How do you handle character death?

If he is an experienced player, I let him start a new character at the level that everyone else is at. It makes no sense to me to require a player with 30 years experience to start at 1st level because he hasn't "earned" a higher level.

After all, did I as the referee "earn" all the levels of the 18th-level evil sorcerer NPC? Of course not. I earned none of them--not a single x.p. I simply made the sorcerer that way from scratch. What's good for the referee is good for the players.

For brand new players, I'd start them out as 1st level PCs in a group of other 1st level PCs. I think that makes for the most fun for the new guys.

The game I'm in has seen many characters die off (and not all because of player error -- those hobgoblins were just too tough!)

We've only had one get to second level. But I'd be at second level if I was still playing my first character.

So the thought struck me: Why not just give the experience to the player, instead of the character? If I show up every session, I deserve a little extra (at least I think I do). And then, even if my character gets blown away (especially in one of those save-or-die situations), I can come back into the game without too much loss.

Note that I haven't tried this, or even really thought it through much, so it's still in the idea stage. But it's a possibility.

I am a big believer that this is one of the major purposes of finding good henchmen. When the PC dies, the player can start running the henchman. That being said, it is nice if you allow the player to roll up the henchman.

When a character dies, the player makes a new character with half the experience, so it's usually a 1-level penalty unless going between thief and magic-user or something like that.

The highest level character just snuffed it last month, and we've got a couple of new players (I started them at second level, but 0XP), so the average power level of the group just dropped like a rock.

Heck, I've had henchmen I was jealous of (plotting to kill your henchman for his stuff; huh, right out if you are a good or lawful character). But, though I never really considered it before, the most fun "replacements" I've had were characters coming in at the starting x.p. level of, or the level before that of, the dead character. Also, a few games I've been in, we had "Wills" which left our belongings and gold to lower-level relatives -- assuming the body was recovered. I've had party-members who decided that certain items were "lost" (to their pockets) to be replaced by gold before the "Will" was "read" to the new character. I played in character and never "suspected" the switch -- actually had two instances where players come clean with my characters and apologized once they got to know them.

Also, I have a large "stable" of characters from former games and DMs have been generous in looking over them and letting one in as a replacement or where you are joining a running, higher level campaign. This means that you are familiar with the character and the other players get to "learn," and learn to trust, the character. If moving from a low-magic to high-magic campaign, a look at the type of magic already in the party and a quick wit and tongue can gain some nice goodies. The alternative, high to low, gives the DM that greatest of DM pleasures, stripping away the character's best items. Always remember it is the DM who has the say-so as to whether the character and his goodies get it.

Lastly, I've been in a few very fun games or even campaign arcs leading to the return of the dead character -- in higher-level games. Play an NPC or a ghost in the meantime.

Thanks for all these great responses! Some interesting thoughts, and it's good to see such a range of opinions represented.

Let me just clarify *why* this question is a concern: I don't think I've *ever* killed off a player's primary character in nearly 20 years of game mastering! My group's play style just never seemed to have room for the possibility. Now, with the increased attention the so-called "old school renaissance" is getting, I'm really interested in what we've been missing. Therefore, I wanted to make sure that my OD&D campaign included the possibility of PC death AND that death served as a significant enough disincentive that the players would have a healthy fear of it. So, I'm hoping to find just the right balance between letting the new characters start at the same level, which I fear would cause the players to blow off the dangers inherent in the dungeon, and having to start all the way back at the beginning, which could get very frustrating.

Here's another question for you- How do your players typically react to a character dying? Do they get upset? Or do they see it as just a part of the fun of the game?

It's all part of the fun, just like it's part of the fun for the DM when NPCs get killed.

You just never know. To some, PCs are little more than playing pieces on a chess board, I am in this group. I've regretted the loss of a character but never been upset by it.

To others, the PC is like a part of themselves, and that loss freaks them out.

To still others, a dead PC is like a losing the game and to them winning is everything.

It is to be hoped you play with mature gamers and, whatever their initial reaction, it is momentary and restrained.

I just remove the experience cap until the new player reaches about a level below the rest of the party. That way, the newly created character starts at first level, but can achieve multiple levels per adventure. Works for us.

That brings up something that should probably be in its own thread. Way back when, especially in OD&D, everyone (at least in the games I was in) had one character and usually played in character. More recently, I've seen a lot of games where everyone has two or three PCs. Me, I like playing in character and find it less enjoyable when I have multiple characters -- I can't "get into" any one of them. What are the feelings re: PCs? Alternate personas or chess pieces? One at a time or a horde?

I've always liked the Dark Sun way of handling it with a character tree. Each player rolls up about five characters and chooses whichever one they want to for an adventure ("Bob wants to play a magic-user this game? Okay, I'll bust out my fighter."). That character gains all of the XP earned for that adventure.

A like amount of XP is placed into the "tree pool" and divvied out amongst the other characters in the tree as the player sees fit. They can allocate it all to one character, spread it evenly amongst the other four characters, or any combination in between. This accomplishes several things:

1) Each player has several pre-generated characters to choose from when playing an adventure.

2) If a PC dies during an adventure, the party can "conveniently" find another character from the tree elsewhere during the adventure so that there's minimal downtime.

3) The adventuring character earns all of the XP they're entitled to for an adventure.

4) Other characters in the tree are assumed to be off doing things that earn them XP, but not as much as if they were actually adventuring.

5) It's an interesting metagame where the players have to make decisions about how often they play one character and how the distribution of pooled XP affects their non-adventuring characters. If a player plays one character exclusively, they get a high-level character. But if that PC dies, they're stuck with several much lower level characters to continue the adventure with. But if the players constantly rotates the characters they play, they may end up being overshadowed by other PCs who are being played more often.