Your preference for how "fragile" 1st-level character should be

[neceros]

I hate low levels in 3x games so much I never play nor run a game under level 5. That's when you are actually able to influence your surroundings effectively.

...Another is that it just means 'I flip a coin, you live or you die'. It's Not Fun...

The biggest problem with it for me is it invalidates core mechanics, like HP.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

As both a DM and a player:

I would like to see 1st-level characters as "fragile" as commoners (without obvious differences when it comes to say a wizard 1st-level or a barbarian 1st-level). Now this also depends on how "fragile" a commoner is. I want commoners to be weak, yes, and easily defeated by monsters, but... When you have a town of commoners they should be able to defend themselves from like a roaming small-band of goblins for instance.

This would also make sense in the "Points of Light" setting where in many cases it will be just commoners defending themselves from the encroaching darkness.

So in 3.5 terms I would like to see commoners at say... 13 HP, but a barbarin-PC would have say 17-20 HP, but a frail-wizard on the other hand, have say 10-12 HP.

 

[shilsen]

Well, but when SHOULD they die by chance? Isn't Dying By Chance one of the major plot elements of D&D?

Not when I'm DMing, nor when most of the people whose games I'm a player in are DMing. Hell, I've basically taken death out of the game and it's only been a positive for my game, with no negative effects when it comes to challenging PCs or keeping them on their toes (and their players on edge).

Besides the fact that it suits my tastes, I think the game's better served by minimizing the chances of random death in it. Random death is easier to insert into a system that doesn't have it than it is to remove from a system that has it, IMO.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I mostly Dm and much prefer tougher 1st level PCs. I'm a little surprised that that is the most popular answer by nearly 3:1 though! My next 3.5 game will see all of the PCs starting with double max HP at 1st

 

[ptolemy18]

Why do you think people hate Save or Dies so much? The biggest complaint against them is that "It leaves the PC's death up to a pure random chance".

I love Save-or-Die. It sucks (IMHO, obviously) that it was removed from the new edition, although I have some faith that they'll replace it with new combat mechanics which are also interesting and dramatic and which -- importantly -- don't reduce the overall challenge level of the game.

Everyone has their own preferred kind of D&D, of course. To me, D&D is one part heroic adventure stories AND one part random chance to keep the story interesting ("Oh no! This shocking and unexpected death has totally altered the course of the campaign!") Whether that random-chance-of-death comes down to one bad die roll, or a series of bad die rolls, is just a question of degree. And anyone who is so attached to a character (or NPC) that they will freak out (out-of-character, that is) if they die...... well, I'm not one of those people, and I don't like playing with them, either as a DM or a player. The instant that I feel the DM is "going soft on the players" is the instant I lose interest in the game and feel like I'm basically just sitting around in a big pat-one-another-on-the-back-about-how-great-our-characters-are-all-the-way-to-30th-level hug circle. It's one big "ooooh we are all destined to be heroes" Mary-Sue-fest. There's no satisfaction in character advancement unless it involves risk of losing that character (or having that character weakened significantly, in which case losing the character may be preferable), and I would say that the story in such a game is less satisfying, too.

Basically -- I think we may have different D&D philosophies.

 

[ptolemy18]

The biggest problem with it for me is it invalidates core mechanics, like HP.

HP is only one of several core mechanics. Ability scores, Reflex, Will and (well, to a lesser extent) Fortitude are all other clearly definable separate characteristics which can and should be linked to the character's status. Making all death involve loss of HP eliminates other interesting possibilities and gives even more power to high-HP classes such as barbarians, fighters, etc. As for the idea that it should be impossible to go from maximum HP to death instantly... well, I'm not saying it should happen a *lot*, because it is obviously A Big Shock and it is obviously Playing Hardball, but it *should* happen sometimes. It's a token nod to realism, it's in all the other RPGs I like in some form (Call of Cthulhu, KULT, Dying Earth), and it's... it's just not such a big thing to freak out over, as far as I'm concerned.

I realize that Save-or-Die is out of 4e so this pointless but.... w00t! Save-or-Die 4ever! ~_~

 

[ptolemy18]

Not when I'm DMing, nor when most of the people whose games I'm a player in are DMing. Hell, I've basically taken death out of the game and it's only been a positive for my game, with no negative effects when it comes to challenging PCs or keeping them on their toes (and their players on edge).

Two things:

(1) This is something I've been wanting to ask someone who plays in a death-free (or death-light) campaign. And I mean this seriously... how do you do it in practice? The 1e-3e rules as written include Random Death. Even the 4e rules will certainly include Random Death, albeit through HP loss, in the form of an accumulation of lucky monster hit-and-damage rolls, rather than in Save-or-Dies. So in your games, do you make sure to have a low threat level so that no player can ever be taken below -11 HP, or do you change the rules so that -10 HP doesn't mean death, or do you fudge these rolls? When the monster rolls high and the player drops down to -11 HP, do you say to the player "Ah ha ha... nope! You're at -4! Don't worry, you won't lose your character!" This sounds rather undramatic, and every time I've been in such a situation as a player, I've felt rather cheated and disappointed. Sure, it's nice not having your character die, but I also feel "Oh, this game isn't 'serious.' There's no real risk here. The DM's just trying to be nice to us because he's afraid that if he kills our characters we'll get mad and leave the campaign."

I'm not saying I don't understand the urge to keep the characters alive. Right now I'm running a death-light game myself... I'm running a 3.5 game using the "cinematic" rules in "Skull & Bones", so that each PC starts with x number of "lives", and you don't permanently die until you lose all of your "lives." But when you lose a "life", you have a chance of getting a scar, losing your arm or leg, etc. etc. It helps make death have meaning, but it means that the characters have a few chances to mess up and "die", without dying permanently and leaving dangling plot threads. I can appreciate the desire to keep the same characters around throughout the entire campaign to have plot continuity if you have a tightly written plot. But I cannot appreciate the desire to keep the same characters around "just because it's not fun to lose your character," because in fact I would argue that it actually can be fun.

(2) I've never been so attached to a D&D character that I didn't have an idea for another, different, (arguably) better character which I could make when that character died.

 

[ptolemy18]

Another is that you have to sit out of the fight because the save or die took you down in the first or second round and it's boring.

That can happen from actual hit point loss, too.

 

[Rechan]

That can happen from actual hit point loss, too.

Very rarely at levels where save or die is getting thrown around.

 

[shilsen]

This is something I've been wanting to ask someone who plays in a death-free (or death-light) campaign. And I mean this seriously... how do you do it in practice?

Here's how I do it. I allow players to throw in swashbuckling cards to survive an effect which would kill the PC (whether through hit point loss, save or die spells, or any other kind). The PC drops to -9 hp and is stable, but can't be healed up till the fight ends, and can be killed if intentionally targeted.

As for the other stuff you mentioned, my players would roll over laughing if you told them that I was taking it easy on their PCs. The main thing a game needs to remain exciting, as far as my tastes are concerned, are challenges and consequences for failure. Personally, I think of death in the game as a fairly boring result of failure, since it means the PC (who is now dead, after all) doesn't have to deal with the failure any more. I'd much rather have PCs remain alive to live with the consequences of their failure. There are dozens of other consequences a creative DM can have in the game besides death, and I use a large number of them. So the PCs don't die, but they're challenged and they suffer. Oh boy, do they suffer! In fact, a lot of the time, letting them die would be taking things easy on them. But I'm not nice enough to do that.