What is with the entitlement? (shadzar stay out)

[A Man In Black]

I'm not telling a fucking story, I'm running an RPG.

You are not running anything. There is a whole group running an RPG. And if everyone wants to say, "Okay, they all died there," fine. They die. The last blow turned out to be fatal this time.

The point is to put that decision in the hands of the players, rather than putting solely it in the hands of the GM (or letting the GM make that decision while blaming it on the dice, which is the same exact thing presented passive-agressively). The GM already has the vast majority of the agency; it's not unreasonable to say that the players get to decide when their characters' game/story/what-the-fuck-ever-you-want-to-call-it ends.

[K]

I'm not telling a fucking story, I'm running an RPG.

You are not running anything. There is a group running an RPG. And if everyone wants to say, "Okay, they all died there," fine. They die. The last blow turned out to be fatal this time.

The point is to put that decision in the hands of the players, rather than putting it in the hands of the GM or letting the GM make that decision while blaming it on the dice. The GM already has the vast majority of the agency; it's not unreasonable to say that the players get to decide when their characters' game/story/what-the-fuck-ever-you-want-to-call-it ends.

I think we can just give up on him. I mean, he doesn't even realize that RPGing involves storytelling by the players and DM and seems to think that an enemies list is somehow good and compelling storytelling.

At this point, it's not even worth making jokes about how he doesn't know that Rozencrantz and Guildenstern die in Hamlet.

[A Man In Black]

I think we can just give up on him. I mean, he doesn't even realize that RPGing involves storytelling by the players and DM and seems to think that an enemies list is somehow good and compelling storytelling.

At this point, it's not even worth making jokes about how he doesn't know that Rozencrantz and Guildenstern die in Hamlet.

We are not a unit, of a single opinion.

Right now, I'm floating the idea that recoverable TPKs are a design idea worth pursuing. I wasn't so sure in my position that I was going to reject arguments against that simply because they were arguments against that position.

So you can "give up on him" if you want. I was planning to continue this interesting (to me, at least) conversation about the role of player/GM agency in PC death, though.

[Koumei]

At this point, it's not even worth making jokes about how he doesn't know that Rozencrantz and Guildenstern die in Hamlet.

Whoah, hey now, spoilers!

[Whatever]

At this point, it's not even worth making jokes about how he doesn't know that Rozencrantz and Guildenstern die in Hamlet.

Whoah, hey now, spoilers!

Hey, everyone dies in Hamlet.

[Swordslinger]

The point is to put that decision in the hands of the players, rather than putting solely it in the hands of the GM (or letting the GM make that decision while blaming it on the dice, which is the same exact thing presented passive-agressively).

Blaming it on the dice is not the GM being passive aggressive. That's the GM following the fucking rules. The very same rules everyone agreed to go by when they said "lets play D&D."

Sometimes the dice are going to kill off the GM's beloved villain that he wanted to make a daring escape and the PCs finish the adventure early. Sometimes the dice kill off a PC. Shit happens and throwing in the RNG helps to make things exciting for people. Because in both cases,the result of the die roll becomes part of the story.

Once you start disregarding the RNG, you're making the game worse. You open the door for people to get mad at the DM. It's very similar to the thread on random treasure versus placed treasure. If the treasure is random, there's no reason to blame the DM if you don't get what you want. If the treasure is DM chosen, then not getting what you want really does mean that the DM ignored you or screwed you over or whatever.

The dice offer an impartial arbiter because they are completely random. Rolling dice is not passive-agressive. Your DM does not telekinetically control the roll as you or K seem to think. The dice serve no one, and if the dice kill you, you were unlucky. It was not your DM's fault. Believe it or not but the DM has no idea what's going to come up next either.

[K]

I think we can just give up on him. I mean, he doesn't even realize that RPGing involves storytelling by the players and DM and seems to think that an enemies list is somehow good and compelling storytelling.

At this point, it's not even worth making jokes about how he doesn't know that Rozencrantz and Guildenstern die in Hamlet.

We are not a unit, of a single opinion.

Right now, I'm floating the idea that recoverable TPKs are a design idea worth pursuing. I wasn't so sure in my position that I was going to reject arguments against that simply because they were arguments against that position.

So you can "give up on him" if you want. I was planning to continue this interesting (to me, at least) conversation about the role of player/GM agency in PC death, though.

What conversation? What arguments?

Storytelling concerns have been completely rejected by the wargamers. Player agency and DM agency have been completely rejected by the wargamers.

The wargamers believe the RPGing is an objective adversarial game like Monopoly and cannot and do not offer coherent arguments against player death because they continue to reiterate that RPGs are adversarial and objective as if those were arguments. Evidence and thought exercises are ignored as if this non-argument was somehow compelling.

You aren't going to get feedback on a new mechanic because they cannot accept the premise that a new mechanic could be needed. You are going to get them telling you that they can't and won't play a RPG that is not adversarial and objective.

You seriously should start a new thread if you want feedback. The number of people avoiding this hopelessly entrenched thread is a condition running counter to your stated goal of getting feedback.

[K]

The dice offer an impartial arbiter because they are completely random. Rolling dice is not passive-agressive. Your DM does not telekinetically control the roll as you or K seem to think. The dice serve no one, and if the dice kill you, you were unlucky. It was not your DM's fault. Believe it or not but the DM has no idea what's going to come up next either.

Yet another response that the game is objective and adversarial. The very idea that a DM might choose which PC to attack or which monsters to use or which tactics that will favor one PC over another is completely rejected.

THEY CAN'T EVEN ACCEPT THAT A DM HAS THE ABILITY TO TARGET A SPECIFIC PC IN COMBAT OR THAT THE CHOICE MIGHT RESULT IN A PC DEATH!

I'd honestly like to play a game with them so that I could kill their PC in every combat using level-appropriate monsters straight out of the MM. I'll even do them the favor of dressing it up in a passive-aggressive RP excuse like "these monsters happen to hate your race so they are going to target you first."

[A Man In Black]

Blaming it on the dice is not the GM being passive aggressive. That's the GM following the fucking rules. The very same rules everyone agreed to go by when they said "lets play D&D."

Sometimes the dice are going to kill off the GM's beloved villain that he wanted to make a daring escape and the PCs finish the adventure early. Sometimes the dice kill off a PC. Shit happens and throwing in the RNG helps to make things exciting for people. Because in both cases,the result of the die roll becomes part of the story.

The blame for this result is irrelevant. The point is that the GM could prevent it in 3e, but for whatever reason, does not. The GM has all of the agency in 3e. In Crappy Less-Lethal D&D, it's the players who make the decision. The players have the agency on this point.

At this point, in Crappy Less-Lethal D&D, I'm not "disregarding" the RNG to make combat non-lethal. I have changed the RNG, such that "death" is no longer a result you can roll. There is no roll which is "Bob's barbarian dies." It's still an objective wargame, at least inasmuch as 3e is one. However, the penalty for loss is no longer that your character is permanently removed from play, unless you yourself decide to remove your character from play when you lose.

[Swordslinger]

Yet another response that the game is objective and adversarial. The very idea that a DM might choose which PC to attack or which monsters to use or which tactics that will favor one PC over another is completely rejected.

I'm not rejecting it. I'm saying, that's fucking D&D and the dice still have the last say. The DM is human, fucking live with it.

The DM has to pick someone for the monster to attack. Now you can be paranoid and figure that everytime a monster attacks you it's an act of personal malice against you.

If you're one of those paranoid people, all I can say is that D&D is not the game for you dude.

I don't give a fuck if you have PC death or not, because you'll find bullshit fault that the DM is trying to dick you over regardless. Maybe you didn't get the exact magic sword you wanted, maybe your armor was adamantine instead of mithral, maybe you thought the DM dicked over your character's color scheme by making the cape purple instead of red, maybe the princess' hair was black instead of red. Who the fuck knows, but when you're paranoid, you're going to find fault with something, and believe the DM is personally attacking you. Character death has nothing to do with that at all, because it's a gamer mentality, and you either cure that mentality or you quit the game.

If you don't trust the DM, then don't play with him. If you trust no DM, then you have to either DM yourself or stop playing.

[K]

Yet another response that the game is objective and adversarial. The very idea that a DM might choose which PC to attack or which monsters to use or which tactics that will favor one PC over another is completely rejected.

I'm not rejecting it. I'm saying, that's fucking D&D and the dice still have the last say. The DM is human, fucking live with it.

The DM has to pick someone for the monster to attack. Now you can be paranoid and figure that everytime a monster attacks you it's an act of personal malice against you.

If you're one of those paranoid people, all I can say is that D&D is not the game for you dude.

I don't give a fuck if you have PC death or not, because you'll find bullshit fault that the DM is trying to dick you over regardless. Maybe you didn't get the exact magic sword you wanted, maybe your armor was adamantine instead of mithral, maybe you thought the DM dicked over your character's color scheme by making the cape purple instead of red, maybe the princess' hair was black instead of red. Who the fuck knows, but when you're paranoid, you're going to find fault with something, and believe the DM is personally attacking you. Character death has nothing to do with that at all, because it's a gamer mentality, and you either cure that mentality or you quit the game.

If you don't trust the DM, then don't play with him. If you trust no DM, then you have to either DM yourself or stop playing.

So you aren't rejecting that the DM could massively influence battle through targeting, tactics, or design choices, but you reject that they do.... because dice are rolled and only a paranoid person thinks that DMs would use such a clearly-defined and recognized ability for any reason?

That's an extremely nonsensical non-argument in support of an objective adversarial game. It's almost a deceptive argument considering the number of people that have stated the need to "punish" bad players.

When someone uses a closet troll that hits your character on a 2, make sure to remember that the dice are impartially killing your character.

[tussock]

@K, this thing where everyone who doesn't play just like you is a gigantic dick all the time, it's a really stupid idea, and you should stop promoting it. Just sayn'.

[Red_Rob]

So you aren't rejecting that the DM could massively influence battle through targeting, tactics, or design choices, but you reject that they do.... because dice are rolled and only a paranoid person thinks that DMs would use such a clearly-defined and recognized ability for any reason?

That's an extremely nonsensical non-argument in support of an objective adversarial game. It's almost a deceptive argument considering the number of people that have stated the need to "punish" bad players.

When someone uses a closet troll that hits your character on a 2, make sure to remember that the dice are impartially killing your character.

Interestingly enough K, your latest rantings are entirely independent of character death. They have literally fuck all to do with whether your character dies at the end of the encounter.

What you are arguing is that anything that happens in an RPG is because the DM wants it to. You have over the last few posts argued that from a combination of choosing the environment, the allowed actions and the opposition the DM knows the outcome of each game before it is played.

You have literally argued that RPG's are no different to single author fiction. I don't know if that was your intention, but thats the point you are making. I don't even have to straw man it.

[Shadow Balls]

ITT: Swordslinger makes sense, and almost everyone else doubles down on the derp.

[FatR]

@K, this thing where everyone who doesn't play just like you is a gigantic dick all the time, it's a really stupid idea, and you should stop promoting it. Just sayn'.

The most bizarre idea in this thread full of bizarre ideas is the idea that K is actually trying to argue in good faith. Anyone who makes "roleplayers vs rollplayers" argument in 2011 has to be an idiot or a troll, or probably both, and this is not even the stupidest argument that K put forth on the first pages of this thread.

[K]

You have literally argued that RPG's are no different to single author fiction. I don't know if that was your intention, but thats the point you are making. I don't even have to straw man it.

Don't be a noob. RPGs are multiple author fiction.

That's why I keep saying "cooperative storytelling." It's not a buzzword I throw around to look smart, but an actual definition with actual meaning.

The rules exist to negotiate the relationship between multiple authors and to add randomness, but at no point are they evidence of an objective adversarial game. The huge amount of DM and player agency not governed by any rules should be a hint.

That fact has everything to do with whether characters permanently die. The same social contract that say that PCs shouldn't murder quest-giving NPCs or just keep the artifact they were supposed to recover/destroy is the same social contract that exists that says that DM shouldn't kill PCs. It's multiple author fiction and it's damn rude to kill off other people's characters or end their plot threads badly.

Frankly, I am more surprised than anyone that in 2011 I have explain the difference between roleplaying and wargaming to people. I don't even know how to respond to people saying "well, if your DM isn't running an objective adversarial wargame they must be an asshole and you should stop playing with them because they should be a different kind of asshole who kills your character and ruins your roleplaying."

[Swordslinger]

RPGs are multiple author fiction.

You say that here, but the rest of what you've been saying contradicts it.

You've already stated that the DM already controls enough to know the outcome of anything and that player choices are irrelevant because of this. Well that's single author fiction. You have one contributor to the story and the players are just along for the ride.

Either the DM has control over everything that happens and the DM knows the end of the story or the PCs choices have impact on the outcome and nobody knows the outcome of this collaborative story.

You can argue for one of those, not both. You can't have it both ways dude.

Until you concede that player choices have impact on their destiny (and yes that includes living and dying), then you can't claim you have multiple authors.

[DSMatticus]

You've already stated that the DM already controls enough to know the outcome of anything and that player choices are irrelevant because of this. Well that's single author fiction. You have one contributor to the story and the players are just along for the ride.

Nobody said that, you strawmanning douche. What you have said is some hilarious bullshit about "dice still have the last say." Which is hilarious, because it leads to this statement being admissible in your view: "the DM throws the tarrasque at some level 1's. The dice say they die."

The point K is making and you are ignoring is that DM agency exists, therefore encounters are not objective and impartial. The DM is the one who decides whether brandishing fire at the troll pisses it off or makes it choose easier targets, and that is a significant factor in the outcome of the encounter that is not explicitly predictable and therefore not an objective/impartial challenge of your "mad D&D skeelz."

Either the DM has control over everything that happens and the DM knows the end of the story or the PCs choices have impact on the outcome and nobody knows the outcome of this collaborative story.

You can argue for one of those, not both. You can't have it both ways dude.

Until you concede that player choices have impact on their destiny (and yes that includes living and dying), then you can't claim you have multiple authors.

And this is all stupid. Every last bit of it. You have taken, "the DM is a significant factor in the outcome of encounters," and turned that into "the GM is the only factor in the outcome of encounters."

This is not a refutation of anything K has said, it is a testament to your stupidity. If you seriously can't understand how multiple actors with agency might simultaneously influence a course of events, any multiplayer game ever must be massively confusing to you. "How is that guy shooting me? I'm the one playing! I'M THE ONE PLAYING!"

[K]

RPGs are multiple author fiction.

You say that here, but the rest of what you've been saying contradicts it.

You've already stated that the DM already controls enough to know the outcome of anything and that player choices are irrelevant because of this. Well that's single author fiction. You have one contributor to the story and the players are just along for the ride.

Either the DM has control over everything that happens and the DM knows the end of the story or the PCs choices have impact on the outcome and nobody knows the outcome of this collaborative story.

You can argue for one of those, not both. You can't have it both ways dude.

Until you concede that player choices have impact on their destiny (and yes that includes living and dying), then you can't claim you have multiple authors.

Ok children, welcome to RPGing 101. The teacher is going to explain it to you because you haven't been doing the homework.

Players make choices and DMs determine whether those actions succeed or not because this is not an objective adversarial game like Monopoly. Players take plot threads and hooks offered by the DM and weave them into their stories and DMs take plot threads and hooks offered by the PCs and weave them together into an overall narrative.

Together, they engage in cooperative storytelling

Bad DMs try to force player actions or punish player actions, acts that show the DM is trying to create single-author fiction. Bad players ruin the plot threads of other players and DM instead of weaving them into their story, also a sign of single-author fiction.

The rules exist to facilitate the weaving together of the stories and plot threads and minimize the tyranny of single-author fiction. They also add randomness to the outcome of trivial events, putting some of the load of storytelling onto arbitrary rules and outcomes.

Sometimes the interaction of rules and dice creates unexpected or undesired events of a non-trivial nature and the DM's ability to initiate new plot threads or change the rules serves as a brake on any action that would ruin the overall story or any person's story.

This means that the DM is the sole arbiter of permanent PC death since he controls NPC actions and can at any time initiate plot threads that resurrect a PC, or just not kill a PC when the opportunity is presented. Since PC's lack the ability to initiate overall story plot threads and thus resurrect their own characters or prevent their execution because of a simple distribution of labor that leaves such a role to the DM, they cannot be held responsible for permanent PC death.

This model is different from a wargame where objective rules govern all actions and any plot threads have been initiated before play ever begins as a precondition for play. This model lacks the role for a DM because another player of an adversarial nature can fill the exact same role.

The problem with adding RPG elements to wargaming is that any DM agency immediately ruins the objective nature of a wargame.

[ckafrica]

@sworldslinger:
No he's not you fucking useless spaz. He is saying that the DM has a greater responsibility because.. he has taken on a greater responsibility by setting up the setting, adventure and taking on the lion share of the characters. He has full knowledge and control of everything that happens, except what the players do.

The DM can make the most detailed, interesting and awe inspiring adventure EVAR, and if the players refuse to bite, than there really isn't anything he can do because they are part of writing the story too. Obviously most of us assume that we will play with players who will not simply try to dick the DM around and foil and fuck with every little thing that he prepares as much as we assume or DMs aren't going to railroad us and ignore the parts of the setting and our character backgrounds that we find interesting. We're all coming together to make a cool story and if we can find no consensus regarding what cool is than we shouldn't probably make stories together.

But this is not actually what he's been talking about. What he's been talking about is the fact that the DM has greater knowledge, greater power where what is/could happen next is concerned. And because of that power and knowledge, the choices he makes are much more important to making the story good. And I think we all agree that a good story has a satisfying ending.

Killing off players for not acting in the way that the DM thought was appropriate is not satisfying (to anyone but a sadistic DM). Players might not bitch about it, they might make jokes about, but that's in the same way as we act light-heartedly in regards to many negative events in our lives. But much as someone who jokes about all the terrible shit in their failed marriage would prefer it have never failed, players whose characters die in meaningless ways would rather they had been able to continue the story. Obviously these on to different scales of caring, but it I have felt equally about campaigns that have collapsed. I wanted to continue seeing where the story would have gone and was disappointed that the character I had build would never be used again.

But is boils down to the fact that DMs have a lot more power over what will happen. He doesn't have to cast finger of death at the casters who can't make the saves on the first round, even though it is the most logical tactic. He doesn't have to send unbeatable search parties as the weakened party tries to escape. He doesn't have to have the obnoxious bard executed for banging the kings wife and then bragging about it. Hit the caster who hasn't kept his head down with a lightning bolt which will blow his concentration and remind him to be more careful. Have a small team of searchers encounter an injured party who are trying to keep on the move to point out its not a safe place to rest (and might provide them with the horses they need to actually escape). Have the bard exiled or or offered the choice between a mission for the crown in exchange for not being sent to the worst prison in the country.

The DMs job is to look for more ways for the story to continue and be interesting; not to pass judgement on the validity of the decisions that the players have made. If the players choose to charge an army with only 6 of them how do you make the story continue? They are not charging to needless die (unless of course you are such a terrible DM that they are simply trying to end the session to go home sooner -- which I have seen a few times when our DM was being a intractable railroading wanker); they think they can achieve some kind of useful result by doing it. They have no way of telling what will be possible or not because it is up to the DM to decide. They provide input, you provide a reaction. So the question is will your input help the story go the way people want it to go or are you going to stop the fun because you disagreed with what 6 of your friends decided would be more fun?

[Chamomile]

If the only purpose of the rules is to check tyrannical GMing, then the rules are purposeless. I've played freeform no-GM games before and they worked just fine.

[K]

If the only purpose of the rules is to check tyrannical GMing, then the rules are purposeless. I've played freeform no-GM games before and they worked just fine.

I said, "The rules exist to facilitate the weaving together of the stories and plot threads and minimize the tyranny of single-author fiction. They also add randomness to the outcome of trivial events, putting some of the load of storytelling onto arbitrary rules and outcomes."

There is no way to check bad DMs. At best, you can minimize their impact. I mean, you can tell a DM that a 1st level party can't beat a Great Wyrm by the rules, but you can't actually stop him from using one.

The rules also serve the three other purposes I've stated above.

[Swordslinger]

Bad DMs try to force player actions or punish player actions, acts that show the DM is trying to create single-author fiction. Bad players ruin the plot threads of other players and DM instead of weaving them into their story, also a sign of single-author fiction.

Punishing a bad action by having the logical outcome happen is not bad DMing. If the PCs see a pool of acid and one guy decides to randomly take a dip for the fuck of it, then yeah. Bad shit is going to happen and every DM should punish that action.

Similarly, if your 4th level fighter decides he wants to try to solo two trolls, then yeah, bad shit is probably going to happen. Ultimately the dice decide if you live or die, but lets just say the odds aren't in your favor.

The rules exist to facilitate the weaving together of the stories and plot threads and minimize the tyranny of single-author fiction. They also add randomness to the outcome of trivial events, putting some of the load of storytelling onto arbitrary rules and outcomes.

Okay so great.. if you accept that, then why are you so anti-death? The point of the rules then is to have unexpected outcomes.. like maybe a player dying when an orc crits him in the skull with a greataxe.

But you're advocating for people to just disregard that. At that point, why bother having random chance at all?

This means that the DM is the sole arbiter of permanent PC death since he controls NPC actions and can at any time initiate plot threads that resurrect a PC, or just not kill a PC when the opportunity is presented.

Okay no. the DM can't just decide "Not to kill a PC" and fuck you for repeating that stupid fallacy. The dice rolls are killing the PCs, not the DM.

Lets say you have a battle with a single orc (CR 1) against a party of 4 1st level dudes. Not only is this not a deadly encounter, it's an easy encounter. Everyone rolls initiative and the orc wins. Now what does the DM have the orc do? Does it sit there and twiddle its thumbs waiting to die, or does it charge with its greataxe?

Okay, lets assume the DM wants to keep some measure of verisimilitude and has the orc charge the nearest PC. The orc rolls a natural 20, following by an 18 to confirm. Well given the orc has 17 strength, hes doing 1d12+4 damage, with an x3 critical. Even an average damage roll does 30 damage, so likely, someone is going to fucking die here. The encounter was fair, the monster was fair, and people just got unlucky.

So do you then stand up and start whining at the DM for picking you as the guy the orc attacked? Even though you know damn well the attack would have splattered any of your other companions?

How the fuck is this the DM's fault? Seriously dude.

But is boils down to the fact that DMs have a lot more power over what will happen. He doesn't have to cast finger of death at the casters who can't make the saves on the first round, even though it is the most logical tactic.

What a terrible argument. So you're saying that the DM should never target the weakest link and should punish the PC with the highest fort save by having him get constantly targeted? Instead of attempting to have monsters logically choose targets based on their intelligence, you're deliberately singling out a player for metagame reasons. In fact, in your attempt to be more fair, you are being unfair.

Gee I guess the way to go in your game is to not bother buying any kind of defensive item, since the DM is prohibited from attacking people with weak defenses. Have a high fort save and you save against finger of death 15% of the time. Have a weak fort save and you're 100% safe because you never get targeted. Yeah... that makes sense.

How about you just stop having your monsters metagame and do some real roleplaying. It's funny that the camp claiming to be "roleplayers" are the very ones suggesting that monsters do stupid unrealistic bullshit to try to keep the players alive.

Well dudes, guess what? The "wargamers" are doing a better job roleplaying than you guys are.

[Shadow Balls]

Gee I guess the way to go in your game is to not bother buying any kind of defensive item, since the DM is prohibited from attacking people with weak defenses. Have a high fort save and you save against finger of death 15% of the time. Have a weak fort save and you're 100% safe because you never get targeted. Yeah... that makes sense.

How about you just stop having your monsters metagame and do some real roleplaying. It's funny that the camp claiming to be "roleplayers" are the very ones suggesting that monsters do stupid unrealistic bullshit to try to keep the players alive.

Well dudes, guess what? The "wargamers" are doing a better job roleplaying than you guys are.

/thread

[ckafrica]

Right so you one shot every player you can as soon as the opportunity comes up? D&D, at least in the 3.X iteration that we discuss here, is sufficiently rocket taggy that you can almost always kill people in one round using run of the mill CR appropriate encounters. As the DM has much more information with which to be prepared that best tactics from the DM should turn into pretty per encounter deaths. If you're not you're holding back. So are you an asshole DM who kills his players at every opportunity or someone who actually bases his decisions not on what is the most tactically awesome and effect or on what will let your players continue to have fun?