What's the problem with bringing PCs back from the dead?

[Sejs]

Did you just argue that the penalty for being killed isn't big enough, and anyway being raised from the dead is too big a penalty?

Not at all. I argued that that, just as you said, it turns death from a threat into a penalty. I then went on to say that the penalty that it does apply is itself clumsy and can lead to further problems.

Level loss is the Gelatinous Cube of game mechanics.

 

[carmachu]

Absolutely. This is simply a conversation about what flavor of fudge we all prefer. Heroic luck, fate points, dream visions, Raise Dead, Resurrections, whatever. It's all part of one large spectrum of choices to ensure story continuity.

I'd argue party death is part of that continuity. The cheapness of raising seems to take away from the story.

I mean, there's a difference bewteen "bob fell dead, holding off the dragon to ensure the party finished it off." and then adding "oh yeah, and then we brought him back to life."

But thats me. Generally remove raising players in mine. Seems to cheapen heroic events.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've just gone the route of applying a failure chance. 10% to start with, increasing by 10% for each additional time the same character is raised.

It's still not a fantastic solution, but I've found it to be the best compromise.

 

[Numion]

It's not like death without resurrections was the end in RPGs.

It just means you have to make a new character. A mere inconvenience

Or have you never seen a D&D player whip out the previous characters identical brother in 5 minutes?

 

[fineousdfd119]

well i have had several HEROIC deaths over the years, it would be a shame to lose a character played for over 10 years because he was being heroic. as to weather the raise deads are a form of save from video games... that's on the DM. tpk's will still mean new characters, unless someone expends MAJOR resourses. and burning bodies necessitates a limited wish MINIMUM

 

[molonel]

I'd argue party death is part of that continuity.

Party death is certainly part of the story. I've been through my fair share of TPKs. But when either party death or resurrection are too common, it has the potential to ruin the story or feel that the DM/GM is trying to create or nurture.

Death really isn't part of continuity, though. Part of the story? Part of the risk? Absolutely. Part of the spectrum that allows the story to continue? Not unless you use Ghostwalk.

The cheapness of raising seems to take away from the story. I mean, there's a difference bewteen "bob fell dead, holding off the dragon to ensure the party finished it off." and then adding "oh yeah, and then we brought him back to life."

The flip side of that coin was, "Gosh, Bob was a great character. Good backstory, excellent roleplaying. Too bad that orc accidentally critted him with the axe. Oh well. Sucks to be him. And oh look! It's Bob 2!"

A revolving door of characters can start to feel like a medieval Paranoia game.

(I like Paranoia, by the way. Just not in my D&D.)

But thats me. Generally remove raising players in mine. Seems to cheapen heroic events.

We'll see. I'll be interested in see how you handle it in your online game.

 

[Kelleris]

Not at all. I argued that that, just as you said, it turns death from a threat into a penalty. I then went on to say that the penalty that it does apply is itself clumsy and can lead to further problems.

Level loss is the Gelatinous Cube of game mechanics.

But a threat is just the chance of a penalty. You can't turn one into another, they're not related like that. The penalty of death without resurrection magic is that you don't get to play that character anymore - but in any game I've ever seen you're free to play another one - whereas with standard resurrection magic the penalty is that you generally lose a level and a wad of cash. You seem to think the penalty for death is both too light (trivializing it) and too heavy (because it causes character parity problems). That's not necessarily an inconsistent position, of course, but it's weird to argue that way - I'm guessing you mean that the penalty is a bad one not because of degree but of type, but I can't see how you can argue that getting killed isn't a penalty of some kind. It suggests to me that you really don't like resurrection magic for some other reason (flavor or verisimilitude or something), or the logical approach would be to find the right penalty to assess for raising someone from the dead and use that rather than banning it outright. I agree that the level-loss thing is not a great way to do it, actually - my approach is to give the affected character a negative level that lasts until they level up again or until a year and a day passes. As a penalty, it's impermanent but still significant enough with the gp cost to penalize death enough to make it a relevant threat in my games, and as a nice side effect it encourages voluntary downtime, the lack of which is my biggest conceptual problem with D&D games.

 

[Ourph]

What's wrong with the concept of a way to bring PCs back to life? And what's wrong with PCs using the concept/mechanic?

Access to a means of returning from the dead becomes a factor in the PC's risk/reward calculations and the factor that it adds to those equations leads to a style of play that I don't like. I prefer to run games where caution and forethought are a major part of "winning" and, IME, easy access to Raise Dead drastically reduces that aspect of the game.

In other words, "what's wrong" is that I just don't like it, so I don't use it in my games. It's no different than not liking the Massive Damage or Psionics rules and choosing not to use them.

 

[Delta]

Absolutely. I've never seen resurrections or anything resembling them in Conan, Orpheus attempting to retrieve his love from the underworld, Balder, Hindu myth and the constant recycling of the eternal soul, the phoenix reborn, the Syrian cult of Adonis, the Egyptian cult of Osiris, Semele, etc. etc.

Hmmm. Molonel, could you highlight the mortal from classic myth or legend who was successfully raised in that list? I seem to have missed it....

Also, anyone who's ever been raised more than once would be a big help. Thanks.

 

[Sejs]

You seem to think the penalty for death is both too light (trivializing it) and too heavy (because it causes character parity problems). That's not necessarily an inconsistent position, of course, but it's weird to argue that way

Again, not quite.

I'm saying that readily available resurrection magic makes the penalty of death too light by commuting it from "You're dead, make a new character. Sorry if you were attached to that one" into a loss of a level and a chunk of cash.

Beyond that, I'm also saying that even as it stands, the level loss mechanic (regardless of how it's applied) is awkward, ungainly, and problematic.

I'm guessing you mean that the penalty is a bad one not because of degree but of type, but I can't see how you can argue that getting killed isn't a penalty of some kind.

It's the difference between loss and annoyance. The moment things start being thought of in terms of "and if I die, you can just raise me" it starts to become irksome.

It suggests to me that you really don't like resurrection magic for some other reason (flavor or verisimilitude or something)

Nope, just those two reasons I've stated. Softens risk and level loss is a poor mechanic.

or the logical approach would be to find the right penalty to assess for raising someone from the dead and use that rather than banning it outright.

Ah, I believe I see the problem. No, I was never arguing for the complete banning of resurrection magic, but rather much as you said - finding the right penalty to assess.

I agree that the level-loss thing is not a great way to do it, actually - my approach is to give the affected character a negative level that lasts until they level up again or until a year and a day passes. As a penalty, it's impermanent but still significant enough with the gp cost to penalize death enough to make it a relevant threat in my games, and as a nice side effect it encourages voluntary downtime, the lack of which is my biggest conceptual problem with D&D games.

Generally the way I handle it is that first, the resurrection needs to take place on an altar concecrated to the deity of the priest doing the resurrecting. It's not something you can just do on the fly in the dungeon. Secondly, there's almost always some sort of service that must be paid; not to the priest or the church, but to the god granting the spell itself. The service must be agreed to before the spell takes place, and is what I generally use in lieu of level loss.