Character Death

[was]

There's a divide between some games where the replacement character comes in matching the current party if the old character retired, but comes in a level lower if he replaces a dead character. I'm more inclined to a model that sets the bar the same for any replacement character, whether the prior character died, retired or whatever than one that favours just replacing a character "because I feel like a new character" over "because the old character died".

...I think that this issue is one of the first houserules that every group has to decide.

 

[Celebrim]

In both cases, new characters gain WBL.

That is the sort of rule that only works if you have a "Don't be a dick" meta-rule in play that everyone adheres to.

Otherwise, you have a player introducing and retiring 50 Bards with gear ideally suited to the rest of the group just to ensure that the party is above WBL.

"Hide behind the pile of dead bards", makes for a funny scene in a movie precisely because it is so dysfunctional.

I put to you that the social contract that makes that ruling functional, isn't in fact followed by everyone at Greenfield's table. What is working for you - which seems to be invariably dependent on, "We can trust everyone to be reasonable" - isn't necessarily workable at every table.

For my own house rules, my best play tester ever was the guy that reliably would rules lawyer and wouldn't be reasonable. He always found the loop holes. No player ever forced me to do more rules patching. I wouldn't have kicked him out, but on the other hand I've a lot more table authority than Greenfield has and as such I'm far more immune to a player's depredations. I don't have to try to pretend players are being reasonable, though I did tend to give him the benefit of his observation skills the first time.

"Ok, sure, you can spend a destiny point when you roll for hit points when you gain a level. The rules do say instead say that they can be used for any roll, but understand that loophole will be patched by next week.", had to have been his best one.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

This, indeed. But I tend to be pretty lenient with Raise Dead - don't have the money? Well, you can work it off by adventuring for the church that you go to for raising.

...I think it's less of trying to penalize players and more of a throwback to the old idea that death should have some sort of consequence. Having also DM'd and played with some folks who like to show up with a new pc at every session anyways, it helps cut down on the madness.

 

[Greenfield]

[MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION]

Two questions. First, while I would normally not advocate giving into whiny player's demands, could you have altered the reincarnate table to include that player's race? I think that an aquatic race in the middle of the desert sorta excludes them from the list of options, out of rolling a 100.

Second, why are you still tolerating this player? While I enjoy, and would miss, the stories it seems like every week this player has another issue.

First, I wasn't the DM. I was not in any position to modify or expand that table.

Second, for this player, I wouldn't have. Others have had their race changed by Reincarnate in this game. In one case a fairly hefty fighter came back as a Gnome. They lived with it, turned it into good story, and life went on.

Finally, the player had an option: Cough up the gold and pay for a Miracle to get their original form back. It would, by chance, cost almost exactly the amount of excess treasure he dumped on his own character. He's be back, with a level-appropriate wealth level. (I don't think this option occurred to him, and if it did he'd want us to pay for the "Fix".)

In answer to your second question, the answer is that I don't know. I host the game at my home, but removal of players is a group vote and it hasn't come to that yet I suppose. It's not an easy subject to even bring up.

 

[Greenfield]

That is the sort of rule that only works if you have a "Don't be a dick" meta-rule in play that everyone adheres to.

Otherwise, you have a player introducing and retiring 50 Bards with gear ideally suited to the rest of the group just to ensure that the party is above WBL.

"Hide behind the pile of dead bards", makes for a funny scene in a movie precisely because it is so dysfunctional.

I put to you that the social contract that makes that ruling functional, isn't in fact followed by everyone at Greenfield's table. What is working for you - which seems to be invariably dependent on, "We can trust everyone to be reasonable" - isn't necessarily workable at every table.

For my own house rules, my best play tester ever was the guy that reliably would rules lawyer and wouldn't be reasonable. He always found the loop holes. No player ever forced me to do more rules patching. I wouldn't have kicked him out, but on the other hand I've a lot more table authority than Greenfield has and as such I'm far more immune to a player's depredations. I don't have to try to pretend players are being reasonable, though I did tend to give him the benefit of his observation skills the first time.

"Ok, sure, you can spend a destiny point when you roll for hit points when you gain a level. The rules do say instead say that they can be used for any roll, but understand that loophole will be patched by next week.", had to have been his best one.

My best play tester was also a rules lawyer. (I wrote a home-brew supers game a few decades back).

After a while though it got frustrating. He'd keep trying to argue through a "hole" that wasn't there. The same holes, over and over again.

My policy, as a game master, is that when a question arises, I'll make a ruling. I'm willing to listen to a reasonable argument, and am willing to revise that ruling if the argument is persuasive. I may even revisit at a later time and correct myself (though not retroactively). But once I make the "final" ruling, it's final and the game goes on.

His definition of a "reasonable argument" was one that didn't end until he had won it, and if I tried to make the game go on he'd repeat the questionable maneuver just so he could continue arguing.

Bad juju.

Our problem child (I call him that even though he's in his 40s) isn't a good rules lawyer. He just copies the work of optimizers he knows, often accepting their interpretation of the rules without actually reading them himself. He's always shocked when he gets called on the BS by someone who actually does read and understand the rules.

 

[haakon1]

I have a weird approach.

New PC's come into the game 5 ways:
1) New 1st level character. For a new player, I'll do an intro adventure to teach them the rules and get their PC to 2nd level.

2) Take over an NPC. My setting has lots of NPC's, with built-in connections to the party, so this works well. Usually, it means starting 2-3 levels lower than the PC's. Sometimes, these "NPC's" can be indistinguishable from a PC beginning with some levels, such as the rescued slave PC who joined the party. Once, the NPC was a 3rd level Warrior joining a 5-6 level party, and he converted the Warrior levels to full Fighter on his first level up as a PC.

3) Take over a PC from someone who left the game. The rescued slave PC's player moved to Hong Kong, and one of his friends wanted to join the game, so switcheroo.

4) Revive your old retired character. Any character I review can be brought in from an old campaign. I've seen this at least 3 times -- twice for favored retired PC's who hadn't been played for 20 years and were originally in AD&D with other DM's, converted to 3.5e (what I run), the 3rd a PC retired from an earlier campaign I'd run.

5) 1st level PC with racial level equivalent to bring their ECL up to near the party. I did this once as a "local guest star" joining our game when we played in another state (a one shot).


PC's leave the game by either retiring into NPC status within my version of Greyhawk, or dying. What happens to their gear, if it's in tact when they die, is up to whoever finds it.

 

[Greenfield]

In the past we've had recurring NPCs in the game, and players have taken over running them if their main character was out of action for a time. (Waiting to come back, etc.)

One problem with having someone else in the driver's seat, as it were, is that they don't always know how to drive.

For example, we had a Whisper Gnome Rogue (1 level of Wizard) who called himself Ignominious T Padfoot. (Iggy, for short). Obviously not a real name, but the write up on the Whisper Gnome says that, when outside their own community they often give a false name, a sort of recurring alias. It was also pretty clear that Iggy didn't really know what his chose name meant when he picked it.

Iggy, as written, doesn't consider himself an adventurer. He's a professional performer, using acrobatics and tumbling, and travels with various shows. He is proud to say he doesn't own a backpack or a bedroll, preferring to sleep in his own bed in his small performer's wagon.

Yet, somehow he often finds himself being asked by adventurers to do clever things for them, things that look perilously close to "Adventure".

He has one level of Wizard, with a Conjuration specialty. There is an ACF in the PHB II that allows a Conjuration specialist to trade in his familiar for the ability to make a small number of 10 foot teleports a day, as Immediate actions. Really neat trick for a circus performer who is in no way a rogue or thief of any kind.

He speaks with a heavy Londinium accent, almost cockney, and is always asking the way to Portabello Road. In short, he has a distinct style, which I think active NPCs should have.

Now, enter a Player who is going to take over. Will he have Iggy charge into battle, as adventurers would, or will he cast a small illusion of a barrel or rock, and hide inside it, as he normally does? (A Whisper Gnome has racial and size bonuses to Hide that make him all but invisible. His bonus was in the 20s when he was 3rd level.)

He's seen far more close fights that he was ever intended to be involved in.

And yet,somehow, he's still somehow a level or so behind the party.

 

[Agamon]

We have a long standing rule in our group: New characters enter the game a level behind the party.

Because of the way we award experience, based on the individual character level, lower level characters earn a larger share, so this gap will tend to close on its own.

I did this when I played 3e. It made for a bit of a "death spiral" in the adventure paths I ran (RttToEE and AoW). In fact, there were a total of 32 PCs on RttToEE between the 6 players (1 player made 11 different PCs - he's risk averse ) and "only" 19 in AoW.

Now days, I don't count XP. PCs level when appropriate. If they die, the new one is the same level. And I don't run APs any more, too difficult to adjust.

 

[Dandu]

Our problem child (I call him that even though he's in his 40s) isn't a good rules lawyer. He just copies the work of optimizers he knows, often accepting their interpretation of the rules without actually reading them himself. He's always shocked when he gets called on the BS by someone who actually does read and understand the rules.

He sounds adoreable.

 

[Greenfield]

Small update. The DM accidentally dropped his Kindle in some water, killing it.

Problem Child i a bit of a tech, so the DM asked him to help recover some data.

Problem child asked for a magic staff of some sort, in the same message where he was discussing the recovery help.

IMHO, Problem Child has just jumped the shark, big time.