Constitution is will power? No it's not....

[Noctem]

agree to disagree. Passive aggressive attempts at resolving out of character problems via in character methods, such as the targeted killing of a player's character, has never in my experience helped resolve anything. Gl to you if you try that method at a table.

 

[BoldItalic]

agree to disagree. Passive aggressive attempts at resolving out of character problems via in character methods, such as the targeted killing of a player's character, has never in my experience helped resolve anything. Gl to you if you try that method at a table.

Yes, agree to disagree. Different solutions work for different DMs - because we are different people

We've done the right thing by offering the OP a range of suggestions between us.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

agree to disagree. Passive aggressive attempts at resolving out of character problems via in character methods, such as the targeted killing of a player's character, has never in my experience helped resolve anything. Gl to you if you try that method at a table.

I've found that "in character" resolutions can work for role-playing issues, and when handled properly, the results are entertaining for everyone. But for disagreements over mechanical or rules issues, it's just going to be obvious what's happening: DM is targeting problem player. This will completely break immersion for the sake of teaching one problem player a lesson. End result: game is less fun for everyone.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

agree to disagree. Passive aggressive attempts at resolving out of character problems via in character methods, such as the targeted killing of a player's character, has never in my experience helped resolve anything. Gl to you if you try that method at a table.

I find that players that try to get beyond the normal bonuses in a particular area tend to fall into two schools. I'll use a different example from a different edition.

If the Player wants an extra high bonus to "Find Traps" with some players that means: "I hate traps. I don't want to deal with them, they aren't fun and I want to get on to other aspects of the game instead of worrying about traps."... with other players it might mean.... "BRING ON THE TRAPS. I want a lot more traps, make them more deadly and more interesting. A big focus of my character is about finding and figuring out ingenious ways to disable traps. This is a big part of my enjoyment in the game."

I could see a player, possibly wanting to be the guy who who puts himself in harms way, gets hit and goes down, but gets back up and keeps fighting. A Barbarian is a pretty good chassis for this, but there are other ways to represent it, but if someone wanted to play a totally risky, charge into battle, maybe with some kind of marking feature to draw attacks a bonus to death saves might be reasonable. And targeting that character disproportionately might actually add to that players enjoyment.

But as a lot of folks are saying, the best way to find that out is to talk to the player about it directly. In character solutions can work for a lot of things, but if the DM doesn't know what a player's character or enjoyment in the game is fundamentally about, it can be a rough ride.

You are totally right though that passive-aggressive behavior is never an attractive feature in a player or DM.... or ever... anywhere really. I am being a little glib, but especially in something as social as table-top roleplaying, that can be toxic to the entire group.

 

[Darkmantle26]

I think he's doing this is because of his firm belief that players should never die, and if they do, the DM is doing it wrong, I said to him once that your typical unprepared players who think they can brunt their way through every fight should never be able to defeat a dragon, and he said "Your not suppose to kill them, though" and I said that if they know they are going up against the dragon, they should be prepared for everything that dragon can do, and know that that dragon is most likely smarter than they are. If they think they can overpower a dragon with pure numbers, they don't deserve to win. I once had a mind flayer villain fight the party just after discovering a talisman of ultimate evil, and because that mind flayer was smart and knew what he was doing, he used it on the paladin. And the player in question said "Your just going to kill him?" I said "Let him make his save" He crits.


I don't mean any offence to this guy, he's one of my best friends, but he needs to lighten up

 

[Lanliss]

I think he's doing this is because of his firm belief that players should never die, and if they do, the DM is doing it wrong, I said to him once that your typical unprepared players who think they can brunt their way through every fight should never be able to defeat a dragon, and he said "Your not suppose to kill them, though" and I said that if they know they are going up against the dragon, they should be prepared for everything that dragon can do, and know that that dragon is most likely smarter than they are. If they think they can overpower a dragon with pure numbers, they don't deserve to win. I once had a mind flayer villain fight the party just after discovering a talisman of ultimate evil, and because that mind flayer was smart and knew what he was doing, he used it on the paladin. And the player in question said "Your just going to kill him?" I said "Let him make his save" He crits.


I don't mean any offence to this guy, he's one of my best friends, but he needs to lighten up

I am not really an expert, but this sounds like a simple difference of preference. You want your game, he wants an epic story of a groups adventure towards godhood. Some people do not want a gritty realistic game, or even a chance of dying, they just want a beer and pretzels, no worrying about carry loads, no death possibilities, fun game.

 

[n00b f00]

Yeah seems like a difference in tastes so he is trying to implement less lethal house rules. Maybe you should have it out as a group expectations about character death.

From semi regular save or die to resurrection magic is readily available to no deaths ever. Since that seems to be the underlying issue.

 

[Shasarak]

So I have a friend, who thought that death saves were a constitution save, when they are not. I told him this, his answer was "That's stupid! They are now."

Sounds like a reasonable ruling to me, what is the big deal?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sounds like a reasonable ruling to me, what is the big deal?

He's not the DM.

 

[Shasarak]

He's not the DM.

And?