Character death and Is this Fair?

[Shallown]

I know fairness is in the eye of the beholder but as a GM and/or player what do you think about this Idea.

First when I generatd characters with my group I used an Idea I Stole from the boards. I am fairly sure it was Wulf Ratbanes.

all players started with 10 in a stat and a card with +2 to each of the stats and one special card. (Special cards were +1 feat, +1 to two abilities, +2 to lowest ability and +1 to next lowest +1 level starting etc.)

They had to trade to get what they wanted for stats and to play the characters they wanted. It worked out well. They have good/great stats for their class and decent otherwise (Decent being 10-12). Then racial modifiers were applied. No one started with a stat above 18. I only have two 18's in the group of 6 one wis for the cleric and Int for the wizard.

But on to the point since this has nothing to do with character death yet.

I did a Second set of characters the same way myself. Now I have told the players when they created the original characters that when they Die they have to choose from the second set of characters. (I had 5 but a new player joined and since they were not around for the original trading they took on of the spares)
I update/advance the characters when ever the players gain a level.

Does this sound fair?

Everyone seems alright with it but no one has lost a character ( some have come close). I know they trust me to come up with cool/interesting/moderately powerful characters but they don't get to play exactly what they want.

I just wonder how others would feel or think they would feek under this rule?

Thanks
Later

 

[Crothian]

Why do they have to come use one of the second group of characters that you made up? I understand to keep it the same as the original characters you need a pool of secondary characters made the same way. However, wouldn't it be better if the Pcs made these characters up? When the first PC dies and needs a new character you can have everyone make them up then if you don't want them to make them up in the beginning.

However, this is basically using a premade character. That can work. It really depends on the PCs and who much control they have in their character. One problem might be that if through the campaign all the original PCs die, then the one who survives the longest gets punished by ending up with the character no one else wanted.

 

[Churchill]

Player apathy...

I don't think you're setting yourself up for an outright revolt on the part of your players, but I do think you might find that they're a bit apathetic when it comes time for them to be "saddled" with a replacement.

For me, part of the attachment I feel for a character stems from having made it from the ground up. I think you've also helped to foster that with the way you had them create their first characters (which, by the way, sounds like a cool idea) - that method seems like it would really draw people into the character creation process.

However, it's always possible that you've created a character in your second batch that someone might fall in love with. Here's a question for you: When the players choose the replacement, is this going to be blind or are you going to allow them to look over the characters before they have to make a selection.

I'm getting long winded...

Your idea isn't inherently horrible, but I can see it having some awful results (though it could just as easily turn out to be wonderful).

If I loved the character I was playing, and I hated the new character, I wouldn't be a happy camper. I wouldn't quit the campaign, but I don't know as I'd enjoy it as much.

You let the players know in advance what the situation was going to be, and that's the bottom line on whether or not it's fair. At least to me. Your results may vary.

 

[Number47]

I used a similar method when I started my most recent group. In addition to the three players, I created a "dummy" character that I (the DM) would control. The dummy traded to the other players freely, so they could get the stats they wanted easier. The method I used was that each stat started at an 8, each player had a card that gave +2 for each stat, and they drew 3 more card randomly. Most of the random cards were stat bonuses, but some weren't. I also had a deck of penalties/hindrances. You could draw a hindrance to get an extra bonus up to twice. Most hindrances were -2 to a stat, but some weren't. This all worked out very well. The replacement issue came out very quickly. The DM character died in the first twenty minutes (partly the result of 5 successive failures to be stabilized). Because the group had no healer at all, I decided to make up another DM character. What we did, and what was decided on for new guys or replacements, is that the character simply draws 11 random bonuses and two random hindrances. The stats are generally less impressive, but at the same time the character doesn't have any terribly low stats. This also gives a reason to try to hold onto your original character even harder. Your replacement will not be as min/maxed as possible.

I doubt it will come up, but I think if more than one person needs to make a character, I will let them trade cards.

Another idea, if I make a new campaign, is to have the characters trade cards with what will become the villains.

 

[Methinkus]

why not just let the players create their own backup characters?

 

[uberkitty]

I don't think I'd enjoy playing a character I didn't create. The game itself might be fun, but I wouldn't have the same connection to the character that makes everything personal.

Are you trying to punish your players for having a character that dies? Why not allow the dead char to be resurrected? What do you as DM gain from having these backup characters? What does it add to the gaming experience for your players?

 

[Chimera]

Why is it important to you to create and control the replacement characters?

As a player, I would be severely annoyed. If *MY* character got killed and I was saddled with a character I didn't create, or didn't want to play (say, if it was the only thing available), my enjoyment would plummet and I might even stop coming.

Especially when you start getting down to the bottom of the barrel. You tell me my beloved Whatchamajiggy got killed and I got to play some worthless Hobbit Goober...sorry, NO. Good Bye.

 

[Painfully]

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

That said, as a player I want to choose what I play. Having premade characters for a one-shot adventure can be fun, but if you (the DM) are going to build a campaign around this person's adventures the player has to find a way to identify with his character. Some people will find that hard to do if they don't have a part in creating the character themselves.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That sounds like my system all right-- and interesting that Painfully should comment since he plays in my game and just died!

When the players made their characters I put aside all of the cards they used to make them. Now that one of the characters has died (permanently) I just took his cards back out of the "used" pile and mixed them back into the "available" pile.

Painfully and another new player then looked at all of the available cards and traded them in and out to make new characters.

It still keeps a finite limit on the stats so that you never have more than one "Strength Guy" or "Charisma Guy" at a time.

It is definitely important to let the player make up the character, though. I can live with restrictions, even big handicaps, but I just would never want to play a character that someone else had created.


Wulf

 

[hong]

I don't think I'd enjoy playing a character I didn't create. The game itself might be fun, but I wouldn't have the same connection to the character that makes everything personal.

Oddly enough, this was my problem with Planescape: Torment -- a superlative CRPG in every other respect -- compared to BG1 and 2.