Would you quit a game if....

[Li Shenron]

I don't get too attached to my PCs. I have many more ideas for character concepts than the amount of PCs I get to play, so for me usually losing a PC leads to some short-terms frustration (because I am usually planning forward the next couple of levels anyway, and of course dying normally means I've done something wrong) but that is soon replaced with renewed excitement at the chance of trying the next character concept. Only if PC death was too frequent I would start being pissed off.

That's my way of gaming, but I totally understand that it's not the same for others. There are people who expect from a RPG the opportunity to really develop a character fully, not mechanically but in terms of background, personality, history, relationship with other PC/NPC etc... and that's a valid playing style too.

Now the crux of the matter for the OP is this:

- OP really wants player X to game with them
- player X has different expectations from the game, and asks the OP if they can provide them
- game is currently working with different expectations

OP needs to ask himself what is more important to him:

(a) the presence of player X in the game
(b) preservation of the current gaming style
(c) preservation of equity [meaning: can the group tolerate one character with different rules or should they all use the same rules?]

I don't think any of us has the right to judge the OP if he values something else, but I am reading a lot of presumptuous comments here.

 

[S'mon]

But...it's as if the player is telling me (not "as if", he has said,) that I shouldn't make the encounters too hard. He's actually told me to keep that in mind, because if his PC dies, boom, he's outta here.

If he told you not to make encounters hard, IMO that is different from telling you he'd leave if his PC died. The latter might be seen as being helpful, so you can prepare yourself for the situation. The former does look like him trying to dictate how you run your game, which unless you solicited input, is annoying and not really acceptable IMO.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OTOH I've seen DMs derided by their players for obvious fudging to keep PCs alive.

I've only seen blatant fudging a few times, the last time back in 1999 when the party would have been TPKed in the campaign's first encounter due entirely to bad die rolls. When we hit- which wasn't very often- the damage rolls were universally below average. And then 3 of our foes critted.

It was supposed to be a cakewalk, but the randomizing of the die decided otherwise. Without the fudging, we'd have spent the rest of that evening making new PCs. In this case, the fudging was the easier option by far.

 

[S'mon]

A person leaving a group disrupts the group. That's just how human groups work. A person joins, forms bonds of friendship and camaraderie. The joining causes bonds to form, the leaving causes those bonds to become disruptions.

Leaving when your PC dies would seem about the least disruptive possible point at which to leave, though.

Personally I'm used to players leaving; that's London. Sometimes I'm a bit sad if a good friend leaves, but I accept that people leaving is inevitable.

 

[S'mon]

I've only seen blatant fudging a few times, the last time back in 1999 when the party would have been TPKed in the campaign's first encounter due entirely to bad die rolls. When we hit- which wasn't very often- the damage rolls were universally below average. And then 3 of our foes critted.

It was supposed to be a cakewalk, but the randomizing of the die decided otherwise. Without the fudging, we'd have spent the rest of that evening making new PCs. In this case, the fudging was the easier option by far.

I TPK'd the party in the first session of my 4e Forgotten Realms Loudwater campaign last year. Luckily it occurred in the second encounter of the 3e-hour session, by the time everyone was dead it was the end of the night anyway.

The players all had these happy, really delighted faces, mixed with the usual disappointment. But for them it was such a big change from the blatant-fudging DM, I think they were really relieved to discover that their PCs really could die.

When we played again next time, the new PCs were the sister, fellow agent, or hunters of the previous PCs. Their first group had been pretty Evil-aligned, and the new PCs were much nicer, which in the long term was probably a good thing for the campaign.

 

[Dordledum]

[MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION]:

You could also make it part of the game. You already got the left-for-dead option, so make sure to point that out to the player in question.

What I would suggest further , is that this player's character might get to save up his part of any treasure to be able to buy a limited use item of ressurection/raise dead.

It would create an option for his character to even survive death onc or a couple of times, without giving preferred treatment to his character.

One character invests his wealth in a new set of armour or a magical battleaxe, his character could put it to his ressurection fund.

I think I might consider something similar for my current character.

What also helps is an in-game roleplaying moment where characters get to talk about what they want to happen upon their death. We don't always have "speak with bread" ready on character deaths.

We tend to have such moments in our campaigns around the campfire. They tend to vary from discussions on funeral rites to characters explicitly asking their fellow party members to try to ressurect them at any cost. If the latter applies, those characters should curry favor with their gods or make other (financial) arrangements as suggested above.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I really don't have much to add, except an actual answer, where I withhold what I want to add to the end of it:

No, I would not quit a game if my character died. I accept death as a core assumption of the game, unless the game is Toon.

Also, I wanted to address this:

house cat not nearly as much fun.

The old Wizard v. House Cat trope. A GM who has you fighting house cats obviously intends a silly game.

 

[Water Bob]

Now the crux of the matter for the OP is this:

- OP really wants player X to game with them

I do. I like him as a person. He's a smart guy. And, so far, he's playing the game well.

You'd think this guy would be more of a game player based on what I've told you, but he's really not. I mean, he said what he said about not playing unless he rolled up high stats, and then, as he plays, he uses inferior weapons when he fights, instead roleplaying over chosing the statiscally better weapon.

The character has a dirk that was left him by his father. The PC didn't know his father. Something happened--he does not know what--when the PC was about 5 years old. And, the father (mother dead) became "rex", which is the Cimmerian word for "He's a traitor to the clan, and we'll never utter his name or acknowledge his very existence ever again."

So, the player has made this dirk very important to the character. The PC made his first kill with it (at 1st level. The character is 3rd level now). And, when he fights, this dirk (which he calls "rexor"), is always in one of his hands--no matter what other choice of weapon he has around.

The player even goes so far as to say that rexor is in his left hand because he doesn't want to throw it. In his right hand, he'll use a sword or a hunting spear--some other weapon or something he can throw.

It's obvious to me that this guy is really into his character. He's not just playing a game. He feels it.

And, that's great for a GM, right? I always aspire to get my players that involved in the game.

But, what I'm seeing with the "quit if he dies" stuff is a reaction that I do not welcome.

OP needs to ask himself what is more important to him:

(a) the presence of player X in the game
(b) preservation of the current gaming style
(c) preservation of equity--meaning: can the group tolerate one character with different rules or should they all use the same rules?

I'd have to go with "b". As much as I'd like this guy to continue in the game, I feel blackmailed into ensuring his character lives.

It really irks me that a player would demand such a thing.

If he told you not to make encounters hard, IMO that is different from telling you he'd leave if his PC died.

He's said both. Something like, "I just can't continue the game if my character dies, so just consider that when you're creating encounters for the game."

He didn't say it in a threatening way--more like he means it. Kinda "No hard feelings, and I'm sorry, but I won't be getting anything out of the game if something happens to this current character I've grown to love."

I've only seen blatant fudging a few times...

It's natural to assume fudging with this guy, but, believe or not, I think him to be quite honest with hit points and negative conditions and what not. Other than what he's said about leaving, he's given me no reason to think that he'd "cheat" or "fudge" when he had the opportunity.

He's even reminded me of things detrimental to the party and his character as we gamed. Stuff like, "I'm going to run over here....wait! I can't do that. My character is fatigued. It'll take me two rounds to get there."

 

[ExploderWizard]

I mean, he said what he said about not playing unless he rolled up high stats,

Hmmm.. refuses to play unless he gets awesome stats.

Will quit if his character dies.


He ain't there to game, he's there to stroke his ego.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's natural to assume fudging with this guy, but, believe or not...

Actually, we were talking in the context of DM fudging.