Would you quit a game if....

[steeldragons]

Apologies for being tardy ta the party.

I'm sure all of the wisdom of EN world has already addressed all of this. But indulge me, anyway.

1) As I said in your XP, 100% correct. If he leaves, he leaves. He doesn't get "story immunity" for being a baby or feeling he should have a D&D experience that simulates a computer game. Go play your computer game then!

2) Yes, Conan doesn't die. James Bond doesn't die. Know why?! They are the central characters in a series of literary works of fiction. Yes, your character is central to this collaborative game of fiction. But that doesn't make it a novel or <shudder> a computer game. You, as the DM, are not the author with complete control over HIS character.

3) It's HIS FRIGGIN' JOB to keep his character alive! Not yours.

Grrr. I'm sure he's a lovely guy and glad he's working out well...but such a "request" (which it really wasn't. It was an ultimatum at best, a "threat" at worst.) has no business being thought of, let alone said in the first place.

Let the dice fall where they may...and he is welcome to make his own decisions and follow them.

That is all.
Carry on.
--SD

 

[billd91]

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.

I'm calling shenanigans. People need to stop with the psychoanalyzing. ALL RPGing is a certain amount of ego stroking. You get to be powerful characters doing things you can't do in real life - you get to be larger than life. This is no different or worse than anything else the rest of you all are doing. This is a difference in style.

This is a style of play that can fit in well with the Conan line of pulp fantasy - playing a highly significant character who is central to the story. If the character dies, that story ends. Full Stop. He may be pretty good at following the rules of the game, based on the Water Bob's update, but it also seems clear that he's very much into the character's story. It sounds like he invests pretty heavily and wants that investment given a certain amount of insurance. In a table of like-minded other players and GM, I'm sure it could be fantastic.

The problem is - you're not a like-minded GM. To play together without you risking his departure requires one or both of you to compromise. It's as simple (and as hard) as that. Are his contributions valuable enough for you to bend? Are your contributions worthwhile enough for him to bend if his character dies?

 

[steeldragons]

I'm calling shenanigans. People need to stop with the psychoanalyzing. ALL RPGing is a certain amount of ego stroking. You get to be powerful characters doing things you can't do in real life - you get to be larger than life. This is no different or worse than anything else the rest of you all are doing. This is a difference in style.

This is a style of play that can fit in well with the Conan line of pulp fantasy - playing a highly significant character who is central to the story. If the character dies, that story ends. Full Stop. He may be pretty good at following the rules of the game, based on the Water Bob's update, but it also seems clear that he's very much into the character's story. It sounds like he invests pretty heavily and wants that investment given a certain amount of insurance. In a table of like-minded other players and GM, I'm sure it could be fantastic.

The problem is - you're not a like-minded GM. To play together without you risking his departure requires one or both of you to compromise. It's as simple (and as hard) as that. Are his contributions valuable enough for you to bend? Are your contributions worthwhile enough for him to bend if his character dies?

Dashitall! "Must spread some around." Someone get bill91 some "XP for Wisdom" for me.

I will gladly pay you Tuesday, for an XP today.

Please and thank you.
--SD

 

[Umbran]

Grrr. I'm sure he's a lovely guy and glad he's working out well...but such a "request" (which it really wasn't. It was an ultimatum at best, a "threat" at worst.) has no business being thought of, let alone said in the first place.

No business being thought of?

Who the heck are you to declare what others should *think*? You got credentials as Duly Elected Grand Thought Policeman, or something?

The One True Wayism in here is staggering. Simply staggering.

Would I quit a game if my character died? Generally not. But would I quit a game if people reacted in such a fashion to so much as the expression of an idea? Maybe....

 

[steeldragons]

No business being thought of?

Who the heck are you to declare what others should *think*? You got credentials as Duly Elected Grand Thought Policeman, or something?

The One True Wayism in here is staggering. Simply staggering.

True enough. "Thought" was probably a poor choice of words (though I am a deputized Grand Thought Policeman" ).

I'm sorry if this position has been mentioned before. I didn't read the 8 pages of posts in the thread before posting my own.

But seriously, Umbran, would you go into a game (any kind of RPG really, not just D&D) with the attitude that "my character better not die or I'll walk." (which was in the first post that I did read.)

I don't think it's "One True Wayism" to expect the players to be in charge of or think/know it is their responsibility to see to the life expectancy of their character. Of course, OTW is kinda a swingin' target for all of us, regarding what other people write.

--SD

 

[GSHamster]

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.

 

[haakon1]

What I'd say (also coming in late) is:

OK. But I think the game is no fun if you CAN'T die -- if we "metagame" that James Bond can never die, the action loses its intensity. And this is the Lord of the Rings anyhow -- your character might be Gandalf or Boromir or a random redshirt soldier of Gondor, we just don't know yet.

So your PC CAN die. I'm not saying they will, but they might. If you do something foolhardy, or you get unlucky at the wrong time, it will happen. I'm not intentionally trying to kill off the PC's, but some scenarios will be too tough for you -- I don't scale the world to fit your party -- so sometimes you need to avoid trouble, or be clever about it, seeking help or "Combat as War"ing it to make it easier. If you take on Smaug when you're first level, and you don't have the help of Bard the Bowman and the whole Laketown militia, chances are you'll die -- actually, even with Bard the Bowman, you'd probably all die!

Of course, in most scenarios there's a good chance you could be raised if you are killed, but that's not always possible, like if there's a TPK and the monsters eat you all, with no one to know your fate!

I know character death can be upsetting when you've invested in a character. But it can also be awesome. I cried when my first paladin died (when I was 11 years old), but I was elated when my most recent one went down in a blaze of glory -- he died with his boots on, face-to-face attack a dragon when he was down to a single HP, trying to save his friends in a hopeless fight where 3 of the 6 PC's died. So I was happy for him, living and dying just like he wanted.

If you can live with that risk, you're welcome to stay in my campaign. And if you do get killed, I'd like you to consider taking over an NPC or something, maybe after you've had some time off the game -- there's no shame in NOT quitting or coming back, if you change your mind.

If you can't live with that risk, you probably should find a different campaign.

 

[Mallus]

As DM, I have no issue with people stating their preferences, and I'm quite sure my own campaigns are chock full of some peoples' deal-breakers. To each their own. No harm, no foul. Etc.

As a player, I've go no problem with campaigns which reduce or remove the chance of PC death. My PC needs to be able to lose something. Their imaginary life doesn't need to be one of them.

 

[Oryan77]

Ithere 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".

Yep, that's my opinion. Players want to be the DM while they are being the players. I'm not cool with that. Now, if the DM was cool with it, that's great. Then run the campaign world and let the players have whatever control you want them to have. But a lot of players feel that they should be allowed control whenever they want, regardless if the DM doesn't want to run the game that way.

It seemed like the DM used to be thought of as the "god" of the world. It was his creation, he puts all of the work into providing content for the players, and he had the final say on the outcome. Nowadays, players are insulted by that thought for some reason. That's what it seems like to me anyway.

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 think that is because most people here are usually the DM or at least have DMing experience and understand what a DM deals with when running a game for players.

The load on a DM is a lot more than on a player. A DM also has to deal with more issues since he is outnumbered at the table. Player vs player conflicts are not as common as player vs DM conflicts. So it takes a lot more patience to DM than it does to be a player.

So I usually have sympathy for a DM more than I do a player because I've dealt with a ton more problem players than I have ever dealt with problem DMs. Players don't seem to respect DMs much (they say they do, but actions speak louder than words) and I see a lot of player entitlement going on. I never do half of the problematic things to DMs that players have done to me.

 

[Harlekin]

No business being thought of?

Who the heck are you to declare what others should *think*? You got credentials as Duly Elected Grand Thought Policeman, or something?

The One True Wayism in here is staggering. Simply staggering.

Would I quit a game if my character died? Generally not. But would I quit a game if people reacted in such a fashion to so much as the expression of an idea? Maybe....

Must spread XP around.....

Quite frankly after all this GM chest thumping here, I am not surprised that the OP now says that he is ready to cut of his nose to spite his face.