Player is mad that his character didn't die

[Darth Credence]

I've been stewing about this since my last session, and I decided I'd just vent a bit here and see what others think. I have a player who is upset that his character didn't die. This is not the first time that this has been a bit of an issue for him, although at no point have I cheated to make him survive. I will note that we are heavy on role playing as opposed to combat, so there haven't been a ton of times that the combat was truly deadly - maybe 5-10 times where there was a major risk of death, while for the most part they are exploring and figuring out mysteries. The players have led us to that, as they have had ample opportunity to go the other way.

The first time, back when they were level 4, he got hit, hard. Hard enough that he from just under full hit points to negative ten in a single hit. His response was, well, my character just died. I was a little shocked that this had happened, but it was what it was. One of the other players asked what his total hp was, found that he did not suffer enough to go down plus his max, so he hadn't died, was just in a death savings throw period. He ended up surviving, but he seemed a bit put out that it didn't happen.

This time, they ended up facing a mummy lord. It was very close, with a couple of them being knocked out of action, but they survived. The problem was that his character got the mummy rot curse. As a paladin, he thought he would be immune, but it's a curse, not a disease. Well, they were three days out from the town they had started in, and he didn't think that there would be enough time to make it back and save him. The guide they had with them told them he doubted there would be help in the place they were going to, but they could detour to a city a day farther up river and almost certainly get help. The group thought about splitting to get him help, while the rest continued on. That ended that session.

Now, the city on the river has been there, in its current state, since before we started the campaign. I changed nothing about this town for the next game. Since the plan was to split the party, I decided to create an encounter that would give him a maybe 50/50 shot at surviving - if he did, he'd get back quickly, if he didn't, time for a new character, and if he avoided it, he'd have an issue with his Deity and be gone from the group for at least two full days. Well, we got back together, and the entire group besides him had decided that the right thing to do was for them all to take their friend to the city to get him help. They left that night, riding through the night to get to the city in the morning. This killed a couple of plans, because he is normally contacted by his deva in his dreams, so no dreams before that, the encounter was going to be the next day so that would be missed, and they would be late for things in the town (this one not so much a problem as a solution to a different issue, as it became clear to them that if they had kept on to the town, they might have been able to fight against the goblin raid). But, hey, it would work out, it let them do what they wanted, and we could move on. Seemed good to me.

Well, they get to the town, and he texts me that he has created his new character, and sends me a link. It is a cleric, same Deity as the Paladin, and there is a temple to that Deity in the town.I try to text back and forth to get some answers on what he is looking for, but eventually have to take him aside. I ask him what he is looking for - does he want his current character to be sidelined for a time but come back later, does he want his current character to die, or does he want current character to be cured and forget about the new one? He specifically says he wants his current character to live but be sidelined for a while so he can play the new one. Great - let's have her be the priest at the temple, have the current character cured but weakened and needs to rest before joining them, and new character join them in his place on directions from their Deity. He says sounds good, we get the game going again, and everyone gets to the temple.

I turned it over to him to play the new character. Out of nowhere, he starts talking about how he doesn't have what is needed to cure the paladin, and will need their help to get it. I'm shocked, but I roll with it. I start taking notes of what he is saying, and begin spinning stories in my head to make it all work. He tells them that it is hard to get supplies in town that will let her do the remove curse, while I wonder how I'm going to justify this on a spell that has no material components. But he's having fun, I think, so we'll go. He describes a man who can get the stuff, but the man hates the church and him in particular, so it will be hard to get something - they will probably have to do something for the man. The others ask if there is anything else they could do, and he mentions that there are others who could help, but he doesn't know if it will be any better from them. They ask about the others, and he looks at me to fill in the blanks. So I did, coming up with a different temple, and the town elders. They decide they'd rather deal with that, and go to the other temple. At the other temple, they make some massive social blunders, but eventually find someone willing to help. All he asks in return is 50 gp, a minor quest, and the service of the paladin around the temple for three months, thinking perfect, that keeps that character out of the game for a bit, but gives a definite time he will return. They like it, head to the first temple to talk to the new character. He vetoes the plan, saying that the paladin cannot serve someone else for that time.

Off to the elders. They get to them, they agree in exchange for him taking an object to a city they are eventually going to anyway. Again, will work out well, as they will get to that city eventually and meet up with him. They agree to this, back to the new character, and he agrees, but he wants to take it rather than the paladin. So we go to a different room and I again ask him what he wants out of this. I tell him I'm trying to give him the opportunity here, but he's shot it down twice. If he would tell me what he is looking for, we can do it. He decides that the elders is fine, if they can go on a separate mission first, and I tell him that they do have both the current mission and another one planned before going to that city - are those OK? He agrees, we rejoin the others, and the plan is set. They go back to the old mission, passing a stream of refugees that are fleeing after the attack the night before. They realize that things are going on while they go other places, get a renewed sense of urgency, and make it to the town. End of session. TL/DR: curse made him think he's dying, but a town with the ability to help was nearby. After agreeing to a plan to let him work in a different character, he kept changing it.

Everyone else leaves first, leaving me with him. He tells me he was sure that his character was dead, so he made a new one. He thought they'd have to go back to the original city, and it would take long enough that he'd die from the curse first. I responded that unless the rolls for losing max hp each day went spectacularly bad, they'd have made it, but they didn't need to since this city was there. He then said that it's better to let characters die so it seems like the world has real stakes. I had told him that the city was there. I gave them a map months ago that showed this city was there. I did not change a thing to make this city be there, so I did not change a thing to ensure his character survived. On top of that, he asked that his character survive so that he could play it again later. Granted, that was after it was already clear that he could survive.

At this point I feel like I've got a player mad that his character survived, and thinking that I am warping the world to ensure that no one will ever die. I certainly don't want to get in an argument with him about how that is absolutely not what I did, but it really has been eating at me since the session. I have no idea what to do here. If I keep on the way we have been going, we'll continue to have mostly winnable fights where the focus is on rp, not combat. I can crank up the combat and make it deadlier, but it isn't what the party has clearly demonstrated they want before now - this includes the paladin, as he has specifically asked for and received some intrigue plot lines within the major city they have been to. I could just make everyone focus on his characters in fights, so that if anyone dies its him - I'm not looking to punish anyone, but if he wants deadlier stuff than everyone else, is this the right thing to do?

[JonBeowulf]

It sounds to me that you've done everything you can do to placate him. ("Placate" is stronger than I mean, but I can't think of a better word.)

Even wearing my "player" hat I'm having a hard time understanding his POV. The pally is sidelined so he's playing his new character. If he doesn't want to play the pally anymore, all he has to do is not pick it back up when the sidelining is over.

Does the character really need to die? No.

Does the character dying make things more dramatic? I'd argue "no" in this case.

Does he want to give DMing a shot? Maybe... he's certainly trying to add to the game world in ways that cross the DM screen.

[Tanarii]

First off, most important thing: combat includes roleplaying. It's not one vs the other.

Second of all, have you explicitly told the players already that if they die, they get to come back with a new PC of the same level? Because if not, tell the player they've been labouring under a misapprehension.

If you did tell them that, you might as well just let this player swap out the PC at an appropriate time. There's no reason it should take death to make the swap. Let the player decide the PC is retiring from the adventuring life.

[Unoriginal]

I've been stewing about this since my last session, and I decided I'd just vent a bit here and see what others think. I have a player who is upset that his character didn't die. This is not the first time that this has been a bit of an issue for him, although at no point have I cheated to make him survive. I will note that we are heavy on role playing as opposed to combat, so there haven't been a ton of times that the combat was truly deadly - maybe 5-10 times where there was a major risk of death, while for the most part they are exploring and figuring out mysteries. The players have led us to that, as they have had ample opportunity to go the other way.

The first time, back when they were level 4, he got hit, hard. Hard enough that he from just under full hit points to negative ten in a single hit. His response was, well, my character just died. I was a little shocked that this had happened, but it was what it was. One of the other players asked what his total hp was, found that he did not suffer enough to go down plus his max, so he hadn't died, was just in a death savings throw period. He ended up surviving, but he seemed a bit put out that it didn't happen.

This time, they ended up facing a mummy lord. It was very close, with a couple of them being knocked out of action, but they survived. The problem was that his character got the mummy rot curse. As a paladin, he thought he would be immune, but it's a curse, not a disease. Well, they were three days out from the town they had started in, and he didn't think that there would be enough time to make it back and save him. The guide they had with them told them he doubted there would be help in the place they were going to, but they could detour to a city a day farther up river and almost certainly get help. The group thought about splitting to get him help, while the rest continued on. That ended that session.

Now, the city on the river has been there, in its current state, since before we started the campaign. I changed nothing about this town for the next game. Since the plan was to split the party, I decided to create an encounter that would give him a maybe 50/50 shot at surviving - if he did, he'd get back quickly, if he didn't, time for a new character, and if he avoided it, he'd have an issue with his Deity and be gone from the group for at least two full days. Well, we got back together, and the entire group besides him had decided that the right thing to do was for them all to take their friend to the city to get him help. They left that night, riding through the night to get to the city in the morning. This killed a couple of plans, because he is normally contacted by his deva in his dreams, so no dreams before that, the encounter was going to be the next day so that would be missed, and they would be late for things in the town (this one not so much a problem as a solution to a different issue, as it became clear to them that if they had kept on to the town, they might have been able to fight against the goblin raid). But, hey, it would work out, it let them do what they wanted, and we could move on. Seemed good to me.

Well, they get to the town, and he texts me that he has created his new character, and sends me a link. It is a cleric, same Deity as the Paladin, and there is a temple to that Deity in the town.I try to text back and forth to get some answers on what he is looking for, but eventually have to take him aside. I ask him what he is looking for - does he want his current character to be sidelined for a time but come back later, does he want his current character to die, or does he want current character to be cured and forget about the new one? He specifically says he wants his current character to live but be sidelined for a while so he can play the new one. Great - let's have her be the priest at the temple, have the current character cured but weakened and needs to rest before joining them, and new character join them in his place on directions from their Deity. He says sounds good, we get the game going again, and everyone gets to the temple.

I turned it over to him to play the new character. Out of nowhere, he starts talking about how he doesn't have what is needed to cure the paladin, and will need their help to get it. I'm shocked, but I roll with it. I start taking notes of what he is saying, and begin spinning stories in my head to make it all work. He tells them that it is hard to get supplies in town that will let her do the remove curse, while I wonder how I'm going to justify this on a spell that has no material components. But he's having fun, I think, so we'll go. He describes a man who can get the stuff, but the man hates the church and him in particular, so it will be hard to get something - they will probably have to do something for the man. The others ask if there is anything else they could do, and he mentions that there are others who could help, but he doesn't know if it will be any better from them. They ask about the others, and he looks at me to fill in the blanks. So I did, coming up with a different temple, and the town elders. They decide they'd rather deal with that, and go to the other temple. At the other temple, they make some massive social blunders, but eventually find someone willing to help. All he asks in return is 50 gp, a minor quest, and the service of the paladin around the temple for three months, thinking perfect, that keeps that character out of the game for a bit, but gives a definite time he will return. They like it, head to the first temple to talk to the new character. He vetoes the plan, saying that the paladin cannot serve someone else for that time.

Off to the elders. They get to them, they agree in exchange for him taking an object to a city they are eventually going to anyway. Again, will work out well, as they will get to that city eventually and meet up with him. They agree to this, back to the new character, and he agrees, but he wants to take it rather than the paladin. So we go to a different room and I again ask him what he wants out of this. I tell him I'm trying to give him the opportunity here, but he's shot it down twice. If he would tell me what he is looking for, we can do it. He decides that the elders is fine, if they can go on a separate mission first, and I tell him that they do have both the current mission and another one planned before going to that city - are those OK? He agrees, we rejoin the others, and the plan is set. They go back to the old mission, passing a stream of refugees that are fleeing after the attack the night before. They realize that things are going on while they go other places, get a renewed sense of urgency, and make it to the town. End of session. TL/DR: curse made him think he's dying, but a town with the ability to help was nearby. After agreeing to a plan to let him work in a different character, he kept changing it.

Everyone else leaves first, leaving me with him. He tells me he was sure that his character was dead, so he made a new one. He thought they'd have to go back to the original city, and it would take long enough that he'd die from the curse first. I responded that unless the rolls for losing max hp each day went spectacularly bad, they'd have made it, but they didn't need to since this city was there. He then said that it's better to let characters die so it seems like the world has real stakes. I had told him that the city was there. I gave them a map months ago that showed this city was there. I did not change a thing to make this city be there, so I did not change a thing to ensure his character survived. On top of that, he asked that his character survive so that he could play it again later. Granted, that was after it was already clear that he could survive.

At this point I feel like I've got a player mad that his character survived, and thinking that I am warping the world to ensure that no one will ever die. I certainly don't want to get in an argument with him about how that is absolutely not what I did, but it really has been eating at me since the session. I have no idea what to do here. If I keep on the way we have been going, we'll continue to have mostly winnable fights where the focus is on rp, not combat. I can crank up the combat and make it deadlier, but it isn't what the party has clearly demonstrated they want before now - this includes the paladin, as he has specifically asked for and received some intrigue plot lines within the major city they have been to. I could just make everyone focus on his characters in fights, so that if anyone dies its him - I'm not looking to punish anyone, but if he wants deadlier stuff than everyone else, is this the right thing to do?

So, let me get this straight:

You asked player if they wanted their character to stay alive once it turned out it was possible. Player agreed, and decided to invent a quest to make their character stay alive. You went along with it.

And now player is upset that their character didn't die?

My only comclusion to this is that your player has something else that bother him and it's manifesting that way due to not wanting to confront you (or the rest of the group) with it directly. Maybe he has some kind of "the show must go on, even if *I* an not having fun" block. But if just making a session about his PC's survival and then flip-flopping on what he wants to happen was something usual for him, you'd preasumably have noticed that before.

I think if you want to handle this you need to talk with him about what's the actual issue he's having with the campaign.

[Hopeless]

Perhaps have you thought about asking him if he wants to retire that character and continue with his new one using the excuse that those repeated brushes with death have left him needing time off to recover.

If he really wants to stop playing that character then let him have that option and eventually ask about that character becoming an npc having retired from active adventuring which would be the easiest way to resolve this.

Has this happened to anyone else?

[Darth Credence]

Does he want to give DMing a shot? Maybe... he's certainly trying to add to the game world in ways that cross the DM screen.
He DMs his own game a different day of the week. I'm not in that game, as it predates me meeting him. I am perfectly happy with working with everyone to get what they want out of the game, so him crossing the DM screen doesn't bother me unless it is something weird like this.


First off, most important thing: combat includes roleplaying. It's not one vs the other.

Second of all, have you explicitly told the players already that if they die, they get to come back with a new PC of the same level? Because if not, tell the player they've been labouring under a misapprehension.

If you did tell them that, you might as well just let this player swap out the PC at an appropriate time. There's no reason it should take death to make the swap. Let the player decide the PC is retiring from the adventuring life.
Re: combat v. roleplaying - I was just trying to distinguish between combat and talking with NPCs.

Yes, that was part of our session 0. While we have not had someone die, we have had a character swap out, when one player decided the ranger wasn't working for him.


So, let me get this straight:

You asked player if they wanted their character to stay alive once it turned out it was possible. Player agreed, and decided to invent a quest to make their character stay alive. You went along with it.

And now player is upset that their character didn't die?

My only comclusion to this is that your player has something else that bother him and it's manifesting that way due to not wanting to confront you (or the rest of the group) with it directly. Maybe he has some kind of "the show must go on, even if *I* an not having fun" block. But if just making a session about his PC's survival and then flip-flopping on what he wants to happen was something usual for him, you'd preasumably have noticed that before.

I think if you want to handle this you need to talk with him about what's the actual issue he's having with the campaign.
That's what I was afraid of. Everyone seems to be having fun - my wife doesn't play, so she's in a different room, but she always mentions how everyone is laughing and being loud and boisterous. But that doesn't always mean anything, so I think I will need to talk to him privately.


Perhaps have you thought about asking him if he wants to retire that character and continue with his new one using the excuse that those repeated brushes with death have left him needing time off to recover.

If he really wants to stop playing that character then let him have that option and eventually ask about that character becoming an npc having retired from active adventuring which would be the easiest way to resolve this.

Has this happened to anyone else?

We had one player, new to the game, that started with a ranger beastmaster. He eventually decided that he didn't really like playing the character, so we had a short arc where he decided he had to go back home to join the rebellion that had caused him to flee in the first place, and worked in a new character for him. He's enjoying it quite a bit now. We had discussed this during session 0 as an option, and when he switched his character out, it was reiterated to everyone that if they want a character change, permanent or temporary, they could of course come to me and we would work out something.

Thanks, all. It's good to get perspective.

[Tvtyrant]

Sounds like they have a character arc in their head that ends with the character dying, and are miffed because they want it to be a legitimate death and it just isn't happening. It doesn't count if the DM gives it to them sort of thing.

[Glorthindel]

I think I can shine a bit of light on this, because I get this feeling from time to time: survival disappointment.

For some of us, the most fun is when the stakes get high, and survival is teetering on a knife edge, and the only way that feeling stays 'real' is if sometimes you slip on the blade and the character dies. Losing a character can give quite a euphoric feeling, but there is nothing that punches that feeling straight out of you than being 'cheated' of that loss, especially when its the DM tossing out the life-line.

Now, apologies if it sounds like I am blaming you here, I really am not. But by the sounds of it, the players forgot that the option to survive (the nearer town) existed, and you stepping in with an NPC to suggest it gives exactly the same feeling as if he had fished a cure-all out of his pouch that he "suddenly remembered". In-setting your NPC was right to make the suggestion, but it is going to feel like you stepped in to save him when the party themselves did not come up with the solution. His confusing antics in the next session was I think some bungled attempt to recreate the character loss, but of course, he didn't really know how to make it stick (especially when you and the other characters were, quite rightfully, since you didn't know what he wanted, trying to help save the character).

Now, a few people have mentioned that "you gave him the choice to retire if he wanted to swap characters", but that isn't the point. He didn't want to swap characters (although, once he had rolled up a replacement, excitement over playing the new character was also going to pick at his desire to keep moving with the old one), he wanted to lose on. Just retiring a surviving character misses the point, and to someone like me (and by the sound of it him) that's cheating; you don't get the rush of losing a character by retiring one, just like you don't if you deliberately dive off a cliff or stick your head into the Bag of Devouring (barring accidentally of course). If you aren't killed by the luck of the dice , 'killing' yourself is just god-modding.

I know a lot of this is going to sound weird to a lot of people; it seems so bizarrely counter-intuitive, but I assure you its a real thing. The disappointment of a character surviving that you thought the dice had told you you'd lost is no different than the disappointment of more normal players to losing a character they didn't want to lose. My reccommendation is to approach him seperately, say you didn't realise what was going through his head. Apologise for the NPC making the suggestion, and say it really wasn't you pulling a save out of your ass, but you see why it must have felt like it. Tell him he can run with whichever character suits, and that you aren't pulling punches, and now you know how this sort of thing feels to him, you'll be mindful of letting things like this play out the 'bad' way if thats how the dice fall.

[da newt]

Meh - IMO if a player wants to put down one PC to start playing another PC no problem - lets figure out a bit of story to support it, and off we go. I'm even fine with a cut scene to explain what happened at the start of the next session, PC#1 got a call from home that they needed him so he left, when the party was talking about this new development over beers in the tavern PC#2 overheard them and offered to join the party. No Big Deal.


BUT, maybe that's not the real root issue. I'd just ask them what they'd like to do going forward.

[MaxWilson]

I've been stewing about this since my last session, and I decided I'd just vent a bit here and see what others think. I have a player who is upset that his character didn't die. *snip*

Everyone else leaves first, leaving me with him. He tells me he was sure that his character was dead, so he made a new one. He thought they'd have to go back to the original city, and it would take long enough that he'd die from the curse first. I responded that unless the rolls for losing max hp each day went spectacularly bad, they'd have made it, but they didn't need to since this city was there. He then said that it's better to let characters die so it seems like the world has real stakes. I had told him that the city was there. I gave them a map months ago that showed this city was there. I did not change a thing to make this city be there, so I did not change a thing to ensure his character survived. On top of that, he asked that his character survive so that he could play it again later. Granted, that was after it was already clear that he could survive.

At this point I feel like I've got a player mad that his character survived, and thinking that I am warping the world to ensure that no one will ever die. I certainly don't want to get in an argument with him about how that is absolutely not what I did, but it really has been eating at me since the session. I have no idea what to do here. If I keep on the way we have been going, we'll continue to have mostly winnable fights where the focus is on rp, not combat. I can crank up the combat and make it deadlier, but it isn't what the party has clearly demonstrated they want before now - this includes the paladin, as he has specifically asked for and received some intrigue plot lines within the major city they have been to. I could just make everyone focus on his characters in fights, so that if anyone dies its him - I'm not looking to punish anyone, but if he wants deadlier stuff than everyone else, is this the right thing to do?

I can see why you're miffed with him changing his mind repeatedly. In your shoes I can see myself asking, "So, have you changed your mind about wanting him to live but be sidelined? Because I can arrange for him to die. Pick up that d6 right there and roll it--come back next session and ask around the city and you'll find out what happened to the paladin. If you don't want those consequences, don't pick up that d6." I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, but in the heat of the moment I might do it like that.

It's not necessarily the wrong thing to do either, although the tone of voice I imagine myself delivering this message in is probably wrong.

[StoneSeraph]

It sounds to me that you've done everything you can do to placate him. ("Placate" is stronger than I mean, but I can't think of a better word.)

Even wearing my "player" hat I'm having a hard time understanding his POV. The pally is sidelined so he's playing his new character. If he doesn't want to play the pally anymore, all he has to do is not pick it back up when the sidelining is over.


It's wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. There's more going on here as well: this whole sidelining bit has effectively derailed the players from the story, from what we've been told. OP mentioned a goblin raid that the party was gearing up for... but now they decided to keep the paladin alive. That's all well and good, but now the goblin raid, if I understand correctly, has taken place. In-game, that's that.

Out-of-game, however... If the goblin raid was high on the list of story-progressing events, these "oh, my pally is dying, here's my new character, but if you're gonna try and save him, it's gonna be extra difficult and take up time in-game" shenanigans would draw a callout. The DM and the other players are giving an inch to tangent and bringing a character back, but the pally/cleric player is taking well over a mile by drawing it out. It seems inconsiderate, particularly towards players gracious enough to placate such an indulgence. The "sense of urgency" upon seeing the rest of the story happen reads, "We are wasting/have wasted time with this."

I understand that I am quite harsh in my assessment, and I don't claim to argue from a position of full understanding of OP's game or social situation. That said, if I were playing at this table, I'd be miffed at the pally/cleric player for ballhogging and at the DM for letting him do it.

[Darth Credence]

TvTyrant and Glorthindel, it seems like you are both going along the same lines, and it's something to consider. I'm not sure what to do about it, other than cranking up the fights a little bit. But that would go against some of the other players - the party wizard just stopped by my desk to say he is looking forward to the weekend, and I asked how the fights were. He said he loved them, and was really worried his character was going to die in the mummy fight, which is why he cast darkness and ran away when he was seriously wounded.

da newt, we've done that before, so I agree NBD. But I need to get to the root here, which I think TvTyrant and Glorthindel might have a line on.

MaxWilson, that sounds like a really cathartic thing to do:smallbiggrin:


It's wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. There's more going on here as well: this whole sidelining bit has effectively derailed the players from the story, from what we've been told. OP mentioned a goblin raid that the party was gearing up for... but now they decided to keep the paladin alive. That's all well and good, but now the goblin raid, if I understand correctly, has taken place. In-game, that's that.

Out-of-game, however... If the goblin raid was high on the list of story-progressing events, these "oh, my pally is dying, here's my new character, but if you're gonna try and save him, it's gonna be extra difficult and take up time in-game" shenanigans would draw a callout. The DM and the other players are giving an inch to tangent and bringing a character back, but the pally/cleric player is taking well over a mile by drawing it out. It seems inconsiderate, particularly towards players gracious enough to placate such an indulgence. The "sense of urgency" upon seeing the rest of the story happen reads, "We are wasting/have wasted time with this."

I understand that I am quite harsh in my assessment, and I don't claim to argue from a position of full understanding of OP's game or social situation. That said, if I were playing at this table, I'd be miffed at the pally/cleric player for ballhogging and at the DM for letting him do it.

Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear there. The players were not aware that a goblin raid was going to happen. As far as they knew, they were stopping over in this town before they headed out into the badlands to figure out why a group of giants and ogres were raiding towns. (The goblins are a disposable group of slaves to the ogres.) I had set a calendar date for when the raid would actually happen, and they were on schedule to be there early, but the journey to the city caused them to not get there in time. So the results of that are that the town is now pretty empty, all of the former goblin slaves in the town (they used to trade with the ogres, and are not good people) are gone, and the hill giant and ogres are massing to attack at sundown when the sun will be in the defenders eyes. And while things have changed in the background before, this is the first clear indicator they have that things happen whether or not they are there. They are still going to have the big combat, just not the slightly smaller one, and the town will not come out of this unscathed at this point.

I will say that I let the table down by allowing too much of this to go on. I'm not sure how the best way to handle it would have been, but I should have done something different. I think I would have been better off by having a side conversation when he first turned to me to fill in his other options, but I thought we could keep going without that interruption.

[MaxWilson]

I can see why you're miffed with him changing his mind repeatedly. In your shoes I can see myself asking, "So, have you changed your mind about wanting him to live but be sidelined? Because I can arrange for him to die. Pick up that d6 right there and roll it--come back next session and ask around the city and you'll find out what happened to the paladin. If you don't want those consequences, don't pick up that d6." I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, but in the heat of the moment I might do it like that.

It's not necessarily the wrong thing to do either, although the tone of voice I imagine myself delivering this message in is probably wrong.


MaxWilson, that sounds like a really cathartic thing to do:smallbiggrin:

Just for fun, here's the mental table I'm imagining:

d6 (1 is the best death, 6 is the worst)

1 Slain heroically defending innocents from brutal aggression. A popular ballad has been composed about his life and death.
2 Slain by a burglar looking for cash.
3 Slain resisting arrest for tax evasion. [possibly framed]
4 Killed in freak accident: explosion of toxic sewer water.
5 Mutilated, eaten and tortured to death (in that order) by demons from the Cult of Orcus.
6 Apparently fine, why do you ask? [Brain has been eaten, body-snatched by intellect devourer]

[StoneSeraph]

Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear there. The players were not aware that a goblin raid was going to happen. As far as they knew, they were stopping over in this town before they headed out into the badlands to figure out why a group of giants and ogres were raiding towns. (The goblins are a disposable group of slaves to the ogres.) I had set a calendar date for when the raid would actually happen, and they were on schedule to be there early, but the journey to the city caused them to not get there in time. So the results of that are that the town is now pretty empty, all of the former goblin slaves in the town (they used to trade with the ogres, and are not good people) are gone, and the hill giant and ogres are massing to attack at sundown when the sun will be in the defenders eyes. And while things have changed in the background before, this is the first clear indicator they have that things happen whether or not they are there. They are still going to have the big combat, just not the slightly smaller one, and the town will not come out of this unscathed at this point.

Gotcha. The clarification is much appreciated. The big plus is that the players are indeed aware that the story goes on with or without their presence; that alone ought to minimize future shenanigans. Also, your campaign sounds like a blast!


I will say that I let the table down by allowing too much of this to go on. I'm not sure how the best way to handle it would have been, but I should have done something different. I think I would have been better off by having a side conversation when he first turned to me to fill in his other options, but I thought we could keep going without that interruption.

The side conversations are the best way to go. It's when he started pulling the "out of nowhere" material, as you described it, when a quick timeout and private chat on the spot may have been most warranted ("Everyone, take five real fast. Player, can we chat for a minute?... Hey, this isn't what we discussed prior to the session and it's caught me off-guard. Can we go over this a bit before we dive back in?). From your description, it seems as if he took on the role of DM and left you on the sidelines, with you coming back in only to deal with the situation he'd left you. It's great that he has a story in mind for his character(s), but springing it on you and the rest of the table, for everyone else to burn a session spent filling in the blanks for him, isn't cool.

It's worth a tactful conversation with that player prior to the next session. Let them know how you feel about the situation and make sure that they are, indeed, still having fun with the story as it goes. If another player brings it up, you can then have another tactful conversation discussing how you addressed the issue.

[SandyAndy]

If the player wants a new character but doesn't want to have his current one quit the party then why not have him assassinated? Add a new adventure hook that has a personal aspect for the party.

[Gallowglass]

*beginning of next session*

"As the party walk through the crowded market, looking at the reams of silk and piles of leatherwork, <player A> notices the light level drop. A shadow falls over him. As he looks up he sees a darkening as if something passed between him and the sun. It grows larger."

"A woman screams and another bystander points up. But before you can react an enormous Bird plummets stone dead out of the sky and smashed you into a pile of broken bones and bloody goo"

"More giant birds plummet down, like pigeons who ran into a plate glass window, smashing merchant stalls, destroying roofs and killing people in the crowd who go wild and start running for cover and fleeing."

"As the rest of the party stare stunned or begin looking for cover, a wild bearded prophet, standing on the edge of a well screams above the din. "I warned you! I warned you all!" You look over and see him holding a placard with splattered writing on it.

"Rocs fall, everyone dies"

[MaxWilson]

"Rocs fall, everyone dies"

[obligatory groan]

Thanks, Dad.

[kingcheesepants]

If he wants harder fights but the rest of the group is fine where they are, well you can always be just a bit unfair and target him more often. Both in the sense that enemies will shoot at him instead of the others more often and hit him when he's down but leave the others once they're on the ground bleeding out. And also in the sense of wow there sure are a lot more enemies that have abilities that specifically target your worst save huh paladin (though this one is a little harder to do as even a paladins worst save is still pretty good).

But also make it clear that there are stakes outside of combat, taking time out to go save the party member means that the enemies were able to raid unhindered for example. Or by having potentially deadly challenges outside of combat (the classic walls closing in on you type of trap). Setbacks and loss conditions aside from death are another way to add stakes. Good job you beat the bad guys but unfortunately they took out your eye and now you have permanent disadvantage to perception checks, or you beat them but not before some of them got away after they kidnapped the princess or sacrificed that kid or stole your favorite goat.

[Spriteless]

If this player is upset that their narrativly heavy doom didn't happen, then offer a minor but plausable retcon. Pali was cursed worse than you thought, and part of the curse is still there. Pali is in pain, has trouble walking, is going blind, something that could mean they have to retire from advenure life, but still have a reminder of the cost of said adventure. NPCs don't know how to fix it, but offer comfort in the temple or whatever the Pali's backstory ties them to.

It has the narrative bite close to death, plus you can use the old character as an NPC or a plot hook to get super healing.

But if that isn't what they want, just a chance to die when things mess up, ask what kind of combat would they suggest since they're a DM another day maybe they have some tips.

[Glorthindel]

Following on from my earlier comment, nothing can really be done about the previous death not sticking; the opportunity to die has passed, and any attempt to retcon or provide an alternative death is not going to carry the same emotional or narrative weight. Best to just move on, and wait for next time.

And I don't think you need to change much to your game going forward, if anything at all. The mere fact that there have been two near misses shows that the chance is definitely there. Ultimately the player doesn't want his character to die, he just wants the possibility to be there. To go into an analogy here, think about it like a free climber (or any other extreme sport); a free climber does not want to fall off a cliff and die, but the chance they might is what gives them the rush when succeeding; if human beings floated like feathers, those same people would no longer be free climbing because the lack of any danger removes any point for them in doing the activity. Right now he is wondering whether the chance to die really exists in the game, and if it doesn't, if there is any point in it for him. All you can really do (beside an arbitrary insta-death that doesn't fulfil the criteria of the 'kind' of death he wants available) is assure him that a chance of dying very definitely does exist, and you aren't (and wont) pull punches. I assume you are friends out of game, so if you tell him you understand why he wants the threat of death to be there, and assure him you aren't going to pull the punch if it occurs, that should be enough to mollify him for now.

Which brings us on to next time. Oddly, its not you who needs to change your game or mindset, you need to have a word with the other players, because it is actually them that are causing the biggest impediment to providing what he wants. Because they are trying to keep him alive, and maybe you should suggest to them that that is something they should be putting a little less effort in to doing.

I will give an example from when I last had the same feeling your player did. My Dragonborn Paladin went toe-to-toe with something far too big and powerful (I believe it was a Manticore); he had to do it, otherwise the other party members were toast, and I nearly had it killed before it took me down. The party didn't get to me for two rounds, and I rolled a fail, then a 1 on my Death Saves - three faliures, death. However, at that moment one of the other players spoke up, saying that he had a couple of Inspiration, and asked if he could trade em in to give me a reroll on that Death Save. Now, that isn't allowed in the rules, but the DM thought (quite reasonably) "ok, thats cool, if you spend two, you can transfer one of them to him". I was mortified, but how do you say that? Under all reasonable interpretations of the situation the other player had done a cool and generous thing, and the DM had rode with it, and here was me, resentful of an act of generosity. It sucks on two fronts, cos I have lost my "earned death" and also I feel like an ass for being pissed with my friend for helping me out.

I think that was at the core of the weirdness in the town with his replacement character; he was trying to convince the party to let him die, but of course, being friends and companions, they were wanting to help him out and save him (because they didn't realise what he wanted), and so were willing to jump through the hoops he was placing in front of them. Maybe a private word with the others in the future will prevent a repeat - tell them not to go above and beyond to keep him alive. Obviously, don't be pushing him off cliffs or watch him fall down a pit and go "well, getting that rope out my bag will be too much effort, sorry mate", but when all reasonable solutions are exhausted, be willing to bury him and move on.

[Galithar]

*beginning of next session*

"As the party walk through the crowded market, looking at the reams of silk and piles of leatherwork, <player A> notices the light level drop. A shadow falls over him. As he looks up he sees a darkening as if something passed between him and the sun. It grows larger."

"A woman screams and another bystander points up. But before you can react an enormous Bird plummets stone dead out of the sky and smashed you into a pile of broken bones and bloody goo"

"More giant birds plummet down, like pigeons who ran into a plate glass window, smashing merchant stalls, destroying roofs and killing people in the crowd who go wild and start running for cover and fleeing."

"As the rest of the party stare stunned or begin looking for cover, a wild bearded prophet, standing on the edge of a well screams above the din. "I warned you! I warned you all!" You look over and see him holding a placard with splattered writing on it.

"Rocs fall, everyone dies"

+1 Internetz for you sir!
I will absolutely be stealing this for a humor based one-shot! I'm thinking any player that groans has their character take 1d8 psychic damage :smallbiggrin:

[Ertwin]

Any time I as a player was disappointed my character didn't die, I was either hoping to get out of a terrible campaign, or not having fun with that character.

[MaxWilson]

Which brings us on to next time. Oddly, its not you who needs to change your game or mindset, you need to have a word with the other players, because it is actually them that are causing the biggest impediment to providing what he wants. Because they are trying to keep him alive, and maybe you should suggest to them that that is something they should be putting a little less effort in to doing.

I will give an example from when I last had the same feeling your player did. My Dragonborn Paladin went toe-to-toe with something far too big and powerful (I believe it was a Manticore); he had to do it, otherwise the other party members were toast, and I nearly had it killed before it took me down. The party didn't get to me for two rounds, and I rolled a fail, then a 1 on my Death Saves - three faliures, death. However, at that moment one of the other players spoke up, saying that he had a couple of Inspiration, and asked if he could trade em in to give me a reroll on that Death Save. Now, that isn't allowed in the rules, but the DM thought (quite reasonably) "ok, thats cool, if you spend two, you can transfer one of them to him". I was mortified, but how do you say that? Under all reasonable interpretations of the situation the other player had done a cool and generous thing, and the DM had rode with it, and here was me, resentful of an act of generosity. It sucks on two fronts, cos I have lost my "earned death" and also I feel like an ass for being pissed with my friend for helping me out.

I think that was at the core of the weirdness in the town with his replacement character; he was trying to convince the party to let him die, but of course, being friends and companions, they were wanting to help him out and save him (because they didn't realise what he wanted), and so were willing to jump through the hoops he was placing in front of them. Maybe a private word with the others in the future will prevent a repeat - tell them not to go above and beyond to keep him alive. Obviously, don't be pushing him off cliffs or watch him fall down a pit and go "well, getting that rope out my bag will be too much effort, sorry mate", but when all reasonable solutions are exhausted, be willing to bury him and move on.

Thanks for this insight and example. Excellent points.

[Sigreid]

Mostly sounds like the player is not sure how much they want to play that character. Been there.

[Ding]

Honestly, I wouldn't blame yourself too much for this. The player can't make up his mind, and you were plenty accommodating. If I was DM, I wouldn't have predicted his flip-flopping over the "save the paladin" side quest either. Possibly he just enjoys being the center of attention, and that's all it was? Wanting to either die a hero's death, or barely survive in a way that's as dramatic as possible.

It's worth thinking about how you're going to prevent this player from similarly disrupting the game in the future, though. He's proven now that if you indulge him, he'll abuse that and possibly spoil the game for other players.

And for what it's worth: while I agree with the player in that challenging combat with a real risk of death is more fun, it sounds like you have been providing more or less the level of difficulty your group enjoys. If he REALLY wants to kill off his paladin, it should be pretty apparent from his behavior in combat. I think it's totally fine to have the baddies focus their attacks on him if he charges in recklessly. If he dies, he's just getting what he asked for: deadly combat. It doesn't sound like he'd be too broken up over losing the paladin, and he might enjoy going out in a blaze of glory.

[Samayu]

It sounds like the guy just wants a deadlier campaign. And maybe can't articulate that well. Tell him you'll invite him back if you decide to run that way.