Would you quit a game if....

[Broken Druid]

Looking at the basic design of the game across editions, PCs are very fragile at low level compared to high level, and the Raise Dead and such isn't feasibly available to a PC until they reach a certain success level (wealth or casting ability).

I would surmise that low level PCs are expected to die more frequently because they lack the resources to prevent or reverse it.

High level PCs, which have a higher investment by the players, have numerous means within the game to prevent or reverse death as covered by the rules the players can use and not by DM Fiat.


The makers of the game didn't make it so the DM has to save your precious PC. The makers of the game made it so the PLAYERS can save your precious PC if they work for it and earn it.

the difference is, your PC does not have to die in a majority of D&D campaigns IF your players work together. The GM does not have to be part of that protection process.

Wrong. The DM ALWAYS has a duty to the players. However, the reverse is also true. The players have a duty to the DM. This is known as cooperation, and is very important to the health of a gaming group's dynamics.

The player has fulfilled his side of the tacit contract. He has come to the DM with his issue. It is now the DM's responsibility to address it. Man up and either make accommodation, or tell the player it ain't going to happen.

If the DM is afraid of a problem arising at the table, then he should address the issue AT the table, before the next game session. Just send out a email saying something like, 'hey guys, one of you came to me to say they didn't want to lose their character, so what do you think we should do for them, to assure their fun? Bring your ideas to the next game.' That way, the entire group can weigh in on the issue, and if consensus is that the table won't be able to make accommodation without it causing a problem, then the player will know it's time to start easing up on the play, and/or to start looking for a new group.

This is, of course, the best-case scenario, which is dependent on the entire group having mature attitudes toward the game.

 

[Broken Druid]

Going back to reread the original post, I believe I should clarify one thing.

I think the player is wrong if he is expecting to just pick up exactly where they left off. Requesting a ring with a contingency spell of Raise Dead is one thing. Expecting a ring with a contingency spell of True Res is a whole 'nother ballgame.

I am, and always have been, a proponent of suffering the consequences of one's actions. If you do something monumentally stupid in-game, then you should be prepared for some serious consequences. Going up to a black ancient wyrm dragon and kicking it in the nose SHOULD result in death. And you SHOULD lose that level of XP for being stupid.

 

[Loonook]

We got attacked and I was fighting three bad guys at once when our wizard cast evards black tentacles on them I got caught in them too. My character was crushed to death. I was very upset especially because as a player I knew that the wizard had a ring of freedom of movement that he looted off the dead body of my other character. To save me all he had to do was give the ring to the paladin who had freedom of movement cast on his armor so that the paladin could bring me the ring. He choose not to and when other people jumped on him about it he was well I was role playing my character who you all know is a greedy and secretive about magic items.

There was nothing fun or exciting about the death and I can assure you I did not have much fun in that session or the nest three I had to sit out while they traveled to find someone to raise me.

So not all death is created equal.

We had a similar issue with a Cleric who decided to not ward up the fighter over an argument that they had been having... Can't remember the specific ward that was required, but the player decided to ward himself up and become the Hero of the Day when the fighter was in the midst of some creature love. As a DM I winced because Renard was kind of our Roy Greenhilt; a smart, leader type who had kind of become the party's compass. The Cleric player was a bit of an Attention Seeker and wanted to be the Big Man in this specific fight, and failed horribly at it. The party made it through the combat by skin of teeth but death and dying is hard. The Cleric decided to strike the final blow rather than stabilizing the Fighter, something that the Rogue could have covered with his creature companion, a sentient dog that had the spirit of one of the character's NPCs trapped inside his loyal hound. The BBEG's lieutenant was dispatched by the Cleric while the held Paladin, the Rogue, the companion, and the Mage looked on in irritation.

The Cleric kept going the buff route, protecting himself over the party, bringing some dangerous moments (but thankfully the Paladin and the Rogue protected the party with LoH and UMD checks). The group finally entered into the Big Bad Sanctum, fighting forward through a bunch of undead. The Paladin and the Cleric split apart to attack the leader of the mooks, the shadow-like geist of the lieutenant who had been defeated, while the Rogue and Mage spread out to knock down the wards of the Necromancer. My co-DM took the Rogue and Mage's group, and we kept in contact on breaks.

The Cleric doing his normal 'Hammer of the Gods' bit is battling through with the Paladin, Turning and burning, battling the undead horde. The Shade fights the two, and the battle is some epic stuff. It's held in the depths, and when destroyed the Lieutenant shatters into a dozen Shadows... And the two battle their way through.

They get through to the top, and the Paladin begins bantering with the Cleric. The Paladin had passed his Religion checks, and the sigils here were meant to be broken by the blood of a divine caster. I had built this in as a possible Divine Sacrifice for the Paladin, something he had been looking for to rise up as a sort of Saint Cuthbert of his temple, to fight the good fight and come back with a host of spirit warriors to essentially serve as a ward making the Boss Fight a one-on-one.

I saw the Paladin's player smile as the Shadows came forward. He spoke of the sacrifice needed, and that only the greatest of warriors could seal this rift. He spoke of the Cleric's martial prowess and proceeded to Trip the Cleric, who is sitting at a low-HP situation, unbuffed, and...

Proceeded to say "For Renard" while plunging his sword into the soft cowardly belly of the Attention Whore. The two went up in holy flame together and something that had been irritating for around eight sessions came full circle. The players decided to send the Cleric out on a rail unless he decided to never, ever, EVER, play such a completely self-centered, party-useless member again, and we brought Renard (the co-DM's PC) and the Paladin back to the battle in a 'Summon the Cavalry' method when the Rogue and Mage finished their side and found themselves face to face with the BBEG without any additional support.

All in all sometimes party infighting can be advantageous .

Slainte,

-Loonook.


And sometimes the table just needs to throw a character like that under the dragon.

 

[Janx]

Wrong.

That's a pretty strong word. Where is anything that I said that is factually incorrect?

The DM ALWAYS has a duty to the players. However, the reverse is also true. The players have a duty to the DM. This is known as cooperation, and is very important to the health of a gaming group's dynamics.

This is a good practice, but stands seperate from the facts that I stated.

The game has healing, buffs, reversal spells for the purpose of protecting and saving a PC's life. Those things are there for the PCs to earn and use to their benefit.

The GM can, but does not NEED to intervene in saving a PC, when the player knew the risks and engaged the encounter without sufficient resources to ensure their survival.

It has already been acknowledged that a majority of groups play with Death on the table. We're not a bunch of dicks being mean to the poor players who are too attached to their PCs. Most of us encourage rules or practices that give the PCs the best chance to avoid Dying. But at some point, it CAN happen.

It should be accepted that if the majority plays that way, and you want to play with them, that's how the game is played.

It isn't like WoW, and it does suck to lose a PC. NetHack works the same way, and you don't see people bitching about that. It is the core mechanic of the game.

If you want to experience the game the way the Majority does it, Death is on the table. If you don't, there's apparently groups out there that do things differently.

 

[Janx]

Going back to reread the original post, I believe I should clarify one thing.

I think the player is wrong if he is expecting to just pick up exactly where they left off. Requesting a ring with a contingency spell of Raise Dead is one thing. Expecting a ring with a contingency spell of True Res is a whole 'nother ballgame.

I am, and always have been, a proponent of suffering the consequences of one's actions. If you do something monumentally stupid in-game, then you should be prepared for some serious consequences. Going up to a black ancient wyrm dragon and kicking it in the nose SHOULD result in death. And you SHOULD lose that level of XP for being stupid.

along that line, let's look at it from the other style's perspective. How as a player can I abuse that?

Let's say I make a "pretty good" PC, one prone to heroics and generally good deeds. I know you won't kill my PC. I might even declare that at times when I make a brash and bold move against the bad guys yet again.

How bad do the consequences have to be before you let my PC die the death he deserves?

What kind of consequences do you think won't drive me to cry that "you're ruining my character concept" which is pretty much what the guy who didn't want his PC to die is also complaining about.


Nobody wants their PC to die.
Nobody wants their PC horribly disfigured.
Nobody wants their PC's stats lowered through torture and rendered useless.
Nobody wants to survive because of yet another implausible DM rescue by Deus Ex Machina.

A bad player can ruin what the noble practice of trying to spare the players the loss of a character. I think they can sneak up on you and they are not always blatantly obvious, yet still cause trouble.


Not letting PCs die is one way to handle the problem.
Another way is to make the campaign better handle the loss of a PC. I had another thread about that concept based on my reading of the highly lethal Game of Thrones series.

 

[Water Bob]

So, what gives you the right to look down your nose at people who, having invested thought, time and who knows how many hours of play, don't want to lose their creation?

It's the God-given, unalienable right of...wait for it...personal taste.

Personal preference gives me that right to say, "Hey, I really don't like the way those guys are doing that. It seems stupid to me, the way they play. I don't respect it, and I'm not going to play that way."

Don't confuse that the way Elf Witch did to mean that I want to enforce my personal preference on everybody else.

In this ultra-ridiculous-PC world, people sometimes forget that it is more than OK, but your right, to have a preference--to think and declare what is right and wrong for yourself. Your own standards do not have to match everyone else's.

 

[S'mon]

So, what gives you the right to look down your nose at people...

We're all at liberty to look down our nose at whoever we like. The important thing is that if their preferences are non-harmful, we should tolerate them in good humour. Don't try to force people to respect your preference.

 

[S'mon]

This is what I was trying to nail [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] down on, that even in her game it is POSSIBLE that a PC could die. To which she admitted, that yes, there COULD be a situation where the PC can die. That was my whole point. Unless you truly are playing an immortal, Death is always on the table, waiting for the GM to decide that you truly did screw up and there are no plausible last minute saves or escapes.

From [MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION]'s explanations, it's clear to me that he runs a low death game. The two problems I quoted here are not LIKELY possibilities.

Well spotted - on the facts, it appears that the likelihood of death in WB and EW's games is actually very similar! They're siblings under the skin!

Now let us all gather round and sing campfire songs...

 

[Water Bob]

Well spotted - on the facts, it appears that the likelihood of death in WB and EW's games is actually very similar! They're siblings under the skin!

My players wouldn't agree with what I've said until I asked them to name who has died (nobody in this campaign). I keep the perception of danger high--which, I think is what my player in the OP was percepting in my game.

He doesn't know what goes on behind the GM's curtain. For example, last game session, it looked like I pushed my players to the very limit (one had 2 hp, one had 6 hp, and a demon was flying around with five undead wiggling their way towards them).

The undead, excited to ultra speed with the prescence of the demon, followed the PCs for hours--about 8 hours, in fact, deep into the night, during a horrible thunder and lightning storm.

I was rolling exhaustion on the PCs.

From the PCs' point of view, the situation looked impossible. It looked like I was out to kill them.

But really, what I was doing was setting them up for a huge success.

Had one of them gotten into real danger, I had some contingency plans that would make sense "in game" that would happen, just barely saving the PC's arses. It wouldn't look like the GM helping the PCs at all. It would look like the GM finally allowing something to "work" in the PCs' favor.

But, I didn't have to pull out that contingency plan because one of the players came up with an idea...and I let it work.

Now, the player feels like he came up with an idea that saved the party. The other player is greatful to him for saving their butts.

(And the poor old GM gets no credit... ...but, that's OK. My job is supposed to be invisible here. Otherwise, I break the players' suspension of disbelief.)

I'd prefer my players thinking that I run a "tough" game than them knowing the reality.

 

[Elf Witch]

It's the God-given, unalienable right of...wait for it...personal taste.

Personal preference gives me that right to say, "Hey, I really don't like the way those guys are doing that. It seems stupid to me, the way they play. I don't respect it, and I'm not going to play that way."

Don't confuse that the way Elf Witch did to mean that I want to enforce my personal preference on everybody else.

In this ultra-ridiculous-PC world, people sometimes forget that it is more than OK, but your right, to have a preference--to think and declare what is right and wrong for yourself. Your own standards do not have to match everyone else's.

Umm I never once said that you were trying to force your way of playing on anyone else. What I said was that you think people who take death out of the game are playing it wrong and you have admitted you don't respect them. That is different.

And Broken Druid did not try and say her way was the only way either. I think she was calling you out because that is exactly how you sounded in a lot of this thread. Maybe you didn't mean for it to sound that way but it kind of came across that way.

It is one thing to talk about why you like death in game it is another to say you don't respect people who play differently.