Would you quit a game if....

[Elf Witch]

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.

There is a difference between asking and making an ultimatum. Did you talk to him and ask him if it was an ultimatum? I think by not talking to him and being kind of upset over it without knowing 100% that was what he was saying is not helping.

No one here is telling you that you have to make his character death free if you don't want to. Though I would talk to the players and ask just how much lethality do you want in the game. Also you yourself said that death is not common in your game did you actually sit down and talk to him about that aspect of the game?

Sometimes people have communication errors which is why I think it pays to talk and ask is that what you are saying.

I really don't enjoy permanent death style games so I ask a DM how lethal is your campaign, is death permanent questions like that.

I don't disagree that a DM has the right to make the final decision in his campaign anymore than I disagree that a player has the right to say look this style of game is not for me.

I just don't get the whole chest thumping standing my ground from players issuing ultimatums attitude that is going on here.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I'm sort of with you and sort of against you ElfWitch.

Let's say a game is set up with rules that either explicitly or implicitly forbid something. It doesn't matter what the write up of the game ad is:

"Why can't I have/be thing from excluded source X (or excluded item/material/class/race)" is rude to me, regardless of your tone. As far as I am concerned, you do that, and you're already complaining.

On the other hand, "Can I have/be thing from not specifically excluded (source/race/class/whatever)" is more likely to be entertained, perhaps "I hadn't thought of that, and haven't thought of a place for that thing, perhaps you'd like to do that?"

Now that we have more information on WaterBob's situation, it's a harder call. I'm not a fan of one-on-one games, so I don't know. At the same time I have no objection to excluding even my friends when they want to do things that affect the game negatively. Making out with the Lady of Pain in one case. Friend was kept out of game, which got silly anyway, point being that I am still friends with this person.

As to your hypothetical player asking for a specific weapon, I'd ask why this is so important.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm sort of with you and sort of against you ElfWitch.

Let's say a game is set up with rules that either explicitly or implicitly forbid something. It doesn't matter what the write up of the game ad is:

"Why can't I have/be thing from excluded source X (or excluded item/material/class/race)" is rude to me, regardless of your tone. As far as I am concerned, you do that, and you're already complaining.

On the other hand, "Can I have/be thing from not specifically excluded (source/race/class/whatever)" is more likely to be entertained, perhaps "I hadn't thought of that, and haven't thought of a place for that thing, perhaps you'd like to do that?"

Now that we have more information on WaterBob's situation, it's a harder call. I'm not a fan of one-on-one games, so I don't know. At the same time I have no objection to excluding even my friends when they want to do things that affect the game negatively. Making out with the Lady of Pain in one case. Friend was kept out of game, which got silly anyway, point being that I am still friends with this person.

As to your hypothetical player asking for a specific weapon, I'd ask why this is so important.

There to me is a big difference between demanding a game be changed to suit you and asking the DM look is there a way you would be willing to consider a way to make the game less lethal.

I agreed to play in a game that had no raise dead. 8 months into the campaign a lot of us were really starting to hate the whole permanent death thing. We found that we were no longer enjoying the game. So we went to the DM and asked if he would be willing to change how things worked. He thought about it and agreed because he wanted the campaign to continue and he wanted to continue it with us.

We were up front and honest with him that we were not enjoying the game and that if he said no then we wanted to play a different game. Now some of you mighty say we gave him an ultimatum and I guess it could be looked at that way. But the issue was we were not having fun. The DM had a choice say no and find new players, agree to change or let someone else DM for the group and he become a player.

This player of the OP has made a statement, it is very possible that the more he played the more he realized it would not be fun for him to play in a game where his character could die. I think he should have said something to the DM. They should have talked about it like adults and then a decision could be reached. There is no right answer to to what that deciosn should be. The DM say sorry no change then the player either stays or leaves, the DM agrees or maybe puts things into the game that make it harder to die.

The point is getting bent out of shape and not talking it out with the player is the worse thing to do.

 

[Matchstick]

I've found that I never like the idea of my character dying. That's good because it makes me play smarter. But I've also found that when my character does die, it's never the tragedy I felt like it was going to be. I find myself with the opportunity to try something else, I get excited about the possibilities, and pretty soon that dead character is no big deal.

What's weird is if you asked me whether I wanted to have character death in a campaign I'd probably SAY no. But my actions would show that I like having death in a campaign.

Not saying that's true for anyone but me of course.

 

[Janx]

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.

You don't seem to detect the things I differentiate on.

• not dying is special treatment, dying is normal treatment.
• asking if you can play a certain combination is not the same as asking if the GM can put a specific item in the game for you and is not the same as declaring that your PC is researching where he might find such an item.
• My cultural background about not asking for things has nothing to do with players, it is a social norm for me that can be rude to ask for things. period.
• WotC had years of successful design experience before they changed D&D. This guy has never played D&D and he's trying to change how it works to suit his videogame experience before he's tried it the current way.

it should be commonly considered that any general or broad statement that somebody makes has unspoken conditions, qualifiers and that the speaker is not such an immobile imbecile that they don't assess the situation and apply their general rule only as it applies.

Of course you can ask for some things. Can I have seconds? Can you pass the ketchup. Can I go to the park with my friends?

there's other things that start crossing the line. Can I have ice cream?

The steward of the ice cream decides when its ice cream time. That's the point of them managing that. You'll get ice cream when it's time for it.

My examples are silly, but the point is, apparently I have a different social upbringing and thus a different social expectation on what is or is not appropriate when dealing with an authority figure.

 

[Elf Witch]

You don't seem to detect the things I differentiate on.

• not dying is special treatment, dying is normal treatment.
• asking if you can play a certain combination is not the same as asking if the GM can put a specific item in the game for you and is not the same as declaring that your PC is researching where he might find such an item.
• My cultural background about not asking for things has nothing to do with players, it is a social norm for me that can be rude to ask for things. period.
• WotC had years of successful design experience before they changed D&D. This guy has never played D&D and he's trying to change how it works to suit his videogame experience before he's tried it the current way.

it should be commonly considered that any general or broad statement that somebody makes has unspoken conditions, qualifiers and that the speaker is not such an immobile imbecile that they don't assess the situation and apply their general rule only as it applies.

Of course you can ask for some things. Can I have seconds? Can you pass the ketchup. Can I go to the park with my friends?

there's other things that start crossing the line. Can I have ice cream?

The steward of the ice cream decides when its ice cream time. That's the point of them managing that. You'll get ice cream when it's time for it.

My examples are silly, but the point is, apparently I have a different social upbringing and thus a different social expectation on what is or is not appropriate when dealing with an authority figure.

I play 7 Seas which does not have character death I have had new players coming from DnD asking for death because that makes the game more exciting for them. I usually tell them no because that is not how I run my 7 Seas games. But I don't get angry about it or view them as being rude for ignoring the game history. They can either stay or leave.

There is not one shred of difference between asking not to die in a game that has death and asking to die in a game that does not. You asking to be treated differently than the other players and that is asking for special treatment. And it is the same thing just in reverse.

From what the OP has said this player has played DnD before but with a DM whose play style was one of not using death in the game. So from his experience playing DnD has been different from someone who has come from a more traditional style DM.

So for you your social norm is it is rude to ask for things you do realize that other people's social norms are not the same. So it is important no to let your social norms make a judgement that may not be applicable to a situation. I was taught it was okay to ask for thing as long as you are polite. So if I ask for something I am not trying to be rude at all.

Using your example of a player asking for a +5 avenger to put in the game is not rude. As the DM you can say no or say well you need to research how to find one and go on a quest.

I was playing a dex fighter in a game with low magic so you couldn't buy items you had to find them in treasure. So I asked the DM if he would be willing to put some kind of dex boast item like gloves of dexterity as treasure. I was not trying to tell him how to run his game or trying to be rude. I was simply looking for a way to make my character more playable and more enjoyable.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I think that asking to be un-killable in D&D is like asking to be killable in Toon - it goes strongly against the default assumptions of the game.

 

[S'mon]

I play 7 Seas which does not have character death...

On Monday:

Me, remembering Elf Witch posting this previously: "Oh, you play 7th Sea? The game without character death?"

Other D&D player: "Eh?! 7th Sea does have character death!"



Are you sure that 7th Sea PCs cannot die? He seemed very emphatic!

 

[Lwaxy]

7th Seas has character death but compared to other RPGs it is exceedingly rare, and a lot of GMs play without unless some player wants a change of character. .

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think that asking to be un-killable in D&D is like asking to be killable in Toon - it goes strongly against the default assumptions of the game.

Agreed 100%.