Would you quit a game if....

[mach1.9pants]

Well I don't think I have ever had a PC 'not die'. Campaigns I have played have either ended with PC deaths or us feeling it is time to move on with another game/campaign. I have never played an AP with a defined end game. So in that case he is going to leave anyway, I would just randomly kill his PC in some lava trap and get on with your game with the others.

 

[Relique du Madde]

I say kill him awesomely in the next session. Make him duel the main bad guy on a ledge, then have him be ran threw with a rapier. Then have his corpse fall off the ledge and land onto a cart full of explosives causing the cart to explode killing the minions who are surrounding it. Then after the explosion rocks the compound, make the main badguy to fail a reflex check, causing him to fall and impale himself on a wall spike.

-Sent via Tapatalk

 

[Water Bob]

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.

What about blind luck? Massive Damge is rolled agains the PC? He fails a DEX check, and then his REF check, and he STILL falls off the cliff.

Or...the character just plain runs out of hit points during a fight because the goblin he was fighting rolled 3 Criticals on him.

I certainly can't control this.

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 have a TON invested in my PCs. My story I'm developing is EPIC, and these are the HEROES.

In another thread, I mentioned that I didn't allow the players to come up with their own character names because I tied in their names to prophecy and culture--these characters have DESTINY.

But, I can't....even with all that involvement on my part as GM....absolutely promise to keep the PCs safe.

Stuff can happen to them.

I hope it won't. I hope we're playing these characters when the PCs are 85 years old.

But, that's a lot of encounters between now and then.

 

[Janx]

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

A valid point.

However, from a newbie, making comparisons to video games, the player is missing the point.

D&D ain't a video game. By default, there is no reload. PCs die, at a rate that varies from GM to GM.

I can't say that dying is "part of the fun" or whatever, that's subjective.

But it is part of the standard design.

The way the player phrased it, makes it sound like an ultimatum. Whatever it's called, I can't see a majority of GMs complying with it.

 

[Ringlerun]

I've picked up a new player that's never gamed with me before. So far, I've got a good impression of him. He's a good role player and is fitting into my game well.

One thing he says bothers me, though. He says that, (he's warning me up front), if his character dies, he will quit the campaign. 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. "Conan doesn't die," he says. "James Bond doesn't die. And, when I play Skyrim, if my character gets killed, I get to reload and keep playing with the same character."

I have never understood this type of argument from players. How much can you invest in a piece of paper? Its make believe not a puppy.
I dont like my characters dying either but im not about to shed a tear and take my dice and books and go home.

Its up to you if you want this type of person in your group. Personally i would be very wary of someone who invests anything into a piece of paper, and especially someone who tells people how much they have invested into a piece of paper.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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

I find it a total killjoy to know that my PC can't die...but if another player wants total death immunity I don't think I'd mind. *shrug* If you're feeling uncertain about putting your GM foot down one way or the other, maybe put it up for group discussion and/or vote. If the other players feel like I do, you've got a win-win solution!

(Besides, from what you've said of your GM style and the Conan rules, there's only a 0.01% chance that this'll ever come up.)

Oops, sorry I just jinxed you!

 

[Deset Gled]

I, for one, believe that it's quite possible for a low-death-count game and a no-death-count game to coexist quite peacefully, as long as both sides understand one another.

In a low-death-count game, there is a basic understanding that the DM is not going to do things that are lethal and unavoidable. Save-or-die spells are generally replaced with save-or-take-massive-penalty spells (remember, there's no rule that says you have to kill an immobilized character). They will not put characters in a trap where there is only one super secret non-intuitive way to find a way out. They will help characters find the way rather than watch them walk off a cliff in the dark. And they will occasionally have players captured rather than be killed. But they are also not afraid to kill off characters who repeatedly and/or purposefully makes moronic choices, and will not hold back on a player who openly welcomes death.

In a no-death campaign, there needs to be a basic understanding that the players will not act as if they are playing in a no-death campaign. There is a basic social contract that characters will not swim in lava, spit on an ancient dragon, or willfully take the stupid route just because they can. In return, the players will put their heart and soul into their characters, which creates more drama and better roleplaying for all.

The only time these styles of play fail to overlap is in a case of extremely unlikely statistics, or when one person (DM or player) decides to screw it up. I think that what your new player is doing is simply attempting to lay the foundation of a social contract: you don't be and jerk, and I won't be a jerk. Don't take that as an insult, and don't intentionally challenge it (but don't let him challenge it, either). Simply take it as an indication of what type of game the character prefers, and move on. As long as you're not running an RBDM style of game, there's no reason why you can't both continue without either side offending the other.

 

[Water Bob]

(Besides, from what you've said of your GM style and the Conan rules, there's only a 0.01% chance that this'll ever come up.)!

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.

 

[Daztur]

Nixing player death beforehand works for a lot of games but I think it's rude to put such an ultimatum to the GM, something like that should be decided beforehand by consensus. If the whole group wants to play a game like that then that's awesome, if only one does then tough for him.

Note: Conan d20 is a lot of fun, it's my favorite incarnation of the d20 rules despite its warts. I ran a fun Icelandic Saga-inspired campaign using a houseruled version of those rules (my players played bloodthirsty thugs for the most part and it was fun to not have to try to curb that but instead nod sagely and say how Egil Skallagrimson did much worse after each of their stunts).

 

[Water Bob]

Note: Conan d20 is a lot of fun, it's my favorite incarnation of the d20 rules despite its warts.

I have to agree. I tend to like any RPG that is laid in front of my eyes, but I have a passion for Conan's universe, and this particular version of the d20 rules really fit the universe well.

I was never a big d20 fan until I saw these rules. I'm tempted to play every d20 based fantasy game, even D&D, using them.