D&D 5E (2014) Where does the punitive approach to pc death come from?

[SteveC]

I didn't say I think everyone did it, just that it was "a common standard" throughout the community. It was intuitive. Every character starts at 1st level, with 0 experience points. I am sure this perception would have been commonly shared.

The next time it happens to you, ask the other players and the DM to play some adventures with new characters with your character. It would be hard mid-adventure, but surely they'd agree to take time away from their higher level guys so you can enjoy the game as you catch up.

As sure as you are, you're wrong, at least in my case, and it was not a small case. Here's the thing, I'm not someone who doesn't have experience playing the game from zero to hero, so I know what I like because I've lived it. Many, many times. If I have to run one more caravan duty, or take on one more nest of giant rats in someone's basement, I'd, well ... I'd look for another game.

As I've written in the other thread, I don't have time to play some adventures off with my new low level guy, and neither does anyone else I play with. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm getting on in years now. When you get older, you have plenty of things, important things, that can get in the way of gaming. As a result, leveling a character from first to sixth level (as in the example I used) just wouldn't happen in my spare time. Spare time. Hah! (imagine that laugh in an Alf voice).

I'm assuming that you mean well, but just don't: not everyone who doesn't share your play preferences just hasn't tried it out. Some of us know what we like, or in my case, what we don't like. Just like I'd never tell someone who's dead set on starting over from zero XP that they're playing it wrong, I expect the same courtesy in return.

So as someone who was there, I can definitively tell you there was no one way to play any single aspect of D&D, let alone how to deal with dead characters.

 

[SirAntoine]

As sure as you are, you're wrong, at least in my case, and it was not a small case. Here's the thing, I'm not someone who doesn't have experience playing the game from zero to hero, so I know what I like because I've lived it. Many, many times. If I have to run one more caravan duty, or take on one more nest of giant rats in someone's basement, I'd, well ... I'd look for another game.

As I've written in the other thread, I don't have time to play some adventures off with my new low level guy, and neither does anyone else I play with. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm getting on in years now. When you get older, you have plenty of things, important things, that can get in the way of gaming. As a result, leveling a character from first to sixth level (as in the example I used) just wouldn't happen in my spare time. Spare time. Hah! (imagine that laugh in an Alf voice).

I'm assuming that you mean well, but just don't: not everyone who doesn't share your play preferences just hasn't tried it out. Some of us know what we like, or in my case, what we don't like. Just like I'd never tell someone who's dead set on starting over from zero XP that they're playing it wrong, I expect the same courtesy in return.

So as someone who was there, I can definitively tell you there was no one way to play any single aspect of D&D, let alone how to deal with dead characters.

It was a common standard. I am not wrong about this.

How do you get from this to my saying it was the one way, and you were wrong to do it like you did?

 

[MasterTrancer]

That's assuming you have the body and the ability to cast gentle repose. Maybe we just look at death differently, but I still think parties need to deal with death. There are other ways of caring for your friend after death than bringing them back to life.

In the proposed scenario in any case, what a heroic friend holding the halls against impossible odds. Ressing the friend was out of the question.

While I may deride the gamist idea that "all you have to do is res them and carry on" that wasn't really an attack on the people behind that idea. You don't need to deride me in return.

I wasn't deriding you...and wasn't even saying "just ress him up". Actually, I was defending the possibility of death for a PC, and saying, as already explained in other posts, that IF the PC was so vital to the party (either as a strategic asset or out of affection) THEN a resurrection COULD be arranged, for a fee. ("go QUESTING to have the companion resurrected" means that).

My gamist idea you're referring to is, in my book, that the players and the DM can sometimes arrange to insert that into the campaign.

Anyway, I want to say it again: I wasn't deriding you nor anyone else. My table is different from yours, and I won't ever dream say how anyone should play at their own place. If that was the impression, I apologize.

 

[TerraDave]

So, I tried reading all the post here, and still did not see a key reason to start someone with a lower level character:

So they learn how to play it. This is going to be more relevant in some contexts then others, but sometimes people need to ease into a character. Giving them everything up front can be counter productive. Easiest might be low level, but there are other options. (Low level, plus 1 or 2 key magic items, or high level, but with some temporary weaknesses or omissions that fade).

As an aside, it can be good to "loosen up" when it comes to party composition. It can be fun to not always have the same group of characters or characters at identical power levels. Including when this leads to variations in difficulty.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Such strong normative and empirical claims!

What is the evidence that "only by having taken that risk and survived are high level PCs truly appreciated....

In the real world, there are many memorable events, and challenges, and confrontations, where the principle stake is not the death of one of the protagonists. In fiction the same is true. The risk of death doesn't seem to me to have any special importance as a stake in an RPG. And if it is the sole thing at stake, or the only thing that matters to the participants, that suggests to me that the other possible sorts of stakes aren't really being brought into focus in play.

It's a teeny bit inconsistent to call someone else's opinions out for making "empirical" claims, and then to make actual empirical claims ("in the real world there are many") without providing any of that evidence yourself. Pot, kettle.

Clearly both of you are not actually intending an appeal to empiricism, you're just starting an opinion based on your experience, so the "where's your evidence?" gotcha doesn't belong in this context. It seems that way to this reader, anyway.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, I tried reading all the post here, and still did not see a key reason to start someone with a lower level character:

The key reason is that some people enjoy playing that way, with those rules. I'm one of them. Starting a new character at 8th level is something my current DM does but I actually find it jarring and wish he wouldn't--but he is more narrativist than I am and we don't have tons of time to play, so I think he likes skipping over the low-level play.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It was a common standard. I am not wrong about this.

How do you get from this to my saying it was the one way, and you were wrong to do it like you did?

Because in post #116 you explicitly disagreed with the statement that starting at zero was "one of many playstyles and not the one true way."

You said, "I disagree."

 

[pemerton]

It's a teeny bit inconsistent to call someone else's opinions out for making "empirical" claims, and then to make actual empirical claims ("in the real world there are many") without providing any of that evidence yourself.

Here are some examples of memorable events in the real world that did not involve death as a stake. Some are memorable to many, some just to me:

* The dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975;

* The election of Obama in 2008;

* The two marriages where I was best man;

* The birth of my children;

* My graduations;

* The auction where I bought my house;

* The LotR movies;

* New Year's Eve, 1999;

etc.

Similar lists of memorable challenges and confrontations could be given (eg job interviews, fights with bullies at school or work, etc).

In my life I have met many people. I don't believe I have ever met anyone who regarded an event, confrontation or challenge as memorable only if it involved death as a risk.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Character death is a penalty for "failing" at the game, be it from poor decisions, bad luck with the dice, hot rolling DM, or anything else. In most games when you get "killed" and have to start over you start over from scratch if you aren't out of the game. To me there should be a penalty of some sort. Others disagree and that's cool.

 

[Sunseeker]

Character death is a penalty for "failing" at the game, be it from poor decisions, bad luck with the dice, hot rolling DM, or anything else. In most games when you get "killed" and have to start over you start over from scratch if you aren't out of the game. To me there should be a penalty of some sort. Others disagree and that's cool.

This is like a nice short summary of every argument I disagree with on the subject. So, yay for disagreement!