Death penalties - what is too steep?

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

If you are raised you lose a level. It's fair and not to steep a penalty.

It's munchkin in the extreme to demand that there should be no penalty to the death of a PC. If that was the case, you might as well not play with HPs at all.

And the idea that heroic deaths should give you a free get out of jail-card is absurd, IMHO. If there is no penalty there is no heroism. It isn't very heroic to fight the dragon solo while the rest of the party is able escape, when you know there is no chance of "dying".

I like the restrictions put on the different Raise Dead-spells (has to be in a temple, has to be on holy day and so on) it makes death of characters (both PC and NPC) more important.

 

[ForceUser]

Note that said character would also have had a 14 in 20 chance of returning without losing a level; possibly 16 in 20 if an "expert healer" was around.

Regarding the character in question, nothing short of a true resurrection or a wish will bring him back. Thus, he moves right to the "start a new character" part of things, in which your system is slightly harsher than mine.

I never said anything about your logic, just your ordering of priorities.

What do you mean?

 

[Mark]

It's always interesting how these threads seem to break off into smaller discussion groups, isn't it?

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.

I see now what you mean but I do not agree. Firstly because I do not believe that the loss of material goods, or risking of them, is all that heroic. Certainly not in comparison to risking one's life. Besides which, if the new character is generated at an appropriate level not only do they receive material goods in relative worth for their character level, but it isn't just items picked up along the way, it is more likely tailored to their new character. They may well be all the stronger for it.

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'm not forgetting anything. The problem, IMO, is that you are not separating player from character. The player makes the choice to play a Rogue based on the personal rewards as a player that come with enjoying that role. In this case we have to weigh the player's risks and rewards not the character's risks or reward, IMO. The logistics of playing a Rogue are well known to a player prior to making that choice, or should be explained if there is a concern that the player does not fathom the situation.

I am sure that we could take turns citing examples where one class in one situation has advantages over another, but that is not the point. Once we get into the specifics of which classes are chosen and who might or might not be tougher, we have to look at all situations on a case by case basis and can no longer form a policy wherby to govern all situations. It is a no win approach to DMing that merely serves to reduce the effectiveness of the rules, any rules, no matter the system.

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.

Cool. I was worried I was missing yet another point somehow.

 

[Psion]

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.

Then why would losing a level be any different?

 

[Dr. NRG]

It's always interesting how these threads seem to break off into smaller discussion groups, isn't it?

I've noticed this too, and find it interesting. Verbal conversations top out at a maximum of around 6-8 people before splitting into sub-groups. I imagine we all get rather conditioned to this, and thus the same thing happens on boards.

As for death penalties, it seems to me that the most important thing is that the penalties be established in advance of any campaign. If they are known, and the players complain later, they can be referred back to the initial decision to which they agreed.

So, if you sprang this penalty on the players without their being aware of it in advance, perhaps you were being unfair. If not, the player is the one being unfair to you in not sticking to the established parameters of the game.

NRG

 

[MythandLore]

From The Game Mechanics
http://www.thegamemechanics.com/index.asp
http://www.thegamemechanics.com/freebies/index.asp (scroll to the bottom of page)

Dead Heroes Aren't Much Fun
Latest version posted on January 5, 2003.
Latest revision: Increased image compression, greatly reducing file size.
JD's players were feeling pretty defeated in The Heart of Nightfang Spire, the fifth adventure in Wizards of the Coast's Adventure Path series for Dungeons & Dragons. Rivaling the original Tomb of Horrors in its deadliness, Nightfang offers little recourse for those who lose levels due to an untimely death. How do you deal with a system that weakens your characters at the same time it expects them to increase in power? JD decided to revise the spells raise dead, resurrection, and true resurrection to help keep the Adventure Path campaign moving forward.
Download Dead Heroes zipped PDF. (260KB)

 

[Mark]

I've noticed this too, and find it interesting. Verbal conversations top out at a maximum of around 6-8 people before splitting into sub-groups. I imagine we all get rather conditioned to this, and thus the same thing happens on boards.

First posts in threads always seem like addressing the crowd, and then they seem to split up from there, often trickling down to just a few people at the party. I rarely quote more than two or three people in any given quote, even if I have responses for more. That tends to feel like more than one discussion group when it requires more than one post per conversation.

As for death penalties, it seems to me that the most important thing is that the penalties be established in advance of any campaign. If they are known, and the players complain later, they can be referred back to the initial decision to which they agreed.

So, if you sprang this penalty on the players without their being aware of it in advance, perhaps you were being unfair. If not, the player is the one being unfair to you in not sticking to the established parameters of the game.

NRG

That really cuts to the meat of it. I guess if there is one bit of advice from this whole thread that can be agreed upon by almost everyone, it is that a little communication at the start of a game or campaign can certainly prevent a lot of confusion and hurt feelings later on.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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

Heh. I'm the exact opposite. I prefer to know that the characters are at risk; to me, it adds to the drama of the story. That's one thing I've liked about TV shows like Babylon 5 or Buffy--even "main" characters can die. (Granted, on Buffy they tend to come back in some form or another, but still...)

Ditto for novels. If the novel focuses on a group of characters, I actually prefer if at least one of them has died by the end (unless it's really inappropriate to the story, of course). Just adds to the drama of the story for me.

PC death isn't that common in my games. I tend to throw them against pretty tough battles--over their CR--but I also only average one major fight per game session. In my last campaign, which ran 8 months, we had only a single character death, and that was in the last battle in the last game. (Although we had characters below 0 hp multiple times.) Of course, my players are savvy enough to run if things get really bad.

But I will kill a character purely by the luck of the dice, if it's a fair fight. I just prefer the element of risk. So do my players. Whenever I'm playing in someone else's campaign, the first thing I'll tell them is that, if it's up to me, I prefer my character to die fairly than survive by DM fiat.

 

[Fenes 2]

Then why would losing a level be any different?

Well, it is different since we don't kill/raise PCs in my game, and do not use exp - we just level up from time to time when we see fit, so the whole party is the same level, no matter individual efforts or even attendance. With not killing off PCs we can sidestep the whole "Raise Dead/Assassinations/campaign consequences" problem as well - dead is dead.
More importantly, at least one of my players considers a level loss something that absolutely kills his fun, which makes it a no-no for me (and a no-brainer, since I don't see how losing a level serves the game at all).

 

[Mark]

Well, it is different since we don't kill/raise PCs in my game, and do not use exp - we just level up from time to time when we see fit, so the whole party is the same level, no matter individual efforts or even attendance. With not killing off PCs we can sidestep the whole "Raise Dead/Assassinations/campaign consequences" problem as well - dead is dead.
More importantly, at least one of my players considers a level loss something that absolutely kills his fun, which makes it a no-no for me (and a no-brainer, since I don't see how losing a level serves the game at all).

See, to me, that seems more like collective story telling than a game. I'm sure you all have fun or you would not be doing it that way, but do actions have any severe consequences or is "they all lived happily ever after" always a part of the formula?