When the "unthinkable" happens and a PC dies...do you allow the player to create a character with the same amount of XP as he had going in, or does he have to start over from scratch?

Or do other GMs out there have other clever ideas?

I make them start from scratch. Otherwise whats stopping the PCs from acting like fools and getting themselves killed left and right. If you make it a blow to the player maybe they will think first before diving head first into a sarlacc pit with a thermal detonator to take it out!

For me it depends on why they died and the groups power level. If they did something stupid they star from scratch. If the group is higher power like + 50 exp for example I would give them +25 exp. I want a penalty but I don't want them to be so underpowered they get disengaged and feel useless.

I always go for the same amount of XP. Or if the player wants to start with less XP as a rookie, I'd find a way to give them some other tangible benefit.

Why? I sometimes play with a group that starts new characters from scratch (whether because the player's last character died or because a new player is joining the group). I really, really hate it. To me there's nothing fun about being mechanically incompetent compared to everyone else. It seems like a punishment for joining a game after it's started or worse, as a punishment for "letting" your character die. Yeah sometimes PCs do stupid or risky things, but penalizing a player's second character with potentially a lot less XP because their first character, say, decided to perform a heroic sacrifice to save the rest of their team...that just seems wrong to me. I'd rather they feel free to take big, crazy, cinematic risks or heroically sacrifice themselves for the good of their friends than be scared of character death simply because they will be way behind on the XP curve and will never catch up unless other characters also die.

Consider also other systems (mostly thinking of FFG's 40k line, or Shadowrun) have mechanics that allow you to cheat death even if you take death-worthy damage (burning Fate or Edge, respectively). That allows a player to have a crazy sacrifice moment, or escape a lucky, nasty shot - with a mechanical consequence (lowered Fate/Edge stat, may require prosthetics, etc). Yes, in some ways it's a layer of Plot Armor for central characters (PCs and the truly important, powerful NPCs) but it's not at all unlimited. I'm a little disappointed that a similar mechanic doesn't appear in the Star Wars lines, given how cinematic Star Wars is and how much Plot Armor canon Star Wars characters had for much of the EU.

Re: players being fast and loose with their character's life. What's your incentive to not let your character die stupidly? I have attachment to the characters I play, I'm invested in them and their growth and don't want their story to end stupidly or casually (though sometimes the story Nemesis just aims really well and brings someone down - that in particular sounds like a really stupid reason to start a player at 0 XP). If they die, I want it to be heroic or climactic. Some people don't have that attachment to their characters, but I consider them the exceptions rather than the rule.

I think what I'm going to do in case this happens is have the new character start with 10*d6 less XP than the character they're replacing. Maybe 10*2d6 if they did something really dumb. This would cap at starting XP, as in they couldn't go below that, but it does make it sting a little to die.

I'm also not really a fan of the deus ex machina feel of just happening to stumble across a new person looking for adventure, and oh look he just so happens to be exactly as experienced as you all are! I feel like it kind of cheapens the story.

This is, however, my first time GM'ing any system, so I may realize I'm completely off base once we get into it.

I think what I'm going to do in case this happens is have the new character start with 10*d6 less XP than the character they're replacing. Maybe 10*2d6 if they did something really dumb. This would cap at starting XP, as in they couldn't go below that, but it does make it sting a little to die.

I'm also not really a fan of the deus ex machina feel of just happening to stumble across a new person looking for adventure, and oh look he just so happens to be exactly as experienced as you all are! I feel like it kind of cheapens the story.

This is, however, my first time GM'ing any system, so I may realize I'm completely off base once we get into it.

As long as it is fair to all your players it should be fine. Just pay attention to make sure that one of the characters isn't becoming marginalized due to the difference in XP. Give them a bit more spotlight than normal, but keep it fair with the rest of the player group.

It's also really subjective what is "stupid." When I say "stupid death" I tend to mean "gunned down by a mook's lucky shot; a nasty roll of the dice that comes down completely against the player." Especially since I don't like to fudge rolls, and frequently play in known lethal gae systes where the playersknow death is likely (and have systems to avoid it, at least a few times).

I figure it's a big enough "punishment" if a character that a player was invested in is no longer able to be played in this game. I feel like giving a risky player (and some players like to play risky, it's their style) less XP for a subsequent character after they took risks and died is implicitly saying "your play style is stupid and I want to disincentivize it." Never mind the fact that in Star Wars (and numerous other systems based on cinema) that cinematic risk-taking is part and parcel of what separates the PCs and big antagonists from the unwashed masses! Luke Skywalker (who was at that point by no means a trained soldier) stood in the middle of a Death Star hangar, completely out of cover, and started shooting into a squad of stormtroopers, expressing a huge frustration and rage at the loss of the only person he knew who could tell him about his father. That's pretty stupid (objectively speaking, from a "surviving a firefight" point of view), but it's also hugely cinematic. Same can be said about intentionally falling down the shaft on Cloud City instead of joining Vader. That was basically suicide, but Luke survived.

A player can think his character is performing a cool, heroic last stand or fulfilling an important personal goal at the cost of his life, or sticking to his moral code and effectively killing himself rather than giving in and betraying himself; the GM may just think it's dumb. Diving into a sarlacc with a thermal detonator - something clearly led to that point in the story. Maybe something legit. If it's just a random, stupid thing to do, and your players are wont to do random, stupid things for no reason, then your table has some deeper problems. If it's for a heroic reason...well, there's no context in that example, obviously, but I don't like to penalize players for doing something dumb/dangerous for a good or heroic reason.

I give them 5xp for each session (which is what people who happen to miss get). It makes dying (or starting over) bad without the rest of the group leaving them in the dust.

This game is such, though, that starting from scratch isn't as bad as more level-driven games.

I'm the generous one in the room on this I guess - the answer depends on what the player wants to do and the context. If the character dies (or is written out - having been retired, promoted to office work, gone off to train a padawan, etc) and the player has a concept for a replacement of roughly equal ability I don't penalize. If instead it's a replacement of "my twin brother, who also inherits all my modded blasters and armor, oh and my astromech and my starfighter (without obligation paying, and in addition to all his own starting cash)" or similarly no-concept/minimal-concept character who is just a mechanical improvement then no, sorry, you start a bit further back (not giving a hard number yet, need to get a better feel for the system in play at higher xp first).

If the PC is going away because the player just isn't interested in them and wants to try something else (either the concept and the mechanics didn't match up, or the player ran out of ideas for playing the PC), then again I'd probably go with no penalty - these things happen and the narrative penalty is that there will be less built-in hooks for the new PC since the campaign wasn't planned out with them in mind although as GM I would be trying to give them at least something.

I give them 5xp for each session (which is what people who happen to miss get). It makes dying (or starting over) bad without the rest of the group leaving them in the dust.

This game is such, though, that starting from scratch isn't as bad as more level-driven games.

It's also really subjective what is "stupid." When I say "stupid death" I tend to mean "gunned down by a mook's lucky shot; a nasty roll of the dice that comes down completely against the player." Especially since I don't like to fudge rolls, and frequently play in known lethal gae systes where the playersknow death is likely (and have systems to avoid it, at least a few times).

I figure it's a big enough "punishment" if a character that a player was invested in is no longer able to be played in this game. I feel like giving a risky player (and some players like to play risky, it's their style) less XP for a subsequent character after they took risks and died is implicitly saying "your play style is stupid and I want to disincentivize it." Never mind the fact that in Star Wars (and numerous other systems based on cinema) that cinematic risk-taking is part and parcel of what separates the PCs and big antagonists from the unwashed masses! Luke Skywalker (who was at that point by no means a trained soldier) stood in the middle of a Death Star hangar, completely out of cover, and started shooting into a squad of stormtroopers, expressing a huge frustration and rage at the loss of the only person he knew who could tell him about his father. That's pretty stupid (objectively speaking, from a "surviving a firefight" point of view), but it's also hugely cinematic. Same can be said about intentionally falling down the shaft on Cloud City instead of joining Vader. That was basically suicide, but Luke survived.

A player can think his character is performing a cool, heroic last stand or fulfilling an important personal goal at the cost of his life, or sticking to his moral code and effectively killing himself rather than giving in and betraying himself; the GM may just think it's dumb. Diving into a sarlacc with a thermal detonator - something clearly led to that point in the story. Maybe something legit. If it's just a random, stupid thing to do, and your players are wont to do random, stupid things for no reason, then your table has some deeper problems. If it's for a heroic reason...well, there's no context in that example, obviously, but I don't like to penalize players for doing something dumb/dangerous for a good or heroic reason.

First of all players can act stupidly without their being deeper problems at the table (ie:new players to EotE or RPG in general)

Even if it is "heroic" and they die there should be concequences. Lukes shooting after Ben died was driven by emotion not stupidity and if he died look how set back the main characters would have been. Again if Luke died falling in cloud city HUGE SETBACK to the story and characters. Its called a heros death for a reason. Yes there should be moments of intense herosism and action and risky stunts but their needs to be concequences to death.

The punishment of loosing a char you "invested in" is no longer a punishment if you have a new char with all the "invested" XP.

As a Gm you will incure the wrath of your party if you call an amazing sceen "stupid". where is the fun in bashing your PCs imiganations? But no one is crying because they dont have alot of XP now for a new char.

Doc the weasel said it right, this game is designed to not have a huge XP curve on new characters v. more experienced ones.

Just because Padme died giving birth (herioc if i say so) doesnt mean Luke and Leia come into life knowing the ways of the force and roll three profeciency dice when they wanna swing a light saber.

I think what I'm going to do in case this happens is have the new character start with 10*d6 less XP than the character they're replacing. Maybe 10*2d6 if they did something really dumb. This would cap at starting XP, as in they couldn't go below that, but it does make it sting a little to die.

I'm also not really a fan of the deus ex machina feel of just happening to stumble across a new person looking for adventure, and oh look he just so happens to be exactly as experienced as you all are! I feel like it kind of cheapens the story.

This is, however, my first time GM'ing any system, so I may realize I'm completely off base once we get into it.

As long as it is fair to all your players it should be fine. Just pay attention to make sure that one of the characters isn't becoming marginalized due to the difference in XP. Give them a bit more spotlight than normal, but keep it fair with the rest of the player group.

To be fair, I'm not planning on them dying unless things go awfully, horribly wrong

My general rule of thumb (for when such instances happen) is to give the new character 4/5ths (on average) of the total XP earned by the group. So if the PCs racked up 150 XP during the course of their adventures, a new character would come in with 120 "adventure" XP (so it couldn't be spent to jack up a couple extra Characteristics).

Granted, given how difficult it is for a PC to actually die from a random attack in this game, I don't see PC death being a common cause for introducing a new character. More likely, it'd be the player wanting to play something else (particularly in light of new crunch being made available), so in that respect I'm okay with them being slightly penalized in the XP count in exchange for being able to use the "new hotness" as opposed to sticking with "old and busted."

One option that hasn't been mentioned is to start them off as normal but accelerate their XP gain until they almost catch up with the core group.

If your character dies, the player already has to deal with a consequence: that character is no longer playable . In that particular game certainly, possibly ever again. If nothing else, my takeaway from this thread is that "my character died and their story will go unfinished" seems to just not be as big of a deal to some people as it would be to me.

Just because Padme died giving birth (herioc if i say so) doesnt mean Luke and Leia come into life knowing the ways of the force and roll three profeciency dice when they wanna swing a light saber.

Your other points aside, I don't even know what this has to do with anything. Heroic Sacrifice is a trope found throughout cinema, song, literature, legend, myth, etc. I noted a couple things which I considered could have been heroic sacrifice moments in the movies. I didn't relate them back to hard game mechanics like difficulty dice or stat rolls, or any silly notion like "Padme's player" might having to "start from scratch" when s/he builds Luke and Leia as "new characters." Like...I don't even know how "Luke and Leia shouldn't have enough XP to be proficient" even came up as a logical idea.

All that aside, yeah Amanal, that's an option I would support. If the character is brand new to being on the fringe, he would be more apt to quickly learn the basics (represented with quicker initial XP gain) but then would have to delve into deeper practices (like the other PCs) at parity or near-parity.

I give them 5xp for each session (which is what people who happen to miss get). It makes dying (or starting over) bad without the rest of the group leaving them in the dust.

This game is such, though, that starting from scratch isn't as bad as more level-driven games.

The punishment of loosing a char you "invested in" is no longer a punishment if you have a new char with all the "invested" XP.

These. I have players that get into their characters, but since they do that losing a character to death just means they'll make a new character they get into.

That is why I mentioned the half experience. That gives a penalty but they still aren't bran new.

Without offering a bunch of opinions, I like to start new players off at the party average of XP.

Characters replacing dead characters should be an opportunity to explore a different career, species, or background. Taking an obligation that has never been tested, etc. This gives the player a chance to stretch a bit.

If they take that opportunity, then a party average (or 4/5ths, I like that) is totally do-able, as the player will feel valid from the get-go.

If they just conspire to rebuild the same PC with a different name, then a 2/3 or 1/2 party average budget might be given. Some may see that as a punishment, and maybe it is, but if they are just slipping back into the same role, then the players' personal experience playing that PC will make up for the lack of hard numbers.

Granted, some people just enjoy playing a certain archetype/stereotype.

All my players gain XP, even for sessions they are not present. Although then they receive only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the amount that the players that were present received - this is almost a must have tweak since some of my players have hectic schedules. It also means that players that have been away for several sessions (not uncommon at times) will be able to buy a rank or two, or a talent or two, when they re-enter the adventure (we rationalise it by down-time, secret missions, heavy drinking (resilience ranks for instance ). It works for us at least.

When introducing new players, or when/if someone's character dies, I let them start with slightly less XP than the (surviving) player in the group with the least XP (how much less depends on how much XP has been gained over the campaign at that time - Dono's 4/5ths feels about right). Aside from one player in my group (which happens to be my co-habitant, duh) no one has been present in every session, of course some have been present far more than others. This means that, besides her, most of the other will have varied amounts of XP, there will be a more or less constant fluctuation in the power-levels relative to each other. But even my co-habitant doesn't shine more than the others (this is partly due to her not spending XP, just hoarding it and saving it ... silly girl, she always has about 15 to 25 xp "just in case" ...)

I always go for the penalty. It gives the player reason to pull rediculous moves like suicide bomber activity that doesn't make any sense with their previous actions and choices.

Plus, with the penalty, it makes the campaign a bit more challenging for them because they get used to have all of these skills and talents to fall back on.

I suppose it depends if your group / individual players are more "roleplayers" or "rollplayers." If they see their character as a set of numbers or a video game hero, and nothing else, then of course they'll take the opportunity to kamikaze. And if they are that kind of player, yeah less XP for them sounds appropriate.

If you have a more "mature" (take the label as you will) roleplayer who legitimately dies in a suitably heroic fashion or just because of pure bad luck, I don't see a problem with letting him start closer to on-par with the group.

That's my 2 credits.

Ugh the "roll-player vs role-player" dichotomy, which just seems to be code for "bad playstyle vs good playstyle," is so old and tired. There are plenty of "immature" "role-players" who can and would do the same type of dumb things.

Ugh the "roll-player vs role-player" dichotomy, which just seems to be code for "bad playstyle vs good playstyle," is so old and tired. There are plenty of "immature" "role-players" who can and would do the same type of dumb things.

We track base XP awarded for each session (20 is the norm, but it's 10-30 depending on duration and what happened during the game). We also track bonus XP awarded for roleplaying, etc. on a character by character basis. If someone wants to replace a retired or dead character, or if a new player joins, they will use base XP to start.

For instance, we've completed 155 XP worth of sessions. Current characters have earned between 11 and 31 bonus XP on top of that (31 earned by the most regular GM, the position earns a flat 125% of base XP). If someone wants to create a character, they gain 155 XP after character creation, or about 8-20% behind on earned XP.

Ugh the "roll-player vs role-player" dichotomy, which just seems to be code for "bad playstyle vs good playstyle," is so old and tired. There are plenty of "immature" "role-players" who can and would do the same type of dumb things.

Or worse. Its not the roll-player that tends to use the "It's what my character would do" justification for asshattery.

Yeah, I hate players try and pull that crap. We try the role-playing your character shouldn't outweigh the fun for the party., but sometimes a player will try to pull some crap.

Ugh the "roll-player vs role-player" dichotomy, which just seems to be code for "bad playstyle vs good playstyle," is so old and tired. There are plenty of "immature" "role-players" who can and would do the same type of dumb things.

Or worse. Its not the roll-player that tends to use the "It's what my character would do" justification for asshattery.

Yeah, I hate players try and pull that crap. We try the role-playing your character shouldn't outweigh the fun for the party., but sometimes a player will try to pull some crap.

For sure. My statement about "roleplayers and rollplayers" was focused more on character death, though. If you've got jerks in your play group, that's a different problem altogether and really should be dealt with. I've had my share of jerk roleplayers, and my personal favorite fix is to only invite them back for card games & board games

I meant more like, it's bad if the player just wants to get a mechanical advantage and so makes a move to kill off his character. I'm assuming one would want some level of immersion and buy-in from one's players.

Ugh the "roll-player vs role-player" dichotomy, which just seems to be code for "bad playstyle vs good playstyle," is so old and tired. There are plenty of "immature" "role-players" who can and would do the same type of dumb things.

Or worse. Its not the roll-player that tends to use the "It's what my character would do" justification for asshattery.

Yeah, I hate players try and pull that crap. We try the role-playing your character shouldn't outweigh the fun for the party., but sometimes a player will try to pull some crap.

For sure. My statement about "roleplayers and rollplayers" was focused more on character death, though. If you've got jerks in your play group, that's a different problem altogether and really should be dealt with. I've had my share of jerk roleplayers, and my personal favorite fix is to only invite them back for card games & board games

I meant more like, it's bad if the player just wants to get a mechanical advantage and so makes a move to kill off his character. I'm assuming one would want some level of immersion and buy-in from one's players.

Aren't they even bigger jerks when playing an adversarial game like a board or card game? Just do things with them away from the gaming table if you want to remain friends.