Chairman7w
First Post
Screw that - just play the game. If his PC dies, he quits. It doesn't really matter, cause his PC's dead anyway.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Would you quit a game if....
- Thread starter Water Bob
- Start date
As for "entitlement" vs "playstyle"...frankly, I don't give a damn. The details here are immaterial- for whatever reason, he doesn't fit with the game the group is playing at this moment; there is no reason to bend this game's assumptions to accommodate him.
Last edited:
Oryan77
Adventurer
I'm having a hard time relating that analogy to the game mainly because it is a health issue and I can sympathize and accommodate an allergy to my food. I also can't downplay a gaming preference like "do not kill me" as being nothing other than a "gaming style".
We can all agree that demanding that your PC not die or else, is probably the biggest demand a player can have in a D&D game. The main purpose in D&D is to survive. If you take that out of the game, then the DM may as well not bother with any sort of rules. Will it matter that the CR is 8 times higher than the party ECL? If there is no death, who cares what you encounter.
In a "tactical wargame" and a game where you can simulate real life if you want to, that is a really big demand when it is not customary to do so. I can't just chalk it up to gaming styles. That's a player wanting to bend the rules in his favor & change the core of the game.
Aeolius
Adventurer
Indeed.
I must admit, I am equally attached to my NPCs. I've had the same neutral night hag protagonist in all of my online games since 1995. She died a couple of times, she spent time as a spectral hag, and sometime later was a spirit hag in the region of dreams. Most recently she experienced apotheosis and is now an avatar of Cegilune.
But she was far from undying.
Maybe in your game, certainly not in all D&D games.
Oryan77
Adventurer
If the group agrees to not have any PC deaths, then you're right. But just about every D&D books consists of information from cover to cover that is there for no other reason than to help a character survive in a campaign world.
In general, yes, the main purpose of a D&D game is to survive. Otherwise, you don't need all that junk in the rulebooks. I'm sure there are exceptions among groups, but that doesn't mean that the main goal of D&D isn't to survive.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I'll go this far: playing a FRPG that uses swords, armor and iconic monsters like dragons without the possibility of PC death is like playing traditional games of gambling without money or anything else at risk.
Sure, it's fine for a charity casino night, but it really isn't the same as going to Vegas or getting on a Mississippi riverboat.
Cash is what you risk in a casino; PC lives are what you risk playing FRPGs.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
I think WaterBob has taken a pretty good approach to the issue. The only thing I would add is to let the player know that you're not pulling punches and his character may still die.
In this situation I personally would just let the player know he's not a good fit for the group and let him go. His "Y'all are going to play the way I want or I'm going to quit" ultimatum may well be a precursor of things to come. What's next? "Gimme a good magic sword or I'll quit?"
In this situation I personally would just let the player know he's not a good fit for the group and let him go. His "Y'all are going to play the way I want or I'm going to quit" ultimatum may well be a precursor of things to come. What's next? "Gimme a good magic sword or I'll quit?"
Mishihari Lord
First Post
It's pretty obvious from context that he's talking about artistic integrity, not moral integrity.
Lwaxy
Cute but dangerous
And now i have such a desire to watch Westworld and Futureworld again and no way of doing so
