D&D 5E Where does the punitive approach to pc death come from?

I remember in old games, if your PC died you rolled a new one at 1st level and you joined back up with the party and continued on your way. Even if the party was 20th level, you still started at 1st. It wasn't that big a deal but it changed over time and now 20 years later it seems punitive, impractical and actually pretty weird.

First of all, there's the power disparity and the contribution the new pc can realistically make. I know we've all bought into bounded accuracy like it was a religious text, but a 1st level pc IS NOT "basically as effective" as, say a 5th level pc. The 1st level pc doesn't have the extra attack, spell slots, spell levels or hp that a 5th level pc has and will likely die in any encounter a 5th level party engages in. The only way this is workable is if the 1st level sits at the back and tries not to draw attention from monsters, which is not much fun for the player.

Secondly, there's the in-world practicality of picking up a lower level companion (that someone mentioned in the other thread): taking the extreme example, why would 20th level PCs pick up an unknown, unskilled 1st level pc? It just wouldn't happen unless they were the 'chosen one' POV character in movies.

Thirdly, DMs seem to justify it like this: "It's your fault you died so I'm starting you at a lower level to encourage you not to die!" This one I find the most weird and the most illogical but I know as a DM I've thought it at times. It's trying to turn something which is effectively a punishment into a reward when its clearly not.

So where does this come from and why on earth did it ever make sense? Is it a reaction to "everyone's a winner" sports activities? Is it some kind of weird DnD hazing?

My groups have never made new characters start at 1st level if the others were higher. Even back in the 1e days this made no sense we just used the lowest xp in the party and you came it at that, was needed because how multiclassing worked.

Today I don't use XP at all, everyone levels the same, new characters start at that same level. Easy peasy.

It's entertaining. It was never punitive. In a sense, it rewarded success and survival, and made it much harder to have a high level character ever, but it was just entertaining.

transtemporal said:

like it was a ing religious text

Click to expand...

Drop the naughty words, please.

There's one player, in my Pathfinder game, who plays incredibly recklessly because he's always eager to bring in the next character and try out a bunch of new high-level abilities that he doesn't fully understand because he never played the character through the low levels, leading to an increasing spiral of more and more frequent character deaths. If each new character started one level lower than the previous one, there would be far less incentive to do that.

Starting at a lower level isn't a punishment, though. At least, it's not intended to be. It's just how things are. You like your character, and you want your character to succeed and reach higher levels, but sometimes you die, and sometimes that death is permanent. So you make a new one, and try to not die next time.

If you could just bring in a new character, right where the old one left off, then there would be no sense of accomplishment in reaching high levels. Like one of those old arcade games, where you were trying to get the high score, but you've rigged it to not need quarters and your score carries over between continues.

At level 20 the dead PC just gets ressurected.
Heck, at level 10 the PC likely gets raised.
It's really an issue at lower levels. But at those levels it's possible to mostly catch up and contribute.

I imagine the reason for punishing is that death shouldn't be a reward. You should't benefit and it shouldn't be advantageous. Starting at level 20 means you can build a character designed to function only at that level, who doesn't need to function at lower levels or suffer through slower awkward levels.

There's also the narrative problem. Suddenly finding a level 20 hero is weird. Where were they? Shouldn't they be famous and well known? We're they just off in some hidden valley killing endless boars for months?

transtemporal said:

it seems punitive, impractical and actually pretty weird.

Click to expand...

It's always been punitive, varying degrees of impractical, and sometimes quite weird.

a 1st level pc IS NOT "basically as effective" as, say a 5th level pc.

Click to expand...

That's not really what bounded accuracy means. It actually means that a 1st level PC can still hope to contribute in a battle with 5th level characters -- the disparity isn't so great as to make them actually useless.

taking the extreme example, why would 20th level PCs pick up an unknown, unskilled 1st level pc? It just wouldn't happen unless they were the 'chosen one' POV character in movies.

Click to expand...

It happens because everyone in the world is a 1st-level unskilled PC. It's not like 19th level characters are just sitting around the campaign world waiting to get hired to carry someone's shield.

Thirdly, DMs seem to justify it like this: "It's your fault you died so I'm starting you at a lower level to encourage you not to die!" This one I find the most weird and the most illogical but I know as a DM I've thought it at times. It's trying to turn something which is effectively a punishment into a reward when its clearly not.

Click to expand...

...weird, that doesn't sound like a reward to me!

So where does this come from and why on earth did it ever make sense? Is it a reaction to "everyone's a winner" sports activities? Is it some kind of weird DnD hazing?

Click to expand...

It comes from the idea that D&D is a game where characters try and beat dungeons, and that parties set their own difficulty by choosing which unexplored dungeon coridoors on which levels they are going for, and that treasure and XP is something of a measure of "scoring." It makes a lot of sense there.

Though I think with D&D often being a more story-oriented game, mechanics like the Death Flag feel more comfortable there -- most of the time, a character shouldn't die, since it ends so much of the story potential.

...Our current house rules bring new characters in at one level lower than party average (rounded up).
...I understand the old school approach of 'earning your spurs'. It builds connection between players and their characters. It also ensures that players play their characters more intelligently, eliminating the player who comes in with a new character every game session or two.
...I do not, however, think that that particular approach is particularly feasible anymore. Not when so much of the game depends on the combined party level and expectations that each member make a significant contribution to accomplishing party objectives.

Kamikaze Midget said:

Though I think with D&D often being a more story-oriented game, mechanics like the Death Flag feel more comfortable there -- most of the time, a character shouldn't die, since it ends so much of the story potential.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine a fantasy story that is stronger without death. Let's just look at the popular stuff. Harry Potter without death would be boring. There would be no threats. There would be no sacrifice. There would be no purpose.

"Hey there Harry. Dumbledore didn't die. Snape didn't die. Even your parents didn't die." That's pretty awful.

Star Wars without Obi Wan dying? Lame.

Stories without major characters sacrificing and passing don't cut it. Death is part of the tale. Sometimes due to magic death is overcome and at other times it is a powerful motivator that proves the meddle of the remaining characters. Death is necessary in modern fantasy.

Jester Canuck said:

I imagine the reason for punishing is that death shouldn't be a reward. You should't benefit and it shouldn't be advantageous.

Click to expand...

I agree that players shouldn't be able to use death tactically like a graveyard rush, but it shouldn't be a scenario where you "lost the game" either. By this logic, a player who held a hallway knowing he was doomed while his companions escaped is actually a chump because he's going to be punished for that. Essentially we're saying "Yeah sure, DnD is all ABOUT heroic action! Just don't die or you'll be punished for it."

I guess it also depends on whether you're playing a slow levelling game or a fast one. Ours is pretty slow. About 6 sessions to level but spread out over say 6-8 months, so losing even one level is a big deal.

Jester Canuck said:

There's also the narrative problem. Suddenly finding a level 20 hero is weird. Where were they? Shouldn't they be famous and well known?

Click to expand...

Not really. Theres nothing to say that all heroes come from the characters home land, or even home plane at that level.