How to deal with a player who's afraid of character death and other things

[GrottoSteelKlaw]

Their character dying and the hastle of writing up a new one, feeling they might be a burden on the party as a whole.

The reason I ask is being I want to at least get them out of their shell and be open to the idea of characters dying and writing up a new one, I mean its gonna happen eventually and I want to prepare them for that, even if it means making 10 characters you may never ever get the chance to play.

Also side question, anyone know like a fast and easy way to learn how to run D&D, like a flowchart? thinking on my feet and setting up enemies? I've wanted to play a sorta bronze age testament sorta game.

Any help for a new dm?

Note that this is all within the confines of a roll 20 game rather than an irl meetup.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Play a game that doesn't have character death on the table with them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Kill his character. Kill the next two or three too. Easiest way to get over this particular hangupu is to just confront it directly. Tell him you're doing it up front, afterwards, or not at all. That's up to you and how you think they'd handle that particular bit of knowledge.

As far as being a burden or taking too long to writeup a new sheet, you can help him with character gen. Practice makes a task go faster and, I presume, you're better at character gen than he is so you can help him avoid making poor decisions.

There's nothing for tactical accumen but to study and contemplate, if that's his concern.

Good luck with all that.

[Faily]

One of my hints for a new DM is to use a DM Screen.

Now you don't have to use it to hide your rolls if that's how you like to do it (some prefer to hide their rolls, some prefer to roll in the open, there's no right or wrong way to do it), but some of the best things with a DM Screen is that it comes with quick refereces to important game mechanics, saving you the trouble of having to look it up when it's just a quick glance down right in front of you.

At least for me, using a DM Screen really helped with a lot of things and I really like to have it for most systems.


EDIT: And also for your player...

Some people just have a hard time with losing a character, for various reasons. Some of them you can reason with that it's just a game, and that it shouldn't bother them too much.

However, I do want to say that perhaps one of my favorite ways to combat that kind of thinking is to make sure that deaths are meaningful and memorable. Like, think Obi-Wan in A New Hope, or Gandalf in Fellowship of The Ring. Scenes like that. Where character death is impactful and is a huge contributor to the story overall.

Honestly, even I've gotten super tired of my characters dying in random encounters with bandits who are fighting to the death because the GM either didn't think things through or diceroll just got really unlucky for me. I've been in campaigns where I've gone through several characters (Savage Tide alone took 5 characters from me and we didn't even finish that campaign because we got fed up with it), and it's just not fun to make up yet another new character that's going to die in some stupid scenario because the GM is throwing everything but the Aquatic Subtype kitchen-sink at you for several sessions in a row.

So yeah. Make the death-scenes cool, memorable, and make them have an impact on the story. Then it can be cool to talk about that time character X sacrificed themselves to stop the evil ritual, and stuff like that.

[False God]

Why is this a problem?

Just say his character is Kenny, every time he dies he comes back to life the next morning as though nothing had happened, and his friends never remember anything about his death. But because of this his character can't pass on to the next life either and life-restoring abilities have no affect on him.

This will make his gameplay infinitely more interesting than rerolling a new character. Heck, give it to the whole party if they throw a fit. Roll it into the game that they're cursed/blessed with this ability and part of the story is finding out WHY.

If however, you're running a meat grinder game, just be frank with him that he's joined the wrong table.

As to feeling useless, make sure people help him not make poor build choices (but don't force optimization) and teach him ways his class can be more effective at the game.

[GrottoSteelKlaw]

Note that this is all within the confines of a roll 20 game rather than an irl meetup.

[JakOfAllTirades]

In my experience it helps to have an alternate, level-appropriate character written up before the current character dies. That way, the player can take their time creating the new character rather than doing it if and when the worst should happen. Think of it as an insurance policy.

[Aotrs Commander]

Kill his character. Kill the next two or three too. Easiest way to get over this particular hangupu is to just confront it directly. Tell him you're doing it up front, afterwards, or not at all. That's up to you and how you think they'd handle that particular bit of knowledge.

Bad solution, in my opinion, to put it mildly.

Quickest way to get people to stop caring about putting any effort into the characters (as characters, instead of "pile of monster-fighting stats") is to put a revolving door effect into place.

Not to mention that picking on a player's characters with deliberate attempt to kill them off is a complete asshat thing to do and also a VERY quick way to make it an out-of-game problem between the DM and the player, even if you are all mates.

(I know if a DM said that that he was going to or had specifically killed my characters on purpose to teach me a lesson, I'd walk right there, and I'm fairly tolerant.)

It's practically a "my DM keeps killing my characters, please help!" thread in the making.




To the OP, if you're playing D&D or something in particular, just make sure you don't kill anyone before level 9 or whatever and they can be raised/ressed afterwards. 'S what I do; I simply work on the basis that the party is, like, on a TV show, where you can be fairly sure (in most shows) that the returning cast is going to be coming back week-to-week and work accordingly. You only have to make sure the players are only FAIRLY sure, not 100% sure, you won't TPK them, after all, to maintain credible threat. At higher levels, temporarily splortching one of them gets the point across, without actually having the downsides. Obviously, though, that's conginent on you running a system with has the ability to raise the dead (but if you're using Roll20, I presume that's the case, unless 5E took out raise/ress, which seems unlikely...!)

[redwizard007]

Kill his character. Kill the next two or three too. Easiest way to get over this particular hangupu is to just confront it directly. Tell him you're doing it up front, afterwards, or not at all. That's up to you and how you think they'd handle that particular bit of knowledge.

As far as being a burden or taking too long to writeup a new sheet, you can help him with character gen. Practice makes a task go faster and, I presume, you're better at character gen than he is so you can help him avoid making poor decisions.

There's nothing for tactical accumen but to study and contemplate, if that's his concern.

Good luck with all that.

Absolutely, positively, 100% a horrible idea.

[GloatingSwine]

Play Paranoia

Then you can kill his characters a few times until it doesn't hurt as much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Bad solution, in my opinion, to put it mildly.

That's both a matter of opinion and results will necessarily vary.


Quickest way to get people to stop caring about putting any effort into the characters (as characters, instead of "pile of monster-fighting stats") is to put a revolving door effect into place.

Which is only a bad thing if they're not overinvested in the first place. Characters die. Better to get it over with than live with the tension and dread for who knows how long and stress out the GM over your reaction too.


Not to mention that picking on a player's characters with deliberate attempt to kill them off is a complete asshat thing to do and also a VERY quick way to make it an out-of-game problem between the DM and the player, even if you are all mates.

It's -already- an out of game problem. That's why this thread exists. Of course rational discussion would be ideal but the OP gives me the impression that it's already taken place. Time for the next step. If I'm wrong, by all means just tell the guy to stop being a wimp. Character die.


(I know if a DM said that that he was going to or had specifically killed my characters on purpose to teach me a lesson, I'd walk right there, and I'm fairly tolerant.)

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you've had characters die and already know better than to get overly attached to them and freak out about it. That's the -only- "lesson" that having characters die fulfills. If you're sitting at my table, you've already heard my position on "the dice fall where they may" and "kid gloves are not a thing I do." I don't have to target one player in particular. Just throw in a couple high challenge encounters. One or more PCs will almost certainly die.

If you play differently, that's your prerogative but if you've already had the discussion then there's nothing left but practical application.


It's practically a "my DM keeps killing my characters, please help!" thread in the making.

Only if you go overboard with it. It really shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 times to hammer home the point that PCs are mortals and not the center of the in-game world even if they are the narrative center of the game.



To the OP, if you're playing D&D or something in particular, just make sure you don't kill anyone before level 9 or whatever and they can be raised/ressed afterwards. 'S what I do; I simply work on the basis that the party is, like, on a TV show, where you can be fairly sure (in most shows) that the returning cast is going to be coming back week-to-week and work accordingly. You only have to make sure the players are only FAIRLY sure, not 100% sure, you won't TPK them, after all, to maintain credible threat. At higher levels, temporarily splortching one of them gets the point across, without actually having the downsides. Obviously, though, that's conginent on you running a system with has the ability to raise the dead (but if you're using Roll20, I presume that's the case, unless 5E took out raise/ress, which seems unlikely...!)

Mind, this is only my opinion rather than a declaration that you're doing it wrong but "ugh. :smallyuk:"

I find that attitude from the GM absolutely loathesome. So for 9 levels I have to actively -seek- death if I want it to be a real possiblity? It's bad enough in written or televised media when the protag's plot-armor is obvious but you're stuffing -my- character into a suit of the stuff whether I like it or not and actually saying so up front? Bleck :smallyuk: That just drains -all- of the tension out of apparently dangerous (but not really, by your own words) situations. This question is a bit hyperbolic and rhetorical but seriously, why are we even rolling dice if the conclusion is foregone? Do you but I would get up and walk from the table for that -far- faster than for the declaration that my character is being specifically targetted.

[Aotrs Commander]

Mind, this is only my opinion rather than a declaration that you're doing it wrong but "ugh. :smallyuk:"

I find that attitude from the GM absolutely loathesome. So for 9 levels I have to actively -seek- death if I want it to be a real possiblity? It's bad enough in written or televised media when the protag's plot-armor is obvious but you're stuffing -my- character into a suit of the stuff whether I like it or not and actually saying so up front? Bleck :smallyuk: That just drains -all- of the tension out of apparently dangerous (but not really, by your own words) situations. This question is a bit hyperbolic and rhetorical but seriously, why are we even rolling dice if the conclusion is foregone? Do you but I would get up and walk from the table for that -far- faster than for the declaration that my character is being specifically targetted.

Well, likewise sentiment, my good poster; I'd find that attitude from a player equally loathesome.

Fortunaely for both of us, I don't think we'll ever be in a position where we would ever have to cross games.

[Composer99]

Their character dying and the hastle of writing up a new one, feeling they might be a burden on the party as a whole.

The reason I ask is being I want to at least get them out of their shell and be open to the idea of characters dying and writing up a new one, I mean its gonna happen eventually and I want to prepare them for that, even if it means making 10 characters you may never ever get the chance to play.

Also side question, anyone know like a fast and easy way to learn how to run D&D, like a flowchart? thinking on my feet and setting up enemies? I've wanted to play a sorta bronze age testament sorta game.

Any help for a new dm?

Note that this is all within the confines of a roll 20 game rather than an irl meetup.

I feel like there is a lot going on in this post.

Three issues related to the player in question:
(1) The player is afraid of their character dying, or finds it upsetting in some respect.
(2) The player does not want to go through the hassle of writing up a replacement character.
(3) The player feels they might be a burden.

And then you have a separate enquiry about tips for running D&D.

For a player afraid of their character dying, as you say, it is something that is bound to happen sooner or later. I would 100% say you should absolutely not go out of your way to kill their character(s) 2-3 times.

One way of looking at it might be like the long middle section of Saving Private Ryan, after the team led by Tom Hanks' character leaves the Normandy beaches but before they find Private Ryan. During that long middle portion, two of the protagonists are killed. While their deaths are scripted, they seem to us as the audience to be more or less random.

Somewhat similarly, in Dungeons & Dragons, the adventuring party ventures into danger. Where in the movie, danger came in the form of occasional combat action against enemy forces, with the potential for hazards such as minefields, in D&D combat and hazard dangers abound: dragons, evil wizards, raiders, tomb guardians, traps galore... the point is, it's not unexpected or even terrible for protagonists to die in D&D. Where in the movie, the randomness of the protagonist deaths was an illusion, in D&D, the randomness is genuine, the result of the interaction between player and DM decisions (e.g. when controlling monsters in combat), of the interaction between player decisions and the game world (e.g. traps), and the results of assorted die rolls.

As far as the hassle of writing up a replacement, it's a game: the replacement can be Rob Redblade or Murkon Lightinghammer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0917.html). Of course, how much of a hassle it is to make a replacement depends on the system and the character - D&D spellcasters are harder to write up than non-spellcasters, and 3.5 and 4e characters are more difficult to write up than characters in other editions.

If they are concerned about their character being a burden on the party, you might suggest that they get some hints from optimisation guides, or you might trawl through such guides yourself for tips to pass on.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Kill his character. Kill the next two or three too. Easiest way to get over this particular hangupu is to just confront it directly. Tell him you're doing it up front, afterwards, or not at all. That's up to you and how you think they'd handle that particular bit of knowledge.

Wow that's legitimately some of the worst advice I've ever seen on this forum.

[Cluedrew]

Kill his character. Kill the next two or three too. Easiest way to get over this particular hangupu is to just confront it directly. Tell him you're doing it up front, afterwards, or not at all. That's up to you and how you think they'd handle that particular bit of knowledge.I was going to make a joke where I mentioned shock therapy. I wasn't expecting someone to suggest it seriously. Not because it can't work Because really I think you have as much chance as driving them away as doing any good. I'm not particularly afraid of character death but if would probably leave if 4 of my characters died in quick succession.

Really my first piece of advice is: Talk to them about it. Why are they afraid of character death? What experiences have they had that shaped this fear? The more you know the better.

Also has the player been confirmed as male?

[FabulousFizban]

either do a one shot where this player has to play a different character, or kill their character so they have to confront the fear. Personally, I'd do both.

[MoiMagnus]

Their character dying and the hastle of writing up a new one, feeling they might be a burden on the party as a whole.

The reason I ask is being I want to at least get them out of their shell and be open to the idea of characters dying and writing up a new one, I mean its gonna happen eventually and I want to prepare them for that, even if it means making 10 characters you may never ever get the chance to play.

Also side question, anyone know like a fast and easy way to learn how to run D&D, like a flowchart? thinking on my feet and setting up enemies? I've wanted to play a sorta bronze age testament sorta game.

Any help for a new dm?

Note that this is all within the confines of a roll 20 game rather than an irl meetup.

1) Character death is overrated as a narrative tool. Sure, well used, the possibility of having your character dying can raise the stakes and the tension. But games where death is only temporary (accessible resurrections, immortal characters, or just plot convenience) don't prevent interesting stories and high stakes. It just prevent "gritty realism". Just don't confuse "the PCs cannot die" and "the PCs always win". Certain victory kills much more the stakes than certain survival. At the end, unless you apply "character death means the player is out of the table", having a dead character being systematically replaced by a new character (played by the same player) is just a different kind of "smoke and mirrors".

2) About "hastle of writing up a new one", there are two parts:

(a) The hastle of writing a new background. That one can easily be defeated by having someone related to the last character (maybe to avenge the death?). Or maybe a sidekick/NPC becoming a PC. As a DM, you can help the players on that point by asking them to draft some NPCs for you. (Our DM asked us few times to quickly draft a NPC we would play during a "cutscene" where he would reveal the new bad guys, for example drafting a group of generals/soldiers being taken in a surprise attack, and having to run away for their life to warn the kingdom)

(b) The hastle of designing a new character (choosing spells, feats, and getting used to the new gameplay). Some peoples like to test new kind of characters, some peoples just don't enjoy this, and that kind of taste cannot be changed easily (sometimes, changing of RPG system can improve the situation). Between having Bob dying and being replaced by Bob2 (same character sheet, except he has a slightly different backstory) because the player just don't want to create and/or play a new character, and saving Bob from death through deus-ex-machina, I usually prefer the deus-ex-machina.

[Aotrs Commander]

1) Character death is overrated as a narrative tool. Sure, well used, the possibility of having your character dying can raise the stakes and the tension. But games where death is only temporary (accessible resurrections, immortal characters, or just plot convenience) don't prevent interesting stories and high stakes. It just prevent "gritty realism". Just don't confuse "the PCs cannot die" and "the PCs always win". Certain victory kills much more the stakes than certain survival. At the end, unless you apply "character death means the player is out of the table", having a dead character being systematically replaced by a new character (played by the same player) is just a different kind of "smoke and mirrors".


Exactly.

I find having someone die and be almost immediately be replaced by someone who just happens to come along as a suitable candidate to be far more immersion breaking (and would entail far more WORK for a prep-heavy DM like me1) that whether or not a character will die permenantly. (Which, as you say, is also not the same as the PCs not LOSING.)



(Hell, just getting a character down is enough to keep the tension up in my experience.

Better, in fact, because it takes two PCs out of the fight for a round (one dwon, one to rush over to heal them), and a combat doesn't usually last more than about four rounds, so that's actually a good chunk of time (well, in D&D anyway). It's like landmines (from a purely military tactical perspective). You want a mine to wound, not kill, because then you take out two soliders - the wounded one and his mate who has to carry him.)



Also, distinction should be made between "PC dies because random numbers" and "PC dies because of consequences of their actions;" it's quite possible in my games to do something so stupid it would get you killed on the spot. I'mma not save you (beyond saying to the player with THAT smirk "are you really sure about that," one or two times), if you stick your head into sphere of annhilation or go skinny dipping into a vat of acid or something.




1TPK would mean "right, that's it, game's over. If no-one else can DM for a few months, that's it until I prepare a new one." Which is why I have never had one (and killed off no more than a handul of PCs - and party NPCs) over the last decades.

(Now, all that said, I was fully prepared to permenantly kill the PCs of our most long-running party in the finale of the adventure where the party was officially retired, though they got away with only two NPC deaths2 (hey, they came very close...))


2That WAS amusing, having to take five minutes to say "no, he's spleen exploded, he's dead in 12 rounds." (Rolemaster, high E critical result.) "You do not have Organ Law, so you cannot regenerate his spleen which is literally the only thing you could have done to save him. No, you cannot perform surgery in under two minutes (10-second rounds), especially while a level 50 ninja dragon lich is pummelling you. No, that healing pool you found earlier can't help, even if it was up to the task, that takes hours, not 11 rounds you now have. That was a typical Rolemaster "you killed him, it just takes a while to come into effect, because mean" kill critical. Let it go, guys, seriously, Gillman is really dead."

[icefractal]

I'm fine with games where the dice fall where they may, but IMO - if PC deaths are happening in more sessions than not, you're doing it wrong.

Risk of death adds to the tension. An occasional death may be needed to keep that risk 'real', and of course sometimes the unexpected happens. But too frequent death wastes everyone's time, prevents PCs forming interesting relationships (with each-other or the world), and strains plausibility (hmm, funny how new people keep turning up to join our group, but never more than five at a time). It's sub-optimal in many ways.

"But I don't fudge, and so deaths happen!"
Who sets the opposition? You! Calibrate **** better!

"It's a static world, the opposition is based on where they go."
Ok, but who gives the info that the players make their decisions on? Who sets up whether dangerous foes are foreshadowed? Who determines how the foes will act? Again, it's you!

"The system I play is very swingy and there's no amount of calibration that will prevent frequent deaths."
Maybe play a better system then. :P

TL;DR - saying your game is exciting because the PCs die a lot is like saying you're a BBQ pitmaster because you dump in a whole bottle of Liquid Smoke.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm fine with games where the dice fall where they may, but IMO - if PC deaths are happening in more sessions than not, you're doing it wrong.

Meat grinders aren't wrong, they're just old-fashioned. Sometimes you -want- to just roll through an old-school dungeon crawl, slicing up ugly monsters and taking their stuff. Ya know, pure gameist territory.


Risk of death adds to the tension. An occasional death may be needed to keep that risk 'real', and of course sometimes the unexpected happens. But too frequent death wastes everyone's time, prevents PCs forming interesting relationships (with each-other or the world), and strains plausibility (hmm, funny how new people keep turning up to join our group, but never more than five at a time). It's sub-optimal in many ways.

This is a matter of expectation. I do hold a cohesive narrative in some regard but it is not mine or my group's primary concern. Overcoming challenges with the game's mechanics, getting the rush from accomplishing things within the game world; those are what we're after. A narrative is in place to string the challenges together and frame those challenges. They also help to amp the tension by putting stakes to the challenges.


"But I don't fudge, and so deaths happen!"
Who sets the opposition? You! Calibrate **** better!

I don't fudge because that completely defeats the reason we play the game. If we just wanted a story, we'd just tell a story together. What is the appropriate death frequency -will- vary by group and narrative genre (horror game, anyone?). If you're -not- getting frequent deaths, you're not cranking the meat grinder hard enough.


"It's a static world, the opposition is based on where they go."
Ok, but who gives the info that the players make their decisions on? Who sets up whether dangerous foes are foreshadowed? Who determines how the foes will act? Again, it's you!

If it's a dynanmic world in which the PCs don't sit at the center, gathering information after the hook is set is on them. If they choose to rush in headlong instead of doing some digging first, that's on them. You presume anyone with any power is either personally dangerous or has dangerous people/beasts under his command if you're not particularly foolhardy.


"The system I play is very swingy and there's no amount of calibration that will prevent frequent deaths."
Maybe play a better system then. :P

Screw chocolate, strawberry is better. :smallsigh:


TL;DR - saying your game is exciting because the PCs die a lot is like saying you're a BBQ pitmaster because you dump in a whole bottle of Liquid Smoke.

Your opinion is noted but it -is- an opinion. FWIW, my attitude is not that frequent death is good but that its possibility is. Play foolishly or have a string of bad luck, time to roll up a new one. Play well and do what you can to mitigate luck's influence, you'll go far, maybe even to the end of the current adventure/campaign. Play well but with a high-risk, high-reward strategy and your character will probably die before the campaign's over but he'll likely live in glory or ignominy in our memories for months or even years afterward. I favor that last one, personally.

[Quertus]

I'm fine with games where the dice fall where they may, but IMO - if PC deaths are happening in more sessions than not, you're doing it wrong.

Risk of death adds to the tension. An occasional death may be needed to keep that risk 'real', and of course sometimes the unexpected happens. But too frequent death wastes everyone's time, prevents PCs forming interesting relationships (with each-other or the world), and strains plausibility (hmm, funny how new people keep turning up to join our group, but never more than five at a time). It's sub-optimal in many ways.

"But I don't fudge, and so deaths happen!"
Who sets the opposition? You! Calibrate **** better!

"It's a static world, the opposition is based on where they go."
Ok, but who gives the info that the players make their decisions on? Who sets up whether dangerous foes are foreshadowed? Who determines how the foes will act? Again, it's you!

"The system I play is very swingy and there's no amount of calibration that will prevent frequent deaths."
Maybe play a better system then. :P

TL;DR - saying your game is exciting because the PCs die a lot is like saying you're a BBQ pitmaster because you dump in a whole bottle of Liquid Smoke.

I mean, I'm a fan of character retention, personally. If I had my choice, I'd have never built or played another character after making Quertus (my signature academia mage for whom this account is named), simply running him in every single adventure and campaign ever. Fortunately, I didn't get my way, as I've had numerous cool charters since then (and learned that about 1 in 20 characters I make is worth playing - sigh).

Even so, I find your position rather odd.

The part I most want to touch on is this notion of "Ok, but who gives the info that the players make their decisions on? Who sets up whether dangerous foes are foreshadowed? … Again, it's you!"

Personally, I try to make sure that my players have the training necessary to be able to have their characters get that information for themselves¹. Then I give the players the agency to set their own difficulty level, to set their own information level, etc.

So, in my sandboxes, it's not really me who chooses how much the party knows - it's the players. That's just one part of the agency that I give them.

¹ limited by how much information is realistically available, of course. Versimilitude is trump, but I try to choose a "start condition" - a time and place and set of build instructions - that I believe have the reasonable expectation of producing a fun experience.

[Jay R]

Kill his character. Kill the next two or three too. Easiest way to get over this particular hangupu is to just confront it directly. Tell him you're doing it up front, afterwards, or not at all. That's up to you and how you think they'd handle that particular bit of knowledge.

In an episode of Gunsmoke (60s American TV Western), the Marshall said, "I never hang anybody. The law does."

Similarly, I never kill a character. The game does.

PCs can certainly die in a game, but if I decide to kill a character for some reason other than that's what happened in play, then I'm not DMing a game; I'm telling the world and the dice what to do. This is no different from a football referee who decides who should win the game for some reason other than what happened on the field, or a judge who decides who should win the case for some reason other than the evidence provided by both sides.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In an episode of Gunsmoke (60s American TV Western), the Marshall said, "I never hang anybody. The law does."

Similarly, I never kill a character. The game does.

PCs can certainly die in a game, but if I decide to kill a character for some reason other than that's what happened in play, then I'm not DMing a game; I'm telling the world and the dice what to do. This is no different from a football referee who decides who should win the game for some reason other than what happened on the field, or a judge who decides who should win the case for some reason other than the evidence provided by both sides.

The ref doesn't choose one of the teams. It's not exactly hard to push a "fair" loss on the high-school baseball team when you can put 'em up against the redsox.

I wouldn't fudge the rolls, basically ever, but stacking the odds is trivial. You don't even have to target him specifically. Just ramp up the difficulty accross the board until he goes down.

I'm catching a lot of flak for saying it but I stand by my advice. Whack 'im.

Disclaimer: I know -nothing- of baseball. If the Sox suck, substitute them with whatever pro team makes the analogy work.

[Satinavian]

Meat grinders aren't wrong, they're just old-fashioned. Sometimes you -want- to just roll through an old-school dungeon crawl, slicing up ugly monsters and taking their stuff. Ya know, pure gameist territory.

They are also not to everyone's taste.

And forcing a style you like on players after they explicitely stated they don't like that, is an absolute no-go. That is where the horror stories of GMs on a power trip come from.

If you and certain players don't agree about how the game should work and can't find a compromise, you agree to have different tastes and don't play with each other. In no way is it ever OK for the DM to "educate" the player through force.

And it doesn't matter which styles are the cause of the disagreement or who prefers what. The above is always true.


Your opinion is noted but it -is- an opinion. FWIW, my attitude is not that frequent death is good but that its possibility is. Play foolishly or have a string of bad luck, time to roll up a new one. Play well and do what you can to mitigate luck's influence, you'll go far, maybe even to the end of the current adventure/campaign. Play well but with a high-risk, high-reward strategy and your character will probably die before the campaign's over but he'll likely live in glory or ignominy in our memories for months or even years afterward. I favor that last one, personally.And coming back to the styles in question :

A player who does not want a character death would likely never choose "high risk, high reward", just the opposite, they would take "low risk, low reward". Something that would likely be completely boring for you to DM. It would likely include ignoring most of the hooks you find actually interesting and frequently retreating from fights that are completely winnable but might actually swing.

Also, such a character is the most likely to survive of the whole group. So after ramping up difficulties and railroading the group to actually take the challange you still need a TPK to have that particular character die, if you don't outright cheat.

[MoiMagnus]

I'm catching a lot of flak for saying it but I stand by my advice. Whack 'im.


I mean, if you kill his character multiple time in a row, I see different outcomes:
1) He will "man up" and start accepting from character death as normal, which is your expected outcome.
2) He will understand you're not the kind of DM he want to play with and leave the table. (Some peoples play RPG to escape the harsh reality, not to again have to stress about consequences).
3) He will feel miserable by seeing his creation be destroyed again and again, but still continue playing with you from social pressure, which is the outcome I fear the most.
4) He will try to seek revenge against you (the DM) by playing in the most adversarial way, until the campaign break appart or you kick him out. (That one is particularly rare, but the legendary Old Man Hendersonhttps://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson is an example of it. The reading of this story is hilarious)

[Glorthindel]

To avoid the thread being entirely one way, I will back up Kelb. I wouldn't go for 2-3 times, but I thoroughly support the expose-the-wound stance.

Because yes, some players like nice soft, safe, no-losses play, but some enjoy white-knuckle rides where one slip sees your character meet oblivion.

My Call of Cthulu character died this weekend. He was easily my favourite, most rounded character I have run the last couple of years, but I was excited, and gripping my dice with delight, as the encounter unfolded, and my characters death looked more and more certain. All the more because a couple of instances made me wary that the DM was pulling punches, and the way things were unravelling, I knew my death was almost a certainty, and i was quivering with excitement to see whether he would drop the hammer or not (bear in mind, i didn't deliberately take actions to force his hand, just a hilarious string of bad luck put me firmly in harms way).

And ultimately, how does the player know which one he is until he has experienced both ends of the spectrum?

Sure, he is terrified of death now, but he doesn't know what it actually holds. Upon the loss of his first character, he might find himself getting a thrill he didn't know he would. Or not, but at least then you know for sure, and can decide whether the DM and player can be compatible.

[dehro]

I would like to know if a conversation has taken place as to why character death would be seen as such a bad thing by the player. is there a personal issue IRL that needs confronting or resolving or that has brought this up, or is it lazyness, or lack of self confidence? (point 3 seems to indicate that), or lack of understanding of the game?
I would have them roll up a spare character now that he doesn't need it (yet), I would have a talk about it with him, to find out what the reasons for this hang up are, and I would consider a brief one-shot with a character you rolled for him.. to see how a potential death of that character, in a 1shot limited environment does.

[Jay R]

The ref doesn't choose one of the teams. It's not exactly hard to push a "fair" loss on the high-school baseball team when you can put 'em up against the redsox.

I wouldn't fudge the rolls, basically ever, but stacking the odds is trivial. You don't even have to target him specifically. Just ramp up the difficulty accross the board until he goes down.

I'm catching a lot of flak for saying it but I stand by my advice. Whack 'im.

Putting the Red Sox somewhere in the game where the PCs could find out about them is valid -- totally separate from how you feel about one player's emotions. It's good for the party to know that there are places to avoid, and it might lead to a thrilling scenario fleeing from an unconquerable danger.

Putting them in the game in order to create PC death despite good play is not good DMing. It's not even bad DMing. It isn't really playing the game at all. If the players can't affect the outcome, then they aren't playing a game; they're watching you play out your fantasy. This is no different from fudging the rolls.

I once wrote:
28. When you design a scenario, you should be firmly on the players' side, trying to produce encounters in which they have every legitimate chance to succeed (and that poor play and bad decisions can still let them fail). But when running the scenario, you need to be a fair and neutral judge of the PCs' actions.
There is no time when the DM should actively want the PCs to fail. Back to my original analogy, that's like the Marshall who decides he wants the prisoner to hang, totally separate from the results of the trial

Leaving aside any questions about fairness, or about attacking a character to punish the player, there are two straightforward reasons why this idea doesn't work.

1. You aren't punishing one person. A scenario that's impossible to escape kills the entire party, including all the innocent ones, so it won't look like it's associated with a single player's attitude.
2. If they are killed by an overwhelming encounter, then that player won't associate it with a normal death in D&D. He won't learn what you want him to. He will become more convinced that PC death is unfair and unacceptable, because that PC's death was both.

[Kelb_Panthera]

They are also not to everyone's taste.

And forcing a style you like on players after they explicitely stated they don't like that, is an absolute no-go. That is where the horror stories of GMs on a power trip come from.

If you and certain players don't agree about how the game should work and can't find a compromise, you agree to have different tastes and don't play with each other. In no way is it ever OK for the DM to "educate" the player through force.

And it doesn't matter which styles are the cause of the disagreement or who prefers what. The above is always true.

If we have so diametrically opposed game style desires, we shouldn't play together. Doesn't mean we can't be friends, doesn't mean we have to hate each other, it does mean we should each find something else to do on the other's game night. I'm opperating under the assumption that a discussion has already taken place (else how does the OP know how the player feels about these matters?) If he's still willing to play when he's been clearly told that death happens then all there is left is to play the game and whacking a few characters will help him get over the tension.

It's like when you're learning how to fight and you're still scared of getting punched in the face. There's nothing for it but to get punched in the face, have that experience, and realize it's way less awful than you made it up to be in your head.


And coming back to the styles in question :

A player who does not want a character death would likely never choose "high risk, high reward", just the opposite, they would take "low risk, low reward". Something that would likely be completely boring for you to DM. It would likely include ignoring most of the hooks you find actually interesting and frequently retreating from fights that are completely winnable but might actually swing.

Also, such a character is the most likely to survive of the whole group. So after ramping up difficulties and railroading the group to actually take the challange you still need a TPK to have that particular character die, if you don't outright cheat.

Death has consequences; lost levels, thousands of gold, and wait time until res' or replacement. If a player is seeking it, that's a sign something's gone wrong with the campaign, barring it being necessary to pickup certain options (yes, that's a thing.)

I don't need a player to play high-risk to enjoy DMing for them. The cautious ones are usually tougher nuts to crack and that's a lot -more- fun for me.

The normal gameplay loop is to put reasonably fair challenges in front of the players and then do my level best to make them fail within the limits of the opponents' or obstacles' ability to do so. Sometimes you lay down a lawnmower encounter and the players get to shred (feels great) and sometimes you put the brick wall with teeth in front of them to remind them they're mortal (fleeing is the correct solution) but most of the time you aim for a fair shot or maybe just a little easier than fair so the tension and the risk is there but can be overcome without major in-character losses.


I mean, if you kill his character multiple time in a row, I see different outcomes:

As there are with most activities.


1) He will "man up" and start accepting from character death as normal, which is your expected outcome.

it's the ideal one. If it's not, then we're going to have a long-term problem.


2) He will understand you're not the kind of DM he want to play with and leave the table. (Some peoples play RPG to escape the harsh reality, not to again have to stress about consequences).

Also wholly acceptable. Better we realize we have conflicting expectations sooner than later. Better still if we had discovered this in a discussion over the game rather than in the game itself but it is what it is.


3) He will feel miserable by seeing his creation be destroyed again and again, but still continue playing with you from social pressure, which is the outcome I fear the most.

If you're playing because you feel social pressure to do so, you've got some bigger issues with your social circle than your DM having a style you don't like. No gaming is better than bad gaming, in any case.


4) He will try to seek revenge against you (the DM) by playing in the most adversarial way, until the campaign break appart or you kick him out. (That one is particularly rare, but the legendary Old Man Hendersonhttps://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson is an example of it. The reading of this story is hilarious)

I'm not shy with the ban hammer for players that I suspect are trying to deliberately upend the game. You shouldn't be either. This is the worst outcome, in my opinion. It speaks to deeper interpersonal issues if the player is a friend and it's not great for the reputation if you're playing with strangers at your FLGS. Sometimes what's necessary is regrettably so and I'd rather talk it out and separate amicably but sometimes people just suck.


I would like to know if a conversation has taken place as to why character death would be seen as such a bad thing by the player. is there a personal issue IRL that needs confronting or resolving or that has brought this up, or is it lazyness, or lack of self confidence? (point 3 seems to indicate that), or lack of understanding of the game?
I would have them roll up a spare character now that he doesn't need it (yet), I would have a talk about it with him, to find out what the reasons for this hang up are, and I would consider a brief one-shot with a character you rolled for him.. to see how a potential death of that character, in a 1shot limited environment does.

This is good advice. I will say again that mine's predicated on the idea that this discussion has already taken place. If it hasn't, do that first.

[Kaptin Keen]

In 32 years of playing tabletop RPG's, I think I've killed - as the GM - maybe 5 characters, tops. I've had even fewer die as a player. And most of the characters that have died at my table were when someone wanted to reroll.

It doesn't just 'happen eventually'. If you set out to have a bloody campaign, then sure, eventually it will get bloody, or you're not doing it right. But defeat can take many forms, and it's not difficult to avoid outright slaughter if that's what you want.

[Zombimode]

In 32 years of playing tabletop RPG's, I think I've killed - as the GM - maybe 5 characters, tops. I've had even fewer die as a player.

Tangent: Number of character deaths is not a good metric: it could be because the DM isn't putting up potenially deadly challenges. But it could also be the DM is just doing that but the players are skillfull/powerfull/lucky enough to get their characters through.

[Glorthindel]

In 32 years of playing tabletop RPG's, I think I've killed - as the GM - maybe 5 characters, tops. I've had even fewer die as a player. And most of the characters that have died at my table were when someone wanted to reroll.

It doesn't just 'happen eventually'. If you set out to have a bloody campaign, then sure, eventually it will get bloody, or you're not doing it right. But defeat can take many forms, and it's not difficult to avoid outright slaughter if that's what you want.

It most certainly can "just happen".

The last three campaigns I ran to completion, all with the same pool of players had radically different lethalities. My WFRP Enemy Within campaign (arguably a much more lethal system than D&D) ran to completion without a single character death (in a group of 6 players), whereas my Dark Heresy campaign (6 players, 3 the same from the WFRP game) saw two character deaths, and my Ravenloft campaign (8 players, everyone from the WFRP game) saw eleven character deaths, with only two players making it from start to completion on a single character, one player losing four characters (I love you Sam, but you're a ****-up :smallwink:), two characters being killed by the party itself, and four characters going down in a single session.

The secret is to not have any preconceived goal of how the campaign will go, just set it up and see where it ends up. And surely, isn't that the number one rule that DM's should abide by?

It seems odd to me. Railroading is universally despised, being a killer-DM and purposefully killing characters is viewed as a cardinal sin, and even fudging dicerolls is a contentious subject with many viewing it as a deeply unfair practice. Yet, perplexingly to me, sheltering and protecting characters (without the players knowledge and permission) is quite frequently given a pass. To me, it is no different than railroading or fudging dice, it is the DM making a choice for the players, taking away their agency. I sincerely believe that a DM that purposefully and deliberately keeps a character alive is no better than one that purposefully kills one; in both cases, it was not their decision to make.

[Kaptin Keen]

Tangent: Number of character deaths is not a good metric: it could be because the DM isn't putting up potenially deadly challenges. But it could also be the DM is just doing that but the players are skillfull/powerfull/lucky enough to get their characters through.

Could be any number of things. It is, in this case, a concensus built over time by a tight group of friends. But a good tangent all the same. I think any group - to remain together over time - needs to reach some form of agreement, stated or otherwise, of what type of game they want.

What would be a better metric though? No matter how you put it, we're measuring rubber bands here =)

[MoiMagnus]

Yet, perplexingly to me, sheltering and protecting characters (without the players knowledge and permission) is quite frequently given a pass.

Because more peoples implicitly give the permission to their DM to do so, and assume this permission is implicitly given by most other players.

While explicit permission is always better (hence session 0), most tables still work through implicit permissions given by the tone of the campaign, and whatever previous experiences the players.
(Which in case of modern audience, video-game-RPG is most likely part of them, and those do not hesitate to railroad and shelter players through plot convenience or easy resurrection / save&reload. They even frequently fudge rolls too, but that one is rarely openly assumed by the game...).

In fact, outside of those forums, I don't see that much complaints against railroading.
Sure, most prefer not having a railroaded campaign, but it's not at the point of being "despised".
(Fudging rolls would probably get a lot more hate than railroading in a D&D campaign, at least among the players I know)

[Satinavian]

Because more peoples implicitly give the permission to their DM to do so, and assume this permission is implicitly given by most other players.

I have seen severe misunderstandings both way. That is the problem with implicit agreements. That is why session 0 and explicit agreements are better

But as long as the DM only does what he thinks he has an implicit agreement to do, it is still morally fine.

[Mystral]

Kill his character. Kill the next two or three too. Easiest way to get over this particular hangupu is to just confront it directly. Tell him you're doing it up front, afterwards, or not at all. That's up to you and how you think they'd handle that particular bit of knowledge.
I guess that's a way to solve that problem, considering that he'll propably be gone after the first death, certainly after the second or you admitting you're doing it on purpose. But at that point, you can kick him out of the game and save some time.

[Tanarii]

Switch to Dungeon Crawl Classics, or Basic D&D, or Paranoia. That'll get him used to the idea that charcater life is cheap, and it's all about how heroically you die. Or how many other Pcs you take with you, for the last.

[Kaptin Keen]

It most certainly can "just happen".

Of course it can. IF you push the envelope of what is survivable for PC's - then they will die. If you play with a high level of randomness, PC's will die.

If you do not, generally speaking, they won't.

I don't coddle players, but I play with easily controlled variables. Because I roll many attacks with low damage rather than a few for high damage, I very rarely get random swings that kill my PC's. And then, occasionally, I will have an enemy capable of 1-shotting (more of less) a PC on a lucky roll - but I'll have a backup plan, because I don't ever go out of my way to kill my PC's.


The secret is to not have any preconceived goal of how the campaign will go, just set it up and see where it ends up. And surely, isn't that the number one rule that DM's should abide by?

Surely not. As GM, you're the boss, and the PC's are your employees. It's your job - your #1 rule - to provide a safe, fun and engaging workplace environment, as well as relevant challenges to the skills and abilities of your workforce. And if, in the course of those things, unavoidable accidents happen, then so be it. Sometimes, you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

[Satinavian]

Switch to Dungeon Crawl Classics, or Basic D&D, or Paranoia. That'll get him used to the idea that charcater life is cheap, and it's all about how heroically you die. Or how many other Pcs you take with you, for the last.
And why would a player who doesn't want his characters to die agree to play one of those systems ?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Surely not. As GM, you're the boss, and the PC's are your employees. It's your job - your #1 rule - to provide a safe, fun and engaging workplace environment, as well as relevant challenges to the skills and abilities of your workforce. And if, in the course of those things, unavoidable accidents happen, then so be it. Sometimes, you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

{Scrubbed}

Aw hell naw. This is a game, dude, not a job. The GM is not "the boss" even if his position does give hiim some authority. If you make a living world with several concurrent happenings, you can let the players decide which of those happenings, if any, they want to engage with. If they'd rather go monster-hunting or dungeon-crawling, that's fine too. You don't have to direct things along only the one true plot you decided on before they ever rolled up their characters. I'd argue that you're doing them a pretty substantial disservice to do so, in fact.

As for in-character risks, they're a part-in-parcel to the whole adventure genre. If they're not really there then you're just telling a story and you don't need game mechanics for that. Worse still if the risk is absent because you're fudging rolls on your side of the screen. Then you're letting them think they're playing a game when they really aren't. They're just bit-players in the story -you- are telling rather than even telling a story together.


And why would a player who doesn't want his characters to die agree to play one of those systems ?

He probably wouldn't and you'll have solved the problem. Might have a new one if you don't have enough players without him or if you meet at his house or something like that but that -is- another problem.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Surely not. As GM, you're the boss, and the PC's are your employees. It's your job - your #1 rule - to provide a safe, fun and engaging workplace environment, as well as relevant challenges to the skills and abilities of your workforce. And if, in the course of those things, unavoidable accidents happen, then so be it. Sometimes, you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

No. This is all wrong.

[Tanarii]

And why would a player who doesn't want his characters to die agree to play one of those systems ?Good point.

Guess the OP will just have to fall back on the solution of just killing the character a bunch until the player gets over this phobia. Because clearly the answer is exposure therapy without consent. :smallamused:

[Quertus]

The secret is to not have any preconceived goal of how the campaign will go, just set it up and see where it ends up. And surely, isn't that the number one rule that DM's should abide by?

Although I liked your post in general, I just wanted to call out this particular passage as a thing of beauty.

That said, just like "not killing PCs", it is technically something with multiple right answers, dependent upon the table.

[dehro]

I kinda want to know how it's going...

[Incorrect]

...I want to prepare them for that, even if it means making 10 characters you may never ever get the chance to play.
Based on 90% of the many, many players I know, this is not the norm. I know that some like to make many character sheets, and consider character building almost as a side hobby, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I would never have the expectation that someone made extra character sheets and kept them up to date while their current character was still in play.

My advice would be to tell the player that if the character gets into dangerous situations, there is a risk that they will get hurt. If the character would happen to die, you will offer to help them create a new character that fits well into the group.

Dont go out of your way to kill the character, but also dont fudge to save them.

I will add that if I get the feeling that a GM is killing my characters more than I expect for that game/genre, my characters will become more and more 2 dimensional. I will most like lean towards silly characters or psychopaths, because those are easy to pick up and roleplay, and I dont need to spend a lot of time developing the personality.
This is not me trying to bring boring characters to the game, but I expect to spend more time playing the character, than I spend on building and developing the character.

[Chauncymancer]

It most certainly can "just happen".

The last three campaigns I ran to completion, all with the same pool of players had radically different lethalities.

I would argue that Warhammer and Ravenloft are both examples of "setting out to have a bloody game."


The secret is to not have any preconceived goal of how the campaign will go... I sincerely believe that a DM that purposefully and deliberately keeps a character alive is no better than one that purposefully kills one; in both cases, it was not their decision to make.
You can have both, in systems where running out of HP results in stable unconsciousness instead of system spiral. Before introducing an NPC into the situation, you just answer the question "if this npc, in pursuit of their goals, reduced this player to 0 HP, what would they do with them?" And if the answer is "kill them immediately" you just rewrite the npc until that doesn't seem like a plausible response.
There's a lot of waking up in ogre caves as they try to get the fire going under their man-sized stew pots, but not much dying.

Surely not. As GM, you're the boss, and the PC's are your employees. It's your job - your #1 rule - to provide a safe, fun and engaging workplace environment, as well as relevant challenges to the skills and abilities of your workforce. And if, in the course of those things, unavoidable accidents happen, then so be it. Sometimes, you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Down one great, sad, branch of my Never-when's is the life where I became a sociologist of gaming, and wrote a whole book on how the metaphors we appeal to to explain the game's social dynamic correspond to what we consider appropriate table behavior.

[ezekielraiden]

Count me as another voice less-than-convinced by Kelb's advice, though ironically not because I am pretty averse to character death (though that is true about me; character deaths leave me feeling physically ill). Rather, it's because that is a pretty friggin cruel thing to do to a friend, whether you tell them or not. "I'm going to make you suffer until the pain stops bothering you!" Who says that? I want to know so I can avoid ever associating with that person!

Part of the problem, Kelb, is that you act as though character death is unavoidable. It's not. There are multiple ways to address it. You do not have to be fudging rolls nor pulling punches (I do neither in my home game and we have yet to see a single death); note how when someone critiqued your statement that it "does" happen, those who agree with you had to retreat to merely saying that it can happen, which is a far, far weaker claim. It's not like learning to box, where a punch to the face is unavoidable. It's not like learning to write, where negative criticism is very nearly unavoidable (even fantastic authors will encounter unfair critics). Instead, it's much more like learning to cook, where a careful beginner chef may overcook things (or undertook them), but need not ever burn the food so badly it becomes inedible. (Again, my own experience there; I have had scorched *bits,* I've left bread in the oven until it had a...lovely...milk-chocolate-colored crust, but I've never destroyed a meal.) And since the inevitability was central to your original argument, where does that leave us? Again, it seems as though you are {Scrubbed} targeting a friend, who has confided their anxieties to you, solely on the hope that they will "man up" rather than bewildered and pained. It doesn't matter if you disguise your intent by simply making it a statistical certainty rather than a directly causative one {Scrubbed}

"Non-consensual shock therapy" is a pretty apt term here. Like, would you seriously be okay with "surprising" a friend who doesn't like dark meat chicken, to the point of finding it actively unpleasant, by repeatedly serving them obvious dark meat dishes until they either refuse any dinner invitations or *possibly* decide that dark meat is okay? "Well they're bound to eat some eventually, so if I just keep feeding it to them they'll learn the lesson or stop eating at my house." That's not at all a friendly sentiment! Or if you have a friend afraid of being touched, you actively work to surprise them with unexpected hugs. That's not being a good friend helping someone learn a valuable lesson, that's being an inconsiderate {Scrubbed} who cares nothing for a friend's mental health as long as they "grow" the way you think they should grow, or cut you out of their life if they are unable or unwilling to do so.

[MoiMagnus]

And why would a player who doesn't want his characters to die agree to play one of those systems ?

Small comment on this: systems with very high death ratio (my Paranoia games turns at 2 deaths per session per player in average, and we rarely keep characters from a session to another anyway), death kind of change of meaning. Paranoia's death is more alike of death in a FPS game rather than death in a "true" RPG: it's bound to happen, and as such you see your character more as a pawn you move around for fun than as yourself.

As such, I'm not convinced a game of Paranoia would actually help a player afraid to die (assuming you manage to convince them to play): there is a big difference between losing a character randomly generated (or generated in 10min with almost no background) and losing a character you actually cared about and used time to think about motivations and dreams.

[Guizonde]

i don't know if anybody mentionned this to the op, but what about homebrewing a type of fate points like in dark heresy? my game is absurdly lethal. i mean, i saw a space marine get shanked in the neck for 3 times his hitpoint total thanks to a critical hit. same happens to players, they regularly get dismembered, concussed, get their bones broken, get blinded, etc... sometimes, bionics are an option. most of the time, that means playing a cripple for a few 10 hour sessions. you want to avoid death or dismemberment at a really bad time? burn fate. think of it as a 1up in super mario. also has the added advantage of making it so if or when death occurs, that pc went to hell and back and you got time to mentally prepare oneself.

or how about just replacing the first time death by dismemberment? i know i was at a 3.5 table where one dude freaked out i chopped off his hand to save him from a trapped altar, but two sessions later, he got his hand back thanks to a restoration scroll i bought to heal him. he took the maiming as bad as a character death, but it was reversible, and he held a grudge against my character for only 3 years! oh, by the way, i was the cleric. by that point, my character had had his lungs perforated, got his knees broken, got blinded in one eye, the elven rogue got disfigured by an acid trap, the halfling monk died twice, and the wizard got a fused kneecap giving him a distinctive limp. except for the limp, all the wounds were fixed and left only cosmetic scars. we still learned the lesson that this game was dangerous, we were punching above our weight, and only our bad actions inflicted bad outcomes (except the perforated lung, that was rng and a bad call by the dm).

[Friv]

Kill his character. Kill the next two or three too. Easiest way to get over this particular hangupu is to just confront it directly. Tell him you're doing it up front, afterwards, or not at all. That's up to you and how you think they'd handle that particular bit of knowledge.

As far as being a burden or taking too long to writeup a new sheet, you can help him with character gen. Practice makes a task go faster and, I presume, you're better at character gen than he is so you can help him avoid making poor decisions.

I know that a number of people have talked about this already, but I will jump on the list: if I was at a table and the GM did this to anyone else at the table, not only would they no longer be the GM, but until they apologized profusely to that person they would no longer be my friend.

If someone is trusting you with their concerns, and you abuse that trust because you've decided that forcing them onto your playstyle is more important to you than listening to their anxiety and helping them, {Scrubbed} you are not someone that I want to spend my limited social time interacting with. {Scrubbed}

If you sit down with them and say, "Hey, look, the style of game I enjoy is one where death is common, and if your character dies I'm happy to help you make a new one, and it's not that bad," that's fine. That's good! If you and the other player have a discussion and decide that your gaming styles don't mesh, that's also good.

Deliberately hitting people where they've explicitly told you that they're vulnerable {Scrubbed}

*EDIT* I just saw this statement:

I'm not shy with the ban hammer for players that I suspect are trying to deliberately upend the game. You shouldn't be either. This is the worst outcome, in my opinion. It speaks to deeper interpersonal issues if the player is a friend and it's not great for the reputation if you're playing with strangers at your FLGS. Sometimes what's necessary is regrettably so and I'd rather talk it out and separate amicably but sometimes people just suck.

{Scrubbed}

But you are right about one thing - sometimes people just suck.