Would you quit a game if....

[Water Bob]

The first "random" player I ever met from an online post and DMed for in person came from a group like that. He told me he is used to playing overpowered PCs but was ok doing it my way (the standard way).

He was a great roleplayer and I really loved how he absorbed himself in the campaign world. But his "underpowered" PC always bothered him.

These guys sound like they came from the same group.

What's interesting is that I expected this guy, given what he's said, to play with a tad bit of munchkinism in him--always wanting the +5 sword, that sort of thing. The Conan RPG isn't about "finding goodies" as it is in D&D. Once you get a weapon you like, you're pretty much set. There are no magical weapons. I keep a little thrill in finding equipment by keeping exotic items exotic. For example, you're not going to find a Hyrkanian Bow (one of the better bows in the game) anywhere except in Hyrkania. And, if you do, it will be a highly sought after, expensive, piece of equipment. Even the frequency of finding something exotic like that (the bow is common in Hyrkania) is rare.

The new player of mine seems to be completely at home with that. I've already mentioned how he uses his inferior dirk more often than any other weapon. In fact, he just pulled a shiny war sword (akin to a bastard sword) off a foe two game sessions ago, and he has yet to swing it as a weapon (and the thing does 1d12 damage! with a 3rd level character swining it!).

It's an interesting dichotomy in his personality.

He's a strong roleplayer, yet he wants heroic stats and assuances his character will never die.

As a player, he needs to have his way or he won't be happy.

Strange. The older I get, the more I'm running into things like this. The player I've been talking about is 47 years old!

I had another player start the campaign previous to this one. He was a long time player with me from back in the old days. He moved to another state. We kept in touch. And, he moved back recently. We hadn't gamed together in over 15 years. I was starting a 2E AD&D Dragonlance game, and I asked him if he wanted to warm up the old dice.

He said, "Absolutely!" Then, he got all excited about the game. I mean more than just looking forward to play, he started reading tons of Dragonlance novels. He seached the net for Dragonlance info. He was really into it.

It had been years since I had touched 2E AD&D, so I ruled that I was going to start the game just using the core three books: PG, DMG, and MM. As we became more comfortable with the rules, I would bring in the supplementary books, and we could use the expanded rules there.

Well, this player would have nothing to do with that. He basically said that, if we didn't use the ENTIRE 2E LINE OF GAME BOOKS, that he wouldn't play. He wanted all the little extra rules that those books brought to the game.

I told him that we would eventually get there, but it would be better for all of us if we just started simple, re-learned that, and then added the books once we had a achieved a certain comfort level.

He would have none of it. It was a definite ultimatum. Play with everything, or don't play at all.

For the first time in my DMing life, I gave in and let this player have his way.

It was a huge mistake.

First, the game was very, very slow and unenjoyable because....you guessed it! We weren't comfortable with the rules!

Second, it seems that player's memory of what was and was not written in the supplemental rule books was different from what was really in them. I found several instances where the player was not interpreting a rule correctly. I'm all for house rules, but I usually try to learn the RAW first before I start changing things.

This led to an argument every freakin' time we played. I got so tired of it. It went so far that I actually met one of the three game designers of 2E (Steve Winter) and asked him several questions and rule clarifications. 99% of the time, Steve's answers supported what I said and made what the player said incorrect. Of course, the player didn't like that and would dismiss what Steve said anyway.

Basically, the player wanted the game to run the way he wanted it to run, house rules and all, or he wouldn't be happy.

That Dragonlance game ended after the first adventure because of that player, and, naively, I thought that I wouldn't have the same problems with the player if I changed to a rule system with which he wasn't familiar.

That's how I got to the Conan RPG. None of us were very familair with 3.x d20 at all. I had avoided that entire era of RPGs, instead playing things like D6 Star Wars or Classic Traveller.

Well, the arguments continued with Conan, too, until I finally had to ask the guy to leave the game.

He did, and our game is better for it.

And, now, I've got this new player issue.

Man, maybe my memory is selective, but I sure miss the days when we all just sat down to play and had fun. The GM was the GM. The players respected that. And, we all had fun, spending hours and days afterward talking about the situations that popped up.

I do miss that.







EDIT: Happy Birthday, btw!

 

[merelycompetent]

Late to the thread, but I've read through it.

As a DM, my response would be: I run a game that's fun for me as DM. That means that your character has a real chance of dying in the game. I'm not setting out to kill your character, but the bad guys I run probably are. No one, not even my most favorite, longest-lasting NPC has plot immunity. If that is a deal-breaker for you, then let me recommend a couple of other groups that might be more to your liking.

As a Player: It's not a deal-breaker for me, by itself. It definitely is a minus on the Fun scale for me. I find the chance of my character dying makes playing a LOT more fun. So long as there are other parts that keep it on the Fun side of the Fun scale, then I'm in. If a particular PC, or couple of PCs have plot immunity to death, that's bordering on a deal-breaker for me. Thanks for letting me know about it in advance.

The bottom line, as I see it, is the player in the OP was being up-front about what kind of game he likes. One of the qualities of a great DM is being up-front with the kind of game he or she likes to run. Where those two likes meet is the decision point for both to play (and have fun), or one/both to politely say, "Thanks, but not for me."

 

[Argyle King]

Also late to the thread...

I don't really see the conflict. He said he will not play a new character if his current character dies. I am of the impression you still have other players. If by chance his character dies, and that player decides to not play anymore, continue with the other players.

I'd simply just talk to him before-hand. Let him know that you respect his tastes, and that you are not out to intentionally kill his character. However, you are a player too; as are the other people playing in the game. It's supposed to be a group game with everyone having fun. As such, while you respect his views and will not single out his character (although, in game events might dictate that an in-game entity such as a monster might), neither will you put a bubble around his character. You're running the game in a manner where every character is on the same playing field.

As long as you both understand that he does not wish to continue in the event his first character dies, I see no issue. However, to be polite, I would personally offer him the opportunity to make a new character (if his current one dies.) That way you at least gave the opportunity. If he says no, then ask if there is anything else he'd like to help with; perhaps helping you manage running the game if he still wants to be part of the group (but doesn't want to play a character.) If he says no to that as well, simply part ways until the next campaign, and invite him to play again.

 

[Water Bob]

I'm glad I started this thread. Not only have I liked reading the commentary from both sides of the argument, but it's made me think of advice I usually give to DMs in my shoes but have conveniently forgotten to tell myself.

And that is: When you have a problem with the game, fix it in the game.

I think a few have mentioned this type of answer up thread a bit.




Off the top of my head, one way to go about this might be: I don't compromise my play style. The Fate Points built into the Conan RPG keep the heroes alive. And, as long as I don't start using a critical hit or fumble chart (which I loathe) or start playing the game as the DM vs the Players (which I learned decades ago was no fun for anybody), that the PCs have a very good shot at staying alive even in the gritty, deadly game that I like to run.

Taking the problem and internalizing it in the game, though, I could do something like this: Put in a major plot thread about The Waters of Karim Bey (totally making this up as I write). Karim Bey was a powerful Shemite sorcerer from ages past, and in his crumbling tower, lost, somewhere in the wastes of the Great Desert, is a pool that some say give drinkers the power of everlasting life. Immortality!

Talk about a "push" that would greatly interest this particular player!

So, now the player is happy. He's on a huge quest to find the Waters of Karim Bey...

....but once he finds it and drinks...he does indeed become immortal...but not necessarily unchanged.

Sorcerery in Conan is dark. If the character ever dies, then nature demands compensation. Instead of the character dying, someone close to him dies. His closest ally--his friend--a family member.

This corrupts the character, and the more corruption he takes on, he starts getting laden with all sorts of ailments and phobias.

No, the character will not die, but he's wracked with arthritis, taking a -2 penalty to hit and damage.

Now, I know this wasn't what the player was thinking when he demands character immortality or he'll leave the game (and he may leave the game if his character gets afflicted as I've described).

But, if he's going to leave anyway, I might as well have some fun with it!

And, who knows, maybe the roleplaying side of him will be intrigued and end up playing it out. I could see another entire quest developed around the idea of lifting the Curse of Karim Bey!

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think he's asking you to promise to not kill his character. I think he's being honest with you that he loses interest if something he's invested so much in ends. I think that's fair.

I wouldn't quit a game if my character died because I usually play games primarily for the people I'm playing them with, even if I do put a lot of effort into a character. In fact I often get bored with characters and want them to die off so that I can make something new, even ones I really like.

I don't think you should promise not to kill your players. I don't think guy's gonna throw down his pencils and storm off in a huff if he dies. Perhaps you can change his feelings towards your group so that he's more interested in playing with your group than just playing a game with random people.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

Okay I can buy that. But it would be better to leave a game if you are going to do so when your character is killed then right in the middle of the adventure leaving the DM to scramble with what to do with the live character.

 

[Elf Witch]

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:



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

Actually it was not silly it was a demon cat and we were 6 level. I was not a wizard but a cleric and that evil cat killed me.

Though I did die at first level as wizard because I had one hit point and got hit by a orc with an axe.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

You do not know that.

I have known plenty of players who hate having low stats and if they can't roll new ones will do ever thing in their power to get their PC killed so they can try again.

I have known players who whine so badly about it that it just easier to let them roll over.

There is no such thing as a perfect player every last one of us has things about our playing style that could be seen as wrong.

It kind of drives me crazy that people make all these assumptions when they did not hear the conversation and they only have one side of it.

 

[haakon1]

It went so far that I actually met one of the three game designers of 2E (Steve Winter) and asked him several questions and rule clarifications. 99% of the time, Steve's answers supported what I said and made what the player said incorrect. Of course, the player didn't like that and would dismiss what Steve said anyway.

LOL. Yes, why should the game designer now how the rules were intended?

 

[DragonLancer]

I find this thread interesting in light of the previous thread on "Restrictions on Player Characters".

In that thread, there was no talk of ultimatums or the DM being incorrect in imposing her playstyle preferences on the group. Instead the vast majority of posts were "the players need to shut up and deal with it".

Sometimes I think ENWorld is too biased towards the DM. Discussions here almost always side with the DM, at the expense of the players.

I'm not an over controlling GM but I do have the opinion that the game is the GMs. He or she is the one that puts the time, blood, sweat, tears and hard earned cash into designing/tweaking the setting, writing the adventures and prepping the game. Players get the enjoyment out of playing. They shouldn't be dictating things which is what I normally see on ENW.

Roleplaying is a group experience but IMO it's the GM who should have the final say of what is and isn't allowed.

In the situation we're discussing here I don't think that player should come along and demand a game where he can't die. That is out of order. Any GM worth their salt is going turn around and say no to that idea.