Imaro
Legend
The death-lite approach assumes that the players and DM communicate openly and have reached some consensus as to what's meaningful to the characters/players.?
The characters and players are not the same thing, that's exactly what I'm getting at. The fact that a player has made it so that his character will not die...speaks volumes about what is "meaningful" to that player. Now as far as what's important to his/her character...the character doesn't really exist.
Huh?
Just read what I wrote above.
Would you be satisfied if the DM slapped a player whenever their PC died??
Go...go...hyperbole!!
Also, forcing a player to restart the game, with a character that's just as powerful (or very, very close) seems pointless. How is that a meaningful consequence? I mean, in 3.5, if a player replaces a dead monk or bard with a live cleric or druid, then the net effect of their character's death is 'get a stronger character'. Is that what you mean by consequence?
I have seen more people in this thread talk about how annoying or booring it is to have to sit out of the game for a period of time as the major con against death...how about that as a "real" consequence. Yeah you messed up, something bad happened in most games that means a detrimental effect for that player. Does that clarify things a little better?