Would you quit a game if....

[Asha'man]

Stay the course, Water Bob.

I've never been in this exact situation -usually, when players have special preferences, they have to do with what kind of mechanical character options they can use, or what the gameworld is like.

In these cases, I usually work with the player to find a mutually agreeable compromise.

But I can't really imagine a compromise between "my character can't die" and "yes, he can", so I think what I would do here is nod, smile politely and say "thanks for telling me in advance." Then, if I felt like this player was a nice guy to play with, I'd offer him some tips for how to make his character more survivable. I don't see any point in making a big deal about it, let alone going out of my way to kill or humiliate his character. But I haven't fudged a die roll in 5 years of DMing, and I'm not about to start now. If he dies, he dies. Then if he leaves, that's his prerogative, hopefully on pleasant terms with the group.

Later, maybe I'd invite him to play M&M or some other game where character death generally doesn't happen. But D&D isn't one of those games.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In the 2Ed module, "Vecna Lives", you get a high level TPK to start off the game if you run it as written.

I think Vecna Lives is trying to pull off a horror vibe with its TPK opener. Like the first scene in the movie Scream.

Some people say early D&D, ie Gygaxian 1970s D&D, is horror. A Clark Ashton Smith-esque morality tale where a band of greedy, foolhardy treasure hunters bite off way more than they can chew, and end up dying horribly. Much in the same way that the killer in a slasher flick kills sluts, but leaves virgins unharmed, there's a sense in this interpretation of D&D that death is deserved. Only bad people die.

Once Gary left TSR and Dragonlance was published, there was a move away from this style, towards a more Lord of the Rings vibe. Although in the Rings trilogy Boromir also dies because of his flaw, his desire for power, I think there's an important difference between CAS/Final Girl horror and LotR - in the former all, or almost all, of the protagonists die, whereas in LotR almost all of the protagonists live. Thus high fantasy is a story about mostly good people, whereas horror is a story about mostly bad people.

Now you just have to ask yourself one question - is my PC a good person? Does he or she deserve to live?

 

[DragonLancer]

My suggestion is to talk to the guy. Explain that you think he's a good player but you and the group he is joining are not prepared to change how they play their game to accomodate him. He needs to adapt otherwise it's not going to work. If he choses then not to play then fine.

 

[blargney the second]

Talk with the guy. Take it as a compliment that the game is good enough that he's invested in his character and the player doesn't want him to die. However, in order for his desire to stay alive to mean anything, death has to be on the table. If you know you're not going to die, it's impossible to be courageous.

Finally, don't forget that it's distinctly possible that he'd like another character even more than the guy he's playing right now. He may not be able to conceive of that notion currently, but it doesn't make it untrue.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Tell him the truth. Don't ignore what he said. If he doesn't want his character die, and you tell him it's okey, he play, and character dies you probably get some hurted feelings, and he will call you "lier": Not maybe to your face. He might just leave silently and be polite.

Don't recruit gamer under false premise.

If permanent death is rarish in your current game, he might be ok with that if you explain your point well.

And there is a poijnt, game without character death (or something that relates) is more boring and i care less about characters in it.

If death in your game is brutal and common tell him so, then the game is not apperantly for him.

Then there are story tricks. Cursed immortality things, rings of nine lifes, soulstealing sworrds (or abilities), your mum dipping you in magic pool to make you sorta immortal (like tale of Akilles) and nasty deals with demons/devils. When he was young land he drew from this creepy deck of cards, and now has power to avoid anything .. once. However this things might piss off not just your sensibles but also other players.

I think Conan/James Bond are sort of using action points. But dunno if you want to introduce such a system just for one player. Oops you have fate points. Sorry.

I curently run game where 2 playrs have plot protection and other 2 die when dice says so. I think it's bit lame-o, but I've done all kinda other nasty things, and I think they are slowly realizing that ability to die, and make new character can be such a wonderful thing. Lol, but that group of mine likes it that way. But next game they have agreed that death is fine, aah finally.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've picked up a new player that's never gamed with me before. So far, I've got a good impression of him. He's a good role player and is fitting into my game well.

One thing he says bothers me, though. He says that, (he's warning me up front), if his character dies, he will quit the campaign. He's says he does this because he's got so much invested in his character that he just can't have fun running a different one in the same world. "Conan doesn't die," he says. "James Bond doesn't die. And, when I play Skyrim, if my character gets killed, I get to reload and keep playing with the same character."

This is utterly foreign to me. I don't like it when PC's die. I want my players succeed.

But, I'd feel like a sellout if I promised my players that they would never die. I don't think the game would be the same without that edge in there.

My players says that I should keep that in mind when designing encounters--not to make them so hard that the PCs dying becomes likely.

While I do understand that scaling encounters is necessary, I feel like my integrity will be tarnished if I ever made a pact with the players to not kill their character and only design encounters where the PCs always win.

So, I've decided that, if I lose this player, I lose him, no matter how much "fun" and "good" he's bringing to the game. I refuse to do what he asks.

I won't do what he asks. I'd rather not play at all than do that.

And, this thing about not playing if his character dies really irks me. I mean, what if he, as a player, does something phenomenally stupid with his character. I'm supposed to scrap the entire campaign because his character is dead?

No, that's not going to happen.



Am I alone in my opinion. Do others agree with him?

I agree with you.

Perhaps I would tell the player that if he is really so attached with his PC then he can:
(a) if he dies, he's free to assume he didn't die but just left the adventuring group, then try another character and keep the favourite one for another campaign (maybe even with the same group)
(b) just play another character in the current campaign, and save his pet PC for a less deadly game

Every player should be on the same boat, so either all their PCs cannot die or they all can.

Also I don't understand why he wouldn't want to try any other character. If he wants to play one and only character only in every single game, maybe he's attached to the character to a point that requires counseling...

 

[Umbran]

This is utterly foreign to me. I don't like it when PC's die. I want my players succeed.

Okay. But as others have said, death is not the only way for a character to fail.

But, I'd feel like a sellout if I promised my players that they would never die. I don't think the game would be the same without that edge in there.

No, it wouldn't be the same. It would be different. But the game isn't the same if I say, "no elves", either. That doesn't mean it won't be fun. Different does not equate to bad.

Which is not to say that you need to change your playstyle - I'm just trying to give you a way to think of it where it doesn't seem so foreign.

And, this thing about not playing if his character dies really irks me. I mean, what if he, as a player, does something phenomenally stupid with his character. I'm supposed to scrap the entire campaign because his character is dead?

You should ask him that question. In my experience of this playstyle, the expectation would be that the GM will put the PC in a horribly difficult position, or make the character lose something he cares about other than his life.

However, from a newbie, making comparisons to video games, the player is missing the point.

With respect, you are also missing a point...

But it is part of the standard design.

So? Every single house rule, ever, is a deviation from the standard design.

I call it an ultimatum. It doesn't make a difference that it is his playstyle. It is still an ultimatum and a threat. It wouldn't make me feel any better knowing that it is "just his playstyle".

I will draw an analogy...

Assume Water Bob here is a hobby-cook, and is holding a dinner party. He invites a guest. That guest informs Bob that if he's cooking food with peanuts, he won't eat it - he's got an allergy.

Is that an ultimatum, or a threat? You think instead he should have not told WB, but just not eaten when he got to the table? Or maybe eaten, and then surprised Bob with his violent allergic reaction?

Bob's cooking up a game. His guests owe it to him to tell him of their dietary restrictions. To do otherwise would be inconsiderate of Bob, and everyone else at the table. Bob, in turn, owes it to them to either edit his menu, or inform them that maybe his dinner party just isn't for them. This isn't threat or ultimatum, it is the normal process of making sure everyone has the best time possible.

So invested in his character that he can't distinguish between reality, fantasy and a game. I'd back away from him... slowly.

Yeah, well, that's a pretty grossly unfounded misrepresentation of what we've been told.

Taking, "I don't agree with his position," to the point of, "that person is mentally unbalanced," is a common rhetorical technique on the internet - but it is hyperbolic and ad hominem.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Now you just have to ask yourself one question - is my PC a good person? Does he or she deserve to live?

I gota side with William Munny on this one- deserve's got nothing to do with it.

Sometimes people die while doing the right thing, heck often its because they were doing the right thing.

Logically if only bad people got killed then there wouldn't be much need for heroes at all, nature would just sort things out.

 

[Janx]

that's a nice analogy, but the difference is player's life in danger vs. a PC.

I do accept that the situation is not so freaking dire that the player must be crazy.

But he is being a big baby, by not accepting to try the game as it IS.

Players are entitled to opinions and preferences. But new players don't carry much weight. A newbie's expression of how he wants the game to be run doesn't carry any weight because he has no experience in how things are currently done.

It's the same thing on the job site with the new guy. He best keep his damn mouth shut about how he'd do things or how they did things at his last job because he has no credibility with the group and the group tends to not welcome this kind of input.

It's not that the new guy may not have a valid idea or point. It's about paying your dues and earning respect, as well as not disrespecting the group's existing practices by trying to change them on the first day.

New guys do NOT get to change the group, new guys need to change themselves to fit with the group FIRST.

This is why smart managers who are assigned to take over an existing group wait 3-6 months before reorganizing and restructuring things.

 

[UselessTriviaMan]

I don't agree with your analogy, Umbran. There's no correlation between "the party guest will die if he eats this food" and "this player will quit the game if he doesn't get his way." The player tried to use the "play it my way or I'm taking my ball and going home" card.

I'd be polite, I'd be sympathetic to his reasoning, but under no circumstances will I allow a player to be that kind of a wet blanket in my group. Period.