There was a stretch where scripted TPKs and/or transformations were de rigeur in RAVENLOFT adventures--mostly end of 1992 through 1994--probably based on Bruce Nesmith's idea that the only way to frighten players in an RPG was to threaten the one thing they cared about, their character. With one or two exceptions, those modules are not well-regarded today.

Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 02:20:53 PM
That doesn't' excuse shit adventure design. By that rationale, all RPG products are fine. Hell, with enough work on my part, I could salvage Thirsty Sword Lesbians, or that scam "Native Americans are Perfect" RPG, or something. That doesn't mean they are not shit.

Shit adventure design doesn't become okay just because we want to make fun of wokeism or something. It's still shit adventure design.

I'm not excusing either bad ethics (I believe that x-card and other safety tools are bad ethics) nor poor game design.  All I was doing is saying that there is an element here that a good game designer/GM could capitalize on.  Fuck the author and perform the requiem for the poor tree that died to give him something to write on.

I am saying that if you see something that might be useful, take it.  Steal ideas without shame.  I'm will to take diamonds, even from pig shit.

Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 02:39:47 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 02:20:53 PM
That doesn't' excuse shit adventure design. By that rationale, all RPG products are fine. Hell, with enough work on my part, I could salvage Thirsty Sword Lesbians, or that scam "Native Americans are Perfect" RPG, or something. That doesn't mean they are not shit.

Shit adventure design doesn't become okay just because we want to make fun of wokeism or something. It's still shit adventure design.

I'm not excusing either bad ethics (I believe that x-card and other safety tools are bad ethics) nor poor game design.  All I was doing is saying that there is an element here that a good game designer/GM could capitalize on.  Fuck the author and perform the requiem for the poor tree that died to give him something to write on.

I am saying that if you see something that might be useful, take it.  Steal ideas without shame.  I'm will to take diamonds, even from pig shit.

I think we may have slightly lost the plot of this thread. Looks like we. Mostly agree that this adventure, as written, is not great. We also agree that even shitty adventures can have elements that can be used by a creative GM. I think the point of bringing up the fact that it is a bad adventure is to show that the issue of "player consent" is only an problem here precisely because it is a badly written adventure. As multiple people have demonstrated, becoming a mindflayer or some other tpk equivalent can be an interesting outcome to an adventure if you sufficiently telegraph the danger or provide some alternate approaches to either continue the campaign or mitigate the fallout. However, what amounts to a rocks fall everyone dies situation looks like it is extremely lazy and/or purposely engineered to make "player consent" an issue at all.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:55:33 AM

QuoteIn the latest D&D 5E adventure module, there is box text requiring the DM to get player consent before the character turns into a mind flayer after getting infected from poor choices the player made. Are there no consequences to poor actions in D&D anymore?

https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207

They sat down at my table knowing the game and the adventure type.

That's consent.

Well what else can you expect from a Children's/Snowflake RPG?   I don't know any actual adults who play it.  I mean maturity wise, not necessarily age wise.

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 09, 2023, 03:21:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:55:33 AM

QuoteIn the latest D&D 5E adventure module, there is box text requiring the DM to get player consent before the character turns into a mind flayer after getting infected from poor choices the player made. Are there no consequences to poor actions in D&D anymore?

https://twitter.com/KraftyMattKraft/status/1700361641169412207

They sat down at my table knowing the game and the adventure type.

That's consent.

And if that were the module you were thinking of running, I'd get right up and walk away because only a newb who didn't know any better or an asshole would run that module even remotely close to as written.

No one is arguing the GM can't do what they want; they're arguing it's a shit adventure that tries to use consent tools to cover up for shit design... the same sort of shit tactics I've seen people walk away from GM's over all the time.

Those who don't learn to not be shit GMs end up with either empty tables or the shittiest players no other GM wants.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 09, 2023, 09:58:30 AM

Quote from: Brad on September 09, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
Do these people also need to consent to pay you rent in Monopoly?

What the fuck...

Well if a plandemic is in effect then you cannot collect rent, or evict the tenant, and thereafter the squatters get $500 every time they pass GO.

BS. I collected rent during the plandemic.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:19:16 AM

I personally wouldn't inflict that on a player and expect them to play it.

Why not?  It is just a matter of minutes as the mindflayer attacks the rest of the party and either wins or loses.  What's the big deal?  How can one expect to go out and kill others, take their stuff in the name of gaining power and NOT expect that some days are just gonna be fcked?

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 12:37:25 PM
Honestly, I wasn't saying anything about making the PCs unkillable. I'm opposed to TPK. Which ends the fun for everybody.

Then you're making some unspoken claims without nuance.

You said

QuoteWell I believe TPK of any kind is a hallmark of poor GMing. The GM always has the option of stopping things before that outcome happens. So there is really no excuse for it.

Is it a hallmark of poor GMing? Could it be the hallmark of poor decision-making of the players? GM's *always* have *any* option by fiat. Does that mean they *must* adjudicate all outcomes that preclude TPK's from happening. Being opposed to "TPK's" literally means making PC's unkillable - anything is on the table other than killing the whole party literally means the PC's are unkillable.

Now you might mean - "one or two PC's are killable" but not the whole party. Obviously you mean "something bad happens" but they don't die. Without context this is *bad* GMing. Because at that point you're removing agency from your PC's to DO STUPID things - yes, they have that right. But you're also doing a disservice to the setting and whatever context you can muster (yes, GM's can vary in this capacity wildly. These are usually the hallmarks of good/bad GMs) in service of this silly idea that no matter what, TPK's = Bad because TPK's kill fun.

I'd say bad playing is not fun. And bad playing leads to TPK's. And if it wasn't fun in the first place - then you lose nothing. Start a new game. The corollary of which might mean - you get new players, or maybe you, the GM could be the real problem because you're not curating your players enough to keep bad players from playing. There's a LOT of room to maneuver here, but your quote is pretty binary.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:34:13 AM
Well I believe TPK of any kind is a hallmark of poor GMing.

Stupid players can get themselves killed with no over kill set up by the GM.  There is NO saving throw versus stupidity.  I've seen it happen many times in almost 50 years of playing. So your "belief" is garbage.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 09, 2023, 12:55:37 PM
There's a difference between an adventure happening to end up in a TPK as a result of poor player choices and/or a series of unfortunate rolls. And a (effective) TPK that's preplanned and guaranteed for everyone (PC or NPC) in the entire region unless the PCs 1) play along AND succeed, or 2) they get the hell out of Dodge before things go south.

The first is just shit happening. The second is the GM planning a shit adventure.

EDIT: Ninja'd

Well there's a big difference between "planning and adventure" and running a sandbox where the world responds to the plans and actions of the players. One requires the GM nail down details that often remove player agency. The other requires the GM prepare a world and set it into motion that reacts organically to the plans and actions of the PC's (and through them their players) where they have maximal agency.

If I know they plan to assassinate the leader of an evil cult, but they don't know this is their high-holiday and their temple is packed with several hundred worshippers that are bloodthirsty killers, a little bit of planning on the PC's part can go a *long* way.

As a GM I don't *plan* adventures. I color in details between game sessions that may/may not arise based on the trajectory of the PC's and their plans. I flesh out the world constantly. Yes its more work than "planning" a linear adventure. I flood my settings with plot-hooks that could lead to things, but the players make the choices, and do the planning. TPK's *HAPPEN* I don't just "allow" or "disallow" anything. If you're a GM that's planning a TPK, you're just being an asshole, and frankly that's not really GMing. The whole point that a GM *can* do anything means it's your responsibility, if you care at all about player agency, to *do as little as possible* to plan your PC's fates.

What you do is populate your world with NPC's and factions with their own goals, and set standards that everyone gets to abide by - and you feel free to let the PC's break/go along with those setting's conventions to the level of their own ambition and desires. They can kill NPC's as much as they want. They can advocate for political movements, establish their own kingdoms, cults, or anything they see fit and roleplay/role-dice that will let them accomplish their goals. They'll make enemies and allies along the way (theoretically)... but to wholesale say "TPK's should never happen" or that they are the "hallmark of poor GMing" - means there is a metric fuck-ton of nuance not being discussed.

Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 02:02:33 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 01:52:59 PM
So, basically, if everything were different, it would be good.

OK, sure.

IDK about you, but I almost never run an adventure as it's written.  I modify adventures all the time.  It's my innate belief that settings, adventures, and even core books exist to inspire my play at the table, not define it or (shudder) confine it.

Sure - an adventure takes place in a setting. YOUR SETTING. We could both be playing in Greyhawk, in the Kingdom of Furyondy, and your take on that location might be a lot different than mine - for legitimate reasons.

We both could pick up a module that has *nothing* to do with our setting, but we like elements of it, so our jobs as GM's is to curate it so it works in our setting. In this example I'm using, we could both be using the exact same setting, same locale, and same adventure module, and have it come out *radically* different for our players.

This is how it should be.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 12:37:25 PM

Honestly, I wasn't saying anything about making the PCs unkillable. I'm opposed to TPK. Which ends the fun for everybody.

This adventure example is completely terrible. The party could succeed but perhaps do so two minutes late and $1 short. There may be some consequences for this, perhaps the rewards get diminished, some pretty bad things happen and the victory isn't quite as truimphant as possible but these things happen and not always due to poor player decisions. This sounds more like a timed quest in a computer game. You screw up, have to reset the game and do it again getting it EXACTLY right. You gotta learn how to hit those button combinations perfectly to advance the game. This sounds more like setting expectations for AI game masters really.

A TPK only ends the fun if you let it. Players making dumb decisions as a whole group can cause this if they do not learn from prior mistakes. Playing a system which provides for character generation in minutes greatly aids in allowing the fun to continue rather quickly. After all, players who constantly do stupid shit without consequence never learn or become better players. In that light, the DM who coddles them is keeping them at the shit player level forever. It is a GAME after all and any game which cannot be lost also cannot be won.

Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 04:43:52 PMSure - an adventure takes place in a setting. YOUR SETTING. We could both be playing in Greyhawk, in the Kingdom of Furyondy, and your take on that location might be a lot different than mine - for legitimate reasons.

We both could pick up a module that has *nothing* to do with our setting, but we like elements of it, so our jobs as GM's is to curate it so it works in our setting. In this example I'm using, we could both be using the exact same setting, same locale, and same adventure module, and have it come out *radically* different for our players.

This is how it should be.

Okay, but at that point there's nothing to talk about. We're clearly talking about a situation where the expectation is that the DM is going to run the adventure more or less as-written.

Again: If we take "I can make this work for me" as a valid response, it's always the only response, and there are really no bad products.

Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 04:52:02 PM

Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 04:43:52 PMSure - an adventure takes place in a setting. YOUR SETTING. We could both be playing in Greyhawk, in the Kingdom of Furyondy, and your take on that location might be a lot different than mine - for legitimate reasons.

We both could pick up a module that has *nothing* to do with our setting, but we like elements of it, so our jobs as GM's is to curate it so it works in our setting. In this example I'm using, we could both be using the exact same setting, same locale, and same adventure module, and have it come out *radically* different for our players.

This is how it should be.

Okay, but at that point there's nothing to talk about. We're clearly talking about a situation where the expectation is that the DM is going to run the adventure more or less as-written.

Again: If we take "I can make this work for me" as a valid response, it's always the only response, and there are really no bad products.

Well... there is another response: don't buy adventure modules. I don't. (edit: caveat, I will buy adventures if there is something worthwhile in them, but that's pretty rare.)

in regards to this entire premise of "Player consent" vs. "the TPK issue" - the answer for me is the same: I'm an adult. I run TTRPG's for adults 99.999% of the time. I have no problem finding new players, I don't pick up rando's on the street/internet and just slot them in. I interview them, usually over lunch or dinner, and we get a sniff-test. They'll know what I'm about and vice versa. So yeah I don't have *any* of these problems because I put in the work to keep my hobby clean of shit I don't need or like at my table.

I find it laughable that people (not necessarily you) *pay* money for product like this, to justify even dumber ideas about "how to GM" that caters to the dumb ideas that you payed for that services no one worth gaming with.