I dislike this course of action for a number of reasons; mainly because it takes away from the fact that the character actually
died. He is
dead. The person who was playing that character should have time to
grieve, not be pressed right back into the quest with “another similar character” that for all intents and purposes is the same as the old one. It is a big event when a
character dies and if you are trying to
role play properly, I think it is a bit self-defeating to just say
“that’s too bad, you character has died but wait a minute here comes a very similar character walking over that hill to join the party.”. I guess it depends on the style of game you want to play, however I see the solution you suggest
xant as encouragement to
players to think of their characters as nothing more than a collection of
statistics and
equipment. If there is no fear of
death, then players wont become so attached to their characters because they can be assured that if their character dies then they will just create another like him and continue playing.
To each his own I guess.
If you are playing with a party that cares more about the action than the role-playing, the game than realism, then your method will keep players happy and in the adventure. However if you are aiming to develop real characters who slowing develop over the course of a number of adventures (the way I like to play), then those characters have to be able to die, and those around them have to face the consequences of that happening. I don’t see it as a big problem if a player has to sit out for an hour or two and just watch the proceedings, I think it gives that player time to think about his actions leading up to his demise and to contemplate what he did, and what he could have done. Maybe I’m just a really strict, pedantic GM, but I like to make my campaigns as realistic as possible.
Of course there is the option to resurrect the character. I find that attempting to bring a slain character back to life usually turns out to be a quest in its own right.