Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 12:30:26 PMThat's doing a disservice to your setting. A GM shouldn't be doing anything except reacting honestly, and yes, with slight favor, to the PC's. It doesn't mean that the PC's are unkillable. That's a kindergarten, not a setting conceit. Otherwise you're playing an elaborate storytime game and pretending to roll dice that matter when they don't.

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

Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2023, 12:30:26 PM

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on September 09, 2023, 11:34:13 AM

Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 11:24:33 AM
Right, that's sort of what I was getting at.

If you design an adventure that, if the players fail it, they all turn in to mindflayers? As far as I'm concerned, either from a GM or player perspective, that's effectively indistinguishable from a TPK. The campaign is over.

Unless that's your intent when you make the adventure, a sort of doomsday scenario end-of-the-campaign-anyways thing, it's piss poor design.

Well 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.

That's doing a disservice to your setting. A GM shouldn't be doing anything except reacting honestly, and yes, with slight favor, to the PC's. It doesn't mean that the PC's are unkillable. That's a kindergarten, not a setting conceit. Otherwise you're playing an elaborate storytime game and pretending to roll dice that matter when they don't.

There is a difference between a "let the dice fall where they may... more or less" approach to gaming, and setting up intentional "succeed or TPK" scenarios.

If the players seek out Tsyr'inox the Unkillable, an elder dragon, and get themselves turned into crispy bits, that's one thing. If I make Tsyr'inox attack the players in such a way they can't avoid it, and they die as a result, that's another.

This seems more like the second thing than the first.

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

Anyone who joins a game I'm running is consenting to having their asses handed to them if they play stupid. Without the possibility of dire consequences an RPG session is boring.

Quote from: Thor's Nads on September 09, 2023, 01:11:43 PM
Anyone who joins a game I'm running is consenting to having their asses handed to them if they play stupid. Without the possibility of dire consequences an RPG session is boring.

You're not contradicting what I'm saying. I think we may disagree on the definition of "play stupid", though.

To the first point, yeah, a player has to consent.  If you're playing at my table, you consented. If your ass is still at the table after it happened, you still consent.  In session zero, I always give my players a heads up that I run a PG to PG-13 game, it's played without the training wheels so no retcons or PC saving on my part, and I have no issues with dooming a PC and having a player roll up another. 

As to whether this is bad adventure design, I think it can be totally gold in the hands of a decent GM.  First, I would not have the change to being a Mind Flayer be instantaneous, it would take months.  Second, I would have the PC have random moments where the Mind Flayer aspect come to the surface; sometimes it would be difficult urges to suck brains and sometimes it will be insights or abilities come up.  Finally, I love the idea of a Lost Boys type struggle that the player would have.  Maybe thee would be a cure for the player to quest for like the vampire quest in Morrowind or maybe it's an opportunity for the player to play out going out in a blaze of glory like John Wayne's character in The Shootist. 

Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 01:46:05 PM
As to whether this is bad adventure design, I think it can be totally gold in the hands of a decent GM.  First, I would not have the change to being a Mind Flayer be instantaneous, it would take months.  Second, I would have the PC have random moments where the Mind Flayer aspect come to the surface; sometimes it would be difficult urges to suck brains and sometimes it will be insights or abilities come up.  Finally, I love the idea of a Lost Boys type struggle that the player would have.  Maybe thee would be a cure for the player to quest for like the vampire quest in Morrowind or maybe it's an opportunity for the player to play out going out in a blaze of glory like John Wayne's character in The Shootist.

So, basically, if everything were different, it would be good.

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.

This just reads like terrible adventure design that tries to excuse how terrible it is by shoving the onus onto GMs to "properly get your player's consent." Is anyone really surprised anymore that this is the quality of content from modern DnD? It's a neat idea, with plenty opportunity for some interesting story-beats. It's just handled with all the grace of a drunk paraplegic trying to swim.

Regarding consent. A player can withdraw any time if they are made to feel uncomfortable. They can leave the table and the group. Nobody is holding a pistol to their head and making them stay.

My problem with RPG Safety Tools comes from things like the X-Card. Which enables a player to effectively stop the group or upend the table. I think that's going too far. A player shouldn't be able to have their tantrum enabled.

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.

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.

GTFO!

Just don't play 5e.

Quote from: BadApple on September 09, 2023, 01:46:05 PM
To the first point, yeah, a player has to consent.  If you're playing at my table, you consented. If your ass is still at the table after it happened, you still consent.  In session zero, I always give my players a heads up that I run a PG to PG-13 game, it's played without the training wheels so no retcons or PC saving on my part, and I have no issues with dooming a PC and having a player roll up another. 

As to whether this is bad adventure design, I think it can be totally gold in the hands of a decent GM.  First, I would not have the change to being a Mind Flayer be instantaneous, it would take months.  Second, I would have the PC have random moments where the Mind Flayer aspect come to the surface; sometimes it would be difficult urges to suck brains and sometimes it will be insights or abilities come up.  Finally, I love the idea of a Lost Boys type struggle that the player would have.  Maybe thee would be a cure for the player to quest for like the vampire quest in Morrowind or maybe it's an opportunity for the player to play out going out in a blaze of glory like John Wayne's character in The Shootist.

That's why I created my modified rules for catching Lycantropy, you can and will, but you don't always end up a ravenous monster eating people.

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.

Only begginer GMs run adventures RAW, I don't even buy adventures anymore, I cook my own.

But among 5e GMs there's this culture of playing RAW because they have been crippled by WotKKK to turn them into paypigs.

Quote from: Bruwulf on September 09, 2023, 02:20:53 PM

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.

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.

Assuming it's not written like that TO FORCE the GMs to engage in safety tools behaviour.

I think it was designed to encourage asking the player for consent before bad things happen to the PC.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 09, 2023, 02:23:59 PM
Only begginer GMs run adventures RAW, I don't even buy adventures anymore, I cook my own.

But among 5e GMs there's this culture of playing RAW because they have been crippled by WotKKK to turn them into paypigs.

I generally never buy adventures unless I just want to harvest setting information from them, because some product lines have this annoying habit of making setting information books and adventures kind of the same thing.

I noticed the "Run as written or else you're running it wrong!" trend start with 3E, and absolutely explode in 4E. 5E is just continuing the trend.