Illithidelderbrain said:

Why punish the player uneceserily like that? If he's already lost the character, perhaps to bad rolls, why should he then be set back rather majorly, and punished further? One solution I see it is to let his new character start at the same XP his old one had.

Giantmoth said:

Why do you see it as punishment? I mean its pretty rare that player charachter dies simply because of bad rolls. Its more common that the death of a PC is the result of bad choices and tactics rather than simply bad rolls. At least I design the adventures I GM, to be that way. That obstacles can usually be overcome if the PC's (and thereby the players too) keep their wits and smarts about them. If the players feel like leaving their brains at home and just make stupid desicions then the death of their PC's is only their own fault. You can hardly blame the dice all the time...

Giantmoth said:

Because the only other option is to make a new character at 1st level/rank/whatnot. Which would you rather have?

Illithidelderbrain said:

A good point of course. If you're gonna do it by the book, then the player would have to start totally fresh. That would probably not be very fun.

Illithidelderbrain said:

Uh no, there's plenty of other options on how to deal with the situation.

I think losing the character is enough of a punishment for playing unsafe, being unlucky, or what else might have goten you killed. My players tend to develop very vivid characters with good personalities, many of them sit down and write long backstories. Losing their characters is a dissapointment, but that's how the game is. I think making them lose all that hard earned XP as well is further salting their wounds. But this might just be my group philosophy.

Giantmoth said:

Dude, I really advocate a "do what you feel is best" philosophy here and im in no way trying to convince you that anything that I say is better than what you and your group thinks. Just to make that clear first so we can continue the argument a bit, ok?

Although losing a character might feel like "punishment" to some players who take a good bit of pride in their character, I dont really think any game system rules are trying to emulate character death as "punishment" but rather as a natural fact of life. I mean, if you put yourself in dangerous situations in life, then the death you might suffer isnt punishment, thats just how it is. Life is fragile, and if you put yourself in situations where lifes fragile nature will be put to the test, then there is a chance you might lose your life. Don't you agree?

Although I have to say that its really a good thing that your characters spend time in developing vivid characters. It really shows that they are engaged in their gaming, and the RPG experience tend to be a whole lot better if all the participants are engaged like that. However, if your players are that engaged, arent they engaged in the story of the game? I mean, every RPG is usually played out as a story with a plot and its twist, its heroes and villans, hooks and red herrings etc. Sometimes the story demands that certain characters die to be a good story. Sometimes it means that NPCs must die, but sometimes it means that player characters have to die. Don't you think that playing will be a little boring if there is no particular reprocussion what so ever if something vital isnt "lost" if a player character die? I mean, if a player can just start fresh with all the XP he or she amassed with the previous character, then how will a PC's death stand out as an important event in the campaign?

I dont know, perhaps your players are good at emulating that sense of loss anyway. And I cant stress it enough that your way of doing things is just as good as anyone elses and no one can go about it the "wrong" way. One should do what the relevant group is happy with, and thats what it really is to it. But for the sake of argument and keeping the thread going I thought it could be nice if I point out why I disagree a bit with your philosophy. I hope you dont mind me doing so.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Well stated.

Giant, I gave you an example of how my group deals with absentee players, and how we handle in game death. We arrived at our solution through group consensus. We all agree on what you "retain" from your dead character (Usually, we bury our dead characters and return their gear to their surviving family). That being 1/2 of the origin character's xp. If you like it, use it. If you don't, then disregard it. But please don't try to "argue" that your way is somehow better than mine or any other group's methods. We all do what works best for us.

Happy gaming.

One key axiom of GMing: reward what you want to see more of.

If there is no loss of XP for non-attendence, then you reward non-attendence.
If you let players write new characters with the same XP total, you reward players for letting you kill off characters.

How much a penalty needs be imposed to disincentivise the behaviors varies by group and the behaviors.

Illithidelderbrain said:

I thought it would be pretty clear by the last sentence of my post that I was only only stating and arguing for my group philosophy, not saying "this is how it must be". As a matter of fact, it was your blanket statement "The only other way is to make them start at rank 1" that made me think you were doing what you are acusing me off.

But regardless, this is getting off topic, so that will be the end of that.