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

[Quasqueton]

Through many threads on these forums, there are many people who state their dislike for raise dead and the other such "bring someone back from the dead" spells. Many DMs have added obstacles for the PCs to overcome to get a raise dead, or have completely removed the spells from the game. Why is this?

What is the problem with bringing PCs back from the dead? I'm not talking about what might be wrong with the game mechanics (in any edition of this game) -- 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?

Quasqueton

 

[Umbran]

Well, if Raise Dead and its like are too easy to come by, life threatening drama becomes a mere inconvenience. It becomes somewhat more work for a DM to enforce the idea that consequenses matter, and to make the players feel something really is at risk.

That being said, it is entirely possible to run a good game where everyone knows that nobody will die at all, much less require Raise Dead. But it can be more work, and it isn't a mode of play everybody likes.

 

[green slime]

Well, if Raise Dead and its like are too easy to come by, life threatening drama becomes a mere inconvenience. It becomes somewhat more work for a DM to enforce the idea that consequenses matter, and to make the players feel something really is at risk.

That being said, it is entirely possible to run a good game where everyone knows that nobody will die at all, much less require Raise Dead. But it can be more work, and it isn't a mode of play everybody likes.

Another problem, can be the expectation of players. At very low levels (1st to 3rd), no one expects to be true ressurected. Most would agree, that would be slightly over the top. Once players have their own access to these spells there is no problem either. It is expected that the cleric will naturally bring them back. Is raise dead available when the party could afford it (although only by pooling resources and making sacrifices) and has made a few friends in the world? What do the various players expect, when that unfortunate missed save causes character death?

 

[Quasqueton]

It's kind of odd, I guess. I have a "mental stumble" at the other option -- Hey, here's another 8th-level character in the neighborhood who just happens to be completely willing to join your group without reservation.

Personally, I would rather to see 6 raise deads in a campaign than to have to explain and introduce 6 more leveled adventurers. It gets worse to my mind as the PCs get higher level -- Wow, there's a 14th-level ranger in the area, and he just happens to be available/free to join your adventure?

I find the concept of unlimited readily available replacement PCs to be more mentally bothersome than unlimited readily available revivication magic.

(PC death is my personal bugaboo in D&D lately.)

Quasqueton

 

[Lanefan]

It's kind of odd, I guess. I have a "mental stumble" at the other option -- Hey, here's another 8th-level character in the neighborhood who just happens to be completely willing to join your group without reservation.

Personally, I would rather to see 6 raise deads in a campaign than to have to explain and introduce 6 more leveled adventurers. It gets worse to my mind as the PCs get higher level -- Wow, there's a 14th-level ranger in the area, and he just happens to be available/free to join your adventure?

I have no problem at all with this; if nothing else, it serves to reinforce the notion that the PCs are *not* the only fish in the pond and that there's lots of other adventurers out there.

That said, I don't mind people reviving dead characters either, though the concept of the "resurrection survival" roll is essential - I don't like the revival's success being guaranteed.

Lanefan

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Then why not just waive your hands and say 'Ok, you're all 20th level and win.'

Reward without risk, IMO, is boring and juvenile (in a non-pejorative sense). I don't necessarily eliminate raise-type spells, but they are far from a sure thing. And the only way I'll have to insert more than a couple PCs over the course of a campaign is if I screw up and turn it into a meat grinder (which has happened), or if there are players that don't understand that discretion can be the better part of valor. That latter can be hard to get across.

 

[Numion]

Well, if Raise Dead and its like are too easy to come by, life threatening drama becomes a mere inconvenience. It becomes somewhat more work for a DM to enforce the idea that consequenses matter, and to make the players feel something really is at risk.

I've noticed with my players that this seems to be mostly annoyance on the DMs, and not the players, part. Even if resurrection is available, my players are really pissed off when their character dies.

I've not put any limits on resurrections, but players themselves retire characters after 2-3 raises. I guess they see them as failures, or figure that character so bad / unlucky would rather not adventure.

So, death, IME, is not a mere inconvenience even though resurrections are available. YMMV, but my group tends to take death seriously anyhow.

 

[el-remmen]

Death is the closing paranthesis that give life closure and meaning.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'm generally more concerned with NPC death than PC death.

In a world where resurrection is a matter of price, it's impossible to assassinate a king unless you have conspirators standing by to immediately jump in and take his place - and even then, the conspiracy darn well better have the support of the military or the populace, or preferrably both, because everyone *knows* they could just get the king back if they cared to. Or, you have 'weapons that can kill so you can't be raised,' which then brings the whole problem full circle - if you use those weapons against PCs, they can't be raised either.

Losing a loved one (except to age) basically means an expenditure of gold to a mid- to high-level PC. Rather than coming home from adventure to finding his wife and children murdered and swearing vengeance on the foe who did the foul deed, he comes home, finds them dead, and slips the party cleric a few thousand gp to bring them back. Then he asks them who killed them and puts revenge on his to-do list - for what it's worth, since any halfway competent villain will also be able to come back from the dead at this level.

It's actually *worse* than the superhero cliche that no one stays dead, because people in the setting know what's required to cause it. It's not a genre convention, it's a financial expenditure.

Personally, I prefer to either run grinding, old school dungeon crawls where the death of a dozen PCs is not out of the question, or to take PC death out of the hands of the game mechanics. I no more need the possibility of PC death to be challenged by the 'game' side of D&D than I need a threat to the life and limb of the boot to be challenged by a game of Monopoly.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Then why not just waive your hands and say 'Ok, you're all 20th level and win.'

If you're complaining about juvenile challenges, you should probably not equate living with victory. The real world is rife with examples of how survival and success are not the same thing, not even close.

I'm more on the side of making resurrection hard to come by, or costly in some sense (a death is coming up in my Story Hour, and its results are very costly indeed for the one who dies), but I disagree with the notion that survival is somehow the same thing as triumph.

The player characters in my Midwood campaign repeatedly shove their heads into the lion's mouth because their lives are a small price to pay compared to what they're trying to prevent happening.