I never saw anyone come back more than once in older edition games I played. It was difficult to begin with (which is totally fine) and we were fine with playing something else. Plus, like you said, it gets increasingly difficult and drains con every time. Interesting system.
I don't think anyone here is advocating the removal of all consequences from a game. There is no "flaw" in modern gaming where all consequences are removed from games these days.
There's still some consequences, sure, but compare the different versions of D&D and you'll find a steady reduction in or easing of such consequences as the editions go along. Some rough examples:
Death:
1e - revival has high monetary cost, chance of outright failure (Res. survival roll), loss of a con point
3e - revival has moderate monetary cost, loss of a level === but auto-succeeds
5e - revival has quite low monetary cost === and auto-succeeds
Level loss:
1e - level loss possible from various sources, restoration has high monetary cost and needs to be done once for each level lost
3e - level loss possible from fewer sources, negative-level concept added, restoration sometimes relatively easy, sometimes not
5e - level loss virtually removed and-or made relatively easy to deal with
Spellcasting:
1e - casting very easy to interrupt, cannot cast while in melee, area-effect spells risky (expanding fireballs, rebounding lightning bolts)
3e - casting easy-ish to interrupt === but combat-casting feat makes casting in melee possible, most effect risks removed
5e - casting quite difficult to interrupt === casting in melee becomes ordinary practice, effects risks gone
Note however that in 1e a well-worded wish could bypass all sorts of negative consequences...if you could find and-or afford one. Wish was greatly reined in in later editions.
It's not make a character and then auto-win the entire adventure or campaign. That's just classic nostalgia, or "in may day!" thinking that isn't really true. No one here is saying they had players drop out of gaming because something bad happened to their character either. What we're saying is that in our circles, the arbitrary level loss slapped on a replacement character doesn't seem to make sense and has impacted the fun of players we know. If we happen across Wights in an adventure, so be it. We deal with it, knowing what we're in for. It makes the adventure tense and dangerous. We all know the effects can be temporary and find ways to overcome the challenge.
All fair enough.
Having a character die and then the DM says "well make another character one level lower from the rest of the group" doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not a challenge for the player to overcome, like something they would face in an adventure. It's an artificial way of try to increase the difficulty for that player or to penalize that player when all they did was play.
One argument in favour of such is to encourage players to at least attempt revival of their pre-existing character, for continuity. Another (and this one matters to me) is that it's one more small way to slow down the overall level advancement...which allows for a longer campaign.
Unless the entire group agrees ahead of time that replacement characters come back at a lower level because they like that kind of thing. In which case, game on. Plenty of people like a kind of retro feel to their games with these kinds of rules. Though keeping everyone at the same level or letting replacement characters come in at the same level is by no means coddling a player or removing consequences from the game.
Depends on the group, as you say.
If a player wanted to drop out of a game anytime something happened to their character, I doubt they'd be at anyone's game table.
Yet that almost seems to be the attitude shown in post 19, this thread, which is what got me talking about it.
Lan-"7 times revived and counting"-efan
