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

[trancejeremy]

I don't think it always has been punitive. Or even existed, except as a straw man argument.

Remember Erac's Cousin from the original Rogue's Gallery? Apparently he was an identical replacement to the original Erac that died.

Beyond that, Raise Dead has been in the game since the 3 little booklets. How can a 20th level character permanently die in a party of other 20th level characters and there not be a cleric that has raise dead? (Or Resurrection). Or a Magic-User with Wish? Or even reincarnation? Again, the original Rogue's Gallery had two reincarnated characters (one as a Lizard man, the other as a Centaur)

Even if they are lower level, surely there are 9th level clerics somewhere in the world able to cast raise dead for a fee. The first edition DMG has the price of a raise dead spell to be 1000 gp plus 500 gp per level of the spellcaster, so 5,500 gp. Surely most characters over say 4th level would have 5,500 gp on hand to get a party member raised?

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

I don't understand this mentality of "yay I got to level 5!" it's an ugly gamist attitude that causes people to lose sight of the NOW and focus on then eventual outcome: maximizing your character in the form of the highest level, the best gear, the most gold, etc...

Getting to NOW isn't the goal. It's an outcome. Treating the NOW like a goal just means that once you've reached it the goal becomes the next level, and the level after that. Level 5 is an outcome of all the cool adventures we've had, not the point of them. So bringing a character in at level 1 or level 5 shouldn't make any difference because the actual level of the character is irrelevant. At level 5 we will have cool adventures. At level 1 we will have cool adventures.

The big difference is as pointed out in the OP: a first level character is basically useless if the party is 5th or higher and this is pretty true of most editions and variants of D&D.

---------------------

@OP: Character death gets special treatment in my games, when a character REALLY dies that person DIES. We give them funeral rights, we sometimes undergo missions to find their family, their children or accomplish some goal the character felt was important to them. Magical resurrection is rare in my games, I houserule several limitations on it: You can only be revived from true death once and it requires half the maximum health of the caster to revive you (they're basically sacrificing some of their life to bring you back), and it can only be used once per day (per caster).

New characters come in at level, because the level is a representation of the progression of the game, not the accumulated experience from battling foes. Even if it was, I don't subscribe to the idea that adventurers are rare. Reasonably speaking there is a good chance there is at least one other adventurer at the same level within reasonable reach of the party.

 

[iserith]

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.

I don't see it as punitive or impractical. It's not for everyone though, obviously.

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.

Such a blanket statement is easily disproven by a single example to the contrary so here it is: I love playing the underdog, so I have no issue playing a character under-level or under-powered compared to the rest of the party. In a 15th-level D&D 4e campaign my friend was running, I chose to be a minion (a monster stat block with 1 hp). I lived a long time of not sitting in the back - rather, I was often right up in the mix - and when that character finally did die, it was a very emotional moment for the group. People still speak fondly of that character years later.

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.

In the Before-Times, characters often had a train of hirelings and henchmen. Those NPCs could be "promoted" to PC status when a character bought the farm. This is actually very clever and is something that TV writers use. It's called a "trap door." It's when the writers introduce a character that can step in to the main character's shoes should the actor no longer be on the show. That guy or gal is already established in the fiction, so it's no big deal to step them up from an extra or feature role to a lead.

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.

That sort of thinking strikes me as bad DMing. I'm not up for DMs who are out to "teach lessons." I'm interested in DMs who want to tell exciting, memorable stories. Sometimes character death plays a role in that.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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?

I've never been in a group that did this. If you made up a new guy, it was auto same level. Magic items though you just got one or none.

 

[Sunseeker]

That sort of thinking strikes me as bad DMing. I'm not up for DMs who are out to "teach lessons." I'm interested in DMs who want to tell exciting, memorable stories. Sometimes character death plays a role in that.

There's a time and a place for teaching a lesson, and sometimes players need a wake-up call. But I don't think it's often.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

This is why a mechanic like the Death Flag is good, though -- it allows you to opt in to death, to decide for yourself when a scene is dramatic and important enough to put your life on the line. You don't risk random and pointless and annoying and punitive death, death comes when you embrace it and are prepared for it.

It doesn't remove death from the game, it just removes uninteresting death from the game.

That's not the style that everyone who plays D&D plays in, but if what you want is Snape and Obi Wan and sacrifice and purpose, what you don't want is to leave death up to random chance and die rolls -- make it something that the players who are playing the Snapes and the Obi Wans choose to have happen, when it is dramatically meaningful.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

Addressing your points in order:

1.) The power disparity for heterogenous levels in 5E isn't usually as bad as you portray it. You picked an extreme example (one 1st level guy in a 20th level party) but how likely is it that the very first death in the party, ever, would happen at level 20? More likely you'd have one 20th level guy, some 14th-18th level guys, a 9th-level guy, and the 1st level guy. The 1st level guy will level up pretty quickly due to the shape of the XP table, and if you think 2nd level guys can't contribute in important ways I guess you've never run into a Diviner. Even a simple Bless from a 1st-level cleric can be really nice.

2.) The experience I'm about to relate isn't as extreme as your 20th-level hypothetical, but here's an experience I had recently: mid-level party (5th, 5th, and 7th), after raiding a dungeon, received a diplomatic message from one of the dungeon's inhabitants with the request to deliver it to the king. 5th level guy accepts the letter and tells the party he's leaving to give it to the king, because that's what his character would do in that situation. Other party members are kind of taken aback, but okay, he's gone now and I guess we're down to two, and I as DM am like, "Okay, maybe I'll have you run the monsters this session then." But early on in that session, another plotline comes to fruition and one of the party's (unwilling) minions catches the "adventuring" bug and gets promoted to full NPC ("will gain a full share of the XP from here on out") and will become a 1st level character in a class of his choosing as soon as he gains 300 XP. Then to my surprise, the player of the missing 5th level PC volunteers to take over the NPC, Grindle, as one of his own characters. It makes perfect sense, so I agree. So now instead of playing a 5th level guy, he's playing a 1st level guy (now 2nd), in a party of generally much higher level--but it makes perfect sense from a roleplaying perspective, and the player doesn't view it as a punishment.

3.) I don't use as many exclamation points as your hypothetical DM, but I do let my players know that I expect all of their PCs to start from 1st level, and advance either with XP gained during play or else using the "character tree" rules. (I.e. when an in-play PC goes up a level, another character in the tree also goes up a level too, as long as he isn't higher level than the PC in play.) I don't claim that it's a punishment or a reward, but it is one of my rules. I will admit that, as a player, I view advancing to a higher level as a reward, but it's only meaningful if it's earned--I dislike starting at high level; it feels like not having a history. (It's okay for a one-shot though because in a one-shot, nobody has a real history, just a backstory.) From this perspective, starting a 1st level character isn't a punishment, but it is a necessary prerequisite to earning a reward.

4.) In 5E, it is really, really easy to avoid having to start over at 1st level anyway. I love to throw out Deadly fights, and so far my PCs have all survived every fight even when I thought they wouldn't (thanks partly to my use of the Morale rules in close battles) and rarely even get knocked unconscious. Even if someone does manage to die, in 5E you can be raised from the dead with a 3rd level spell (!!!), and you suffer zero long-term consequences. No Resurrection roll, no Con loss, no restrictions on elves, not even any serious time limits except on the 3rd level version (Revivify). Death in 5E is a resource drain (time and material component costs), not a career-ender. You practically have to go out of your way to die permanently.

 

[transtemporal]

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.

I don't think this level of contribution is actually meaningful though. A 1st level character may be able to successfully hit and deal damage to a CR5 monster but comparatively, their damage output will be low compared to their 5th level comrades. Also, a 1st level would be lucky to survive a single hit from a CR5 monster, let alone two.

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.

Its become very fashionable to say: "My game is about the story!" "Story is king in MY game!" But punishing PCs for dying in service of the story is completely contradictory to this! It encourages cautious, non-heroic play which is boring.

 

[transtemporal]

In a 15th-level D&D 4e campaign my friend was running, I chose to be a minion (a monster stat block with 1 hp). I lived a long time of not sitting in the back - rather, I was often right up in the mix - and when that character finally did die, it was a very emotional moment for the group. People still speak fondly of that character years later.

A 1hp frontline tank in a 15th level party? If the monsters didn't target you, your friend was being nice to you and if they always missed, your friend was being nice to you. If they hit you, and you consistently survived CR15 melee damage with 1hp, then your friend was straight out warping reality for you!

That sort of thinking strikes me as bad DMing. I'm not up for DMs who are out to "teach lessons."

I absolutely agree, which is why I'm surprised that its a common sentiment on this site...

 

[goatunit]

I doubt it would work well (or, at least, as well) in editions after AD&D 2E, but prior to that the expectation built into the game was of a sort of "living" campaign, with many players in separate and alternating combinations, with multiple characters, beneath one or a small cabal of dungeon masters. In these instances, pretty much everyone had a character of an appropriate level in his or her folder that they could pull out for the night's particular needs. Also, there was no presumed attitude of equality among PCs. If someone's got a 1st level thief that wants to tag along with the 15th level wizard and 12th level fighter as they head down into the dungeons of Castle Greyhawk to fill out the rest of a map they bought from the 17th level party that went in last week, that's fine. He can hold the lantern and get a 5% share of monetary treasure, or receive a discreet stipend agreed upon before the adventure. No better way to hurry through those rough early levels than to watch the masters at work.

And most importantly, the next time that player shows up for a session with his newly level 3 thief, the other guys at the table may have some fresh level 1's that he can tutor similarly in turn. It's the circle of life.