How do you handle character death?

[Deleted]

So, I'm starting an old school game, and my players are *very* daunted by the possibility of their characters dying. In particular, they're concerned about potential problems resulting from a new first level character rejoining a high level group and facing much greater danger as a result. We've discussed implementing some sort of "fate point" system that would allow new characters to start at a higher level, but we're stuck on some of the specifics.

I'm curious, how do other groups handle these issues? Do you allow for a new character to start at a higher level, and if so, how do you determine at what level they should start? Or, do you simply have the new character start at first and, I dunno, hide in the back for a while?

[Deleted]

I've handled this situation, and have seen it handled, in various ways. Perhaps these will be use to you.

First, how big a difference? If it is within three levels I wouldn't make any adjustments.

If more than three levels you can give the newbies half the average level of the rest of the group, rounded down. Thus, a character joining a group with an average of 7 levels would be granted third level.

Or, you can allow the new players to start a character at the same level as the lowest member of the group.

Allow the players to assume the role of any DM-run companion NPCs or (with the agreement of the PC in question) any henchmen NPCs.

[geoffrey]

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.

[busman]

I haven't really ever had a problem with 1st level characters coming into more experienced groups. But, more often than not, people had more than one character in a campaign and if someone or multiple someones died, others would play lower level characters until a group of higher level characters could play. If that wasn't the flavor of the day, then the new character would come in as a squire of one of the other characters or son, etc.

A pretty frequent occurrence in our groups is to create large family trees with players claiming dibs on various characters within a family. Each player being the head of one household, controlling the families assets, etc.

[coffee]

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.

[Arminath]

I usually handle them one at a time, ya know, to give them that personal touch. When I can though, I like giving groups a hit point discount.

Seriously though, I had 1 actual PC die in each of the first 3 sessions of my S&W campaign - one got axed by a berserker, another by an orc and the third speared by an orc. They just rolled up a new character and I worked them back into the game. No fuss(ing), no muss.

[parmstrong]

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.

[palmer]

I've had players make their characters a formal adventuring company, with a charter that spells out the company's duties towards it's members. This usually includes as joint fund for healing, curse removal, and resurrection. If the party convinces a powerful cleric to be their patron, It's easier to get downer characters reupholstered. Of course, then that cleric patron can get all patronizing. That's the part thats fun for me.

[jimlotfp]

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.

[Ghul]

If the PC party averages 8th level or higher, and one of them dies, I don't think it is terrible to allow a 2nd or 3rd level new character. However, if the prospective 1st level character can be patient, stay in the back, and learn from his companions, he will likely gain levels more quickly than if he'd adventured with others of his own low level average; i.e. in a game where gold = EP. Another "however" is that the low level character, subject to area of effect spells and monster powers is screwed no matter how conservative he plays it. So, it is indeed a tough question.

Another consideration is this: I have DMed high level groups where one has died and a new character needs to be rolled up. Upon offering the player the chance to start at 2nd level, he declined, preferring to earn it on his own. So, I think it is a case by case, group by group consideration.

Lastly, I've also found that my players are not interested in playing one of their own lowly henchmen, even if they are fond of the NPC. It's just not the same.

[agcias]

May 3, 2009 8:13:23 GMT -6 Ghul said:

Lastly, I've also found that my players are not interested in playing one of their own lowly henchmen, even if they are fond of the NPC. It's just not the same.

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.

[Deleted]

In my campaign all valuables had to be returned to the dead PCs "estate" or to his or her heir. If they decided to keep anything the estate could reasonably expect book value + 20%. An exception was made for clerics, who were assumed to allow their companions to take whatever they needed and donate the rest to departed's church.

If that wasn't paid in full, bad things started to happen to the offending character. Missed saving throws, bad reaction rolls, increased wandering monster checks ... and they got worse from there.

The gods (played by myself) took a dim view of looting the corpse of a companion!

[Deleted]

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?

[busman]

It's REALLY hard to kill off a high level character, unless it's a save vs. death sort of a thing, but I tend to avoid those for adventures for characters over about level 5 or so. My experience has been that if the players understand it was their error or overzealousness, it's part of the game. If they feel it's cheap, then they tend to get upset. I've never seen anyone be angry at a death for a character level 3 and under before.

I remember killing off my brother level 18 magic user back in the day. He was not pleased. I didn't actually change any rolls, but I did harshly interpret some of the situation. By that time he had built up such an arsenal of magics and such that it cost him some xp, gold and a bit of time, but it was mostly a bump in the road at that point.

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing. Get your players to play lots of Dwarf Fortress. They need to embrace it's motto: "Losing is fun!"

It' can be a heck of a lot of fun allowing your characters to die off, especially at level 1-3.

[geoffrey]

May 3, 2009 22:34:24 GMT -6 @bohemian said:

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.

[apeloverage]

Drain away the awkwardness with wights ;D

[Deleted]

May 3, 2009 22:34:24 GMT -6 @bohemian said:

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?

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.

[foster1941]

May 2, 2009 7:20:05 GMT -6 @bohemian said:

So, I'm starting an old school game, and my players are *very* daunted by the possibility of their characters dying. In particular, they're concerned about potential problems resulting from a new first level character rejoining a high level group and facing much greater danger as a result. We've discussed implementing some sort of "fate point" system that would allow new characters to start at a higher level, but we're stuck on some of the specifics.

I'm curious, how do other groups handle these issues? Do you allow for a new character to start at a higher level, and if so, how do you determine at what level they should start? Or, do you simply have the new character start at first and, I dunno, hide in the back for a while?

If the players are scared of their characters dying they should do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen. if they're worried about having to start a new 1st level character as part of a high-level party, they should do everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen either. Don't adjust the rules, adjust your play-style!

If you go into the game assuming that your character is going to die and there's nothing you can do about it then you've already lost. Likewise if you're depending on lucky die-rolling to keep him alive. You never want to depend on a die-roll to keep your character alive (and, for that matter, every time you roll the dice you should have a Plan B in mind in case the roll fails -- and if the Plan B is "my guy dies and I roll a new one" then you should do whatever you can to avoid having to make that die roll).

[gloriousbattle]

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.

[agcias]

May 3, 2009 22:34:24 GMT -6 @bohemian said:

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?

Hurt them (whip them, call them Mable), reduce stats and x.p., bring them back with a lower level and without powerful items, but don't make them start from scratch. Considering that I once figured that I and my friends spent about 90 hours getting a character to 6th level, losing the character is punishment enough.

As to player reaction, I've seen everything from disgust to one guy who punched a door (and broke his hand) rather than punch the moronic "guest" PC who had caused his death. I've only lost a couple of characters of over 5th level and each time to PC stupidity. In one case (a 150 hour character, since I added up the games afterward), several people asked my why I wasn't more upset over his death. I had been certain from the beginning of the three-part dungeon that he was going to die -- and he did, at the exit to the dungeon and because one PC chose not to share something I had said with the rest of the group. See, PC stupidity.

Oh, BTW, Arrak's tombstone reads "Something he disagreed with ate him." This was long enough ago that I thought it was original.

But, generally, people have taken it well -- it is, after all, part of the game.

[agcias]

May 2, 2009 12:08:21 GMT -6 busman said:

But, more often than not, people had more than one character in a campaign and if someone or multiple someones died, others would play lower level characters until a group of higher level characters could play.

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?

[Deleted]

May 6, 2009 15:38:39 GMT -6 agcias said:

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?

In my current campaign, it's one PC per player. One guy has a henchman rolled up that he'll play as if his PC dies, but I'll be playing him until then. I definitely want to avoid the "chess piece" approach.

[longcoat000]

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.

[agcias]

May 7, 2009 14:23:14 GMT -6 @bohemian said:

In my current campaign, it's one PC per player. One guy has a henchman rolled up that he'll play as if his PC dies, but I'll be playing him until then. I definitely want to avoid the "chess piece" approach.

Good for you. I've run and played in campaigns that had anything from 2 to eight characters per person and it radically changes the zeitgeist. Oddly, my first RPG was a bootleg copy of a playtest version of "In The Labyrinth" (a Pre-SJ Games/GURPS Steve Jackson game). Everyone had bands of characters (Kothar's Kossacks, McKinzie's Marauders) and none of us had any concept of "playing in character." Oddly, when we discovered OD&D we all adopted it and no one even looked back. It wasn't that it was a better gaming system, I don't think it was. The concept of role playing, actually BEING the character, was just that enticing.

[busman]

May 6, 2009 15:38:39 GMT -6 agcias said:

May 2, 2009 12:08:21 GMT -6 busman said:

But, more often than not, people had more than one character in a campaign and if someone or multiple someones died, others would play lower level characters until a group of higher level characters could play.

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?

To be clear, I never allow a player to run more than one character during a play session. What I meant was characters active in any given world.

Often one set of PCs would be in the middle of an adventure at the end of a session, rather than just make do the next session when someone couldn't make it, we'd run another adventure with a different set of PCs rather than break the flow of those adventurers or have the missing PCs be played by the GM, etc.