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

[RPGaddict28]

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

[MonochromeTiger]

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

[RPGaddict28]

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

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

[MonochromeTiger]

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

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

[Rhynn]

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

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

[The Grue]

I'd give him some time to cool off, then talk to him about it.

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

[The Grue]

I'd give him some time to cool off, then talk to him about it.

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

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

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

[thamolas]

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

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

[BWR]

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

[Axiomatic]

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

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

[Altair_the_Vexed]

How about a new, closely related character, who seeks out the party to bring news to their relative, but then joins them to bring vengeance against those who killed the original PC?

[Erik Vale]

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

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

[RochtheCrusher]

I'd give him some time to cool off, then talk to him about it.

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

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

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

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

[scsimodem]

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

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

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

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

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

[Slipperychicken]

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

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

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

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

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

[tensai_oni]

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

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

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

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

[1337 b4k4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tavar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tengu_temp]

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

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

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

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

[Ansem]

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

[tensai_oni]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F* him.

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

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

[Thrudd]

Also, cut newbies some slack.

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

[Telonius]

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

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

[AMFV]

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

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

[Rhynn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder what the OP and the problem player prefer?

[Prospekt]

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

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

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

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

[AMFV]

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

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

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

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

[Knaight]

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

[Rhynn]

...

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

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

[AMFV]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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