base, and flexibility being foremost for decades now. I have little experience with a single group that last over a year much less campaigns that last decades that some people have. So the idea that everything is set in stone hasn't worked well.

That being said, back to OP. If he's this miserable he has learned his lesson and should probably be allowed to move on.

Hogfather. Personal relationships with death. I see what you did there. I approve.

Psyren
2015-10-27, 10:13 AM
So if the player really dislike their current character their options are: Quit, Start A New Game or Do Nothing While We Play?

Sounds pretty harsh.

Agreed, I read that like - "bwuh?" O_o

I for one have no problems with Rob Redblade joining the group. I'd make it clear that they players shouldn't expect to be able to reroll willy-nilly but I'd much rather have fun with my friends than force them to do something that isn't.

Mark Hall
2015-10-27, 10:37 AM
He could even come back as a very compelling villian. Maybe a recurring one that the players/whoever keep killing. As he loses physical power from his deaths, he compensates by building up a cult following as an "immortal" and draws more powerful allies to him as his legend grows, creating more and more problems for the PCs. Now your player's failure to take death seriously has created a major force in your setting.

I'd go with this. 320 innocent souls, yes... but he needs to keep killing to keep his level up, since when he dies, he's less able to fulfill his pact.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-10-27, 10:42 AM
I'd go with this. 320 innocent souls, yes... but he needs to keep killing to keep his level up, since when he dies, he's less able to fulfill his pact.

Unless he plans to sell out his cult following. 320 souls, handpicked, delivered off the edge of a cliff. He promised them Valhalla, they got jack splat.

Slipperychicken
2015-10-27, 11:07 PM
The question is, do I allow him to do so, or should he learn to not dabble in powers that are out of his hands. On one point I want for every one to have fun, but on the other I want the players to take the campain more seriously.

It takes a bit of OOC cooperation, but you can have both with this solution:


PC is emotionally ruined by the torture of his newfound eternal life.
PC kills himself
Before coming back, PC begs Death to just please let him die for real this time.
Death tells PC that this was all a lesson to teach him the value of death.
Death sees that the PC learned his lesson, allows him into the afterlife.
PC stays dead, finding his afterlife all the sweeter for it.
Player brings in his new character, knowing that messing with death is bad mojo


You could even have the PCs' story (or something similar) told in future campaigns, as a fairy tale to illustrate why necromancy is bad. It could be a neat little bit of world-building.