Which is better: Character death or item destruction?

[The_Gneech]

Don't just break my equipment -- put me in a shipwreck and make me start all over again, baby! I'll sack and plunder the west and then laugh as I waste it all in the next harbor!

Adventure is for the bold!

-The Gneech

 

[Jedi_Solo]

"In general" having gear go bye-bye is the better outcome.

If you have a character built around an item (a Kensai or an Ancestral Relic for example) and you "know" (by whatever method) that the item isn't coming back - then it would be better to be dead and start over.

 

[Umbran]

What, you can't just make Bob2 when Bob1 dies and roleplay him exactly the same way?

Technically, that would be possible. But it would be so unsatisfactory that I'd prefer to not play than to do so.

After Holmes and Moriarty take a dive to their deaths, you don't see Watson take up with some "Shylock Helms", who also just happens to be the gretest detective in Britain that plays the violing nad has a drug habit...

 

[diaglo]

Technically, that would be possible. But it would be so unsatisfactory that I'd prefer to not play than to do so.

After Holmes and Moriarty take a dive to their deaths, you don't see Watson take up with some "Shylock Helms", who also just happens to be the gretest detective in Britain that plays the violing nad has a drug habit...

if you cut him, will he not bleed?

 

[Lanefan]

Interesting question.

As a DM, my answer is "both". That said, I somewhat expect a certain amount of turnover both in items and characters as my game goes along, as a simple result of adventuring. I get more complaints when PC's permanently lose levels.

As a player, I think I'd answer "both" again...not that I necessarily go out of my way to achieve either; but I accept Bad Things Happening as part of the game. If I lose some gear, I just have to go out adventuring and find some more, and if a character of mine dies and can't come back, I can always generate another one.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Which leads to a different discussion; is it better to make a new character or raise the old one? It's often better to make a new character, in my experience. Why go through all the trouble of losing money and a level when you can make a new character who is virtually identical to the old one...but better optimized?

Unless you can somehow swing it that your new one inherits all the old one's gear, you'll probably be starting off nowhere near as well equipped. I prefer to bring back the old one if it makes sense to do so; in our system you lose some money and a Con. point (as in 1e).

Lanefan

 

[Aaron L]

What, you can't just make Bob2 when Bob1 dies and roleplay him exactly the same way?

No, I can't. I'd rather not play than pull something like that.

 

[lukelightning]

Unless you can somehow swing it that your new one inherits all the old one's gear, you'll probably be starting off nowhere near as well equipped.

What, so if your fighter dies and then you make a wizard you're screwed out of all your items because you can't use the fighter's stuff and the DM says you don't get starting equipment? In that case it's probably best to find a new game.

 

[Endur]

You got that backwards. It's often easier to replace a character than replace their equipment, unless the DM purposely awards treasure to make up for the lost equipment.

And if you have to make your magic items, then forget it. Just commit suicide and make a new character. The XP cost of crafting all those items would be ridiculous.

Your assuming you can make a new character.

 

[lukelightning]

Your assuming you can make a new character.

So if a character dies you kick the player out of the game?