Would you quit a game if....

[Lwaxy]

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.

He may really get so attached to his characters he can't play the same campaign with someone else once they die. I have a player like this in my campaigns. Her PC died twice and she switched to one of my other games. With her, it is just a fact, once the PC dies in a campaign, she "dies" with it.

I have had two campaigns (a Star Wars one and a Star Trek one) where I was also unable to make a new character for the game as it kinda felt wrong. I ended up switching with the GM So I can somewhat understand the issue.

In any case, I would never run a game where death was impossible. And yeah, I'm always invested in the PCs of my players as well. I don't go out of my way to kill them.

But it happens, even in situations where you think it would be fine because they are higher level than the adventure suggests. We just had a PC die this afternoon. It was a good moment in the game. It drove the point home that Golarion is a dangerous world, even though (or especially) because your PCs are supposed to be heroes.

 

[S'mon]

When they're weened down to 3 FPs, does Conan turn into a meat grinder?

No, it doesn't. Players who conserve FPs for staying-alive purposes rarely ever lose PCs, IME.

 

[Harlekin]

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.

But that is not what he did. He announced that he would not want to play a second character in the same campaign. He did not ask for immortality, and I expect that the OP's game as it is running now works just fine for him.

In fact, this thread seems like a lot of noise about nothing; the OP was taken aback by the players honest statement and now some people here take the conversation out of context and give horrible advice.

My advice for the OP would be: Tell the player that your game already has some safeguards against PC deaths, but if his PC would die anyway, there is nothing extra you would do, even though you like having him in your game. Then both of your preferences are clearly spelled out and he can make an informed decision; likely he is going to stay in your game.
If necessary, you can remind him sometimes to keep some FP to ensure survival. And if he still dies through particularly bad luck, you can then decide what would disrupt your game more, him leaving or you finding some other outcome.

 

[blargney the second]

Re-reading the OP, I'd say just run with it. Change nothing about playstyle or lethality, don't pull your punches. When his character dies, he leaves. So what? He's the one placing restrictions on his own enjoyment, let him stew in the problem of his own design.
-blarg

 

[Oryan77]

But that is not what he did. He announced that he would not want to play a second character in the same campaign. He did not ask for immortality,

Granted, I was not there. But I really find it hard to believe that when a person makes such a statement to the DM, that it is not meant to imply that he hopes the DM will take that under consideration when his PC is about to die. Otherwise, why mention it at all if you don't mean to influence the DMs actions? Just bow out when it happens and thank them for the fun game. It's not like the DM can prepare for it.

 

[kitsune9]

I would just tell the player that character death can happen through bad dice rolls or other things and if his character dies, he's free as a player to make his own decision of what to do next.

 

[Umbran]

Just bow out when it happens and thank them for the fun game. It's not like the DM can prepare for it.

Psychologically, they can. Having someone abruptly quit on you in the middle of something important to you all can be rather upsetting. Knowing beforehand that it'll happen means that nobody is confused about why things are happening.

Let us step back for a moment. I think folks are losing the forest for the one tree. That it is concerns character death in this case is not really material - that is just another preference. Let us ignore the specific preference here, and think generally.

There's a simple question: do you or do you not want your players to communicate with you about their preferences, about what makes the game fun for them, before they start playing?

Informed choice, for both you and the player requires candid exchange of information. That is not possible in an atmosphere of suspicion of motive, or fear of recrimination.

Or, to steal a turn of phrase from "1776" - there ain't nothing so dangerous it can't be talked about!

 

[JamesonCourage]

He says that, (he's warning me up front), if his character dies, he will quit the campaign.

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

Well:

ultimatum
2. any final or peremptory demand, offer, or proposal

peremptory
1. Putting an end to all debate or action

I think him saying "if you do this thing I don't want, I won't play with you" and not being willing to compromise qualifies as an ultimatum.

When I created a new region for the players to explore two weeks ago, I asked them each to come up with one "fact" for it. I'd interpret it, and it'd fit my view, but I'd stick to the spirit of their fact. To me, this is exploring player preference. Hearing "I want this type of character" and working with the player is listening to their preference. Hearing "I would prefer games where my character doesn't die, since I have so much invested in him" and working with him is listening to player preference.

Having someone say "it's this way, or I'm done" is an ultimatum. It's not necessarily unjustified; if he feels unfulfilled, why play that way? It makes it harder to be unsympathetic, with him being a "good roleplayer" and all. I'd want to compromise, but that doesn't change the fact that if he's not willing to, it is indeed an ultimatum.

Compromise needs to happen on both ends. Otherwise, it's not compromise, it's one side settling. Sometimes, that needs to happen for one side to enjoy the game. Unfortunately, if that's true of both sides, they probably can't play well together. It sucks when gaming styles are otherwise compatible, but it happens sometimes.

I will draw an analogy...

Assume Water Bob here is a hobby-cook, and is holding a dinner party. He invites a guest. That guest informs Bob that if he's cooking food with peanuts, he won't eat it - he's got an allergy.

I really don't like this analogy much. In your analogy, he can't enjoy anything about the meal, and it's life-threatening.

I'd prefer something like a group get-together. You tell him you're planning on playing some video games, eating some food, hanging out talking and playing cards or a board game, and watching a movie. One likely movie candidate is a movie he can't stand. Since talking during the whole movie isn't an option, he can't even really deal with it by passing the time that way. He says that if you watch the movie, he'll take off when you do so.

Now, you can change the movie, but the group is really considering watching it, as it's been talked about for months. He can enjoy the rest of the night up to the point that the movie comes on, but it's his call if he wants to leave then. The other movies are fine, but the groups likes the option of the movie on the table, and doesn't want to take it off just because of his preference.

In this, the new player can enjoy nearly everything else, but in asking the group to take an option out of the game that is enjoyable to the other players or he'll walk, it's an ultimatum. An understandable one, as I've said above, and even more unfortunate. But sometimes, when the new guys says something like that your group, you watch the movie anyways, and hope he stays for it. If he doesn't, well, it's fair, he gave you a heads up, and he just doesn't like it. But maybe he'll stick around for the experience with your group, and meet your group there since he enjoyed everything before it.

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.

Oh, I definitely think he's expressing his preference, but I do believe it's being expressed through an ultimatum. I've done the same to one past GM, though I made it clear that he had the right to run the game however he wanted. He just did something in most of his games that I couldn't enjoy, and I let him know that I'd be out if/when it happened.

It was a heads up for him, not me trying to get him to change his style. This is likely a similar scenario. However, I'd still consider it an ultimatum on my part, since I really wasn't willing to compromise. I was saying, "if you do things this way, I'm not playing with you" with no compromise. There's an implicit demand there: if you want to keep me as a player, run things this way. I did make it clear he had to right to run his game however he wanted to, much as I did when he played with me, but there's still that implied demand.

I suppose if there's absolutely no pressure for the GM to meet you on your end or compromise (due to admirable communication and open-mindedness on both sides), there's no implicit demand. In most situations, however, I imagine a GM is struggling with the heads up, much as Water Bob did before posting.

So, maybe I should change my input to "probable implicit ultimatum, though not necessarily." You know, just to cover my bases, and because it could definitely be the case.

Anyways, I sympathize with both sides. As always, play what you like

Granted, I was not there. But I really find it hard to believe that when a person makes such a statement to the DM, that it is not meant to imply that he hopes the DM will take that under consideration when his PC is about to die. Otherwise, why mention it at all if you don't mean to influence the DMs actions? Just bow out when it happens and thank them for the fun game. It's not like the DM can prepare for it.

Perhaps he's informing the guy running the game out of courtesy?

But, yeah, this is what makes me think it's an implicit ultimatum. He could definitely be informing Water Bob out of courtesy. But, I do think he probably wants his expressed preference taken into account, too. It's not for sure, but it did seem like Water Bob struggled with the statement in regards to his GMing style with the player's new PC.

Now, his struggle could be due to being a very considerate GM, but it could also be due to the tone in which the statement was made. If the tone or general feel of the statement was such that it made Water Bob question whether he should change (rather that just him wondering out of being a considerate guy and GM), then I think it might carry that "implicit ultimatum" I mentioned earlier.

But, I do agree with Umbran: we weren't there, and we don't know. It could be courtesy, and Water Bob could easily be a good guy debating how he can make his players happy even if that wasn't the intent of the statement.

I do think that both sides should game together. Fate Points will help protect him, and Water Bob seems to like rooting for them and is story-oriented. I think they'll be pretty compatible, as long as Water Bob advises the new player to hold onto his Fate Points for survival, and the new player takes him up on his advice. Just my thoughts on it. As always, play what you like

 

[Living Legend]

this thing about not playing if his character dies really irks me. I mean, what if he, as a player, does something phenomenally stupid with his character. I'm supposed to scrap the entire campaign because his character is dead?

No, that's not going to happen.

I completely agree, if you give in you basically become the Michael Bay of DMing... bad.

When the characters get KOed make them captured. Or even worse they wake up with the bare cloths with few HP and nothing else next to some nondescript trail. In many D&D games Dieing is better then losing everything you own. Dieing is like reset but having to stick with the same character and over come many different types of failure is a true challenge.

Another option that I've done with a TPK is have everyone wake up in the Afterlife and have them earn their way back to the mortal realm. That can also be a lot of fun.

This might not be a bad approach, but I'm guessing this wouldn't work here. Just the way this guy presents the issue tells he me he would quit if his gear was gone, cuz that is part of his character, just like if he lost his arm. The afterlife idea might work, but it won't fix the problem of what if this guy does something stupid and gets himself alone killed, then the campaign stops while he works his way back from the dead, so then anyone might as well do something stupid, cuz the campaign just stops for them too.... and michael bay is back again.

 

[Janx]

We could actually answer the OP's title question.

Would you quit if your PC died?
No.

I view that as poor sportsmanship, being a quitter and taking it too seriously.
I might be mad, sad or disappointed that my PC died, but that does not mean that I let the defeat invalidate all of the fun I had up to that point.

By quitting, I am basically saying "Since I lost, it is clear that I have been wasting all of my previous time spent with you guys. I'm going to go do something else now."

That tends to insult the other players, that they were merely wasting your time, as if they were put on this earth to amuse you.

If you were raising a child, would you really accept the child saying "If I lose this game, I will never play it again." It's the same thing.