PC mortality and revival

[Jan van Leyden]

It has to follow the style and content of the campaign essentially.

In a gritty sandbox-style campaign I want the characters to fight for survival, dying easily and never come back.

In a character-driven campaign developed according to the characters' goals, they should be able to stave off death, falling only in critical moments or otherwise be able to be come back.

In a campaign driven by an external plot the characters should enjoy a certain immunity. Whether this means miraculous saves or handy resurrection doesn't matter.

As for systems, there are several deadly one. Besides old (A)D&D versions at low levels, let my give you Hârnmaster. Resurrection is next to impossible, and even a single hit can easily remove your character from the game. Note that this hasn't to be by death, crippling the character, making him "useless" is also a viable option.

 

[Lanefan]

I've given this a lot of thought over the years, finally concluding that for various reasons "easy come, easy go" works best - to a point.

My games involve the threat of death, and sometimes that threat comes out real. I also prefer it when my players are a bit on the gonzo and-or reckless side. Both of these mean characters are gonna die.

That said, I also respect that players might want to continue with a character thus the game must somehow provide the means to reboot it when it dies; and I don't have a problem with this as long as there's some risk involved. The risk is simple: if you fail your resurrection survival roll (a 1e rule that IMHO *every* edition needs) you aren't coming back except under some pretty unusual circumstances e.g. someone physically goes to the land of the dead at a later time and bribes/hauls/somehow gets you out. And the penalties are a lost Con. point (recoverable ONLY via a complete year of uninterrupted rest) and a monetary expense. Also from 1e, no matter what you do you can't come back more times than your original Con. score, though in my experience nobody has got close to having to worry about this one.

Lan-"'dungeons without mortality are dungeons without life' - one of my players"-efan

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I voted for the first, but by "revive" I mean heal.

I like combat, so I don't want to shy away from it. Often I find (in game systems were healing is hard) we fight anyway, as we feel we have to, retreat is basically impossible, etc, but afterward the injured PCs just kind of lounge around bored out of their skulls (along with the players) while the DM insists the long healing times are realistic. (They are, but it's a game.)

 

[Crothian]

I always like the hard to die. I like failutre in my RPGs but different kinds and death is to harsh and can kill campaigns. It is much more fun for everyone if failure doesn't always mean the end. Coming back from failure can be a lot of fun in a game.

 

[delericho]

Strictly my opinions:

I prefer a game where good play is rewarded and poor play punished. So, it should be hard for a well-played character to die, but easy for a poorly-played character to suffer the same fate.

(That suggests a system where traps can be found and bypassed/disarmed, but that are utterly lethal if not searched for, for example.)

I also prefer a game where it is hard for characters to come back from death (that is, actual death rather than a near-miss - I thought the 3e revivification spell was a great addition to the game, if not quite forgiving enough).

Moreover, I would prefer a system that mandated that a character who did come back from the dead was necessarily changed by the experience - more Buffy or Spock; less "revolving door of death".

I'm not aware of any game that currently does these things. In some cases, I'm not even sure how I'd go about setting them up.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Chose "easy to die, hard to come back", and that's not the whole story. Low power characters, IMO, should have a hard time being resurrected. Sure, the magic is available, the church might even have it, and convincing them why they should or negotiating an alternative payment (quest) make interesting scenes for me. I also don't like an assumption I've seen a lot, which seems like "the magic is available, therefore every civilization everywhere has someone with enough level/skill to cast it, and is willing to use it for you".

As the characters grow in power, bringing back their fallen becomes less dependent on the generosity of the church, and falls more to their own power.

It also depends on the genre of the game. Let's say I dusted off my Alternity books, and didn't use magic rules . . . in that game, I'd run with death is permanent. Last resorts can help mitigate the chance of dying, but it remains.

 

[Living Legend]

I have a proviso for my answer:

It should be easy for a PC to die if they don't play smart, moderately difficult to die if playing well, and hard to revive (if possible at all).

 

[NewJeffCT]

I used to be of the mind that coming back for a player should be very difficult and only happen in special circumstances... however, that was my 1E/2E experience speaking, when campaigns rarely went above level 8/9, with level 9 being what you needed to be able to cast Raise Dead (level 5 cleric spell from 1E/2E) By that point, you were at, or near, the climax of the campaign most of the time... so, Raise Dead was acceptable.

I started out running my first 3.5E campaign the same way and with the same mentality. However, 3rd Edition was designed to take the players from level 1-20 instead of 1-10 like the previous editions. So, the players would then have access to spells like Raise Dead midway through the campaign and Resurrection about 2/3 of the way through the campaign (not mention Revivify at the same time as Raise Dead...)

And, somebody made a point on here when I had mentioned something similar a few years back - if the players are going to be teleporting without error, fighting demon lords and dragon princes, casting Wishes and Miracles and tossing meteor swarms around, shouldn't PC death just be another obstacle that the players can overcome?

I thought it was a great point and let it rip in game, knowing the players had access to powerful healing magics. I figured I was not doing my job as DM if a climactic encounter didn't include the party cleric or psion casting Revivify once or twice in combat. Heck, the party's dwarf tank died three times in one climactic encounter, with one taking a 5,000XP Miracle to bring him back from being hit by Destruction.

So, I think it depends on the game/system. D&D in 1E/2E days, I think Raise Dead/Resurrection should be rare. However, 3E is designed to up higher in level and should not be as rare in game. I don't know 4E at higher levels well enough, but I suspect death is just another obstacle as well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Most rpgs have combat. To me, if you're going to fight battles there should be a realistic chance of character death in at least some of those battles. That's what makes that part of the game matter.

As far as resurrection, I don't think it should be something that happens often, and it should definitely be a "life-changing" experience, as it were. I instituted a rule from Hereoes of Horror whereby each resurrection requires the sacrifice of another life. That helps.

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Like others have said, I don't think any of the options makes for a necessarily better game - they simply provide different games in terms of mood and approach.

Nor do any of the options really match my preference. I generally prefer (as DM or as player) games in which there is a real threat of death. But this is not the same as preferring easy death - I don't want my characters to see a housecat as a threat (unless its possessed of course ...).

I also tend to prefer that resurrection/reincarnation be rare. And certainly that when they happen they are big deal.