Would you quit a game if....

[scourger]

I agree with you both. The game needs the risk of death for the players to feel challenged, I think. But, as a player, I've quit games after my character died because I just couldn't make the new investment to come up with another character. The worst is an ignoble character death caused by the action (or inaction) of the other "heroes." I have various ways to make it less prominenet in the game, but it is still a possibility.

 

[Luce]

Personally this will give me an excuse to run a Planescape game. Planescape Torment that is.
Tell the player to choose from any of the following as his PC's (nic)name:

"Lost One"
"Immortal One"
"Incarnation's End"
"Man of a Thousand Deaths"
"The One Doomed to Life"
"Restless One"
"One of Many"
"The One Whom Life Holds Prisoner"
"The Bringer of Shadows"

 

[Dordledum]

The worst is an ignoble character death caused by the action (or inaction) of the other "heroes."

Ah, yes. I remember the death of Dagon Silverhammer, my favourite character ever, Level11 Dwarven fighter/cleric (D&D 3.5E). He got jumped by Orogs, the rest of the party were too afraid to intervene, sneaked away and left him too die. At least they gave him a proper burial.

Wasn't a reason for to quit the game though, next session they met Frulbol Doksleb, Svirfneblin Druid/Rogue.

(ps. level adjustment of +4 is too harsh)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll say this: I have never in 35 years of gaming left a group or campaign over getting a PC killed. I accept PC death as part of the game.

Then again, I have a storehouse of ideas for PCs, waiting to be used. In all likelihood, only one guy in our group will ever run 4Ed. But besides my current PC, I already have 3 other fully fleshed out PC concepts for that system, plus another dozen or so character "sketches."

...which is not to say I'm not invested in my active PCs. Far from it. It's just that I know I have many concepts that would be just as interesting to play as whatever I'm playing now.

 

[Umbran]

I'd be polite, I'd be sympathetic to his reasoning, but under no circumstances will I allow a player to be that kind of a wet blanket in my group. Period.

I see two different lines of conversation here:

1) Should you accommodate the player?

2) Is the player being a nozzle for saying what he prefers?

I am addressing the second, not the first. I don't think there's any problem with telling the player, "Dude, I'm sorry, I don't think this game is for you."

However, I also think that most playstyles are valid, even if I don't like them. The guy isn't a crybaby, or a nutbar, just for really not liking to start a second character in a campaign. And, if he really doesn't like it, it is his *duty* to make that clear before he begins, rather than keep it secret and then have it jump out at the GM if the character does, in fact, die.

Knowing your player's styles ahead of time is important. That requires that they actually tell you, and then you can both make an informed choice, like mature adults.

Here's a question: You've got a player who you think would be good to have in the game, but they may be moving away in six months, or a year. Do you not let them in because they might leave at some unknown time in the future? How is this different from having them maybe leave for some other reason? What reasons are valid for leaving, and what are invalid?

 

[UselessTriviaMan]

Okay, now that I can totally support. I'm completely in favor of calmly discussing preferences, playstyles, and expectations of the game. And I also agree that these should be addressed before the gaming actually starts. If, after this discussion, the player decides to not join in I can completely understand his point of view and I'll happily wish him the best of luck in finding a group that fits his preferred style.

As for your question: I'd totally bring him into the fold. Gaming is my preferred hobby, and I love to share it with any and all who'd like to join me. (Which has bitten me in the butt a time or two - DMing a table of 14 players is just too much!)

But as to the reasons for quitting? I don't think it matters all that much. If a person has to leave the game, they have to leave the game. I've (recently) had a player quit because his girlfriend bullied him into it. I've had players quit because they moved to another state. I've had players quit because they weren't enjoying the game. I've quit games because I didn't like the GM's style. Life gets in the way, and there's no denying that - as much as I wish it weren't so - this is still just a game. There are other things more important than D&D (but don't tell my wife!).

I'm struggling to come up with an invalid reason for quitting - the only one I can come up with is an instance where severe miscommunication between the players/GM causes a problem.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ok, at this point I think maybe the OP should ask everybody else at the table if they are fine with making an arrangement so that the PC of this player won't die permanently - which doesn't mean he's immortal... just that if by chance his PC drops at -10, is turned to stone or whatever, the DM will alter the rules so the PC is just temporarily out of the game but can still recover.

We had the same issue once, several years ago. One of the players in a group where half of the people joined from an announcement (and she was one of them) and the other half already played together. She asked the DM that her wizard character would be protected from dying, the reasons now don't matter but she was genuinely asking for this, not childishly.

I think I would have been nervous to DM such game... but the DM accepted her request after asking everyone if they had an issue with it (I found it quite nonsensical at first, but I did not object).

During the campaign, two characters died (including mine ), her wizard didn't die but also nobody else's PC did. I never ever had the feeling that the DM was protecting her character, but I guess I will never know if the DM was just good at hiding it! Fortunately her "special" character blended in with no problems. So perhaps you should try to be optimistic and just play the game.

 

[the Jester]

Ok, at this point I think maybe the OP should ask everybody else at the table if they are fine with making an arrangement so that the PC of this player won't die permanently - which doesn't mean he's immortal... just that if by chance his PC drops at -10, is turned to stone or whatever, the DM will alter the rules so the PC is just temporarily out of the game but can still recover.

Good God, no.

No, no, no- a million times no- no player should get special treatment because they have a sense of entitlement.

I would sit down with the player and say, "I'm sorry to hear you say that, and perhaps you should just quit now, because I'm not giving you any guarantees. Alternatively, you could stick it out and see if you change your mind if and when you die." I'd follow with, "You are not the protagonist of a novel; you are one player in a game. You do not get plot immunity- any of you- and I won't give you special treatment because you might get your feelings hurt."

 

[Umbran]

No, no, no- a million times no- no player should get special treatment because they have a sense of entitlement.

Okay, here's a problem - I don't think we can, from where we sit, tell the difference between "sense of entitlement" and "playstyle preference."

We were not part of the conversation that the OP had. We have none of the nuance and tone. We cannot read the player's mind from here.

It could have been, "Sure, I'll play! But, just so you, know, if I die, I probably will bow out. If that's okay with you, it is okay with me." Entirely amicable, no passive-aggressive attempts to gain what he wanted. Just telling the truth, and finding out if it was okay.

Or, it could have been arch-typical whiny-pouty-pants.

Specifically, the OP did *not* say the player asked for special treatment.

Having a very incomplete description of the events, I think we have to assume a lot to get t "entitlement", and if our assumption is wrong, we end up giving bad advice to the OP. I encourage you to remain open-minded about the nature of the player, and gear your advice understanding you don't know the details.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I gave the extra Fate Points because none of my players were familiar with the Conan RPG or 3.0/3.5 d20. They're 1E and 2E AD&Ders. So, I put that in for cushion while everyone was learning the rules.

After a year, we're still learning the rules.

But, I plan on weaning them off the Fate Point luxury, getting them back to down to 3 points or so.

When they're weened down to 3 FPs, does Conan turn into a meat grinder? I'm also curious whether resurrection magic is a reliable commodity in Conan, as it is in D&D, or if it's purely a plot device thing? (Like that warrior blonde who raised Conan in the movie, and then died two scenes later.)