Too Much Effort to Make New Characters?

[Jd Smith1]

TPKs are simply not fun.

TPKs rock! It forces the players to put some skin in the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you were the GM, how would you respond to a group's attitude that if their characters die, you should just re-play the encounter or move on anyway - because it's too much work to make a new character and losing an evening's worth of game progress is "punishment enough?"
Like, I'm flabbergasted here. Maybe these people shouldn't be playing RPGs - or at least mainstream games like D&D or Pathfinder?

My reaction would be "If you didn't want a game where character death was possible you should have told me when we started one where that's default true."

 

[bloodtide]

My reaction would be "If you didn't want a game where character death was possible you should have told me when we started one where that's default true."

True enough....you don't want character death, play a game like TOON.

 

[Thomas Shey]

True enough....you don't want character death, play a game like TOON.

Neither what I said, nor implied. There are games well more serious than Toon that have little or no non-volitional character death. That was the point; if that's what one wants there are many options, but D&D historically had not been one.

 

[Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper]

If you were the GM, how would you respond to a group's attitude that if their characters die, you should just re-play the encounter or move on anyway - because it's too much work to make a new character and losing an evening's worth of game progress is "punishment enough?"
Like, I'm flabbergasted here. Maybe these people shouldn't be playing RPGs - or at least mainstream games like D&D or Pathfinder?

I'm not a big fan of players that try to give a GM ultimatums.

A GM should try to be fair though and if there is an action a player has declared, which the GM knows will be potentially fatal, then a GM should ask the player if they are sure and perhaps even point out the danger involved. Success might make them look like a big hero, and failure will end with a grave marker or a visit to a local cleric for a resurrection.

While I don't do it often, I love those do or die moments in the game as it makes the success so rewarding and makes for a great story. Death is not always final, but reviving might come either at the cost of some gold, or a mission the party must now complete for the local cleric.

I fail to see the appeal of playing an rpg where I play a character who can never die, regardless of what actions I take. It sounds like your players don't want consequences for their actions. What will you do if they start being agents of chaos, burning down towns or mass murdering people? Part of the fun of engaging with the story, is dealing with the often unanticipated consequences of player actions. If players don't want to be affected by the consequences of their actions then rpg'ing is not their fit -- time for them to go back to playing video games where they can save their progress as many times as they like.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

It sounds like your players don't want consequences for their actions.

This is not a dig at you, Kor. You just happened to say it and it dinged in my mind...

There are LOTS of consequences for actions besides death. Death, really, is a minor one easily overcome by just making another character and, oftentimes, has nothing to do with the playing skill or character skill but just a series of poor dice rolls.

Character death, really, is just a speedbump in playtime. It's not real world death where you're done playing the game of life forever. However, loss of property, reputation, loved ones, etc. often have a much longer lasting impact on the Player's Character.

While I do have characters die in my games (and even TPKs on very rare occasions), I much prefer imposing one of the other consequences as I find just killing a character unsatisfying. Typically, in the games I run, both the player and I have to agree on the character's death unless it stems from them doing something willfully idiotic ("I attack the dragon with a toothpick! I'm invincible!!) or the "fiction" of the game makes it clear that death is the only outcome that makes sense ("Your space fighter crashes at Mach 6 into the asteroid").

 

[Yora]

If the players want to reload an old save to just keep going with the adventure, that sounds to me like their priority is not about playing the game but listening to the story. And at that point, something has clearly gone wrong.
It could very well be the players having distorted expectations of what an RPG should be. But I think ultimately this points quite strongly to the players not having a sense that they have any agency in the game at all. They are expecting the story to happen to them, not to create the story. And that situation could possibly to a good part be on the GM.

 

[Jd Smith1]

This is not a dig at you, Kor. You just happened to say it and it dinged in my mind...

There are LOTS of consequences for actions besides death. Death, really, is a minor one easily overcome by just making another character and, oftentimes, has nothing to do with the playing skill or character skill but just a series of poor dice rolls.

Easily overcome? When your PC dies and gets replaced by a new PC, back to basic (or 1st level)? That's a hefty set-back.

 

[grankless]

If the players want to reload an old save to just keep going with the adventure, that sounds to me like their priority is not about playing the game but listening to the story. And at that point, something has clearly gone wrong.
It could very well be the players having distorted expectations of what an RPG should be. But I think ultimately this points quite strongly to the players not having a sense that they have any agency in the game at all. They are expecting the story to happen to them, not to create the story. And that situation could possibly to a good part be on the GM.

This may shock you, but it's quite possible these players may have enjoyed the story and the way their current characters experienced it. I'm not sure where you get off just assuming they hate the game.

Easily overcome? When your PC dies and gets replaced by a new PC, back to basic (or 1st level)? That's a hefty set-back.

The general social contract of play is that the new character gets slotted in to the party without any fuss, regardless of the party dynamics already at play. They're not going to be "back to basics" besides the fact that they don't have the past experiences of the campaign behind them; punishing a player whose character died by giving them an even weaker PC (if that's what you're implying) is just nonsense outside of any game that isn't some OSR games.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The general social contract of play is that the new character gets slotted in to the party without any fuss, regardless of the party dynamics already at play. They're not going to be "back to basics" besides the fact that they don't have the past experiences of the campaign behind them; punishing a player whose character died by giving them an even weaker PC (if that's what you're implying) is just nonsense outside of any game that isn't some OSR games.

Gaming since 1979, and I've never seen that done. A PC dies, their replacement comes at entry level. When the group goes into combat, they put it all on the line.

Miss a session, no XP/RP/etc.