If you're hardcore enough to let the chips fall where they may, I'd hope you'd have the balls not to let 'the book somewhat implies people don't like to play the same way as me' make you clutch your pearls.

Grow the fuck up.


Also, it's not always easy or practical to extricate from a combat, particularly if it's not going your way. Particularly if it's random and come upon you suddenly. 'Random encounters' tends not to give you a lot of leeway in determining whether to engage.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;806196I'll play devil's advocate: For many groups, the knowledge that a TPK can happen is part of what makes the rest of the experience memorable and fun. Success is only meaningful if failure is possible. The drama is only powerful if hte stakes are real.

Which means that an actual TPK, while theoretically "ruining" all the hypothetical sessions which would have otherwise followed the TPK, will actually enhance all of the other RPG sessions you play.

Would I be sad if my D&D campaign that has been running for 7 years suddenly ended tomorrow in a TPK? Probably. OTOH, many of my memories from that campaign are greatly enhanced by the knowledge that they could have been TPKs, but weren't. That somehow the party managed to scramble its way free (or even to victory) despite the day looking dire. And that they managed to do that not because they had script immunity or because my thumb was on the scale for them, but because they actually did it.

What I will say, however, is that I think it is the mark of a mediocre GM when the only consequence for failure in their game is death. That's not a very realistic attitude and it results in a less interesting game even when it isn't ending in the TPKs which are statistically more likely as a result.

I think this nails it. One of the things I realized a while back from the tyranny of fun days is that making things 100% fun all the time, is impossible because you stop enjoying it. It is like eating nothing but chocolate cake all day. You have to taste something bitter on occasion to appreciate the sweet. This is something that is obvious if you ever used the invincibility codes in a video game when you were a kid. It really takes away from the pleasure of the game.

Aw, how cute, a cross thread avenging of the "random stat roll thread".

Quote from: Will;806215If you're hardcore enough to let the chips fall where they may, I'd hope you'd have the balls not to let 'the book somewhat implies people don't like to play the same way as me' make you clutch your pearls.

I'll reiterate.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806158Does this make the DMG a bad product? No.
Does this make 5e a bad system? No.
Does it reinforce the CR paradigm present in all WotC version of D&D? Yes.

...Call me crazy, but a book with GMing advice should be capable of being criticized on the nature and worth of that advice, whether experienced GMs use it or not.

Quote from: Will;806215Grow the fuck up..

Says the guy introducing the manhood snark into the thread to begin with because he's still sore everyone laughed at him in the random stat thread.  Oh the irony, it is thick.

Quote from: Will;806215Also, it's not always easy or practical to extricate from a combat, particularly if it's not going your way. Particularly if it's random and come upon you suddenly. 'Random encounters' tends not to give you a lot of leeway in determining whether to engage.

What's your point?  
Don't have them at all?
Have them be always level inappropriate?
Always give the players an "engage or not" choice regardless of the situation?

Quote from: Simlasa;806212I've had GMs do most of those... and once in a while they're good fun. Some evil demigod rezzing you so you can do his bidding is not exactly a free giveaway.
I'd like to see more non-magical outs like the KO'ed, followed by ransom demands.

Most recently my players whose characters died due to bad judgment found themselves awake and alive on the slab in a mad warlock's dungeon. They also rolled up new PC relatives of their erstwhile dead PCs, and said new PCs will search for their lost relatives last seen near the monastery (which the warlock took over--long story). So there are plenty of ways to make a "TPK" not end a campaign.

Quote from: cranebump;806198Wonder why the default stance isn't, "TPK--the mark of shitty player decisions?"  Is it the GM's job to protect player ego?

It could just be my age, but I often feel there is a dividing line and one side are the players who grew up on video games where you can just replay any part at which you failed/died/whatever...the folks who buy those bizarre "how-to-beat-video-game-X" books...instead of just playing the damn game...wouldn't be surprised if they also want trophies for showing up.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;806196Which means that an actual TPK, while theoretically "ruining" all the hypothetical sessions which would have otherwise followed the TPK, will actually enhance all of the other RPG sessions you play.

Would I be sad if my D&D campaign that has been running for 7 years suddenly ended tomorrow in a TPK? Probably. OTOH, many of my memories from that campaign are greatly enhanced by the knowledge that they could have been TPKs, but weren't. That somehow the party managed to scramble its way free (or even to victory) despite the day looking dire. And that they managed to do that not because they had script immunity or because my thumb was on the scale for them, but because they actually did it.

Yay, sanity.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;806218One of the things I realized a while back from the tyranny of fun days is that making things 100% fun all the time, is impossible because you stop enjoying it. It is like eating nothing but chocolate cake all day. You have to taste something bitter on occasion to appreciate the sweet. This is something that is obvious if you ever used the invincibility codes in a video game when you were a kid. It really takes away from the pleasure of the game.

Yay, more sanity.  Also ties into my point above, if I want the OMFGIWIN!! experience without wasting any time on anything less then total success, there's a ton of games out there I can get it from.

Now, for those people who do enjoy playing a game where a TPK absolutely, positively can not happen, FINE.

But realize the opposing posts to the OP, just like the PvP thread are NOT saying "TPKs make the corpse of Gygax get a stiffy."  They are saying having a TPK isn't the "Mark of a shitty GM" and that TPK's are not objectively bad, period.

Again it's not about "X all the time", it's about "X even possible".  The fact that this needs to be iterated every fucking thread makes me think this place has been attending Fox News School of Logic and Debate.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806223Says the guy introducing the manhood snark into the thread to begin with because he's still sore everyone laughed at him in the random stat thread.  Oh the irony, it is thick.

You would say that, considering how often you proclaimed your love of felching goats in that thread.

Oh wait, that didn't happen, either.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806223What's your point?  
Don't have them at all?
Have them be always level inappropriate?
Always give the players an "engage or not" choice regardless of the situation?

People have brought up in this thread that 'sheesh, you can just run away.' And I'm pointing out the experiences people have, IE: a lot of people tend toward fighting to the death because other options have failed or seem unlikely.

(I had a near TPK due to a random encounter where we literally couldn't win or even run away, because the enemies could go through walls and we couldn't. GM had to basically decide the shades or whatever decided not to pursue us, because otherwise game was just over.)

Now, yeah, sometimes it's because people are trying to emulate fiction or whatever, and heroes don't typically go 'uh, yeah, let's slink away.' But sometimes, not.

Also re:

QuoteDoes this make the DMG a bad product? No.
Does this make 5e a bad system? No.
Does it reinforce the CR paradigm present in all WotC version of D&D? Yes.

...Call me crazy, but a book with GMing advice should be capable of being criticized on the nature and worth of that advice, whether experienced GMs use it or not.

Sure. We agree, which is why you need to climb up my fucking ass.

And if the OP had 'criticized' rather than acting all fucking dramatic about 'OMFG they are suggesting a lot of people don't like the opportunity of TPKs in two sentences!', it wouldn't have been worth comment.


(And yes, 3 days of dealing with whiny 6 year olds has left me a little frayed to dealing with manbabies on the internet)

((And this rum is very tasty))

ya'll got trolled

Quote from: Sacrosanct;806232ya'll got trolled

D'OH

Some of us enjoy to roleplay in a world that, despite being fantasy, has realistic consequences.

Quote from: Herne's Son;806186Seriously.

I get that players need to be smart, and walk away from encounters that are too tough.

Know when to hold them, know when to fold them, etc.

But, my (possibly slightly drunken) opinion is that TPKs are just a waste of everyone's fucking time. You spend all this time setting up a campaign, players invest lots of time in their PCs, you get an interesting storyline going with the PCs and whatever NPCs they've been interacting with...

And then, "Dur-hur-hurr.... yer all dead, fuckkas!" And the game has to reset to level 1, 25%, whatever 'beginning' stats are in your game.

Fuck that shit. PC death once in a while when warranted? Yeah, no worries. Killing off the entire party because of bad die rolls, and setting everything back at 0? No. I'm a fucking grown-ass man, and don't have time for that shit.

Fuck you, your TPKs, and the horse you rode your shitty ass in on.

Some of us enjoy to roleplay in a world that, despite being fantasy, has realistic consequences.

Your argument comes down to, once again, "badwrongfun", and that's just not cool.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;806232ya'll got trolled

nah im gonna go with the drunken post theory

Quote from: TristramEvans;806252Some of us enjoy to roleplay in a world that, despite being fantasy, has realistic consequences.

Your argument comes down to, once again, "badwrongfun", and that's just not cool.

well to be fair there are 2 things that are badwrongfun but this is not one of them

although on the other hand even the few things i consider badwrongfun i dont get on peoples case about (well not here anyway maybe on /tg/)

Quote from: tuypo1;806259well to be fair there are 2 things that are badwrongfun but this is not one of them

A GM is "bad" for playing "a way  the poster doesn't like"; pretty much the definition of badwrongfunning. IF the OP had simply been about: "I don't like it when that happens", thats all well and good. But the onetruewayist "this is the mark of a shitty GM!" assuming some universal standard based on the OP's personal storygaming inclinations is what badwrongfun means.

Death, where is thy sting.