Would you quit a game if....

[Elf Witch]

Just don't choose a game/ world which features death. You can roleplay gingerbread men in Candyland and never have the subject of death even brought up. Zero death in the gameworld means characters can never die.

If death exists in the gameworld, and characters are familliar with it then logically it could possibly happen to them. Getting upset over a character dying in world where death exists is like jumping off a cliff and blaming gravity for the painful landing.

That is so just so much BS just because DnD has rules for dying does not mean that you have to play it as written.

There is no difference in taking death out of the game then house ruling any other aspect of the game. The game I mentioned with the high body count was a 3.0 DnD game where the DM had house ruled out any kind of raise dead.

I have played plenty of fun 7 Seas where death is not part of the game and I have also played in several very enjoyable DnD games where we took death out and had faced other consequences for hitting -10.

Just because you can't see how it would be fun does not mean it is not fun nor did it makes us feel any less tension in battle.

Personally I think I prefer a game with other consequences to dying then a game where raise dead magic is available. Sometimes the raise dead just becomes so cheesy.

Sometimes death can really complicated the game. We play in heavy role playing games so the entire you look trust worthy join us does not fly. So the DM as to really work to introduce a new character. Then there is the whole wealth issue unless you bring the new character in with nothing or force the players to get rid of their fallen party member items the wealth level can really explode.

Then there has been the issue with what class the new character is going to be. Most of the people I play with don't want to play the same class so you often end up short a needed class or if you have a big group people stepping on each others toes.

I think there is as many good arguments in death being a pain in the tush as there are arguments for keeping it in the game.

In the end it comes down to what you want at your table. I prefer to run a game with very little PC death so it is hard to die in my game. It is possible but not likely. I have yet to hear a complaint about the game not being fun or the players feeling immortal.

 

[fba827]

i agree in that you shouldn't cater to it if it isn't a style your group already does.
having said that, what your campaigns take on raise dead stuff -- maybe if he dies, there is still the chance of him coming back to life in a big dramatic way --- maybe he's secretly a child or a god or something if you wanted to make it abnormal for just anyone to come back to life.

 

[Water Bob]

Does the Heal skill allow HP to be regained within that one hour window? If not, how does one actually take advantage of Left for Dead before resorting to the Fort save? (Which sounds rather steep for a low level PC.)

Yes, the Short Term Care option of the Heal skill takes 10 minutes to implement and returns a minimum 1 HP (if the check is successful). So, that's the primary way Left For Dead will be helpful.

Also, there are some alchemical offerings that restore a few hit points. Nothing like a Cure Light Wounds or a Healing poition, but you might find an herb combination that returns 1d2 HP, or adds to the Heal check if successful, or provides a bonus on the Heal check throw.

Once in a very, very blue moon, there may be sorcerous healing or item healing, but as I said earlier, this might be story and plot related.

 

[Water Bob]

....If they are like me, most DMs will work hard to keep a campaign from suffering deaths too often in order to retain some kind of narrative continutity & flow, as well as keeping their friends happy.

I do work very hard to keep characters alive. Heck, I don't like it when even allied NPCs die. But, I recognize that the risk of death is a necessary factor of drama in RPGs. Games where PCs are overpowered and invincible are just plain boring.

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.

That irks me to no end. I'm not going to let a player dictate the game like that. Yes, the game is about all of us, not just me. Yes, it's my job as GM to make sure the players have fun. But, I refuse to promise this guy that his character will never die. I'm just not going to do it.

Besides this, I'd hate to lose him as a player. I think our game will be weaker for it if he does. He's been the "star" of the night several times, and he roleplays like a sonofagun. He's really good.

But, yes, I'm going to let him go if his character gets killed and he starts whining about it.




EDIT: I'm pretty straight forward with RPGs. Many times, I follow RAW exactly without any house rules. When I started Conan, I used the default character generation method, which is 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste.

When I brought this guy into the game, he made an odd comment. I told him that what he rolls is what he rolls. There are no "re-do's". And, he said, "Well, if I roll low stats, I just won't play. Nobody likes playing a normal Joe. I want to be the hero."

I didn't really take him serious, but in light of what he's said recently, I think he was.

Luckily (or ironically), he actually rolled quite good stats. In fact, his character has the best stats of all the PCs. I can tell the player really likes this, and since it was rolled right in front of me, I've got zero problem with it.

But, I guess, this guy would have never been in my game if he hadn't rolled as well as he did.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But, I refuse to promise this guy that his character will never die. I'm just not going to do it.

Nor would I.

When I brought this guy into the game, he made an odd comment. I told him that what he rolls is what he rolls. There are no "re-do's". And, he said, "Well, if I roll low stats, I just won't play. Nobody likes playing a normal Joe. I want to be the hero."

I didn't really take him serious, but in light of what he's said recently, I think he was.

I agree...and at the risk of reopening a can of worms, it really sounds like an entitlement issue to me.

As long as he wasn't being disruptive, I'd welcome him at my table. But if his PC died, I wouldn't plead with him to stay if he decided to scoop up his dice & books and made a Cartman-like exit.

 

[frankthedm]

But that is not what he did. He announced that he would not want to play a second character in the same campaign. He did not ask for immortality, and I expect that the OP's game as it is running now works just fine for him.

He announced his intentions to willingly disrupt the game group after he becomes a part of it should the rules be fairly applied to him. And make no mistake, someone leaving the group is a disruption to it. It happens, people move, schedules change, but those are unforeseen and unavoidable and the person leaving is generally faultless. This guy says his is going to cause the disruption and do so willingly. Time to be rid of him now.

 

[Elf Witch]

He announced his intentions to willingly disrupt the game group after he bcomes a part of it. Time to be rid of him.

That is really reaching. Pray tell how is choosing to leave a campaign when your character is killed disrupting the game?

 

[Thotas]

Wow, after reading that first post, I gotta say something without waiting the time it would take to read the whole thread. So, somebody's probably said this already. I'm undoubtedly chiming in on someone else's already expressed opinion.

Assuming hypothetically you were to accommodate this player's wish, and give his character safety. You then have to ask if you're going to treat everyone else the same way. If you don't, then you've got a table where one PC can't die, but the others can. Clearly, this is unacceptable. If you do, a newcomer has dictated the campaign style for an established game. That may be about the only thing that's even worse.

Enjoy this player while you can, but eventually he's out, almost undoubtedly. And given the reasons provided for the request, be ready to accept that the longer it takes, the more invested he'll be in the character, and the bigger the scene will be when the day comes.

 

[frankthedm]

That is really reaching. Pray tell how is choosing to leave a campaign when your character is killed disrupting the game?

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.

 

[S'mon]

I disagree. IME in 35 years in the hobby, I would say that PC deaths have been rare, and that repercussions of PC death have made many DMs quite gunshy. IOW, while most in this thread would seem to support the possibility of PC death, it is not common for PCs to actually die. If they are like me, most DMs will work hard to keep a campaign from suffering deaths too often in order to retain some kind of narrative continutity & flow, as well as keeping their friends happy.

OTOH I've seen DMs derided by their players for obvious fudging to keep PCs alive. Many players play for the challenge, and don't want a can't-die game. OGL Conan and 4e D&D both aim for a sweet spot where the rules themselves should make death possible but rare, if you follow the RAW on Fate Points or encounter-building.