Character death and Is this Fair?

[VoodooGroves]

Sounds like Painfully got to bid with someone else and wasn't pigeon-holed into the "replacement character with fighter attributes when he wanted to play a sorcerer". That, I think, would be the thing folks complain about.

For that reason, I really like the default array. I know its cheesy, but it works well. Everyone gets stuck with one 8 to deal with, and some decent other scores.

The other thing I've been known to do is have a group of players work out (using whatever system strikes my fancy) some large set of "character attributes" - maybe 20-30 sets. Each of these would be selected / organized / purchased on day 1 when the players make their first characters. Then if folks die, new players join or someone gets a very special NPC that deserves player-ish stats (even though they'd be a few levels down), you pick something of what was left.

It tended to work out fair in the past, since really 20+ sets is enough for everyone to die a few times and not run out so there is still some variability to choose from. On the other side of the coin it doesn't penalyze characters who started at 1st level and "built" their characters versus those who may come in around 6th-8th and can be highly customized (even if they are one-trick-ponies). Nothing irritates a group of players more than seeing someone come in using some sort of point buy and add attributes with levels and magic items that makes them that much more effective than they have become after many levels of blood, sweat and tears. For our games, it helped balance things out a bit.

 

[Umbran]

Does this sound fair?

Fair? In the sense that everybody works by the same rules, it's fair. The real question is if they'll like it. While often one can have fun playing a character generated by the DM, most folks like having more say in character generation.

Here's the question - why actually make up the backup characters in full? Divide up the cards for the backups into piles, and then leave them as characters in potentia. Don't pick the race, class, skills, feats, etc. Let the player see the piles he has to choose from, and let him pick what best suits his new concept. Allow him to make up most of the character on his own. This maintains the balance of the card system, without restricting them to your character concepts.

This has the added benefit that you don't have to "update" the backups when the party goes up a level.

 

[Tonguez]

Having a backup character ready is also having the anticipation of your main character's eventual death. I wouldn't recommend it.

I have PC create 'factions' which include a couple of developed characters which can be use as NPCs (by me or the player) and which are available as backups if their main character should die (I don't allow ressurection spells) The faction members maybe family, members of a guild/church/Order of Knights (etc) or even a group of friends

This helps in having backups but also by having background - the player has to decide how the other characters are connected and why they would assist...

 

[Shallown]

Okay too answer the questions...

Crothian - The second set of characters was more an after thought than anything. At the time the players were still grumbling a little about the system I used but after a few sessions they realized they liked that system much better than they thought they would. So I didn't start out with this as a plan or I would have let them make them up.

I understand that the last one standing gets little choice but I don't kill often and there are chances to come back using the regular spells. just some players are like me and after one or two raises the realism slips a little and you want to do something different or raising someone can undermine/cheapen a cool heroic death.


Churchill - Character selection is not blind. The one guy who joined later and got a secondary character did have his just handed to him but I know my players well and the character had him written all over it. He has been nothing but happy since.
If someone loves their character they can always get them back. It may suck for a while waiting to get them raised or whatever but I never kill anyone permanently on a whim or without intent and some tacit agreement with the player.

#47 - Sounds like a cool idea. this was a departure so I didn't want to go to far to fast. Also my first 3rd ed game.

Methinkus - as I said above, this system was an afterthought. Though I have designed the characters with my players in mind. We have a great group and a high level of trust. I wouldn't have even considered doing it this way otherwise.

uberkitty - I think most my players would still enjoy my characters. I also have had a problem in the past with them rotating characters just to do new things. Sometime that's fine but I have a long veiw story plot and didn't wnat to play musical characters. This was a stop gap attempt to prevent that. My players though great don't Role as much as Roll play sometimes. I know this they Know this and are moving toward a better balance in my opinion an dtheir own. I would never punish a player for losing a character, Resurrects and raises are very possible in fact I have gone out of my way to provide the possibility for them already. It just may not be an easy route to do, they may not wish to raise a char or something else. I just wanted an alternative way to introduce replacement characters. As a GM I gain things such as, Characters are not as willing to just kill off a character becuase they can just roll up another (my players are good but some still don't get attached to their character and will play most anything), Also an amount of control that is close to the control I have over the characters advancement in the game. I only allow what is realistic within the frame work of the game and when you create characters after the start with say 8 levels then you design them very differently than when you start them off, Since I advance the back-up characters with the party the advancement fits into my world better than a made from scratch character. I know this from experience and Knowing my players. What does it add to my players... Well God love them they sometimes play only one type and I want them to at least try a different character. Maybe I'll expand their gaming experience perhaps I won't don't know without trying. Also they are making a bigger investment into their characters now knowing what happens if they sacrifice a character just to play something different they designed (Which they have before in other games), and I think they would have fun.

Chimera - Some of your answer is right above this as to why it is important to me to create and control the new characters. I am not as heavy handed as that sounds. I would be willing to change somethings given proper justification but since I control the campaign and the realism level why do I sudenly give that up when I allow new characters in?
I seriously doubt my players would react the way you say you would. I wouldn'y have tried this without knowing my players, They wouldn't feel saddled but instead, I hope, Challeneged to make the new character their own. I'm honestly just handing them stats not full fledged backgrounds and such not they I don't have some ideas to help my players. I like to think there is Know Bottom of the Barrel. Sure you might not get what you want but some people see that as a challenge if they want to get raised or whatever it is available just not handed out to them. And some players want to be true to their character and just die once, and start with something else. I know my players if this is something they would walk out of my game on then I would have pissed them off a lot more times before this happened. They trust me, I trust them and have faith in them to act like adults.

Painfully - I see it more as a Reality than a self fulfilling prophecy. That is one reason I made them up and not the characters. If they made them up they may be a little less careful or invest a little less in their characters. I still think creating the numbers doesn't do that much in investing into the character. Some others have commented that if I don't make the character then I am not some how connected to them. Well the players will make up all the things that connect them to the character. The background the personality etc. I just provide the numbers and I admit that the numbers have some impact on the roleplaying but it is not the defining element by far.

Wulf - UNfortunately this system of replacement characters was an after thought and after answering so many others I feel even more confident that it will work out fine though this is not due to any support from the posters.

I think my players wil do just fine. We have a high level of trust, I know them they know me and so far they haven't seemed upset. They have seen the replacements and think they're cool. I guess I wanted feedback if I ever decide to do this again.

Voodooogroves - I didn't at the time want a ton of characters generated especially using this method which at first was like pulling teeth, as I knew it would, but now everyone thinks is a great way to do characters. I agree with the customizing and tricking out higher level characters. I don't want to apply a line item veto on the character and just went with this method instead.

Umbran - I think I covered above most the reason's why I didn't want characters built from the ground up, Another one I haven't mentioned much Is I don't want a cookie cutter of the previous character, something some of my players tend to do.

 

[Numion]

I think it's essential that players create their characters. If you think about it, the players own character is the only part in the game that he has (seemingly) complete control over. In essence, its the players own turf.

DM has everything else. I say let the players keep the little control over the game they have. We DMs have enough to do anyway, eh?

I also think that the character and how it's played should be very closely tied. Because of that it's difficult to properly roleplay a character if you haven't done it from scratch.

 

[WizarDru]

This may be a silly question, but it seems that the basic assumption is that characters will have no access to raise deads or more powerful spells, is that correct? Otherwise, the discussion is generally moot. Look at Wulf's Story Hour (that is, the game dinkeldog runs, and Wulf documents)...the lethality is high, but a normal D&D game assumes the presence of raise deads/ressurections. Especially with insta-death spells at every level. A hold person or a sleep can be an instant death at low levels, and once you cross the threshold to finger of death and it's ilk, if you're not allowing them, then you'll be going through PCs pretty darn fast.

That said, if your players are grumbling about the system, then you may need to think about whether they're actually enjoying it...or if they're putting up with it so they can play. Forcing them to accept backup characters means they won't even grow attached to their primary character, which seems counter-productive to me. YMMV.

 

[Chimera]

Might I suggest that you allow the PLAYERS to create at least some of these backup PCs? Then allow them to update them as they advance? But still stick to the "choose any one" when their primary character dies.

Sure, Bob might create a stinker, then chose Joe's Barbarian instead, but they might enjoy the creation and update process (it's sure something I enjoy as a GM) and probably have a lot more interest in the backup characters.

Heck, at some point, someone may decide that one of those characters is more interesting and ask you if they can take over that character and let their current character slip into the backup pool. (Where they risk it being taken by the next player who needs a new character!)