Death and Respawn rules for World of Rianardu:

When your character dies, if the party ops not to resurrect your character, or if you chose to permanently kill off your character (called perma-death), you are still part of the game.

New characters will be introduced as follows:

1) New characters should first be chosen from the dead characters cohorts/followers. If that does not work for story reasons, or if the dead PC did not take the leadership feat, then a new character should be created.

2) New PC's will start at the same level as the party, with 2 negative levels.  One will be removed at the end of their first complete session.  The other will be removed at the end of current adventure.

3) Loot will be standard loot for 1 level lower than the party.

4) The Dead PC is assumed to be buried with his/her wealth, or it goes to his/her family/next of kin. (This is important, as it prevents using repeated character deaths as a way to create a Monte Hall campaign.)

5) Occasionally, a character retired from adventuring. In cases like this, the death rules apply for respawn, however, the old PC now becomes an NPC in the world.

 6) The DM can, with the players permission, turn dead PC’s into undead villains.

*******************************

Old Rules for Reference:

1) New characters should first be chosen from the dead characters cohorts/followers. If that does not work for story reasons, or if the dead PC did not take the leadership feat, then a new character should be created.

2) New characters will begin 1 less experience point that what is required for the lowest level of the party’s members. For example, if the part is all level 5, accept for Johnny who is level 4, a new party member would be 1 xp short of level 4, or level 3.

3) GP value of loot is level appropriate.

4) The Dead PC is assumed to be buried with his/her wealth, or it goes to his/her family/next of kin. (This is important, as it prevents using repeated character deaths as a way to create a Monte Hall campaign.)

i assume we are doing experience by the CR tables in the GM guide. i know we agreed on slow progression, but the tables are important to follow for the death penalties to be resolved.

http://paizo.com/PRD/gamemastering.html

The tables here account for the experience differences based on level. They experience is still split between the party based on people involved in the encounter.

For example

we have a party with 5 people. 3 are level 4 and the other 2 are level 3. and we fight a CR 2 monster. We win, the monster's experience is divded equally. for a CR 2 monster, levels 1-3 receive 200 xp and levels 4-5 receive 150 xp. So the players that are level 4, receive 150/5 xp or 30 xp a piece. The level 3 players receive 200/5 or 40 xp a piece. CR TABLES ARE SLOW PROGRESSING. it may be worth looking into considering the xp advances we were talking about.

That being said, I feel like because of different DM's and death penalties, it will be more consistent and less of a level gap if we use the tables. Especially if we have several deaths and we are looking at a level gap of 2 - 3 levels.

For example, we have a party of 5 players. 1 player dies the 1st session, rerolls at 4. then the 2nd session, another DIFFERENT player dies, well he is down 2 levels. and then Mike power builds and has a level 7 with a party of level 1-3 characters.

Just sayin...

keyes

Hold up. First of all, I dont much appreciate the comment about 'Mike power builds' as it seems like everyone keeps bringing it up. Ive been changing, and if you had been attending our sessons on sundays, you would know that this discussion has already come up. I would appreciate it stopping.

Second, the only way in our world to exceed other people's levels is for everyone else to die. alot. other than me.

As for the rules on this, I would love to talk about it more. As we have written it, I still dont like it much, but unsure if we set in stone a solid solution or not.

Sorry mike I was just poking fun.

 and as far as out leveling goes. lets say that everyone, but one player dies once. then that player, will always be ahead. even if nobody else dies. the CR XP table helps limit leapfrogging or level gaps by reducing xp for higher level players. and besides, what if we decide to include RP XP? which i think we should. then you have players who are engaged in the game on multiple levels gaining xp faster than people who are not. and level gaps CAN and will happen. I think that offering role play xp and cr xp brings a better level of engagement on all sides from the PC's. that and the system was designed that way, and athough we have changed some of it, the xp system is designed in such a way to help keep control of xp penalties.

 for example, if we decide to rez a character as opposed to letting them die off, depending on the rez spell used, the 1 level penalty still exists. the xp system designed and in place by paizo allows for players in such a position to be lifted out of it. otherwise they are always fighting a level down from everyone else.

Its cool. Just a touchy point, cause its been brought up alot. If in jest, I have no problem with it, it just seemed like a serious comment when I first read it.

As for rezzing, rezzing does not actually take a level away from you anymore. you gain a negative level, which can be recovered by magic. There is no way in pathfinder to lose exp. Except our reroll rules, that is.

The idea behind the xp penalty is to prevent players from bouncing between characters. By enforcing a penalty, it prevents people like me who get tired of their character from just killing them off and rerolling. It keeps a fairly consistant party together, which I really enjoy the idea of.

As for varying levels of exp, I am not against it, but I do like the idea of spending a long time between levels. While I would like it to be shorter, I prefer to assign exp to the party as a whole. If I feel, as a DM, that someone is not roleplaying or participating, rather then give bonuses to those who are, I would rather talk the the person who isnt seperatly about why.

TLDR: I prefer that we all stay on the same level, and while I wouldnt mind leveling quicker, a decent amount of the group sat down for almost a full day to decide this. Unless we get a lot of people who want this different, we should leave it as written. Also, for clerification, the lowest level of the party DOES NOT count negative levels, like if someone was rezzed. Also, I would like to avoid bonus exp to individuals.

Also, for 'rezzing', I intend to get the party a creative solution to players dying during my first time DM'in. If I have my way, they only way a player will have a character that is a lower level than the party (actually a lower level, not just negative level) is if they personally retire the character.

WIth regard to the level penalty:  As an addendum, I'd intended this to be applied at the conclusion of an adventure.  The notion is for players to stay at +/-1 level from the mean of the party.  I'm open to other systems, but basically, here is teh "nightmare" scenario for how to break this game without a death/retirement system

1) Kill/retire your character.

2) Have the party collect all his/her material posessions

3) Roll in a new character w/out penalty

4) Acquire a share of siad possession

5) Repeat steps 1-4 until everyone is decked out in super gear at level 3.

To mikes point of individual XP: I agree 100%.

Here is a different way of dealing with the same problem:

If your character dies/retires, you roll in a new character (smae level as the party) with 2 negative levels.  1st Negative level is autolifted after 1st complete session.  2nd is lifted at end of first complete adventure (2-4 sessions).

Gold is standard wealth for character of 1 level lower than party.

-Thoughts?

My counter to this hinges on the re-roll rule....

Isn't the point of this to have fun? If a player is no longer having fun with their character isn't it their right to say farwell to their character in a way that makes to RP (not rage quitting), and re-role. I would hate to have a player stop showing up to sessions because they are tired of their character and don't want the re-roll penalties...

To me it just seems like we are creating our own head-ache with these rules.

I would much rather have a player talk to the group about deciding to end a characters participation in the world rather than just offing the character. That would be my solution. Out of character conversation with the group about your future playing the character.

The point is to enjoy yourself, the game, your fellow players and your DM. If that isn't happening conversation and potentially change should not only be welcome, it should be encouraged. 

@smurf:  The group has a long history of "giving up" on characters.  Yes the idea is to have fun.  But how much fun is it to have someone roll in a new random character every game?  That would seriously affect my fun as a member fo the party.  The idea here is not punishment.  As you can see from the last proposal, there is no long term negative impact to a PC, jsut a short term inconveinience.

Also, if your character was attacked by a vampire, and had to carry a negative level for a while, would that ruin your fun?

With this system. a player will likely have a full strength character within 2-4 sessions (a short amount of time in the scope of a game project to be continuous for a long time).

I guess It just concerns me cause it feels like a 'penalty' that is in place for something that I've never done. I've never given up on a character (sans-first ever campaign where the point was to learn the system). So it feels like a really shitty thing should my character die. Like, I just lost my character THAT sucks ass....and now for the first 4 sessions I have to deal with a -2 or -1 penalty on all d20 rolls (correct me if I'm wrong)....Fuck that....That sounds terrible.

Generally I am not a fan of negative levels. Group imposed rules of negative levels bother me, however, RP is RP and I love me some RP. If I have to take a negative level for the betterment of the game and everyones fun then so be it. That takes precidence. I guess that's my point.

Don't be a dick, enjoy the game, and this wont be a problem.

If you don't enjoy your character anymore, talk about it with the group.

To me its irrational to declare you no longer enjoy your character and kill them in the same session. If I ever stopped enjoying a character my first instinct would be to try and find a way to fix it. Find the root of the problem and address it.

Then again, different people, different play styles.

TL;DR - Not a fan of Negative levels unless for RP. Short-term punishment for PC death sucks. Don't be a dick. Talk about your problems. 

For the most part, I agree with Paladin. We have had problems in the past where players (myself included) have decided that they no longer want to play their character, and therefore have found creative (or not so creative) ways to remove them. I would like to avoid this, and I feel the best way to do this is some kind of penalty to dissuade people. However, I don't like the idea of perminent penalties, because then, like Smurf said, it sucks to be behind the party for so long.

I really like Paladin's idea of temporary negative levels. This dissuades people for rerolling for the fun of it, and goes away fairly quickly. At the end of the first session, you are only sitting at a -1, and after the adventure, you are caught up.

As for weath, I dont mind starting a little behind. I want to make sure that dead or retired party members gear is untouched, unless it is a nessisary quest item or something a DM has given as intentional group loot (such as a wand of cure light wounds). 

TLDR: i really like the negative levels. temporary pentaly for rerolling, but goes away fairly quickly. Much better than what was origionally agreed upon (being a real level lower)

Having a -1 penalty for 1/12th of a year would suck massive balls....

The idea has merit.

The length seems off to me. 

I know that I am not really a part of this whole thing but I can see some merits in what most of you are saying. I agree that there should be some sort of hit for dying in the sense that people are going to play their characters more as people. Even a character that is a risk taker generally has some care for his/her life. I think that sometimes this is forgotten since people have the option of simply creating a new character. It also makes it more likely that someone will give up on a character. Enforcing some sort of setback may not be everybody's favorite idea but it would do a lot to influence the overall play.

 Brian wasn't getting at giving out individualized experience either. He and I were talking about how there are going to be multiple DMs and such. We just felt that you should have a system to standardize how experience is given out because there is a lot of variance in the judgement and generosity of various DMs. The CR system was designed to reward characters for overcoming challenges. Characters get more experience the greater the challenge they must overcome. Instead of knowing that after so many sessions you gain a level, you gain levels based on the various things you had to do to reach your goals. DMs can still award RP or story experience (although as Mike said RP experience is very subjective and is more likely to make certain people a bit more upset) I know you guys were looking for slower progression and that can be accomplished this way. You won't have the problem of a DM just giving out a crapton of XP either because the characters have to overcome the challenge and if they can't they won't get the experience for it. The experience IS slightly different based on your level but that is because characters of a lower level are at more risk and will have more trouble overcoming more difficult challenges.

 As Robert said the point is to have fun, don't always assume the worst will happen. If someone bothered to die a bunch in order to increase the party wealth like that would you really want to be a part of that group? Seems like that would take the fun out of it so much that there would be no point in someone doing that.

I would also like to state that starting at a slightly lower level than someone else isn't the end of the world. You guys are reading too far into it. You're getting together to create a story. The point is not to restrict so much that it isn't fun but you do need to strike a balance and in this case the deterrent of being a level down from the next person isn't a bad one. It also gives you a bit of a challenge. The problem that Brian brought up was that with your current XP system that wouldn't work well. Either you need to do the negative level suggestion (although that would be obnoxious) Or you need to standardize your XP method, use the book, and allow character to climb out of their level hole since they'd get more experience for being lower level.

My next thing with the wealth is what about stuff that was big loot the party obtained and it was given to the character? Is it just buried with them or whatever or does the party have the opportunity to take it back?

@Pix:  A characters individual possesions are "buried with them" so to speak.  Plot items and group loot items are not.

ITS A COW

The cow uses real names...

I meant what happens to group loot that is awarded to a party member. If the group divides up loot and gives someone +2 full plate for example. Would it get buried with them or could the part members loot it. It's one thing if they crafted it or had it before but wasn't sure about this situation. Also what if someone was using an item off of their dead comerad in the fight that he/she died in. Could that character keep it? Wands for example if the owner died and somebody needed to use the wand in the fight and grabbed it. Would it get buried or would the new character keep it?

@Smurf, "Having a -1 penalty for 1/12th of a year would suck massive balls...."  Really?  So on 19/20 attempts, you see no change, and the 1/20 atempts at rolling a D20 is that painful?  that just seems...a little strong.

@ Pix: Transfer of wealth from dead party members to living party members is disallowed.  This prevents monte hall (see my above post).  It is expected that party members will make every attempt to divvy loot fairly.  Also, robbing a fallen comrades grave (preemptive grave robbing) is a little macabre.  I suppose an RP reason could be invented for such a circumstance, but the group on a majority vote decided that loot stays on the corpse.

Ok that makes sense. Just make sure the DMs actually give out enought loot that the party is at the wealth level that it should be based on the overall level. This is especially important if you have a set number of sessions and such for leveling up. At that point there should be a certain amount of loot too. Most encounters take into account the wealth a party should be at in their level of difficulty.