Would you quit a game if....

[Elf Witch]

Tell him it's fine... you found a way around it.

Then, when the character dies, reincarnate him as a small forest animal.

Alternately, bring the character back as a simulacrum, a magical being in total servitude to the wizard who created him.

Remember that Conan and James Bond have been played by different actors, over time. Regeneration/reincarnation is not completely out of line with the player's request. Conan, James Bond, and Tarzan as Time Lords.. now THAT would be an adventure!

While I admit this made me chuckle, I don't think it is the way to handle it.

There is nothing wrong in wanting to play in non lethal game. I have played in one and it was a blast. Bad things happened but death was never permanent.

This guy needs to find a group that he fits better with not be ridiculed or punished because he style of playing is not the norm.

 

[13garth13]

Sounds about right to me.

Yup; as most others have stated, promising a player that their character has plot immunity to death is the highway to rather hot place (and I don't mean bloody Tampa).

To be honest, I genuinely cannot fathom that sort of approach to an RPG (not that it's badwrongfun or anything, it's just so truly foreign to me that it's like someone talking about how great tasting mauve was or asking if I had given a listen to the latest Brom picture). Where's the fun and tension if you know that your hero is never (under threat of leaving the game as a player) going to perish?

James Bond films may be exciting (if fact they occupy a very special place in my heart!) and a wonderful form of escapism, but I've never found the tension to ever get all that high, simply because you just KNOW he's going to escape the deathtrap somehow. Ditto Conan stories. Now with George R.R. Martin novels, I'm never sure who is going to live or die and it creates dramatic tension and a ball in my gut, because one of my favourite characters might not actually survive a conflict (hell, there's almost a 50/50 chance they're going to take a dirt nap).

Clearly people's mileage does vary, but the tldr version is that I think you're taking the right approach (next thing you know, it's backrubs for all the players, and where does it end, I ask you??!!!?? ).

Cheers,
Colin

 

[kinem]

As a DM, I want players to think that death is always likely to be just around the next corner!

But, my games are not actually that deadly. It's the fear that's important

So, if it were me I should tell the guy to take a hike. Not sure I would - there are practical limits on finding players - but at a minimum, yeah, tell him he gets no special consideration and if he does die make sure that the door does hit him on the way out.

 

[Twichyboy]

Your game, your rules,

I dont mean this in an authoritarian "my way or the highway" kind of thing, compromise is important, and Players having a good time is the number one thing, but the DM is a player too,

Because your the person that has to spend time making the setting and the encounters, if this change makes the game unappealing to you (Which it does to me too) then you shouldn't have to budge on it

 

[billd91]

While I do understand that scaling encounters is necessary, I feel like my integrity will be tarnished if I ever made a pact with the players to not kill their character and only design encounters where the PCs always win.

So, I've decided that, if I lose this player, I lose him, no matter how much "fun" and "good" he's bringing to the game. I refuse to do what he asks.

I won't do what he asks. I'd rather not play at all than do that.

<snip>
Am I alone in my opinion. Do others agree with him?

Integrity tarnished? For not killing his character? That's a laugh. The only time your integrity would be tarnished would be not fulfilling the terms of the group's social contract. And if that contact has a no-kill clause, it's killing the PCs that would damage your integrity.

I don't think a player coming late to the game has any right to expect a change in the group's overall style or social contract. But if the rest of your players decided they wanted a change and a certain amount of plot immunity, then any issue about 'your integrity' is out of place. You may dislike that style of play and decline to participate but that's not really a question of integrity. That's a question of preference.

 

[Oryan77]

He's says he does this because he's got so much invested in his character that he just can't have fun running a different one in the same world.

Ask him how many groups he's been in and how many campaigns he's dropped from.

This sounds pretty boring and even more frustrating than having a character dying. Floating from campaign to campaign would mean less gaming. Certainly nobody is dropping an entire campaign just to keep him because his PC died and he's going to quit.

The only other thing equally as annoying as this is when a player tells you he will roll up a new PC if his current PC loses all of his gear (or a really special item). I can't stand that attitude towards the game. Just play a video game then if you don't want to deal with real world challenges.

 

[UselessTriviaMan]

If a player tried to pull that on me, I'd shut him down with no uncertain terms. I'd be patient and sympathetic while I explained that there's simply no way I would ever allow an ultimatum like that at my gaming table.

Removing the players' fear of dying will hamstring the game's fun. Players who know their PCs won't actually die will very likely find the tension - which is, to me, the really fun part of gaming - isn't nearly as satisfying.

 

[Water Bob]

I think some players feel this way especially if they have played with really lethal DMs.

My players think I'm a leathal DM. In reality, I'm not. Even in this (very deadly by default) Conan game we're playing, I boosted all the PCs to 9+ Fate Points at the start of the game. As long as you have one Fate Point, it's a 99.99% chance that your character will not die. He may be captured and lose all his equipment, but the character will amazingly survive.

It's something I guess the designers had to do in a game where Massive damage happens at 20 hp damage and all the weapons do more damage than their D&D counterparts.



I rely on fear to make the game seem much more deadly than it is. Manytimes, I'll engineer something, or take a player idea and run with it, making it look like the player played so well that, in spite of all odds, he stuck with it, fought to the last hit point, and survived!

In reality, I may have two or three other ideas that will actually save the PCs with that won't seem like the GM just saving the players' butts. I try to always make it seem like the players saved themselves...that they're heroes that win in spite of all odds.

Our last encounter we played last Saturday was like this. One PC got pushed down to 2 hp, the other to 6 hp, and it looked like they were dead.

But, a player thought of an idea. I let it work, but I made it seem like the PC pulled it off by the skin of his teeth.

In reality, if the PC hadn't of thought of that idea, then I had something else up my sleeve that would have been cool, story-wise.

 

[The Monster]

As a GM, it's been years - real-life years - since I killed a PC in any of my games. I've had PCs knocked out, captured, retired (by player choice), demoted, ripped off, cursed, etc., etc. I guess to me, even as GM I typically have a lot invested in most of the PCs, in terms of subplot and foreshadowed events; killing them simply shuts off the story potential. I admit to being a bit soft-hearted as a GM, but mostly it's just what I said, a matter of setting up plot hooks and backgrounds and relationships, and then having it all lost. I can hear some folks now: kinda like real life, just suck it up, them's the breaks. But this is a fantasy game, not real life; if you run games that way that's fine, but I don't.
I found it freeing when running 7th Sea, which explicity states that PCs don't die: that's a swashbuckling game, and the emphasis is on dramatic heroics and flashy moves. It fits my style very well.
None of this means the heros always win; in fact, it frees them to lose without killing the campaign or all the effort put into the character. And as GM, it means I can throw all kinds of wild stuff at my players and not risk ending the campaign.

Personally, if the subject of the OP is coming from that kind of mindset, I can support that - especialy for a casual/occasional player, having that kind of investment wiped out by what could easily be a die roll or two is very unsatisfying, and there are many more enjoyable ways to pass time, even within the same genre.
If it comes down to an attitude of 'I never want to lose' then you and everyone else is better off without him. I've got one or two people kind of like that in my group, and it's annoying even to the limited extent they partake of that attitude.

As someone already mentioned, it depends on how your group rolls, you as GM and the rest of the players. If PC death is a major aspect of your game, then there's good reason for this person not to join - because he's right, it's not worth his time to play a game he won't enjoy. And it's not worth your time as GM to falsify your play style in a way that will destroy your enjoyment.

 

[Umbran]

If a player tried to pull that on me, I'd shut him down with no uncertain terms. I'd be patient and sympathetic while I explained that there's simply no way I would ever allow an ultimatum like that at my gaming table.

Hm. What you call "an ultimatum", I call "a player telling me their desired playstyle beforehand".