Too Much Effort to Make New Characters?

[Cruentus]

We play OSE, and I have the players roll up several characters at session 0, or at least have the rolls done, and such. Character creation in OSE is super simple though, especially at low levels, it’s pretty plug and play, so it’s an easier ask overall.

I found 5e to be long and tedious for character creation, not to mention all the added things you can “do” based on class, background, race, feat (if using), skills, etc. No wonder people don’t want to do it again.

I find that just creating multiple characters at the beginning builds in the expectation that characters will die, and it’s a good thing they have a “bench“ of new characters to step in.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I would not let them retry unless it was an end-game epic encounter and they wanted a retry for funsies.

BUT

If they dont want new characters, just have them be defeated/broken and fast foward the setting X time after their fall. The enemies have won that time. Then they get their character back, they ''flashback roleplay'' how they managed to escape from death that time and what they did during the past year or whatever.

Just change DST -> Death Saving Throw for DST -> Defeat Saving Throw

This way you dont have to scrap all of your prep if a TPK occur and your players dont have to scrap the accumulated satisfaction they have with their character.

Win-win.

 

[bloodtide]

So how does a GM running an Adventure Path allow a group to always "fail forward?" When a system like D&D or Pathfinder is based on combat and character injury but characters can't die?
If I let the characters live to face another day while there are story implications for defeat, can we still follow the story of the Adventure Path?

Long Time Killer DM here with my coppers:

1.Let them come back with a penalty. Level or ability loss is a good one. Maybe loose one point from the three highest abilities. Maybe just let the player pick three. Or give them a -5 to all constitution and fortitude saves. Reduce hit points. Add in exhaustion or fatigue. You should be able to come up with something the DM and players both will accept.

2.Do the Classic "wake up in a ditch, with no stuff" . Taking away all a characters stuff is a huge blow, and only gets worse as they level up. The fun twist is when the Adventure Path has things, like a map, that the characters will need to find again. You can also add the someone or something that brought them back.....and go lots of directions.

3.Make em undead. Zombies, ghouls, ghosts, and on and on.

4.Have them come back, but cut all the numbers (ability scores, HP) in half.....with the twist of IF they kill their killer, they will be restored to "full".

5.Advance the Timeline 20 years, and have them "come back" as their kids.

You could offer a plus for anyone that makes a new character. A plus five to an ability score of their choice, for example. This also works for spells, feats, abilities or whatevers.

You might make, or get a bunch of characters. Then when a character dies, offer them a new one.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Players too lazy or uncommitted to a campaign to roll up a new PC is akin to a GM running the same scenario over and over 'because it's too much work to write new ones'.

You get out what you put in. If you can't be bothered to generate a replacement PC, the group is better off without you, because you're not bringing much to the table.

 

[Lanefan]

If you were the GM, how would you respond to a group's attitude that if their characters die, you should just re-play the encounter or move on anyway - because it's too much work to make a new character and losing an evening's worth of game progress is "punishment enough?"
Like, I'm flabbergasted here. Maybe these people shouldn't be playing RPGs - or at least mainstream games like D&D or Pathfinder?

My first thought would be to move to a different system where char-gen is quick and simple. My second thought would be to ask myself why I wasn't using such a system in the first place.

Char-gen is pretty straightforward in Basic and even (pre-UA) 1e D&D, ditto with some other old-school systems.

That said, if this issue arises where you're already using a system with simple char-gen you might want to rethink your player base.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a really great question to ask. In 40 years of being a dm, I've set some table rules:
#1 No xp penalty for replacement characters---EVER. Xp penalty is a outdated notion from 1974 gaming and is a dick-move that punishes good players.

Not sure I see the connection here: good players need to replace their characters more often?

And IMO it's not a dick move at all. Keep in mind that not all character turnover comes via death - sometimes (though not in the OP's case it seems) players choose to retire or cycle out characters.

#2 Char gen sux arse. I hate it myself. It is a massive gaming subsystem that sux to learn for every..new..edition..every..new..game. It sux, sux, sux. It's a massive turn off for new potential players and it sux for replacement characters. I get it.

Me too, in some systems. Char-gen in my own now-mostly-homebrew game has become too unwieldy over the years and streamlining the process is very much on my to-do list.

That said, if you never change systems then in theory a player only has to learn your system's char-gen process once. So, my advice would be to just pick a system and commit to it for the very long term - by which I mean forever - to make it easier on the players.

#3 replacement character introduction needs to be rapid and seamless because nobody wants to just sit there doing nothing--being punished. It's simple psychology: BAD DOG! YOU SIT THERE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE DONE!!!! --YOU TERRIBLE PERSON YOU!!! HOW DARE YOUR CHARACTER DIE! YOU TERRIBLE PERSON YOU!!![cue disappointed parent finger pointing]. NOW TAKE AN XP PENALTY TOO YOU TERRIBLE PERSON YOU!!!

So get the player back in action as soon as is prudent.

In a high-lethality or high-turnover game the other answer is to let them run two PCs in the party at once. That way, when one dies there's still the other to play until the first one can be either revived or replaced.

Give the players a second to background-story how this new character is ALREADY known by the group, and move on.

Fine until someone* asks the obvious question either in or out of character: if this new guy is so competent and we already knew all about him and what he could do then why wasn't he in our party all along?

* - probably me, were I a player there.

 

[Reynard]

In addition to talking about preferences and expectations and teasing out exactly what they didn't like about the character generation process, or if there was something else happening there, I would be inclined to embrace their desire:

"As the pain turns to numbness and the darkness at the edge of your vision consumes the world before you, you feel a sense of peace in that your struggles are finally over. Suddenly, you are awake at your camp in the morning again and have the strangest sense of deja vu." I would do this any time they died and over time imply that they are in fact trapped in a LitRPG virtual world, subject to the whims of a mad chronomancer, or under the effects of someone else's botched wish.

If the players really wanted to make "no death" a part of the game, i would make it a major point in the game. Win, win.

 

[Cruentus]

Fine until someone* asks the obvious question either in or out of character: if this new guy is so competent and we already knew all about him and what he could do then why wasn't he in our party all along?

* - probably me, were I a player there.

Yup! We're running the old school "party" set up - characters, hirelings, and henchmen. If someone dies in media res (i.e. dungeon), then the player can grab their henchmen or hireling and keep going, effectively stepping into the character's shoes (who knows, maybe that former NPC becomes the next party member). If the party decided to retreat to the nearby settlement due to the death, or significant injury, then their "next" character can step in or join up - "hey, what do you know, we just happen to have an opening in our group!". Of course, the henchmen and hirelings of the original character might leave as well, or they might demand more from their new employer, cause its dangerous! Did you see what happened to that fighter?!?

 

[Jer]

If you were the GM, how would you respond to a group's attitude that if their characters die, you should just re-play the encounter or move on anyway - because it's too much work to make a new character and losing an evening's worth of game progress is "punishment enough?"
Like, I'm flabbergasted here. Maybe these people shouldn't be playing RPGs - or at least mainstream games like D&D or Pathfinder?

If you're playing Pathfinder what your players are saying is "the amount of time I sunk into making this character is far too much for what I got out of it." How long did they last? Is this "dead after 2 sessions" or "I'd be less irritated if I'd at least made it to 3rd level?"

But frankly I'd offer them the old school solution - give the character a new name and say it's the dead guy's brother/sister and then move on.

 

[RuinousPowers]

At first I was like , but thinking back on the complexity of character creation with all the bells and whistles in some versions of D&D and I kinda get it. Especially if there have been more than one character death already.