Killer Rabbitt:
I've already added house rules to the system myself, so I feel like saying "the rules just don't allow it" is rather hypocritical.
Yeah, and I don't like to use that angle anyway, so never mind.
Killer Rabbitt:
So it's not like he's proposing this because he feels he's fallen victim to flanking enemies in the past.
Have you pointed out to him that he doesn't seem to need this extra protection? Perhaps you could offer a trial of the option for a session or two, and note how often it makes a difference for him.
Min-maxers tend to like bonuses whether or not they're necessary, but pointing out exactly how significant an effect it is might help both of you decide the matter.
Killer Rabbitt:
And I feel like saying "I won't flank you" is unfair to the other members of the party, who wouldn't have that "agreement" with me, or who may now have the message that if they complain about something enough I'll change it for them.
Make that agreement with them, and focus on different tactics. And just because you're not flanking this guy doesn't mean you're going easy on him.
But take this opportunity to talk to the players about the kind of game they want. Do they want challenge and danger, or do they want a cake walk? Do they want certain tactics off the table, or not?
The game
should change if the players aren't happy. It's fair to ask that they be honest about what they don't like and why, and to ask that they help arrange a game that everyone enjoys.
Killer Rabbitt:
So any option that becomes "maybe this game isn't for you" essentially kills the game. And it's not like it's not for him -- he's been getting really involved in it, clearly has plans and ideas for his character both mechanically and plot-based. As I said, he's just kind of the type who likes to eke out what benefits he can (in a way I think he's largely unconscious about).
The game "not being for him" doesn't mean kicking him out of the game, necessarily. It might just mean modifying the game in some way. This will come out of finding out what he really wants. What would have to be true for him to stop trying to eke out benefits and just be satisfied with the typical level and advancement rate of the game?
Killer Rabbitt:
So, the long and short of it is -- he's not going to let it go. I don't really feel like jeopardizing the game or our friendship as a whole over a stupid rule. I feel like I'm in a bind where whatever I do I lose (whether it be "points" with a friend, or integrity within my game and its world).
Yeah, but one of those losses has real-world implications. Changing your game and its world is a small price to pay. It's not a "loss of integrity," it's just customization to one's friends and participants. That's been part of roleplaying games for generations.