# Would you quit a game if....



## Water Bob (Mar 22, 2012)

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."

This is utterly foreign to me.  I don't like it when PC's die.  I want my players succeed.

But, I'd feel like a sellout if I promised my players that they would never die.  I don't think the game would be the same without that edge in there.

My players says that I should keep that in mind when designing encounters--not to make them so hard that the PCs dying becomes likely.

While I do understand that scaling encounters is necessary, I feel like my integrity will be tarnished if I ever made a pact with the players to not kill their character and only design encounters where the PCs always win.

So, I've decided that, if I lose this player, I lose him, no matter how much "fun" and "good" he's bringing to the game.  I refuse to do what he asks.

I won't do what he asks.  I'd rather not play at all than do that.

And, 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.



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


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 22, 2012)

Conan and James Bond only have plot armor because their stories are already written, and therefore already finished. An RPG session is more like a play being acted out while the script is being written by both the director (GM) and the actors (players). Sure, you may have a golden ending in mind, but it's up to the players and the dice if they get there.

So, I am with you. It's not worth it to tank a game because of one player's attitude. My character is a bunch of stuff on some paper and in my imagination.


----------



## Derfmancher (Mar 22, 2012)

I'm with you Zhaleskra. Considering I am a pretty much brand new DM about to make a massive undertaking (Kingmaker) with a massive party (8). I operate on a thought that players can be there or not honestly. We rarely have everyone, so I have become practiced at writing off reasons someones PC is gone. 

Enough about me and on to your point! I think you are perfectly valid. Tell him you hear him but you make no promises as some things are just a roll of the dice. This should leave him feeling decent about it, and leave you not feeling dirty. Keep running your encounters like you have been. Obviously don't try to force him out by killing him off, but by the same token, don't go out of your way to save his hide either.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 22, 2012)

I would do as you did. To me, always winning is not fun, and indeed this can lead to all kinds of trouble.

Sure, let's steal form the Ancient Red Dragon, we will not die.
Stupid or not, we always win.

Hopefully the player is not that bad, but it really becomes an unrealistic world.

Of course you could say he comes back with resurrection, unless he or you have a problem with that. I think I would.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 22, 2012)

Dieing is not the only way to fail.  In my games characters rarely die but they fail a heck of a lot.  So, don't kill him.  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.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 22, 2012)

> So, I've decided that, if I lose this player, I lose him, no matter how much "fun" and "good" he's bringing to the game. I refuse to do what he asks.




Sounds about right to me.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 22, 2012)

Crothian said:


> Dieing is not the only way to fail.  In my games characters rarely die but they fail a heck of a lot.  So, don't kill him.  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.




I find failing like this works with some groups and not others. With the right group, yes, these are great ideas.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 22, 2012)

I think some players feel this way especially if they have played with really lethal DMs.

I can understand some what where he is coming from. I hate to lose my character especially in a stupid meaningless way. 

I run a low death game I have things like action points and fate points that help take the huge possibility of death out of the game. Death is there but there are mechanics that help.

You need to talk to this player. I don't know how lethal your game is but everyone should be on the same page. He might not be a good fit for your table.


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 22, 2012)

Tell him it's fine... you found a way around it.

Then, when the character dies, reincarnate him as a small forest animal.

Alternately, bring the character back as a simulacrum, a magical being in total servitude to the wizard who created him.

Remember that Conan and James Bond have been played by different actors, over time. Regeneration/reincarnation is not completely out of line with the player's request. Conan, James Bond, and Tarzan as Time Lords.. now THAT would be an adventure!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 22, 2012)

Whatever happens happens. Adventuring is a full contact sport and sometimes adventurers die. If he quits oh well. Let it be his decision. In any case, removing any actual threats in the campaign to ensure the survival of make believe people doesn't seem like a satisfying alternative.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 22, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> Tell him it's fine... you found a way around it.
> 
> Then, when the character dies, reincarnate him as a small forest animal.
> 
> ...




While I admit this made me chuckle, I don't think it is the way to handle it. 

There is nothing wrong in wanting to play in non lethal game. I have played in one and it was a blast. Bad things happened but death was never permanent.   

This guy needs to find a group that he fits better with not be ridiculed or punished because he style of playing is not the norm.


----------



## 13garth13 (Mar 22, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sounds about right to me.




Yup; as most others have stated, promising a player that their character has plot immunity to death is the highway to rather hot place (and I don't mean bloody Tampa).  

To be honest, I genuinely cannot fathom that sort of approach to an RPG (not that it's badwrongfun or anything, it's just so truly foreign to me that it's like someone talking about how great tasting mauve was or asking if I had given a listen to the latest Brom picture).  Where's the fun and tension if you know that your hero is never (under threat of leaving the game as a player) going to perish?

James Bond films may be exciting (if fact they occupy a very special place in my heart!) and a wonderful form of escapism, but I've never found the tension to ever get all that high, simply because you just KNOW he's going to escape the deathtrap somehow.   Ditto Conan stories.   Now with George R.R. Martin novels, I'm never sure who is going to live or die and it creates dramatic tension and a ball in my gut, because one of my favourite characters might not actually survive a conflict (hell, there's almost a 50/50 chance they're going to take a dirt nap).

Clearly people's mileage does vary, but the tldr version is that I think you're taking the right approach (next thing you know, it's backrubs for all the players, and where does it end, I ask you??!!!??  ).

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## kinem (Mar 22, 2012)

As a DM, I want players to _think_ that death is always likely to be just around the next corner! 

But, my games are _not_ actually that deadly. It's the _fear_ that's important 

So, if it were me I should tell the guy to take a hike. Not sure I would - there are practical limits on finding players - but at a _minimum_, yeah, tell him he gets no special consideration and if he does die make sure that the door _does_ hit him on the way out.


----------



## Twichyboy (Mar 22, 2012)

Your game, your rules, 

I dont mean this in an authoritarian "my way or the highway" kind of thing, compromise is important, and Players having a good time is the number one thing, but the DM is a player too,

Because your the person that has to spend time making the setting and the encounters, if this change makes the game unappealing to you (Which it does to me too) then you shouldn't have to budge on it


----------



## billd91 (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> While I do understand that scaling encounters is necessary, I feel like my integrity will be tarnished if I ever made a pact with the players to not kill their character and only design encounters where the PCs always win.
> 
> So, I've decided that, if I lose this player, I lose him, no matter how much "fun" and "good" he's bringing to the game.  I refuse to do what he asks.
> 
> ...




Integrity tarnished? For not killing his character? That's a laugh. The only time your integrity would be tarnished would be not fulfilling the terms of the group's social contract. And if that contact has a no-kill clause, it's *killing the PCs* that would damage your integrity.

I don't think a player coming late to the game has any right to expect a change in the group's overall style or social contract. But if the rest of your players decided they wanted a change and a certain amount of plot immunity, then any issue about 'your integrity' is out of place. You may dislike that style of play and decline to participate but that's not really a question of integrity. That's a question of preference.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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.




Ask him how many groups he's been in and how many campaigns he's dropped from. 

This sounds pretty boring and even more frustrating than having a character dying. Floating from campaign to campaign would mean less gaming. Certainly nobody is dropping an entire campaign just to keep him because his PC died and he's going to quit.

The only other thing equally as annoying as this is when a player tells you he will roll up a new PC if his current PC loses all of his gear (or a really special item). I can't stand that attitude towards the game. Just play a video game then if you don't want to deal with real world challenges.


----------



## UselessTriviaMan (Mar 22, 2012)

If a player tried to pull that on me, I'd shut him down with no uncertain terms. I'd be patient and sympathetic while I explained that there's simply no way I would _ever_ allow an ultimatum like that at my gaming table.

Removing the players' fear of dying will hamstring the game's fun. Players who _know_ their PCs won't actually die will very likely find the tension - which is, to me, the really fun part of gaming - isn't nearly as satisfying.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 22, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I think some players feel this way especially if they have played with really lethal DMs.




My players think I'm a leathal DM.  In reality, I'm not.  Even in this (very deadly by default) Conan game we're playing, I boosted all the PCs to 9+ Fate Points at the start of the game.  As long as you have one Fate Point, it's a 99.99% chance that your character will not die.  He may be captured and lose all his equipment, but the character will amazingly survive.

It's something I guess the designers had to do in a game where Massive damage happens at 20 hp damage and all the weapons do more damage than their D&D counterparts.



I rely on fear to make the game seem much more deadly than it is.  Manytimes, I'll engineer something, or take a player idea and run with it, making it look like the player played so well that, in spite of all odds, he stuck with it, fought to the last hit point, and survived!

In reality, I may have two or three other ideas that will actually save the PCs with that won't seem like the GM just saving the players' butts.  I try to always make it seem like the players saved themselves...that they're heroes that win in spite of all odds.

Our last encounter we played last Saturday was like this.  One PC got pushed down to 2 hp, the other to 6 hp, and it looked like they were dead.

But, a player thought of an idea.  I let it work, but I made it seem like the PC pulled it off by the skin of his teeth.

In reality, if the PC hadn't of thought of that idea, then I had something else up my sleeve that would have been cool, story-wise.


----------



## The Monster (Mar 22, 2012)

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. 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 admit to being a bit soft-hearted as a GM, but mostly it's just what I said, a matter of setting up plot hooks and backgrounds and relationships, and then having it all lost. I can hear some folks now: kinda like real life, just suck it up, them's the breaks. But this is a fantasy game, not real life; if you run games that way that's fine, but I don't. 
I found it freeing when running 7th Sea, which explicity states that PCs don't die: that's a swashbuckling game, and the emphasis is on dramatic heroics and flashy moves. It fits my style very well. 
None of this means the heros always win; in fact, it frees them to lose without killing the campaign or all the effort put into the character. And as GM, it means I can throw all kinds of wild stuff at my players and not risk ending the campaign.   

Personally, if the subject of the OP is coming from that kind of mindset, I can support that - especialy for a casual/occasional player, having that kind of investment wiped out by what could easily be a die roll or two is very unsatisfying, and there are many more enjoyable ways to pass time, even within the same genre. 
If it comes down to an attitude of 'I never want to lose' then you and everyone else is better off without him. I've got one or two people kind of like that in my group, and it's annoying even to the limited extent they partake of that attitude. 

As someone already mentioned, it depends on how your group rolls, you as GM and the rest of the players. If PC death is a major aspect of your game, then there's good reason for this person not to join - because he's right, it's not worth his time to play a game he won't enjoy. And it's not worth your time as GM to falsify your play style in a way that will destroy your enjoyment.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 22, 2012)

UselessTriviaMan said:


> If a player tried to pull that on me, I'd shut him down with no uncertain terms. I'd be patient and sympathetic while I explained that there's simply no way I would _ever_ allow an ultimatum like that at my gaming table.




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


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

The Monster said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> (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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Daztur said:


> 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.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 22, 2012)

Umbran said:


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




I call it an ultimatum. It doesn't make a difference that it is his playstyle. It is still an ultimatum and a threat. It wouldn't make me feel any better knowing that it is "just his playstyle".


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 22, 2012)

I'd remove them from the group. No need to wait until the character died. Better to be rid of them before any bonds form.

_"Well, it is your decision if you want a game where your character won't die. It is a shame you won't be joining us since you are not going to be playing in any game I'm running. You are not getting the opportunity to become a part of the group before you leave on your own terms. You are leaving it now."_


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 22, 2012)

mach1.9pants said:


> 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.




That is just such a grown up way to handle it. 

I have never understood the kill character DM revenge attitude. And I think it makes players who in the end don't trust DMs. 

How hard is it to just talk to the player and explain that you won't go out of the way to kill their character but you are not going to give them total immunity. And if the player is not okay with that then it would be best to part ways.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 22, 2012)

Bob,
I feel for you.  I noticed in the late 90s this trend in some role players to think "video game or movie" wise that their characters were bullet proof.  It wasn't a ton, mind you, just a few here and there.  I've also noticed that it's getting worse.  I've actually had a player ask where the save point was once.  After the hysterics I realized he was serious and had to snap myself out of the stunned silence of, "WTF Dude?"

Sure Conan and James Bond didn't die....But Boromir did.  What about Gandalf, sure he came back through a rez, but that is always a possibility in D&D too.  What about Alanon in the Shannarah series, he was pretty much the only recurring character and he was killed off.  No hero is assured a place at the end in fantasy.  Ever.  There is always a chance, however slight that death will occur and it will most likely be painful, bloody and unpleasant.  If you want to play a game where you can re-load, your computer and game consoles are available. 

No matter how good the player is, he would be unwelcome at my table unless we were playing board games.


----------



## bloodtide (Mar 22, 2012)

I encounter this type of player all the time.  They are very common.

It's simply the effect of the last couple of decades of horrible writing for TV shows and movies, video games and the whole Disney- affection and political correctness.

I've been a killer DM from day one though.  There is no plot armor in my games.  I've done the Ye Old kill a PC in the first five minutes of a game lots of times.

It's not that as the Dm your just gonna kill the PC(after all if it was you could just say 'rocks fall you all die'), it's more the chance it can happen any time.  For me the chance of death is what makes RPGs _unique!_

In almost all other media, you have to pretend that you don't know the character is immortal.  You watch the new James Bond movie and you *know *Bond will never die.  And you wonder: why does he even duck when bad guys shoot at him.  After all....James Bond could walk right up to the bad guy, let them press the gun to his chest and empty the clip....and low and behold Bond would not be hurt(I remember the great Rambo clip from UHF...).  This quickly ruins a story as you know characters are immortal...to enjoy the story you have to 'pretend' like the character could die any second.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Mar 22, 2012)

I think it would be a good idea to communicate with this player that character death is definitely something that is on the table.  If the player feels that strongly about it, it might be best for him to find another group, rather than continuing on in a game that is (likely) to end in hurt feelings.


----------



## AeroDm (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't think his communication is unreasonable, but if your interpretation of his communication is accurate, his communication might be. I've played in campaigns before where losing a character and trying to get a new one integrated with the group was hard. Wanting to avoid that isn't irrational. If his point is that he just doesn't want to go through that hassle, I bet you can work something out. If his point is, "I'll quit if you kill me and I'm going to be reckless as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" then maybe you should drop him from your player network.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 22, 2012)

bloodtide said:


> I encounter this type of player all the time.  They are very common.
> 
> It's simply the effect of the last couple of decades of horrible writing for TV shows and movies, video games and the whole Disney- affection and political correctness.
> 
> ...




You do realize that it has not just been the last 20 years are so. TV back in the 50s,60s and 70s was not gritty. Today more characters are likely to die in a show then back then.

Most of the audience is not going to enjoy a film where James Bond dies or Conan gets taken out by orc number 2.

It is not about knowing that they are not going to die we all know that what is fun about those movies is watching how they solve the problems. 

Tell me would the Die Hard movies be as much fun if John McClain buys the farm? 

Boromir dies after taking out dozens of Orcs, Thedon dies after leading his men bravely in battle.

As a player it really sucks if your character dies in the first five minutes and if you have a lot of character death then the attitude comes why bother developing a personality you are just cannon fodder. 

Death has a place in the game but if it is used to often then for a lot of players the game is no longer fun.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 22, 2012)

> Tell me would the Die Hard movies be as much fun if John McClain buys the farm?




Depends on how it was done.

Both _Westworld_ and _Young Guns_ cast "lead actors" in roles you'd expect to be "safe"...then killed them off.

In the 2Ed module, "Vecna Lives", you get a high level TPK to start off the game if you run it as written.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 22, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Depends on how it was done.
> 
> Both _Westworld_ and _Young Guns_ cast "lead actors" in roles you'd expect to be "safe"...then killed them off.
> 
> In the 2Ed module, "Vecna Lives", you get a high level TPK to start off the game if you run it as written.




Of course it depends on how it is done. Boromir death is very moving in the movie. Spock dying in the Wrath of Khan was great. But if Spock had died in episode 2 of the TV series he would have just been another red shirt biting the dust.

That is one of my points. Losing your character in the climactic battle going out in a blaze of glory is one thing. Being killed at first level by a kobold or house cat not nearly as much fun. 

It really depends on the genre. The reason we don't want to see James Bond, Conan or John McClain die at the hands of the bad guys is because they to quote Firefly are big damn heroes. 

In other genres like Young Guns which is one of my favorite movies you expect to see some character death. In a horror genre you expect a high body count. 

I like playing in long term campaigns so death really can destroy that. I have seen a TPK derail a game that everyone was having a blast with. With no way of saving anyone it was hard to bring in new characters who knew all the ins and outs of what we had been doing. The game fizzled because it was no longer the same game we were having so much fun with. Even the DM admitted it wasn't the same. 

Now in a one shot or a very gritty game like Midnight death can me more fun and not derail the game as much.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 22, 2012)

> But if Spock had died in episode 2 of the TV series he would have just been another red shirt biting the dust.



Again, it depends.

If Spock's importance to Kirk was clearly established in episode 1, his death in episode 2 could have been a defining moment for Kirk and the series as a whole.

The movies I cited- as well as Joel Rosenberg's _Guardians of the Flame_ series- kill off seemingly important characters early in the action.  This let's the audience/readers know that anyone could die.  _The Phantom_ and _Green Lantern_ comics do this as well, albeit as background to the current characters- they're just the latest in a long line.

The 007 movies with a mortal James Bond or _Die Hard_ movies with different heroes each time would have been different, but not necessarily bad.  If "James Bond, 007" is- like the Phantom- just an assumed identity, it puts a darker spin on the series.


----------



## Kzach (Mar 22, 2012)

So invested in his character that he can't distinguish between reality, fantasy and a game. I'd back away from him... slowly.


----------



## Ramen (Mar 22, 2012)

The characters in novels; Conan, James Bond, etc. don't know they can't die. Conan has run away from many encounters because he didn't want to die. James Bond was no different. James Bond wouldn't have bluffed Goldfinger if he knew he couldn't die, he was trying hard not to.

While the fiction they were in assumes the reality that they won't die, the characters themselves didn't know the mechanics or the verdict. Consequences and rewards give weight to a characters actions. So while you as a GM may know the characters won't die the players shouldn't be aware of it. They should know victory and death or very possible, even if that's a lie.

Players should act boldly because their character would act boldly, not because they know the system is on their side. The same goes for acting cautiously.


----------



## Dioltach (Mar 22, 2012)

My group has an unspoken pact: the DM doesn't put the characters in impossible situations. If a player gets his or her character into an impossible situation by doing something stupid, then fair game, they live (or die) with the consequences. There's a great deal of leniency towards death from bad luck, but not from stupidity.

The last PC to die in my campaign was a thief/mage who turned invisible and ran ahead of the party into a temple, knowing full well that another PC was going to blast the entrance with a series of fireballs. Both players accepted the consequences.


----------



## delericho (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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."




What level is your group? Because D&D allows for characters to return from death at a pretty low level - and presumably he'd be okay with that?



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




I don't think he's unreasonable to state a preference for not having his character die. And if his character _does_ die, he's within his rights to walk. Heck, a player is _always_ within his rights to walk, for any reason he wishes, or even for no reason at all.

But I'm with you - IMC, PC death is always on the table. I even go so far as trying really, really hard not to fudge the dice to protect PCs, so with a bad sequence of rolls your high-level Fighter _can indeed_ be taken out be Minion #2.

(And I also agree with you on the flip side of the argument - I don't create encounters intended to kill PCs, nor do I actually want to see PCs die, as it's actually rather a pain when it happens.)

At this point, all I would do is explain to him that you respect his preferences, and you'll understand if he chooses to leave the game now or in the future, but that death will remain on the table if the dice or the circumstances dictate that it should happen.

And do not, no matter how tempting it might be, deliberately seek out a means to kill his character, out of some misguided notion to "teach him a lesson". Player issues (of which this is a fairly minor example) should not be solved with in-game actions.


----------



## SiderisAnon (Mar 22, 2012)

In general, I prefer to play in a game where the characters do not have such plot protection that nothing we do will get us killed.  I don't want to die to a simple bad roll of the dice, because that's just lousy, but getting my character killed because I bit off more than I could chew, ignored warning signs, or did something foolish is expected.

That said, in current game I am a player in, my character recently almost died.  If he had, I would have left the game simply because there is absolutely no way I could work a new character into the "party".  There are a couple of NPCs I could take over, but none of them particularly appeal to me to play.  We're just too deep into what's going on and there's no way to shoehorn in someone else without it being blatantly and painfully metagaming.  (It would stick out more than when they changed what actor played Darren on "Bewitched" like we wouldn't notice.)



Coincidentally, I was just having a conversation tonight with some people at the game store and one of the players talked about how he does not like to continue in a game if he's had a character die because of two reasons.  1) That he's made a big investment of time and energy into the character and so doesn't want to lose that.  2) It's really hard to have that new character feel like a different character in the campaign unless you make them radically different than the first, which isn't always fun.  

I can see his point, and it's part of why I don't kill characters as a GM unless they either know going in that this is likely to kill them or unless they are just blinding refusing to see any of the signs laid out before them.  (Oh, we weren't supposed to go attack that dragon head-on with no prep beforehand?  Ooops.)



Overall, I can and do understand this player's attitude.  As long as the approach to me as GM was more, "I really don't want this to happen and it will kill a game for me," and not, "I demand that my character be immortal," I'd be okay with it.  I would point out to him that if he does foolish things, it's on his head if the character dies, but otherwise I'd keep right on playing.


Of course, if it's some game systems, death is only temporary anyway...


----------



## S'mon (Mar 22, 2012)

I can see why you're irked.  D&D is not an appropriate game for this sort of attitude, unless it's heavily drifted into being a different sort of play experience than the one it has been designed for.

And yet... I have been there, as a player.  I once played a very deep, heavy-roleplay _Midnight_ d20 game.  Problem was, it was both 'deep, intense roleplay' and a bloody meatgrinder.  I loved my PC, Zana Than.  When she died leading the attack on an orc fort, she was the last of the original PCs to go.  I really had no interest in rolling up and playing a new PC.  Things kind of sputtered on a bit from there, but I had lost all enthusiam for the campaign.  The GM brought in a Fate Point system at that point, but it was too late - with hindsight, the kind of game she wanted to run had needed Fate Points or a similar PC-protection mechanism right from the start.

My general advice to you would be to not worry about it, run the campaign you want to run, and be ready to say goodbye to the player, with no hard feelings, if his PC dies.
However, there may be some ways to give both of you what you want.   You can possibly, for instance, run a sandboxy game where the PCs have plenty of choice in the level of challenges they wish to take on.  If they choose the easier challenges, they lessen the risk of PC death, but also earn less XP and advance more slowly.

Or if you are running a more linear 4e D&D campaign, you could stick closely to the encounter-building guidelines and keep most challenges in the -1 to +1 EL vs Party Level range; then run the encounters as hard as you normally would.

But don't try to run a game you don't really want to run.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> My players think I'm a leathal DM.  In reality, I'm not.  Even in this (very deadly by default) Conan game we're playing, I boosted all the PCs to 9+ Fate Points at the start of the game.  As long as you have one Fate Point, it's a 99.99% chance that your character will not die.  He may be captured and lose all his equipment, but the character will amazingly survive.




I ran a 2-year Lost City of Barakus campaign using OGL Conan Fate Points, and we had zero PC deaths.  I think you're already running a pretty low-lethality game, so tell him that PC death is rare but possible, and don't change your style.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> "Conan doesn't die," he says.  "James Bond doesn't die.



Dude has a point.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 22, 2012)

bloodtide said:


> You watch the new James Bond movie and you *know *Bond will never die.  And you wonder: why does he even duck when bad guys shoot at him.  After all....James Bond could walk right up to the bad guy, let them press the gun to his chest and empty the clip....and low and behold Bond would not be hurt



Yeah, what's up with that? How come the protagonists in long running adventure fiction don't come to realise they are immortal? Maybe they do know and are just going along with the ruse.


----------



## Asha'man (Mar 22, 2012)

Stay the course, Water Bob.

I've never been in this exact situation -usually, when players have special preferences, they have to do with what kind of mechanical character options they can use, or what the gameworld is like.

In these cases, I usually work with the player to find a mutually agreeable compromise.

But I can't really imagine a compromise between "my character can't die" and "yes, he can", so I think what I would do here is nod, smile politely and say "thanks for telling me in advance." Then, if I felt like this player was a nice guy to play with, I'd offer him some tips for how to make his character more survivable. I don't see any point in making a big deal about it, let alone going out of my way to kill or humiliate his character. But I haven't fudged a die roll in 5 years of DMing, and I'm not about to start now. If he dies, he dies. Then if he leaves, that's his prerogative, hopefully on pleasant terms with the group. 

Later, maybe I'd invite him to play M&M or some other game where character death generally doesn't happen. But D&D isn't one of those games.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 22, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In the 2Ed module, "Vecna Lives", you get a high level TPK to start off the game if you run it as written.



I think Vecna Lives is trying to pull off a horror vibe with its TPK opener. Like the first scene in the movie Scream.

Some people say early D&D, ie Gygaxian 1970s D&D, is horror. A Clark Ashton Smith-esque morality tale where a band of greedy, foolhardy treasure hunters bite off way more than they can chew, and end up dying horribly. Much in the same way that the killer in a slasher flick kills sluts, but leaves virgins unharmed, there's a sense in this interpretation of D&D that death is deserved. Only bad people die.

Once Gary left TSR and Dragonlance was published, there was a move away from this style, towards a more Lord of the Rings vibe. Although in the Rings trilogy Boromir also dies because of his flaw, his desire for power, I think there's an important difference between CAS/Final Girl horror and LotR - in the former all, or almost all, of the protagonists die, whereas in LotR almost all of the protagonists live. Thus high fantasy is a story about mostly good people, whereas horror is a story about mostly bad people.

Now you just have to ask yourself one question - is my PC a good person? Does he or she deserve to live?


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 22, 2012)

My suggestion is to talk to the guy. Explain that you think he's a good player but you and the group he is joining are not prepared to change how they play their game to accomodate him. He needs to adapt otherwise it's not going to work. If he choses then not to play then fine.


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 22, 2012)

Talk with the guy.  Take it as a compliment that the game is good enough that he's invested in his character and the player doesn't want him to die.  However, in order for his desire to stay alive to mean anything, death has to be on the table.  If you know you're not going to die, it's impossible to be courageous.

Finally, don't forget that it's distinctly possible that he'd like another character even more than the guy he's playing right now.  He may not be able to conceive of that notion currently, but it doesn't make it untrue.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Mar 22, 2012)

Tell him the truth. Don't ignore what he said. If he doesn't want his character die, and you tell him it's okey, he play, and character dies you probably get some hurted feelings, and he will call you "lier": Not maybe to your face. He might just leave silently and be polite.

Don't recruit gamer under false premise.

If permanent death is rarish in your current game, he might be ok with that if you explain your point well.

And there is a poijnt, game without character death (or something that relates) is more boring and i care less about characters in it.

If death in your game is brutal and common tell him so, then the game is not apperantly for him.

Then there are story tricks. Cursed immortality things, rings of nine lifes, soulstealing sworrds (or abilities), your mum dipping you in magic pool to make you sorta immortal (like tale of Akilles) and nasty deals with demons/devils. When he was young land he drew from this creepy deck of cards, and now has power to avoid anything .. once. However this things might piss off not just your sensibles but also other players. 

I think Conan/James Bond are sort of using action points. But dunno if you want to introduce such a system just for one player.  Oops you have fate points. Sorry.

I curently run game where 2 playrs have plot protection and other 2 die when dice says so. I think it's bit lame-o, but I've done all kinda other nasty things, and I think they are slowly realizing that ability to die, and make new character can be such a wonderful thing. Lol, but that group of mine likes it that way. But next game they have agreed that death is fine, aah finally.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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 agree with you.

Perhaps I would tell the player that if he is really so attached with his PC then he can:
(a) if he dies, he's free to assume he didn't die but just left the adventuring group, then try another character and keep the favourite one for another campaign (maybe even with the same group)
(b) just play another character in the current campaign, and save his pet PC for a less deadly game

Every player should be on the same boat, so either all their PCs cannot die or they all can.

Also I don't understand why he wouldn't want to try any other character. If he wants to play one and only character only in every single game, maybe he's attached to the character to a point that requires counseling...


----------



## Umbran (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> This is utterly foreign to me.  I don't like it when PC's die.  I want my players succeed.




Okay.  But as others have said, death is not the only way for a character to fail.



> But, I'd feel like a sellout if I promised my players that they would never die.  I don't think the game would be the same without that edge in there.




No, it wouldn't be the same. It would be different.  But the game isn't the same if I say, "no elves", either.  That doesn't mean it won't be fun.  Different does not equate to bad.

Which is not to say that you need to change your playstyle - I'm just trying to give you a way to think of it where it doesn't seem so foreign.  




> And, 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?




You should ask him that question.  In my experience of this playstyle, the expectation would be that the GM will put the PC in a horribly difficult position, or make the character lose something he cares about other than his life.  



Janx said:


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




With respect, you are also missing a point...



> But it is part of the standard design.




So?  Every single house rule, ever, is a deviation from the standard design.  



Oryan77 said:


> I call it an ultimatum. It doesn't make a difference that it is his playstyle. It is still an ultimatum and a threat. It wouldn't make me feel any better knowing that it is "just his playstyle".




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.

Is that an ultimatum, or a threat?  You think instead he should have not told WB, but just not eaten when he got to the table?  Or maybe eaten, and then surprised Bob with his violent allergic reaction?

Bob's cooking up a game.  His guests owe it to him to tell him of their dietary restrictions.  To do otherwise would be inconsiderate of Bob, and everyone else at the table.  Bob, in turn, owes it to them to either edit his menu, or inform them that maybe his dinner party just isn't for them.  This isn't threat or ultimatum, it is the normal process of making sure everyone has the best time possible.



Kzach said:


> So invested in his character that he can't distinguish between reality, fantasy and a game. I'd back away from him... slowly.




Yeah, well, that's a pretty grossly unfounded misrepresentation of what we've been told.

Taking, "I don't agree with his position," to the point of, "that person is mentally unbalanced," is a common rhetorical technique on the internet - but it is hyperbolic and _ad hominem_.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 22, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Now you just have to ask yourself one question - is my PC a good person? Does he or she deserve to live?




I gota side with William Munny on this one- deserve's got nothing to do with it. 

Sometimes people die while doing the right thing, heck often its _because _they were doing the right thing. 

Logically if only bad people got killed then there wouldn't be much need for heroes at all, nature would just sort things out.


----------



## Janx (Mar 22, 2012)

that's a nice analogy, but the difference is player's life in danger vs. a PC.

I do accept that the situation is not so freaking dire that the player must be crazy.

But he is being a big baby, by not accepting to try the game as it IS.

Players are entitled to opinions and preferences.  But new players don't carry much weight.  A newbie's expression of how he wants the game to be run doesn't carry any weight because he has no experience in how things are currently done.

It's the same thing on the job site with the new guy.  He best keep his damn mouth shut about how he'd do things or how they did things at his last job because he has no credibility with the group and the group tends to not welcome this kind of input.

It's not that the new guy may not have a valid idea or point.  It's about paying your dues and earning respect, as well as not disrespecting the group's existing practices by trying to change them on the first day.

New guys do NOT get to change the group, new guys need to change themselves to fit with the group FIRST.

This is why smart managers who are assigned to take over an existing group wait 3-6 months before reorganizing and restructuring things.


----------



## UselessTriviaMan (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't agree with your analogy, Umbran. There's no correlation between "the party guest will die if he eats this food" and "this player will quit the game if he doesn't get his way." The player tried to use the "play it my way or I'm taking my ball and going home" card.

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.


----------



## scourger (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

scourger said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

UselessTriviaMan said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

the Jester said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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.)


----------



## Chairman7w (Mar 22, 2012)

Screw that - just play the game.  If his PC dies, he quits.  It doesn't really matter, cause his PC's dead anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 22, 2012)

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.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 22, 2012)

Umbran said:


> That guest informs Bob that if he's cooking food with peanuts, he won't eat it - he's got an allergy.




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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> This guy needs to find a group that he fits better with not be ridiculed or punished because he style of playing is not the norm.




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.


----------



## Nightson (Mar 22, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> The main purpose in D&D is to survive.




Maybe in your game, certainly not in all D&D games.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 22, 2012)

Nightson said:


> Maybe in your game, certainly not in all D&D games.




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.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 22, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> 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.




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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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?"


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Mar 22, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Integrity tarnished? For not killing his character? That's a laugh. The only time your integrity would be tarnished would be not fulfilling the terms of the group's social contract. And if that contact has a no-kill clause, it's *killing the PCs* that would damage your integrity




It's pretty obvious from context that he's talking about artistic integrity, not moral integrity.


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 22, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Both _Westworld_ and _Young Guns_ cast "lead actors" in roles you'd expect to be "safe"...then killed them off.




And now i have such a desire to watch Westworld and Futureworld again and no way of doing so


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Water Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well:


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> 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.



Umbran said:


> 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.



Umbran said:


> 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 



Oryan77 said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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.



Crothian said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2012)

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.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 22, 2012)

Living Legend said:


> 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.




Well, he hasn't said he would quit over a lose of an arm, or gear, or anything else so I'm not going to assume he would.  Just like I'm not going to assume the guy will do something stupid and gets his character killed.  I prefer to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

Another solution is a character point/ drama point/ action point like system that allows the expenditure of multiple points to avoid death.  It is a common thing to do with such points and allows the player to use his point to avoid death and the other players to use their points for other cool things.  

I am starting to think that too many DMs feel death has to be part of the game and it seems ignore other possibilities.  Death is the easy way out for both DMs and PCs.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 22, 2012)

> Death is the easy way out for both DMs and PCs.




I couldn't disagree more.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 22, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I couldn't disagree more.




In what way?

For a DM it is easier for me to kill a character then to come up with some kind of failure that has consequences for the character.  For the player their character dies and they can forget everything that he was and not have to deal with the repercussions of anything there.  He just creates a new character and joins the group easy as pie.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 22, 2012)

Tequila Sunrise said:


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




I can be a tough game.  Weapons do more damage than their D&D counterparts.  For example, a broadsword does 1d10 damge;  a short sword does 1d8 damage;  a war club does 2d6;  and a bardiche does 2-18 (1d10 + 1d8).  And, the massive damage threshold is lowered to 20 hp (which means 20 hp of damage from 1 blow = save or die).  While character HP are the same as with standard d20.

OTOH, the PCs start the game with 3 Fate Points, which can be helpful in a number of ways, but one use, Left For Dead, is especially useful in keeping your character alive.

Left For Dead:  When your character reaches -10 HP (or less) by any means*, he may spend a Fate Point to be Left For Dead.  The character will appear dead to casual examination, but he still has a chance of recovering, particularly if he is attended to quickly by an ally with the Heal skill.

If he is healed at least 1 point of damage within an hour of becoming Left For Dead, he is considered stable and at -9 hp.

If an ally fails to Heal him, then the character still has a chance by making a DC 20 Fort check after one hour.  If successful, the character stabilizes and is considered at -9 HP.  If the check fails, the character is finally, irrevocably dead.

Left For Dead cannot be used against effects that leave no possibility of survival.  Thus, if the bad guys go around and shove a spear through the head of each downed enemy, the LfD ain't going to help you.

If an Undead continues to eat on your downed body when you fall, LfD ain't going to help you either.

If flaming oil is poured over the character.  LfD won't help.

If a Pict savage cuts off the downed PC's head and puts it on a pike, the LfD aint going to help.

Left For Dead is not a 100% guarrantee that the character will survive, but it makes it likely under most circumstances.







> 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.)




It is purely the latter.  There are no healing potions or Cure Light Wounds or Staves of Healing in the Conan RPG.  If the GM puts them in the game, then they are exceptionally rare (and items considered relics).

But, natural healing is better:

Sleep 8 hours?  Get 3 + CON mod + Character Level in HP back.

Complete bed rest for 24 hours?  Get twice the above back.

Attended by a character who makes a DC 15 Long-term Care Heal check?  This will double the healing rate.


Thus, if after a battle, an injured warrior gets a full 24 hours worth of complete bed rest and has a healer (nurse) looking over him, taking care of him, changing bandages and what not, then the character can receive a number of hit points equal to:  4 x ( 3 + Con mod + Char Lvl).

And, that's nothing to sneeze at.



In addition, a character can make a Heal check for short term care.  This takes about 10 minutes to clean, sew, and bind wounds.  If the DC 15 Heal check is successful, this will return Char LvL + CON mod HP back to the injured character.  And, this can be attepted once after every combat encounter.

It's kinda like having a single Healing Potion to drink after every combat encounter IF the Heal check can be made.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 22, 2012)

Crothian said:


> In what way?
> 
> For a DM it is easier for me to kill a character then to come up with some kind of failure that has consequences for the character.  For the player their character dies and they can forget everything that he was and not have to deal with the repercussions of anything there.  He just creates a new character and joins the group easy as pie.




For a DM, letting a PC die is easy- but so is fudging things so the PC does not.

Dealing with the consequences of the death seldom are; fudging almost never creates problems. If the deceased was "The One" according to campaign events, suddenly you have some hustling to do.  Retcon or dus ex machina to somehow bring him back?  If he's really dead, how do you work in a replacement PC?  At what level?  Is the player pissed off?  Did he quit?

Speaking of that, it is clear some players are so invested in the deceased PC that they DO quit- that's the foundational premise of this thread.  They don't let go easily as you imply or as I claim I can.  It is absolutely NOT easy for them to move on.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm not saying it is always the easiest thing to do, but death is pretty easy in D&D.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dealing with the consequences of the death seldom are; fudging almost never creates problems.




It does when players don't like the DM cheating.  There has been plenty of threads on that.  And pro fudging.



> If the deceased was "The One" according to campaign events, suddenly you have some hustling to do.




That's the DM's fault for getting into that situation in the first place.  But yes if the DM is a bad DM and gets himself in this kkind of trouble then death might not be easy.



> Did he quit?




Quitting is also taking the easy way out instead of staying and dealing with the issues.    



> It is absolutely NOT easy for them to move on.




Yes, in rare and specific circumstances.  But considering the sheer number of people in this thread that like death to be a part of their game it would seem that death is common and I think the easy way to deal with character failure.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 23, 2012)

Janx said:


> We could actually answer the OP's title question.
> 
> Would you quit if your PC died?
> No.
> ...




I think you are reading to much into this. First of all a board game is not  a RPG you do not put the same amount of effort into it as you do with an RPG. If I lose Monopoly tonight with the shoe I can still play the shoe tomorrow and win.

The same with sports if I lose tonight I can still stay on my team as me and play tomorrow. 

With an RPG you play a character some people put a lot into that and if the character dies then the game changes it is no longer the same game. For some players that can be enough to take the fun out of it. It is not about being a sore loser.

I think the game designers recognize this because they have put a way to bring characters back from the dead.

I play a lot of Shadowrun which has no way to come back dead is dead but I have never lost a character in it because once we start taking bad hits we usually get pulled out by DocWagon because our injury bracelet has alerted them that we are hurt. We also cut and run and sometimes surrender.

In DnD it is harder sometimes to cut and run also since there are no penalties for taking damage until you hit 1 there is no incentive to run. In Shadowrun as you take damage you start taking penalties to everything it becomes more obvious that you are losing. And without magical healing you know you have to sometimes run. I have noticed that DnD players hate running and hate surrendering. 

All of that can lead to a dead PC. 


There seems to be this attitude that if you don't like playing in a game with death as a consequence then some how you are a sore loser, baby or mentally ill. I think terms like that are overly judgmental. 

On one hand we applaud people who put work into their character and role play well but then we deride them when they don't enjoy having that character killed. 

I watched my roommate go through this in a game she lost a character she loved because of the stupid actions of the other PCs. She made a new character and eventually started really getting into that character when that character died she still played but she played differently she stopped writing journals, she stopped really role playing and she stopped putting in any effort into the character. 

The DM of that game had decided that raise dead was cheesy and death was permanent. By the end of the campaign we all were playing like my roommate  and the DM was unhappy going what happened this used to be an exciting game did you guys lose interest.  

It was not that we had lost interest in the game but we had lost interest in putting any work into the characters.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Mar 23, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> If he is healed at least 1 point of damage within an hour of becoming Left For Dead, he is considered stable and at -9 hp.



Does the Heal skill allow HP to be regained within that one hour window? If not, how does one actually take advantage of Left for Dead before resorting to the Fort save? (Which sounds rather steep for a low level PC.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2012)

> But considering the sheer number of people in this thread that like death to be a part of their game it would seem that death is common and I think the easy way to deal with character failure.




I disagree.  IME in 35 years in the hobby, I would say that PC deaths have been rare, and that repercussions of PC death have made many DMs quite gunshy.  IOW, while most in this thread would seem to support the possibility of PC death, it is not common for PCs to actually die.  If they are like me, most DMs will work hard to keep a campaign from suffering deaths too often in order to retain some kind of narrative continutity & flow, as well as keeping their friends happy.  

There is no causal linkage between wanting to have the tool available and the actual willingness to use said tool commonly.  Rather, the support for the possibility of PC death merely indicates that those DMs- and players such as myself- wish to have a full array of tools available.

Because honestly, sometimes it IS the right tool for the job.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 23, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> There seems to be this attitude that if you don't like playing in a game with death as a consequence then some how you are a sore loser, baby or mentally ill. I think terms like that are overly judgmental.




Just don't choose a game/ world which features death. You can roleplay gingerbread men in Candyland and never have the subject of death even brought up. Zero death in the gameworld means characters can never die. 

If death exists in the gameworld, and characters are familliar with it then logically it could possibly happen to them. Getting upset over a character dying in world where death exists is like jumping off a cliff and blaming gravity for the painful landing.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 23, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Just don't choose a game/ world which features death. You can roleplay gingerbread men in Candyland and never have the subject of death even brought up. Zero death in the gameworld means characters can never die.
> 
> If death exists in the gameworld, and characters are familliar with it then logically it could possibly happen to them. Getting upset over a character dying in world where death exists is like jumping off a cliff and blaming gravity for the painful landing.




That is so just so much BS just because DnD has rules for dying does not mean that you have to play it as written. 

There is no difference in taking death out of the game then house ruling any other aspect of the game. The game I mentioned with the high body count was a 3.0 DnD game where the DM had house ruled out any kind of raise dead. 

I have played plenty of fun 7 Seas where death is not part of the game and I have also played in several very enjoyable DnD games where we took death out and had faced other consequences for hitting -10.

Just because you can't see how it would be fun does not mean it is not fun nor did it makes us feel any less tension in battle. 

Personally I think I prefer a game with other consequences to dying then a game where raise dead magic is available. Sometimes the raise dead just becomes so cheesy.  

Sometimes death can really complicated the game. We play in heavy role playing games so the entire you look trust worthy join us does not fly. So the DM as to really work to introduce a new character. Then there is the whole wealth issue unless you bring the new character in with nothing or force the players to get rid of their fallen party member items the wealth level can really explode. 

Then there has been the issue with what class the new character is going to be. Most of the people I play with don't want to play the same class so you often end up short a needed class or if you have a big group people stepping on each others toes. 

I think there is as many good arguments in death being a pain in the tush as there are arguments for keeping it in the game. 

In the end it comes down to what you want at your table. I prefer to run a game with very little PC death so it is hard to die in my game. It is possible but not likely. I have yet to hear a complaint about the game not being fun or the players feeling immortal.


----------



## fba827 (Mar 23, 2012)

i agree in that you shouldn't cater to it if it isn't a style your group already does.
having said that, what your campaigns take on raise dead stuff -- maybe if he dies, there is still the chance of him coming back to life in a big dramatic way --- maybe he's secretly a child or a god or something if you wanted to make it abnormal for just anyone to come back to life.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 23, 2012)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Does the Heal skill allow HP to be regained within that one hour window? If not, how does one actually take advantage of Left for Dead before resorting to the Fort save? (Which sounds rather steep for a low level PC.)




Yes, the Short Term Care option of the Heal skill takes 10 minutes to implement and returns a minimum 1 HP (if the check is successful). So, that's the primary way Left For Dead will be helpful.

Also, there are some alchemical offerings that restore a few hit points.  Nothing like a Cure Light Wounds or a Healing poition, but you might find an herb combination that returns 1d2 HP, or adds to the Heal check if successful, or provides a bonus on the Heal check throw.

Once in a very, very blue moon, there may be sorcerous healing or item healing, but as I said earlier, this might be story and plot related.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 23, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ....If they are like me, most DMs will work hard to keep a campaign from suffering deaths too often in order to retain some kind of narrative continutity & flow, as well as keeping their friends happy.




I do work very hard to keep characters alive. Heck, I don't like it when even allied NPCs die. But, I recognize that the risk of death is a necessary factor of drama in RPGs. Games where PCs are overpowered and invincible are just plain boring.

But...it's as if the player is telling me (not "as if", he has said,) that I shouldn't make the encounters too hard. He's actually told me to keep that in mind, because if his PC dies, boom, he's outta here.

That irks me to no end. I'm not going to let a player dictate the game like that. Yes, the game is about all of us, not just me. Yes, it's my job as GM to make sure the players have fun. But, I refuse to promise this guy that his character will never die. I'm just not going to do it.

Besides this, I'd hate to lose him as a player. I think our game will be weaker for it if he does. He's been the "star" of the night several times, and he roleplays like a sonofagun. He's really good.

But, yes, I'm going to let him go if his character gets killed and he starts whining about it.




EDIT:  I'm pretty straight forward with RPGs.  Many times, I follow RAW exactly without any house rules.  When I started Conan, I used the default character generation method, which is 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste.

When I brought this guy into the game, he made an odd comment.  I told him that what he rolls is what he rolls.  There are no "re-do's".  And, he said, "Well, if I roll low stats, I just won't play.  Nobody likes playing a normal Joe.  I want to be the hero."

I didn't really take him serious, but in light of what he's said recently, I think he was.

Luckily (or ironically), he actually rolled quite good stats.  In fact, his character has the best stats of all the PCs.  I can tell the player really likes this, and since it was rolled right in front of me, I've got zero problem with it.

But, I guess, this guy would have never been in my game if he hadn't rolled as well as he did.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2012)

> But, I refuse to promise this guy that his character will never die. I'm just not going to do it.




Nor would I.



> When I brought this guy into the game, he made an odd comment. I told him that what he rolls is what he rolls. There are no "re-do's". And, he said, "Well, if I roll low stats, I just won't play. Nobody likes playing a normal Joe. I want to be the hero."
> 
> I didn't really take him serious, but in light of what he's said recently, I think he was.




I agree...and at the risk of reopening a can of worms, it really sounds like an entitlement issue to me.

As long as he wasn't being disruptive, I'd welcome him at my table.  But if his PC died, I wouldn't plead with him to stay if he decided to scoop up his dice & books and made a Cartman-like exit.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 23, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> 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.



He announced his intentions to willingly disrupt the game group after he becomes a part of it should the rules be fairly applied to him. And make no mistake, someone leaving the group is a disruption to it. It happens, people move, schedules change, but those are unforeseen and unavoidable and the person leaving is generally faultless. This guy says his is going to cause the disruption and do so willingly. Time to be rid of him now.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 23, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> He announced his intentions to willingly disrupt the game group after he bcomes a part of it. Time to be rid of him.




That is really reaching. Pray tell how is choosing to leave a campaign when your character is killed disrupting the game?


----------



## Thotas (Mar 23, 2012)

Wow, after reading that first post, I gotta say something without waiting the time it would take to read the whole thread.  So, somebody's probably said this already.  I'm undoubtedly chiming in on someone else's already expressed opinion.

Assuming hypothetically you were to accommodate this player's wish, and give his character safety.  You then have to ask if you're going to treat everyone else the same way.  If you don't, then you've got a table where one PC can't die, but the others can.  Clearly, this is unacceptable.  If you do, a newcomer has dictated the campaign style for an established game.  That may be about the only thing that's even worse.

Enjoy this player while you can, but eventually he's out, almost undoubtedly.  And given the reasons provided for the request, be ready to accept that the longer it takes, the more invested he'll be in the character, and the bigger the scene will be when the day comes.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 23, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> That is really reaching. Pray tell how is choosing to leave a campaign when your character is killed disrupting the game?



 A person leaving a group disrupts the group. That's just how human groups work. A person joins, forms bonds of friendship and camaraderie. The joining causes bonds to form, the leaving causes those bonds to become disruptions.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 23, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I disagree.  IME in 35 years in the hobby, I would say that PC deaths have been rare, and that repercussions of PC death have made many DMs quite gunshy.  IOW, while most in this thread would seem to support the possibility of PC death, it is not common for PCs to actually die.  If they are like me, most DMs will work hard to keep a campaign from suffering deaths too often in order to retain some kind of narrative continutity & flow, as well as keeping their friends happy.




OTOH I've seen DMs derided by their players for obvious fudging to keep PCs alive.  Many players play for the challenge, and don't want a can't-die game.  OGL Conan and 4e D&D both aim for a sweet spot where the rules themselves should make death possible but rare, if you follow the RAW on Fate Points or encounter-building.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 23, 2012)

I don't get too attached to my PCs. I have many more ideas for character concepts than the amount of PCs I get to play, so for me usually losing a PC leads to some short-terms frustration (because I am usually planning forward the next couple of levels anyway, and of course dying normally means I've done something wrong) but that is soon replaced with renewed excitement at the chance of trying the next character concept. Only if PC death was too frequent I would start being pissed off.

That's my way of gaming, but I totally understand that it's not the same for others. There are people who expect from a RPG the opportunity to really develop a character fully, not mechanically but in terms of background, personality, history, relationship with other PC/NPC etc... and that's a valid playing style too.

Now the crux of the matter for the OP is this:

- OP really wants player X to game with them
- player X has different expectations from the game, and asks the OP if they can provide them
- game is currently working with different expectations

OP needs to ask himself what is more important to him:

(a) the presence of player X in the game
(b) preservation of the current gaming style
(c) preservation of equity [meaning: can the group tolerate one character with different rules or should they all use the same rules?]

I don't think any of us has the right to judge the OP if he values something else, but I am reading a lot of presumptuous comments here.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 23, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> But...it's as if the player is telling me (not "as if", he has said,) that I shouldn't make the encounters too hard. He's actually told me to keep that in mind, because if his PC dies, boom, he's outta here.




If he told you not to make encounters hard, IMO that is different from telling you he'd leave if his PC died.  The latter might be seen as being helpful, so you can prepare yourself for the situation.  The former does look like him trying to dictate how you run your game, which unless you solicited input, is annoying and not really acceptable IMO.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2012)

> OTOH I've seen DMs derided by their players for obvious fudging to keep PCs alive.




I've only seen blatant fudging a few times, the last time back in 1999 when the party would have been TPKed in the campaign's first encounter due entirely to bad die rolls.  When we hit- which wasn't very often- the damage rolls were universally below average.  And then 3 of our foes critted.

It was supposed to be a cakewalk, but the randomizing of the die decided otherwise.  Without the fudging, we'd have spent the rest of that evening making new PCs.  In this case, the fudging was the easier option by far.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 23, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> A person leaving a group disrupts the group. That's just how human groups work. A person joins, forms bonds of friendship and camaraderie. The joining causes bonds to form, the leaving causes those bonds to become disruptions.




Leaving when your PC dies would seem about the least disruptive possible point at which to leave, though.

Personally I'm used to players leaving; that's London.  Sometimes I'm a bit sad if a good friend leaves, but I accept that people leaving is inevitable.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 23, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've only seen blatant fudging a few times, the last time back in 1999 when the party would have been TPKed in the campaign's first encounter due entirely to bad die rolls.  When we hit- which wasn't very often- the damage rolls were universally below average.  And then 3 of our foes critted.
> 
> It was supposed to be a cakewalk, but the randomizing of the die decided otherwise.  Without the fudging, we'd have spent the rest of that evening making new PCs.  In this case, the fudging was the easier option by far.




I TPK'd the party in the first session of my 4e Forgotten Realms Loudwater campaign last year.  Luckily it occurred in the second encounter of the 3e-hour session, by the time everyone was dead it was the end of the night anyway.

The players all had these happy, really delighted faces, mixed with the usual disappointment.  But for them it was such a big change from the blatant-fudging DM, I think they were really relieved to discover that their PCs really could die.

When we played again next time, the new PCs were the sister, fellow agent, or hunters of the previous PCs.  Their first group had been pretty Evil-aligned, and the new PCs were much nicer, which in the long term was probably a good thing for the campaign.


----------



## Dordledum (Mar 23, 2012)

[MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION]:

You could also make it part of the game. You already got the left-for-dead option, so make sure to point that out to the player in question. 

What I would suggest further , is that this player's character might get to save up his part of any treasure to be able to buy a limited use item of ressurection/raise dead. 

It would create an option for his character to even survive death onc or a couple of times, without giving preferred treatment to his character. 

One character invests his wealth in a new set of armour or a magical battleaxe, his character could put it to his ressurection fund.

I think I might consider something similar for my current character.

What also helps is an in-game roleplaying moment where characters get to talk about what they want to happen upon their death. We don't always have "speak with bread" ready on character deaths.

We tend to have such moments in our campaigns around the campfire. They tend to vary from discussions on funeral rites to characters explicitly asking their fellow party members to try to ressurect them at any cost. If the latter applies, those characters should curry favor with their gods or make other (financial) arrangements as suggested above.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 23, 2012)

I really don't have much to add, except an actual answer, where I withhold what I want to add to the end of it:

No, I would not quit a game if my character died. I accept death as a core assumption of the game, unless the game is Toon.

Also, I wanted to address this:



Elf Witch said:


> house cat not nearly as much fun.




The old Wizard v. House Cat trope. A GM who has you fighting house cats obviously intends a silly game.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 23, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> Now the crux of the matter for the OP is this:
> 
> - OP really wants player X to game with them




I do.  I like him as a person.  He's a smart guy.  And, so far, he's playing the game well.

You'd think this guy would be more of a game player based on what I've told you, but he's really not.  I mean, he said what he said about not playing unless he rolled up high stats, and then, as he plays, he uses inferior weapons when he fights, instead roleplaying over chosing the statiscally better weapon.

The character has a dirk that was left him by his father.  The PC didn't know his father.  Something happened--he does not know what--when the PC was about 5 years old.  And, the father (mother dead) became "rex", which is the Cimmerian word for "He's a traitor to the clan, and we'll never utter his name or acknowledge his very existence ever again."

So, the player has made this dirk very important to the character.  The PC made his first kill with it (at 1st level.  The character is 3rd level now).  And, when he fights, this dirk (which he calls "rexor"), is always in one of his hands--no matter what other choice of weapon he has around.

The player even goes so far as to say that rexor is in his left hand because he doesn't want to throw it.  In his right hand, he'll use a sword or a hunting spear--some other weapon or something he can throw.

It's obvious to me that this guy is really into his character.  He's not just playing a game.  He _feels_ it.

And, that's great for a GM, right?  I always aspire to get my players that involved in the game.

But, what I'm seeing with the "quit if he dies" stuff is a reaction that I do not welcome.







> OP needs to ask himself what is more important to him:
> 
> (a) the presence of player X in the game
> (b) preservation of the current gaming style
> (c) preservation of equity--meaning: can the group tolerate one character with different rules or should they all use the same rules?




I'd have to go with "b".  As much as I'd like this guy to continue in the game, I feel blackmailed into ensuring his character lives.

It really irks me that a player would demand such a thing.








S'mon said:


> If he told you not to make encounters hard, IMO that is different from telling you he'd leave if his PC died.




He's said both.  Something like, "I just can't continue the game if my character dies, so just consider that when you're creating encounters for the game."

He didn't say it in a threatening way--more like he means it.  Kinda "No hard feelings, and I'm sorry, but I won't be getting anything out of the game if something happens to this current character I've grown to love."









Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've only seen blatant fudging a few times...




It's natural to assume fudging with this guy, but, believe or not, I think him to be quite honest with hit points and negative conditions and what not.  Other than what he's said about leaving, he's given me no reason to think that he'd "cheat" or "fudge" when he had the opportunity.

He's even reminded me of things detrimental to the party and his character as we gamed.  Stuff like, "I'm going to run over here....wait!  I can't do that.  My character is fatigued.  It'll take me two rounds to get there."


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 23, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> I mean, he said what he said about not playing unless he rolled up high stats,




Hmmm.. refuses to play unless he gets awesome stats.

Will quit if his character dies. 


He ain't there to game, he's there to stroke his ego.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2012)

> It's natural to assume fudging with this guy, but, believe or not...




Actually, we were talking in the context of _DM_ fudging.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 23, 2012)

Apologies for being tardy ta the party.

I'm sure all of the wisdom of EN world has already addressed all of this. But indulge me, anyway. 

1) As I said in your XP, 100% correct. If he leaves, he leaves. He doesn't get "story immunity" for being a baby or feeling he should have a D&D experience that simulates a computer game. Go play your computer game then!

2) Yes, Conan doesn't die. James Bond doesn't die. Know why?! They are the central characters in a series of literary works of fiction. Yes, your character _is _central to this collaborative _game_ of fiction. But that doesn't make it a novel or <shudder> a computer game. You, as the DM, are not the author with complete control over HIS character.

3) It's HIS FRIGGIN' JOB to keep his character alive! Not yours.

Grrr. I'm sure he's a lovely guy and glad he's working out well...but such a "request" (which it really wasn't. It was an ultimatum at best, a "threat" at worst.) has no business being thought of, let alone said in the first place.

Let the dice fall where they may...and he is welcome to make his own decisions and follow them.

That is all.
Carry on.
--SD


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Hmmm.. refuses to play unless he gets awesome stats.
> 
> Will quit if his character dies.
> 
> ...




I'm calling shenanigans. People need to stop with the psychoanalyzing. ALL RPGing is a certain amount of ego stroking. You get to be powerful characters doing things you can't do  in real life - you get to be larger than life. This is no different or worse than anything else the rest of you all are doing. This is a difference in style.

This is a style of play that can fit in well with the Conan line of pulp fantasy - playing a highly significant character who is central to the story. If the character dies, that story ends. Full Stop. He may be pretty good at following the rules of the game, based on the Water Bob's update, but it also seems clear that he's very much into the character's story. It sounds like he invests pretty heavily and wants that investment given a certain amount of insurance. In a table of like-minded other players and GM, I'm sure it could be fantastic.

The problem is - you're not a like-minded GM. To play together without you risking his departure requires one or both of you to compromise. It's as simple (and as hard) as that. Are his contributions valuable enough for you to bend? Are your contributions worthwhile enough for him to bend if his character dies?


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 23, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I'm calling shenanigans. People need to stop with the psychoanalyzing. ALL RPGing is a certain amount of ego stroking. You get to be powerful characters doing things you can't do  in real life - you get to be larger than life. This is no different or worse than anything else the rest of you all are doing. This is a difference in style.
> 
> This is a style of play that can fit in well with the Conan line of pulp fantasy - playing a highly significant character who is central to the story. If the character dies, that story ends. Full Stop. He may be pretty good at following the rules of the game, based on the Water Bob's update, but it also seems clear that he's very much into the character's story. It sounds like he invests pretty heavily and wants that investment given a certain amount of insurance. In a table of like-minded other players and GM, I'm sure it could be fantastic.
> 
> The problem is - you're not a like-minded GM. To play together without you risking his departure requires one or both of you to compromise. It's as simple (and as hard) as that. Are his contributions valuable enough for you to bend? Are your contributions worthwhile enough for him to bend if his character dies?




Dashitall! "Must spread some around." Someone get bill91 some "XP for Wisdom" for me.

I will gladly pay you Tuesday, for an XP today. 

Please and thank you.
--SD


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> Grrr. I'm sure he's a lovely guy and glad he's working out well...but such a "request" (which it really wasn't. It was an ultimatum at best, a "threat" at worst.) has no business being thought of, let alone said in the first place.




No business being _thought of_?

Who the heck are you to declare what others should *think*?  You got credentials as Duly Elected Grand Thought Policeman, or something?

The One True Wayism in here is staggering.  Simply staggering.

Would I quit a game if my character died?  Generally not.  But would I quit a game if people reacted in such a fashion to so much as the expression of an idea?  Maybe....


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 23, 2012)

Umbran said:


> No business being _thought of_?
> 
> Who the heck are you to declare what others should *think*?  You got credentials as Duly Elected Grand Thought Policeman, or something?
> 
> The One True Wayism in here is staggering.  Simply staggering.




True enough. "Thought" was probably a poor choice of words (though I am a deputized Grand Thought Policeman"  ).

I'm sorry if this position has been mentioned before. I didn't read the 8 pages of posts in the thread before posting my own. 

But seriously, Umbran, would _you_ go into a game (any kind of RPG really, not just D&D) with the attitude that "my character better not die or I'll walk." (which was in the first post that I did read.)

I don't think it's "One True Wayism" to expect the players to be in charge of or think/know it is _their_ responsibility to see to the life expectancy of their character. Of course, OTW is kinda a swingin' target for all of us, regarding what other people write.

--SD


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 23, 2012)

I find this thread interesting in light of the previous thread on "Restrictions on Player Characters".

In that thread, there was no talk of ultimatums or the DM being incorrect in imposing her playstyle preferences on the group. Instead the vast majority of posts were "the players need to shut up and deal with it".

Sometimes I think ENWorld is too biased towards the DM. Discussions here almost always side with the DM, at the expense of the players.


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 23, 2012)

What I'd say (also coming in late) is:

OK.  But I think the game is no fun if you CAN'T die -- if we "metagame" that James Bond can never die, the action loses its intensity.  And this is the Lord of the Rings anyhow -- your character might be Gandalf or Boromir or a random redshirt soldier of Gondor, we just don't know yet.

So your PC CAN die.  I'm not saying they will, but they might.  If you do something foolhardy, or you get unlucky at the wrong time, it will happen.  I'm not intentionally trying to kill off the PC's, but some scenarios will be too tough for you -- I don't scale the world to fit your party -- so sometimes you need to avoid trouble, or be clever about it, seeking help or "Combat as War"ing it to make it easier.  If you take on Smaug when you're first level, and you don't have the help of Bard the Bowman and the whole Laketown militia, chances are you'll die -- actually, even with Bard the Bowman, you'd probably all die!

Of course, in most scenarios there's a good chance you could be raised if you are killed, but that's not always possible, like if there's a TPK and the monsters eat you all, with no one to know your fate!

I know character death can be upsetting when you've invested in a character.  But it can also be awesome.  I cried when my first paladin died (when I was 11 years old), but I was elated when my most recent one went down in a blaze of glory -- he died with his boots on, face-to-face attack a dragon when he was down to a single HP, trying to save his friends in a hopeless fight where 3 of the 6 PC's died.  So I was happy for him, living and dying just like he wanted.

If you can live with that risk, you're welcome to stay in my campaign.  And if you do get killed, I'd like you to consider taking over an NPC or something, maybe after you've had some time off the game -- there's no shame in NOT quitting or coming back, if you change your mind.

If you can't live with that risk, you probably should find a different campaign.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 23, 2012)

As DM, I have no issue with people stating their preferences, and I'm quite sure my own campaigns are chock full of some peoples' deal-breakers. To each their own. No harm, no foul. Etc.

As a player, I've go no problem with campaigns which reduce or remove the chance of PC death. My PC needs to be able to lose something. Their imaginary life doesn't need to be one of them.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 23, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> Ithere was no talk of ultimatums or the DM being incorrect in imposing her playstyle preferences on the group. Instead the vast majority of posts were "the players need to shut up and deal with it".




Yep, that's my opinion. Players want to be the DM while they are being the players. I'm not cool with that. Now, if the DM was cool with it, that's great. Then run the campaign world and let the players have whatever control you want them to have. But a lot of players feel that they should be allowed control whenever they want, regardless if the DM doesn't want to run the game that way.

It seemed like the DM used to be thought of as the "god" of the world. It was his creation, he puts all of the work into providing content for the players, and he had the final say on the outcome. Nowadays, players are insulted by that thought for some reason. That's what it seems like to me anyway.



GSHamster said:


> Sometimes I think ENWorld is too biased towards the DM. Discussions here almost always side with the DM, at the expense of the players.




I think that is because most people here are usually the DM or at least have DMing experience and understand what a DM deals with when running a game for players.

The load on a DM is a lot more than on a player. A DM also has to deal with more issues since he is outnumbered at the table. Player vs player conflicts are not as common as player vs DM conflicts. So it takes a lot more patience to DM than it does to be a player.

So I usually have sympathy for a DM more than I do a player because I've dealt with a ton more problem players than I have ever dealt with problem DMs. Players don't seem to respect DMs much (they say they do, but actions speak louder than words) and I see a lot of player entitlement going on. I never do half of the problematic things to DMs that players have done to me.


----------



## Harlekin (Mar 23, 2012)

Umbran said:


> No business being _thought of_?
> 
> Who the heck are you to declare what others should *think*?  You got credentials as Duly Elected Grand Thought Policeman, or something?
> 
> ...




Must spread XP around.....

Quite frankly after all this GM chest thumping here, I am not surprised that the OP now says that he is ready to cut of his nose to spite his face.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 23, 2012)

I get the impression that the player's former DM (whom he gamed with for years, is his best friend, and the only GM he's ever known besides me) woud do things like make sure every character had heroic stats and give everyone strong magical equipment, even at first level.

He's played a lot of 1E and 2E AD&D, but it was heavily house ruled.  And, when we rolled up his current character, I allowed him the usual 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste.  He said, "How about 5d6 or 6d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste."

It a very different game background he's come from, running ultimate heroes.  I think point buy (which I generally dislike) is more his style, but I don't think his earlier group, with exposure to 1E/2E AD&D only, ever thought about point buy (thus, the 5d6 and 6d6 insurance).

And, I also think his previous DM would set the group up for what I call "hollow heroism" encounters.  This is when the DM or some other factor (like a Fate Point) gives an encounter the appearance of heroism but nothing was really risked in the game.

For example, if the PC is to rescue the princess, and she is guarded by three, bloodthristy, maddened, howling dragons, then he rushes in and does just that.  With three mighty blows, he kills each dragon, swoops up the princess, and runs her back to safety.

It sounds pretty awesome and heroic, huh?  Until you look under the hood and see the the GM has given him armor that makes him almost impervious to dragon breath and a sword that kills dragons on contact.

That description may be a little overly dramatic, but you get the point.  I think his earlier PCs were statically and materially equipped to deal with the challenges his previous GM threw at him.

My game has a much more realistic flavor.  And, if you pull off something heroic, then you were really heroic in the game and risked your character's life to do it.

We've had a moment like that in our game, and the player loved the outcome.  It was a very, very tough encounter to where the PCs got down to where one more blow would kill them.  But, they prevailed!  All of them!  And, they did it by good play, good tactics, and some lucky attack throws.

Even I didn't think they'd get out of what I had thrown at them--I was sure they'd be captured.

But, they did it.

I made a big deal out of this because it deserved to made that way.  In the Conan RPG, XP is totally arbritrary, and I gave them the highest XP award they'd ever recevied, raising them an entire level (from level 2 to level 3).

In my eyes, they really were heroes because they had really risked their lives to pull off what they did.

In the long run, I think the players appreciate this, too.  Once they get a taste of real heroism in the game (as opposed to hollow heroism) where there was real risk, then that success gets addictive.

With hollow heroism, the character is going to come out a hero no matter what.  With the way I play, a character is a hero only if he earns it.

This may be something the player is objecting too, as well.  He's used to the former.  My games are about the latter.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 23, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> Sometimes I think ENWorld is too biased towards the DM. Discussions here almost always side with the DM, at the expense of the players.




See now, here is a bit of stuff I see a problem with.

"Siding with the DM" is not (automatically) "at the expense of the players."

This is a collective, group, game...usually of real individuals in the flesh. There are no "sides." Everyone at the table, the DM included, is there to play....to have FUN. 

To play an imaginary game of Swords & Sorcery or Galactic Fighters & Explorers (and maybe with magic and psionics, too) or Old [USA] West Cowboys & Indians (and maybe with magic or psionics, too) or Spies & Syndicates (and maybe with magic or psionics, too) or Superheroes & Mutants (almost certainly with magic and psionics, too), G-Men & Aliens....whatevvvvver...is to escape the everyday. To be something amazing and fun, for a couple of hours, that you could never normally be. I certainly couldn't be.

Everyone is (or, I will venture to say, "should be") there for FUN.

Back on topic to what I'm responding to, I think (hope), "bad/powerhungry/vindictive/immature" D/GMs abound, from what I read (thankfully didn't have this problem myself), as do players.

There are, I'm sure, plenty of games where it's "Us vs. the GM"...perhaps even by design in some systems. D&D really isn't one of those games, I don't think, in any edition. (Ok, I mean, sure. If you were in EGG's original campaign going through the ToH, maybe. But mid-80's games on, in my experience? No.)

Guess the point is, the best any of us, in any genre of RPG, can hope for is a "good" group of people we can get along with (if not actually call  _friends_). People that we can "play pretend" with for a little while. 

I, personally, have never found ENworld to be "DM-centric" or even, necessarily, "DM-friendly" in some threads...and I've been more on the DM side of things more than the player for a loooooonnnnngggg time (going on 20 years. Other than PbP's which I've only just discovered since coming to this site -last year? Two years ago? No, not yet- and I must say LOVING it! Thank you [MENTION=48762]Leif[/MENTION] and [MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION] letting me be a PLAYER again).

Humbly yours,
--Steel Dragons


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 23, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> Everyone is (or, I will venture to say, "should be") there for FUN.




Well, it's just my personal observation. Lately, "FUN" on ENWorld seems to always correspond to "what the DM wants".


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 23, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> do things like make sure every character had heroic stats and give everyone strong magical equipment, even at first level.




The first "random" player I ever met from an online post and DMed for in person came from a group like that. He told me he is used to playing overpowered PCs but was ok doing it my way (the standard way).

He was a great roleplayer and I really loved how he absorbed himself in the campaign world. But his "underpowered" PC always bothered him. He had good stats and normal equipment, but he was never satisfied. He eventually stopped playing. A few years later he joined again but only lasted a few sessions.

We don't play together, but 10 years later and he's considered a good friend of mine. We just went out for my bday last week.

As a player, he needs to have his way or he won't be happy. As a DM, I need to have things my way or I won't be happy. I just think he is so used to having his way that he isn't willing to suck it up. As a player, I'm ok with not having my way and it is not hard at all for me to go with the flow. I think he was spoiled early on, which is why he is like that and my experience was the exact opposite. Which may be why I'm not a demanding player.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 23, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> Lately, "FUN" on ENWorld seems to always correspond to "what the DM wants".




Isn't that sort of the case though? I'm sure not many DMs are going to run a game that they don't enjoy running. So if there is no game, there is no fun.

If they are running a game that they don't enjoy running, it is almost guaranteed that it will end soon after.

And I'm sure it is a lot harder to have fun in a game being run by a DM that is not having fun running it. The DM will probably run a terrible game.

This happens all the time. I know because the DM or player comes here complaining about it.


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 23, 2012)

Okay, for a more on-topic reply.

I would sit down with the player and see if we can't get to the root of his requirement that his PC cannot die.  Try a technique like "5 Whys".  Keep asking "why X" where X is the answer to the previous question. Eventually you get down to an underlying root cause.

Sometimes you can attack the root cause directly, rather than dealing with the symptoms.

For example, maybe he thinks an ignoble, meaningless death invalidates the work he put into the character. Then you can explain how your fate point system cuts against that.

Or maybe he has a hard time coming up with character concepts that he likes and enjoys. Perhaps the solution here would be to come up with alternate characters ahead of time.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Mar 23, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> See now, here is a bit of stuff I see a problem with.
> 
> "Siding with the DM" is not (automatically) "at the expense of the players."
> 
> This is a collective, group, game...usually of real individuals in the flesh. There are no "sides." Everyone at the table, the DM included, is there to play....to have FUN.




You _just_ beat me to it.  Terms like "Pro-DM" are nonsense.  If the players and DM are truly adversaries, then rocks fall, everyone dies.  In any RPG all the players, even the DM, are cooperating to make a fun game.  A playstyle preference for non-*WAHOO!* games does not mean the DM is being a tyrant it means that the players, including the DM, want to play a game closer to reality than to heroic fiction.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2012)

Look at it this way: did you ever play tag with a fat kid with allergies who couldn't run* so you made special rules so he could play?  And how many times did you play that way until it stopped being fun?

If this guy is asking for special treatment that the rest of the group is not getting OR that the game be changed to a "no death" rule for everyone else including him...you know, _just to be fair_...I think it is not "Pro-DM" to tell him that is not how I run my game and/or let him leave if and when the triggering situation occurs.  Let him take his ball and go home.

If I were a player in a campaign and this occurred, I'd side with the DM and politely help "Cartman" gather his stuff & load it in the car.  

And to be perfectly clear, it would be ME leaving if I found out that one player had plot immunity I didn't have, or possibly if the game were switching to a "no death" style.











* namely, someone like moi


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 23, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Look at it this way: did you ever play tag with a fat kid with allergies who couldn't run* so you made special rules so he could play?




The one thing I always admired about my fat friends (including the one with asthma) was that they always tried to keep up with us no matter what outdoor activities we were playing. We never had to give them special treatment. They may have stopped moving as much, but they stuck in the game. They never once whined either.

I wish D&D players would do the same.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2012)

I did what I could, but there's only so long people want to play tag when they can hear you coming before they see you...and can run backwards faster than you can forwards! 

Now...put me on a bike and my superior leg strength let me do or outdo anything my buddies did.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 23, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> The first "random" player I ever met from an online post and DMed for in person came from a group like that. He told me he is used to playing overpowered PCs but was ok doing it my way (the standard way).
> 
> He was a great roleplayer and I really loved how he absorbed himself in the campaign world. But his "underpowered" PC always bothered him.




These guys sound like they came from the same group.

What's interesting is that I expected this guy, given what he's said, to play with a tad bit of munchkinism in him--always wanting the +5 sword, that sort of thing. The Conan RPG isn't about "finding goodies" as it is in D&D. Once you get a weapon you like, you're pretty much set. There are no magical weapons. I keep a little thrill in finding equipment by keeping exotic items exotic. For example, you're not going to find a Hyrkanian Bow (one of the better bows in the game) anywhere except in Hyrkania. And, if you do, it will be a highly sought after, expensive, piece of equipment. Even the frequency of finding something exotic like that (the bow is common in Hyrkania) is rare.

The new player of mine seems to be completely at home with that. I've already mentioned how he uses his inferior dirk more often than any other weapon. In fact, he just pulled a shiny war sword (akin to a bastard sword) off a foe two game sessions ago, and he has yet to swing it as a weapon (and the thing does 1d12 damage! with a 3rd level character swining it!).

It's an interesting dichotomy in his personality.

He's a strong roleplayer, yet he wants heroic stats and assuances his character will never die.








> As a player, he needs to have his way or he won't be happy.




Strange. The older I get, the more I'm running into things like this. The player I've been talking about is 47 years old! 

I had another player start the campaign previous to this one. He was a long time player with me from back in the old days. He moved to another state. We kept in touch. And, he moved back recently. We hadn't gamed together in over 15 years. I was starting a 2E AD&D Dragonlance game, and I asked him if he wanted to warm up the old dice.

He said, "Absolutely!" Then, he got all excited about the game. I mean more than just looking forward to play, he started reading tons of Dragonlance novels. He seached the net for Dragonlance info. He was really into it.

It had been years since I had touched 2E AD&D, so I ruled that I was going to start the game just using the core three books: PG, DMG, and MM. As we became more comfortable with the rules, I would bring in the supplementary books, and we could use the expanded rules there.

Well, this player would have nothing to do with that. He basically said that, if we didn't use the ENTIRE 2E LINE OF GAME BOOKS, that he wouldn't play. He wanted all the little extra rules that those books brought to the game.

I told him that we would eventually get there, but it would be better for all of us if we just started simple, re-learned that, and then added the books once we had a achieved a certain comfort level.

He would have none of it. It was a definite ultimatum. Play with everything, or don't play at all.

For the first time in my DMing life, I gave in and let this player have his way.

It was a huge mistake.

First, the game was very, very slow and unenjoyable because....you guessed it! We weren't comfortable with the rules!

Second, it seems that player's memory of what was and was not written in the supplemental rule books was different from what was really in them. I found several instances where the player was not interpreting a rule correctly. I'm all for house rules, but I usually try to learn the RAW first before I start changing things.

This led to an argument every freakin' time we played. I got so tired of it. It went so far that I actually met one of the three game designers of 2E (Steve Winter) and asked him several questions and rule clarifications. 99% of the time, Steve's answers supported what I said and made what the player said incorrect. Of course, the player didn't like that and would dismiss what Steve said anyway.

Basically, the player wanted the game to run the way he wanted it to run, house rules and all, or he wouldn't be happy.

That Dragonlance game ended after the first adventure because of that player, and, naively, I thought that I wouldn't have the same problems with the player if I changed to a rule system with which he wasn't familiar.

That's how I got to the Conan RPG. None of us were very familair with 3.x d20 at all. I had avoided that entire era of RPGs, instead playing things like D6 Star Wars or Classic Traveller.

Well, the arguments continued with Conan, too, until I finally had to ask the guy to leave the game.

He did, and our game is better for it.

And, now, I've got this new player issue.

Man, maybe my memory is selective, but I sure miss the days when we all just sat down to play and had fun. The GM was the GM. The players respected that. And, we all had fun, spending hours and days afterward talking about the situations that popped up.

I do miss that.







EDIT:  Happy Birthday, btw!


----------



## merelycompetent (Mar 23, 2012)

Late to the thread, but I've read through it.

As a DM, my response would be: I run a game that's fun for me as DM. That means that your character has a real chance of dying in the game. I'm not setting out to kill your character, but the bad guys I run probably are. No one, not even my most favorite, longest-lasting NPC has plot immunity. If that is a deal-breaker for you, then let me recommend a couple of other groups that might be more to your liking.

As a Player: It's not a deal-breaker for me, by itself. It definitely is a minus on the Fun scale for me. I find the chance of my character dying makes playing a LOT more fun. So long as there are other parts that keep it on the Fun side of the Fun scale, then I'm in. If a particular PC, or couple of PCs have plot immunity to death, that's bordering on a deal-breaker for me. Thanks for letting me know about it in advance.

The bottom line, as I see it, is the player in the OP was being up-front about what kind of game he likes. One of the qualities of a great DM is being up-front with the kind of game he or she likes to run. Where those two likes meet is the decision point for both to play (and have fun), or one/both to politely say, "Thanks, but not for me."


----------



## Argyle King (Mar 23, 2012)

Also late to the thread...

I don't really see the conflict.  He said he will not play a new character if his current character dies.  I am of the impression you still have other players.  If by chance his character dies, and that player decides to not play anymore, continue with the other players.

I'd simply just talk to him before-hand.  Let him know that you respect his tastes, and that you are not out to intentionally kill his character.  However,  you are a player too; as are the other people playing in the game.  It's supposed to be a group game with everyone having fun.  As such, while you respect his views and will not single out his character (although, in game events might dictate that an in-game entity such as a monster might), neither will you put a bubble around his character.  You're running the game in a manner where every character is on the same playing field.  

As long as you both understand that he does not wish to continue in the event his first character dies, I see no issue.  However, to be polite, I would personally offer him the opportunity to make a new character (if his current one dies.)  That way you at least gave the opportunity.  If he says no, then ask if there is anything else he'd like to help with; perhaps helping you manage running the game if he still wants to be part of the group (but doesn't want to play a character.)  If he says no to that as well, simply part ways until the next campaign, and invite him to play again.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm glad I started this thread.  Not only have I liked reading the commentary from both sides of the argument, but it's made me think of advice I usually give to DMs in my shoes but have conveniently forgotten to tell myself.

And that is:  When you have a problem with the game, fix it in the game.

I think a few have mentioned this type of answer up thread a bit.




Off the top of my head, one way to go about this might be:  I don't compromise my play style.  The Fate Points built into the Conan RPG keep the heroes alive.  And, as long as I don't start using a critical hit or fumble chart (which I loathe) or start playing the game as the DM vs the Players (which I learned decades ago was no fun for anybody), that the PCs have a very good shot at staying alive even in the gritty, deadly game that I like to run.

Taking the problem and internalizing it in the game, though, I could do something like this:  Put in a major plot thread about The Waters of Karim Bey (totally making this up as I write).  Karim Bey was a powerful Shemite sorcerer from ages past, and in his crumbling tower, lost, somewhere in the wastes of the Great Desert, is a pool that some say give drinkers the power of everlasting life.  Immortality!

Talk about a "push" that would greatly interest this particular player!

So, now the player is happy.  He's on a huge quest to find the Waters of Karim Bey...

....but once he finds it and drinks...he does indeed become immortal...but not necessarily unchanged.

Sorcerery in Conan is dark.  If the character ever dies, then nature demands compensation.  Instead of the character dying, someone close to him dies.  His closest ally--his friend--a family member.

This corrupts the character, and the more corruption he takes on, he starts getting laden with all sorts of ailments and phobias.  

No, the character will not die, but he's wracked with arthritis, taking a -2 penalty to hit and damage.

Now, I know this wasn't what the player was thinking when he demands character immortality or he'll leave the game (and he may leave the game if his character gets afflicted as I've described).  

But, if he's going to leave anyway, I might as well have some fun with it!

And, who knows, maybe the roleplaying side of him will be intrigued and end up playing it out.  I could see another entire quest developed around the idea of lifting the Curse of Karim Bey!


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 23, 2012)

I don't think he's asking you to promise to not kill his character.  I think he's being honest with you that he loses interest if something he's invested so much in ends.  I think that's fair.  

I wouldn't quit a game if my character died because I usually play games primarily for the people I'm playing them with, even if I do put a lot of effort into a character.  In fact I often get bored with characters and _want_ them to die off so that I can make something new, even ones I really like.

I don't think you should promise not to kill your players.  I don't think guy's gonna throw down his pencils and storm off in a huff if he dies.  Perhaps you can change his feelings towards your group so that he's more interested in playing with your group than just playing a game with random people.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 24, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> A person leaving a group disrupts the group. That's just how human groups work. A person joins, forms bonds of friendship and camaraderie. The joining causes bonds to form, the leaving causes those bonds to become disruptions.




Okay I can buy that. But it would be better to leave a game if you are going to do so when your character is killed then right in the middle of the adventure leaving the DM to scramble with what to do with the live character.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 24, 2012)

Zhaleskra said:


> I really don't have much to add, except an actual answer, where I withhold what I want to add to the end of it:
> 
> No, I would not quit a game if my character died. I accept death as a core assumption of the game, unless the game is Toon.
> 
> ...




Actually it was not silly it was a demon cat and we were 6 level. I was not a wizard but a cleric and that evil cat killed me. 

Though I did die at first level as wizard because I had one hit point and got hit by a orc with an axe.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 24, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Hmmm.. refuses to play unless he gets awesome stats.
> 
> Will quit if his character dies.
> 
> ...




You do not know that. 

I have known plenty of players who hate having low stats and if they can't roll new ones will do ever thing in their power to get their PC killed so they can try again.

I have known players who whine so badly about it that it just easier to let them roll over. 

There is no such thing as a perfect player every last one of us has things about our playing style that could be seen as wrong.

It kind of drives me crazy that people make all these assumptions when they did not hear the conversation and they only have one side of it.


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 24, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> It went so far that I actually met one of the three game designers of 2E (Steve Winter) and asked him several questions and rule clarifications. 99% of the time, Steve's answers supported what I said and made what the player said incorrect. Of course, the player didn't like that and would dismiss what Steve said anyway.




LOL.  Yes, why should the game designer now how the rules were intended?


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 24, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I find this thread interesting in light of the previous thread on "Restrictions on Player Characters".
> 
> In that thread, there was no talk of ultimatums or the DM being incorrect in imposing her playstyle preferences on the group. Instead the vast majority of posts were "the players need to shut up and deal with it".
> 
> Sometimes I think ENWorld is too biased towards the DM. Discussions here almost always side with the DM, at the expense of the players.




I'm not an over controlling GM but I do have the opinion that the game is the GMs. He or she is the one that puts the time, blood, sweat, tears and hard earned cash into designing/tweaking the setting, writing the adventures and prepping the game. Players get the enjoyment out of playing. They shouldn't be dictating things which is what I normally see on ENW. 

Roleplaying is a group experience but IMO it's the GM who should have the final say of what is and isn't allowed.

In the situation we're discussing here I don't think that player should come along and demand a game where he can't die. That is out of order. Any GM worth their salt is going turn around and say no to that idea.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 24, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Actually it was not silly it was a demon cat and we were 6 level. I was not a wizard but a cleric and that evil cat killed me.
> 
> Though I did die at first level as wizard because I had one hit point and got hit by a orc with an axe.




You just critically fumbled your Bluff check. Double talk does not work on me, especially when I can go back to what you said on page 3:



Elf Witch said:


> Being killed at first level by a kobold or house cat not nearly as much fun.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 24, 2012)

Zhaleskra said:


> You just critically fumbled your Bluff check. Double talk does not work on me, especially when I can go back to what you said on page 3:





The house cat part of the quote was more tongue in cheek. I personally have never seen a house cat kill a first level character though I have heard so many people talk about it  as a drawback for hit points rolled at first level.

Though kobolds are nasty with their frakking traps we had a first level party wiped out by them. This was in a 3.0 game.

When you mentioned the silly factor I got to thinking about the only time we had cats and it was demon cats that regenerated stronger if you killed them.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 24, 2012)

DragonLancer said:


> I'm not an over controlling GM but I do have the opinion that the game is the GMs. He or she is the one that puts the time, blood, sweat, tears and hard earned cash into designing/tweaking the setting, writing the adventures and prepping the game. Players get the enjoyment out of playing. They shouldn't be dictating things which is what I normally see on ENW.
> 
> Roleplaying is a group experience but IMO it's the GM who should have the final say of what is and isn't allowed.
> 
> In the situation we're discussing here I don't think that player should come along and demand a game where he can't die. That is out of order. Any GM worth their salt is going turn around and say no to that idea.




I am a great believer in DMs having a lot of control over their games. If the DM is not having fun then nobody is really going to have fun.


And the DM should absolutely have the final say on the game. 

But a DM is not a god and should not be a tyrant he should be willing to listen to his players. I have seen things here on EnWorld where I thought the DM was being a jerk. Being a DM does not mean getting carte blanche to be a jerk. 

And I don't think it is wrong for a player to talk to his DM saying he really does not enjoy having his character die. 

I would rather have a player be upfront and honest with me then surprise me later on.


----------



## Leif (Mar 24, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> Isn't that sort of the case though? I'm sure not many DMs are going to run a game that they don't enjoy running. So if there is no game, there is no fun.



Yes, indeed.  Ideally, I think the DM/GM will concoct a world/campaign concept/adventure that (s)he thinks will be fun.  Then (s)he develops it, fleshes it out and prepares it.  Then, possibly the most important task (s)he will face -- (s)he must SELL the concept to the players, in the process convincing them to invest their own energy and creativity into the game, thereby exerting a part ownership over the game, so that it becomes a _shared_ product of DM and players.  Then, everyone who participates contributes and invests in the game, and those investments can appreciate in value, resulting in fun for all.



steeldragons said:


> I, personally, have never found ENworld to be "DM-centric" or even, necessarily, "DM-friendly" in some threads...and I've been more on the DM side of things more than the player for a loooooonnnnngggg time (going on 20 years. Other than PbP's which I've only just discovered since coming to this site -last year? Two years ago? No, not yet- and I must say LOVING it! Thank you Leif and RangerWickett [for] letting me be a PLAYER again).
> --Steel Dragons



You're very welcome, [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION].  And thank you for your kind words.  And also for mentioning my DMing in the same sentence as RangerWickett's, who holds near-legendary status on ENWorld.    I'm also having great fun DMing for 'Raggs' and 'Shiyana,' and you have rapidly proven yourself to be one of the best, most dedicated players on all of ENWorld.  I hope that our shared AD&D games continue for a LONNNNG time to come!  I also hope that you are willing and able to join my Pathfinder game, Whirtlestaff's Wizard's Academy, as soon as you feel comfortable doing so, what with having to digest the 'new' ruleset and everything.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 24, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I have known plenty of players who hate having low stats and if they can't roll new ones will do ever thing in their power to get their PC killed so they can try again.
> 
> I have known players who whine so badly about it that it just easier to let them roll over.




Oh me too. I left those kinds of players behind in middle school.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 24, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> It kind of drives me crazy that people make all these assumptions when they did not hear the conversation and they only have one side of it.




Wasn't that you in the other thread making all sorts of assumptions about one of my players who would lie to his wife about roleplaying?







ExploderWizard said:


> Oh me too. I left those kinds of players behind in middle school.




I've met those players, some pushing 50 years old.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 24, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> Wasn't that you in the other thread making all sorts of assumptions about one of my players who would lie to his wife about roleplaying?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh give me a break it is not the same thing and you know it. 

You said you have players who lie to their wives about gaming. They lie every week. My opinion is that I don't like lairs and that it is pretty low to lie to your spouse about a hobby.

This is no where near the same thing as taking sides in a gaming issue where one person comes on and posts this happened in my game and this is what was said.

In your case here we don't know the tone of voice used. Was the player threatening you that if you killed his character he would act all pissy and leave or was he simply saying look I don't want to play if my character dies. 

Your other players are according to you liars no mistake about that. And as I posted in that thread there is really no excuse in my book over outright lying to your spouse on a regular basis about a hobby. No matter how you choose to sugar coat those players are liars and most people have issues with liars. 

But people are judging this guy as being a baby or mentally ill that is assuming quite a bit.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 24, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Oh me too. I left those kinds of players behind in middle school.




Like I said I have yet to meet a perfect player if you have well enjoy them because they are rare.

The person I was thinking about who hate getting a low stat character is for the most part an excellent player. He is considerate of the DM and other players. He always brings food for everyone and will go out of his way to give rides to players with car trouble.  

He does he really good characters and except for character creation he is a joy to play with. 

Like I said no one is perfect in my case I have to watch myself because I can be a spotlight hog. I can get caught up in my character and the enjoyment of the game that I sometimes forget that other players would like a chance to be in the spotlight too.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 24, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Oh give me a break it is not the same thing and you know it.




I don't really want to get back into it, but it is the same thing in that you made plenty of assumptions when all you had to go on was a post or two from me describing how those two guys would not tell their wives, even lie to them, about roleplaying.

You don't know them. You don't know their situations. All you know is that I've told you that they refuse to admit to their wives that they roleplay.

Yet, you have plenty of opinions that you posited as fact about their actions up to and including the states of their marriages!

Ma'am, I think you just flubbed a second Bluff check...




> _It kind of drives me crazy that people make all these assumptions when they did not hear the conversation and they only have one side of it_.
















> In your case here we don't know the tone of voice used. Was the player threatening you that if you killed his character he would act all pissy and leave or was he simply saying look I don't want to play if my character dies.




Interesting that you didn't say something to the same effect when you were making sweeping arguments about the state of their marriages. 







> But people are judging this guy as being a baby or mentally ill that is assuming quite a bit.




Psstt. By the way....this guy we're talking about in this thread...the one that lies to his wife about playing RPGs? 

It's the same guy.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 24, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Like I said I have yet to meet a perfect player if you have well enjoy them because they are rare.




It's really just recently that I've started to have problems with players.  Back in the day, there were zero to few arguments.  Everyone got along.  The DMs word was LAW.  Games ran very smoothly.  And, we all had a blast.

I can think of few players in the past that were disruptive or disrepectful.

In the 90's, I ran this seven year D6 Star Wars campaign that was one of the best games I've ever run, from story-wise, to player-wise, to just pure fun.  Nobody in that game argued.  If they disagreed with some ruling, I would listen, sometimes persuaded to change my ruling and sometimes not.  If I decided against the player, they accepted it, and we moved on.  I had six core players in that game who played the main parts for the entire campaign, and I had two others who came in, gamed for a while, then left (which is easy to do in a game like Star Wars, going from planet to planet and such).  The six core players made every game session, and to this day, that campaign stands in my mind as an example of how great a campaign can truly be.

It even ended on a "downer" note for, at the end, Darth Vader captured the lot of them.  We ended the campaign on a cliffhanger, not unlike The Empire Strikes Back.  

It just seemed appropriate for the game we had run, and the players all agreed that the ending was both surprising and appropriate.

So, yeah, great groups and great games can and do happen.


----------



## Agamon (Mar 24, 2012)

Oh good, another thread about to be closed.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 24, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> I don't really want to get back into it, but it is the same thing in that you made plenty of assumptions when all you had to go on was a post or two from me describing how those two guys would not tell their wives, even lie to them, about roleplaying.
> 
> You don't know them. You don't know their situations. All you know is that I've told you that they refuse to admit to their wives that they roleplay.
> 
> ...





I don't want to get into a rehash of that thread. The mods asked us not to keep it up that this was not the place to discuss martial issues. 

I have not deleted any post so I guess you failed your search check.

I only edit my posts when I notice spelling or grammar errors or that I have left out words which I often do because I type really fast. Or to add something that I meant to but forgot.

The fact that he is a liar does not have anything to do with this topic. I still say that since we were not there and only have your slant on it making assumptions like he is a big baby or mentally ill is really far fetched.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 24, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I have not deleted any post so I guess you failed your search check.




I may have.  If I did, I apologize.  Taking your word for it, I edited my comments above to remove that question.

And, I'll drop this here so we don't get the thread closed.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 24, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Okay I can buy that. But it would be better to leave a game if you are going to do so when your character is killed then right in the middle of the adventure leaving the DM to scramble with what to do with the live character.




Agreed.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 24, 2012)

Agamon said:


> Oh good, another thread about to be closed.




LOL   Hopefully a mod warning will suffice!


----------



## amerigoV (Mar 24, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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."
> 
> This is utterly foreign to me.  I don't like it when PC's die.  I want my players succeed.




 I think you can work around this. I would agree to it in principle so long as the player agrees that the character can die but there will be a plausible (for a fantasy world) way to get them back. That may entail playing a replacement PC for a short time.

As an example, I had a near TPK in campaign (it was Eyes of the Lich Queen, at the jungle temple in the first act). Two of them were WarForged (Eberron), so I had the players play some of the nearby lizardman tribe that had issues with the temple (the temple took the tribe's fetish). So the regular PC plus replacements stole the inert warforge back.

For the others, I used it to provide more background around the adventure. I like to envision planes as mirror of the Material Plane with extreme aspects - so hell would be a hellish version of the area, heaven a heavenly version, and so on. So the "dead" PCs got to interact with a dead dragon that long ruled the temple in ages past. Once the group got the fetish back, the shaman brought the other PCs back to life and people had more knowledge of the world and that area in particular.

If the player is reluctant, point out the various underworld "adventures" from Greek mythology.

If they are still reluctant, then offer maiming. If still rejects, then meh - the clips fall where they may.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 24, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> I may have.  If I did, I apologize.  Taking your word for it, I edited my comments above to remove that question.
> 
> And, I'll drop this here so we don't get the thread closed.




Thanks for both agreeing to drop this issue - I prefer not to close threads if it can be avoided.

Regards,


----------



## scourger (Mar 24, 2012)

Dordledum said:


> 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)




I've had a lot of PCs go out like that.  Not all got a proper burial.  All had their corpses looted.  It just doesn't feel fun or heroic.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 24, 2012)

scourger said:


> I've had a lot of PCs go out like that.  Not all got a proper burial.  All had their corpses looted.  It just doesn't feel fun or heroic.



I can understand that. I could easily see that being fun for me, personally (if I ever got to play!), and for some in my group. And, my players don't play the majority of their characters with the goal of being "heroic". They're usually pretty good guys, and they do some heroic things (sometimes greatly heroic and risky things!), but that's not a goal of theirs.

It's just what's fun for you or your group individually. Like I said, I can sympathize with both sides in this thread. I can see where you're coming from, and see why you don't like it. It makes sense to me.

Hopefully Water Bob's players get to live a long time, and it never comes up. But if it does, I hope things get resolved in a way that lets them keep playing. As always, play what you like


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 27, 2012)

Funny enough, I just ran into the opposite issue, now having a GM who does not kill off PCs at all if she can somehow fudge it. I get the reason - this new group, which I don't know that well yet, are all housewives in their 40s - 60s and they meet whenever they can in a chat to have something less boring than family duties in their lives. I already saw they basically created second versions of themselves in a fantasy setting. So they invested a lot and would maybe have a hard time recreating a similar, but not too close, character. 

Now I need to convince the GM that I'd like to be an exception, and when my character dies, he dies... waiting on an answer on that one. I argued that it would make the game all the more interesting if it should happen  After all, I am also playing a male (only one) so there might be an opening for an heroic death to save the poor women (I made the guy a bit macho on request as the world is mainly very chauvinistic).


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> Funny enough, I just ran into the opposite issue, now having a GM who does not kill off PCs at all if she can somehow fudge it. I get the reason - this new group, which I don't know that well yet, are all housewives in their 40s - 60s and they meet whenever they can in a chat to have something less boring than family duties in their lives. I already saw they basically created second versions of themselves in a fantasy setting. So they invested a lot and would maybe have a hard time recreating a similar, but not too close, character.
> 
> Now I need to convince the GM that I'd like to be an exception, and when my character dies, he dies... waiting on an answer on that one. I argued that it would make the game all the more interesting if it should happen  After all, I am also playing a male (only one) so there might be an opening for an heroic death to save the poor women (I made the guy a bit macho on request as the world is mainly very chauvinistic).




I am just wondering if all the people who posted that the guy in the OP game has no right to come into a game and ask for special treatment would feel this is the same thing?

Also why would it be okay for your character to be treated differently than the rest? Maybe your character dying would be disrupting to the game for the other players.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 28, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> Funny enough, I just ran into the opposite issue, now having a GM who does not kill off PCs at all if she can somehow fudge it. I get the reason - this new group, which I don't know that well yet, are all housewives in their 40s - 60s and they meet whenever they can in a chat to have something less boring than family duties in their lives. I already saw they basically created second versions of themselves in a fantasy setting. So they invested a lot and would maybe have a hard time recreating a similar, but not too close, character.
> 
> Now I need to convince the GM that I'd like to be an exception, and when my character dies, he dies... waiting on an answer on that one. I argued that it would make the game all the more interesting if it should happen  After all, I am also playing a male (only one) so there might be an opening for an heroic death to save the poor women (I made the guy a bit macho on request as the world is mainly very chauvinistic).




Wow.  This is the most interesting, unexpected gaming group that I've ever heard of.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 28, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Also why would it be okay for your character to be treated differently than the rest? Maybe your character dying would be disrupting to the game for the other players.




Not to put too fine a "realism" point on it, Elf Witch, but shouldn't death be disruptive, even upsetting, to those in the game world and, thus, the game.

One of your "friends" or at least "companions/brothers-in-arms" was just cut down...probably in front of you/in the same melee you were just in. It should be disruptive for the characters, at least.

For the game, roll up another PC. Let/make the party decide/wonder/worry, do we need to go back and find a replacement for this member of our group or can we sojourn on with a reasonable expectation of success? Can we get him raised (if that's a "realistic" possibility in the game world)? Do we bury him here or take him back to town/his family...leave him for the scavengers and monstrous creatures to defile and dispose of the body? 

I, for one, would be a little disappointed if my character was killed (even if I was ok with that, which I am) and everyone (the other PCs, I mean) just went about their business/adventure as if nothing had happened. I'd hope their PCs liked, or at least respected, my PC a little more than that.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> Not to put too fine a "realism" point on it, Elf Witch, but shouldn't death be disruptive, even upsetting, to those in the game world and, thus, the game.
> 
> One of your "friends" or at least "companions/brothers-in-arms" was just cut down...probably in front of you/in the same melee you were just in. It should be disruptive for the characters, at least.
> 
> ...




The game should be what the people playing want it to be and if they don't want death in the game then that is as much a valid way to play as having a gritty dice fall where they may style game.

My last post was a simple wonder if the people who were telling the OP not to bend the way his group plays to take death out for the one player because it goes against the way the group has decided to play feel the same way about this twist. That this player is asking for special treatment?


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 28, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Also why would it be okay for your character to be treated differently than the rest? Maybe your character dying would be disrupting to the game for the other players.




If that would be the case, I don't mind not dying   I was just thinking because by playing a male character I'm already set up a bit different, so maybe it would make sense for Sir Alonso to be the mortal in the group. Not that I want him to die, I guess he'll be pretty interesting to play in this setting.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> If that would be the case, I don't mind not dying   I was just thinking because by playing a male character I'm already set up a bit different, so maybe it would make sense for Sir Alonso to be the mortal in the group. Not that I want him to die, I guess he'll be pretty interesting to play in this setting.




I just want to be clear I don't think you are wrong to ask but then I didn't think the guy in the OP game was wrong either. 

I don't think it is ever wrong for a player to ask a DM to consider doing something to make the game more fun for them.


----------



## JediSoth (Mar 28, 2012)

I can understand being invested in a character, but I still wouldn't quit just because my character died.

Every circumstance in which I would quit as a result of character death boils down more to the GM/other players being jerks rather than the actual death of my character (like if the GM/other players repeatedly killed my character right after they were introduced as a form a hazing or just immaturely messing with me).

If I have a character I'm invested in that dies 'cause I did something stupid, well, I deserved it. If he died due to overwhelming odds or bad luck, well, then that character's story has come to an end (assuming there's won't be a resurrection). Too bad, so sad, time to move on.


----------



## Janx (Mar 28, 2012)

I think it depends on what kind of special treatment.

I assume that "death is a possibility" is the default trait in every RPG unless the rules indicate otherwise.  Some RPGs have rules to reduce the risk, but most RPGs I've encountered (and I have only seen a fraction) still have death on the table.

As a GM, I don't like players asking for things.  I don't want to hear "can my PC find a +4 Avenger sword?"  Because now it puts pressure on me to incorporate that into the game whereas it might not naturally occur.  Culturally, my upbringing says this is rude.  You don't ask for things.  Because asking for a thing implies a right to that thing and creates an obligation on the requestee to produce it.

On death, my game is already a low lethality game.  I tend to measure encounter difficulty carefully.  If your PC died, I made a mistake, or you did.  I have more tools to prevent it on my part (including methods folks mentioned here to satisfy the OP's guy), so most of the time, it's your fault.  

If it's your fault that your PC is dead, taking that off the table softens up what I consider to be already a soft policy.  I've already gone out of my way to be a gentle GM, the player can take some ownership and deal with some PC death like every other D&D player over the last 40 years has.

How is that different than Lwaxy's example of wanting his PC to be able to die?  Probably because "not dying" is considered the special treatment that everybody in the group is getting.  Lwaxy is declining that special treatment, and in some ways is helping the GM present Death in a way that is personal to the other players (a PC you know has died), without revoking that special treatment for the players.

Conversely, the OP's guy doesn't want to pay the price that every other player in the group pays.  He wants special treatment.  That becomes unfair when my PC died last week when I did something stupid, but this week, you get to keep your PC because you got special treatment.

To me, the OP's guy approached the table with pre-concieved notions taken from videogames, and several things he's said reflect that.  He then wants D&D to change to suit his notion, rather than accepting that the 40 year old game concept outweighs his experience from video games.  He disrespected his elders in not accepting D&D for what it was, rather than taking it as is and trying it or declining it.

Newbs who try to change the system before they've tried the system are a dime a dozen.  And worth just as much in wisdom.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 28, 2012)

I will say that it really irked me to no end at first.  I think I was irked because it felt like an ultimatum.  "Hit my character hard with baddies, but not too hard, or I'll quit your game..."

That kind of talk incenses me.

One of the things nobody has picked up on in this thread, though I've made it no secret, is that I only have two players in this campaign.  So, if the one leaves, it's me and the other player left.

I think I'd still be irriatated if I had a group of three or five, but with only having one other player, I feel as if the player is using that as leverage to get the kind of game he wants.

Now, I've had time to simmer down. I've thought about it a lot.  And, I've decided that I will break the game up over it.  I'm not going to budge on this or even entertain this type of ultimatum by a player.

I may find another player.  There are a few that are interested but I haven't pursued.  Or, depending on my state of mind when/if this player ever leaves over his character dying, I'd might just end the game.  But, my preference to continue and not let his action deter us.

That's my stance.  It's final.  It might sound a little hard core to some of  you, but if it does, that's exactly how I want it to sound.  I'm not going to put up with this type of behavior from a player.  Not in my game.

The player is not disruptive.  Out of the two I have right now, he's the better player.  And, the player and I are friends outside of the game.

So, what I'm going to do is just go on, business as normal, and play the game.  If the character dies, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.  The player can decide if he wants to quit or not.

Either way, in my game world (especially in gritty Conan's universe), if you die, you die.  And, that's it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2012)

Janx said:


> I think it depends on what kind of special treatment.
> 
> I assume that "death is a possibility" is the default trait in every RPG unless the rules indicate otherwise.  Some RPGs have rules to reduce the risk, but most RPGs I've encountered (and I have only seen a fraction) still have death on the table.
> 
> ...




There is so much I disagree with in this post.

First of all I don't get the idea that is it wrong for a player to ask for something or that it is rude. If a player says to me you know I would like to have a +5 holy avenger sword as the DM I take that into consideration. If I think it fits the character and the campaign they might get it or they might get something similar.  

As a DM I don't feel obligated to give players everything they want.

Now if they are jerks about it or whiny or are in any unpleasant that is what is rude. 

And while death is part of the rules there is this little thing called rule 0 the one that allows a DM to tailor his game to his and his players desires. So it is perfectly acceptable to run a game where death is not pat of the game.

The rules allow for bringing back dead characters yet there are plenty of DMs who rule 0 and say death is permanent.

Not dying is no more special than asking to die in a game that death  does not happen. Asking for a different treatment at the table then what everyone else has agreed to  is asking for special treatment regardless of what it is. 

Not that I think it is wrong to ask it is just wrong to expect it to be yes and then get pissy if it is no. Maybe some tables would not mind of a player gets a special treatment. 

I don't care if there is 40 years in game history that is just stupid logic. Using that logic it would be wrong for a player to approach the DM and say I have an idea for a lawful neutral paladin of St Cuthbert can we work something out. Well no because 40 years of gaming history say otherwise. How dare you disrespect your elders on this. Do you realize how that sounds? How dare WOTC disrespect their elders by changing a game they didn't invent?

If a player does not enjoy having their character die and it is a deal breaker for them they have the right to ask a DM if there is a way to prevent this. The DM has the right to say no and the player then can choose to stay or leave. 

I had a feeling that some people would say that there is a difference between asking not to die and asking to die. And the reason I thought that was because some people have an issue is accepting that not everyone wants to play the same way and use role playing games to support different play styles. 

There is no difference at all between asking not to have your character killed and asking for it to be killed. In both cases you are asking for special treatment from the DM that goes against the social contract made between the other players and the DM.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> I will say that it really irked me to no end at first.  I think I was irked because it felt like an ultimatum.  "Hit my character hard with baddies, but not too hard, or I'll quit your game..."
> 
> That kind of talk incenses me.
> 
> ...




There is a difference between asking and making an ultimatum. Did you talk to him and ask him if it was an ultimatum? I think by not talking to him and being kind of upset over it without knowing 100% that was what he was saying is not helping. 

No one here is telling you that you have to make his character death free if you don't want to. Though I would talk to the players and ask just how much lethality do you want in the game. Also you yourself said that death is not common in your game did you actually sit down and talk to him about that aspect of the game? 

Sometimes people have communication errors which is why I think it pays to talk and ask is that what you are saying. 

I really don't enjoy permanent death style games so I ask a DM how lethal is your campaign, is death permanent questions like that.

I don't disagree that a DM has the right to make the final decision in his campaign anymore than I disagree that a player has the right to say look this style of game is not for me.

I just don't get the whole chest thumping standing my ground from players issuing ultimatums attitude that is going on here.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 28, 2012)

I'm sort of with you and sort of against you ElfWitch.

Let's say a game is set up with rules that either explicitly or implicitly forbid something. It doesn't matter what the write up of the game ad is:

"Why can't I have/be thing from excluded source X (or excluded item/material/class/race)" is rude to me, regardless of your tone. As far as I am concerned, you do that, and you're already complaining.

On the other hand, "Can I have/be thing from not specifically excluded (source/race/class/whatever)" is more likely to be entertained, perhaps "I hadn't thought of that, and haven't thought of a place for that thing, perhaps you'd like to do that?"

Now that we have more information on WaterBob's situation, it's a harder call. I'm not a fan of one-on-one games, so I don't know. At the same time I have no objection to excluding even my friends when they want to do things that affect the game negatively. Making out with the Lady of Pain in one case. Friend was kept out of game, which got silly anyway, point being that I am still friends with this person.

As to your hypothetical player asking for a specific weapon, I'd ask why this is so important.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2012)

Zhaleskra said:


> I'm sort of with you and sort of against you ElfWitch.
> 
> Let's say a game is set up with rules that either explicitly or implicitly forbid something. It doesn't matter what the write up of the game ad is:
> 
> ...




There to me is a big difference between demanding a game be changed to suit you and asking the DM look is there a way you would be willing to consider a way to make the game less lethal.

I agreed to play in a game that had no raise dead. 8 months into the campaign a lot of us were really starting to hate the whole permanent death thing. We found that we were no longer enjoying the game. So we went to the DM and asked if he would be willing to change how things worked. He thought about it and agreed because he wanted the campaign to continue and he wanted to continue it with us. 

We were up front and honest with him that we were not enjoying the game and that if he said no then we wanted to play a different game. Now some of you mighty say we gave him an ultimatum and I guess it could be looked at that way. But the issue was we were not having fun. The DM had a choice say no and find new players, agree to change or let someone else DM for the group and he become a player. 

This player of the OP has made a statement, it is very possible that the more he played the more he realized it would not be fun for him to play in a game where his character could die. I think he should have said something to the DM. They should have talked about it like adults and then a decision could be reached. There is no right answer to to what that deciosn should be. The DM say sorry no change then the player either stays or leaves, the DM agrees  or maybe puts things into the game that make it harder to die. 

The point is getting bent out of shape and not talking it out with the player is the worse thing to do.


----------



## Matchstick (Mar 28, 2012)

I've found that I never like the idea of my character dying.  That's good because it makes me play smarter.  But I've also found that when my character does die, it's never the tragedy I felt like it was going to be.  I find myself with the opportunity to try something else, I get excited about the possibilities, and pretty soon that dead character is no big deal.  

What's weird is if you asked me whether I wanted to have character death in a campaign I'd probably SAY no.  But my actions would show that I like having death in a campaign.  

Not saying that's true for anyone but me of course.


----------



## Janx (Mar 28, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> There is so much I disagree with in this post.
> 
> First of all I don't get the idea that is it wrong for a player to ask for something or that it is rude. If a player says to me you know I would like to have a +5 holy avenger sword as the DM I take that into consideration. If I think it fits the character and the campaign they might get it or they might get something similar.
> 
> ...




You don't seem to detect the things I differentiate on.


not dying is special treatment, dying is normal treatment.
asking if you can play a certain combination is not the same as asking if the GM can put a specific item in the game for you and is not the same as declaring that your PC is researching where he might find such an item.
My cultural background about not asking for things has nothing to do with players, it is a social norm for me that can be rude to ask for things. period.
WotC had years of successful design experience before they changed D&D.  This guy has never played D&D and he's trying to change how it works to suit his videogame experience before he's tried it the current way.

it should be commonly considered that any general or broad statement that somebody makes has unspoken conditions, qualifiers and that the speaker is not such an immobile imbecile that they don't assess the situation and apply their general rule only as it applies.

Of course you can ask for some things.  Can I have seconds?  Can you pass the ketchup.  Can I go to the park with my friends?

there's other things that start crossing the line.  Can I have ice cream?

The steward of the ice cream decides when its ice cream time.   That's the point of them managing that.  You'll get ice cream when it's time for it.

My examples are silly, but the point is, apparently I have a different social upbringing and thus a different social expectation on what is or is not appropriate when dealing with an authority figure.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2012)

Janx said:


> You don't seem to detect the things I differentiate on.
> 
> 
> not dying is special treatment, dying is normal treatment.
> ...




I play 7 Seas which does not have character death I have had new players coming from DnD asking for death because that makes the game more exciting for them. I usually tell them no because that is not how I run my 7 Seas games. But I don't get angry about it or view them as being rude for ignoring the game history. They can either stay or leave.

There is not one shred of difference between asking not to die in a game that has death and asking to die in a game that does not. You asking to be treated differently than the other players and that is asking for special treatment. And it is the same thing just in reverse.

From what the OP has said this player has played DnD before but with a DM whose play  style was one of not using death in the game. So from his experience playing DnD has been different from someone who has come from a more traditional style DM.

So for you your social norm is it is rude to ask for things you do realize that other people's social norms are not the same. So it is important no to let your social norms make a judgement that may not be applicable to a situation. I was taught it was okay to ask for thing as long as you are polite. So if I ask for something I am not trying to be rude at all. 

Using your example of a player asking for a +5 avenger to put in the game is not rude. As the DM you can say no or say well you need to research how to find one and go on a quest. 

I was playing a dex fighter in a game with low magic so you couldn't buy items you had to find them in treasure. So I asked the DM if he would be willing to put some kind of dex boast item like gloves of dexterity as treasure. I was not trying to tell him how to run his game or trying to be rude. I was simply looking for a way to make my character more playable and more enjoyable.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> There is no difference at all between asking not to have your character killed and asking for it to be killed. In both cases you are asking for special treatment from the DM that goes against the social contract made between the other players and the DM.




I think that asking to be un-killable in D&D is like asking to be killable in Toon - it goes strongly against the default assumptions of the game.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I play 7 Seas which does not have character death...




On Monday:

Me, remembering Elf Witch posting this previously: "Oh, you play 7th Sea?  The game without character death?"

Other D&D player: "Eh?!  7th Sea does have character death!"



Are you sure that 7th Sea PCs cannot die?  He seemed very emphatic!


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 28, 2012)

7th Seas has character death but compared to other RPGs it is exceedingly rare, and a lot of GMs play without unless some player wants a change of character. .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2012)

S'mon said:


> I think that asking to be un-killable in D&D is like asking to be killable in Toon - it goes strongly against the default assumptions of the game.




Agreed 100%.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 29, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> But, I recognize that the risk of death is a necessary factor of drama in RPGs. Games where PCs are overpowered and invincible are just plain boring.




I don't agree at all. I can't say I've ever played them, but I don't see why the risk of death is necessary. In Nobilis, what's more dramatic; if you fail, your character dies, or, if you fail, rock and roll will be erased from the world as if it never existed? Buddy Holly, Elvis, KISS, Meat Loaf, and Metallica being erased from existence as musical entities? That's dramatic.

In D&D, I can very much see a game where characters can't die short of openly suicidal acts. If you fall before your enemies, you will awake a captive. If you jump off a cliff to escape them, you'll awake being tended by peasants. But they can still fail; the village they were charged to protect has been put to the flames, the barbarian horde they were supposed to warn the kingdom of is now besieging the castle.


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 29, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I don't care if there is 40 years in game history that is just stupid logic. Using that logic it would be wrong for a player to approach the DM and say I have an idea for a lawful neutral paladin of St Cuthbert can we work something out. Well no because 40 years of gaming history say otherwise. How dare you disrespect your elders on this. Do you realize how that sounds? How dare WOTC disrespect their elders by changing a game they didn't invent?




Let's not start an edition war thread, but I completely agree with the "stupid logic" strawman you're trying to demolish.

The heart of my grognard anger at 4e is precisely, "How dare WOTC disrespect their elders by changing a game they didn't invent?"  There's a lot of specific ways I loath 4e, but that's the core issue -- it's the same name on a quite different game.

As for the request for a lawful neutral paladin of St. Cuthbert, I'd say, "Absolutely not.  Reread the rules -- paladins are LG.  And in my campaign, St. Cuthbert is LG, just like he was in the original Greyhawk campaign that my campaign grew out of."

Playing a game by its actual rules may not be a tradition in D&D anymore, but it's sure a tradition in sports.  The Designated Hitter annoys me (so I think National League is superior).  Aluminum bats in college baseball are an anathema.  Heck, it even annoys me that people want to use fiberglass boats in crew -- the sport is about wooden boats and wooden oars, people.

By your logic, you'd probably want to put TV's and music in a English pub!


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 29, 2012)

Damn those changey changers!  Changing stuff all the time.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 29, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> Let's not start an edition war thread, but I completely agree with the "stupid logic" strawman you're trying to demolish.
> 
> The heart of my grognard anger at 4e is precisely, "How dare WOTC disrespect their elders by changing a game they didn't invent?"  There's a lot of specific ways I loath 4e, but that's the core issue -- it's the same name on a quite different game.
> 
> ...




I am not a fan of 4E. But I think you got my point and that was the game is not the same as it was 40 years ago it has constantly undergone tweaks . I don't agree with all the tweaks.

I had forgotten he was LG back in the old days. Back in the old days we played a lot of Forgotten Realms so I am not as familiar with how the gods were aligned in Greyhawk.  I am so used to him now being LN.

I am not a sports fan so I will have to take your word for it. Though I am a board game fan and we often play with tweaked rules. 

I am in the camp that paladins should be LG and that other churches can have holy champions patterned after the paladin class but they should not be called paladins. 

But maybe a better example would have been a lawful good rogue. I had a player who wanted his rogue to be a spy and scout for the crown he envisioned his character as very loyal, following a code and being about protecting the greater good and he saw his character as lawful good. I waived away the chaotic restriction for that concept. 

I have only ever been in one English Pub and I don't think they had music. Since I don't drink I don't tend to go to pubs and bars very often so I don't have an opinion. But I take wanting music or TV is a bad thing?


----------



## scourger (Mar 29, 2012)

JediSoth said:


> I can understand being invested in a character, but I still wouldn't quit just because my character died.




It's never _just_ because my character died.  There are usually a lot of other factors: betrayal, disappointment, miscommunication, bitterness, etc.; and then there's the stuff that happens in game.


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 29, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> But maybe a better example would have been a lawful good rogue. I had a player who wanted his rogue to be a spy and scout for the crown he envisioned his character as very loyal, following a code and being about protecting the greater good and he saw his character as lawful good. I waived away the chaotic restriction for that concept.




This one I have no problem with.  And neither does 3.5e.  It's not fundamental to the nature of what a Rogue is, IMHO, unlike Paladins being LG.  Monks being L and Druids needing to have at least some N in their alignment is less of a 'key element of the role', but I'd still rather follow the rules there.



Elf Witch said:


> I have only ever been in one English Pub and I don't think they had music. Since I don't drink I don't tend to go to pubs and bars very often so I don't have an opinion. But I take wanting music or TV is a bad thing?




TV is a very bad thing for a pub -- makes it just another bar.  It could be marginally acceptable if is if it's showing football (soccer or rugby) or if it's an Irish pub showing Gaelic sport.

Live music is fine, especially in an Irish pub doing Irish music.  Loud generic recording musak is not -- again, makes it just a bar.

It's also not acceptable to drink mass market American beer like bud or Coors in a pub . . . Sam Adams and Stella Artois are barely OK, but real ale, microbrews, or anything imported from the UK or Ireland (mass market or not) would be preferred.

That's my opinion, anyhow.  

And I really think Designated Hitters are lame and oh so cheesy.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 29, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> If you fall before your enemies, you will awake a captive. If you jump off a cliff to escape them, you'll awake being tended by peasants. But they can still fail; the village they were charged to protect has been put to the flames, the barbarian horde they were supposed to warn the kingdom of is now besieging the castle.




What about when you've got 4 HP left and the undead creature rolls a critical on you, knocking you down to -12?

Not dead yet?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2012)

> And I really think Designated Hitters are lame and oh so cheesy.




What about Designated Hitlers?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2012)

_Designated Double-post._


----------



## S'mon (Mar 29, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> By your logic, you'd probably want to put TV's and music in a English pub!




I have bad news for you, mate...


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 29, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> What about when you've got 4 HP left and the undead creature rolls a critical on you, knocking you down to -12?
> 
> Not dead yet?




I think that's missing my point. If the social contract you're playing under says that characters won't die except in dramatic suicides or heroic sacrifices, then the DM shouldn't put them in situations where that's a problem. Undead aren't completely out of the question--skeletons may be controlled by intelligent creatures or just ignore creatures they knock unconscious, etc.--but ravenous undead like wraiths are certainly something a DM should think carefully about. HP is irrelevant; with this social contract, HP damage simply can't kill PCs.

This is nothing new; 1st level characters in any game don't run into  ancient red dragons, with rare exceptions, because it's not in most  social contracts for characters to be suddenly annihilated by enemies  out of their league, no matter how realistically possible that is. You tailor the fights in a game to what you and the players would enjoy. 

Again, I'm not arguing that you should do this, or that this is a normal thing to do with D&D. I'm simply arguing that it can be done, and not only be fun, but be tense and dramatic, that even in a serious game, you can take death off the table and leave important stakes on the table.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 29, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> I think that's missing my point.




And, I think you're missing mine, which is:  What's the point of combat if you can't die?

So, the GM tailors the campaign so that there's action to keep the players interested and rolling dice, but he always ensures it's never too much for the PCs.  If he's got 10 baddies going against the PCs, and he sees the PCs aren't doing well, he scales back the oncoming 10 baddies to 3.  He skips morale checks and automatically makes baddies retreat when necessary.  He never stresses the PCs too much--just allows them to swing and tear the enemy up.  He showers them with goodies and potections.

What I'm saying is that, still, there's a chance that the goblin gets lucky against the 5th level fighter, rolls a critical, and knocks the guy down into the negative hit points, making him dead, dead, dead.

There's always some risk in combat.

I guess this GM could roll his attack throws behind the screen so that, when he does hit with a creature against a PC that is vulnrable, he could flub it can call it a miss.

I guess he could do the same with damage--no matter what, the goblin rolled, it delivers only 1 HP of damage, keeping the PC alive.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> And, I think you're missing mine, which is:  What's the point of combat if you can't die?




Same thing with every action movie or action sequence in a book with characters that have plot immunity - to tell an action story. Or, I suppose more accurately, let an action story unfold from the initial situation.



Water Bob said:


> What I'm saying is that, still, there's a chance that the goblin gets lucky against the 5th level fighter, rolls a critical, and knocks the guy down into the negative hit points, making him dead, dead, dead.
> 
> There's always some risk in combat.
> 
> ...




Or the PC taken down is unconscious and stays that way until directly intervened with or the combat ends. That poor luck in combat can still have complications associated with them like recovery time or slowed travel. If the whole party gets defeated, capture becomes a major complication. In effect, you're really just getting rid of one of the more common complications - death. Any others can stick around.

Just because the PCs can't die in game like this doesn't mean you can't knock them around or have to fudge to keep them conscious. The superhero genre is famous for this as is, frankly, plenty of other fiction that inspired D&D in the first place.


----------



## Janx (Mar 29, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> What about when you've got 4 HP left and the undead creature rolls a critical on you, knocking you down to -12?
> 
> Not dead yet?




The point I see about Death isn't whether the DM pulls some punches, etc.

At some point, a PC does something that can't be padded, protected, faded to black that MUST by all logic yield a dead PC.

Jumping into a volcano to ensure the Second One Ring is destroyed.

Having one's head chopped off by the mob outside who have overthrown your corrupt rule.

Having a 50 ton block of stone triggered by a trap crush your body.

Here's a simple one for 7th Seas: Falling off the boat into shark infested waters when you don't know how to swim during a battle so nobody notices or has time to save you.

YES, a DM could try to wrangle the PC out of one of those.  But what if the PC fails even that opportunity?  What if it just doesn't seem appropriate to pull another Deus Ex out of your arse?  What if dying this tiime just seems right?  What if the PC deserves it?

Even a game with rules to help protect a PC from dying, must still have the possibilitiy of death.  If only to reflect the reality that though awesome the PC may be, he is still actually mortal and if his buddy PC turns and stabs him to death, he will actually die.  Otherwise, the PCs are playing immortals, and not people, and that's a different RPG.  I think it's called Highlander.  But wait, they can die in that too...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 29, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> And, I think you're missing mine, which is:  What's the point of combat if you can't die?



I can offer some perspective on this.

I'm currently playing in a mid-to-high (13) level Pathfinder campaign that's, umm, death-lite. Instead of dying, each time a PC would die,  they get "knocked out" and acquire a non-removable negative level which lasts until they go up in level. 

The point of our combats are to stop our foes from doing whatever it is their doing that we don't like (we're in a heavily modified version of the Kingmaker AP). We can still _lose_, which for us usually means retreat via magic, and our opponents get to keep wrecking havoc/furthering their agenda. 

Combat is still exciting. "Death", our, rather, our low-calorie death-flavored substitute still carries penalties (sitting out of the remainder of the fight and a negative level), and is something to be vigorously avoided. 

Combat has a "point" if there is something at stake. So long as there is more at stake than mere personal survival, then death-lite battles can be meaningful and interesting.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 29, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> What about when you've got 4 HP left and the undead creature rolls a critical on you, knocking you down to -12?
> 
> Not dead yet?




I played in a game that took death out and put in another consequence. If you got knocked to -11 you lost a level. You started back at the very beginning of the level . So if you were close to leveling it really hurt.

Let me tell you nobody wanted that to happen so combat held just as many fears as if we could have died. 

It may not be everyone's cup of tea and that's fine. But I found it one of the best campaigns I ever played in.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 29, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> And, I think you're missing mine, which is:  What's the point of combat if you can't die?
> 
> So, the GM tailors the campaign so that there's action to keep the players interested and rolling dice, but he always ensures it's never too much for the PCs.  If he's got 10 baddies going against the PCs, and he sees the PCs aren't doing well, he scales back the oncoming 10 baddies to 3.  He skips morale checks and automatically makes baddies retreat when necessary.  He never stresses the PCs too much--just allows them to swing and tear the enemy up.  He showers them with goodies and potections.
> 
> ...




Or he could put other consequences in the game like the example I gave above. Another way to handle it is to allow death but allow instant raise dead with a maybe a geas to perform a service for the god.

In my campaign every player starts with a get out of death free card. If they use it I say that they had an outer body experience and were called back to their body to finish their mission.

I get that this is not your style and that is cool but there are ways to take death out of the game and still make combat challenging and fun.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 29, 2012)

Janx said:


> The point I see about Death isn't whether the DM pulls some punches, etc.
> 
> At some point, a PC does something that can't be padded, protected, faded to black that MUST by all logic yield a dead PC.
> 
> ...




A death free campaign usually does not mean doing something stupid is rewarded. Jumping into lava will get you killed. 

Your 7 Seas example is easy. People have survived in the water for days long enough  to be rescued. If there is a battle there maybe something to hang onto. A mermaid comes to you aid. A creative DM can come up with a plausible reason not to die.

Action adventure is full of weird tales of survival look at Indiana Jones he lived through being tossed into the ocean without a life jacket in a middle of bad storm. He hung onto the periscope of a U boat for miles. He lived through a nuclear blast in a fridge. 

In Highlander immortals can lose their heads but Duncan McCloud did not lose his he was the hero because he had plot protection.   

Again this is all a matter of taste you may not like it and that is fine but your way is not the one true way to play.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 30, 2012)

Mallus said:


> Instead of dying, each time a PC would die, they get "knocked out" and acquire a non-removable negative level which lasts until they go up in level.
> 
> The point of our combats are to stop our foes from doing whatever it is their doing that we don't like (we're in a heavily modified version of the Kingmaker AP). We can still _lose_, which for us usually means retreat via magic, and our opponents get to keep wrecking havoc/furthering their agenda.
> 
> Combat is still exciting. "Death", our, rather, our low-calorie death-flavored substitute still carries penalties (sitting out of the remainder of the fight and a negative level), and is something to be vigorously avoided.





Personally, I think no death in D&D is like giving all the kids on all the Little League teams trophies and calling them winners, no matter which single team won the championship.

There's no way that "no death but penalties" carries the same weight as when your character, who've you've grown to love, is low on hit points and face-to-face with some horror that is about to take the character out of existence. There's no way that only losing a level or becoming unconscious or (instert death repalcing penalty) can provide the same thrill as coming very, very close to death, and never playing your favorite character again, but somehow pulling it off, allowing the character to live and continue in the game world.

The victory is so much sweeter because the consequence was grave (pun intended).

I think it was expressed best up thread by another poster: When we watch/read James Bond, Indianna Jones, and Conan, _WE_ know that the character will not die and has plot immunity, _but the character doesn't know that_! When reading/watching, THAT'S what we buy into--the peril from the character's point of view.

A roleplaying game is not played from the audience's point of view. It's played from the character's point of view.  We're not telling a story as if it has already happened.  In RPG's, we're living the story _AS_ it happens.

Therefore, death should certainly be a possibility.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 30, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> And, I think you're missing mine, which is:  What's the point of combat if you can't die?
> 
> So, the GM tailors the campaign so that there's action to keep the players interested and rolling dice, but he always ensures it's never too much for the PCs. If he's got 10 baddies going against the PCs, and he sees the PCs aren't doing well, he scales back the oncoming 10 baddies to 3.




In the type of campaign I was thinking of, that's exactly the reverse of what you do. You no longer have to worry about a TPK; it gives you an excuse to do awful hideous things to them and everything they love or care about without spelling an end to the game.



> What I'm saying is that, still, there's a chance that the goblin gets lucky against the 5th level fighter, rolls a critical, and knocks the guy down into the negative hit points, making him dead, dead, dead.




Only if you insist that negative hit points means dead, dead, dead.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 30, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> Personally, I think no death in D&D is like giving all the kids on all the Little League teams trophies and calling them winners, no matter which single team won the championship.




If your alternative is not killing the losing Little League players or banning them from ever playing again, I don't think it holds. 



> I think it was expressed best up thread by another poster: When we watch/read James Bond, Indianna Jones, and Conan, _WE_ know that the character will not die and has plot immunity, _but the character doesn't know that_! When reading/watching, THAT'S what we buy into--the peril from the character's point of view.
> 
> A roleplaying game is not played from the audience's point of view. It's played from the character's point of view.  We're not telling a story as if it has already happened.  In RPG's, we're living the story _AS_ it happens.




That's not necessarily true. The instant you bring in fate points by any name, you're not purely from the character's point of view; there's extra-character choices to be made. Many gamers will create backstory on the fly, or take mechanical elements (like the feat Draconic Heritage) suddenly making it true that the character has had draconic ancestry all along.

And if it is played from the character's point of view, well, it's clear that 007 doesn't worry about him dying; he's worried about bad things happening to the British Empire and to the world. There are higher stakes then just 007's life in play. If you're really getting into character, and playing someone with goals beyond himself, surely there should be worse things a DM can do to you then kill your character.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 30, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> Personally, I think no death in D&D is like giving all the kids on all the Little League teams trophies and calling them winners, no matter which single team won the championship.
> 
> There's no way that "no death but penalties" carries the same weight as when your character, who've you've grown to love, is low on hit points and face-to-face with some horror that is about to take the character out of existence. There's no way that only losing a level or becoming unconscious or (instert death repalcing penalty) can provide the same thrill as coming very, very close to death, and never playing your favorite character again, but somehow pulling it off, allowing the character to live and continue in the game world.
> 
> ...




I understand that this is how you feel and that this is an important aspect of the game to you. And I know a lot of players most likely the majority want this kind of game. 

But what I don't understand is why you and some of the others feel such a necessity to defend how you play.  I feel as if you are trying to convince some of us who feel differently that we are wrong for saying that we don't put as much importance on death as you do. 

I have been waiting for someone to bring up the little league example. It is not the same thing at all. BTW I happen to agree that children playing organized sports need to learn how to lose as well as win. 

DnD is not little league unless you are playing in an official RPGA game then really anything goes. Also we are not children so we don't need how to be taught how to win graciously and lose the same way. As a matter of fact for some of us DnD is not about winning and losing.

I have played many a soft ball game where we really didn't keep score because we didn't care who was winning we were just goofing around having fun hitting a ball with a bat. The same with bowling and gooney golf. 

Unless you play a game with no chance of being brought back and death is permanent then there really is very little difference between losing a level instead of dying and dying and being brought back with little penalty. True resurrection has no penalties so actually the one way we played was more of a risk.

For some of us having our characters fail like getting captured, the bad guys winning this round is just as bad for us as if we died. 

One of the reason the DM wanted to take death out was we were all working together building a world we had elaborate backgrounds and the game was very story orientated. One of the things the DM wanted to take out was coming back from the dead. There was no raise dead in the game. 

But the DM wanted a containing developing story and characters like on a lot of TV shows. In Stargate no main character suffered permanent death the same for most Trek shows unless an actor wanted out. 

So we came up with a way to make losing at combat hurt, the lost level, but not take the character out of the game. Now if you wanted your character to die it could as long as you realized it was permanent and you had to have a way to bring your new character in logically or have to wait for it to be brought in. 

There were six of us and we loved this game and played it for several years.  The role playing and character development was top notched. 

BTW none of us played our characters like we couldn't die. To be honest I have seen more of that kind of behavior from players in games where they are high enough level to know that that come back from the dead is readily available.


----------



## The Monster (Mar 30, 2012)

never mind...ignore this post


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 30, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> I don't agree at all. I can't say I've ever played them, but I don't see why the risk of death is necessary. In Nobilis, what's more dramatic; if you fail, your character dies, or, if you fail, rock and roll will be erased from the world as if it never existed? Buddy Holly, Elvis, KISS, Meat Loaf, and Metallica being erased from existence as musical entities? That's dramatic.




Are you serious? 

From a _player _perspective the loss of rock & roll is very dramatic. From the _character's _perspective I would say death trumps the loss of some musical style.


----------



## Janx (Mar 30, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I understand that this is how you feel and that this is an important aspect of the game to you. And I know a lot of players most likely the majority want this kind of game.
> 
> But what I don't understand is why you and some of the others feel such a necessity to defend how you play.  I feel as if you are trying to convince some of us who feel differently that we are wrong for saying that we don't put as much importance on death as you do.




The point is, a request to not die coming from YOU, an experienced player would carry more weight at my table than coming from Bob's New Guy who has never taken the time to actually try it the MAJORITY's way.

That's why everybody is jumping on the "this is why death is so important" bandwagon.  You can't just show up and try to change the GM's game.  That takes time, tact and knowing whether it's something the GM is open to consider.  

Like I mentioned 20 pages ago, it is a new guy mistake to ever bring up "that's not how we did it at my old job" or "We should do it this way because it will be better"  Groups do not like to hear that crap, and that's how you get on the wrong side of the group.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 30, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> From a _player _perspective the loss of rock & roll is very dramatic. From the _character's _perspective I would say death trumps the loss of some musical style.




It's the player's perspective we have to worry about, is it not? From the character's perspective . . . seriously? Given a choice between your own life, and a good chunk of humanity's cultural heritage, you'd choose your own life? I wouldn't, and if I were playing Nobilis, I wouldn't play a character that did.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 30, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> It's the player's perspective we have to worry about, is it not? From the character's perspective . . . seriously? Given a choice between your own life, and a good chunk of humanity's cultural heritage, you'd choose your own life? I wouldn't, and if I were playing Nobilis, I wouldn't play a character that did.




In a heartbeat. 


Not to say that self preservation never gives way to a higher ideal. To die to protect the life or well being of others is the meat and drink of heroism. 

Players perspective vs character perspective is a major difference between storytelling and roleplaying. If the character I was playing treated rock & roll as a religion and was fanatical enough to martyr himself for its preservation then yes, the character would gladly die for the cause. 

When roleplaying, in-game decisions are usually made from the character's perspective.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 30, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> Only if you insist that negative hit points means dead, dead, dead.




That's what the game says.  Any other way of treating hit points after -10 is a house rule.








prosfilaes said:


> The instant you bring in fate points by any name, you're not purely from the character's point of view; there's extra-character choices to be made.




Not really.  A Fate Point's purpose is akin to the purpose of levels and hit points.  The more of 'em you have, the better chance it is that you live.

They're not get out of jail free cards.

Even in Conan, there's still plenty of ways to die, even if the character has two dozen Fate Points.


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 30, 2012)

S'mon said:


> I have bad news for you, mate...




I know it exists S'mon, I just don't like it.


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 30, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> So, the GM tailors the campaign so that there's action to keep the players interested and rolling dice, but he always ensures it's never too much for the PCs.  If he's got 10 baddies going against the PCs, and he sees the PCs aren't doing well, he scales back the oncoming 10 baddies to 3.  He skips morale checks and automatically makes baddies retreat when necessary.  He never stresses the PCs too much--just allows them to swing and tear the enemy up.  He showers them with goodies and potections.
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...




I've seen a DM take the "flubbing" that far, and it makes the fighting boring for me.  But the same guy will then turn around and allow deaths or even a TPK in another fight.  <shrug>

I prefer to DM the enemy as TRYING to kill the PC's, most of the time. When I see the PC's are in real trouble, I tend to roll in the open, so I'm not tempted to flub it, and because that's more dramatic anyhow.

As a player, I like excitement and overcoming stuff -- or doing down -- by luck and wits, or lack therefore, not DM fiat.


----------



## haakon1 (Mar 30, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> When we watch/read . . . Conan, _WE_ know that the character will not die and has plot immunity, _but the character doesn't know that_! When reading/watching, THAT'S what we buy into--the peril from the character's point of view.




If you watch the movie "Conan the Barbarian" for the first time, you're not entirely sure Conan will survive (it was before Hollywood was all sequels), and if you think all the PC's in his party will survive . . .


----------



## S'mon (Mar 30, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> It's the player's perspective we have to worry about, is it not? From the character's perspective . . . seriously? Given a choice between your own life, and a good chunk of humanity's cultural heritage, you'd choose your own life? I wouldn't, and if I were playing Nobilis, I wouldn't play a character that did.




My life, or rock'n'roll?  Er...


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 30, 2012)

If death is so important, why do we have spells like Raise Dead and Resurrection?

It seems to me that it is not that large a step to go from a game with Raise Dead to one where the default is characters don't die.


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 30, 2012)

D&D has cure spells.  Why not do away with damage?


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 30, 2012)

blargney the second said:


> D&D has cure spells.  Why not do away with damage?




Because sometimes you run out of cure spells and the damage kills you?

If cure spells guaranteed that any damage done in previous round was negated, and this was true for every round in combat, then we might as well do away with damage.

Similarly, if Raise Dead is common enough and easy enough such that practically every death could be undone with Raise Dead, then we might as well do away with death.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 30, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> Not really.  A Fate Point's purpose is akin to the purpose of levels and hit points.  The more of 'em you have, the better chance it is that you live.
> 
> They're not get out of jail free cards.




Whatever they are, they're clearly extra-character mechanics. They're not playing the character doing something; they're the player manipulating the universe ("fate") on behalf of the character, director-stance.



haakon1 said:


> I've seen a DM take the "flubbing" that far, and  it makes the fighting boring for me.  But the same guy will then turn  around and allow deaths or even a TPK in another fight.  <shrug>




I agree. That's the worst of all worlds, where the drama of death is taken away, and nothing is put in its place. Failure is not an option isn't fun.



GSHamster said:


> Similarly, if Raise Dead is common enough and  easy enough such that practically every death could be undone with Raise  Dead, then we might as well do away with death.




My problem is that it is common enough and easy enough in high-level D&D. As long as the cleric is alive, death is a fancy form of damage, and if the wizard lives and the cleric doesn't, raise dead is just a teleport away. If they both die, then that's a DM specific situation, but if the players don't want to roll up more characters, so the fighter tosses them in the bag of holding and heads for the nearest city, many DMs aren't going to want a TPK or extended play with two players sitting it out, so the fighter will make it in short order.

Short of a TPK, in high-level D&D most players would rather have their characters die then lose an important piece of equipment. The latter has more consequences.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 30, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> If death is so important, why do we have spells like Raise Dead and Resurrection?




Like hit points and Fate Points, those things help keep your character alive, not ensure it.

In my games, you couldn't just hit the local cleric in town like you were stopping at a medical clinic.  Many times, the spell was not available.  If it was, then I'd consider the particular religion and how that applies to the character.







> It seems to me that it is not that large a step to go from a game with Raise Dead to one where the default is characters don't die.




The game is called Dungeons & Dragons, not Demigods & Immortals.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 30, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> Whatever they are, they're clearly extra-character mechanics. They're not playing the character doing something; they're the player manipulating the universe ("fate") on behalf of the character, director-stance.




Fate Points are a replacement for Cure light/moderate/serious wounds and other spells like Raise Dead.  Conan doesn't have magical healing as an integral part of the game they way D&D does.

If a player can accept a Healing Potion, then he shouldn't have trouble accepting Fate Points in a game where there are no Healing Potions.


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 30, 2012)

With restoration in the game, why bother with ability damage?
With remove blindness in the game, why bother with blindness?

This forum will eventually no longer exist.  Why bother typing?

Nihilism is ridiculous.  Just play the damn game.
-blarg


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 30, 2012)

Just reread that last post, and it didn't come out right.  Fatalism is a pet peeve of mine, and I spoke harshly.  I'm sorry.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 30, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> If a player can accept a Healing Potion, then he shouldn't have trouble accepting Fate Points in a game where there are no Healing Potions.




You're missing my point. A healing potion is a physical object in world. The character takes it, opens it, and drinks it. Fate points aren't in-world; they aren't the character doing something.

This is a side thread, about your statement that RPGs are people playing characters. Fate points are not people playing characters; they're people directing the fate of the characters.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 30, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> This is a side thread, about your statement that RPGs are people playing characters. Fate points are not people playing characters; they're people directing the fate of the characters.




I see what you're saying.  I just don't think your point is worthy.  If a player can play a character and get more HP, it's pretty close to being the same thing when the character uses a Fate Point.

In both cases, character death is a real threat.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> Like hit points and Fate Points, those things help keep your character alive, not ensure it.
> 
> In my games, you couldn't just hit the local cleric in town like you were stopping at a medical clinic.  Many times, the spell was not available.  If it was, then I'd consider the particular religion and how that applies to the character.
> 
> ...




So basically you are saying that the DM controls who lives and dies by controlling that availability of divine magic? So it is a DM choice. Even though in the rules there is nothing written about it being the god's choice. 

It is basically a house rule to say the Herineous clerics won't raise a follower of another god.  

Now I do that all the time in my campaigns but I do recognize that is a house rule campaign thing.

But the game allows you to play demigods and immortals if you want to. That is what is so great about it.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> It is basically a house rule to say the Herineous clerics won't raise a follower of another god.



Well, it would only be a house rule if the rules say that those clerics _would_ do so. As far as I know, they're silent on the matter, but I'm not familiar with every system.



Elf Witch said:


> But the game allows you to play demigods and immortals if you want to. That is what is so great about it.



Yep, this is very true. You can play either way (or any of another thousand ways) and have a lot of fun. As always, play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Janx said:


> The point is, a request to not die coming from YOU, an experienced player would carry more weight at my table than coming from Bob's New Guy who has never taken the time to actually try it the MAJORITY's way.
> 
> That's why everybody is jumping on the "this is why death is so important" bandwagon.  You can't just show up and try to change the GM's game.  That takes time, tact and knowing whether it's something the GM is open to consider.
> 
> Like I mentioned 20 pages ago, it is a new guy mistake to ever bring up "that's not how we did it at my old job" or "We should do it this way because it will be better"  Groups do not like to hear that crap, and that's how you get on the wrong side of the group.





Still don't buy that it is any way wrong for a player to talk to his DM about an aspect of the game he does not enjoy. 

Would it be better if the player just sits there and says nothing then has his character die and leaves the game leaving the DM stunned over it because it blind sighted him?

At least this way the player has communicated with the DM the DM knows that if he kills this character there is a good possibility that the player is going to leave the game. He can now make what ever choice he wants in what to do.

For some reason people are getting this attitude about how dare the player feel this way and tell his DM about it. That some how he is just doing it all wrong. 

If he does not enjoy having a character die that is his right to feel that way and if he would prefer to play in a game that limits death that is right too. I think he should have talked to the DM ahead of time if he knew he felt this way before sitting down and playing. Being on the same page from the beginning would solve a lot o these DM/player conflicts we read so much about.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> If he does not enjoy having a character die that is his right to feel that way and if he would prefer to play in a game that limits death that is right too. I think he should have talked to the DM ahead of time if he knew he felt this way before sitting down and playing. Being on the same page from the beginning would solve a lot o these DM/player conflicts we read so much about.



I agree about open communication of gaming tastes, even if you're new to the group. It might mean you're better off not playing, but if you won't enjoy the game, why play it? Like I try to say frequently: play what you like


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> But the game allows you to play demigods and immortals if you want to. That is what is so great about it.




It is true that there is no wrongbadfun when playing RPGs.  If you want to play invincible 1st level heroes, then I hope you have fun.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, it would only be a house rule if the rules say that those clerics _would_ do so. As far as I know, they're silent on the matter, but I'm not familiar with every system.
> 
> 
> Yep, this is very true. You can play either way (or any of another thousand ways) and have a lot of fun. As always, play what you like




If you read the rules for raise dead all it says is you need a the component, a cleric who can cast 5 level spells and a soul willing to come back.

Anything else is up to the DM which is how I think it should be. 

If you wanted to you rule that a cleric can only cast spells even healing on followers of his god or of the same alignment. 

The point is the game has a mechanic for dealing with death and not making death a permanent thing so this whole argument that if you just take death out of the game then some how you are really not playing DnD as it was meant to be played just seems silly to me.

The other argument that if you can't die then there is no tension in combat that it is an automatic win kinds of loses its strength if you have a cleric in the party high enough to cast raise dead and you party has the wealth to do it. 

I don't understand how there is really any difference between the two because at that point death is in no way permanent.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I agree about open communication of gaming tastes, even if you're new to the group. It might mean you're better off not playing, but if you won't enjoy the game, why play it? Like I try to say frequently: play what you like




I can answer the why play it from my own experience some times you just want to play and you tell yourself that not playing is worse. Or it is a social thing and you want to play because it is what your friends are doing.

Sometimes it is fine and sometimes you are miserable. 

I have learned the hard way that not playing is far better than playing in a game that you don't enjoy.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> If you read the rules for raise dead all it says is you need a the component, a cleric who can cast 5 level spells and a soul willing to come back.
> 
> Anything else is up to the DM which is how I think it should be.



Right, but as far as I know, a house rule is actually changing or omitting a mechanical rule. I don't think saying a cleric of Heironeous wouldn't be willing to raise a follower of Nerull is a house rule, just a ruling in an area where rules are silent.



Elf Witch said:


> The other argument that if you can't die then there is no tension in combat that it is an automatic win kinds of loses its strength if you have a cleric in the party high enough to cast raise dead and you party has the wealth to do it.
> 
> I don't understand how there is really any difference between the two because at that point death is in no way permanent.



I think there definitely is a lot of tension lost when the party can regularly raise people, but the stress might come in other areas. The Cleric can raise you, but he's missing 25,000 gp (or you are) that could be spent building roads, upgrading a temple, reinforcing your castle, hiring mercenaries, etc. But, this is just a consequence other than death, which -as other have pointed out- can add to the game just as death can.

But, if you do consider that many (most?) games take place at the lower levels where raising the dead isn't the normal option in the party (nor has the funds to do so, necessarily), I think that there might be a big difference between a "you can die" style of game and a "you can't, but you can lose" style of game.

Neither are right or wrong. It's just a matter of taste. But, like I said, I do agree with the player bringing it to the GM's attention. I support the GM in staying with his preferred style, but I think it was the right call from the player to express what he likes in a game.



Elf Witch said:


> I have learned the hard way that not playing is far better than playing in a game that you don't enjoy.



Yep, that's usually true. As always, play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> It is true that there is no wrongbadfun when playing RPGs.  If you want to play invincible 1st level heroes, then I hope you have fun.




No you don't. Not really deep down you feel it is the wrong way to play. 

Everything you have posted up to this point from the example of the little league trophies to the comment that DnD is not Demigods and Immortals says something different.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 31, 2012)

Probably best to have neither side say what the other side _really_ feels, and just get to back a discussion on the upsides to their method, or agreeing to disagree. I'm not sure how productive the "have fun with that" and "you don't mean that" comments actually are, as of this point.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Right, but as far as I know, a house rule is actually changing or omitting a mechanical rule. I don't think saying a cleric of Heironeous wouldn't be willing to raise a follower of Nerull is a house rule, just a ruling in an area where rules are silent.
> 
> 
> I think there definitely is a lot of tension lost when the party can regularly raise people, but the stress might come in other areas. The Cleric can raise you, but he's missing 25,000 gp (or you are) that could be spent building roads, upgrading a temple, reinforcing your castle, hiring mercenaries, etc. But, this is just a consequence other than death, which -as other have pointed out- can add to the game just as death can.
> ...




Maybe house rule was the wrong word. I am just saying there is no official rule on how to handle it. Which is how I like it. It should be campaign specific.

It is true that clerics don't get raise dead until ninth level. But I played in many a game where someone of lower level has died and the DM has handled by allowing them to find a cleric of high enough level. In one campaign my third level character died we had a scroll of rise dead. The third level cleric had to make a spellcraft check to be able to use the scroll which he did and I was raised.    

The entire point I am making is that the game has mechanics built in to make death non permanent the DM can choose how to allow it. Which is why I don't understand why it seems some people find it such a stretch to take death out completely and replace it with some other consequence.   

From reading this thread I have gotten the feeling that deep down people who don't understand it also feel that some how it makes the players who enjoy this type of campaign as whiny childish babies who get over attached to their characters.  

That some how they are not true DnD players and worse have not earned the right to enjoy the game the way they do.

For the record I have death in my current campaign I have things in place to make it hard to die. I would not quit a campaign if my character died and there was no way to bring it back. I play Shadowrun and death is permanent. I will no longer play in a DnD game where the DM has taken out all raise dead magic unless he put in things to help make death rare.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2012)

> Which is why I don't understand why it seems some people find it such a stretch to take death out completely and replace it with some other consequence.




Barring some HRing, the things that let your PCs come back from the dead are neither common nor cheap, thus are not always available.  There is always the risk your PC may not come back.  Doing away with death from the get-go changes the way you play; you gamble differently.

This is why I brought up poker many pages ago.  If you play poker with your own money, you pay close attention to your fellow players, the statistics of drawing what you need for your hand to be a winner, and the pot odds.  If you play online with the discounted "fake" money, you will see players call with utterly abysmal odds of winning.  _Routinely_.

Playing D&D with PC death included is like playing poker with cash.  This is YOUR PC that you took all that time to create, and if he dies, he may be gone forever.

Without that, it's like playing poker with monopoly money.

And besides, those "other consequences?"  Well, they exist in games with or without PC death, so that's really not a solid basis for distinction.  As i recall, someone upthread proposed a scenario that contemplated wiping rock & roll from history as being an equal substitute for PC death.  Great- that certainly is a consequence of note.

Now imagine that scenario _PLUS_ PC death.  It's easy if you try.  Go to hell below you.  Above you, the other guys.  Imagine all thë NPCs...vandalizing your grave.  Woo hooooooo ooh ooh ooh.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2012)

A couple of you seem to be developing a habit of butting heads. If I may make a suggestion - you might want to look into using the Ignore List feature. That is not a Moderator Order.  Just a reminder that we give you some ways to avoid folks you just don't get along with.

Take questions to PM or e-mail. Thanks.


----------



## Loonook (Mar 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now imagine that scenario _PLUS_ PC death.  It's easy if you try.  Go to hell below you.  Above you, the other guys.  Imagine all thë NPCs...vandalizing your grave.  Woo hooooooo ooh ooh ooh.




You just may start screaming... or have a lot of fun.  Did you pick gooooood or eviiiiiil... Or is this the Neutral One?

Imagine all your items... Walkin' Cross the sand... That stupid rogue, just laughing... Using your Mage's Hand... And then the Cleric wants to, try to perform a raise?

Youuuuu may looooose a level, but you're not the only one... Or did you drain Constitution... Because you borked at level 1?

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Barring some HRing, the things that let your PCs come back from the dead are neither common nor cheap, thus are not always available.  There is always the risk your PC may not come back.  Doing away with death from the get-go changes the way you play; you gamble differently.
> 
> This is why I brought up poker many pages ago.  If you play poker with your own money, you pay close attention to your fellow players, the statistics of drawing what you need for your hand to be a winner, and the pot odds.  If you play online with the discounted "fake" money, you will see players call with utterly abysmal odds of winning.  _Routinely_.
> 
> ...




Danny I do understand what you are saying. 

I get that for a lot of people having the threat of death makes the game more real and exciting. I will play in a game like that. But to be honest I prefer a game with things in place to make it hard to die. I have never enjoyed losing a character in a stupid way or because some other player make a really stupid decision. 

What makes the game fun for me is what impact my character has on the world so for me failing at combat even if I live is has an impact and makes that combat exciting for me.

In real life we can die at any time there is no fairness in at all. It does not matter if you are a hero, shlub or villain. It doesn't matter if you have something important to offer the world or not. 

I worked in the medical field mainly in the NICU and saw the unfairness up close. A drug addicted baby whose mother was in jail and little future would live but a baby who was very much wanted by its parents who had everything to offer would die. 

I game as way to have fun and escape I don't want real life in my games I want fantasy and adventure. I want my character to be like the characters I read about.  

If I lose a character at first level or even second or third I am okay and its like oh well lets try this idea. But once I start playing a character a long time I get invested in it. I don't enjoy it when that character dies. It is not fun it is not exciting. 

Which is why I prefer games that have a way out of death like DnD or rules that take death out like 7 Seas and Superhero games. In Shadowrun we play with Karma points which can be used to save your life. 

This is the way I really enjoy gaming and get the fullest pleasure out of it. I am lucky because I have found a group that likes the same thing. 

Your example of poker is a good one you see I hate any kind of gambling. The idea of taking my money and throwing it away makes me sick to my stomach. That is not enjoyable to me at all. I know some people enjoy it and to them win or lose they have had fun. Maybe I am this way because my mother had a gambling addiction and I watched what it did to my family.  

The point I am trying to make is what you see as fun and necessary for your full enjoyment of the game it not necessarily the same as what I find fun. 

We all make compromises at the table so I accept a lot of players and DM want the specter of death hanging over the characters. I am willing to compromise and play that kind of game. It will be the least favorite part of the game for me and does nothing to make the game more enjoyable. I have learned to draw the line I know that if it is going to be a game that the DM expects a lot of death and characters are dropping like flies then I say no thank you. 

Our Age of Worms is played in a traditional way the DM runs the material as written. If you don't play smart it is a meat grinder. We have been lucky we have had only one PC death and we are now level 12. We have a cleric who can  now cast raise dead and before that we had access to reincarnation which comes with the chance of ending up a different race.  I enjoy the game more now that we have reached the ability not to have death necessarily be permanent. 

As Jameson says very wisely, I might add , as always play what you like.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I am just saying there is no official rule on how to handle it. Which is how I like it. It should be campaign specific.



Completely agree 



Elf Witch said:


> In one campaign my third level character died we had a scroll of rise dead. The third level cleric had to make a spellcraft check to be able to use the scroll which he did and I was raised.



I'm sure this is a pretty normal experience, too.



Elf Witch said:


> The entire point I am making is that the game has mechanics built in to make death non permanent the DM can choose how to allow it. Which is why I don't understand why it seems some people find it such a stretch to take death out completely and replace it with some other consequence.



I think that ruling out what is traditional and fairly broadly used in RPGs in general is jarring to many people.



Elf Witch said:


> From reading this thread I have gotten the feeling that deep down people who don't understand it also feel that some how it makes the players who enjoy this type of campaign as whiny childish babies who get over attached to their characters.
> 
> That some how they are not true DnD players and worse have not earned the right to enjoy the game the way they do.



As an outside observer, I can see how you'd get that feeling. I don't think it's the case, generally, the people think you're a whiny childish baby, however. It might be a case of blunt disagreement with little tone being conveyed in this thread, and taking the blunt disagreement a little too personally.



Elf Witch said:


> For the record I have death in my current campaign I have things in place to make it hard to die. I would not quit a campaign if my character died and there was no way to bring it back. I play Shadowrun and death is permanent. I will no longer play in a DnD game where the DM has taken out all raise dead magic unless he put in things to help make death rare.



Cool. I run a very gritty game where death is a real possibility in basically every combat, but combats are more rare. Death is basically permanent, but you could conceivably resurrect someone if you traveled to their soul and transported it back into their body, which would probably last years at best.

My point: while our styles probably crash, that's cool. I could probably have fun in a death-light game, and the real important part is that we both have fun playing with our groups. Because, as always, play what you like


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2012)

> If I lose a character at first level or even second or third I am okay and its like oh well lets try this idea. But once I start playing a character a long time I get invested in it. I don't enjoy it when that character dies. It is not fun it is not exciting.




We all find excitement in different ways.  My joy isn't necessarily yours.

But to me, the very reasons you cite there for wanting PC death excluded are the reasons I want it kept in.  That risk of loss helps me keep things in perspective...helps me think more like the character.  As much as I want to keep my PC alive, the more I play my PC like a being with a sense of self-preservation.  The choices I make for my PC will be more internally consistent with the PC's own perspective.



> Which is why I prefer games that have a way out of death like DnD or rules that take death out like 7 Seas and Superhero games. In Shadowrun we play with Karma points which can be used to save your life.




I love Supers games.  But death is still part of the equation if you're playing "Iron Age" as opposed to "Golden Age" stuff- the stories of Wolverine vs early JLA.

I'm not saying death should always be a part of every RPG- just that I don't like changing the underlying assumptions of the genre.  Death will be a part of nearly any FRPG campaign I run.  Ditto Cyberpunk.  Supers games depend on which era I'm going for: my Supers 1990 game was straight 4 Color...death was highly unlikely.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 31, 2012)

A fallen PC, Esmerelda of Waterdeep, died recently in the final battle against the BBEG, Naarash, in the adventure _Heathen_.  I described Naarash's great fist punching down and smashing her ribs, into her chest.  I was a bit surprised when the player told me he thought the damage was too extensive for raise dead to be possible, and kinda implied that I was cheating a bit by allowing Esme to be raised! I got the impression he _really_ didn't like his PC dying, even with raise dead possible, and fairly common in the Forgotten Realms setting.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Barring some HRing, the things that let your PCs come back from the dead are neither common nor cheap, thus are not always available.  There is always the risk your PC may not come back.




In D&D 3.5, provided the spell is cast promptly and the character wasn't turned into an undead, there is no risk that a Raise Dead won't bring your character back. As per the wealth by level guidelines, a 5th level character can afford a raise dead spell; in a couple levels, it won't even be a big deal. (The cost table does say that whether you can get the spell cast is DM's permission.) At 9th level, a PC cleric can just cast raise dead. That is, at 9th level it is both cheap and common as per RAW, and starting from about 5th level it's affordable as per RAW and availability is unspecified in RAW.



> Playing D&D with PC death included is like playing poker with cash.  This is YOUR PC that you took all that time to create, and if he dies, he may be gone forever.




But it's not like playing poker with cash. Cash has established value; if you lose a PC every couple sessions, you stop getting attached to PCs.



> And besides, those "other consequences?"  Well, they exist in games with or without PC death, so that's really not a solid basis for distinction.




I disagree; once I've rolled up Terrance Terrato to replace Susan Sanada, the fact that Susan may have screwed up and doomed a village no longer has a bite. I no longer have to roleplay out her guilt, be her dealing with the consequences of her failure. That was a different character, that was someone else.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We all find excitement in different ways.  My joy isn't necessarily yours.
> 
> But to me, the very reasons you cite there for wanting PC death excluded are the reasons I want it kept in.  That risk of loss helps me keep things in perspective...helps me think more like the character.  As much as I want to keep my PC alive, the more I play my PC like a being with a sense of self-preservation.  The choices I make for my PC will be more internally consistent with the PC's own perspective.
> 
> ...




I am not saying I want death excluded necessarily just that I like having options that either allow a character to return from the dead or have things in the game to make death uncommon even if does not make it impossible. 

What I find exciting about the game is figuring out puzzles, trying to figure out what is going on. Getting to know the world and the characters in both NPC and PC. 

Combat is okay as long as it is not so drawn out that it goes on forever.

Dungeon crawls are least my favorite encounter I prefer city adventures with a lot of political intrigue. 

In the game that I played in with no death I wanted to keep mine from going to -10. Losing a level could mean weeks to months having to make the XP to get it back. My self preservation was always there. 

Like I said different strokes.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> If you read the rules for raise dead all it says is you need a the component, a cleric who can cast 5 level spells and a soul willing to come back.




If you're not just playing with generic clerics (yuk!), there can be a lot of restrictive info about an order in a supplement that describes the various orders of the mythos.








Elf Witch said:


> No you don't. Not really deep down you feel it is the wrong way to play.




There you go again, thinking you know someone else better than they know themselves.

You've got a nasty habit of that.  Third time I've seen you do it.

You're confusing what I said above with the way I play.  No, I won't play where there's no death, and yes, I don't really respect players who want to play that way.  It's not going to happen in my game.

But, I really don't care how you play.  And, if you're playing, then I hope that you do have fun.

That's what it's all about, yes, fun?


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> If you're not just playing with generic clerics (yuk!), there can be a lot of restrictive info about an order in a supplement that describes the various orders of the mythos.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have read most of the supplements on the DnD gods and they are really good for helping flesh out the cleric orders but I don't recall much on the attitude of raising dead. 

I don't think a cleric of a good church would raise a dead evil person. I think the god in question would go umm no. 

It really seems to be left up to the DM on how to handle it in their game. It is like healing in my roommate's game going to a temple of a god you don't worship to get healing is going to cost more than if you went to the temple of a god you do worshiped.

How is lacking respect, which is a pretty powerful feeling at least it is to me, any different that my saying that I think you think it is the wrong way to play? You are acknowledging that other people play differently and you hope we have fun but you don't respect the way we play.

I don't enjoy hack and slash style play at all for example but I would never go as far as to say I don't respect people for enjoying that style.

For the record I have never said you should change your game for the player all I ever have said is that you should talk to him  be upfront with him that no you won't pull your punches to stop his character from dying.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> How is lacking respect, which is a pretty powerful feeling at least it is to me, any different that my saying that I think you think it is the wrong way to play?




Just because I play a certain way doesn't mean that I think everyone should play that way.

There's a difference in preference and outlook on the entire game and all players that play it.


----------



## Broken Druid (Mar 31, 2012)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf Witch 
No you don't. Not really deep down you feel it is the wrong way to play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterBob
There you go again, thinking you know someone else better than they know themselves.

You've got a nasty habit of that. Third time I've seen you do it.

You're confusing what I said above with the way I play. No, I won't play where there's no death, and yes, I don't really respect players who want to play that way. It's not going to happen in my game.

But, I really don't care how you play. And, if you're playing, then I hope that you do have fun.

That's what it's all about, yes, fun?



Reply by Broken Druid:

You are absolutely right. Playing any game is all about having fun. And D&D is so versatile, it lends itself to a multitude of different playing styles. Gotta love a game where Rule Zero tells you to break any rule you want if it makes the game more fun for your group.

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? Seems to me, the more roleplay-intensive the game, the more likelihood that players are going to want their characters to stay alive. And the less likely they are to fully commit themselves to participation if they know it is likely that they will lose their character.


I find it kinda egotistically hypocritical of you taking a morally superior stance on the whole death thing, what with the multitude of spells in the game specifically designed to prevent you from having to roll up a new character. The makers of the game specifically designed it so that you did NOT have to die a permanent death. Therefore, the game designers, themselves, felt that death detracted from the game. QED.


----------



## Janx (Mar 31, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> But it's not like playing poker with cash. Cash has established value; if you lose a PC every couple sessions, you stop getting attached to PCs.




This is true.  If PC death happens frequently, players will stop taking their PCs seriously.

This too, is analogous to Poker.  In a no-money Poker game, if you run out of chips, you'll just respawn back in with a new bankroll and keep going.  The result is, you won't take the game seriously.




prosfilaes said:


> I disagree; once I've rolled up Terrance Terrato to replace Susan Sanada, the fact that Susan may have screwed up and doomed a village no longer has a bite. I no longer have to roleplay out her guilt, be her dealing with the consequences of her failure. That was a different character, that was someone else.




You're not wrong about this IF your PC dies.  However, what Danny alluded to was that all the ideas given as alternatives to death are tools a GM uses REGARDLESS of whether PC Death is on the table.  In a game with PC Death, the GM can still use those techniques to reduce the frequency of Death.

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.

And that's another place where the newbie jumped the gun.  He had a preconcieved notion of how he wanted Death handled, and didn't seem to acknowledge that the GM already has practices in place that reduce that risk such that it was a minimal issue.

My opinion on this newbie might be different if WB ran a meatgrinder campaign and the newbie had played through a session or two and lost a few PCs.

It is a pet peeve of mine when people bitch about "what about this here possibility, I think we should handle it this way..." and they don't accept that managment has already put something in place AND the situation doesn't even come up.


----------



## Janx (Mar 31, 2012)

Broken Druid said:


> I find it kinda egotistically hypocritical of you taking a morally superior stance on the whole death thing, what with the multitude of spells in the game specifically designed to prevent you from having to roll up a new character. The makers of the game specifically designed it so that you did NOT have to die a permanent death. Therefore, the game designers, themselves, felt that death detracted from the game. QED.




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.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> In D&D 3.5, provided the spell is cast promptly and the character wasn't turned into an undead, there is no risk that a Raise Dead won't bring your character back.




I said nothing about reliability, just expense and availability.



> As per the wealth by level guidelines, a 5th level character can afford a raise dead spell; in a couple levels, it won't even be a big deal. (The cost table does say that whether you can get the spell cast is DM's permission.)




Just because a thing is affordable in the books does not make it available or affordable in-game.  Availability of a spell is like anything else in the game- succeptible to scarcity.  Jut as the local smith may not know how to make an Urgosh (or may be backed up with other orders or may just not like your kind), the local priest may not be of sufficient level to cast RD, may not have the spell components to cast it, or may not be inclined to cast it for those outside his faith.

Or, just as likely, RD can't be used because your PC died too long ago, or had the misfortune of expiring while broke.

As for PCs, not every party has that powerful a Cleric.  Our 13th level 3.5Ed group, for instance, only has one because I retired _my_PC when the only guys playing divine casters of any note- neither of whom played a cleric- moved away from town.  And my guy can only do so recently since he is multiclassed (a Geomancer).




> At 9th level, a PC cleric can just cast raise dead. That is, at 9th level it is both cheap and common as per RAW, and starting from about 5th level it's affordable as per RAW and availability is unspecified in RAW.




See example above.




> But it's not like playing poker with cash. Cash has established value; if you lose a PC every couple sessions, you stop getting attached to PCs.



The analogy was imperfect, to be sure, but analogies never are.

The point stands: if you are playing a game in which you risk something you care about, you will play differently when that risk is removed.  In poker, that is cash; in gaming, a beloved PC.

FWIW, two can play rhetorical games like that: y'know, in 35 years of gaming, I've never seen a campaign in which someone lost a PC every couple of sessions.  But there is an analogous situation in poker as well- if you are a wealthy individual, playing in a low pot limit or low buy-in game will mean nothing to you. If you might don't really care about the cash until buy-ins reach $10k or more, the risks associated with playing in a $10 buy-in game will be meaningless to you.



> I disagree; once I've rolled up Terrance Terrato to replace Susan Sanada, the fact that Susan may have screwed up and doomed a village no longer has a bite. I no longer have to roleplay out her guilt, be her dealing with the consequences of her failure. That was a different character, that was someone else.




It depends on how _*YOU*_ felt about Susan, and what her failure means in the context of the campaign world.

As a counterpoint, I can retell the story of Bear:



Dannyalcatraz said:


> One of my most memorable PCs of all time was a 1ED Fighter named Bear.  I made a deal with my DM- give me maxed out physical stats and all of his mental stats would be 6-7s.  Bear was a gentle giant, he fought because he was trained to do so by those around him (what else was he going to do?).  Despite his nature, though, he had hooked up with a manipulative thief who treated him well...in order to have the most loyal and dangerous bodyguard he could find.  That thief was- to Bear- brother, father and God all rolled up into a diminutive package that was his only true friend.
> 
> The thief eventually took something he _really_ shouldn't have, and the City Watch boiled out of their barracks like fire ants from a kicked-over mound.  As the party fled, the thief told Bear to protect him...
> 
> As they crossed a river on a narrow bridge, Bear turned and faced the entire Watch himself, taking down one after another until he died.  By then, the party was safely away.




That happened 33 years ago.  It was an important campaign event, and it was personally important to me- one of my best moments as a role-player.  (i know those events were discussed in group for a few years, but then I moved away...)

Conversely, 18 years ago, I had another PC who died simply because of a series of improbably bad die rolls- bad enough that the mathematician in the group equated the probability to be on par with winning the lottery.  Again, that PCs death affected me personally, since those events became part of the litany of in-jokes my group has: he's not recalled for his deeds, he is recalled for how he died.

If Terrence Terrato's death has no effect on you, it is solely because you were not attached to Terrence Terrato.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I said nothing about reliability, just expense and availability.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Standing at the bridge while the party escapes is a noble way to die and was your choice. I have sacrificed characters to save others in the game.  To me that kind of death is not the same as losing your character because your dice are rolling 1s and the DM is rolling 20s. Death in situations like that lack meaning and feel like punishment. Especially if your plan was a sound one and you didn't do anything stupid.  

Having your character die because you did something colossally stupid is one thing having your character die because another player did is also not fun.

I had just joined the party after the death of my character. I was really excited about this new character I had rolled really well and made an awesome fighter. 

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.


----------



## Broken Druid (Mar 31, 2012)

Janx said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





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 (Mar 31, 2012)

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 (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

Broken Druid said:


> Wrong.




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




Broken Druid said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

Broken Druid said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

Broken Druid said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

Broken Druid said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

Janx said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

S'mon said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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."
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

S'mon said:


> 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.




Yes we are and we are at liberty to call people on it too. I know Broken Druid and  let me tell you she is one of the least judgmental people I know.  Her whole philosophy of life is live and let live. 

But she has one or two buttons that are easy to push one is hypocrisy especially when it looks hidden in a passive aggressive posting style.  

She does not post a lot. But I asked her to read the thread because I wanted her opinion on one or two things. I guess some of it got under her skin. 

I know a lot has gotten under mine.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 31, 2012)

Speaking of my job being "invisible"...here's a good example.

Last game session, the PCs found a necklace with a symbol on it that matched the clan's symbol.  It's extremely old.  When they get back to their village, nobody will know what it is...all will wonder at it.  Is it just a silver necklace made generations ago by an ancestor clansman?  Or, is it something more?

Magic in Conan's universe is low, but it exists.  I keep sorcerous items scarce, and like this necklace, many times, a player won't know what he's got.  It could very well be just a silver necklace.  Or....it could be something...more.

In a way, it's a "hook" I've put into the game.



Now...behind the GM's curtain...

I placed this in the game without knowing what I would do with it.  I do this a lot.  If I never come up with an idea, it becomes a cool roleplaying item--a necklace with the clan symbol froma warrior that lived many generations ago--and that's it.

But, I've left myself an "out" with it.  I can add a power to it anytime I see fit, and from the players' perspective, they'll think that the necklace was put into the game for whatever reason related to the power I give it.

Today, right now, the necklace is specifically nothing, magically speaking.  But, had the demon and his undead starting getting the better of the two barely-alive PCs (see my post above), THEN, one of my contingency plans would have been to give the necklace power.

"Just as the undead move in....as you stand back to back with your clansman and brother, weapons at the ready...the sky parts with a bright beam of light.  Although it's hours past midnight, the heavens open as if the sun has come out prematurely.  A quick look tells you that it is not the sun, but the moon that sheds this light.

"Is your eye playing tricks on you?  The moon is full, bright in the sky.  The overcast clouds have parted to allow it to shine uniquely on you, in a circumfrence around you.  In the shadows on the moon....the shapes....is that the symbol of your clan you see _on the moon?_

_"_The walking dead repel from this light.  The demon throws its arms up to cover its eyes.

"In a moment, they're gone.  The undead and the demon.

"And so is the light from the moon.

"The thunderstorm continues to drench you and your brother.  Lightning flashes across the sky.

"What do you want to do?"



You see...this would have seemed like GM intervention had I not put the necklace in the game in a previous game session.  

The player just think that the circumstances somehow activated the sorcerery in the necklace.

For real...I don't really know what I'm going to do with this necklace.  It may have a completely different power the next time I need it for a contingency plan.  And, the possiblty is still strong that it will never become anything in the game but an old, cool, ancient silver necklace.

The longer the necklace is in the game, the less likely it will seem to the players that the GM is saving their butts in a rather deadly game (that is not near as deadly as the Players perceive).

Even if I had done what I said above, with the moon and what not, I've still got a pretty mysterious magic item on my hands--in a low magic game world, where magic, when it does exist, is usually pretty powerful.

So, I can take what I did and then make some rules for the necklace, slowly allowing the Players to figure out how the thing works.

It's just a GMing technique.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Yes we are and we are at liberty to call people on it too. I know Broken Druid and let me tell you she is one of the least judgmental people I know. Her whole philosophy of life is live and let live.
> 
> But she has one or two buttons that are easy to push one is hypocrisy especially when it looks hidden in a passive aggressive posting style.
> 
> ...




LOL!  You want to call people on it?  OK, I call BS on what you say about calling in Broken Druid.  

You're so good at telling me my true motivations.  Here's one for you:  You called her here because you were getting frustrated at not being in the majority opinion on this thread--not havng enough people agree with your comments--that you called in an ally!

C'mon.  You know it's the truth!  

The truth!     Ahhhhh!  THE TRUTH!





"You want answers?"

"I think I'm entitled to."

"You want answers!"

"I want the truth!"

"You can't handle the truth!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2012)

> Standing at the bridge while the party escapes is a noble way to die and was your choice. I have sacrificed characters to save others in the game. To me that kind of death is not the same as losing your character because your dice are rolling 1s and the DM is rolling 20s. Death in situations like that lack meaning and feel like punishment. Especially if your plan was a sound one and you didn't do anything stupid.
> 
> Having your character die because you did something colossally stupid is one thing having your character die because another player did is also not fun.




Except, unlike you, I accept that the fates may be brutally unkind once or twice a decade, or that another's mistake may cost me a PC. It's all part of the risks involved in the game.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> 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.




Not really. I don't respect men who don't open the car door for their wives. I don't respect people who argue but really know nothing about that which they are arguing. I don't respect gamblers who cheat at cards. I don't respect (a lot of things that would close down this thread for becoming too political). 

And, I don't respect munchkin gamers, power gamers, and non-roleplayers.

But, just because I don't respect them doesn't mean that we can go around and shoot them in---a'hem. I mean it doesn't mean that they don't have a right to play their games the way they want to! 



In Stuey's voice...

_"Hey, mon, it's not as if I'm the RPG police of something."_


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> LOL!  You want to call people on it?  OK, I call BS on what you say about calling in Broken Druid.
> 
> You're so good at telling me my true motivations.  Here's one for you:  You called her here because you were getting frustrated at not being in the majority opinion on this thread--not havng enough people agree with your comments--that you called in an ally!
> 
> ...




You are half right I was getting frustrated. Not because my opinion is not he majority though I was not alone in pointing out that there are other ways to challenge a party besides death.  I have been playing since 1977 and been here since 2002 I am very aware that my opinion on this is in the minority. 

I was getting frustrated over the fact that I felt that some posters you being one of them were making arguments not for why you like to play the way you do but how those of who don't were some how wrong.

Using examples like little league trophies for all the kiddies and comments like DnD is not Demigods and Immortals. 

When Jamesoncourage said he could understand why I was feeling that way but he thought I might be taking it personally. So I asked her to read the thread. BTW she is not like me she has no issue with death in the game. Her game is run without action points, fate points and she often roles in the open.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Except, unlike you, I accept that the fates may be brutally unkind once or twice a decade, or that another's mistake may cost me a PC. It's all part of the risks involved in the game.




And there are ways to minimize these risks. 

You play a character for 11 levels almost a year and half of play. You lose your character in a way that makes it impossible to come back. But it is part of the game you accept it and move on and make a new character. 

You sit out most of the game where you died and then another entire episode while the DM gets the group together with the new character. Less then ten minutes into the next session the new character dies because of another players actions. 

So now you get to sit the rest of that session. And because of what is going on in the game it made it impossible to get to a cleric who could raise dead. So now you sit out three sessions.

So in total you sit out five sessions and now you are two levels behind the rest of the party. Because DM has a rule that all new character come in a level lower than the lowest member. So when my new character died the rule has you come in one level lower.

I don't think these kind of risks make the game more fun and I am not sure it was what the game designers had in mind.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> You play a character for 11 levels almost a year and half of play. You lose your character in a way that makes it impossible to come back. But it is part of the game you accept it and move on and make a new character.




Yep.



> You sit out most of the game where you died and then another entire episode while the DM gets the group together with the new character. Less then ten minutes into the next session the new character dies because of another players actions.
> _<snip other stuff>_




1) While I've never seen a slippery slope of PC death in 35 years in the hobby, I'm sure it's possible.

2) I haven't sat out more than part of a game session since 1991, because I've used the base concept of the character tree (introduced that year in _Dark Sun_ in every game since then.  Essentially, I have multiple fully statted out PCs ready to go in any campaign*.  All they need to go is level-appropriate gear and DM intro.

3) while I sit out sans PC, I make myself useful by helping the DM run combats.  Sometimes I do this when my PC becomes severely incapacitated (stable but in negative HP, turned to stone, etc.).

So essentially, I'm never sitting out so long that I'm not having fun in some way.












* minimum two, sometimes more if I'm expecting the game to be a slaughter feat.**



** Paranoia and CoC are exceptions, of course.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep.
> 2) I haven't sat out more than part of a game session since 1991, because I've used the base concept of the character tree (introduced that year in _Dark Sun_ in every game since then.




Character trees were a good idea. Dark Sun rather expected you to lose characters. Athas is, after all, a dying Death World.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I was getting frustrated over the fact that I felt that some posters you being one of them were making arguments not for why you like to play the way you do but how those of who don't were some how wrong.
> 
> Using examples like little league trophies for all the kiddies and comments like DnD is not Demigods and Immortals.




Oh, make no bones about it. I do think that it's the wrong way to play.

But, again, that's my opinion. If it were not my preference, I'd play that way.

On another thread, this dude posted his stats where he said he rolled all 17's and 18's for his character, with one 16 as his lowest score. I call BS on that, and I don't respect that kind of play (because I don't believe he rolled it on what I would call a "fair" system). 

But, hey, it's his game. If he enjoys that kind of thing, then more power to him. I'm not going to tell him that he can't do it, but I'm also not going to act as if I sympathize with that type of play (because I don't).


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just because a thing is affordable in the books does not make it available or affordable in-game. ...
> As for PCs, not every party has that powerful a Cleric.  Our 13th level 3.5Ed group, for instance, only has one because I retired _my_PC when the only guys playing divine casters of any note- neither of whom played a cleric- moved away from town.




I don't find this a productive line of argument. One could argue anything about D&D along those lines; trolls are unkillable since PCs won't necessarily have access to acid or sufficiently damaging fire. One could claim that a creature with high SR is overpowerful since a party may not have any fighters in it. You said "Barring some HRing", but I think D&D 3 RAW and AAW (adventures as written) assumes that you have a cleric with caster level close to that of the party.



Water Bob said:


> And, I don't respect munchkin gamers, power gamers, and non-roleplayers.




Frankly, I hope you understand the word "respect" differently than I do. I find that level of disrespect problematic.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 31, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> Oh, make no bones about it. I do think that it's the wrong way to play.
> 
> ...
> 
> But, hey, it's his game. If he enjoys that kind of thing, then more power to him. I'm not going to tell him that he can't do it, but I'm also not going to act as if I sympathize with that type of play (because I don't).




That doesn't make any sense to me; it doesn't strike me as a coherent statement to say that something is wrong, then say "If he enjoys that kind of thing, then more power to him."


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 31, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> That doesn't make any sense to me; it doesn't strike me as a coherent statement to say that something is wrong, then say "If he enjoys that kind of thing, then more power to him."




It's the difference between personal preference and imposing that preference on others.

For example, I may only purchase and drive American made cars (I don't--I drive a Mitusbishi, but this is an example).  That would be my preference.  But, I wouldn't vote for a law that made everyone buy only American made cars.

Another example.  Let's say I'm a health nut (which I'm not--again, this is an example), and I look down on all those poor slobs out there that can't check their weight or manage to get their butts into a gym.  This person may not respect someone who does not make time to take care of themselves in the gym.

But, at the same time, this health nut wouldn't impose his will on the world to make them all eat right and work out.  That's up to them.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





It wouldn't have mattered if I had a stated character ready to go they were on a small boat and they were the only ones on it so it would have been impossible to add a new character right then and there, 

My new character joined them almost as soon as they came to shore. Most of the next sessions were heavy role playing, information gathering, sneaking around and spying. So there was not anything I could help the DM with. The few combats he let me run an NPC but for the majority of the time I was just reading a book I brought along. 

Most of the games are very heavy role playing and the whole you look trusty worthy join us can be problematic.  So new characters have to be introduced in a way that makes sense to the story. My new character background made her a family member of the paladin and she had been searching for him for months and finally she had found him. 

What bugged me the most about this was not that I died but I died twice back to back. 

I saw this in my one campaign before I added action and fate points. A PC died he got raised and then the dice were just killing him in the very next session. I could see the frustration on his face so I fudged the HP on my one bad guy so he could be taken down faster  and the bard could get to him and heal him before he bled out. Afterwards he said I don't know if you fudged anything but if you did thank you. I was not looking to dying twice in a row. 

This player is usually fine with character death but I guess he was not finding dying in back to back session enjoyable. After that is when I added action points that renew every session and one thing they do is let you spend one to stabilize. 

Anyway I think I am done with this conversation it is going in circles.

There are a dozen ways to play the game there is no right or wrong way. What one person finds fun another may not. 

I know that I don't need death to make me care more about my character or to feel that combat means more if that is the consequence of losing.   I know that for other players it is a vital part of the game.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> Oh, make no bones about it. I do think that it's the wrong way to play.
> 
> But, again, that's my opinion. If it were not my preference, I'd play that way.
> 
> ...




I would like to point out that because you feel it is a wrong way to play it shows in your posts and makes it hard to discuss things like this because no one likes to be told they are playing the game wrong. The whole wrongbadfun vibe comes across.  

I have seen a player roll that well before it is very rare but it sometimes happens and I say enjoy it. Those of us who roll take a chance on having some real low stats in the hope that one day we might get lucky and roll a really awesome character. 

I don't think people expect sympathy just a little respect and acceptance that there are different ways to play the game.


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I would like to point out that because you feel it is a wrong way to play it shows in your posts and makes it hard to discuss things like this because no one likes to be told they are playing the game wrong. The whole wrongbadfun vibe comes across.




Sorry you feel that way.  I really don't respect players who play that way, so that lack of respect for their game is probably the "vibe" you're getting.

Of course, that's a generall feeling I have.

If that way of play were deliberate to the campaign, I wouldn't feel that way.  For example, if the GM were running a game set in the Highlander immortal universe, that type of play would make sense to me.  Or, maybe the GM set the game where all the PCs were demigods.  I would get it.




I've got two friends that, when they play video games, they play them in such a way that I don't respect, too.

I remember looking at my friend's Baldur's Gate game, where he had gone in and set the difficultly to the lowest setting so that he could just crush everything in his path.

Yeah, he's my friend to this day, but when it comes to how he plays games, I don't respect his play at all.

Another friend of mine, more recently, was playing Oblivion before Skyrim came out.  In that game, your Athletics skill goes up the more you run and jump.  Well, my friend turned his character to face a wall, then pressed the autorun button and kept it down with some folded paper.  Then, he went to bed.  He did this to get his Athletics up to 100 as fast as he could.  I decided not to tell him that he went about that the hard way--he could have just used the command prompts to give all his stats 100 if he wanted.  Plus, there are tons of mods that would allow him to jump a house, if he wanted.

I don't know why people would play this way, but some do.  It feels like a "cheat" to me.

I'm not going to tell them that they can't do it, but I don't have to respect it, either.







> I have seen a player roll that well before it is very rare but it sometimes happens and I say enjoy it.




Do you have any idea of the odds of rolling that way?  You could play D&D for 30 years, using the default 4d6, drop lowest, take highest three, and never get stats like that (I think it was something like one 16, two 18's, and three 17's.

Pretty steep odds.






> Those of us who roll take a chance on having some real low stats in the hope that one day we might get lucky and roll a really awesome character.




My game is all about rolling.  I use the default 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste, for PCs and major NPCs. I use 3d6, arrage to taste for all other characters.

I always found it strange that every PC that I come across doesn't have any negative modifiers on attributes.  All people are above average in all six major areas?  Some--many--are not strong in one area and weak in another?







> I don't think people expect sympathy just a little respect and acceptance that there are different ways to play the game.




I do respect that there are different ways to play the game.  But, respect has to be earned, and the guy that says he rolled all 17's and 18's for all six stats using a "fair" dice mechanic doesn't earn mine.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I have seen a player roll that well before it is very rare but it sometimes happens and I say enjoy it. Those of us who roll take a chance on having some real low stats in the hope that one day we might get lucky and roll a really awesome character.




I was one of those players, rolled right in front of the GM. She saw every single one of those natural 10s I was rolling for stats in Mekton.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Yes we are and we are at liberty to call people on it too. I know Broken Druid and  let me tell you she is one of the least judgmental people I know.  Her whole philosophy of life is live and let live.
> 
> But she has one or two buttons that are easy to push one is hypocrisy especially when it looks hidden in a passive aggressive posting style.
> 
> ...




Like I think Umbran said, you both seem to be reading stuff more negatively than intended.

I mean, I don't respect Water Bob's Illusionist GMing style.  I'm more a kill-the-PCs kind of guy; _as GM_ I like the threat to be real. To me, you're both very soft-hearted GMs.  OTOH _as a player _ I suspect I'd very much enjoy both your games.  Is that hypocrisy?  Who cares?


----------



## S'mon (Mar 31, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> And there are ways to minimize these risks.
> 
> You play a character for 11 levels almost a year and half of play. You lose your character in a way that makes it impossible to come back. But it is part of the game you accept it and move on and make a new character.
> 
> ...




This is poor game management by the GM. You should not be sitting out all that time.  And in a high-death game he should have pregens ready for you to play for the rest of that session.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 31, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> Frankly, I hope you understand the word "respect" differently than I do. I find that level of disrespect problematic.




I find your problematising a lack of respect for munchkins to be... problematic. 

I think I'm right that this stuff about "must respect" and "problematic" is taught to US  high school students and college students?  I didn't get any of this back in the day, and any indoctrination efforts in contemporary British schools seem remarkably inefficient.


----------



## chubbyloremaster (Apr 1, 2012)

I wanted so much to see a thread like that in my gaming life. I am so touched Sir, really because you have the courage I didn't had especially today.

I also had a player who said the same thing as you did. I even invented a mechanic for him so as in pulp games he would always survive but it became much worse after that. If you let your player dictate you your game they will want more. Today I ended a long running game due to this player and I feel happy about it.

He was very invested in the character, read all the important books and after months of arguing over stupid rules and problems I decided to give him the reins. He woudl give me the location and some small background and I would designe an adventure from these informations, and it work well with the group. I thought, ALL WENT WELL AT LAST, no worries right? Nope can't do! His small informations became more extensive , more detailed, but even tough I still did it because who cares, player happy, DM happy (I only focus on the story so if the story is good although not directed by me I learned to be happy for what I get from the game). 

Today I did something you most DMs probably would consider a benefit for the game. I had a long running lazy flaw which most DMs have. I described monsters and enviorment with absolute definitions e.g. "You see two ghouls they are staring at you with saliva dripping out of their mouths". Thanks to an online DM I decided to cut this and become more narrative, making the monsters more mysterious. The PCs went to a sealed tomb of a Shadow Daemon which was protected by few lesser shadows. They fight the shadows, breach the door to the final chamber and see that the altar is covered with a long cloak. The cloak starts levitate and shapes into a humanoidal black form with wings and horns (it was dark there so i decided to ommit details like claws and ugly facial expression). The main hero of this story a Paladin uses detect evil and he recived information that he senses a strong aura of evil from this fellow. He uses smite evil and charges him. In pathfinder when a paladin smites evil he gets bonus dmg agains evil creatures and he doubles this bonus if enemies are Evil dragons, undead or  daemons. SO he asks me whether he is an undead or a deamon so he can calculate the dmg. I refuse to tell him that and I calculate the extra dmg in secret saying that the creature received a horrible wound and the shiny sword pushed him back. He then starts arguing that I just broke rules which were used since the very begining and that he demands his right to know whether he did this bonus DMG or not. He distrusts me so much that he refused to just go with it and I orderd the game to a halt and waited for the reply from the paizo forums. When the helpful DMs and Players on that messageboards agreed to my right to do as I did we returned to the game and ended it quite well on a very pleasant note. After that the arguing continued. I was acused of being a control freak that I don't treat the players as equals and my meddling in the system is of an RPG-idiot. The player wanted to provoke me and intimidate me into doing his biding and to stop any future changes or house rules. He quit the game saying that No one will play with me anymore beside people who want to be my thralls.

I only replied "Go ahead Sir Samuel Adams, make your tea if thats what you want."

I forgave him so many times but this will be the last time as he said it himself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2012)

> It wouldn't have mattered if I had a stated character ready to go they were on a small boat and they were the only ones on it so it would have been impossible to add a new character right then and there,




Which is why I said:



> All they need to go is level-appropriate gear and DM intro.
> 
> 3) while I sit out sans PC, I make myself useful by helping the DM run combats. Sometimes I do this when my PC becomes severely incapacitated (stable but in negative HP, turned to stone, etc.).




IOW, I have no expectation of my new PC suddenly appearing mid-adventure like a Romulans Warbird off to starboard.

***



> One could argue anything about D&D along those lines; trolls are unkillable since PCs won't necessarily have access to acid or sufficiently damaging fire. One could claim that a creature with high SR is overpowerful since a party may not have any fighters in it. You said "Barring some HRing", but I think D&D 3 RAW and AAW (adventures as written) assumes that you have a cleric with caster level close to that of the party.




1) Equating scarcity of supplies means trolls are "unkillable" with scarcity making Raise Dead unavailable _in a timely fashion _is a straw man.  If the campaign is set any time post stone age, acquiring fire is just a matter of time- at some point, the party will have access to what they need to kill trolls.  Until they do, though, trolls ARE essentially unkillable.  RD, OTOH, has a built in time limit.  If not cast within a certain number of days, it will not work.

2) Creatures with high-SRs ARE powerful if the casters are unprepared and there are few warriors in the group.  And the more base casting classes there are, the more likely it is that the casters won't be prepared for high-SR foes because not every base casting class has a spell list or inherent flexibility to cover all the potential weaknesses and immunities as may be found in D&D..

3) Party composition has _ZERO_ to do with HRing or AAW in any edition of the game.  Even though 1Ed assumed a mix of the base 4 classes + others, a lot of the games' designs ran campaigns that skewed far from that.  The adventure _Vecna Lives!_ has an intro based on one such campaign- all of the PCs were high-level Wizards.

In sum, these 3 points add up to this: if he's running a premade adventure, it's a DM's job to assess whether the encounter as written is too easy or too hard for the party in front of him (in terms of composition AND current condition), and to adjust as needed.


----------



## TimA (Apr 1, 2012)

On the original topic I would have booted the player right up front for that. 

Just TBH he's probably going to die sooner or later, every character does unless the DM protects them. I dont give PC's plot armor or anything of the sort. I think its silly and detracts from the game. 

So since this guy was going to walk sooner or later anyway I would figure its much less disruptive to just boot him early before building social ties with the group. 

 Sometimes its much easier to head these problems off at the pass rather then waiting until they happen.


----------



## Chimera (Apr 1, 2012)

Without Malice, Irritation or Apology, my answer would be 'no'.

Do you still want to play?

Yes?  Ok, let's rock.  (Just remember this conversation ends here)

No?  Oh well, good luck with your next group.  Hope you find something that works for you.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 1, 2012)

S'mon said:


> Like I think Umbran said, you both seem to be reading stuff more negatively than intended.
> 
> I mean, I don't respect Water Bob's Illusionist GMing style. I'm more a kill-the-PCs kind of guy; _as GM_ I like the threat to be real. To me, you're both very soft-hearted GMs.




Two points:

1 - Am I knot a kill-the-PCs kind of GM if I am _perceived_ by the players as such?  And, isn't the threat just as real if the PCs _perceive_ it to be real and act accordingly?

As I said, my players think me a hard core GM, which I am, in many respects.  They haven't seen behind the curtain the what I showed you above.





2 - I don't what I said above in every situation.  Sometimes, the threat is very real, and I don't have contingency plans.  So, it's pretty much pot luck when I turn on the saftey net and when I turn it off.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 1, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 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."
> 
> ...




Well, your entire premise for this thread is telling a player that he cannot play a certain way in your game.  How is that not enforcing your personal preference on someone else.  After all, if you weren't the DM, we wouldn't be having this conversation since, as a fellow player, telling someone they couldn't play in a campaign because they had a different play style would be laughed at.

And, throughout this thread, people have been falling over themselves to congratulate you in keeping this self-entitled player down.  Since, after all, telling the DM what your playstyle preferences are is apparently self-entitlement.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2012)

> Well, your entire premise for this thread is telling a player that he cannot play a certain way in your game. How is that not enforcing your personal preference on someone else.




That is setting up the game's parameters- the DM's job & prerogative.  Every DM does it to some degree.  Every DM, no matter how permissive, has something he will not allow in a given campaign.

He is _not_ saying he'd raise a fuss if the situation were reversed.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 1, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> 1 - Am I knot a kill-the-PCs kind of GM if I am _perceived_ by the players as such?  And, isn't the threat just as real if the PCs _perceive_ it to be real and act accordingly?



It's not the same thing at all. You're denying them certain story arcs (character death, being caught by the undead, etc.) if you save them with things like an amulet that magically becomes useful in "this" scenario.



Water Bob said:


> As I said, my players think me a hard core GM, which I am, in many respects.  They haven't seen behind the curtain the what I showed you above.



That's the "illusionism" that S'mon mentioned. It's been talked about at some length on these boards. As always, play what you like


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 1, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is setting up the game's parameters- the DM's job & prerogative. Every DM does it to some degree. Every DM, no matter how permissive, has something he will not allow in a given campaign.
> 
> He is _not_ saying he'd raise a fuss if the situation were reversed.




Yep.  What he said.







JamesonCourage said:


> It's not the same thing at all. You're denying them certain story arcs (character death, being caught by the undead, etc.) if you save them with things like an amulet that magically becomes useful in "this" scenario.




If the players never detect me doing that, and they perceive the game as very deadly, then I fail to see the difference from the players point of view.

But, yes, I probably am an "illusionist" DM.  I play with a lot of smoke and mirrors.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 1, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> If the players never detect me doing that, and they perceive the game as very deadly, then I fail to see the difference from the players point of view.



I do. Then again, I'd probably pick up on it. But, by not letting them die as easily, you're essentially exchanging one type of story arc for another. That is, they'll get the "this magic item does this awesome thing!" arc instead of "you lost a member who had to get left behind, or the whole party would have died!" arc.

I personally like both, but I like when it unfolds naturally. That is, the item does that thing, and when it comes up, you get the "awesome magic item!" story arc. Later on, someone might need to be left behind (where they may get to make a dramatic stand, try to divert them, or just RP some cool cowardly actions), giving you the "member left behind!" arc as well.

Essentially, by protecting the players, you're denying story arcs to them. You're okay with them dying in other ways, obviously, but certain things they may like experiencing they'll never get to because of the behind-the-scenes changes you make.

Additionally, I'm not one to lie to my players about gaming style. If my group thinks their lives are on the line because I tell them from a meta standpoint (player to player) that it's the way I play, then I'm going to run the game that way. If I say, "I'm a hardcore GM, so be careful when you make decisions; and remember, every combat is dangerous in this game, and I don't pull punches!" then I mean it. I won't pull punches, and I will kill people without hesitation. I will sympathize with them, but I won't essentially lie to them about my gaming style, getting them to buy into a game that I'm not running.

For me, if a GM told me those things and I noticed him fudging or using some deus ex machina techniques to save us, I'd feel tricked, and disappointed; it's not what I signed up for. We're all adults, there's no reason to essentially mislead me about the type of game I'm playing. I know what I like, so please, just tell me what type of game you're running, so I know whether or not I want to invest myself in it.

That's essentially the difference that you don't see. It's kind of disrespectful to me. Other people expect that, I guess, and it's not. But that's the problem a lot of people have with it.



Water Bob said:


> But, yes, I probably am an "illusionist" DM.  I play with a lot of smoke and mirrors.



It sounds like it. So does my brother, and he's a blast to play with (next to me, he's my players' favorite GM). As always, play what you like


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 1, 2012)

A gentle reminder to stay polite, and a thank you to everyone who has worked hard to do so and who has avoided personal attacks. Keep that up.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 1, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is setting up the game's parameters- the DM's job & prerogative.  Every DM does it to some degree.  Every DM, no matter how permissive, has something he will not allow in a given campaign.
> 
> He is _not_ saying he'd raise a fuss if the situation were reversed.




What difference does it make if he'd raise a fuss or not if the situation were reversed?  

Sure, it's every DM's prerogative to establish a game's parameters.  But, throughout this thread, people have been patting him on the back for not just establishing the parameters, but outright belittling and attacking a playstyle that he doesn't share.  You can go back through the thread but, it's there is pretty clear black and white.

It's not, "No thanks, that's not to my taste" it's "Look at my stupid player who thinks that we should play Little League D&D where everyone gets a trophy BWAHAHAHAAHA!"

I mean, good grief.  The player steps up and tells the DM that he has every intention of spending a great deal of effort on a character, presumably making the character fit into the setting, engaging with both the situations in the campaign and with the knobs and dials of the campaign itself and really immersing himself in the campaign.  In return, he wants to know that his character isn't going to die and all that effort be wasted.  

Is that really such a bad thing?  Really?  This player just stepped up to be the DM's absolutist best friend, presuming that he's on the up and up and not a prat.  He's going to be the go to guy for every plot hook, every bit of needed campaign color and whatnot.  Why?  Because he's going to spend the effort to be that guy.  

But, no, apparently the only joy that can be had from an RPG is when the DM can kill a PC.  Take away that, and you might as well not even play anymore.    Are DM's really that uncreative that the only real consequence in your game is PC death?  Is the only thing that your players care about is their single PC and nothing else?

Hey, I have no problems playing either way.  You want a meat grinder DM?  I can do that.  You want a more story focused game where the revelations of the story are the reward?  I can do that too.  I'm pretty easy.

I'd much, much rather have happy players than try to brow beat people for not sharing my own idiosyncratic needs in a game.


----------



## Janx (Apr 1, 2012)

Water Bob said:


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




I think this here's an important concept.  Not just WB's protectionist part, but the idea that the players THINK their PC can die.

As with my point to [MENTION=28373]Broken Druid[/MENTION] about how I might act if I think my PC cannot die, behavior is altered with the reverse.

Whether your game is lethal or not, if you THINK your PC is in danger and you care about that PC, you will make decisions that are decidedly different than if you think your PC has plot immunity and is in no danger.

As an aside, [MENTION=6681181]chubbyloremaster[/MENTION]'s story is the extreme case where agreeing to player wishlisting became a slippery slope of the player deciding more and more of the game conditions.

Let's use another crappy analogy: Food service

You have a right to good service at the restaurant
you have a right to be sold what's on ther menu and know it's nutritional facts
You don't have a right to insist that Chic'Fila serve you a hamburger on a Sunday.
You don't have a right to know the recipe to their secret sauce (though I'm not sure how that meshes with knowing the nutitrional facts, but that's why analogies fail)

How's that map to D&D, by the numbers:

The GM shouldn't be abusive to his players and should consider their preferences when running the gamee
The GM shouldn't bait-n-switch his game, be straightforward on what the game is and isn't and let the player decide
The GM is the scarce commodity who puts in more time and effort to give his product away.  He who cares less holds the power, and the GM can always find more players, a player cannot always find more GMs.  The GM gets to run what the GM wants to run.  Players are free to shop around.
The GM has to hold secrets in order to build suspense.  If you're player can't know it, your DM don't have to show it.

I know from past threads that JamesonCourage disagrees with #3.  However, if he and his brother stopped supplying, the players would likely have no comparable replacement because good GMs are hard to find.  There is no reason Jameson should settle to run something he doesn't want to because he should be able to more easily find players who will accept his terms, than players who expect a GM to accept theirs.

the guys at Chic'Fila don't open on Sundays and they only sell chicken.  That is what they want to do.  Unless their product is so distasteful that nobody shows up, they not only have the right to do so, they have the authority to do so in the walls of their establishment. That authority is granted them by virtue of them doing all the work to create the restaurant with a desirable product and people showing up wanting it.

Now WB's got a guy who's complaining that Chic'Fila ain't open on Sundays.  WB's only got 2 players.  I suppose he's got to wonder, maybe he should open on Sundays, just so he can retain the customer.  Or he could advertise more and attract other customers who are happy with his product.

It isn't a simple situation.  But it's always the GM's call on what to do.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 1, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I personally like both, but I like when it unfolds naturally.




That's the key.  If my "illusionism" doesn't flow naturally and believeably, then I default to BURN 'EM UP, KILL, KILL, KILLL!!!

No, seriously.  I do default to a, "Well, dem's the breaks," type mentality where, if you die, you die.  But, I will work with a player and try to think of everything "legal" that he can do to save his character's arse.

But, in the end, if the character is dead.  He's kaput.  No go.   up.  Pushin' up daises.  Feedin' the worms.  Etc.







> Essentially, by protecting the players, you're denying story arcs to them. You're okay with them dying in other ways, obviously, but certain things they may like experiencing they'll never get to because of the behind-the-scenes changes you make.




Explain this to me again....  







> If my group thinks their lives are on the line because I tell them from a meta standpoint (player to player) that it's the way I play, then I'm going to run the game that way.




I lie to my players all the time using Meta-Game information.  But, my players don't think I'm a liar--I don't draw attention to it.

I even started a thread about this not too long ago.  Meta-game lying can be a tremendous tool for the GM if you use it sparingly and the players would normally think that you wouldn't lie to them.





*META-GAME LYING*

I'm about to do it again in one of our upcoming game sessions.  Remember the necklace I spoke about on this thread earlier?  Well, the PCs also found a matching breastplate and battleaxe to go with it.

There's an old crone that lives in the village with the PCs.  The villagers look to the old blind bat as an Oracle.  Cimmerians are very superstitious, and she's been living with the clan for what some say has been one hundred years.  The villagers shun her and give her the evil eye.  Nobody in town will even allow their bed to face in the direction of her hut--an old ramshackle thing that is not even allowed to be in the village proper, but instead lies exactly 100 feet outside of town.

When Cimmerians need answers to questions that they can't find themselves, though, the villagers all of a sudden find the strength to overcome their fear of the old hag, approach her, and ask her questions about things.  

I expect that the players will, when they get back to the village, approach Rutcrana (the crone) with questions about what they've found (maybe after asking their clansmen in the village--which they will find out some but little information).

As a GM,  I want to play out this relationship between the Cimmerian player characters and the strange, wierd old hag.

The players themselves are, of course, not afraid at all of Rutcrana.  When there's no real threat to the characters, sometimes that's hard to play (Or, forgotten--the players will be more focussed on getting the information, I bet, than remembering to roleplay correctly at this part of the game).

Now, as GM, I'll remind them that their characters are trepidatious of Rutcrana, but to _enhance_ that, I'm going to lie to them using Meta-game info.

So, when we play out the scene where the PCs ask Rutcrana about the breastplate, shield, and necklace, I'm going to roleplay the NPC by having her caution, "Be careful what you want to know.  Most answers, as with most things in life, come with a price.  Are you willing to pay the price?"

Then, using Meta-Game information to enhance the situation, I will tell the players that this may mean that, in order to cast the spell that they need, they may have to sacrifice some experience points.  Sorcerery is a bastardization of nature, and when it is warped so, nature demands a price.

Now the spell doesn't really require XP.  This is just a device I'm going to use to put some perceived danger on the PCs to represent the real danger and fear that their Cimmerian characters will be feeling.

The characters have to overcome their superstition and fear of the situation, so I'll give the players a tangible obstacle to overcome.

The decision is, of course, up to the players.  It is my job to make them understand the stakes from their characters' point of view.








> If I say, "I'm a hardcore GM, so be careful when you make decisions; and remember, every combat is dangerous in this game, and I don't pull punches!" then I mean it.




Just to be clear, I never, ever, never, ever, never fudge dice throws in front of or behind the screen.  I just never do it.

So, even though I will keep "hooks" in the game as contingency plans, I won't change an attack roll or a damage roll to either help or hinder the players.

I just don't like using that tool.

And, I find that, because I never do fudge, the players tend to trust me more (if they only knew about the Meta-Game lying!).





CONTINGENCY PLANS

Also, remember, that I don't always have contingency plans.  In fact, most of the time, I don't.  Typically, I'll set up a contingency plan when I think the scenario I've set up is a bit tough.  I feel that I can set up an encounter that I think is maybe a bit too much for the characters at their level.  If the players prevail, they're true heroes, and I reward them lavishly.  If the players don't succeed, I have the contingency plan ready because I feel like I might have set them up to fail.  

So, with the contingency plan, I really set them up to succeed.  If they suceed in the scenario, they've gone beyond the call of duty.  If they don't, I've got the contingency plan.

On most situations, I create encounters that I think are fair.  This is 90% of the time.  And for those, there are no contingency plans.







Hussar said:


> It's not, "No thanks, that's not to my taste" it's "Look at my stupid player who thinks that we should play Little League D&D where everyone gets a trophy BWAHAHAHAAHA!"
> 
> I mean, good grief.




Dude, I don't agree with everything you've said, but I've got to hand it to you--you wrote a good post with a strong point.  







> The player steps up and tells the DM that he has every intention of spending a great deal of effort on a character, presumably making the character fit into the setting, engaging with both the situations in the campaign and with the knobs and dials of the campaign itself and really immersing himself in the campaign. In return, he wants to know that his character isn't going to die and all that effort be wasted.
> 
> Is that really such a bad thing? Really?





But....let's look at this from a different angle.

Me, as GM, as spent--I bet more than ten times the amount of time on the game than the player.  Tons of work I've put into creating NPCs, scenarios, history and lore, maps, learning rules, and creating a game that I think the player would like to play...

We might even call it 100 times the time...maybe more.

And, it's not a BAD THING to throw all of that away just because a player got stupid and lost his character?

Yeah, I'd call what the player is doing a BAD THING.  Absolutely.







Janx said:


> Now WB's got a guy who's complaining that Chic'Fila ain't open on Sundays. WB's only got 2 players. I suppose he's got to wonder, maybe he should open on Sundays, just so he can retain the customer. Or he could advertise more and attract other customers who are happy with his product.
> 
> It isn't a simple situation. But it's always the GM's call on what to do.




I actually have three other players who have expressed interest in my campaign...I'm just...._picky_....about who I'm gaming with these days.

I may allow some new blood, especially in light of the player in question on this thread.

I'm debating it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> What difference does it make if he'd raise a fuss or not if the situation were reversed?




Because that makes it clear he is not trying to impose his preference on others, he is just setting the parameters for the game he is running.



> Sure, it's every DM's prerogative to establish a game's parameters.  But, throughout this thread, people have been patting him on the back for not just establishing the parameters, but outright belittling and attacking a playstyle that he doesn't share.  You can go back through the thread but, it's there is pretty clear black and white.
> 
> It's not, "No thanks, that's not to my taste" it's "Look at my stupid player who thinks that we should play Little League D&D where everyone gets a trophy BWAHAHAHAAHA!"




What has happened in this thread is irrelevant, since he did not (as far as we know) express into the player in that way.  He did not verbally demean the player and his playstyle- just told him that it wasn't going to fly in his campaign.



> I mean, good grief.  The player steps up and tells the DM that he has every intention of spending a great deal of effort on a character, presumably making the character fit into the setting, engaging with both the situations in the campaign and with the knobs and dials of the campaign itself and really immersing himself in the campaign.  In return, he wants to know that his character isn't going to die and all that effort be wasted.



Communication is good.



> Is that really such a bad thing?  Really?  This player just stepped up to be the DM's absolutist best friend, presuming that he's on the up and up and not a prat.  He's going to be the go to guy for every plot hook, every bit of needed campaign color and whatnot.  Why?  Because he's going to spend the effort to be that guy.



Just like the DM is spending his precious time and so forth, right?



> But, no, apparently the only joy that can be had from an RPG is when the DM can kill a PC.  Take away that, and you might as well not even play anymore.    Are DM's really that uncreative that the only real consequence in your game is PC death?  Is the only thing that your players care about is their single PC and nothing else?



Dude, that's like a straw man going down the slopes at Aspen on hyperboskis!

No one has suggested that the only joy on the other side of the screen is found in slaughtering carefully crafted PCs.  And as far as I can see, the only people who have suggested that the choice between including PC death and other real consequences is a binary one are the people who want their PCs to be effectively immortals.  *News flash: it's not a binary choice.*

The prospective player asked for treatment different from the treatment other players in an ongoing game were getting.  For a lot of us, that's a non-starter.  If, perhaps, this suggestion came up before the campaign started, perhaps the reaction would have been different.

Furthermore, the prospective player made the granting of request a condition of his joining the game.  In the best light, it makes it clear that person has strong feelings about his playstyle and probably wouldn't fit in the game in the long run.  In the worst, it's rude.

If I were to ask to join my Church's noon mass band & choir- which is essentially folk/rock/jazz/gospel- my request to add some metal to the mix as a condition of my participation could fairly and politely be dismissed as a "nevahgonnahapen" thing..._without_ it being a case of the choir director being a mean person who wants everyone to listen to only folk/rock/jazz/gospel.  It is my job as the new guy to try to fit in, not shake things up, until I've earned the right to do so.

To put it a different way, I was involved with a similar situation a while ago when I was running my Supers 1900 game.  A new guy joined the group mid campaign, and *I failed to inform him* that it was essentially a "4 Color/Golden Age" game, not dark & gritty.  Initially, his PC seemed to fit in, but in his first major combat, his PC was slaughtering foes left and right- bloodthirsty heroes were not part of the setting's base assumptions.

It was disruptive to everybody else's enjoyment, and even though I stanched the bleeding, as it were, he didn't care for the way I did it.  He never returned.

The thing is, I- nor anyone else in the group- had a problem with his play per se.  It just didn't fit in that campaign.  If he'd been willing to dial down his PC from bloodthirsty killer to violent maniac, he'd have fit in just fine.



> Hey, I have no problems playing either way.  You want a meat grinder DM?  I can do that.  You want a more story focused game where the revelations of the story are the reward?  I can do that too.  I'm pretty easy.



From the latest replies, it seems the OP feels likewise, further reinforcing my perception that he is not forcing his views on anyone.



> I'd much, much rather have happy players than try to brow beat people for not sharing my own idiosyncratic needs in a game.



Saying "No" is different from browbeating.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 1, 2012)

Janx said:


> [*]The GM is the scarce commodity who puts in more time and effort to give his product away.  He who cares less holds the power, and the GM can always find more players, a player cannot always find more GMs.  The GM gets to run what the GM wants to run.  Players are free to shop around.
> 
> I know from past threads that JamesonCourage disagrees with #3.  However, if he and his brother stopped supplying, the players would likely have no comparable replacement because good GMs are hard to find.  There is no reason Jameson should settle to run something he doesn't want to because he should be able to more easily find players who will accept his terms, than players who expect a GM to accept theirs.



I, um, agree with your point. Hussar doesn't, I think. But, to me, the GM gets the ultimate say on their game, and they should only run a game they enjoy. They should work with the players inside of the parameters that fit themselves best. So, yeah... I agree with you. Love it when that happens. As always, play what you like 



Water Bob said:


> Explain this to me again....



Okay, I'll try to be more clear...

Okay, let's take your example of the PCs being chased by 5 undead and a demon. You're making them roll endurance checks, they're jogging on for eight hours trying to escape, they're injured at 2 HP and 6 HP, etc. The tension is high, and they think they're most likely going to die based on how you've told them you run the game.

However, you know that if they're going to die, you're going to magically make the amulet magical, and it's going to save them. No, you didn't need to use it, but that was the contingency plan. The backup plan. You were planning on saving them if necessary.

By doing so, you're going to deny them other possible naturally unfolding storylines. For example, say one PC makes his endurance check and another doesn't: now, you have one PC who can continue going, leaving the other PC behind. Do they go for this option? Will they adopt a "why should both of us die?" attitude, or will they adopt a "live together, die together" attitude? Will the guy who failed his check courageously urge his brother on so he'll live, or beg him to stay because he's afraid of dying after all they've gone through?

If both fail, do they stand their ground together? Do they split up in hopes of losing them or hiding separately? Does one brother walk on, looking for a place to hide, while the other charges into the undead in an attempt to stall?

These storylines would be denied to your players. And that's too bad, because they can be pretty damn cool. In essence, this is what I mean by denying storylines. You'd be exchanging their likely "loss" for a "awesome magic item!" moment. If everything is on the up and up and there's no fudging (even if it's not dice fudging), you can see either storyline unfold naturally.

For example, let's say that the amulet is magical, for sure, and it works to protect against undead. Then, let's say that one PC fails his endurance check, and can't continue on with his brother. He throws the clan's amulet to the other brother and shouts at him to run, and you inwardly wince, knowing that he threw away his best chance to live. The other brother continues to run, while the one who failed his check waits for the undead, chucks his spear at one, and starts leading them in a different direction. You might end up with a dead PC, but he could go out sacrificing his life for his brother, and it might be really cool. You're denying them that storyline.



Water Bob said:


> I lie to my players all the time using Meta-Game information.  But, my players don't think I'm a liar--I don't draw attention to it.



And, while there's nothing wrong with the way you're running the game, I'd feel a little cheated if I caught on to what you were doing, or if I ever found out (even afterwards). I mean, I'd still have fun, but the game wasn't how you told me it was.

Take the example above of one brother failing his check and the other fleeing with the amulet: by not letting this scene unfold naturally, you're essentially stealing this from your players, who are assuming you won't be pulling any punches based on your professed style of game.

It's just misleading other adults. I don't think I'd do it to my friends, since I think it's only fair to tell them, as other adults, how I'm going to run my game. This is their free time, too, and I don't want them to feel cheated, or lied to. And, even if they never find out, I don't want to cheat or lie to them.



Water Bob said:


> I even started a thread about this not too long ago.  Meta-game lying can be a tremendous tool for the GM if you use it sparingly and the players would normally think that you wouldn't lie to them.



Yep. I have the same reservations about this approach, too.



Water Bob said:


> Now, as GM, I'll remind them that their characters are trepidatious of Rutcrana, but to _enhance_ that, I'm going to lie to them using Meta-game info.
> 
> Then, using Meta-Game information to enhance the situation, I will tell the players that this may mean that, in order to cast the spell that they need, they may have to sacrifice some experience points.
> 
> Now the spell doesn't really require XP.  This is just a device I'm going to use to put some perceived danger on the PCs to represent the real danger and fear that their Cimmerian characters will be feeling.



To me, this isn't lying to them. You're telling them something about magic in the campaign: it costs something. This isn't broadly lying to them, it's informing them. If you said "this will cost experience points" then it'd be lying to them. If you're reminding them "remember, this is Conan's world, where magic is costly; with a spell like this, you're probably going to lose experience points", then I'd say you're just reinforcing the setting, not actually lying to them.



Water Bob said:


> And, I find that, because I never do fudge, the players tend to trust me more (if they only knew about the Meta-Game lying!).



I consider both to be "fudging" so, when you say "I never do fudge", it can be misleading. It's a definition issue. You never fudge dice. You do fudge outcomes. If you purposefully gave the impression to the players that their lives are dangerous because you never fudge dice, that's fine. You don't fudge dice, and there's no lie there. If you knowingly trick them into thinking you're not fudging behind the scenes (when you actually are), that's the part I wouldn't do, personally. It's lying to people about what game they're playing, in my opinion, and I don't want to do that.



Water Bob said:


> On most situations, I create encounters that I think are fair.  This is 90% of the time.  And for those, there are no contingency plans.



This is also a difference between us; I don't craft scenarios with the goal of the PCs triumphing in mind. I have a setting, and I have "this is what is most likely to be here" as the norm, and I have random rolls to determine what else is going on or what might be different right now (based on probability... that is, it's extremely unlikely that there are no guards on the walls of the city).

So, that's probably another disconnect.



Water Bob said:


> I actually have three other players who have expressed interest in my campaign...I'm just...._picky_....about who I'm gaming with these days.
> 
> I may allow some new blood, especially in light of the player in question on this thread.
> 
> I'm debating it.



Yeah. I've got five guys right now (it will be six when college relaxes soon for one guy, though he has his first kid on the way). I have a couple people who are interested. I'm very picky. I've had others join that I've eventually kicked out. If things didn't work out with my current players, I'd transition them out, too. The two newest guys are the most incompatible, but they fit well enough.

But, in my opinion, don't let any new players in if it means running a game in a way you don't like. That's not to say you have to run it the same as you are now; just, don't run the game if it's not exciting to think about outside of game. If your creative juices aren't flowing, if you don't get satisfaction making NPCs and looking at maps and putting in details here and there, it's probably not going to be worth it for you in the long run. As always, play what you like


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 2, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> For example, let's say that the amulet is magical, for sure, and it works to protect against undead. Then, let's say that one PC fails his endurance check, and can't continue on with his brother. He throws the clan's amulet to the other brother and shouts at him to run, and you inwardly wince, knowing that he threw away his best chance to live. The other brother continues to run, while the one who failed his check waits for the undead, chucks his spear at one, and starts leading them in a different direction. You might end up with a dead PC, but he could go out sacrificing his life for his brother, and it might be really cool. You're denying them that storyline.




That actually almost DID happen in my game!  And, I was prepared to let it happen.  In fact, this particular scene is exactly what prompted the player in the OP to say what he did.

It was the other player who had 2 HP, and he didn't think that the two of them were going to make it.  Just as you say, he heroically decided to stand his ground and buy his brother (the player in the OP) and the little girl they'd rescued, some time to disappear in the thunderstorm.

This was discussed for a moment, but the player in the OP gave him a speech and told the other player not to give up.

They didn't, and I wrote earlier what happened from there.

Since that almost happened in my game, I'm not really sure about your concept of denying them storylines.  Exactly what you use as an example did almost happen.

So...I'm afraid I still don't understand your point on this.







> And, while there's nothing wrong with the way you're running the game, I'd feel a little cheated if I caught on to what you were doing, or if I ever found out (even afterwards). I mean, I'd still have fun, but the game wasn't how you told me it was.




Interesting.  From time to time, over the years, I've let on, here and there, with some players about things like this.  I never heard a negative word about it.  In fact, the few times I let the cat out of the bag (I usually keep it quite closed), I was slapped on the back for a job well done--the player really feeling the feelings his character experienced, usually because of a Meta-game trick or lie.






> You never fudge dice. You do fudge outcomes.




Never.  And, sometimes.

I've had a lot of success with the Meta-game lying bit, as well.






> This is also a difference between us; I don't craft scenarios with the goal of the PCs triumphing in mind.




I semi-sorta do that, too.  Depends on the situation.

I mean, for the campaign's first big quest, the PCs are chasing the missing girl, right?  These are 15 and 16 year olds, not yet recognized as adult warriors by the clan.

What would you do for them?

I had them take on a cave full of enemy bad guy clan cult recruits--kinda like the Hitler Youth program for the bad guys in my game.

How would you have handled a game with two 1st level PCs?


----------



## prosfilaes (Apr 2, 2012)

Whatever the value of death in RPGs in the abstract, I'd much rather play in a game with no death but concrete and immediate consequences of failure, then in a game where most of the time deaths will be prevented by the DM and there are no consequences for failure in those cases. The latter feels much more like giving out trophies to everyone.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2012)

Water Bob said:
			
		

> And, it's not a BAD THING to throw all of that away just because a player got stupid and lost his character?
> 
> Yeah, I'd call what the player is doing a BAD THING. Absolutely.




Why are you throwing it all away?  The absolute worst case scenario is one player up and leaves.  You can always get more players.  If you insist that the campaign continues, then, no worries.  

Would you rather he DIDN'T tell you up front and just left?

As far as the 100x work, well, DMing styles obviously differ here.  I see where the major issue is going to lie.  I don't do that much work as a DM.  And I certainly don't see how the work that I do do makes the players beholden to me in any way, shape or form.

My work starts when the players tell me what they want.  Having a player that's actually that committed to a particular concept?  I'd kill for this player.  It's great to have players that will actually spend time away from the table working on their character.  Heck, I'd be dumping off loads of campaign work onto this guy, just to save me the effort.

"Oh, you want to be from this kingdom?  What do you think about this kingdom?  What's it like there... Oh, hey, would you mind putting something together and emailing it to me?  Yeah, great."

Dedicated players - the DM's GREATEST resource.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 2, 2012)

> Dedicated players - the DM's GREATEST resource.




Hmmm...I'm thinking that 100% of DMs would agree to that!


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 2, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> Since that almost happened in my game, I'm not really sure about your concept of denying them storylines.  Exactly what you use as an example did almost happen.
> 
> So...I'm afraid I still don't understand your point on this.



If he did stand his ground, and you did intervene with a backup plan or contingency, you'd be exchanging one story arc for another. That's fine in  one set of games, but not in another. It's fine when I expect it (as with my brother's games), and not when I don't expect it (players who play my game).



Water Bob said:


> Interesting.  From time to time, over the years, I've let on, here and there, with some players about things like this.  I never heard a negative word about it.  In fact, the few times I let the cat out of the bag (I usually keep it quite closed), I was slapped on the back for a job well done--the player really feeling the feelings his character experienced, usually because of a Meta-game trick or lie.



Whereas my players take great pride in knowing that they "earned" each and every bit of each and every victory they ever won. If they later found out "I fudged this part to keep the game going" then that victory would feel a little hollow to them. It's just a taste thing.



Water Bob said:


> Never.  And, sometimes.
> 
> I've had a lot of success with the Meta-game lying bit, as well.



No doubt. My brother puts on the front of "you coulda died there!" when we know that we lived because the evil magician betrayed the bad guys mid-fight (when we started losing). We're used to it from him, and we play the game knowing it'll happen. As I said, though, while it's tons of fun for all of us, my players prefer my game to his. I think the concept of "earning" each victory -and the real world feeling of pride- has a lot to do with it.



Water Bob said:


> I semi-sorta do that, too.  Depends on the situation.
> 
> I mean, for the campaign's first big quest, the PCs are chasing the missing girl, right?  These are 15 and 16 year olds, not yet recognized as adult warriors by the clan.
> 
> What would you do for them?



I wouldn't have a "first big quest" personally. I play it pretty much straight sandbox. Whatever they want to look into, they can (with varying degrees of success). I don't use adventure paths or modules, I don't craft adventure plots, or the like.



Water Bob said:


> How would you have handled a game with two 1st level PCs?



I'd let them look into whatever they wanted to. If they heard about some political intrigue, they can try to insert themselves. If they hear about the dozen and a half cave beasts harassing or killing slaves in the north, they can look into it. If they want to explore the Serpantlands in search of a big carcass to bring back, they can look into it. If they want to start up a fishing company, I'm actually cool with that, too.

It's really up to them. My players would make the call, not me. They'd probably look into people teaching them, as of that level. They're decidedly below the average hit die in the setting (which is about hit die 4), so they'd likely look for strong mentors who they could suck up to for protection/teachings. As always, play what you like


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I don't do that much work as a DM.








JamesonCourage said:


> I wouldn't have a "first big quest" personally. I play it pretty much straight sandbox. Whatever they want to look into, they can (with varying degrees of success). I don't use adventure paths or modules, I don't craft adventure plots, or the like.




Well, both of you must be much better at ad-libbing than I am. Plus, I'm learning a new rule set. I bet you've been playing your games for years with the same rules.

Preparation is the key to a great game session in my games.

And, I tend to be very story-oriented. Making up cool, convincing stories takes time. At least, it takes me a lot of time.

Creating the sandbox is a real job. I do think that published adventures and APs are easier to GM...they take me a lot less time. Editing is always easier for me than creating.

As I get more familiar with the game system, I'm sure I'll be more comfortable ad-libbing impromptu encounters.

As it stands now, I usually go into a game with a pre-set order of encounters that I think will happen.  Now, many times, the players do not go or do what I had planned.  And, that's good.  I like that.  Keeps me from becoming bored.  As for the work, I just recycle it--I don't like to waste prep effort.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 2, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> Well, both of you must be much better at ad-libbing than I am. Plus, I'm learning a new rule set. I bet you've been playing your games for years with the same rules.



I have some advantages, yeah.

1) I've done it this way since I started GMing, and my brother, who I played under for years beforehand, always did it this way.
2) I made the rules for the system we use.
3) I've not only played with most of the group for years, the majority have been very close friends for 10-13 years.



Water Bob said:


> Creating the sandbox is a real job. I do think that published adventures and APs are easier to GM...they take me a lot less time. Editing is always easier for me than creating.



For me, when I've looked over modules, adventures, or settings, I've always thought it must be so much work to run, as crazy as that sounds. I need to learn NPC names, I need to learn political areas and how they interconnect and interact. I need to learn about the races, maybe their history, etc. There's a lot of learning that needs to be done.

I can make a decent colored map for an entire region in an hour, write up some guidelines on the style of nations, name them all, etc. I'll have it all done within three hours, most likely, and I'll be very familiar with them. I only need to learn it once, too. Any of my preferences are already plugged in. I can make interesting terrain, like passes or straits, not to mention firelands, enchanted or haunted forests, etc.

I realize you said you can just edit these things, but I can simply name an area "the serpantlands" and there's an expectation there as to what you'll find. The same for the place on the map named the Wraith Forest, or the Spider Wastes, or the Cave Hills, or Giant's Green, etc.

It's really easy for me to remember things I make up, rather than things I read about. I don't have to reference books, stat blocks, and the like. I can just follow the God Document (a couple pages of "if someone is _this_ hit die [and here's what hit die means], and they're _this_ invested in a skill set, they're _this_ good). I can even look at a quick NPC template to give me all of this already:[sblock]*Warrior*
_Soldier, mercenary, bandit._
*Str:* P, *Dex:* S, *Con:* S, *Int:* T, *Wis:* T, *Cha:* T
*HP:* Interested, *THP:* Hobby
*Skills:* Assess: Interested, Martial Prowess: Interested, Profession: Interested, Tactics: Interested
*Fort:* Hobby, *Ref:* Hobby, *Will:* Hobby, *Ini:* Hobby
*Melee Attack/Damage:* Professionally Skilled / Professionally Skilled
*Ranged Attack/Damage:* Interested / Interested
*ACvM:* Professionally Skilled, *ACvR:* Professionally Skilled
*CMA:* Professionally Skilled, *CMD:* Professionally Skilled[/sblock]If I plug in hit die 4 (described as "the average settled adult"), I get this: [sblock]*Warrior*
_Soldier, mercenary, bandit._
*Str:* 18, *Dex:* 16, *Con:* 17, *Int:* 11, *Wis:* 10, *Cha:* 10
*HP:* 15, *THP:* 10
*Skills:* Assess: +5, Martial Prowess: +5, Profession (guard [or whatever]): +5, Tactics: +5
*Fort:* +5, *Ref:* +5, *Will:* +5, *Ini:* +3
*Melee Attack/Damage:* Longsword +7 / 1d10+12
*Ranged Attack/Damage:* Heavy Crossbow +5 / 1d8+8
*ACvM:* Longsword +7 / 1d10+12, *ACvR:* 18
*CMA:* +14, *CMD:* +14[/sblock]That's easy to check during combat without writing it up. I just plugged in the numbers. If I think they're fighting an average settled adult warrior, I look at the initiative bonus when we roll for it. When he's attacking, I look at his attack bonus for his hit die. Etc. Makes it _really_ easy to do whatever on the fly.



Water Bob said:


> As I get more familiar with the game system, I'm sure I'll be more comfortable ad-libbing impromptu encounters.



I think that's normal.



Water Bob said:


> As it stands now, I usually go into a game with a pre-set order of encounters that I think will happen.  Now, many times, the players do not go or do what I had planned.  And, that's good.  I like that.  Keeps me from becoming bored.  As for the work, I just recycle it--I don't like to waste prep effort.



I think that many people go for this method when they're running a game. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2012)

Just as a point, I do this regardless of how familiar I am with a system.  I spent the year before last year or so hopping lots of systems and I've now been DMing off and on 4e for the past year.  I am hardly a system devotee.

Like you, I like story based games.  I just like it better when the players hand me the first draft of the story.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 3, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can retell the story of Bear




Good story.  

Just in case you've never heard the Roman story of Horatio at the Bridge:
Horatius Cocles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 3, 2012)

I had not heard that one!  My inspiration were the stories of Roland in the mountain passes and the 300.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 3, 2012)

My Southlands Sword & Sorcery campaign ended last night with a '300' style last stand at the Bisgen Bridge against a thousand ghouls and their Necromancer commander, a Prince of Nerath Restored:

The Southlands Campaign: 4e D&D in the Wilderlands: Southlands Campaign Timeline

_S20 Night Day 44 29/7/4434
Bisgen's defense of the north wall has been led by Gurstang, a Skandik Paladin of Mitra. Parre leads Varek, Eldrin Halfelven, and Gurstang with a force of her veteran Lancers to hold the bridge against the onrushing Ghoul horde. They fight fiercely, but the ghoul horde is hundreds strong and supported by the vampire lord Nexull and by Boritt Crowfinger, whose death magic roots Varek to the spot. First Gurstang falls, then Varek. Then Parre is  overwhelmed.  Eldrin, the last one standing, is on the bridge amidst a sea of ghouls when the masons finish their work and the bridge collapses, sweeping him and several ghouls into the deadly torrent. 
The ghoul horde is trapped on the north side of the river, and Parre has already given the order to abandon the town.  With Tal Lorvas and his Dread Warriors miles to the south pursuing the retreating Altanian barbarians towards the Onslaught Stream the people of Bisgen flee east, screened by their remaining soldiers, towards Winged Ape Clan territory.  The future will be harsh and uncertain for them, but they evade the armies of the dead.  As dawn rises over the eastern mountains, with the noble Rameses now Clan Chief of the Winged Ape it seems likely that many will survive.
Tal Lorvas at last returns to meet his old master, Borritt Crowfinger, in the semi-ruined city of Bisgen.  The new capital of Restored Nerath is now a ghost town, where only the dead walk..._

There was a chance of it going more like Horatio on the bridge at Rome, but the PCs deployed too far forward, allowing the ghoul horde to attack them from three directions instead of just one. It did make for a suitably epic three-hour final battle.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 3, 2012)

S'mon said:


> My Southlands Sword & Sorcery campaign ended last night with a '300' style last stand at the Bisgen Bridge against a thousand ghouls and their Necromancer commander, a Prince of Nerath Restored:




Now, that sounds like my kind of game!


----------



## Zhaleskra (Apr 4, 2012)

Anecdote from the most recent GURPS session I was in (Sunday, April 1). The party is down a hole rooting out giant scorpions that attacked the city. We make waste of the first chamber, follow a tunnel, and encounter the queen and three diggers. Another fight. My character, had only 5 hits after being healed from the previous fight. Takes another hit for 3 damage. Later . . . digger scorpion gets a natural 3 (automatic critical) on Arzuk. My character is at -25 HP, is currently in a coma, and is going to lose his left leg. This will make most of his weapon skills take a -6 penalty and reduce his movement to 2 if he uses a peg leg or crutches.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 4, 2012)

Lots of good stories . . .  bridges and the 300.


----------

