Death penalties - what is too steep?

[Mark]

Addendum...

If a player isn't prepared to give up the character (or at least a level) to death, then where's the actual heroism? It makes no sense to expect to get the character back completely intact and be able to call it heroic, IMO. There's no sacrifice and thus no real risk.

The method I use (described in my last post) does not overly penalize the player since he can come in with a character of equal level as before, though he must be prepared to sacrifice the character to gain the right to say he died a heroic death.

The above method also sticks to the rules unless you believe that when a character dies the player must start his new character st first level, but that's something I am not prepared to argue as it seems counter to fun, ease of play and adventure design.

Furthermore the method I use doesn't penalize players who keep their characters alive. In my experience nothing undermines a group of friends more than playing favorites, and allowing someone to die without any penalty, is in effect a penalty to the people who have worked hard to stay alive. You'd be playing favorites with the people who actually deserve it the least, if anyone deserves it at all.

Also, in the method I use the characters stay closer to one another in levels making my work developing scenarios for them much easier. Sure, every now and again someone is brought back to life at a lower level or some loses experience through some other means and that requires adjustments in my adventure designing, but it happens with much less frequency.

 

[Numion]

If death was permanent in D&D, would it really add more meaning to deaths? PCs die every few sessions in my games, it's pure mathematics; sooner or later they'll blow a save in instadeath situation, take massive damage or somesuch. If death was permanent, players would go through more characters in any given time.

You see where this is going? If you're making new characters each time the previous dies, do you really get attached to them? Whats the big meaning in losing "Eric the Cleric, the VII"?

It's usually DMs who like to make death permanent, and players who usually like to play their current character, if it's good. Somewhere in the middle is the solution, I guess. With me it's by the standard rules.

 

[Fenes 2]

Why penalize the players at all in a game? Heck, D&D is - at least as far I undertsand it - no competition.

As far as heroics go... IMHO, there is nothing heroic in playing D&D for the players. The characters may do heroic things, and if the players know they will not die, or if they know their PCs will not be raised in case of death but gone for good it changes nothing about the heroism of the PC.

As an aside, feel free to call risking a PC "heroic" but I reserve that term for fictional and real heroes, not gamers. Actual heroism has nothing to do with risking a bunch of numbers on a sheet and maybe a painted miniature. (Now, I would not risk either in a game, but that is just me - I don't bet money on D&D combats as well, and see no need to risk a couple of hours of work in a D&D battle.)

 

[Numion]

Addendum...

If a player isn't prepared to give up the character (or at least a level) to death, then where's the actual heroism? It makes no sense to expect to get the character back completely intact and be able to call it heroic, IMO. There's no sacrifice and thus no real risk.

The risk is losing your equipment, and missing playing time. To a "normal" (whatever that means ) D&D player those are equally big risks as losing a level or losing the character. And all this depends wether any given player favors heroism or survivalism.

Just noticed Fenes 2's post: Yeah, I'd say more players (that I know) play more from survivalist vs. heroist POV.

Furthermore the method I use doesn't penalize players who keep their characters alive. In my experience nothing undermines a group of friends more than playing favorites, and allowing someone to die without any penalty, is in effect a penalty to the people who have worked hard to stay alive. You'd be playing favorites with the people who actually deserve it the least, if anyone deserves it at all.

But surely some types of characters die easier than others? My archer cleric usually doesn't get near dangers, and even if he did, would be a bitch to kill with all his protections. The groups rogue, however, has to be right in the middle of it all, flanking enemies, defusing traps and scouting. Thus he dies more easily. Should he then be punished for dying very severely, just for playing a rogue?

Same goes for the poster (EDIT: Hand of Evil) who had houseruled a will saving throw for wanting to come back from dead. Punishing death may be ok, but why punish other characters more than others (for example those who have bad will saves. Thats double penalty, actually, since those types seem to die more often who have bad will saves )?

 

[Mark]

The risk is losing your equipment, and missing playing time. To a "normal" (whatever that means ) D&D player those are equally big risks as losing a level or losing the character. And all this depends wether any given player favors heroism or survivalism.

I don't follow that your substitution changes my point in any way other than perhaps expanding the parameters a bit. Please explain.

But surely some types of characters die easier than others? My archer cleric usually doesn't get near dangers, and even if he did, would be a bitch to kill with all his protections. The groups rogue, however, has to be right in the middle of it all, flanking enemies, defusing traps and scouting. Thus he dies more easily. Should he then be punished for dying very severely, just for playing a rogue?

Of course some types of characters die more easily, and further the type of character that can die most easily changes over the course of the game as levels change. Choosing your character type, race, class, feats, skills, etc is a choice that you make with all of the attached risks. It is a player choice and not one that should be taken lightly or for granted. However, you seem to be arguing that taking more risks should bring more rewards...automatically, rather than as a result of succeeding in spite of the risks. I cannot agree with that but perhaps you mean something else. Please expound on the thought.

Same goes for the poster (EDIT: Hand of Evil) who had houseruled a will saving throw for wanting to come back from dead. Punishing death may be ok, but why punish other characters more than others (for example those who have bad will saves. Thats double penalty, actually, since those types seem to die more often who have bad will saves )?

I do not use house rules, for the most part, unless they are in place because there is no existing rule. I cannot speak to what someone else has done so I do not know why you have mentioned this in answer to my post unless it is meant to be addressed to them. Sorry.

 

[Psion]

Why penalize the players at all in a game? Heck, D&D is - at least as far I undertsand it - no competition.

So, the players should never brook loss to their characters? Nah, I don't buy it.

There isn't competition in the traditional sense... there does not have to be a singular "winner" or "loser." But the players do have to confront the obstacles put forth by the GM, and there has to some token threat of loss and possibility of gain, otherwise such challenges are meaningless and you wonder what challenge there really was.

I occassionally get the "serial" syndrome with various TV shows (especially sci-fi/action TV shows) I watch. The show proceeds with a gripping confrontation that threatens to kill off our heroes. But deep down, I know that Captain Kirk/Dylan Hunt/Whoever will figure a way out of this and they'll be back to do it again next week.

RPGs offer us a different sort of experience than TV shows. Players get attached to their characters and there should be some attempt made to maintain some character continuity -- such as in TV shows, movies, and novels. To this end, the game is largely set up so that the typical encounter has no real chance of being lethal.

But it is all too easy to get jaded by the nature of threat in the game, and for me this kills the suspension of disbeleif. I probably don't kill a PC but one session in ten... but still, I find that is sufficient to create a more authentic threat of loss in the players, which in turn, aids in immersion and prevents that "serial session." If the players go in to any major fight knowing that it could be their last, or (in the case of higher level characters) could lead to lasting impairment, then they are more emotionally invested in the conflict.

And that is a major reason why I think my players are back week after week.

 

[Numion]

I don't follow that your substitution changes my point in any way other than perhaps expanding the parameters a bit. Please explain.

You asked where the heroism was, if there was no risk of losing a level. My answer is that heroism, just for the sake of it, isn't the main drive of the D&D players I know in the first place. Rather it's looting, getting levels - surviving. If given a choise, most players would choose to disintegrate the dragon in it's sleep, rather than challenging it to a mortal combat, although the later is arguably more heroic.

Of course some types of characters die more easily, and further the type of character that can die most easily changes over the course of the game as levels change. Choosing your character type, race, class, feats, skills, etc is a choice that you make with all of the attached risks. It is a player choice and not one that should be taken lightly or for granted. However, you seem to be arguing that taking more risks should bring more rewards...automatically, rather than as a result of succeeding in spite of the risks. I cannot agree with that but perhaps you mean something else. Please expound on the thought.

But you seem to forget that the rewards the rogue(who dies a lot) and the cleric (who never dies ) are excactly the same. Same experience points, same loot. Those are the usual rewards in D&D, as per the DMG. Rogue just naturally gets into more dangerous situations, if he's played like the archetypal (=normal?) rogue. Scouting, flanking and defusing traps are all more dangerous than shooting arrows from within an Antilife Shell. In short: the additional risks involved in playing a rogue never result in any rewards. This fact shouldn't then be, IMHO, compounded with any additional punishment (wich is a sort of risk) for death.

I do not use house rules, for the most part, unless they are in place because there is no existing rule. I cannot speak to what someone else has done so I do not know why you have mentioned this in answer to my post unless it is meant to be addressed to them. Sorry.

I just wrote my thoughts on the subject, for all to see. Not strictly aimed at you. I'd use e-mail if I wanted that. No need to be sorry.

 

[DDK]

Bah! I say, suck it up and play-on! Sheesh, people are such babies sometimes. "Waa! My character died! Waa!" Christ, it's just a game. Sure you can get attached to your character, but the loss of a level is SFA really. I mean... REALLY, tell them to get over it already.

What's worse, is that most character deaths, in my experience, are due to total and utter player stupidity.

"I charge the ogre!", "But you're surrounded by six goblins, you're on half your hit points, the ogre isn't threatening you and is beyond charging range anyway, you'll provoke attacks from all six goblins and you have an ally about to back you up in the fight against the goblins you've already weakened", "I charge the ogre!"

This actually happened in a game of mine. The character charged, copping hits from three of the goblins, and made it just within the ogres threatened area (10-ft reach). The ogre had a readied action (he was guarding a gate and hadn't moved from the spot despite being pelted by arrows previously) and so thumped the character for, IIRC, about 15 hit points (3rd level character on 1/4 hit points after the goblin AoO's). Needless to say, the character became a bloody paste.

Now, this is NOT an uncommon occurance in games. Players are just plain dumb sometimes. They THINK they're doing something cool/heroic/sensible/tactical or whatever, but at the end of the day, it's just stupid. I don't see why a player should be rewarded for stupidity. Raising is a BENEFIT, not a penalty. The fact that they lose a level or a Con point is more than justified by balance and reason concerns. Lessening it is just pandering to whiny players who can't handle a bit of blow-back for their retarded choices.

Sure, sometimes it's just the luck-o-the-dice, but even then, so what? Characters are engaging in risky activities and the odds are that they will die at one point or another. BIG FRIGGIN' DEAL! Raise 'em and keep playing. Whinging about it just ruins the game for everyone else. Someone else said here that a measly one level lost can ruin a game for a player... sheesh, any player that moaned about that I'd either kick out or have a serious discussion with about maturity.

Bah! What's the point, everyone will disagree with me anyway, you're all weak! Stand up to your players! They need YOU, not the other way around!

 

[Fenes 2]

So, the players should never brook loss to their characters? Nah, I don't buy it.

There isn't competition in the traditional sense... there does not have to be a singular "winner" or "loser." But the players do have to confront the obstacles put forth by the GM, and there has to some token threat of loss and possibility of gain, otherwise such challenges are meaningless and you wonder what challenge there really was.

I occassionally get the "serial" syndrome with various TV shows (especially sci-fi/action TV shows) I watch. The show proceeds with a gripping confrontation that threatens to kill off our heroes. But deep down, I know that Captain Kirk/Dylan Hunt/Whoever will figure a way out of this and they'll be back to do it again next week.

RPGs offer us a different sort of experience than TV shows. Players get attached to their characters and there should be some attempt made to maintain some character continuity -- such as in TV shows, movies, and novels. To this end, the game is largely set up so that the typical encounter has no real chance of being lethal.

But it is all too easy to get jaded by the nature of threat in the game, and for me this kills the suspension of disbeleif. I probably don't kill a PC but one session in ten... but still, I find that is sufficient to create a more authentic threat of loss in the players, which in turn, aids in immersion and prevents that "serial session." If the players go in to any major fight knowing that it could be their last, or (in the case of higher level characters) could lead to lasting impairment, then they are more emotionally invested in the conflict.

And that is a major reason why I think my players are back week after week.

I like novels, and tv series where I don't have to worry about the characters.

The major reason I play (and DM) RPGs is not to get a challenge, but to create an entertaining story. I do not put obstacles to overcome in front of the PCs, but encounters where I expect some entertainment can be gotten out of. If my group spends 2 hours trying to get into a castle but fails while having a blast I have done my job. If they get into the castle with some smart plan but do not have fun doing it, then I have failed as a DM.

People who get jaded and lose their sense of disbelief when they don't have to fear for their PCs are not people I want to play with, just as I am sure people who play for the challenge to overcome obstacles, who enjoy the satisfaction that just their wits and a little luck stood between their PCs and a TPK would not like to play with me.

As far as the token threat of loss goes, I have had parties enslaved, robbed blind, important NPCs killed, lost honor and dignity - as long as the players have fun.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Should I approach character death situationally, rewarding those who die heroically and penalizing those who die because they did something stupid? How do you handle character death?

I used to have the Stupid Rule as a dm. I would generally fudge dice in the favor of pc's if they were doing something heroic, but if they were doing something stupid- then the dice determined their fates.

I went for a time where I would just let the dice fall.

Now, I am trying a more drama oriented system. While I will allow a char to die due to stupidity, I will try to reserve character death until it is something dramatic. How? I will usually ask the pc's how they envision their characters dying.

Or, in spycraft, I made it clear that the buying of backgrounds is the opening of death's door. The more points spent the bigger the chance.

As for resurrection- it changes per campeign. Some campeigns just don't have the ability, but if they do then I just do a point of con lost per resurrection.

In the end I find I rarely need to kill pc's, the enemies can do much worse to their beaten foes- and nothing makes a pc more angry then a villian with his gear.

SD