All possible future stories are not eliminated, however, once one stops thinking that the only story that matters is that of the hero.
But that is the story I'm here for. It's literally the story the game itself tells me we're here to hear (emphasis added in both cases): "Everything a player needs to create
heroic characters" (front cover); "Adventurers are extraordinary people, driven by a thirst for excitement into a life that others would never dare lead.
They are heroes, compelled to...take on the challenges that lesser women and men can't stand against." (Ch. 3)
And this hasn't been a new development either. 2e PHB: "The warrior group encompasses the character classes of heroes who make their way in the world primarily by skill at arms: fighters, paladins, and rangers." "Third, some people choose to play evil alignments. Although there is no specific prohibition against this, there are several reasons why it is not a good idea. First,
the AD&D game is a game of heroic fantasy. What is heroic about being a villain?" (Ch 4, "Alignment")
The villain's story continues, and might be worth telling. Or, the general story around the hero-villain dynamic could be worth telling (GoT proves that in spades).
You should be unsurprised to know that I have negative interest in ever reading any portion of
The Song of Ice and Fire. Its sensibilities are not ones I find interesting--and even then, the shown story of what lies ahead has Jon Snow surviving his own murder.
And they never fail to add to the entertainment balue of the games they're in!
Depends on what one defines as "entertainment value." I often find such choices frustrating and disruptive, breaking whatever tone the game has attempted to cultivate.
Nothing wrong with saying "I don't think this game is for me" and bailing
Doing so when you've literally only had 2-3 preceding combats and that many or fewer total sessions does seem pretty insulting to me.
But if you mean "once you've given it a fair shake," then that's literally what I'm talking about. Groups I've been in have had TPKs before reaching third level. I have been deeply demoralized by that, which makes me think the game isn't for me, which makes me leave. And I've gotten nothing but pushback for saying that that's my stance. Seems like there are some pretty hefty conditions on this "nothing wrong with saying 'I don't think this game is for me' and bailing" principle...
On the other hand, if you say "this game is bad", that is on you being the unpleasant person. Even if it's true, the way for them to find out is when they find themselves without players.
I have never said such a thing to anyone, even when I strongly believed it was true.
And if you think you could do better, then why are you not the DM?
"If you want X, why don't you
make X?" is a fallacious argument and always has been. But, even if it weren't an irrelevant fallacy? I
am a GM. I just, y'know, would like to
play too.