Quote from: Spinachcat;810117Most of the gamers who can handle loss have moved on to boardgames and card games. Lots of what's left among RPGers expect auto-win participation trophies if they show up at the table.

I've seen too many tantrums in the past two decades.

I do wonder if these same tantrum-throwers play video games or board games where 75% loss is normal? Heck, any two player game is 50% loss.

As a GM, I encourage PCs to take actions that have meaning, but the fickle gods of fate (dice) may strike them down. For my players, if they "lose" or "die", they are generally happy if they knew they had a real chance of success, or in a campaign, a potential for a second chance.

Hmm, to be fair, do you think your large percentage of one-shots/tournament games may skew that a bit?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809862I actually had a player ragequit the game because of that once.

They got into an unwinnable battle, lost a limb, and got downed. So instead of killing him, I had the bad guy take his best weapons and the leave him for dead.

I thought it would be a good quest hook for them to pursue revenge against this bad guy since it was personal now, but he wanted to just roll up a new character. When I said no, he went apeshit and quit.

Players don't like being railroaded, and rightly so. It depends on point of view. So, maybe your player decided that the character couldn't handle what happened to him; continuing to roleplay that character honestly might mean suicide. Would you have let him roll up another character then, or would he have had to roleplay the corpse?

Quote from: rawma;810151Players don't like being railroaded, and rightly so. It depends on point of view. So, maybe your player decided that the character couldn't handle what happened to him; continuing to roleplay that character honestly might mean suicide. Would you have let him roll up another character then, or would he have had to roleplay the corpse?

Losing a battle is a pretty fucked up definition of "railroading".

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;809862I thought it would be a good quest hook for them to pursue revenge against this bad guy since it was personal now, but he wanted to just roll up a new character. When I said no, he went apeshit and quit.

While as a player I'd probably be OK with renaming my character Lefty or Peg-leg and pursuing his quest for vengeance against his nemesis the evil Count von Limbinator as a GM I can't always predict what other players are going to find fun and I figure there isn't a lot of point in insisting somebody runs a character they aren't enjoying anymore. That said, going ape shit and rage quitting sounds extreme.

Quote from: Brad;810152Losing a battle is a pretty fucked up definition of "railroading".

The railroading is demanding a player play a character they don't want to play.

Quote from: rawma;810154The railroading is demanding a player play a character they don't want to play.

I got that.

Quote from: Bren;810155I got that.

Brad didn't.

Quote from: rawma;810156Brad didn't.

Yeah. I noticed that too.


EDIT: I forgot to mention that the traditional Runequest response to delimbed PCs is to get together with a few other limb-lost PCs and open up a bar that caters to adventurers.

Quote from: rawma;810154The railroading is demanding a player play a character they don't want to play.

You've never played Amber, have you?

Quote from: Brad;810159You've never played Amber, have you?

Yes, I have. I didn't much care for it, but nobody forced me to play a character that I didn't want to play, so I don't think it's intrinsic to Amber.

Quote from: Bren;810157I forgot to mention that the traditional Runequest response to delimbed PCs is to get together with a few other limb-lost PCs and open up a bar that caters to adventurers.

Maybe they're government subsidized as a kind of PSA: Scared Straight for adventurers.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809888I never understand people who do this sort of thing.

Neither do I. On the other hand, I don't try to "force" a player to play a character if he doesn't want to anymore, for whatever reason. I wouldn't stop playing a character after he getting crippled, but if someone wants to I'm not objecting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;810110When you're roleplaying, the journey can be more important then the destination.  A night "accomplishing" zero by staying in a tavern all night can be fun for the players and characters alike.

Absolutely. Speaking for our group, we come at RPGs with a strong "game" perspective. Which is not to say we don't love the role playing too, but the game bit is first.

We are all lovers of tactical games too, but rarely have time for lots of gaming at the moment so a more technical combat challenge scratches an itch for us.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;810121Or quite simply, being unable to make a new character when you want to is not being able to play the game you want to play. If you were playing Bob the Fighter and now - for whatever reason - want to play Bob the Thief, and aren't allowed to, it's the same as playing D&D today and wanting to play Vampire tomorrow. If you can't, why hang around?

Of course, entire new game systems all the time are a hassle. But it's rather easier for a GM to accommodate a new character than a new game system. It's a reasonable request.

That isn't "rage quitting" to me, that's shaking hands and going separate ways. I was responding to the concept of someone throwing a tantrum as their shiny got dented.

As a GM I would always allow a player to retire their PC if they were no longer enjoying it. If your campaign (the generic you, not you specifically) is based on the same cast of PCs going from start to finish as they were "the chosen ones" or some such then it is incumbent on you as the GM to invent and acceptable reason as to why the PC cast can change a bit at least to account for losses and people simply getting bored with their current character.

We played a 4e campaign in this vein, and I simply lost interest in my character about a quarter of the way through. Our solution was for two players to swap characters (and we kept personality drift to a minimum) but it was tricky.

Quote from: rawma;810154The railroading is demanding a player play a character they don't want to play.

Wouldn't it let players avoid consequences of their actions though if they just get rid of their new character and start from a new slate every time something happens they don't like? That's why.

Or like, making a new character that's identical to the old one with a slightly different name or something.

Although to be fair, if this was a normal D&D campaign it would be another thing entirely. In this case we were playing an Amber style Throne War type game where it was PvP and we had a set number of participants -- bringing in a fresh new character is like getting a second life, so to speak, which is why I didn't let them make a brand new character and they knew this going in.