your penalty for character death

[Celebrim]

I've been playing the game long enough to know this can and does happen. This is the way the dice fell, and I'm fine with it. What is not so cool is that the DM brings in my replacement character (with no access to raise dead due to a stingy party) at a level and a half lower than the lowest level character (whose player misses 50% of the sessions) and with less gear.

Now my character has come in with no background or connection to the campaign and is the weakest party member.

Am I right to be a little miffed at this? How would you handle it?

I don't think anyone ever has a right to be miffed. The belief that you have a right to be miffed is one of the three or four most important sources of evil in this world. There is no evil a man will not do if you tell him he has a right to be angry. So, I'm not going to tell you that. Being miffed does no one any good.

How I handle player character death depends alot on the group. Some groups I've played with expect to start over from 1st level. The general feeling is that if you played a character, you had to earn it. However, I really haven't seen that as the preferred way of play since 1e, when the XP system was set up to handle it (the XP required to go from X+1 was the same as the XP required to get to X) and players had a more Hack mentality. In modern groups, I typically try to have the 'death tax' be roughly equal to what you'd suffer if you underwent raise dead. Death has to be unpleasant in order to be meaningful. Otherwise you'll get players hiding behind the stack of dead Bards.

I try to do whatever I can to make the new character's introduction to the group as logical as possible. Converting NPC's with an existing relationship to PC's has been one preferred method, provided that the player is intrigued by the NPC's character concept. Converting henchmen over to PC's has happened several times. Otherwise, you try to work something out and spend at least a little time RPing the introduction of the new team mate to the group. With good RPers in the party this usually isn't a problem. But generally speaking, I don't do, 'You meet this new guy in a bar and suddenly you feel like he's your life long friend'. After a recent multi-PC death, I had the new PC's be members of another adventuring party who had been on the trail of the bad guys from a different angle. After a session or so, the two groups met up and agreed eventually to join forces in pursuit of a common objective.

However, I think your anger with the DM is misplaced. The real problem her is that the party apparantly had the resources to raise a PC from the dead and choose not too. That's unbelievable to me. One of the unwritten rules of social gaming is that regardless of how greedy your character is supposed to be, you find some sort of cover that explains why your character always helps the other party members when push comes to shove. In that situation, I'm not sure that the DM had any other choice but to increase the death tax to something higher than the cost of Raise Dead (-5000 gp, loss of one level) because it seems to me like the party was at the very least metagaming the death on the assumption that party resources would increase more by forcing the DM to introduce a new character than they would by taking care of an existing one. I've seen things like that happen before. In a group where the DM was somewhat stingy with treasure and player deaths were high, the party began ghoulishly looting their own because new characters where introduced with significant resources. The DM ultimately had to crack down on what was essentially treating suicide as a means of character advancement.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am hard at work on my revenge character, a dullard min/maxer only out for himself. I am working hard to be the most effective character despite the handicap.

This seems to be the typical attitude of the group. Revenge characters begin an endless cycle of fun swirling away down the drain. Talk to the others in your group regarding this issue before the game as whole dissolves into nothing.

 

[Celebrim]

Many years ago, I played in a 3rd Edition campaign run by a DM who used a similar rule... In fact, it had been standard practice for our group that new characters would join the group at one level lower than the party's average level (or something very similar)...the adventure we were playing through (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil), we ended up playing for nearly a year (weekly 4-hour sessions) but our average party level never increased in all that time, because of the number of levels effectively lost to character deaths. In the end, we rebelled against the DM and ended the campaign early... The encounters and threats kept increasing in power, but our characters collectively couldn't keep up with them.

Without getting into the DM's other issues, this is the danger of an inflexible adventure path. If you treat adventure paths as being utterly inflexible, then PC death derails them. Therefore, the tendency of an AP is to either encourage PC's as disposable and easily replacable commodities (typical 3e era solution), or you make PC death essentially impossible (the official solution in DL frex) or else you get in the situation you describe.

If you are going to DM an adventure path, you have to build in some flexibility. In the case of an adventure like RttToH, if you find party resources lagging what they need to be to push forward into the grind, you need to develop some sidequests and sidetracks where the party can face problems closer to its level of ability before returning to the main plot. In other words, you need to set your AP within a sandbox to compensate for the problems inherent in AP play. (Likewise, there are times you want to put an AP in a sandbox to compensate for issues in sandbox play.)

I find its pretty much inevitable that if death carries no penalty, that you end up with some sort of metagaming, whether its 'mound of dead bards', 'zerg rush', 'suicide looting', or 'reincarnated serial psychopaths'. I also find that addressing in game issues as if they were out of game issues tends to be escalating the problem and not descalating them.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Dead PC's gear went to the surviving characters (cleric and wizard). There would not have been enough to sell to pay 7000 gp for raise dead and restoration (to restore negative levels). They (rightly) were unwilling to sell off their own equipment to pay for it.

So not really stingy then? Fair enough.

I have no background or connection because I was persuaded to make a new character in 10 minutes so play could resume. I'm the weakest because I have the least XP and gear.

Well the first part can be overcome - just add to your PCs backstory now. I have often added, and encouraged others to add, to my PCs back stories while the game is on. As long as it isn't outlandish or contradicts what has gone before.

Unfairly enough the party did have one raise dead scroll and gave it to the barbarian because the adult player threw a tantram. He then decided to bring in a different character anyway. The DM let him come in at full XP and gear (partially due to the whining) but also because there was some penalty for his character's death. (It seems my penalty is a little harsher.)

Ooohhhhh-kaaaayyyy. Now this I would be right pissed off about. If the DM wants to give out pretty harsh penalties for new PCs that's one thing but when he starts playing favourites based on the Whine Content of the player then he's an a**hole. I would be raising a pretty big stink about this if it happened to me and I seriously doubt I would trust the DM enough to play under him again.

 

[Mallus]

I used "group XP" for the 3e and 4e campaigns I ran. All PC's were the same level. This included PC's replacement characters. And all PC's had commensurate equipment.

Leveling wasn't conceived of as a reward for good play. The experience of play at the table was its own reward.

But now I'm running AD&D... so I'm probably going to do things a little differently (in keeping in the spirit of those rules). Maybe a level behind the lowest leveled PC, with mundane gear and no/little magic.

 

[Pbartender]

If you treat adventure paths as being utterly inflexible, then PC death derails them. Therefore, the tendency of an AP is to either encourage PC's as disposable and easily replacable commodities (typical 3e era solution), or you make PC death essentially impossible (the official solution in DL frex) or else you get in the situation you describe.

If you are going to DM an adventure path, you have to build in some flexibility. In the case of an adventure like RttToH, if you find party resources lagging what they need to be to push forward into the grind, you need to develop some sidequests and sidetracks where the party can face problems closer to its level of ability before returning to the main plot. In other words, you need to set your AP within a sandbox to compensate for the problems inherent in AP play. (Likewise, there are times you want to put an AP in a sandbox to compensate for issues in sandbox play.)

The problem didn't have anything to do with inflexibility in the adventure plot... It had to do with the fact that we were playing through an adventure that was widely considered a meat-grinder with a DM who considered it his duty to kill the PCs, using any and every method at his disposal (he told us this once).

Over the course of that year, we averaged one character death per session, and we only had one original character survive from beginning to end. Side quests would not have helped, not only because it was not in the nature of the DM to provide such resource-boosting assistance, but also because he would have planned them to be just as deadly as the main adventure.

I find its pretty much inevitable that if death carries no penalty, that you end up with some sort of metagaming, whether its 'mound of dead bards', 'zerg rush', 'suicide looting', or 'reincarnated serial psychopaths'.

I dunno... We've not had a problem with it, since I started using it. Most of my players have enough time and energy invested in their characters that they go to great lengths to keep their PCs alive. If it ever gets to the point where the character isn't working out (for one reason or another) they let me know, we talk it over, and if necessary, we just find a way to retire the old character and introduce a new one.

I also find that addressing in game issues as if they were out of game issues tends to be escalating the problem and not descalating them.

Perhaps "in-character" vs. "out-of-character" would be a better categorization. For example...

A PC dies simply because of bad luck on dice rolls... It's not the player's fault, so why penalize him?

A PC dies, because the player was (appropriately) role-playing selfless heroism and got caught in a situation that he couldn't get out of... If appropriate for the character, the player was doing what he should have been. That should merit a reward, if anything.

A PC dies because the player is being a jerk, role-playing his character like a reckless maniac, and reaps the consequences of his actions... Penalties to experience and gear might mitigate this sort of behavior to some degree, but wouldn't it be better to find out why he's playing his character like this and deal with the problem player, rather than passive-aggressively penalize his characters? Maybe he's bored with the adventure? Maybe he doesn't like his character as much as he thought would and wants another? Maybe he prefers a more action oriented game than what you're providing?

I've just never run into a situation in which in-game penalties for character death actually prevents character deaths... At best, there's no difference, and at worst you end up with PCs that are overly cautious, overly paranoid, and decidedly unheroic all in an effort to avoid death. The few times I could see it applying all seem like situations that would be better handled by speaking with the player.

 

[billd91]

Unfairly enough the party did have one raise dead scroll and gave it to the barbarian because the adult player threw a tantram. He then decided to bring in a different character anyway. The DM let him come in at full XP and gear (partially due to the whining) but also because there was some penalty for his character's death. (It seems my penalty is a little harsher.)

Given the context of the DM not treating you fairly because you didn't whine, I'd say you're right to be miffed.

 

[billd91]

Many years ago, I played in a 3rd Edition campaign run by a DM who used a similar rule... In fact, it had been standard practice for our group that new characters would join the group at one level lower than the party's average level (or something very similar). At any rate, because this particular DM's play-style (a very rules-gotcha, out-to-get-the-PCs, adversarial sort of DM) and the adventure we were playing through (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil), we ended up playing for nearly a year (weekly 4-hour sessions) but our average party level never increased in all that time, because of the number of levels effectively lost to character deaths. In the end, we rebelled against the DM and ended the campaign early... The encounters and threats kept increasing in power, but our characters collectively couldn't keep up with them.

So, ever since then, I've had new characters introduced at the average party level (unless the details of the campaign dictate otherwise). If the PC died for in-game reasons, then there is no reason to penalize the player. If the PC died because the player was being stupid in some way, then that's better addressed out-of-game with the player.

Therefore, I no longer believe in penalizing a character in-game for dying, and for similar reasons I no longer believe in in-game penalties for player absences.

In earlier days of D&D, introducing a new character to replace a dead one but at a lower level used to work. But many chances in the game over the years, from the XP progression in the tables to saves based on spell level and increased knife-edge balance, have reduced the tolerance of the game for mixed level parties. I no longer allow XP totals to drift from PC to PC (and attendance records of players), nor do I have new characters start at a lower level.

 

[Agamon]

The problem didn't have anything to do with inflexibility in the adventure plot... It had to do with the fact that we were playing through an adventure that was widely considered a meat-grinder with a DM who considered it his duty to kill the PCs, using any and every method at his disposal (he told us this once).

Over the course of that year, we averaged one character death per session, and we only had one original character survive from beginning to end. Side quests would not have helped, not only because it was not in the nature of the DM to provide such resource-boosting assistance, but also because he would have planned them to be just as deadly as the main adventure.

Your DM was outright trying to kill PCs in RttToEE??!? An easy going DM will kill at least a PC every other session in that thing. I'm no killer DM, and my players went through 24 PCs in that adventure. Adding the -1 level penalty and yeah, death spiral, for sure.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OP, I don't do that to people...anymore. These days, I bring in new PCs at the same level and geared up like everyone else. I think that most parties would bring in a new guy who is approximately as experienced as whomever they lost. If Seal Team 6 lost a man, they'd be looking for replacements from the military's elite experienced warriors, not the guys out of boot camp.

And shorting someone on gear just makes a weak spot weaker.

I used to do it, though. I could see the logic of a hanger-on or cannot being brought in because he "shows potential." And if you do group XP, the new guy will level rapidly. It could even be fun playing Bucky to someone's Capt. America.

As long as you remember...Bucky got killed.

So I don't do that anymore. If YOU want to bmring in your PC as a lesser guy for whatever reason, I'm cool with that. But it will be your decision, not my ruling.