The "Doctor Who Approach" to PC death.

So I was handed the idea of using a "Doctor Who Approach" to a PC's death. When a character dies, you take out a list of all possible options and randomly roll the character's Race, Class, Alignment, and Gender. The XP, Equipment, and possibly a single consistent name would carry over to the new person. But everything else could potentially be different. I've also considered the change affecting memory. Whenever something relevant would occur (a familiar NPC, a piece of relevant quest info, etc.) a percentage would be rolled. 1-25%, you have no clue what's going on, 26-50%, you remember the info vaguely as though from a dream, 51-75%, you know details but don't remember how you know them, 76-100%, you remember everything as though nothing's changed. I've also considered a story based reason for this pseudo-immortality. Maybe they were cursed (or blessed) by a powerful magician or deity which has long since died. Maybe they're just part of a group that naturally possesses this ability, a la "highlander" or "doctor who". Maybe it's an item-based phenomenon, adding the possibility that they might die forever if the item's lost. This idea also adds the possibility of recurring villains who could always come as a surprise. Because they could look like someone different every time. As well as a justification for why some people in the world are normal weaklings like us in the real world, while others essentially become superheroes. The part that surprises me, is that of the four people that I've expressed this idea to: one said it was a pointless 're-skinning' of a character that would never change, one said that the random element could result in people playing classes they didn't intend on playing, one didn't care, and one was the guy who gave me the initial idea (i was telling him my elaborations on his idea). I think this would be an incredible way to introduce new PC's, without resorting to the "goblins have a prisoner", or "there's some guy standing in the room" approaches. What do you more or less random internet people think?

I think it's a cool idea, but then again, you mentioned yourself that not everyone will like it. For example, playing a spellcaster may be a bit annoying for some players who don't like to keep track of their spells, while some will love that but won't like playing a melee guy at the front lines. Some people can't roleplay a Lawful Good Character very well, while others may don't want to act evil. I personally would not have a problem with anything that I mentioned above, but rather with the fact that equipment and XP and even some memories carry over. This basically reduces the importance of a character's death, because you might as well just resurrect the old one. It wouldn't really change the group dynamic much I think (outside of combat, I mean). Just find some people who are as excited as you are about this and try it out!

Anything can work with buy-in ! Three of the four people you presented it to aren't offering their buy-in on the premise. So either you'd need to find those that will or abandon the idea. What you're trying to do is set up what TV writers call a "trapdoor," which is a way to write a character (or actor) out of the show and bring in a new one in a way that makes sense in context. For my part, I don't see why you couldn't just let people create what they want to create and then just say they've been "reborn" or whatever. Not everyone's cool with random chance determining their character options.

I genuinely don't see how it would reduce a death's importance. The character specifics will have changed, the person that they were is gone. If you die as a dwarf fighter and wake up as a pixie thief, your magic axe and full plate armor won't mean much. As far as the new guy not changing the group dynamic, how is that any less true if they create from their preferences and wait a session or two to be introduced? RP-ing a new personality isn't exactly something that can be legislated. If they aren't capable of changing personalities to affect the group dynamic inside my idea, I wouldn't hold out much hope that they were gonna do that anyway. And the possibility of resurrection is removed from characters that have "regenerated". You can never get the past back in that same way again. Making it sadder in a different way, while still holding on to an attachment you may have felt for a certain iteration of your character while moving forward. That's the idea, anyway. Because while it is the same character, who doesn't still miss doctor #10? The memory parts are actually an attempt to avoid just having a "reskinned" version of their old characters. If they remembered everything, then there might very well be no point to the idea. As they would be the same people, inside new meat-suits. But if they retained nothing at all, then there would still be no point. Their new character may as well fall fully formed from the sky, with no attachment to any of it. So I'm trying to find a middle point between two pointless extremes. And seeing as how it's a core mechanic and all, why not leave their memories up to random number generation? Whether they acquire the upper hand, or a new disadvantage is up to the dice. The XP is almost always going to carry forward between characters after a death. It's either that, or keep track of 4-6 wildly variable xp, treasure, and power levels. It's totally possible, but largely pointless. Not to mention a giant pain in the butt.

The random element kinda is the idea for me. Given the money and the choice, you might choose pizza every time. But get vetoed into greek one day, and you might discover that lambs actually taste adorable too. Or if the fat-guy analogy doesn't work for you. You'd be surprised how many jobs that are supposed to require specialized tools can actually be done with a screwdriver and a hammer. At the end not only do you get the job done, but you get the satisfaction of having overcome an obstacle you might not have chosen. Since the attraction of pnp rpgs to me is the platform for intentional creativity, then the limitation of random generation could be a facilitator rather than a deal-breaker. But if at the end you still can't stand the result, then you'll still need to eat tomorrow, something else will always break, and you'll eventually get a new character.

Sure, and because it's your idea (or an idea you collaborated on), it comes with your inherent buy-in. But without the buy-in of your players or prospective players, what you think about it or "more or less random internet people" think about it doesn't amount to much. Out of curiosity, what game system is this meant for and how often do you see PC death in your games?

You're trying to force people to try other things, in hopes that they'll enjoy them. I understand that, but it can be iffy. Not everyone will buy into that. I recommend offering the players at least a little bit of control, so as to mitigate the situation of getting a character they don't like in the slightest. To use the food analogy, you give them the ability to spice the dish somewhat, even if they can't add or subtract ingredients.

The system I'm most attached to at the moment is OD&D, from around '83. The original red box times. Death comes swiftly and often in that version from what I've seen. Which comes as an unbelievable relief after the hours upon hours of saves vs death during my time in 4e. But more than that, I just like ideas that do something different from the normal run of things. Because if you don't try something different, then what's the point of doing it at all?

Billy R. said: The system I'm most attached to at the moment is OD&D, from around '83. The original red box times. Death comes swiftly and often in that version from what I've seen. Which comes as an unbelievable relief after the hours upon hours of saves vs death during my time in 4e. But more than that, I just like ideas that do something different from the normal run of things. Because if you don't try something different, then what's the point of doing it at all? I hear you. If there is one truism I've found in RPG circles, it's that there are plenty of people that will never try anything new even if what they're doing causes common (and avoidable) problems for them and their group, is intellectually inconsistent, or frequently boring. It is what it is. I hope you find some players that'll buy into your idea enough to give it a shot. Best of luck!

Kristin C. said: The personality of a character and how a player gets attached to it, imho, is tied to the wealth of adventures it had. That... Is a good point. Kristin C. said: It also introduces a lot of RP opportunities. Your Elf hates Dwarves? Surprise! You're a Dwarf now! You were heir to the throne? Whelp! Not anymore! You're now a half-orc. Good luck trying to convince the kingdom that you were once their prince. And that is a wealth of possibilities I hadn't even considered. What I was trying to anticipate was their new form coupled with their knowledge being used to easily circumvent something. But now that I see some of the problems it could also create, I think that risk is acceptable. Though I do still think the possibility of random alignment changes could be interesting. The former lawful paladin turned chaotic fighter still protects the innocent. But only because it usually means messing someone up and taking their stuff. That kind of thing.

Billy R. said: The system I'm most attached to at the moment is OD&D, from around '83. The original red box times. Death comes swiftly and often in that version from what I've seen. Which comes as an unbelievable relief after the hours upon hours of saves vs death during my time in 4e. But more than that, I just like ideas that do something different from the normal run of things. Because if you don't try something different, then what's the point of doing it at all? Because they enjoy it. Since this is how people are spending their free time, why push them to do things they don't enjoy. Set the example you want to see, and talk to people, but don't push. That swift, frequent death would be a relief does seem unbelievable, since the current system was arrived at due to issues people had with past systems. If you're rolling "hours upon hours" of death saves, something has gone wrong with the implementation of the game, possibly someone trying to run 4e as if it were OD&D. The intent of death saves is to not have to deal with the issues surrounding character death and replacement which, as I remember, took up much more of a player's time than rolling death saves. But, anything can work with buy-in.

Well you certainly have a stance on it, and that's loads more helpful than being neutral. Though honestly, if I had to run a putt-putt golf version that took no creative chances that would probably be the day I stopped playing altogether. I can do almost literally anything else, take no chances and find approval. But if I'm doing something that mind-numbing, I'm going to be paid for it.

Take all the chances you want. I just advise you to be aware of the stakes. There are lots of non-mindnumbing things you might try that involve risks other than turning off your players.

Everything you do will turn someone off. Those aren't stakes, that's inevitability. Choosing to do this at all has already turned most people in our society off. Choosing a system to play will turn most people off. Having a setting will turn some people off. The opponents they face, the story that develops, the amount of non-combat interactions, a particular npc, a particular pc, a particluar p, all these things will turn people off. If avoiding turning people off is your major concern, you're either in for a horrible time or you start qualifying. I'd rather just acknowledge it and not let it stand in the way of a good idea.

Avoiding turning my players off is my major concern. Why wouldn't it be? Without them there's no game. I'm not sure what you mean by qualifying, but if you mean modifying an idea to make it better, absolutely. No idea is perfect when it's first proposed. D&D itself is a prime example.

We seem to have major differences in our approach. Not the least of which is that one of my major concerns is trying to avoid creative stagnation, and the soul-grinding wish for death; while yours from the conversation so far appears to be avoiding anything that might make anyone at all less than ecstatic for any amount of time. Another is the idea that newer means better. I just don't buy that. I started with 4e, there wasn't a trace of anything else when I ran 4e. And in 4e I've seen a single combat round take up to 40 minutes. Both in my games, and in others'. So if a character drops to 0 HP, and takes 5 turns to resolve the death in either direction, you've just wasted 3.5 hours on saves vs death. While you may feel that character creation is a waste of player's time, I feel that 3.5 hours of saves vs death is a waste of everyone's time. As either player or dm, give me a quick death every time over the lingering indecision. Thankfully though, there will always be people enough for interest in every approach imaginable.

Those two concerns, regardless of which of us (if either) has them, are not mutually exclusive. I'm sorry for your game experience. That's not intentional, but I'll acknowledge that it's very easy for that to happen, especially when people are new to the game. Obviously, no one thinks 3.5 hours of doing nothing is a good idea, but I'm not the only one who thought frequent character death (to which character creation, which I quite enjoy, is incidental), which is why death saves and other rules came about in the first place. If you want your character to die, I bet you could just say "my character dies" and move on. I'm sorry I offered any warnings about the idea you proposed. I take it all back. Full steam ahead and good luck to you.

Well, personally, I like the idea. Of course, that's probably because I'm both a big Doctor Who fan (Seen a few episodes from Doctor 1-2-3, and everything from Tom Baker until today!) and a huge proponent of the joys of randomization. I like the idea of 'death' being a regeneration; your character effectively wakes up with little or no memory of his previous incarnation, but with a whole new set of abilities, and personality traits. I think it might be a good idea to allow SOME of the previous incarnation's skills to transfer, perhaps the two or three most-trained skills, and/or a single chosen ability or two, to keep a bit of continuity intact, as well as the sense of accomplishment one gets from developing a character's abilities. In particular, I happen to really like the idea that I, as a player, have little or no control over what type of character I'm going to play next, and having to determine how to make this randomly-generated batch of traits work for my playing style. And, of course, the reverse of that... how to make my playing style work for this new randomly-generated batch of traits! It's really easy to fall into the common 'trap' of playing the same character over and over; to always make a wizard with the same batch of spells, or to always play a two-handed fighter type regardless of class, or whatever. To suddenly find yourself playing a character type that you'd never normally choose for yourself can help a player grow and expand their horizons! And who knows, you may find out that you actually prefer playing a low-combat healer type even though you've always played a pure-combat barbarian smash-everything-that-moves type! I'm not sure how your idea, as stated, would work in actual play, but I for one think it would be a fun experiment! If I weren't already bogged down with a bunch of regular games (4-5 different campaigns a week!) I'd totally ask to be a part of this... as it is, should one or more of these end up falling through the cracks, I'll try to find you and maybe join your game, if you get one going!

Do you know anything about 1e? I found a copy of the PHB & DMG for $10 at a half price books, so now I'm starting to think about trying 1e. There seems to be lots of options in there. Rolling a d8 for race, and a d10 for class would be a lot more interesting than 2d4's in a row!

Heh... one of my Friday games is 1e. It's actually the first second system I played, and the one I played for the longesst. (First was the original red box; yes, I'm old!) It has its benefits; character generation is extremely simple, for one, especially if you stick to the primary books (PHB and DMG). On the other hand, if you play strictly by the rules (as my Friday game is trying to do) combat is unwieldy at best and deadly, as it was designed to be. Still, it's fun, for what it is. Currently I'm much more fond of Pathfinder (all my other games); all the good things from the various upgrades to the D&D system without any most of the crap from other systems; 4e looks awful and I hope to never play it! Regardless of the system you end up using, you may want to consider weighting the tables used for generation... for example, I'd make your memory table something closer to: 1-10: You have no clue what's going on. 11-40: You remember the info vaguely as though from a dream, 41-85: You know details but don't remember how you know them, 86-100: You remember everything as though nothing's changed. Similarly, weight things like race towards humans (assuming they're the most common in your game world), classes towards fighter types (same reason), and probably even sex 75% male / 25% female (or vice-versa for a female player). Not so much for reasons of power, but for variety... it's more fun to get a rarer combination this way, simply because it is rarer! Just my 2 gold pieces and a copper.

I like those ideas a lot.

Interesting idea. Not one I'd likely try. Most I play with want to have at least some chice. A great idea though.

Interesting idea. Not one I'd likely try. Most I play with want to have at least some chice. A great idea though.

Billy R. said: Do you know anything about 1e? I found a copy of the PHB & DMG for $10 at a half price books, so now I'm starting to think about trying 1e. There seems to be lots of options in there. Rolling a d8 for race, and a d10 for class would be a lot more interesting than 2d4's in a row! Somewhere in the 1st ed AD&D rules is the druidic reincarnation table (percentile) which would serve your intended purpose well. Found it... PHB p64.The magic-user table on pp85-86 is far more hilarious though.

I did not know that was in there, it's perfect!

Cool idea, but the whole resurrect villain thing brings back horrible SG-1 memories.

I like the idea. I'd spin that the Personality stays the same (maybe with a twist) and possibly the race. but you cannot use the same class as a previous "form". Think of it as a way to get the players to mix it up.

I'm not a fan of this sort of random character generation (okay, now roll your class... now your race, etc). I think if someone is going to be playing a character, they should have some control and ownership over the character they are playing and not get stuck playing something they don't want. Also, I think the memory bit might be an unfun distraction. If you're going to go ahead with this, I think it's better to just tell your players that the memories of their former character are there but fuzzy and fragmented, and let them role-play that how they wish, rather than making them roll percentiles every time they say "I remember..." I think the reason why newer editions started making it harder to die (negative hit points, death saves, encouraging DMs to not coup-de-grace fallen PCs, etc) was because they realized that for a player, death often sucks. Especially the "I rolled a 2 on a save or die effect" kind of death. It takes players out of the game at least until they can roll up someone new, and it often says to a player "hey, you know that character you love and have been playing for the past six months? Can't play him anymore, too bad." The houserule I use for death is basically "If you die in-game, you can choose either to die, or come up with a sufficiently awesome reason why you don't (made a deal with death, sold your soul, etc)"

That's apparently a common objection. But I've had players ask to change characters to try something different. And I've had players that don't really care what they are, they just want to play without having to sit for three hours and figure out a new character. Not everyone likes or dislikes the same things you do.

I like games where characters can die and lose things. If not, it's like some kind of online thing where I can just reboot from save.

Well, I just think the memory thing isn't really necessary - it can be probably done better through roleplaying than inventing a (possibly clunky) mechanic. The other thing is, if they want to change characters, why not just let them ride off into the sunset or work out an ending together and bring in a new guy? And if they want to try something different, they probably have something in mind, so it might be best to just let them decide what they want to try instead of rolling randomly (and having a chance of rolling the same race or class)

Because that's not half as fun. Look, I get that most of you guys wouldn't want to do it. But surely you can see that with a group of people who are into it, the game-elements introduced by such randomness could be quite fantastic?

Actually, I think it is more fun to let people play what they want to play - including letting them switch characters if they don't want to play their character anymore - than to have character creation decided for them by the roll of the dice. Maybe there are some people who would be into it. But it sounds to me like if those four people you mentioned at the start are your players, they aren't.

Well I don't, because you can only do the same old thing so many times. Though I'm pretty sure I agree with you about the memory thing. Kristin C. showed me the other side of things, and what possibilities it held. I find it a little bit strange that the rhetoric from everyone opposed to this idea (which by the way, i'm not married to) automatically turns to being "forced" into things and having things "taken from you", it never changes. Now I can't know what kind of games you're playing. But you do know that no one can "force" you to play them, right? There's no such thing as being conscripted into a game.

"Well I don't, because you can only do the same old thing so many times." Coming right down to, it really doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. As mentioned earlier in the thread, if your players aren't on board with it, it doesn't matter how many people on the internet think it's a cool idea. It sounded like 3 of the 4 players you have were against it Personally, I wouldn't play in a game that forced me to randomise my starting race and class in a game like D&D, because there are certain classes (magic users) that I just don't enjoy playing. It's not a case of not being willing to try them. It's a case of having over 30 years of experience behind me, and knowing that I really hate dealing with D&D spell lists. In your responses to other people, it sounds to me you are being dismissive of people with interests different to yours. You say you want to encourage people to be more creative, and try different things to enrich their lives or whatever. But roleplaying games are a fun hobby, a nice way to spend a few hours. Lots of players don't want to stretch themselves creatively in the way you suggest (and anyway, they are often bringing creativity to a game in a way that you are not recognising or valuing). The idea does have potential, in the right kind of game. I wouldn't do it in D&D, especially at higher level, because character customisation is a huge part of that game, plus knowing how you can use your character in combat requires an active interest in your character options. Dumping a high level class on a player who doesn't like the powers of that class is guaranteed to take the fun out of the game. But hey, that might not matter. They can get themselves killed and start off with a new one, and keep doing it till they get something they like..

I had actually thought of this idea aswell. I have used it once or twice. I use it as a form of revival. When a temple attempts to ressurect a person soul they will come back the same man but a different body etc :)

"Well I don't, because you can only do the same old thing so many times." Out of the regular people I play with, they almost always change up their class and race with every new game. They might have a couple favourites they come back to (I'm personally partial to both Scouts and Seekers), but they're always switching them up. And they don't need the DM to roll a die and say "Okay, you're going to play a Cleric from now on" to convince them to switch. My point is, if you want to encourage players to try out new character classes, you don't need to force them to play X class. You just need to give them the option. And if they don't take it and create Snowball IV the Druid, that's their choice and as long as they're happy with their decision, everything is cool. "I find it a little bit strange that the rhetoric from everyone opposed to this idea (which by the way, i'm not married to) automatically turns to being "forced" into things and having things "taken from you", it never changes. Now I can't know what kind of games you're playing. But you do know that no one can "force" you to play them, right? There's no such thing as being conscripted into a game." Ah, so DMs should feel free to "force" their players to do anything at any time because if the players don't like it they can always leave? Maybe so, but that doesn't mean it's good DMing. Anyways, if my DM ever says "play a Cleric or leave," I'll gladly take the latter option.

B L. said: Anyways, if my DM ever says "play a Cleric or leave," I'll gladly take the latter option. And that's fine; you would probably never play this game in the first place! I don't understand the vitriol everyone's spewing here... nobody's asking anyone who doesn't like the idea to play it! Billy R just had an idea for a change to the way the game is played, and was asking for opinions. If you don't like the idea, fine, say so and state your reasons for it. But you don't have to pile on the hatred; he knows some people don't like the idea, and that's ok! Personally I think it's fun and would like to give it a try; others don't think so, and seem to think they'll be tricked into this method... not so! As long as the GM tells the players before the game begins that this is his plan, then everyone involved will have 'bought into' the idea, and should at least give it a shot. As far as ending up with a character you don't like, that's half the fun of the idea! If you decide you really, really hate it so much, then commit suicide (hopefully in a heroic way, charging into a crowd of ogres instead of jumping off a cliff) and roll again! Billy R, I correct myself from earlier: If you run a game like this, let me know and I will do my best to adjust my schedule to join!

Phnord Prephect said: I don't understand the vitriol everyone's spewing here... nobody's asking anyone who doesn't like the idea to play it! Billy R just had an idea for a change to the way the game is played, and was asking for opinions. If you don't like the idea, fine, say so and state your reasons for it. But you don't have to pile on the hatred; he knows some people don't like the idea, and that's ok! Billy R., in the OP, asked for opinions. I'm just offering mine - which is that I respectfully disagree that this is a good idea for reasons mentioned above. If people only want to hear opinions they agree with, they should say so.

I'm sorry, but you kinda discarded your "reasonable card" by about your third post. When you start saying stuff like "that doesn't mean it's good DMing.", you're no longer "just giving an opinion". That's pretty clearly an attack. One based on assumptions that are not just baseless, but also directly contradicted by me at least twice. Argue more if you want, but you've left the realm of reasonable. Either way, I'm not following this post anymore.

Closing the thread since it appears to have devolved from it's original purpose.