PDA

View Full Version : A PC died, can't be resed anytime soon, and is very pissed.



RPGaddict28
2014-01-05, 02:40 AM
This campaign I'm DMing is only second level and is done all through Roll20 and a VoIP client. This guy's artificer died and while they have his body, they can't get a res because too broke, has no IG reason to, and may not even be able as he is a plane touched. Now, his player is extremely upset, and I haven't been able to talk to him because he logged off of all the ways we talk, and this only happened an hour ago. While the only other expirenced player and I both agree this is part of early levels, and you need to be ok with having a character croaking, I still feel kinda bad about it. I could ressurect him, but at the same time, I don't want the the players thinking they can do whatever the want and get awa with it because the DM will recton their problems away. What should I do?

MonochromeTiger
2014-01-05, 02:51 AM
I'm curious how the character died, if they had a way of avoiding it then really it's their own fault for not using that way when they had so many different points lined up against getting resurrected already. if they had no way of avoiding it then personally I'd say show a bit of sympathy...that said if they throw a tantrum over their character dieing to the point of doing the internet equivalent of storming out they need to rethink how seriously they're taking a game.

RPGaddict28
2014-01-05, 03:01 AM
I'm curious how the character died, if they had a way of avoiding it then really it's their own fault for not using that way when they had so many different points lined up against getting resurrected already. if they had no way of avoiding it then personally I'd say show a bit of sympathy...that said if they throw a tantrum over their character dieing to the point of doing the internet equivalent of storming out they need to rethink how seriously they're taking a game.

A barbarian with Die Hard, Instantenous Rage, Power Attack, and a nasty axe killed him, it was a standard fight, and he didn't think to put himself in a strategic position, i.e. not across from the scary orc. And, if you're wondering how he had 3 feats, I buggered up feat amount, thinking it was 2 at start, then 1 because 3rd level.

MonochromeTiger
2014-01-05, 03:06 AM
A barbarian with Die Hard, Instantenous Rage, Power Attack, and a nasty axe killed him, it was a standard fight, and he didn't think to put himself in a strategic position, i.e. not across from the scary orc. And, if you're wondering how he had 3 feats, I buggered up feat amount, thinking it was 2 at start, then 1 because 3rd level.

axe to the face disease is a common and entirely valid death for adventurers fighting things with class levels.

Rhynn
2014-01-05, 03:08 AM
Player needs to get over it and act like an adult. If someone acted like that after losing a poker game or Monopoly or Call of Duty or whatever, would you want to play with them again?

D&D 3.X is already too easy as is. :smallamused:

The Grue
2014-01-05, 03:08 AM
I'd give him some time to cool off, then talk to him about it.

Meantime, think up a sidequest the party can do to get him resurrected. "I normally can't waive the gold requirement," says the local Cleric, "but I do have a task that needs doing I'm unable to attend myself..."

The Grue
2014-01-05, 03:11 AM
I'd give him some time to cool off, then talk to him about it.

Meantime, think up a sidequest the party can do to get him resurrected. "I normally can't waive the gold requirement," says the local Cleric, "but I do have a task that needs doing I'm unable to attend myself..."

EDIT: Since you're going through Roll20, maybe you can run a short solo session with the player, where he picks up some useful plot info while waiting in line at the pearly gates or something.

I once had a bargain with a DM, whereby if my character died for interesting story reasons we'd do a solo session where he snuck, tricked, conned and fought his way out of Hell.

thamolas
2014-01-05, 03:11 AM
This campaign I'm DMing is only second level and is done all through Roll20 and a VoIP client. This guy's artificer died and while they have his body, they can't get a res because too broke, has no IG reason to, and may not even be able as he is a plane touched. Now, his player is extremely upset, and I haven't been able to talk to him because he logged off of all the ways we talk, and this only happened an hour ago. While the only other expirenced player and I both agree this is part of early levels, and you need to be ok with having a character croaking, I still feel kinda bad about it. I could ressurect him, but at the same time, I don't want the the players thinking they can do whatever the want and get awa with it because the DM will recton their problems away. What should I do?

F* him. If he can't play a grown-up game like a grownup, drop him like a hot rock and be done with him.

BWR
2014-01-05, 03:20 AM
Unless this was the DM blatantly and intentionally messing things up, the PC should remain dead and the player has nothing to complain about.
I can only agree with Rhynn's post - advenntureres die. A lot. This was a perfectly valid way to go, and despite my love for 3.x, it's quite safe compared to some of the older editions of the game. Nothing like starting out the game as a fighter and because of unlucky ability scores and HD rolling, you have 1 hp at first level and die at 0.

Axiomatic
2014-01-05, 04:10 AM
Player needs to get over it and act like an adult. If someone acted like that after losing a poker game or Monopoly or Call of Duty or whatever, would you want to play with them again?No, but if I lost at poker, I would almost immediately be in the next game of poker. I wouldn't have to wait a few weeks until you found a new poker slot for me at the table.

Altair_the_Vexed
2014-01-05, 04:22 AM
How about a new, closely related character, who seeks out the party to bring news to their relative, but then joins them to bring vengeance against those who killed the original PC?

Erik Vale
2014-01-05, 05:36 AM
axe to the face disease is a common and entirely valid death for adventurers fighting things with class levels.

This needs a meme. I need to find me a meme/demotivational.

RochtheCrusher
2014-01-05, 09:03 AM
I'd give him some time to cool off, then talk to him about it.

Meantime, think up a sidequest the party can do to get him resurrected. "I normally can't waive the gold requirement," says the local Cleric, "but I do have a task that needs doing I'm unable to attend myself..."

This is, by far, the best option if he even wants to continue to play. Think up a quest the rest of the party can do, give him a Follower-type character to play, and then let it have a cost.

For example, the combat is really grueling, and there's a good chance of someone getting permanently injured (though not in a way that will ruin the character). Or possibly, depending on the game you want to run, there is a moral difficulty... maybe the follower must die, horribly, for the Artificer to live. Maybe the characters must do something to get what the Cleric wants which the Cleric would not approve of, and now the lie about that hangs over their relationship with him like a dark cloud.

Before you work too hard on this, though, be sure he's coming back at all, and that you want him to.

scsimodem
2014-01-05, 11:23 AM
Sudden character death syndrome is something that happens, and I'll admit that as a new role-player, I was a bit immature over it because I like fiction and grew attached to my characters. I'd cut the guy some slack while still explaining 'this is what sometimes happens.' So, I see 3 options here that are...acceptable.

1. Character stays dead and the guy rolls up a new one - This is probably the easiest one. If you RP a nice funeral, it could work, and it's respectful to the character. If the new one's an artificer, maybe they trained together and he's taking up the mantle of his fallen friend (think of the RP opportunities as the character begins to wonder if he's doing what he does because he wants to or just because he's just trying to take the place of his dead friend).

2. Quest for a res - Let him play a stand-in/hireling/party or character ally until his original gets back. This could be a good plot hook to kick off more story (they find information on the quest that leads to bigger things).

3. Comes back wrong - This is my favorite, but requires...player consent. The group brings him back with powers they don't really understand. Maybe the character is now corrupted in some way: Alignment change, blackouts where a second personality takes over, a metaphysical 'leash' that punishes him for not doing the bidding of whatever rezzed him. Perhaps there are side effects that hamper the party in some way, such as being a bad guy beacon (see the Berserk manga for more on that). You could even go so far as to have a party member (possibly inadvertently) offer his soul to some dark power in exchange for the rez. Now that being is trying to kill him to claim his soul.

Just remember that, as a DM, you should *never* let drama go to waste, and every concession should come with 'story shaped' strings attached.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-05, 11:46 AM
A barbarian with Die Hard, Instantenous Rage, Power Attack, and a nasty axe killed him, it was a standard fight, and he didn't think to put himself in a strategic position, i.e. not across from the scary orc.

>Plays a squishie at level 2
>Gets within range of enemy dps
>Dies

Yeah, your player should suck it up and learn to play better.


I don't want the the players thinking they can do whatever the want and get awa with it because the DM will recton their problems away. What should I do?

I think you should let the PC stay dead. Character death is part of the game, and having characters fail and die sometimes is essential to maintaining a sense of challenge and danger.

tensai_oni
2014-01-05, 12:30 PM
I love the amount of responses in this thread that go "a player is angry that their character got one shotted on an (un)lucky roll and now can't play? SUCK IT UP LOL".

Wait, no. I hate it. You play to have fun. Having your character destroyed because of a single bad roll and then no one can bring you back because "no ingame reason to" is the total opposite of fun.

Also, this is a hobby, not a boot camp. Acting like it's a mature thing to exclude one player from play is a great way to end without any players in the game.

Scsimodem has a good idea. Turn this into a quest opportunity. Or, you know. Play a better system than DnD, one where character death happens as a result of stupidity or a string of terrible rolls, not a single bad one.

1337 b4k4
2014-01-05, 12:51 PM
I love the amount of responses in this thread that go "a player is angry that their character got one shotted on an (un)lucky roll and now can't play? SUCK IT UP LOL".

Wait, no. I hate it. You play to have fun. Having your character destroyed because of a single bad roll and then no one can bring you back because "no ingame reason to" is the total opposite of fun.

Also, this is a hobby, not a boot camp. Acting like it's a mature thing to exclude one player from play is a great way to end without any players in the game.

Scsimodem has a good idea. Turn this into a quest opportunity. Or, you know. Play a better system than DnD, one where character death happens as a result of stupidity or a string of terrible rolls, not a single bad one.

1) death and dying is part of the game. Always has been. Sometimes you have easy and quick access to resurrection, sometimes you don't. You roll up a new character and get on with things.

2) it's not mature to exclude one player from play. No one is suggesting this.

3) Equally, it isn't mature to throw a temper tantrum because you screwed up and died. If you rage quit, you shouldn't have any expectation of being allowed back.

Tavar
2014-01-05, 12:53 PM
RPGaddict28: after he died, what did you and the other players say? I mean, was it basically "well, now you have to wait a few weeks till we can rez/get you back"? Was the option of making another character floated?

In any case, if some thought went into the characters, I can certainly understand him. In his situation, well, at best he's going to be a level behind, and he's out of play for a bit.

The fact that his mistake might not be at all evident without hindsight could also be a problem.


1) death and dying is part of the game. Always has been. Sometimes you have easy and quick access to resurrection, sometimes you don't. You roll up a new character and get on with things.

2) it's not mature to exclude one player from play. No one is suggesting this.

Actually, it might have been suggested. What with the "we won't be able to rez him for some time" stuff.

Tengu_temp
2014-01-05, 01:03 PM
1) death and dying is part of the game. Always has been. Sometimes you have easy and quick access to resurrection, sometimes you don't. You roll up a new character and get on with things.

They're a part of a very oldschool, story-light approach. Many players don't share this approach.


3) Equally, it isn't mature to throw a temper tantrum because you screwed up and died. If you rage quit, you shouldn't have any expectation of being allowed back.

Dying because you screwed up is not the same as dying because the dice screwed you over. Also, cut newbies some slack.

Ansem
2014-01-05, 01:05 PM
There's a druid spell which if you pay the caster for the spell + material component lets you be reincarnated as a random race (might even get some good bonusses, or you end up a gnome...) for 1.180gp, well worth it at low level.

tensai_oni
2014-01-05, 01:12 PM
1) death and dying is part of the game. Always has been. Sometimes you have easy and quick access to resurrection, sometimes you don't. You roll up a new character and get on with things.

I prefer to play story- and character-driven games where you don't just roll a new character when the old one bites the dust. Also characters are more sturdy, at least when permanent character death is concerned. You know, not like DnD. Also see point below.


2) it's not mature to exclude one player from play. No one is suggesting this.

Except that as it was said in the thread several times already, it seems no one wants to resurrect the player and the offer to roll up a new character wasn't even brought up.

An experienced DnD player knows about an opportunity to roll a new character when the old one dies. But we are not talking about an experienced DnD player. We're talking about a novice. In case you didn't notice, newbies need to be told things before they know them.


3) Equally, it isn't mature to throw a temper tantrum because you screwed up and died. If you rage quit, you shouldn't have any expectation of being allowed back.

Tell me how being the target of an NPC who was min-maxed to cause as much alpha strike damage as possible AND had a good roll is screwing up.

Also, I'd say it's still more mature than replying to a thread like this:

Player needs to get over it and act like an adult.

D&D 3.X is already too easy as is.

F* him.

Yeah, your player should suck it up and learn to play better.

If I played with someone with an attitude like the people quoted, I'd drop the game and never come back.

Thrudd
2014-01-05, 01:16 PM
Also, cut newbies some slack.

Absolutely. Let him write up his new character at level 2 so he is on par with the rest of the party, and have him show up at the beginning of the next session. It was only a level 2 character! He can even make a new character exactly like the last one if he wants, his twin brother or something. It is unreasonable to be upset about a death at such a low level. Since the rest of the party survived, I assume they have recovered any gear of the dead PC, so even if he somehow had some inappropriately powerful treasure, they can give it back to his new character. A goblin with a lucky roll could have done him in, never mind a level 3 barbarian! Them's the breaks. It would be a bad precedent to break the game rules and verisimilitude because of a temper tantrum.

Telonius
2014-01-05, 01:24 PM
Orc Barbarians (particularly with Power Attack) are notorious for being able to one-shot low-level adventurers. Usually when I'm running a campaign with mostly new players, I keep the training wheels on for awhile. I usually shy away from the deadly combat until the players have shown that they can work together tactically. Warrior thugs, kobolds, enemies that are trying to incapacitate rather than kill - that's the sort of thing I throw at brand-new players, until they can either take more than one hit without dying, or learn how combat works.

That's not just because of attachment to their own character, but because filling out a character sheet is a lot of work for a first-timer. I know I can stat up a character in a couple minutes, but when you don't already have a lot of system mastery, it's like filling out a tax form. Sending them up against things that I know have a really good chance of killing them before they understand why they're getting massacred, means I'm not respecting the time and effort they put into it. (The situation is obviously very different for an experienced player; this is for a total newbie).

AMFV
2014-01-05, 01:28 PM
I once had a bargain with a DM, whereby if my character died for interesting story reasons we'd do a solo session where he snuck, tricked, conned and fought his way out of Hell.

Dropping in to point that that is freaking awesome, also an amazing story hook.

Rhynn
2014-01-05, 01:49 PM
No, but if I lost at poker, I would almost immediately be in the next game of poker. I wouldn't have to wait a few weeks until you found a new poker slot for me at the table.

Except if you ran out of money, which is the correct analogy here.

Also, Monopoly, [every game where you don't get right back in], etc.

Flipping the table and storming off when you lose at any game is childish and inappropriate. (Not that "lose" is even the correct term here.)


Except that as it was said in the thread several times already, it seems no one wants to resurrect the player and the offer to roll up a new character wasn't even brought up.

Sweet, you're making up arguments for us now? {{scrubbed}}

Resurrection, creating a new character, etc. is all dependent on the player not ragequitting. Of course those can be done. Why would I even address such obvious options when the OP is already aware of them (having explicitly mentioned resurrection)? The issue here, to me, is a player behaving inappropriately.


I prefer to play story- and character-driven games where you don't just roll a new character when the old one bites the dust. Also characters are more sturdy, at least when permanent character death is concerned. You know, not like DnD.

Sweet. I prefer old-school D&D (ACKS, specifically), where low-level characters' life expectancies are mostly related to the players' cleverness (which generally increases with the players' experience).

I wonder what the OP and the problem player prefer?

Prospekt
2014-01-05, 02:08 PM
I think one of the hardest things for a GM to do is finding that perfect balance of difficulty and fun for a group consisting of experienced players *and* newbies, especially when it's something as complicated as D&D. I know people here think D&D is easy, but that's because the majority of us here are also obsessed with it and can recite all the books from memory, and spend days making sure every last thing is optimized. When you're new and there's all these stats and dice and a gajillion different skills and slots to keep up with, it's so easy to get lost, be unsure of what you're doing, and not always make the smartest moves. Mostly because character building can be really tedious at first and it's not really the most fun thing to do, until you have a good grasp of the system. (Honestly, that's what I love about newbies- being optimized is usually not something they're thinking about- they just want to have fun.)

So regarding this situation, there's nothing to be gained by acting like a **** to him- it doesn't solve anything, really just makes it worse. You can tell him that it is just a game, but also be reassuring in that things can be resolved- whether letting him roll a new character, or having a sidequest for him to get resurrected. Give him time to cool off, and if he logs back in after feeling a bit better from this, just be nice about it- you can tell him he's overreacting and that these things happen, without being a jerk about it; you just have to do it with tact. At the end of the day, D&D is just about everyone having fun. Make sure everyone's enjoying it.

Obviously, if he ends up continuing to have a nasty attitude after you've tried to reach out to him, then it may be safer to boot him, but only as to not to bring down you and the other players.

Edit: Also seriously, the poker and monopoly comparison doesn't really work, because those are both competitive games in which all the players are against each other, and once there's a winner, the game is over- obviously no one would ever win if you could just jump right back in with $1500. But in D&D, when your HP hits -10, typically a GM lets you roll up someone new for the next session, because there's usually several sessions to a campaign.

AMFV
2014-01-05, 02:10 PM
Except if you ran out of money, which is the correct analogy here.

Also, Monopoly, [every game where you don't get right back in], etc.

Monopoly is a poor analogy though, because games don't last for several weeks. This is like losing at monopoly and then having to watch your friends play for several weeks at a time once or twice a week, which is a lot crappier than having to wait several hours while everybody loses.

In fact Poker is the same way, busting in poker (if you aren't playing for real money) does involve waiting for the game to finish, but it'll finish and then you can participate again, in fact it'll finish that same evening.

Knaight
2014-01-05, 02:12 PM
Character death is part of D&D, and the player either needs to accept that or find a system that he likes better. That said, it appears that he is out of the game entirely until the character comes back, which is dubious. There has to be somebody around who could end up with the PCs, and introducing a new character (or even a new temporary character, until the other one is brought back) is not too much to ask.

Rhynn
2014-01-05, 02:24 PM
...

I just said this in another thread, but arguing about the specifics of a metaphor is useless and beside the point. There is no way you failed to grasp my meaning.

But please do explain why you're assuming this player (or any player) is out of the game for several weeks of real time? How is that remark even relevant here? Generally, if a player doesn't have a new character to play by next session, there's something weird going on.

AMFV
2014-01-05, 02:28 PM
I just said this in another thread, but arguing about the specifics of a metaphor is useless and beside the point. There is no way you failed to grasp my meaning.

But please do explain why you're assuming this player (or any player) is out of the game for several weeks of real time? How is that remark even relevant here? Generally, if a player doesn't have a new character to play by next session, there's something weird going on.

That was actually mentioned earlier, but it doesn't appear to be in the OP. I may have fallen prey to not reading thoroughly enough, I assume that the player is attached to his character and will want him resurrected, but I'm not even sure that was in the OP.

I apologize for my misreading of the situation, I guess I had fallen prey to taking some of the other responses and assuming they were actually stated by the OP, so again, I apologize for that misreading.


No, but if I lost at poker, I would almost immediately be in the next game of poker. I wouldn't have to wait a few weeks until you found a new poker slot for me at the table.

That in specific was where I believe I got that interpretation.

If that is the case and they're not where they can work in a new character a solo adventure may be due.

CombatOwl
2014-01-05, 02:31 PM
This campaign I'm DMing is only second level and is done all through Roll20 and a VoIP client. This guy's artificer died and while they have his body, they can't get a res because too broke, has no IG reason to, and may not even be able as he is a plane touched.

Plane touched isn't a problem. Maybe they could do a quest for a church in exchange for the raise dead?


Now, his player is extremely upset, and I haven't been able to talk to him because he logged off of all the ways we talk, and this only happened an hour ago. While the only other expirenced player and I both agree this is part of early levels, and you need to be ok with having a character croaking, I still feel kinda bad about it. I could ressurect him, but at the same time, I don't want the the players thinking they can do whatever the want and get awa with it because the DM will recton their problems away. What should I do?

Personally, I'd let it stand. But I'm also quite in favor of death having meaning when I DM.

RPGaddict28
2014-01-05, 02:38 PM
Should probably bring this up, but I still haven't been in contact with said player since his PC died, he rage quit the second I told him character was dead. Also, he's not a beginner, I just had an English Fail.

I like the Druid spell, because they can probably afford if they pooled money/sold his stuff, and it's easier to convince a druid to do it for free/less.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-05, 02:42 PM
Should probably bring this up, but I still haven't been in contact with said player since his PC died, he rage quit the second I told him character was dead. Also, he's not a beginner, I just had an English Fail.

Did he say anything about it?

CombatOwl
2014-01-05, 02:43 PM
Should probably bring this up, but I still haven't been in contact with said player since his PC died, he rage quit the second I told him character was dead. Also, he's not a beginner, I just had an English Fail.

I like the Druid spell, because they can probably afford if they pooled money/sold his stuff, and it's easier to convince a druid to do it for free/less.

Right. Though remember that unless you DM hand-wave it, the druid still has a fixed material cost that he has to pay for, which accounts for most of the cost of a Reincarnation. You could have the players no on a quest to recover the required unguents if you'd rather not have them pay gold for it.

"You need to go to the nearby forest and recover the Weed of Eternal Power from the Cavern of Ultimate Doom, then grind it in the Sacred Mortar and Pestle of Silvanus found in the back of the cave. Mix well with water, stir three times, and bring it back to me."

Coidzor
2014-01-05, 02:46 PM
>Plays a squishie at level 2
>Gets within range of enemy dps
>Dies

:smallconfused: You well know that a decent hit can take out even the beefiest of 2nd level characters.

Rhynn
2014-01-05, 02:52 PM
:smallconfused: You well know that a decent hit can take out even the beefiest of 2nd level characters.

I had a 5th-level dwarf paladin built to tank taken out by a single lucky greataxe critical from an orc barbarian, once.

It's just a matter of luck, sometimes.

1337 b4k4
2014-01-05, 02:54 PM
They're a part of a very oldschool, story-light approach. Many players don't share this approach.


It's still part of the game. You know, that section of the rules titled Death and Dying? Unless it was established before game that those rules aren't being used, or that they're being changed in some way, a player has no right to get pissed when the rules come into play (provided of course that it happened by the rules). Also, death and dying are just as much a part of story heavy as story light games. It's a load of bull to suggest that just because you have easy death in your games that you don't have heavy story.



Dying because you screwed up is not the same as dying because the dice screwed you over. Also, cut newbies some slack.

If you chose to take actions which lead to dice rolling, the dice didn't screw you over, you did. The probabilities on dice are well understood.


I prefer to play story- and character-driven games where you don't just roll a new character when the old one bites the dust. Also characters are more sturdy, at least when permanent character death is concerned. You know, not like DnD. Also see point below.

See point above. Character Death != no story, no character development. I mean, death has been a part of stories FOREVER. Seriously, as long as stories have been told, people have been dying in those stories. And not just nameless mooks, but real heroes and characters. For an obvious D&D reference, try Sturm Brightblade. For a few others, how about Obi Wan Kenobi? Yoda? Han Solo? Spock? Tasha Yar? Hoban "Wash" Washburne (or for that matter, any Joss Whedon character)? Colonel Blake (MASH)? Major Hughes (Full Metal Alchemist)? Heck, there's an entire set (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathTropes) of TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheHeroDies) dedicated to this very idea (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnyoneCanDie). Point is, character death is neither the end of the story, nor (and especially so in D&D) is it the end of the character's story (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ResurrectionTropes). Death is only permanent if you want it to be when it comes to fiction.



Except that as it was said in the thread several times already, it seems no one wants to resurrect the player and the offer to roll up a new character wasn't even brought up.

No it was said they didn't have a way to resurrect the character, not that no one was willing. And nothing was said about no one allowing the player to roll up a new character. It's bad form to assume the worst about other people when you don't have any knowledge one way or the other. Presumably you don't know the OP, or the other players, so assuming they're just a bunch of ***** who wouldn't let the player roll up another one just because the OP didn't say anything about it is a rather nasty assumption.



An experienced DnD player knows about an opportunity to roll a new character when the old one dies. But we are not talking about an experienced DnD player. We're talking about a novice. In case you didn't notice, newbies need to be told things before they know them.

It's kind of hard to tell players things when they rage quit.



Tell me how being the target of an NPC who was min-maxed to cause as much alpha strike damage as possible AND had a good roll is screwing up.

Well, for one, you got within striking distance.



If I played with someone with an attitude like the people quoted, I'd drop the game and never come back.

If I played with players who rage quit every time things didn't go their way (and then dropped out of communication entirely) I'd drop them and never let them back.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-05, 02:59 PM
:smallconfused: You well know that a decent hit can take out even the beefiest of 2nd level characters.

I do know that. I just wanted to emphasize squishies' increased vulnerability to OHKO as a reason the player should not be surprised to be one-shotted.

Coidzor
2014-01-05, 03:05 PM
No it was said they didn't have a way to resurrect the character, not that no one was willing. And nothing was said about no one allowing the player to roll up a new character. It's bad form to assume the worst about other people when you don't have any knowledge one way or the other. Presumably you don't know the OP, or the other players, so assuming they're just a bunch of ***** who wouldn't let the player roll up another one just because the OP didn't say anything about it is a rather nasty assumption.

The OP stated that the group IG (which I can only assume means In Game) has no reason to want to bring this character back from the dead.


If I played with players who rage quit every time things didn't go their way (and then dropped out of communication entirely) I'd drop them and never let them back.

Is it truly rage quitting if they don't hurl a bunch of racial slurs and other curse words at everyone? I always thought that was a crucial component. :smallconfused:


I do know that. I just wanted to emphasize squishies' increased vulnerability to OHKO as a reason the player should not be surprised to be one-shotted.

I suppose so, though Artificers aren't all that squishy as I recall, beyond simply being low level, though some level of multiclassing is generally recommended for meleeficers, IIRC.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-05, 03:19 PM
shy as I recall, beyond simply being low level, though some level of multiclassing is generally recommended for meleeficers, IIRC.

Artificers' hit die is a d6, and I believe their two main stats are Intelligence (for Infusions and Artificer Knowledge) and Charisma (for UMD, to ignore requirements and such). I don't imagine this would leave much for Constitution. They do get medium armor and shields, although I don't believe this would make up for their lower hit points.

1337 b4k4
2014-01-05, 03:34 PM
The OP stated that the group IG (which I can only assume means In Game) has no reason to want to bring this character back from the dead.

Sure, but to me that doesn't imply an unwillingness. I mean, I've played in plenty of games where the other characters had no real in game reason to spend 3/4ths of the entire party's wealth on resurrecting someone and still did it anyway.



Is it truly rage quitting if they don't hurl a bunch of racial slurs and other curse words at everyone? I always thought that was a crucial component. :smallconfused:

Nope, the only mandatory part is quitting in anger (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rage%20Quit). Cursing and screaming is often a component, but not necessary.

Another_Poet
2014-01-05, 03:40 PM
RPGaddict, my first reaction like many others was "player should suck it up." But then...


A barbarian with Die Hard, Instantenous Rage, Power Attack, and a nasty axe killed him

A few people have touched on this, but I'm going to come right out and say this is a mean build. Not unfair necessarily (I often optimize class-level enemies to really challenge my PCs) but to a casual player this is a PC-killer.

That combination you gave that orc effectively raises its CR by +1 above what the book would say. Was the orc a Level 1 or Level 2 barbarian? Was he encountered alone or were there even more enemies to contend with? Was he a boss, or did the PCs think they were facing another random orc? Was there any in-game clue to the PCs that they were going after the meanest, toughest, kill-stealingest orc in Orctown?

In my experience there are two rules-legal things that provoke a deep sense of foul play in a group of players: creatures that look normal but deal out insane damage, and creatures that don't die when they run out of hit points. You chose to push both buttons.

The player may feel cheated, targeted or like you intentionally wanted their character dead.

Rhynn
2014-01-05, 03:47 PM
Sure, but to me that doesn't imply an unwillingness. I mean, I've played in plenty of games where the other characters had no real in game reason to spend 3/4ths of the entire party's wealth on resurrecting someone and still did it anyway.

Resurrection is basically a red herring. A new character, even at the next session, is a perfectly good option. (And there's even less inconvenience involved than usual, this being a Roll20/VOIP game. Nobody drove an hour anywhere to get to the game, presumably...)

Granted, even the new character is a red herring. The real issue is that the player ragequit before anything could even be addressed. He made discourse and solutions impossible, and he has to open the lines of communication (literally!) for anything to happen at all... then the OP can consider getting over (or not) the childish and rude behavior and suggest some of these elementary and perfectly fine solutions...


In my experience there are two rules-legal things that provoke a deep sense of foul play in a group of players: creatures that look normal but deal out insane damage, and creatures that don't die when they run out of hit points. You chose to push both buttons.

How is Power Attack not a standard thing?

Besides, an orc warrior 1 straight out of the SRD/MM can deal 24 damage on a crit (with an 18-20 range weapon); one with a greataxe could deal 48 damage on a somewhat luckier roll. Power Attack is irrelevant here. Either of those results would kill most 2nd-level artificers, and most other 2nd-level PCs for that matter...

Also, how would the players know that the orc "ran out of hit points"? There's no obligation on the DM to tell them the HP totals of their enemies, and the only way to know something probably ran out of hit points is when it falls over unconscious or dead.

veti
2014-01-05, 04:14 PM
What struck me about your post is - the guy's logged off, gone AFK - for an hour? A whole hour? Dude, that's not a tantrum, that's a bathroom break. Give him some time, he needs to process it.

I think I'd be sympathetic, let him carry on playing the same character if he wants. He can hang around as a ghost. (Not "ghost" as in undead monster, but "ghost" as in when Eugene haunts Roy. Visible and audible, but basically powerless, at least at first. You can work out the detailed mechanics later.)

RPGaddict28
2014-01-05, 04:18 PM
What struck me about your post is - the guy's logged off, gone AFK - for an hour? A whole hour? Dude, that's not a tantrum, that's a bathroom break. Give him some time, he needs to process it.


1 hour has now turned into 15 :smallwink:

MukkTB
2014-01-05, 04:21 PM
The rules account for character death.

I personally wouldn't want to have a DM who steps in and declares by fiat that I don't die when the scenario says I should. I don't mind genre blind villains who want to put me in a James Bond style trap when I go unconscious and that kind of thing that lets heroes keep going long after they should be dead. But I would not like a flat out safety net. I take some pride in what I accomplish in game and it would feel incredibly empty if I couldn't fail.

On the other hand PC death wrecks stories. It sucks from a player's perspective because getting back in the game takes a lot of work. It can cripple the typical party of 4 being 25% under strength and lead to a fail cascade. I understand where the people who don't let PC's die are coming from.

So either way is OK as long as everybody at the table knows what the plan is. Anyone who claims one way or the other is the one true path is incorrect. Just avoid the worst case scenario of a DM/Player mismatch with a killer DM and an anti-death Player.

(I'm really tempted to use EVE Online terminology for people who don't want to risk death. There are some harsh and unfriendly terms. But I'm being good.)

Sith_Happens
2014-01-05, 04:27 PM
1 hour has now turned into 15 :smallwink:

That's called "sleeping."

TheThan
2014-01-05, 04:33 PM
Alas there was Barbie the barbarian.

She got double backstabbed by a pair of goblin rogues on the first encounter of her first adventure, naturally she didn’t make it. It was totally my fault; she kicked down the door and stepped through it. It sucks nobody likes to see a character die, but you have to get over it and do better with your next character. as long as you keep playing RPGs, there will always be a next character.

1337 b4k4
2014-01-05, 04:40 PM
As far as how to get the player back into the game, if they're really attached to their character, another standard trope is the party venturing into the depths of hell to bring their comrade back. If you imagine hell as something like the DMV (and really, who hasn't?), then you've basically got all these souls queueing up waiting to be processed by the bored, underpaid, angry low level demon clerk and various other low level minions. The party finds a way and a reason to get into hell (perhaps the wizard needs demon blood for an experiment) and nabs their friend out of the queue and fights their way out. And since this is just central processing, there wouldn't be a whole lot of big demons hanging around. Maybe one or two security guys.

Pros:
After a couple minutes of setup, player is back in character with their same character, fighting for their lives to get out.
Epic battle for the soul of a teammate.
New drama hooks for later (maybe one of the clerks is a higher demon's spawn, maybe the demons didn't know there was a way to our world through where the players entered, maybe the character is now marked and will have demon bounty hunters after him)

Cons:
If the character isn't some form of evil, why are they in hell?
If you die in hell, what happens?

tensai_oni
2014-01-05, 04:42 PM
Sweet, you're making up arguments for us now? {{scrubbed}}

If you insist.


Resurrection, creating a new character, etc. is all dependent on the player not ragequitting. Of course those can be done. Why would I even address such obvious options when the OP is already aware of them (having explicitly mentioned resurrection)? The issue here, to me, is a player behaving inappropriately.

The OP being aware of these solutions is not the same thing as the player in question being aware of them. The player was described as not an experienced one.



Sweet. I prefer old-school D&D (ACKS, specifically), where low-level characters' life expectancies are mostly related to the players' cleverness (which generally increases with the players' experience).

I wonder what the OP and the problem player prefer?

Yeah, I wonder too. Quitting the exact moment your character experiences death at the hands of what can be easily interpreted as an unfair challenge made to "get you" obviously means you enjoy it, right?



See point above. Character Death != no story, no character development. I mean, death has been a part of stories FOREVER. Seriously, as long as stories have been told, people have been dying in those stories. And not just nameless mooks, but real heroes and characters. For an obvious D&D reference, try Sturm Brightblade. For a few others, how about Obi Wan Kenobi? Yoda? Han Solo? Spock? Tasha Yar? Hoban "Wash" Washburne (or for that matter, any Joss Whedon character)? Colonel Blake (MASH)? Major Hughes (Full Metal Alchemist)? Heck, there's an entire set (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathTropes) of TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheHeroDies) dedicated to this very idea (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnyoneCanDie). Point is, character death is neither the end of the story, nor (and especially so in D&D) is it the end of the character's story (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ResurrectionTropes). Death is only permanent if you want it to be when it comes to fiction.


You provided many examples of characters dying, good. But here, let me give you an exercise:

How many fictional characters, characters who were important and named, died, but not when it is dramatically appropriate - in a fight against the Big Bad, a heroic sacrifice, captured and executed so other characters have a motive for vengeance, etc. No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an important, named character dying in a random brawl against unnamed random schmucks who just happened to be the opponent that day.

I can assure you, the list will be rather short.

Don't make the mistake of thinking people who are against randomly lethal systems (such as myself) are carebears who hate characters dying. I love it when characters die - but only when it has WEIGHT to it. It has to happen in a way that has MEANING.

There is no meaning behind death caused by a random goblin being really lucky with his crossbow and shooting you in the eye in the first round of the fight. It's not fun, and makes a crappy story except for "did this really just happen? The hero's story ends here? What an anticlimax."

And an anticlimax it is.

Tengu_temp
2014-01-05, 04:53 PM
It's still part of the game. You know, that section of the rules titled Death and Dying? Unless it was established before game that those rules aren't being used, or that they're being changed in some way, a player has no right to get pissed when the rules come into play (provided of course that it happened by the rules). Also, death and dying are just as much a part of story heavy as story light games. It's a load of bull to suggest that just because you have easy death in your games that you don't have heavy story.

A player has the right to get pissed when he's not having fun. Because that's what RPGs are about; not some authoritarian bull**** with DMs and other players telling you to shut up and get in line, but about having fun. Different people achieve it in different ways, but if someone at the table is not having fun, then you fail as a DM.

Also, from my experience? Easy death and heavy story are mutually exclusive. You can't create an engaging long-term narrative if the characters are dropping like flies. For an interesting story, players have to be attached to their characters, and that won't happen if those characters have an average lifespan of 2 sessions. I've never seen people who managed to run a game that was both story-heavy and very lethal; I've seen people who claimed they did, but it always just turned out that their standards for a story-heavy game were simply much lower than mine. Usually it just meant "there's some kind of narrative beyond simple dungeon crawling going on".

paddyfool
2014-01-05, 05:43 PM
If you insist.
How many fictional characters, characters who were important and named, died, but not when it is dramatically appropriate - in a fight against the Big Bad, a heroic sacrifice, captured and executed so other characters have a motive for vengeance, etc. No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an important, named character dying in a random brawl against unnamed random schmucks who just happened to be the opponent that day.


- One very common action and horror movie trope is that characters get named shortly before being offed, just to demonstrate the lethality of the setting.

- Fake-outs as to who the main character is are also commonplace; one character will be built up as the main guy/gal, and then whoops, they'll drop dead due to bad luck / a risky plan actually going wrong / whatever.

- Overall, though, I'm going to have to link to TV tropes rather than copy-paste. Many, many works go for more immersion in the perceived danger of the setting by demonstrating that, in their world, Anyone can die (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnyoneCanDie).

- (But, in particular, so many characters in Game of Thrones. Soooo many. You should probably be warned if you haven't been already).

The only reason I'm not mentioning names is because spoilers.


The rules account for character death.

I personally wouldn't want to have a DM who steps in and declares by fiat that I don't die when the scenario says I should. I don't mind genre blind villains who want to put me in a James Bond style trap when I go unconscious and that kind of thing that lets heroes keep going long after they should be dead. But I would not like a flat out safety net. I take some pride in what I accomplish in game and it would feel incredibly empty if I couldn't fail.

On the other hand PC death wrecks stories. It sucks from a player's perspective because getting back in the game takes a lot of work. It can cripple the typical party of 4 being 25% under strength and lead to a fail cascade. I understand where the people who don't let PC's die are coming from.

So either way is OK as long as everybody at the table knows what the plan is. Anyone who claims one way or the other is the one true path is incorrect. Just avoid the worst case scenario of a DM/Player mismatch with a killer DM and an anti-death Player.

(I'm really tempted to use EVE Online terminology for people who don't want to risk death. There are some harsh and unfriendly terms. But I'm being good.)

This.


A player has the right to get pissed when he's not having fun.

The right to get pissed? Sure, why not. People can feel how they like. The right to ragequit and not even send an apology afterwards? Nope, that's extremely bad etiquette whenever you're playing with actual, other, human beings.

Coidzor
2014-01-05, 05:52 PM
- Fake-outs as to who the main character is are also commonplace; one character will be built up as the main guy/gal, and then whoops, they'll drop dead due to bad luck / a risky plan actually going wrong / whatever.

Are you intending to apply that back to a game of D&D or just throwing that out as a general genre example?


The right to get pissed? Sure, why not. People can feel how they like. The right to ragequit and not even send an apology afterwards? Nope, that's extremely bad etiquette whenever you're playing with actual, other, human beings.

Well, if we're talking rights, they're not exactly exclusive with bad etiquette.

It's a bit soon to say about apology territory, especially since it's been less than a day and we don't actually know what's going on for sure. And even if it is the worst-case or just about worst-case scenario, taking alone time is infinitely better than causing a giant tiff.


(I'm really tempted to use EVE Online terminology for people who don't want to risk death. There are some harsh and unfriendly terms.)

And generally an inappropriate mischaracterization/strawman besides. :smalltongue:

Slipperychicken
2014-01-05, 05:53 PM
filling out a character sheet is a lot of work for a first-timer.

I agree with this. I generally offer new players help with their character sheets (my group jokingly refers to it as "doing taxes"), and I think it's an excellent idea with such a difficult system as D&D 3.X.

veti
2014-01-05, 05:54 PM
Don't make the mistake of thinking people who are against randomly lethal systems (such as myself) are carebears who hate characters dying. I love it when characters die - but only when it has WEIGHT to it. It has to happen in a way that has MEANING.

There is no meaning behind death caused by a random goblin being really lucky with his crossbow and shooting you in the eye in the first round of the fight. It's not fun, and makes a crappy story except for "did this really just happen? The hero's story ends here? What an anticlimax."

And an anticlimax it is.

Here's (http://www.despair.com/mistakes.html) your meaning.

Anticlimactic? Oh yes, absolutely. Sorry, but it's not given to everyone to die climactically. If it were, then - ironically - there'd be no meaning in it.

I'm perfectly serious here. People die in all kinds of ways, including randomly, stupidly and meaninglessly. While I wouldn't kill a character purposely like that, and I might fudge the dice and/or the opponent as necessary to stop it from happening ("Oh, did I say the barbarian was glaring at you? Yeah, more like leering. He's so drunk he can barely stand")... if, despite my best efforts, the character dies anyway, then the fact that it "wasn't climactic enough" is no reason to just pretend it didn't happen.

From a gaming point of view, it'll do your characters good to know that they don't have any heroic immunity to stupid. Bad things can happen if they don't take precautions.

Having said all that - as I said previously, I'd give the guy a choice. Roll up a new character, or play on in a sharply diminished role - still gaining XP - that might lead to something better down the line. No promises, but if he and the party play their cards right, anything's possible...

And don't let game mechanics or "rules" get in the way. You're the DM, dammit, the rules are what you say (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rule%200) they are.

Tengu_temp
2014-01-05, 06:01 PM
The right to get pissed? Sure, why not. People can feel how they like. The right to ragequit and not even send an apology afterwards? Nope, that's extremely bad etiquette whenever you're playing with actual, other, human beings.

You seem to be forgetting that we're talking about a very new guy here who doesn't know how most of DND, or any RPG, works. And ragequit, really? He just got angry and logged off for the night, that's not a ragequit.

On the other hand, treating newbies harshly and from a higher-than-thou, authoritarian point of view (which seems to be very popular in this thread). is the best way to ensure that they leave the group, and potentially the hobby, forever and never return.

Rhynn
2014-01-05, 06:03 PM
I agree with this. I generally offer new players help with their character sheets (my group jokingly refers to it as "doing taxes"), and I think it's an excellent idea with such a difficult system as D&D 3.X.

That's a system problem, but it's absolutely true. Some games, D&D 3.X being a prominent example, have a huge dissonance between their lethality and character creation complexity.

In older D&D editions, creating a character required six 3d6 rolls, a choice of class (and maybe race, if you're playing a really fancy edition), and buying equipment (the most time-consuming part, which is why it's a great idea to offer equipment packages; ACKS for instance can replace the 3d6x10 gp roll with a 3d6 roll on a class-based table of equipment packages).

paddyfool
2014-01-05, 06:21 PM
Are you intending to apply that back to a game of D&D or just throwing that out as a general genre example?

It was all in response to a query about works of fiction in which death is cheap (quoted above said statement).



It's a bit soon to say about apology territory, especially since it's been less than a day and we don't actually know what's going on for sure. And even if it is the worst-case or just about worst-case scenario, taking alone time is infinitely better than causing a giant tiff.


Fair point.



You seem to be forgetting that we're talking about a very new guy here who doesn't know how most of DND, or any RPG, works.

Actually, we aren't. I agree with cutting newbies slack, but we aren't talking about a newbie here; there's been a minor miscommunication:


Should probably bring this up, but I still haven't been in contact with said player since his PC died, he rage quit the second I told him character was dead. Also, he's not a beginner, I just had an English Fail.



And ragequit, really? He just got angry and logged off for the night, that's not a ragequit.

Quitting without warning because you're annoyed does count in my book, although I'd certainly agree that quitting while badmouthing everyone is much worse.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-05, 06:24 PM
ACKS for instance can replace the 3d6x10 gp roll with a 3d6 roll on a class-based table of equipment packages).

I wasn't able to find such a table in the core book or the Player's Companion. Where was it?

Rhynn
2014-01-05, 06:27 PM
I wasn't able to find such a table in the core book or the Player's Companion. Where was it?

It's the templates, of which the Player's Companion has IIRC 238? They include suggested proficiencies. They take up IIRC a dozen or more pages between the list of classes and the class creation rules.

The core book just gives one template with equipment and suggested proficiencies for each class (enough to make buying your gear optional).

Tavar
2014-01-05, 08:34 PM
Except if you ran out of money, which is the correct analogy here.

Also, Monopoly, [every game where you don't get right back in], etc.

Flipping the table and storming off when you lose at any game is childish and inappropriate. (Not that "lose" is even the correct term here.)


Well, with the more info we have now...it seems like it's running out of money and then leaving, because he's out of money, if you want to use that analogy.

Alroy_Kamenwati
2014-01-05, 08:45 PM
Give him some time, he will mostly come back. I've had a few characters die, I mostly pout and do some minor whining, but after a day or two I usually come up with another concept and get to working. A death is a learning experience, he should learn to not make characters the others IG wouldn't want to res. I'm sure ooc they want to make him feel better, but a death is a death no matter how much it sucks. Just wait, talk it out like adults, and start making ways to incorporate the new character.

Rhynn
2014-01-05, 09:07 PM
Well, with the more info we have now...it seems like it's running out of money and then leaving, because he's out of money, if you want to use that analogy.

Can you quote this additional information? I must have missed it.


This campaign I'm DMing is only second level and is done all through Roll20 and a VoIP client. This guy's artificer died and while they have his body, they can't get a res because too broke, has no IG reason to, and may not even be able as he is a plane touched. Now, his player is extremely upset, and I haven't been able to talk to him because he logged off of all the ways we talk, and this only happened an hour ago. While the only other expirenced player and I both agree this is part of early levels, and you need to be ok with having a character croaking, I still feel kinda bad about it. I could ressurect him, but at the same time, I don't want the the players thinking they can do whatever the want and get awa with it because the DM will recton their problems away. What should I do?

A barbarian with Die Hard, Instantenous Rage, Power Attack, and a nasty axe killed him, it was a standard fight, and he didn't think to put himself in a strategic position, i.e. not across from the scary orc. And, if you're wondering how he had 3 feats, I buggered up feat amount, thinking it was 2 at start, then 1 because 3rd level.

Should probably bring this up, but I still haven't been in contact with said player since his PC died, he rage quit the second I told him character was dead. Also, he's not a beginner, I just had an English Fail.

I like the Druid spell, because they can probably afford if they pooled money/sold his stuff, and it's easier to convince a druid to do it for free/less.

1 hour has now turned into 15 :smallwink:


Relevant parts (which people mostly seem to have ignored; emphasis mine):


I still haven't been in contact with said player since his PC died, he rage quit the second I told him character was dead. Also, he's not a beginner, I just had an English Fail.

Screw the analogies, a dude ragequit the game because his character died (a perfectly normal part of the game) without giving anyone any chance to even talk to him, nevermind bring up options (raising the dead, new character, etc.).

veti
2014-01-05, 09:47 PM
Screw the analogies, a dude ragequit the game because his character died (a perfectly normal part of the game) without giving anyone any chance to even talk to him, nevermind bring up options (raising the dead, new character, etc.).

If he quit "the second" he was told his character died, how do you know it was in a rage? Maybe his internet connection just went down.

But, I'll grant you, it's likely he quit. So what? We're talking about a death, where I come from it's normal to give people some time off to adjust to that sort of thing. If you believe the guy has some sort of obligation to keep the session open immediately after a death and carry on as if nothing had happened - well, I just hope I never find an employer who thinks like that.

Tavar
2014-01-05, 09:58 PM
Can you quote this additional information? I must have missed it.

Screw the analogies, a dude ragequit the game because his character died (a perfectly normal part of the game) without giving anyone any chance to even talk to him, nevermind bring up options (raising the dead, new character, etc.).
Funny, you mentioned it, when he says that he rage quit the second he knew his character was dead. And note that, per the OP's wording, he already knew the character wasn't coming back(and even if he did come back, he be quite disadvantaged).

Also, the fact that you're absolutely taking one side's word of the event as canon annoys me to no end. There's quite a bit we don't know, but, nope, the person who can't give their side is a total loser.

1337 b4k4
2014-01-05, 09:59 PM
The OP being aware of these solutions is not the same thing as the player in question being aware of them. The player was described as not an experienced one.

The OP miscommunicated and later corrected this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16730445&postcount=32).




Quitting the exact moment your character experiences death at the hands of what can be easily interpreted as an unfair challenge made to "get you" obviously means you enjoy it, right?

Again, assuming **** behavior without any prior reason to assume **** behavior is a **** move.





How many fictional characters, characters who were important and named, died, but not when it is dramatically appropriate ... I'm talking about an important, named character dying in a random brawl against unnamed random schmucks who just happened to be the opponent that day.

I can assure you, the list will be rather short.


I already named one, Wash. Colonel Blake died because his helicopter crashed on the way home. It is also my understanding (though I've not read or watched so I couldn't say for sure) that Game of Thrones is more or less built on "people die, and not because 'Hero'". It also happens to be a fairly common trope in the Zombie / Horde horror genre. That's part of the horror, the fact that the simplest scratch will kill you. You could argue over whether LaBeouf from True Grit was killed dramatically appropriately or not, but it was one of those moves that if your DM pulled, you'd call them a ****. Additionally, any war film that's actually trying to portray how much war sucks will probably have a handful of these characters. And as always there's a TV Trope list (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DroppedABridgeOnHim) if you need more



Don't make the mistake of thinking people who are against randomly lethal systems (such as myself) are carebears who hate characters dying. I love it when characters die - but only when it has WEIGHT to it. It has to happen in a way that has MEANING.

There is no meaning behind death caused by a random goblin being really lucky with his crossbow and shooting you in the eye in the first round of the fight. It's not fun, and makes a crappy story except for "did this really just happen? The hero's story ends here? What an anticlimax."

And an anticlimax it is.

1) Meaning is what others give your death.
2) Again death, especially in D&D, is not the end of the story, or even the character's story.


A player has the right to get pissed when he's not having fun. Because that's what RPGs are about; not some authoritarian bull**** with DMs and other players telling you to shut up and get in line, but about having fun. Different people achieve it in different ways, but if someone at the table is not having fun, then you fail as a DM.

1) If someone isn't having fun at the table, then they fail as a player. You're responsible for your own fun, and if you're not having fun, then it's either because you're playing in a game you don't want to play in, or you have an expectation that isn't being met. In either case, it is up to the player to make their issues known and get them addressed, whether by the DM being responsive or by finding a new game that they do want to play. Rage quitting because you can't handle playing the game you chose to play is childish and deserving of no respect.

2) Which mean that, no you don't have a right (except in the natural sense) to get pissed if you're not having fun. You have a right to speak up, and you have a right to leave if after you speak up, your issues can not or will not be addressed. Getting pissed is stupid, immature and a mark of a lousy player.



Also, from my experience? Easy death and heavy story are mutually exclusive. You can't create an engaging long-term narrative if the characters are dropping like flies. For an interesting story, players have to be attached to their characters, and that won't happen if those characters have an average lifespan of 2 sessions. I've never seen people who managed to run a game that was both story-heavy and very lethal; I've seen people who claimed they did, but it always just turned out that their standards for a story-heavy game were simply much lower than mine. Usually it just meant "there's some kind of narrative beyond simple dungeon crawling going on".

Traveller and Call of Cthulu both say you're wrong. Not to mention that "story heavy" != "Following one character for a long time". You personally may not have any experience with this, but luckily, you're personal experience is not the whole of TTRPG gaming.


You seem to be forgetting that we're talking about a very new guy here who doesn't know how most of DND, or any RPG, works. And ragequit, really? He just got angry and logged off for the night, that's not a ragequit.

1) We're not talking about a new guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16730445&postcount=32)

2) He quit as soon as the DM said "you died", that's rage quit. As is, by the way, getting angry and going home (or logging off) before the end of the session. It's the very definition of rage quit: "Quitting in a rage"

3) Even if he were a new player, it's still bad form and immature behavior. It's completely inexcusable for any person over the age of 7 to simply up and quit a game with no communication simply because things didn't go your way.

4) Even if this was a new player, then they would have no idea whether death is permanent or not or how things would be handled, so rage quitting before even asking the questions is inexcusable even for new people.



On the other hand, treating newbies harshly and from a higher-than-thou, authoritarian point of view (which seems to be very popular in this thread). is the best way to ensure that they leave the group, and potentially the hobby, forever and never return.

Again, not newbie. And frankly this hobby could use a few less people who throw tempertantrums every time they don't get their way. Again, if this were any other game or sport and the "loser" (in quotes because you don't lose in D&D simply by dying) just up and left in a fit of anger as soon as something didn't go their way, people wouldn't have any sympathy for them. Why should TTRPGs be any different? The basic rules of human interaction still apply.

MonochromeTiger
2014-01-05, 10:00 PM
If he quit "the second" he was told his character died, how do you know it was in a rage? Maybe his internet connection just went down.

it's possible but much less likely.



But, I'll grant you, it's likely he quit. So what? We're talking about a death, where I come from it's normal to give people some time off to adjust to that sort of thing.

oh agreed, in my groups that's called "the time you spend hearing what the heck is happening with the rest of the story and relaxing with a drink and snack instead of acting like it was done to spite you". alternatively "hearing how the fight goes so you know if you need to reroll or if your group has even a little chance of bringing you back to life". generally jumping out of everything without so much as a word is seen as an extreme approach, heck even sitting in the background making the occasional annoyed or sarcastic comment about how things are going could be seen better than outright leaving.



If you believe the guy has some sort of obligation to keep the session open immediately after a death and carry on as if nothing had happened - well, I just hope I never find an employer who thinks like that.

so you don't want an employer who gives you some forewarning that you need to get out your resume and ask around for references? don't want one who will let you at least clean out your desk so you have all your stuff before you walk out the door? or were you perhaps trying to compare waiting for a session to finish if you die partway through to being expected to keep working for free after being fired? because that comparison makes no sense.

Tavar
2014-01-05, 10:02 PM
Again, assuming **** behavior without any prior reason to assume **** behavior is a **** move.

So what does that make you?

1337 b4k4
2014-01-05, 10:08 PM
Give him some time, he will mostly come back. I've had a few characters die, I mostly pout and do some minor whining, but after a day or two I usually come up with another concept and get to working.

For what it's worth, I'm not against being frustrated that your character died, or even wanting to take a break or whining about how that roll sucked. Hell, in this instance I wouldn't even have an issue with talking to the DM about how over powered the enemy seemed if the game had been established as one where every encounter should be +/- level appropriate (which 3.x sortof is). I do have a problem with taking your ball and going home in a fit because something didn't go your way.


If he quit "the second" he was told his character died, how do you know it was in a rage? Maybe his internet connection just went down.

Which is of course a possibility, but then the OP would no longer have a problem, and the advice in this thread wouldn't apply.



But, I'll grant you, it's likely he quit. So what? We're talking about a death, where I come from it's normal to give people some time off to adjust to that sort of thing. If you believe the guy has some sort of obligation to keep the session open immediately after a death and carry on as if nothing had happened - well, I just hope I never find an employer who thinks like that.

Um, we're talking about a character death. Not the death of a real flesh and blood person. Hell we're not even talking about the death of a pet. It's a character. I don't know of any country where employers give you time off because Ellendal the Elven Prince was slain by The Shadow.


Funny, you mentioned it, when he says that he rage quit the second he knew his character was dead. And note that, per the OP's wording, he already knew the character wasn't coming back(and even if he did come back, he be quite disadvantaged).

Actually, the OP didn't say that. They said the character died, and that they weren't likely to come back soon. Nothing about what the player knew. To be fair, I figured the player stuck around for a few minutes while everyone went "well crap, how much money do we have" and then rage quit when the total came up to less than a res cost and someone said "well, it's not like we really liked the guy anyway".



Also, the fact that you're absolutely taking one side's word of the event as canon annoys me to no end. There's quite a bit we don't know, but, nope, the person who can't give their side is a total loser.

Until evidence is presented otherwise, I'm providing responses and advice based on the story as presented as true, since that is what the OP asked for.


So what does that make you?

Your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate? Nothing?

veti
2014-01-05, 10:35 PM
Um, we're talking about a character death. Not the death of a real flesh and blood person. Hell we're not even talking about the death of a pet. It's a character. I don't know of any country where employers give you time off because Ellendal the Elven Prince was slain by The Shadow.

Yes, but by the same token - we're not talking about someone walking off a job they're being paid for, we're talking about someone closing an internet connection. To a game, that they were presumably playing for fun. And it's still barely a day.

I'm not saying give the guy a free pass to do as he likes. I'm saying have a little understanding and give him some time. Email him, and if he doesn't reply within a reasonable time - say, before your next scheduled session - then you can start making assumptions about his attitude. But what some people seem to be advocating here is that you should criminalise "getting upset". Or to put it another way, you should penalise the guy for being invested in his character. That's just stupid.

1337 b4k4
2014-01-05, 10:44 PM
I'm not saying give the guy a free pass to do as he likes. I'm saying have a little understanding and give him some time. Email him, and if he doesn't reply within a reasonable time - say, before your next scheduled session - then you can start making assumptions about his attitude. But what some people seem to be advocating here is that you should criminalise "getting upset". Or to put it another way, you should penalise the guy for being invested in his character. That's just stupid.

Nah, I'm not saying penalize the guy for being invested in his character or even being upset. I'm saying penalize them for being immature and rage quitting. Of course, the rules of human interaction are still in play. Obviously if the guy comes back and apologizes for the rage quit, running him out of town for a one time event is just as much of a jerk move as was the original rage quitting. By the same token it's always a possibility that icepocalypse came through at that exact moment and shredded the guys internet connection. In which case all of this was a bunch of arguing for no reason. But as I said, until other information comes to light, I'll respond based on the the situation as presented being true.

MonochromeTiger
2014-01-05, 10:46 PM
I'm not saying give the guy a free pass to do as he likes. I'm saying have a little understanding and give him some time. Email him, and if he doesn't reply within a reasonable time - say, before your next scheduled session - then you can start making assumptions about his attitude.

perfectly reasonable approach, the exit still doesn't paint a good picture for the guy answering politely but taking a civil approach to checking why he did it makes sense.



But what some people seem to be advocating here is that you should criminalise "getting upset". Or to put it another way, you should penalise the guy for being invested in his character. That's just stupid.

I'm not certain where people are saying to penalize someone for being invested, I may have just missed it somewhere but I honestly didn't see anything beyond "if the person doesn't show signs of stopping the immaturity they might not be good for your group".

I HAVE seen a few comments comparing expecting someone to act rationally after a character death to being a totalitarian DM though. or saying that a story where a character's survival chance is low isn't a real story.. or saying that we should question the side we're being told when the OP actively pointed out that they were questioning if they should give an easy way to get the character back (how sinister of them, feeling sympathy for someone who left their game and looking for a fair way to ease the tension, the villain).

Tavar
2014-01-05, 11:17 PM
Your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate? Nothing?
So you don't see the hypocrisy of calling someone out for assuming poor behavior so that you can instead assume someone else(that we know less about) is behaving poorly?

MonochromeTiger
2014-01-05, 11:29 PM
So you don't see the hypocrisy of calling someone out for assuming poor behavior so that you can instead assume someone else(that we know less about) is behaving poorly?

poor behavior of one person was presented, you are choosing to ignore it because evidence is not being handed to you of it happening (and acceptable evidence never will as long as you aren't physically present to see the event happen). that person, the player, has had a reason presented that would indicate poor behavior is likely.

the OP on the other hand took the time to come on here and point out what happened then ask if there was a viable way to, in simple terms, undo everything bad that just happened that upset the player. is it POSSIBLE that the OP did something mean intentionally? maybe, but sitting here thinking it might have happened won't prove or disprove it. perhaps time might be better spent thinking on a solution rather than attacking the OP in a refusal to help or declaring hypocritical behavior in those who disagree with the attacks?

Mr Beer
2014-01-05, 11:43 PM
I think if the game is one in which it's easy to die (which it sounds like) then it should be made easy to have a replacement character drop into play either later that session or the start of the next one and that replacement should not be terribly weaker than the original one. It sounds like that may not be the case in this particular game which I think is a mistake if you're facing possible character death on the reg.

That said, ragequitting precludes any discussion on the subject, which is one reason why it's generally considered to be a childish action.

Trinoya
2014-01-06, 12:10 AM
It has been my experience that players that 'rage' quit at the drop of their character tend to not be healthy for the game. If you really want to give him the second chance, reincarnate him as a random creature all together, make it a quest for him to restore himself to normal form or 'dire consequences will occur' *creepy music abounds*

If he rage quits again for any reason... drop him completely. Honestly my advice is to just drop him now since he seems toxic as is.... PCs die, hell I've lost PCs when I'm not even at session... ya move on and either build a new one or bring back the old one, or even bring back an old older one... Getting upset is just disrespectful to the other players.. and certainly doesn't endear anyone to 'resurrecting' your character.

I might be able to understand if it was in like.. a highschool game.. but I believe the OP said he was an adult... still, depends on how many chances you're willing to give someone like that... here's hoping for the best outcome for your group either way though.

Rhynn
2014-01-06, 12:48 AM
Also, the fact that you're absolutely taking one side's word of the event as canon annoys me to no end. There's quite a bit we don't know, but, nope, the person who can't give their side is a total loser.

There's no way for us to gain information other than the OP, and if you decide based on nothing that the OP isn't giving us true information, what's the point?


And note that, per the OP's wording, he already knew the character wasn't coming back(and even if he did come back, he be quite disadvantaged).

Which wording is that?


But, I'll grant you, it's likely he quit. So what? We're talking about a death, where I come from it's normal to give people some time off to adjust to that sort of thing. If you believe the guy has some sort of obligation to keep the session open immediately after a death and carry on as if nothing had happened - well, I just hope I never find an employer who thinks like that.

I... what?

A player character in a game died. I have never had a player need to "take some time off" because their PC died. What do employers have to do with this?

Are you pulling my leg?


Yes, but by the same token - we're not talking about someone walking off a job they're being paid for, we're talking about someone closing an internet connection. To a game, that they were presumably playing for fun. And it's still barely a day.

That's probably why nobody's suggested that the guy needs to be fired?

Some of us have suggested that he's an immature brat who's not very respectful and probably needs to get over it, because that stuff happens in D&D.


I'm not saying give the guy a free pass to do as he likes.

I am, actually. Every last one of us is free to act immaturely and rudely, but we probably shouldn't expect people to put up with that e.g. in a gaming group.


But what some people seem to be advocating here is that you should criminalise "getting upset".

Really? Please quote those posts, I would be enthralled to read them, but I must have missed them.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-06, 12:55 AM
We're talking about a death, where I come from it's normal to give people some time off to adjust to that sort of thing. If you believe the guy has some sort of obligation to keep the session open immediately after a death and carry on as if nothing had happened - well, I just hope I never find an employer who thinks like that.

Holy hell, false equivalence. If you're so emotionally invested in a made up character that its death would cause you real grief you probably shouldn't be playing TTRPG's at all. In fact, you should probably seek out a psychotherapist

With that out of the way;

Here's what we know, according to the OP:

The group is playing in an online forum (I'm not overly familiar with roll20).

The player in question logged out immediately when his character died.

The player in question is -not- a noob.

That's it. We have no way of knowing the player's emotional state. Maybe he was angry, maybe he was tired, maybe he just wasn't interested in seeing where the story went over the next couple of hours, figuring he could be given the cliff-notes after he rolled up a new character. We don't even know if he's a regular part of the group in question.

If it was indeed a ragequit then he needs to get over himself. Characters die. While clashing playstyles is a thing, playstyle is something to be discussed -before- character creation. While it's possible that there was a failure on the part of the DM here, it's not one he bears alone if he has a regular group.

Even if the DM and company did fail to convey that death by RNG was a thing in their game letting emotions run high over a game is a bit childish.

If, however, he simply quite because he realized this game was not for him then he certainly hasn't done anything wrong and we should leave the guy alone. A simple e-mail or text or what-have-you (still not familiar with roll20) to let them know he wasn't coming back would've been a nice courtesy but isn't really expected on the internet.

Rhynn
2014-01-06, 01:00 AM
If, however, he simply quite because he realized this game was not for him then he certainly hasn't done anything wrong and we should leave the guy alone.

Is somebody harassing the guy now? :smalleek:

MonochromeTiger
2014-01-06, 01:06 AM
Is somebody harassing the guy now? :smalleek:

considering none of us have a name to go off of as to who they are it's fairly unlikely. I think that may have been a general comment along the lines of "if they leave then it's done don't spend 30 pages calling them names", then again I don't know.

Tavar
2014-01-06, 01:22 AM
Is somebody harassing the guy now? :smalleek:

Read some of the posts in the thread. Hell, read some of your posts in the thread.

Rhynn
2014-01-06, 01:25 AM
Read some of the posts in the thread. Hell, read some of your posts in the thread.

Wow, I didn't realize all these posts were going directly to the poor guy. :smallfrown:

Tavar
2014-01-06, 01:37 AM
Wow, I didn't realize all these posts were going directly to the poor guy. :smallfrown:
Oh, I guess I was right in thinking that you wouldn't care if he did read this forum. Thanks for the confirmation.

MonochromeTiger
2014-01-06, 01:38 AM
Oh, I guess I was right in thinking that you wouldn't care if he did read this forum. Thanks for the confirmation.

are all the comments going to devolve into moral posturing now or could we actually get back on topic?

Rhynn
2014-01-06, 01:43 AM
are all the comments going to devolve into moral posturing now or could we actually get back on topic?

But they must defend this poor newbie who has never played RPGs before and never will again and only went to the bathroom or got disconnected and whose character was unfairly murdered by a killer GM and who needs time off his job to grieve! Think of the children!

Oko and Qailee
2014-01-06, 01:45 AM
1) The fact that you feel bad about it says a lot, in a good way. It means you're clearly not trying to intentionally screw him over.



A barbarian with Die Hard, Instantenous Rage, Power Attack, and a nasty axe killed him....I buggered up feat amount, thinking it was 2 at start, then 1 because 3rd level.

2) Did players they get the same amount of feats?
3) Did the feat difference the Orc had make the difference in that player living or dying?

DM's mess up sometimes, and that's ok, if the reason the player died was because you screwed up, explain to the player what happened and let him come back. This shows the player and the other players that you are a good guy. Then make sure you let the players know, that if the player had died in the same way, just the orc didn't have a bonus feat, that the death was fair game. You will not pull punches, deaths happen and players have to get over it.

If you didn't mess up, the mess up made no difference/the players got the same benefit and you weren't intentionally being a jerk to that player*... we'll it's fair game.

I had a player death the other day because of an unlucky crit against the player, it happens, I felt bad, but you can't be too soft.


*Note: enemies focusing a player (within reason) is not "being a jerk" if an enemy is intelligent and can see a wizard blasting everyone to bits, it makes more sense for them to attack the wizard and not the guy wearing 400lbs of steel. Sometimes realism should be a thing

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-06, 02:39 AM
Is somebody harassing the guy now? :smalleek:

Not so far as I know. It's -possible- that he will recognize the scenario and the time stamps upon seeing this thread and put it together that we're discussing his situation. That could be.... unpleasant for him/her.


considering none of us have a name to go off of as to who they are it's fairly unlikely. I think that may have been a general comment along the lines of "if they leave then it's done don't spend 30 pages calling them names", then again I don't know.

It was more just to bring up the possibility that this whole discussion is a completely wasted effort for all parties. I don't know the guy, personally, so I really couldn't care less about him/her. Naturally, the OP knows better than any of us whether or not the player was a regular part of his group and whether or not that comment should carry any weight at all.

If he was a regular player, he should've known what to expect, making the "suck it up" comments completely valid, and, if not, he didn't do anything wrong by deciding not to continue with this group.

andresrhoodie
2014-01-06, 03:03 AM
If he quit "the second" he was told his character died, how do you know it was in a rage? Maybe his internet connection just went down.

But, I'll grant you, it's likely he quit. So what? We're talking about a death, where I come from it's normal to give people some time off to adjust to that sort of thing. If you believe the guy has some sort of obligation to keep the session open immediately after a death and carry on as if nothing had happened - well, I just hope I never find an employer who thinks like that.

Jesus do you log off if you get capped in battlefield too?

No its not normal to have to throw a fit and take a walk because a character died.

This isnt a family member or even a friend dying. Its a game. You shouldnt shouldnt be needing to "take time off". Crap, if your that invested in a character get some therapy and make a friend, a real life one.

Its like your toon getting offed in WoW. And no, your boss should not give you time off for it.

If you really, really, liked that character do what a million people before you have done..... erase the name on the character sheet and write in his brothers name. Done.

The OP should consider himself lucky to be rid of this player and move on.

icefractal
2014-01-06, 03:09 AM
You know, I've left a game because my character died, actually. Now this wasn't what I would call a rage quit - I didn't even decide to leave until several days later, when I was thinking about what kind of new character to make.

The issue was - I wasn't really into the system/style/adventure combination of the campaign, but I had some "momentum" from the character history and connections with other PCs/NPCs, and wanting to see how that developed. Enough to keep me in the game. With the character gone, that was all moot, and there just wasn't anything keeping me engaged.

So I left - no hard feelings, I still play other games with some of the people involved. But just to provide a data point, it's a thing that can happen.

Oko and Qailee
2014-01-06, 03:11 AM
No its not normal to have to throw a fit and take a walk because a character died.


Sometimes people get angry because of little things. It happens and it's normal. He could have been having an awful day and maybe this made it worse, who knows? Maybe he was really invested in his characters? Maybe he thought the DM was actively playing against him.

There are tons of reasons why he could have gotten spontaneously mad. The important thing is his behavior after the fact. Maybe he logged off the internet because he didn't want to say/do anything he'd regret by talking to the DM when he was mad. That would be a good attitude if he makes decisions like that.

Edit: As for what the OP should do. Wait and don't worry about it. Just get ready for next session. If he chooses not to join, then fine, you did nothing wrong. If he does, well, even better. If he decides he wants to talk to you after cooling off, hey, good for him, he's probably not a bad guy.

The point is, we don't know, we don't really know this person. All we know is what the OP told us. And all that should matter to the OP is "Did I DM wrong?" From what I have heard, the DM did nothing wrong, but that doesn't mean the player did either.

I'm not going to accuse/speak for anyone, so I will say that I am regarded by everyone close to me as one of the calmest people IRL (not on the internet though :smallamused:) and even I can think of a time where I got mad for a little thing or avoided talking to someone for a short while because I wanted to make sure I was 100% fair and capable of understanding the moment I next talked to that someone.

Thrudd
2014-01-06, 03:13 AM
It's a Level 2 character in D&D fer Jeebus' sake, and this was an experienced player. Even in 3.5e, it takes almost no time to roll up a new one at that level. Maybe the guy just didn't feel like playing anymore, or maybe he's rolling up a new character now and will be back for the next session. Why are we still talking about this? OP knows that low level deaths are common in D&D. The best thing one can do is communicate this with players who might not know that.

andresrhoodie
2014-01-06, 03:22 AM
Sometimes people get angry because of little things.
.

Indeed, it even has a name. Immaturity

Oko and Qailee
2014-01-06, 03:26 AM
Indeed, it even has a name. Immaturity

Well we'll just have to disagree on the subject. I think that if you're having a bad enough day then it's possible to get upset at the smallest thing. If you think I'm wrong that's fine.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-06, 03:49 AM
Feelings are feelings. No amount of maturity or lack thereof is really relevant to what causes feelings. A person feels how they feel and that's okay (as long as it's not pathological).

What matters is what you -do- with those feelings.

Leaving in a huff is a bit immature but it's also immensely preferable to lashing out in a manner disproportionate to whatever rubbed you the wrong way. Better a little rude than outright offensive.

Alroy_Kamenwati
2014-01-06, 04:00 AM
I really don't think you should kick him out, maybe if he persists being mad, but maybe he just made a mistake and is scared of the repercussions such as you being mad back and wanting to boot him.

Tengu_temp
2014-01-06, 08:35 AM
are all the comments going to devolve into moral posturing now or could we actually get back on topic?

Most of the comments were moral posturing from the start, only of the "grrr emotion is for wimps" kind of morals.

Mutazoia
2014-01-06, 08:48 AM
This needs a meme. I need to find me a meme/demotivational.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/3f/3f39fafc1cc662e387f957287bbb49b444c28e2c89d27be9ef 46c33951c99ecb.jpg


Dying because you screwed up is not the same as dying because the dice screwed you over. Also, cut newbies some slack.

If you are the type to rage quite because of a lousy dice roll, then maybe RPGs that use lots of dice are not the games for you. Sure, character death sux, but rage quitting because your lvl 2 character died due to a bad roll is so NOT the way to go.

It is reasonable to expect a certain level of maturity when gaming with a group of people, and those that can't act mature (most of the time...let's face it gaming sessions tend to degrade from time to time) can't really complain if they are dropped.

Now about the issue itself. Throwing monsters with class levels at level 2 characters is a problem in of it self. Your average house cat can outfight most level 2 characters. Hell I was in one campaign where our pack mule had the highest body count in the group until we hit lvl 5.

The easiest thing to do (if the player ever gets in contact again) is retro-actively say he's not dead, just seriously wounded (-9) and comatose. Let the rest of the party drag his butt back to town and then have to go on some wild adventure to pay for his medical care. If he doesn't get in contact again, problem solved.

1337 b4k4
2014-01-06, 08:56 AM
Most of the comments were moral posturing from the start, only of the "grrr emotion is for wimps" kind of morals.

Yeah, if you could find where someone said that, that would be great. Strawmen are fun, but defeating them doesn't actually do anything to further a discussion. Perhaps you are mistaking "Running off in a huff because your elf games character bit the dust is immature and childish, especially when said elf game has explicit rules on how characters die" with "grr emotion is for wimps". If that's your source of confusion, I would suggest reading the words written as that tends to be the easiest way to determine what someone means.

Tengu_temp
2014-01-06, 09:13 AM
Most of the posts on the first page are knee-jerk "kick that guy out for DARING to get annoyed that his character died! REAL GAMERS play games where characters are dying left and right!" responses. I stand by my statement.

Mutazoia
2014-01-06, 09:23 AM
Most of the posts on the first page are knee-jerk "kick that guy out for DARING to get annoyed that his character died! REAL GAMERS play games where characters are dying left and right!" responses. I stand by my statement.

From what I read it wasn't "kick that guy out for DARING to get annoyed that his character died! REAL GAMERS play games where characters are dying left and right!" so much as it was "The guy rage quit and cut off all forms of communication...your probably better off if he's going to act like a 6 year old any time something upsets him." After all it is just a game, the character wasn't his brother or his best friend and didn't die a real death. That death isn't even permanent. It was a 2nd level character...who get's THAT attached to a 2nd level character?

In a game, as in life, sometimes you get a bad roll. Throwing a tantrum and running away is NOT going to get you very far in either.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-06, 09:28 AM
Most of the posts on the first page are knee-jerk "kick that guy out for DARING to get annoyed that his character died! REAL GAMERS play games where characters are dying left and right!" responses. I stand by my statement.

It's not about the player getting annoyed, it's about him being a sore loser and acting like a child.

Jay R
2014-01-06, 10:29 AM
It's always painful at first. But in the long run, maybe sometime big will come out of it. (http://www.dorktower.com/2013/06/19/revenge-of-the-nerd-dork-tower-19-06-13/)

Rhynn
2014-01-06, 12:21 PM
So I left - no hard feelings, I still play other games with some of the people involved. But just to provide a data point, it's a thing that can happen.

Nothing wrong with quitting a game. Why would there be? It doesn't sound like you acted immaturely or rudely, either.


Most of the posts on the first page are knee-jerk "kick that guy out for DARING to get annoyed that his character died! REAL GAMERS play games where characters are dying left and right!" responses. I stand by my statement.

Can you like quote all of them? There should be 16, right? Not that hard. Or did you like make them up?

This is the only one that approximates what you claim:

F* him. If he can't play a grown-up game like a grownup, drop him like a hot rock and be done with him.

Tavar
2014-01-06, 12:22 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Perseus
2014-01-06, 12:34 PM
This needs a meme. I need to find me a meme/demotivational.

I stopped reading here but...

Squishy pc is on a hospital bed, Dr. house and co are staring at a board (we see their backs). The squishy in the bed has an Axe lodged in his face.

House is saying something asshaterish and on the board a bunch of insults to the squishy are listed.

They aren't trying to figure out he got an Axe to the face but trying to figure out what stupid thing he did to get an Axe in the face. Like "stood next to enemy orc" or whatever you want to put on the board...

1337 b4k4
2014-01-06, 12:46 PM
Most of the posts on the first page are knee-jerk "kick that guy out for DARING to get annoyed that his character died! REAL GAMERS play games where characters are dying left and right!" responses. I stand by my statement.

Again, if you could quote someone saying those exact words. Or even something remotely similar. Seriously, just quote for me some post from the first page that reasonably translates to "kick them out for daring to be annoyed" and not "kick them out (or don't invite them back) if they can't act in a mature fashion" because I see a lot of the latter and none of the former. So that's all I'm asking, quote someone saying what you claim they're saying.


Here's one.


Again, that's a quote referring to the actions of the player, not the emotions or feeling the player has. So again, with 29 posts on the first page, not including the OP, quote one that's saying the player should be kicked out for being annoyed.

Rhynn
2014-01-06, 01:08 PM
Here's one.

That's a pretty loose interpretation. I said the player needs to get over it, not that the OP should kick the player out.

But what the heck, let's allow it! For the sake of making Tengu_temp right on this, I'm all for kicking the guy out! We're up to 2/30 for that "most"! Just 14 to go! Let's do this! Go team!

Delwugor
2014-01-06, 05:18 PM
What should I do?
1. Most importantly handle any communication with the player positively and without anger or condemnation. This will show your character as a GM when resolving problems. It could also be beneficial for the other players to see you handle this maturely. Remember that people will sometimes let their emotions get ahead of their good sense until later.

2. If you've made more than one attempt to communicate (as I think you have), then the ball is in his court. He either responds or not, don't get caught up in it just move on.

3. Figure out if you made a mistake. If I see anything it is not whether you run a lethal or non-lethal game, but did this player understand that permanent death is possible?

4. Make any changes so that the issue does not crop up in the future. Maybe make doubly sure that players are all aware of what type of game you are running. People have different views and expectations, part of getting a game going is to align up those expectations.

Tavar
2014-01-06, 05:25 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Mutazoia
2014-01-06, 05:58 PM
[Cartoon deleted]

Lorsa
2014-01-06, 06:39 PM
Feelings are feelings. No amount of maturity or lack thereof is really relevant to what causes feelings. A person feels how they feel and that's okay (as long as it's not pathological).

What matters is what you -do- with those feelings.

Leaving in a huff is a bit immature but it's also immensely preferable to lashing out in a manner disproportionate to whatever rubbed you the wrong way. Better a little rude than outright offensive.

I couldn't agree more.

Except maybe with that last part. Leaving in a huff isn't really much better than lashing out.

While you're not responsible for how you feel, you are certainly responsible for what you do.


That's a pretty loose interpretation. I said the player needs to get over it, not that the OP should kick the player out.

But what the heck, let's allow it! For the sake of making Tengu_temp right on this, I'm all for kicking the guy out! We're up to 2/30 for that "most"! Just 14 to go! Let's do this! Go team!

Me too! Me too! I'm all for kicking the guy out! He was clearly acting in an immature way!

If he felt treated unfairly by the GM, he should have said "Being attacked by a 3rd level Barbarian at 2nd level makes me feel cheated and treated unfairly." or something such. If people can't communicate properly, don't play with them!

Does that make it 3?

Scootaloo
2014-01-06, 06:52 PM
This campaign I'm DMing is only second level and is done all through Roll20 and a VoIP client. This guy's artificer died and while they have his body, they can't get a res because too broke, has no IG reason to, and may not even be able as he is a plane touched. Now, his player is extremely upset, and I haven't been able to talk to him because he logged off of all the ways we talk, and this only happened an hour ago. While the only other expirenced player and I both agree this is part of early levels, and you need to be ok with having a character croaking, I still feel kinda bad about it. I could ressurect him, but at the same time, I don't want the the players thinking they can do whatever the want and get awa with it because the DM will recton their problems away. What should I do?

The limit is money? Okay.

Find a cleric of a somewhat unscrupulous diety who will take an IOU... with interest.

Boom, player comes back and you have a plot hook.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-06, 09:59 PM
I couldn't agree more.

Except maybe with that last part. Leaving in a huff isn't really much better than lashing out.

While you're not responsible for how you feel, you are certainly responsible for what you do.

To clarify, while neither leaving in a huff nor lashing out is ideal the former is better than the latter -if- you are unable or unwilling to calmly and rationally talk things out.

Getting into a shouting match will almost always engage the other person's natural psychological resistance and garner either no change or a negative change in the other person's mind. Lashing out physically tends to result in one of; injury, jail time, fines or some combination of the three.

andresrhoodie
2014-01-07, 02:30 AM
Well we'll just have to disagree on the subject. I think that if you're having a bad enough day then it's possible to get upset at the smallest thing. If you think I'm wrong that's fine.

You can be upset about any damn thing you want, for any reason. Thats human.

When you allow those emotions to control your actions thats immaturity.

We really dont have to have act out every little thing we feel at the moment. And knowing how to control what your feeling and NOT let it control your actions is the #1 sign of maturity.

andresrhoodie
2014-01-07, 02:33 AM
Most of the comments were moral posturing from the start, only of the "grrr emotion is for wimps" kind of morals.

So most of us were right and you decided you had to come crap on it to be contrary?

Coidzor
2014-01-07, 02:53 AM
So most of us were right and you decided you had to come crap on it to be contrary?

More that people were jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle in their initial responses, as I recall, which naturally prompted a response. which prompted a response. which prompted a response. Which leads us to here.


From what I read it wasn't "kick that guy out for DARING to get annoyed that his character died! REAL GAMERS play games where characters are dying left and right!" so much as it was "The guy rage quit and cut off all forms of communication...your probably better off if he's going to act like a 6 year old any time something upsets him."

Considering all the ways those media can just **** up and those initial posts where in response to an OP with a general lack of information as well as having had a mere hour between the event and the post being made, deciding to just ban the player out of hand(instead of, say, being cautious but at least potentially willing to hear the other party out, even :smalltongue:) based upon scant information when technical difficulties weren't even able to be ruled out yet could be considered to be jumping the gun just a little bit. :smalltongue:

Granted, the first posts read more as a combination of a request for more information and well, let him play another character then or here's some suggestions of how to keep that other character around in some capacity than either, aside from thamolas with an element of **** happens. A general culture of hostility in a lack of information sort of snowballed from there though, as I recall, but that could have been my bias at reading through it at the time since I was still confused as to what the hell had actually transpired and was wondering why everyone seemed so certain in their pronouncements.

AMFV
2014-01-07, 03:18 AM
You can be upset about any damn thing you want, for any reason. Thats human.

When you allow those emotions to control your actions thats immaturity.

We really dont have to have act out every little thing we feel at the moment. And knowing how to control what your feeling and NOT let it control your actions is the #1 sign of maturity.

That's not necessarily the case, and leaving when you feel you are about to lose control of your emotions is pretty mature as far as that goes. It's really annoying when people conflate staying in a room where you're afraid you're going to have a screaming match or worse a physical altercation in a room with the emotionally mature action, if you think you're going to have a problem then leaving might be best.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-07, 03:28 AM
That's not necessarily the case, and leaving when you feel you are about to lose control of your emotions is pretty mature as far as that goes. It's really annoying when people conflate staying in a room where you're afraid you're going to have a screaming match or worse a physical altercation in a room with the emotionally mature action, if you think you're going to have a problem then leaving might be best.

Indeed.

The problem we seem to be having with this tangent is that people are treating mature/immature as a binary thing. It's most assuredly not. It's a scale running from temper-tantrum throwing over the slightest thing immature to a fairly variable version of calmly and rationally discuss the matter without letting your emotions affect your actions over-much mature and an overshoot of excessively sublimate emotional response until you explode pathology.

paddyfool
2014-01-07, 06:09 AM
Most of the posts on the first page are knee-jerk "kick that guy out for DARING to get annoyed that his character died! REAL GAMERS play games where characters are dying left and right!" responses. I stand by my statement.

How about arguing with what actual people are actually saying in this debate, rather than with caricatures of your own imagining and their imaginary statements?

Overall, my position: it's a bit of a shoddy reaction on the part of the guy who just dropped out. Maybe one or two of the criticisms of him made by posters may have been a tad harsh, but if you want to take that up with them, please take it up with them directly regarding the specifics of what they said rather than just generally going on the warpath with everyone who agrees with you on the appropriateness or otherwise of character death in roleplay.



Me too! Me too! I'm all for kicking the guy out! He was clearly acting in an immature way!

If he felt treated unfairly by the GM, he should have said "Being attacked by a 3rd level Barbarian at 2nd level makes me feel cheated and treated unfairly." or something such. If people can't communicate properly, don't play with them!

Does that make it 3?

It's actually a little hard to tell if you're being sarcastic here. I'm 80-90% sure, but blue text is helpful ;)

geeky_monkey
2014-01-07, 07:01 AM
Personally I'd just be happy this happened so early in the game.

If the player is going to react this way over the unlucky death of a Level 2(!) character it suggests they'll over-react whenever anything doesn't go their way - whether it be character death, unlucky rolls, failing a skill check, not getting the loot he 'deserves', or the rest of the party not wanting to follow what they perseve to be the post important plot hook.

I'd continue the story without them and if they re-appear make them roll up a new character, although I'd be extremely wary they'd stick around - I'd certainly not bother writing any plot hooks specific to their backstory as I'd doubt they'd be around long enough for them to play out.

Lorsa
2014-01-07, 08:27 AM
It's actually a little hard to tell if you're being sarcastic here. I'm 80-90% sure, but blue text is helpful ;)

See my signature for my stance on blue text. :smallsmile:

In any case, it's not surprising it's a little hard to tell as I wasn't completely sure myself if I was being sarcastic or not. I'd rate it as "exaggerated way to state an opinion".

While I do agree that people have the right to be upset with character death and that not everyone needs to accept it as something that will happen 50% of the time between level 1-4, I also believe that there's a good and a bad way to handle such conflicts. I personally prefer to play and interact with people who handle conflicts and hurt emotions in a constructive way (constructive in this case being actually talking about the issue in a calm way). So my recommendation to anyone would be to do the same.

It's also true that if you come to someone and say "I have a problem with my level 2 character being attacked by a level 3 barbarian in that fashion, I feel like I didn't stand a chance at surviving and you might as well have had rocks fall on me" and they respond with "suck it up bitch" then those aren't people you should play with either. That isn't constructive communication either.

If you can't discuss and talk about problems in a calm and mature fashion I'm not going to want to play with you. Suck it up bitch*.


*That last bit was meant to be sarcasm btw.

AMFV
2014-01-07, 08:29 AM
See my signature for my stance on blue text. :smallsmile:

In any case, it's not surprising it's a little hard to tell as I wasn't completely sure myself if I was being sarcastic or not. I'd rate it as "exaggerated way to state an opinion".

While I do agree that people have the right to be upset with character death and that not everyone needs to accept it as something that will happen 50% of the time between level 1-4, I also believe that there's a good and a bad way to handle such conflicts. I personally prefer to play and interact with people who handle conflicts and hurt emotions in a constructive way (constructive in this case being actually talking about the issue in a calm way). So my recommendation to anyone would be to do the same.

It's also true that if you come to someone and say "I have a problem with my level 2 character being attacked by a level 3 barbarian in that fashion, I feel like I didn't stand a chance at surviving and you might as well have had rocks fall on me" and they respond with "suck it up bitch" then those aren't people you should play with either. That isn't constructive communication either.

If you can't discuss and talk about problems in a calm and mature fashion I'm not going to want to play with you. Suck it up bitch*.


*That last bit was meant to be sarcasm btw.

But if the person feels they aren't in an emotional state where communication is possible, then leaving is generally a much better option that starting an altercation. While I personally wouldn't find a character death this jarring, somebody else might, and leaving rather than starting a huge fight is much better. Explaining why you left a room is much easier than apologizing for punching somebody.

Lorsa
2014-01-07, 09:04 AM
But if the person feels they aren't in an emotional state where communication is possible, then leaving is generally a much better option that starting an altercation. While I personally wouldn't find a character death this jarring, somebody else might, and leaving rather than starting a huge fight is much better. Explaining why you left a room is much easier than apologizing for punching somebody.

Yes. But in this case there had passed quite a bit of time without any word.

AMFV
2014-01-07, 09:11 AM
Yes. But in this case there had passed quite a bit of time without any word.

Well an hour isn't really a lot of time, that's actually a fairly short amount of time to cool off if you had a problem. Especially if you went for a drive or something. As the DM said, it had been an hour, and then eight, which would cover cooling down and going to sleep.

Knaight
2014-01-07, 03:19 PM
Regarding getting mad over a game - it's still social interaction. There are lots of good reasons to get mad within the context of social interactions, and plenty of them apply to the specific social interaction of playing a game. It's one thing if it was over certain rolls happening, but it's entirely another if it is over something like a hostile group dynamic. It would be really easy to see what happened as the GM deliberately killing off a character, and if that wasn't the only thing in the game that could be interpreted that way quitting is entirely reasonable.

In short, if the getting mad in the game is getting mad because the other people in the game are using the game to pick on you, it's entirely reasonable. It's also entirely reasonable to respond with "Screw this, I'm out".

Segev
2014-01-07, 03:35 PM
Ideally, he shouldn't remain upset to the point of refusing to talk about it after sleeping on it. IF he does...it may be a sign that he's simply not willing to continue the friendship over this. Which is...concerning. But that's well beyond the scope of gamer etiquette and into the realm of you figuring out how to deal with this on a friendship-saving (or -forsaking) level.

In short, give him the night to get over it. Then talk to him about it. See why it upsets him. Specifically, ask what he would like to see happen and what he thinks, if anything, went wrong.

You don't have to agree with him, but you should at least see where his head is. It will help you either correct misaprehensions he might have, or determine what it is that you need to do to address his issues with the game (if anything).

One option, though if you're not a well-experienced DM it probably is a bad idea, would be to apply the Ghost template to the dead PC. He wasn't ready to let go of life, yet. He's 5 levels higher than before and this severely impacts all his advancement options (which could be fixed by a ressurection, later), but would let him keep playing the character. Balance WOULD be an issue to keep your eye on, though.

Scow2
2014-01-07, 03:36 PM
In any case, it's not surprising it's a little hard to tell as I wasn't completely sure myself if I was being sarcastic or not. I'd rate it as "exaggerated way to state an opinion".That's what DarkOrchid text is for! (Along with any other sanity-challenging statements.

RPGaddict28
2014-01-07, 04:45 PM
So, I decided to be to be the neutral DM. I gave him a way back with some slight stipulations. He made a topic here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323924) and it brings up what the conditions of his resurrection entail.

Delwugor
2014-01-07, 05:16 PM
That looks like a reasonable resolution, and from the post sounds like he is good with it.
If I could make a followup recommendation, don't use the dominate or mind reading too often, but when you do make it fun/challenging for his character and adds to his story. I always like to see setbacks turn into awesome gaming. Also at some point give him the means to work off the condition and be free.

I had a great series of adventures after catching lycanthropy and killing people in a village. Spent an entire session working with the group to catch the beast until he realized it was him. Confessed to the party and with their support went to the village cleric. Wasn't executed offhand but had to immediately pay indemnity to the families and a quest (with the party) to remove it.

Segev
2014-01-07, 11:55 PM
I've given advice in his thread as to one possible angle to take on it, but it depends on the wizard's nature. If the wizard is reprehensible in goals and means to the party, it won't work. But if he just is neutral and a bit of a control freak, but what he wants isn't necessarily repugnant on a moral level to the PCs, this could be a non-hostile relationship if everybody makes the best of it. And if so, the willing cooperation of this PC with the NPC could make for lots of plot hooks.

Of course, if the wizard's got alignment conflict with the party such that his goals would repulse them, this isn't an option, and the best bet is to play the resistance game straight, I think.