Quote from: Gabriel2;757434I wanted to run AD&D.  I told everyone I wanted to do a heroic campaign.  

Somewhere in between these statements lies the problem.

"Heroic" in gamer speak means getting away with stupid shit simply because you are heroes. Heroic campaigns need to be run with the understanding that the action is very much akin to pro wrestling. If you don't plan on running a superhero style of game (like 4E), then avoid the H word.

In my experience, telling the players that they are in fact heroes, has never done a bit of good. Its a matter of expectations. If you tell the players that they are adventurers, then they will sometimes be heroic.

If you tell the players they are heroes then they will invariably do something stupid.

Quote from: Gabriel2;757434"We're all good!  We HAD to charge the orcs.  You railroaded us into that!"

That night and for months later, I thought they were trollin' me.  They insisted since I had forced them to be good aligned, that meant they were required to play in a completely non-tactical and non-intelligent manner.  Given the consistency over the years of their declaration that I "intentionally fucked them over," I have to conclude that they genuinely believed and still believe that I forced them to charge the orc camp and commit suicide.

There's a fun mechanic in Dungeon World where, when a character "dies", they go to Death's realm to plead for another chance. The most fun part, for you, is that it gives you a chance to ask the characters why exactly they did something so mindblowingly stupid... and then, of course, condemn them to whatever afterlife awaits.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;757439If you tell the players they are heroes then they will invariably do something stupid.

'Heroic' seems to share some territory with 'Pulp' as far as Gamer expectations.

Quote from: Gabriel2;757434Since we're talking about orc camps, the people involved still say I'm a dick GM for this one (or they did last time I talked to them a decade ago).  I don't agree, so here goes.

I wanted to run AD&D.  I told everyone I wanted to do a heroic campaign.  The only stipulation I made is that all their PCs had to be good aligned.  This caused quite a bit of grumbling among some of the players, as they claimed this stifled their ability to play.  I held firm and said that was the campaign I wanted to run and if they didn't want to play good characters then they didn't have to play, as I could arrange to run the game on another night.  "Bah!" they replied and made characters anyway.

The opening adventure involved a village under siege from some orcs that had set up operations nearby.  The villagers told the PCs how the orcs were a powerful force.  Very few who had managed to find the orc's camp in the swamp had managed to return alive to bring news of it.  The heroes did some detective work and ventured to the orc camp.

Now, I had dropped hints about the orcs apparently looking for something in the area.  They only raided the village periodically to steal food.  I think I was somewhat heavy handed in my hints that the orcs were up to something and the heroes needed to learn what it was.

When the PCs saw the camp, I described how the orcs had obviously been here for some time and were in the process of fortifying the location.  There were lots of orcs, and I'm pretty sure I said directly that a frontal assault would be pointless.  The PCs discussed things for a while, and then they told me what they were going to do.

"We all charge the camp."

"Really?  There are a lot of orcs."

"Yes.  We'll catch them by surprise."

I sighed and decided to ignore all the snares and traps which I had mapped out which the heroes were about to run through (they chose the path of maximum resistance).  I generously treated it like Lancelot's attack on the castle gate guards in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail and granted them surprise despite there being no way in hell that made any rational sense.  I suppose those were my mistakes right there, but I at least wanted to have a fight to end my campaign rather than a simple slaughter of characters pinned in traps.

A few combat rounds later, everyone except one character was dead.  His dice were hot as hell, and my dice refused to kill him.  Instead of fleeing, he stood his ground and killed dozens of orcs.  Eventually Boromir died and I had a TPK on my hands.

"Well, that was stupid," I said.

"What do you mean stupid?  You forced us to do that!"

"Huh?"

"We're all good!  We HAD to charge the orcs.  You railroaded us into that!"

That night and for months later, I thought they were trollin' me.  They insisted since I had forced them to be good aligned, that meant they were required to play in a completely non-tactical and non-intelligent manner.  Given the consistency over the years of their declaration that I "intentionally fucked them over," I have to conclude that they genuinely believed and still believe that I forced them to charge the orc camp and commit suicide.

Were they 'cleverly' punishing you for forcing them to be good aligned?

Otherwise, they are idiots.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;757439Somewhere in between these statements lies the problem.

"Heroic" in gamer speak means getting away with stupid shit simply because you are heroes. Heroic campaigns need to be run with the understanding that the action is very much akin to pro wrestling. If you don't plan on running a superhero style of game (like 4E), then avoid the H word.

In my experience, telling the players that they are in fact heroes, has never done a bit of good. Its a matter of expectations. If you tell the players that they are adventurers, then they will sometimes be heroic.

If you tell the players they are heroes then they will invariably do something stupid.

I have to agree.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;757439Somewhere in between these statements lies the problem.

"Heroic" in gamer speak means getting away with stupid shit simply because you are heroes. Heroic campaigns need to be run with the understanding that the action is very much akin to pro wrestling. If you don't plan on running a superhero style of game (like 4E), then avoid the H word.

In my experience, telling the players that they are in fact heroes, has never done a bit of good. Its a matter of expectations. If you tell the players that they are adventurers, then they will sometimes be heroic.

If you tell the players they are heroes then they will invariably do something stupid.

That's why I generally prefer the term "do-gooders."

Quote from: Brander;757390Sorry, I don't buy it.  You and I may draw different lines at where meta begins and ends, but this strikes me as "it has to be perfect or it sucks" and I'm firmly in the "perfect is the enemy of best" camp.  The GM telling players things only the players know is exactly the rules of every TTRPG I've ever read.  I'm agreeing you should TRY to do it the way you suggest, but that's it's no gaming sin to keep the game moving by occasionally blurting out "That would be suicidal in case my hints didn't tell you."  Nothing wrong with a TPK because a party failed when they did know things, but it's certainly a greater break in the game to have everyone make new characters when they didn't understand the hints (and it's usually obvious to the GM, who is also allowed a mistake now and again).

We just disagree.  If the integrity of the setting is more important then "wasting" a chargen session because a jackass caused a TPK, then so be it.  Everyone dies, Sauron gets the ring.  Ok, so make up new guys and join the resistance.

Believe me, you only have to do that once for players to take the hint and next time the characters will police themselves.

Hm. "Heroic" = "get away with stupid shit."

I never thought of it that way at all.

But some folks may hear the former and think of the latter. That makes sense.

Recalculating...

Quote from: CRKrueger;757472We just disagree.  If the integrity of the setting is more important then "wasting" a chargen session because a jackass caused a TPK, then so be it.  Everyone dies, Sauron gets the ring.  Ok, so make up new guys and join the resistance.

Believe me, you only have to do that once for players to take the hint and next time the characters will police themselves.

If it were WEG Star Wars I would be more inclined to let them suicide.

As it was actually Pathfinder where character generation takes days (and for the 12 year old great gnashing of teeth), I took their free will away.

It wasn't a Paladin by the way, but a Cavalier.   It's a bit like a Fighter riding a Druid's Animal Companion.  Death probably was the only risk.

I think the problem was ignorance more than anything.  They didn't realize that the odds were truly insurmountable.

Why did I not have the lair be empty?  Because that feels like illusionism to me.  I 'felt' like the owlbear was defending a nearby lair.  When they went to explore it, I put up what might have been read as a gigantic "dead end" sign, but they didn't take it that way.  Then I told them, but for whatever reason they thought I wasn't being honest.

Had I let them die it would have been my fault anyway, at least in a forum thread like this.   Half the folks will always say you did it wrong.

As for the "don't put stuff you don't want the party to kill" concept...  how is that different from the gray fog?

Quote from: jeff37923;757396See, I won't stop Players from having their characters commit to actions that will kill them. A big part of my games is "stupidity kills". After having to deal with a lot of that from open table games, I've stopped trying to prevent one Player from doing stupid shit that kills the party - to me it is the party's job to keep idiots in check.

Now I'm talking stupid here, not ignorance. Not knowing setting or rule nuances that will hurt them is not the Players fault. Defying any kind of common sense is the Player's fault.

I assume that there is always a chance of ignorance and miscommunication, hence I always check and clarify. If they still want to continue then yes, naturally consequences continue.

I also don't rely on party dynamics to control idiots, and there's a very good reason why. There are always trollish mo-fos whose fun is spoiling another's fun. Sometimes they can rein it in and be fun people and productive players; other times they are carrying over childish troll games from previously in the FLGS week that you may not know about. Otherwise good people, but occasionally pull shit they think is funny and don't mind what they think is harmless game shitting. Like the show Jackass among omega males.

That and joking shit talkers who kid continuously and don't clue in when they are kidding.

And since a lot of tables assume no PvP, people don't feel open to communally censor as they'd like. So as GM, I set the tone, as it is my responsibility. I say PvP is allowed, though not necessarily encouraged. Actions have consequences, especially stupid ones. And no one is obligated to march together with stupid into trouble. And on my part I oblige myself to clarify when necessary, especially with what would be obvious. I also am obliged to confirm declarations — which means I double check people on their goofy humor, which is useful because a lot of people are really piss poor with comedic timing.

If that doesn't work for some, fine. But clarification and confirmation has been useful to me. Sometimes that means as short as a raised eyebrow, other times it's more explanatory.

I expect tons of immersion breaking moments during play, from bathroom breaks, combat mechanics, goofy humor, to business/emergency calls, et al. Clarification and confirmation is just a small addition to the already large list of accepted breaks from character.

Quote from: estar;757193I am involved in Scouting right now because of my youngest son. I attended a leadership training and they were talking about tool safety. There was a part where they were talking about policing what the kids bring in. It seemed rather haphazard to me. So I explained how we did it at the boffer larps, (all combat gear needs to past inspection before an event) It was like a revelation to them. I figure Scouting would of thought of that before a bunch of LARPers.

Yep, same with my LARP: a marshal had to inspect every weapon and every shield at the start of every event.  For my own events, I ran up a bunch of "Passed Weapon" stickers in day-glo yellow, and every weapon had to sport one or sit in the owner's car.

And yeah ... you'd think.  Scouting should involve a half hour before every camping trip where the Scoutmaster and assistants very visibly go over the gear of every Scout to ensure it's in good shape.  If nothing else, it'd be a good object lesson.

Quote from: CRKrueger;757472We just disagree.  If the integrity of the setting is more important then "wasting" a chargen session because a jackass caused a TPK, then so be it.  Everyone dies, Sauron gets the ring.  Ok, so make up new guys and join the resistance.

Believe me, you only have to do that once for players to take the hint and next time the characters will police themselves.

No, they won't. Seen it. It just means they've discovered a new toy to light their friends' hair on fire. Oh, they may tone it down for a bit, but like fishing they are waiting for the next big bite.

In life assume petty asshole games. Call people on it openly and state that's not what you're interested in and watch it calm down. They either were innocent of it and ignorant of expectations, or guilty as sin and called on the carpet. In-game punishment for out-of-game bad behavior does. not. work.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;757289A powerful referee tool: "Are you SURE you want to do that?"  Followed by silence and a little grin.

My own signal -- which, given that my players are pretty smart, I rarely have to use -- is to lean back in my chair, stretch out, steeple my fingers, and touch the tips to my lips.  When the room quiets down (and it does as soon as people notice the gesture), that's when I drawl "Is that really what your character is doing?"

Mind you, in my case, the meaning is more along the lines of "I don't think you've quite realized how suicidally stupid your plan of action is, and you ought to have," rather than "You're all going to die."

Quote from: Gabriel2;757434They insisted since I had forced them to be good aligned, that meant they were required to play in a completely non-tactical and non-intelligent manner.  Given the consistency over the years of their declaration that I "intentionally fucked them over," I have to conclude that they genuinely believed and still believe that I forced them to charge the orc camp and commit suicide.

Exploderwizard came close, but I don't think he quite nailed it.

I'm minded of the forum thread where I was sneering at how standard D&D play seemed to deviate so far from fantasy tropes in books and film it wasn't funny.  A poster retorted "Are you just now figuring out that Dungeon Fantasy is its own genre and has been for decades?"  He was, of course, right.

Your players could, quite defensibly, state that there are certain behaviors that (in their experience) D&D groups always follow ... especially given that so many gamers are wedded to the principle that The Way My Gang Plays Is How The Game Is Played Everywhere By Right-Thinking Gamers.  They might, to the degree it occurred to them, tell you that if they hadn't taken on the orcs, they would've expected to be harshly punished: either through you jeering that they were cowards, up through nailing them with penalties for playing their alignment wrong.

Where you screwed up isn't in how you ran that session.  You screwed up in giving your players buzzwords you didn't define.  "Heroic?"  I know what heroic means to me ... what does it mean to you?  "Good alignment?"  Quite aside from that I hate alignment with a hot poisonous hate, always have, and categorically refuse to play in any campaign that employs it, what does that mean to you?  What behaviors do you expect?  What consequences do you anticipate if we don't play that way?

Obviously you and those players never had the conversation, and obviously both you and they haven't yet understood that you had wildly differing expectations.

Quote from: jeff37923;757396Not knowing setting or rule nuances that will hurt them is not the Players fault. Defying any kind of common sense is the Player's fault.

That bit me on the ass once, as a player. Deadlands, first time, never read it before, never played before, know nothing of the setting.

We create characters, and I elect to play a Veteran of the Weird West, which allowed me to turn my gambler into a Huckster and cast spells. I also got an addiction to opium, so...

We start with our first module, the vampire train TPK factory one. We're in a town and the GM tells us we see a kind of slightly spooky train in the distance. We warily open the station, and it disgorges hundreds of super-powered vamps, which eat the entire party except me and the GM's brother (playing a Harrowed, so already more powerful than any other character).

I lose a limb and flee, along with the Harrowed. He's also a blessed, and tries to heal my limb but fails, taking a lethal wound to the gut and his Manitou takes over.

Yeah. TPK.

The GM literally yells at me for not having done something at the station, given that I chose to play a Veteran of the Weird West. I should have known what was going to happen and the TPK was all my fault.

My response was "How was I supposed to know that 'mildly spooky' equates to 'rolling vampire death train that eats whole towns'? My character may have known that, but how was I supposed to?"

My lesson, for my own DM'ing: don't assume the players have all the facts. Especially when they're about to do something suicidal. Spoon feed it to them, if necessary.

OTOH, pure stupidity you just let go. It'll be a learning experience.