Would you quit a game if....

[Elf Witch]

Funny enough, I just ran into the opposite issue, now having a GM who does not kill off PCs at all if she can somehow fudge it. I get the reason - this new group, which I don't know that well yet, are all housewives in their 40s - 60s and they meet whenever they can in a chat to have something less boring than family duties in their lives. I already saw they basically created second versions of themselves in a fantasy setting. So they invested a lot and would maybe have a hard time recreating a similar, but not too close, character.

Now I need to convince the GM that I'd like to be an exception, and when my character dies, he dies... waiting on an answer on that one. I argued that it would make the game all the more interesting if it should happen After all, I am also playing a male (only one) so there might be an opening for an heroic death to save the poor women (I made the guy a bit macho on request as the world is mainly very chauvinistic).

I am just wondering if all the people who posted that the guy in the OP game has no right to come into a game and ask for special treatment would feel this is the same thing?

Also why would it be okay for your character to be treated differently than the rest? Maybe your character dying would be disrupting to the game for the other players.

 

[Water Bob]

Funny enough, I just ran into the opposite issue, now having a GM who does not kill off PCs at all if she can somehow fudge it. I get the reason - this new group, which I don't know that well yet, are all housewives in their 40s - 60s and they meet whenever they can in a chat to have something less boring than family duties in their lives. I already saw they basically created second versions of themselves in a fantasy setting. So they invested a lot and would maybe have a hard time recreating a similar, but not too close, character.

Now I need to convince the GM that I'd like to be an exception, and when my character dies, he dies... waiting on an answer on that one. I argued that it would make the game all the more interesting if it should happen After all, I am also playing a male (only one) so there might be an opening for an heroic death to save the poor women (I made the guy a bit macho on request as the world is mainly very chauvinistic).

Wow. This is the most interesting, unexpected gaming group that I've ever heard of.

 

[steeldragons]

Also why would it be okay for your character to be treated differently than the rest? Maybe your character dying would be disrupting to the game for the other players.

Not to put too fine a "realism" point on it, Elf Witch, but shouldn't death be disruptive, even upsetting, to those in the game world and, thus, the game.

One of your "friends" or at least "companions/brothers-in-arms" was just cut down...probably in front of you/in the same melee you were just in. It should be disruptive for the characters, at least.

For the game, roll up another PC. Let/make the party decide/wonder/worry, do we need to go back and find a replacement for this member of our group or can we sojourn on with a reasonable expectation of success? Can we get him raised (if that's a "realistic" possibility in the game world)? Do we bury him here or take him back to town/his family...leave him for the scavengers and monstrous creatures to defile and dispose of the body?

I, for one, would be a little disappointed if my character was killed (even if I was ok with that, which I am) and everyone (the other PCs, I mean) just went about their business/adventure as if nothing had happened. I'd hope their PCs liked, or at least respected, my PC a little more than that.

 

[Elf Witch]

Not to put too fine a "realism" point on it, Elf Witch, but shouldn't death be disruptive, even upsetting, to those in the game world and, thus, the game.

One of your "friends" or at least "companions/brothers-in-arms" was just cut down...probably in front of you/in the same melee you were just in. It should be disruptive for the characters, at least.

For the game, roll up another PC. Let/make the party decide/wonder/worry, do we need to go back and find a replacement for this member of our group or can we sojourn on with a reasonable expectation of success? Can we get him raised (if that's a "realistic" possibility in the game world)? Do we bury him here or take him back to town/his family...leave him for the scavengers and monstrous creatures to defile and dispose of the body?

I, for one, would be a little disappointed if my character was killed (even if I was ok with that, which I am) and everyone (the other PCs, I mean) just went about their business/adventure as if nothing had happened. I'd hope their PCs liked, or at least respected, my PC a little more than that.

The game should be what the people playing want it to be and if they don't want death in the game then that is as much a valid way to play as having a gritty dice fall where they may style game.

My last post was a simple wonder if the people who were telling the OP not to bend the way his group plays to take death out for the one player because it goes against the way the group has decided to play feel the same way about this twist. That this player is asking for special treatment?

 

[Lwaxy]

Also why would it be okay for your character to be treated differently than the rest? Maybe your character dying would be disrupting to the game for the other players.

If that would be the case, I don't mind not dying I was just thinking because by playing a male character I'm already set up a bit different, so maybe it would make sense for Sir Alonso to be the mortal in the group. Not that I want him to die, I guess he'll be pretty interesting to play in this setting.

 

[Elf Witch]

If that would be the case, I don't mind not dying I was just thinking because by playing a male character I'm already set up a bit different, so maybe it would make sense for Sir Alonso to be the mortal in the group. Not that I want him to die, I guess he'll be pretty interesting to play in this setting.

I just want to be clear I don't think you are wrong to ask but then I didn't think the guy in the OP game was wrong either.

I don't think it is ever wrong for a player to ask a DM to consider doing something to make the game more fun for them.

 

[JediSoth]

I can understand being invested in a character, but I still wouldn't quit just because my character died.

Every circumstance in which I would quit as a result of character death boils down more to the GM/other players being jerks rather than the actual death of my character (like if the GM/other players repeatedly killed my character right after they were introduced as a form a hazing or just immaturely messing with me).

If I have a character I'm invested in that dies 'cause I did something stupid, well, I deserved it. If he died due to overwhelming odds or bad luck, well, then that character's story has come to an end (assuming there's won't be a resurrection). Too bad, so sad, time to move on.

 

[Janx]

I think it depends on what kind of special treatment.

I assume that "death is a possibility" is the default trait in every RPG unless the rules indicate otherwise. Some RPGs have rules to reduce the risk, but most RPGs I've encountered (and I have only seen a fraction) still have death on the table.

As a GM, I don't like players asking for things. I don't want to hear "can my PC find a +4 Avenger sword?" Because now it puts pressure on me to incorporate that into the game whereas it might not naturally occur. Culturally, my upbringing says this is rude. You don't ask for things. Because asking for a thing implies a right to that thing and creates an obligation on the requestee to produce it.

On death, my game is already a low lethality game. I tend to measure encounter difficulty carefully. If your PC died, I made a mistake, or you did. I have more tools to prevent it on my part (including methods folks mentioned here to satisfy the OP's guy), so most of the time, it's your fault.

If it's your fault that your PC is dead, taking that off the table softens up what I consider to be already a soft policy. I've already gone out of my way to be a gentle GM, the player can take some ownership and deal with some PC death like every other D&D player over the last 40 years has.

How is that different than Lwaxy's example of wanting his PC to be able to die? Probably because "not dying" is considered the special treatment that everybody in the group is getting. Lwaxy is declining that special treatment, and in some ways is helping the GM present Death in a way that is personal to the other players (a PC you know has died), without revoking that special treatment for the players.

Conversely, the OP's guy doesn't want to pay the price that every other player in the group pays. He wants special treatment. That becomes unfair when my PC died last week when I did something stupid, but this week, you get to keep your PC because you got special treatment.

To me, the OP's guy approached the table with pre-concieved notions taken from videogames, and several things he's said reflect that. He then wants D&D to change to suit his notion, rather than accepting that the 40 year old game concept outweighs his experience from video games. He disrespected his elders in not accepting D&D for what it was, rather than taking it as is and trying it or declining it.

Newbs who try to change the system before they've tried the system are a dime a dozen. And worth just as much in wisdom.

 

[Water Bob]

I will say that it really irked me to no end at first. I think I was irked because it felt like an ultimatum. "Hit my character hard with baddies, but not too hard, or I'll quit your game..."

That kind of talk incenses me.

One of the things nobody has picked up on in this thread, though I've made it no secret, is that I only have two players in this campaign. So, if the one leaves, it's me and the other player left.

I think I'd still be irriatated if I had a group of three or five, but with only having one other player, I feel as if the player is using that as leverage to get the kind of game he wants.

Now, I've had time to simmer down. I've thought about it a lot. And, I've decided that I will break the game up over it. I'm not going to budge on this or even entertain this type of ultimatum by a player.

I may find another player. There are a few that are interested but I haven't pursued. Or, depending on my state of mind when/if this player ever leaves over his character dying, I'd might just end the game. But, my preference to continue and not let his action deter us.

That's my stance. It's final. It might sound a little hard core to some of you, but if it does, that's exactly how I want it to sound. I'm not going to put up with this type of behavior from a player. Not in my game.

The player is not disruptive. Out of the two I have right now, he's the better player. And, the player and I are friends outside of the game.

So, what I'm going to do is just go on, business as normal, and play the game. If the character dies, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. The player can decide if he wants to quit or not.

Either way, in my game world (especially in gritty Conan's universe), if you die, you die. And, that's it.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think it depends on what kind of special treatment.

I assume that "death is a possibility" is the default trait in every RPG unless the rules indicate otherwise. Some RPGs have rules to reduce the risk, but most RPGs I've encountered (and I have only seen a fraction) still have death on the table.

As a GM, I don't like players asking for things. I don't want to hear "can my PC find a +4 Avenger sword?" Because now it puts pressure on me to incorporate that into the game whereas it might not naturally occur. Culturally, my upbringing says this is rude. You don't ask for things. Because asking for a thing implies a right to that thing and creates an obligation on the requestee to produce it.

On death, my game is already a low lethality game. I tend to measure encounter difficulty carefully. If your PC died, I made a mistake, or you did. I have more tools to prevent it on my part (including methods folks mentioned here to satisfy the OP's guy), so most of the time, it's your fault.

If it's your fault that your PC is dead, taking that off the table softens up what I consider to be already a soft policy. I've already gone out of my way to be a gentle GM, the player can take some ownership and deal with some PC death like every other D&D player over the last 40 years has.

How is that different than Lwaxy's example of wanting his PC to be able to die? Probably because "not dying" is considered the special treatment that everybody in the group is getting. Lwaxy is declining that special treatment, and in some ways is helping the GM present Death in a way that is personal to the other players (a PC you know has died), without revoking that special treatment for the players.

Conversely, the OP's guy doesn't want to pay the price that every other player in the group pays. He wants special treatment. That becomes unfair when my PC died last week when I did something stupid, but this week, you get to keep your PC because you got special treatment.

To me, the OP's guy approached the table with pre-concieved notions taken from videogames, and several things he's said reflect that. He then wants D&D to change to suit his notion, rather than accepting that the 40 year old game concept outweighs his experience from video games. He disrespected his elders in not accepting D&D for what it was, rather than taking it as is and trying it or declining it.

Newbs who try to change the system before they've tried the system are a dime a dozen. And worth just as much in wisdom.

There is so much I disagree with in this post.

First of all I don't get the idea that is it wrong for a player to ask for something or that it is rude. If a player says to me you know I would like to have a +5 holy avenger sword as the DM I take that into consideration. If I think it fits the character and the campaign they might get it or they might get something similar.

As a DM I don't feel obligated to give players everything they want.

Now if they are jerks about it or whiny or are in any unpleasant that is what is rude.

And while death is part of the rules there is this little thing called rule 0 the one that allows a DM to tailor his game to his and his players desires. So it is perfectly acceptable to run a game where death is not pat of the game.

The rules allow for bringing back dead characters yet there are plenty of DMs who rule 0 and say death is permanent.

Not dying is no more special than asking to die in a game that death does not happen. Asking for a different treatment at the table then what everyone else has agreed to is asking for special treatment regardless of what it is.

Not that I think it is wrong to ask it is just wrong to expect it to be yes and then get pissy if it is no. Maybe some tables would not mind of a player gets a special treatment.

I don't care if there is 40 years in game history that is just stupid logic. Using that logic it would be wrong for a player to approach the DM and say I have an idea for a lawful neutral paladin of St Cuthbert can we work something out. Well no because 40 years of gaming history say otherwise. How dare you disrespect your elders on this. Do you realize how that sounds? How dare WOTC disrespect their elders by changing a game they didn't invent?

If a player does not enjoy having their character die and it is a deal breaker for them they have the right to ask a DM if there is a way to prevent this. The DM has the right to say no and the player then can choose to stay or leave.

I had a feeling that some people would say that there is a difference between asking not to die and asking to die. And the reason I thought that was because some people have an issue is accepting that not everyone wants to play the same way and use role playing games to support different play styles.

There is no difference at all between asking not to have your character killed and asking for it to be killed. In both cases you are asking for special treatment from the DM that goes against the social contract made between the other players and the DM.