Balance and Character Death

[Crothian]

Is that really you Crothian? paranoia... compared... dying.. You are usually much better spoken.... get some sleep man.

not lack of sleep, just not paying attention to what I'm typing by doing to many things at once......

 

[Edgewood]

I have raised this topic on these boards before. I have always had a problem with raising the dead however my viewpoint was never an issue with level balance, it was more esoteric in nature. I always saw it as a way to diminsh life and its value. I thought about getting rid of the concept altogether and that only a Miracle or Wish spell could bring a character back to life. I have also implemented the idea that a cleric can only raise a person who belongs to the same faith. This was more of a role-playing reason. As far as game balance goes however, I think that just a lost level is the wrong way to go. Being brought back to life should be a huge deal. Something that happens rarely and should have a lasting impact on the revived character in some way.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Well-put analysis Fusangite. However, there are always those circumstances where multiple damage spells in a row kill someone who wasn't doing anything stupid. Penalty as a consequence of stupidity is always acceptable. Penalty as a consequence of your placement in a fight relative to the wrong monster (when you don't have the opportunity to remedy it) isn't acceptable.

I find that the gp costs of raise dead and resurrection are a steep enough cost generally and handwave the level loss out. But I generally run a cheap game anyway. It's much more fun to see the party grumbling over selling the new magic items they found to get someone raised.

 

[jgbrowning]

Balance merely serves to place players on a level field of play with one another; it is not designed to harmonize character power.

I think a level playing field is basically harmonized character power.

Regardless if the outcome is due poor playing, good playing, or just bad luck, if relative character power-level discrepancies are considered bad enough to create so much design focus in the game, I found it very odd that the punishment for dying uses "the undesired" instead of finding a different negative consequence.

If people play equally well, they have equally powerful characters. But if people play badly by

As a GM I've killed plenty of PCs who were played well and from a game enjoyment level I don't think making the game less enjoyable for those who aren't playing well is the best way to promote better play.

EDIT: As to the dying several times problem, my typical solution to major XP disparity is to let the player introduce another character at close to the average party level. Dying that many times and surviving starts to hurt the story; at that point, the mechanics should pressure a player into retiring their character, whether it's his fault or simple bad luck.

The situation I thought off when writing the question was when the party's fighter died three times in one day (he was 14th level or so). Once by save or die, once on a BIG crit, and once heroically protecting the wizard from death by acting the meat shield. He ended up three levels below the rest of the party after the game. That wasn't pleasing for me, him, nor everyone else. This triggered my thought pattern concerning the design choices.

joe b.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

One depressing detail in my games has been that either death is very rare, in which case the level loss is not a huge problem, or there is a TPK. I don't mind the former, but when one party member manages to talk all the lemmings into jumping off the cliff... which seems to be the number 1 cause of TPKs in my games, one idiot has a 'cunning plan', and the others fall into line.

I have not had a problem with serial deaths for a single character.

The Auld Grump

 

[fusangite]

The situation I thought off when writing the question was when the party's fighter died three times in one day (he was 14th level or so). Once by save or die, once on a BIG crit, and once heroically protecting the wizard from death by acting the meat shield. He ended up three levels below the rest of the party after the game. That wasn't pleasing for me, him, nor everyone else. This triggered my thought pattern concerning the design choices.

The thing is that the physics of a believable universe are never 100% fair. If a universe were perfectly fair, it would lack realism that I would deem crucial. Don't you find the story/physics of your world are harmed by people repeatedly coming back from the dead? This guy needs a new character. Is it fair? No. It's as fair as life in the modern US.

If this guy took the sacrifice he made for another PC's life seriously, this should have included the genuine risk of never getting to play the character again. That's part of what makes a sacrifice a sacrifice.

 

[jgbrowning]

The thing is that the physics of a believable universe are never 100% fair. If a universe were perfectly fair, it would lack realism that I would deem crucial. Don't you find the story/physics of your world are harmed by people repeatedly coming back from the dead?

Believe it or not, (you know what kinda books I write. ) not really. I've never been bothered by ressurection magic as much as many people are.

This guy needs a new character.

I guess this is where we disagree. The guy only needs a new character because of the punishment mechanic that's counter to the balance design of the rest of the game. Story wise and character wise everything was still perfectly ok.

I'm wondering why they went with the level loss instead of CON loss.

joe b.

 

[Woas]

You could use the system that school teachers and the Army uses. You know, new recruit didn't button his shirt right. The Drill Srgt gives EVERYONE else 100 pushups, but the bad-button guy gets to sit and watch... So, when someone dies, the whole party loses XP. I guess to promote more team work.

But then, if you already have plenty of team work (after all this is just D&D), the would probably end up annoying everyone else. At least they'd think twice in sending a character who's prone to dying to the front lines or something.

I'm wondering why they went with the level loss instead of CON loss.

I guess because if youre CON drops, that's less Hit Points for the character... which just promotes more death.. and more CON loss... At least you can recover the XP over time. Although I guess if you're two levels lower, that's two Hit Dice less too. Hmm, this is a lot more interesting then I origianlly thought. I just took it all for granted.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

Well, I don't have any solution to the "death penalty" problem, other than I agree with Edgewood. Putting a price tag on life cheapens it. When you can't be raised from the dead, staying alive becomes (literally) priceless.

ironregime

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Regardless if the outcome is due poor playing, good playing, or just bad luck, if relative character power-level discrepancies are considered bad enough to create so much design focus in the game, I found it very odd that the punishment for dying uses "the undesired" instead of finding a different negative consequence.

Okay, I'll bite: what's the difference between "the undesired" and "negative?"