What is with the entitlement? (shadzar stay out)

[Gx1080]

So, in other words, 12 thread pages can be resumed into:





Man, this is just absurd.

[K]

I honestly don't think you can invest in a character you expect to lose at some point.

I expect you also honestly don't think you can invest in a game that you expect to end at some point?

I think we're done here, folks.

echo

I'm fine with the game ending at some point. Campaigns conclude, people move away... whatever. It's not a deal because you are left with the hope that can play the character again.

I don't even have a problem with a planned character death. I mean, once the story you want to tell with the character is done, your investment is over.

But, once you start to live with permanent and arbitrary character death, you invest in everything but the character. You invest in the story, or the tactical mini-game, or the fact that gaming is an excuse to hang with friends.

But your character? Nope.

[...You Lost Me]

All right, K has backed himself into a corner and has started playing the passive-aggressive game by ignoring people he can't logically defeat while spouting nonsense.

Thank you for your time, everyone, but I think we really don't have anything more to say here.

[Shadow Balls]

But if the DM gives people the ability and the knowledge to make viable characters, and they do not make viable characters then yes that is their fault.

Protip: Maybe the fact that there are "non-viable" character classes even printed in the manual is the problem.

Even viable classes can take non viable actions, so not really. Sure it's bad that the game is imbalanced, but that is hardly the only problem here.

[K]

Again, if losing a character is nothing, then why does the threat of losing a character make for a better game? You contradict yourself.

I've been thinking about this, and I don't think the camp believing this is actually contradicting themselves.

They have obviously stopped any investment in character or story and have been clear on this point, but it seems they are heavily invested in the tactical mini-game. In the tactical mini-game, character death is the only lose condition, so much so that several posters have already stated something similar to "why even play combats if you can't die?"

Now, one can argue that investing in a rather arbitrary tactical mini-game where someone else decides if you win or lose is lame and pointless, but you can't deny that they have an investment there.

[Fuchs]

But they could also use "knocked out" to signify losing a fight. If death means nothing it can be replaced by anything.

[K]

But they could also use "knocked out" to signify losing a fight. If death means nothing it can be replaced by anything.

The problem is that the RPG tactical mini-game already resists investment because it's so arbitrary, so they need to double-down on it to actually feel something.

I mean, if you cut out permanent character death, you'd need something equally brutal that affects the next combat like permanent lost limbs for them to feel anything at all.

[FatR]

That's the entire point. If the outcome of failure is "make a new character and if you're quick you might get to play some more, otherwise see you next session," failure sucks. If the outcome of failure is "changes the direction of the campaign, but you're still at the table playing," failure is fun.

And why should failure be fun? I'm fully serious here, because the most common observed cause for character death in my experience is the player not being willing an effort in the game, including listening to good advice. I can remember a couple of games which suffered immensely because a player like this was plot-shielded for OOC reasons (like, being the key group member's significant other). So why in the Nine Hells should a GM positively reinforce failure? Why should a GM reward stupidity and lack of effort?

And it is not like the penalty for death in DnD is actually severe. Probability is stacked in favor of PCs' survival on "normal mode" - I generally see about 1 character death for level 1 to 10 campaign on average (hard to say for higher levels, campaigns tend to not last that long), even taking presence of bad players like outlined above into account. Considering that reviving dead is available from, like, level 6-7, if anyone in the group cares, the situation where a character death will cause a player to miss rest of the session is hard to imagine, and the average amount of "death downtime" per campaign is likely less that the total time you'll spend looking at loading screens during a single CRPG playthrough. If you want immediate gratification so much that this is unacceptable to you, you'll probably a bad player anyway, because you don't invest your time into learning either the rules or the setting.

1) Suppose D&D is murderball versus the DM.
2) There are opponents you cannot beat.
3) The DM decides the opponents you face.
4) You will always face opponents you cannot beat.

If you think that the only way to get enjoyment from playing tactical minigame seriously is to squash your opponent in the most one-sided and unfair way possible, that's explain a lot... But, you know, it isn't. Even in competitive games you can see players imposing handicaps on themselves, picking inferior sides and otherwise limiting themselves, because lack of challenge robs victory of its taste. There is much enjoyment to be found in pushing your opponent as far as you can, after accepting the fact that unless the opponent is very, very inept, your side will never have resources to actually win (again, since 3.0 odds in DnD are supposed to be heavily in PCs favor, according to the damn rules), otherwise no one would have ever played Japan in War in the Pacific.

There is no 'versus' at all in D&D.

Will you tell me that I hallucinated all those DnD battles I've ran and played?

[Dean]

FatR What you are mistaking is a desire to believe that you are "winning" in DnD. That isn't true. You are cooperating in a group social event for fun. If you and your group play squash you could win but you can't "win" in DnD. Who is your opponent? Who are you defeating? Who is making an attempt to be victorious against you that you are succeeding against?

The other players are on your side and are here for social entertainment and the DM is an fun-referee who is trying to make an evening fun for you and his players. No one is against you so how can you win.

No I think this is another example, and don't take this personally because I honestly don't mean it as such, of players wanting to think that they are special. They want death to be a thing that exists but that happens to somebody else out there, because they are just too good. It is my belief that this is just a lack of understanding that that is the ILLUSION DnD has been trying to create for decades. It is not real. You don't die because no one here is trying to kill your character. That is why. Not because of your leet skills and sweet rule-fu. DnD is about, in it's current iteration, creating an illusion that death is possible and results from failure but this is simply not true. It is an illusion, and an intentional one.

The benefit of taking "Death" off the table is to stop all the silliness around what happens when a player dies, for often no reason, and to replace it with mission failure. When you lose you should mission fail but you should get to keep playing. When the dice turn against you in the old setup you might get killed. Under the new setup you might mission fail. With one of those options you get to keep playing tonight. So that is the better one.

[K]

And why should failure be fun? I'm fully serious here, because the most common observed cause for character death in my experience is the player not being willing an effort in the game, including listening to good advice. I can remember a couple of games which suffered immensely because a player like this was plot-shielded for OOC reasons (like, being the key group member's significant other). So why in the Nine Hells should a GM positively reinforce failure? Why should a GM reward stupidity and lack of effort?

What failure are you punishing?

Are you punishing the player's character creation skills? His lack of skill at the combat mini-game? That he didn't give over the control of his character to people with better tactical mini-game skills? Was the player not paying enough attention? Did he just do something that he didn't know was a mistake?

Then, I have to ask: will killing their character improve any of those situations? Are they going to want hand over character creation and play over to a better player so that they get to keep RPing their character sometimes?

I guess it just seems like punishing weaker players seems pointlessly punitive. At worst, it causes someone to just leave the game and at best it creates a power-gamer.

[virgil]

But, once you start to live with permanent and arbitrary character death, you invest in everything but the character. You invest in the story, or the tactical mini-game, or the fact that gaming is an excuse to hang with friends.

But your character? Nope.

That is what's happened with my gaming group (the non-Paizo ones). It's been a trait of theirs for years. They simply do not put any investment into the character, and will actively avoid games that do this. They enjoy the tactical mini-game, character creation itself, the excuse to hang with friends, and refer back to past games' stories quite frequently, so they obviously enjoy that part.

[K]

The other players are on your side and are here for social entertainment and the DM is an fun-referee who is trying to make an evening fun for you and his players. No one is against you so how can you win.

I agree, but the other side sees the game entirely differently:

In your words "To DM is to make the player's have fun". I DM to entertain myself. If I at all feel like its a job then I won't do it. If someone wants to be Gygaxian and motherfuckers still show up at their table then that is there choice and though you are welcome to not like it it isn't anyone's place to tell them to stop playing the game.

(bold mine)

Misspellings and grammar mistakes aside, I think the position is pretty clear: even mentioning that DMs should care about how player's fun should be important is a dealbreaker.

[infected slut princess]

ALERT - most of you are talking about D&D, and in that game there are spells and items that, you know, BRING PEOPLE BACK TO LIFE. Getting killed is not a big deal in D&D. It might cost some gold or some XP. Who cares. It might cost you a little bit of time playing your character even. How big of a deal _is_ this really?

Let's ask how much playing time do people ACTUALLY MISS when they die? Come on people, it's NOT A LOT unless you are an asshole DM or you play with asshole DMs. I've played nerd games like D&D for two decades, as player and DM, and lots of imaginary characters got killed in various situations -- and you know what? No one got excluded for any significant amount of time.

K talks about making the story continue for everyone no matter what the PCs do or the dice say in a game, so that no one ever has to stop storytelling. Okay, I will buy that. But apparently, it is simply impossible in a game like D&D for someone to die and have fun anyway and any games where a character dies but the players still gets to play SIMPLY DOESNT EXIST.

Well that's bullshit K, many people are here disagreeing with you about death being the "end of a person's fun." Because, you know, in a cool gaming group shared by a bunch of buddies, it's not the end of the fun. You are going to get resurrected, remember? Unless you WANT a new character, in which case dying was probably something desirable and cool.

But say you can't get resurrected within five minutes of dying. Maybe a new canned npc conveniently shows up and you use him. Maybe there is an npc already with you. Maybe you can be one of the fucking MONSTERS in a fight and try to mess up your other buddies if there are literally no other options.

So K, given that -- to you -- it is SO inconceivable that fun is possible if someone dies (in a game where people get brought back to life with magic), then that suggests YOU are the dumb asshole DM or you play only with dumb asshole DMs. Or you have no friends who want to play with you and that's why you're so worried about offending every whiny bitch of an immature player whose imaginary dwarf got killed by a minotaur's critical hit?

An RPG like D&D requires some players with moderate levels of maturity. If you are playing with whiny bitches who can't stand not using their character for 10 minutes, an hour, or -- OH NO -- an entire session!!! and they have to use an npc or a henchmen or a monster or whatever TEMPORARILY... then seriously, you should _just play magic fucking tea party_ with a bunch of little kids.

Also: i'm playing in a campaign with four players now. Gone about 10 levels. Everyone has died once. Every time, it worked out fine. Everyone had fun. In K's view, this should be IMPOSSIBLE. But it's not, so he's an idiot. In another case, a character got captured and put in a coma or something, which was actually a BIGGER impediment to using the character than actually dying. Did the player cry or leave the game forever? Nope, he used a canned npc for the next session and helped his other buddies with the rescue. And it was fun for everyone.

edit: typos

[K]

Sock-puppet alert!

Another one to the Ignore button.

[FatR]

FatR What you are mistaking is a desire to believe that you are "winning" in DnD. That isn't true. You are cooperating in a group social event for fun. If you and your group play squash you could win but you can't "win" in DnD. Who is your opponent? Who are you defeating? Who is making an attempt to be victorious against you that you are succeeding against?

The other players are on your side and are here for social entertainment and the DM is an fun-referee who is trying to make an evening fun for you and his players. No one is against you so how can you win.

No one is also against me in any of the single-player computer games. Mindless code which is set to ensure that I can win after applying certain amount of effort to the game doesn't count. So, how can I win? Yeah, exactly the same way I can in TTRPG - by completing scripted objectives through applying certain amount of effort. And please don't bring "It is all really Magical Tea Party, mechanics do not really influence anything, and published adventures do not exist" bullshit in response, because it is bullshit, functionally equivalent to the statement that the Sun is green.

And now I'm finding myself siding with Shadow Balls more and more because it really seems that the "anti-death" crowd is actually against the "applying effort" part in TTRPGs (well, apparently, except if you are GM, in which case you are supposed to do any amount of extra work necessary to coddle your players).

No I think this is another example, and don't take this personally because I honestly don't mean it as such, of players wanting to think that they are special. They want death to be a thing that exists but that happens to somebody else out there, because they are just too good.

Well, duh, bad outcome happening to somebody else, but not himself if what every player who plays games with failure conditions, whether cooperative or competitive, want, so I don't know why you think I can be offended by this. Just ask any raider in WoW if he wishes the potential threat of being wiped by the boss to disappear - yet he surely does not want this to happen with his group. This does not mean that every such player is also a sore loser who can't accept that this time he got defeated.

It is my belief that this is just a lack of understanding that that is the ILLUSION DnD has been trying to create for decades. It is not real. You don't die because no one here is trying to kill your character. That is why. Not because of your leet skills and sweet rule-fu.

See the note about bullshit above. That's what you are saying now.

DnD is about, in it's current iteration, creating an illusion that death is possible and results from failure but this is simply not true. It is an illusion, and an intentional one.

You're also telling me that I've hallucinated shit going on whatever side of GM screen I was on for decades now.

[infected slut princess]

yeah now you can ignore my 2 posts per year or whatever. Your argument is completely retarded so i don't care about getting a serious reply. Seriously the only reason I bothered to sign in and post here today was that in your particular case K i was so disappointed with your seemingly complete lack of reasonableness in this thread. Because normally i like your posts, they seem smart. Here it's like you went into pure whiny retard mode. maybe you are an imposter and you will start making "mike mearls is aweosme" threads.

[Stubbazubba]

Applying effort in an RPG? All you're talking about is system mastery. A player who has never played the game before is worthless to you and should just let other people control all his significant actions until he just catches on, and if he has the gall to play his made-up character in a made-up fantasy world in a collaborative storytelling activity, then he should be punished if that's not also the most tactically optimal thing to do by killing his character and being told, "Go away and come back when you've learned to not be stupid, newb."

There is no effort measured here, only an accumulated mastery of the system. While I can understand that some DMs are all about that, the story and characters be damned, why is it not OK for players to go against the odds, make the sub-optimal choice, in the name of staying true to their character concept or even just to realize said character concept in the first place? Why is killing monsters objectively better than playing your character? System mastery is not the only kind of effort going on when a bunch of nerds get together to enjoy social entertainment. The effort to contribute to the collaborative narrative through making interesting characters and then playing them faithful to that should not be punished in order to 'teach' them how to play the game properly.

The Monk class was not made to be the class that you learn to not play, it was made underpowered on accident. Punishing anyone who plays one for not applying the "effort" to know that they're just unplayable is simply ridiculous. The game designers made mistakes, why are we compounding them by strictly coloring within the lines they inadvertently made, punishing anyone who leaves the framework made by mistake? No, system mastery is not "player effort," not by a long shot. You're considering the whole game very narrowly when you think of it that way.

[K]

DnD is about, in it's current iteration, creating an illusion that death is possible and results from failure but this is simply not true. It is an illusion, and an intentional one.

You're also telling me that I've hallucinated shit going on whatever side of GM screen I was on for decades now.

I think he just hasn't wrapped his head around the idea that there are DMs who execute player's characters and pretend that it's the system doing it and not them despite the DM's almost complete control over battles and challenge difficulty.

[MGuy]

The other players are on your side and are here for social entertainment and the DM is an fun-referee who is trying to make an evening fun for you and his players. No one is against you so how can you win.

I agree, but the other side sees the game entirely differently:

In your words "To DM is to make the player's have fun". I DM to entertain myself. If I at all feel like its a job then I won't do it. If someone wants to be Gygaxian and motherfuckers still show up at their table then that is there choice and though you are welcome to not like it it isn't anyone's place to tell them to stop playing the game.

(bold mine)

Misspellings and grammar mistakes aside, I think the position is pretty clear: even mentioning that DMs should care about how player's fun should be important is a dealbreaker.

I think your position is pretty clear too. If people don't play the way you like they should quit the game. That's a shit way to approach any form of entertainment. You've been railing against other people's tastes because you don't like them and nothing else. Your conclusion from the part that you bolded is not necessarily true. And you know that but because I'm disagreeing with you you're painting it as being as negative as possible. Hell I think my argument has even been pretty damn reasonable. If you like it, do it, if you don't don't. Its as simple as that and no number of pages filled with "I don't like this shit!" is going to change anyone's minds.

You don't have a strong leg to stand on for your position so all you're doing now is picking the weakest part's of someone's argument and arguing against that since you can't garner some concrete support for your position. You quoting this part of my rant and your conclusion to it show that you're not even trying to prove a point just hold the line.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Applying effort in an RPG? All you're talking about is system mastery. A player who has never played the game before is worthless to you and should just let other people control all his significant actions until he just catches on, and if he has the gall to play his made-up character in a made-up fantasy world in a collaborative storytelling activity, then he should be punished if that's not also the most tactically optimal thing to do by killing his character and being told, "Go away and come back when you've learned to not be stupid, newb."

There is no effort measured here, only an accumulated mastery of the system. While I can understand that some DMs are all about that, the story and characters be damned, why is it not OK for players to go against the odds, make the sub-optimal choice, in the name of staying true to their character concept or even just to realize said character concept in the first place? Why is killing monsters objectively better than playing your character? System mastery is not the only kind of effort going on when a bunch of nerds get together to enjoy social entertainment. The effort to contribute to the collaborative narrative through making interesting characters and then playing them faithful to that should not be punished in order to 'teach' them how to play the game properly.

The Monk class was not made to be the class that you learn to not play, it was made underpowered on accident. Punishing anyone who plays one for not applying the "effort" to know that they're just unplayable is simply ridiculous. The game designers made mistakes, why are we compounding them by strictly coloring within the lines they inadvertently made, punishing anyone who leaves the framework made by mistake? No, system mastery is not "player effort," not by a long shot. You're considering the whole game very narrowly when you think of it that way.

And if that's the case, why do we spend so much time on this board talking about how beatsticks suck and you need to be level appropriate? This sounds like something you can win at, or at least be good at, to me. From whence come all the character builds and "spells that fucking kill people"? And why bother writing the Tomes at all if the fighter and the monk are under no real pressure to be level appropriate anyway?

And if players put time into mastering the system, why should that be thrown out the window because some guy wants to play the monk? Why the hell do I have to bend over backwards to accommodate people who refuse to learn the rules of the game so they can play some Naruto clone? The fuck am I putting in the extra work to compensate for their laziness? As GM, I already have a world I need to populate and I'd rather not change ogreland because the PCs wandered in their and decided that melee combat with Kark the legendary ogre samurai at level 1 was the bestest idea ever.

[Damocles]

idiocy

The hell are you even saying? I don't even have any idea why tome was made, but I can come up with better guesses than 'to win more'.

Also, Monks are naruto clones? Lolwat? When was this conversation about narugay?

I would sit here and try to pick apart your underlying argument, but its worded and defended about as well as the guy who's barred from posting in this threads' posts.

Anyways, Tome was made so people could pick the class they want without having to be huge pieces of shit. No, not for a numbers reason (when concerning being OP ZOMGZ), but for a numbers reason of being on equal ground with people. Equal ground for classes = Equal fun for players. Sure, some people may go 'BULLSHIT, YOU DONT NEED NUMBERS TO HAVE FUN YOURE JUST A POWER GAMER' but truth is, no matter what, you feel better when you're just as useful as everyone else.

Thats my guess.

Also, you keep arguing that effort thing. Stubba was exactly right, so please, keep making yourself look more dumb.

I'll also edit this in. People talk about being level appropriate so much because its a much easier topic to critique and compare than individuals roleplaying skills. You need to be level appropriate so your cool character doesnt get gibbed. You want to have an awesome beatstick because why wouldnt you?

Most cool characters, with awesome stories, etc, aren't hampered in any way by being either optimized or just in general, built well. Only the super paranoid people who scream 'powergamer' at every little thing seemingly refuse to optimize their characters.

I roleplay, quite seriously, even a little over the top, but I still enjoy building mechanically good characters. The two can coexist.

Second edit: Even in the damn anime, Naruto is a wizard. You should be more worried about the people who HAVE mastered the system than the 'noobs playing monk'.

[DSMatticus]

If you think that the only way to get enjoyment from playing tactical minigame seriously is to squash your opponent in the most one-sided and unfair way possible, that's explain a lot

I don't think you understand what the word versus means. When you describe D&D as "versus the DM," that implies that D&D is a game where the DM's goal is to beat you, and the player's goal is to beat the DM. Even the talk about 'handicap' and 'challenge' is a bullshit smokescreen, because
1) nobody fucking does it. I don't see last year's champions taking handicaps in any fucking sport in existence, and 'handicap' utilities don't even exist in most modern RTS's, and
2) when you apply a handicap to increase the challenge your ultimate goal is still to win. The DM applies handicaps until he's convinced he'll lose. If you played a D&D game where the DM won more than half the encounters, it would fucking suck.

And why should failure be fun?

Wait? Are you saying that we should add explicit mechanics to an RPG to enhance the penalties for failure because "if you lose the game, you don't deserve the fun?" How about you let failure be its own punishment, and then add mechanics that allow people to go right back to having fun after failing?

I can remember a couple of games which suffered immensely because a player like this was plot-shielded for OOC reasons (like, being the key group member's significant other). So why in the Nine Hells should a GM positively reinforce failure? Why should a GM reward stupidity and lack of effort?

This is a dumb example. Your group had a disruptive player who wasn't taking the game seriously. Instead of talking to this person, or the group, or the DM, you're supposing this: "we can use PC death as a way to tell this person take it seriously or leave, without having to go through a potentially awkward social confrontation." If there's any better example of misuse of PC death, I cannot think of it. "We don't like you the way you're playing, but we can't balls up to say it so... you die, you die, you die. Get the hint? You die, you die, you die."



But I still get the feeling nobody's paying any fucking attention at all to the core premise here: any mechanic which leads to the exclusion of a player and adds nothing else to the game is a bad mechanic. Character attachment is another story, and one I don't feel particularly inclined to give a shit about. But making a character in 3.5 takes a decent amount of time, and that's time that could be spent playing. Nobody has claimed "PC's should always win," "challenges should be less severe." Actually, once you take PC death off the table, PC's can lose more frequently and their challenges can be more severe, because you don't have to worry about "oops, I killed too many people."

So, what's the problem? When someone hits -10 hitpoints, is there any desirable reason to say "you're dead!" instead of "you're bleeding out indefinitely until the fight's over and you get whatever standard treatment your party has available"? What are we adding to the game when we do that?

[Stubbazubba]

-snip

Stop. Don't take my criticism of an extreme position and spin it into the opposite extreme position. I never advocated that the game was OK as-is and that Tome Fighter or Monk aren't huge, necessary improvements to prevent the balance problems between Core classes. I never said that it was the DM's responsibility to cater to every whimsy any player has. Don't put words into my mouth because you disagree with K, talk to me. My points are more or less system agnostic, and a broken system does not invalidate anything I said. We talk about ways to fix the system on this board, to make as many character concepts viable as possible, to harmonize the skills of both system masters and role-players until you don't have to choose to be one or the other, which is a dichotomy that people are for some reason defending here.

Why is it laziness to want to play a Naruto clone? Is D&D not kitchen-sink fantasy? Should that not be an appropriate character concept? If so, why? Defend that unfounded condemnation of fluff, if you would. Now, if that player wants to play a Naruto-inspired character, and is offered the Tome Monk, but refuses, then they're being a little unreasonable, I'll agree to that. But the answer is not "kill his Monk so he learns how weak it is," because the player will not "learn" from that.

Character death should not be the natural consequence of playing the game in good conscience because the DM wants to teach you how to play his way. If the DM and all the other players are more interested in playing a lethal game which is more about system mastery than role-playing, then that's fine, and that Naruto fan needs to concede something to the collective will of the group and either try out a Tome Monk or save that concept for another game with a different group whose preferences more reflect his own, but that doesn't mean that he's not trying to participate, and it still doesn't mean that his character ought to die for it. The DM, moreover, is not the one who gets to make that judgment call; the tone of the game needs to be agreed to by most of the players, including DM, and not by one individual, no matter how much more of a 'burden' it is on him than others.

Which just takes me back to the fact that if the DM is only recognizing system mastery as "applying effort" to an RPG, he doesn't understand the depth the game is possible of. If he recognizes it but the group as a whole isn't into the other stuff, that's perfectly legitimate. But that's not what FatR said.

[K]

The other players are on your side and are here for social entertainment and the DM is an fun-referee who is trying to make an evening fun for you and his players. No one is against you so how can you win.

I agree, but the other side sees the game entirely differently:

In your words "To DM is to make the player's have fun". I DM to entertain myself. If I at all feel like its a job then I won't do it. If someone wants to be Gygaxian and motherfuckers still show up at their table then that is there choice and though you are welcome to not like it it isn't anyone's place to tell them to stop playing the game.

(bold mine)

Misspellings and grammar mistakes aside, I think the position is pretty clear: even mentioning that DMs should care about how player's fun should be important is a dealbreaker.

I think your position is pretty clear too. If people don't play the way you like they should quit the game. That's a shit way to approach any form of entertainment. You've been railing against other people's tastes because you don't like them and nothing else. Your conclusion from the part that you bolded is not necessarily true. And you know that but because I'm disagreeing with you you're painting it as being as negative as possible. Hell I think my argument has even been pretty damn reasonable. If you like it, do it, if you don't don't. Its as simple as that and no number of pages filled with "I don't like this shit!" is going to change anyone's minds.

You don't have a strong leg to stand on for your position so all you're doing now is picking the weakest part's of someone's argument and arguing against that since you can't garner some concrete support for your position. You quoting this part of my rant and your conclusion to it show that you're not even trying to prove a point just hold the line.

If the only way you can enjoy a hobby is to ruin it for other people who happen to be your friends, you shouldn't do it for your friends and for the hobby. I think that's a reasonable position, and I would feel the same way about any activity.

I mean, if you only enjoyed watching movies in the theater when you screamed at the screen and tossed popcorn at other movie-goers, then should the other movie-goers just suck it because they chose to come to the theater and didn't leave?

In that case, I'd suggest that you watch movies at home.

Your own text is pretty devastating for your position, and I'm sorry you are annoyed that I featured it. I know that being judged is insulting, but in this case the judgement is completely fair and can serve as a cautionary tale for other people.

That text is useful to the overall argument because there is a chance that someone who is undecided on the issue will look at it and say "you know, that does seem like a dick position and I won't do that."

I don't even want to convince you. If I did, then balancing the rest of the game in order to blunt the effect of crap DMs is a pointless activity. Crap DMs reveal the flaws in the system from both mechanics and storytelling angle, and also reveal to any amateur game designer the kinds of behavior they need to take into account when they make a game.

In that sense, you've been as useful as a sock-puppet in regards to demonstrating my point.

[Avoraciopoctules]

I'm curious how people in this thread might respond to a hypothetical scenario. Let's say you've been running a game of D&D where you as Mister Cavern have not been keeping very detailed tabs on the PCs. You know what class each one is and you might have Perception modifiers on hand, but for combat stuff like saves and HP, you leave it to players to figure out whether they get hit by attacks and how damage interacts with their DR or whatever. The PCs have names, histories, political agendas, etc., and you generally work with players in this part of PC creation to make sure that there will be stuff in the campaign relevant to PC goals.

In 5 sessions, you've had 2 PC deaths, each the same player. You've been mostly throwing out encounters with groups of enemies 1-2 CR below the PCs, but in roughly equal numbers. After one game, the player who has lost 2 PCs privately confesses that he deliberately fudged his hitpoints so that his character died on both occasions. He claims that he had 2 reasons for this:
1. He enjoys making new PCs, fleshing out personalities and long term goals
2. He thought the game would be "cooler" if somebody died in the 2 encounters he lost characters in, because the enemies were "so badass it would be a shame if they failed completely"

How do you react to this?