How to punish players without killing their PCs.

[ryu289]

Because frankly this doesn't seem like the best solution:

My initial thought was, were I GMing, I'd have just had the mob boss beat the character unconscious. After all, they were going to be ransomed and/or interrogated. But then we don't have the entire story: what led up to them being captured? Is this the only obnoxious thing the character did to the mob boss? Did they kill one or more of his henchmen? Did the DM say something like, "Are you sure? He looks really pissed, like he's itching for an excuse to butcher one of you."

Even without that I've no sympathy, and am guessing the DM made the right call, which is to have the mob boss act in whatever manner he thought was appropriate. Your character died? I guess lesson learned, then. Not to not spit on the mob boss when he's got you trussed up to the point where you can be auto-killed--though it should be obvious there's going to be some degree of retaliation--but that your character can die in a (mostly?) unexpected, non-heroic way.

This is necessary. This is what makes your heroic actions actually heroic, what gives your successes substance. It also of course provides a learning experience.

Millennial morons like to pretend that roleplaying games like D&D are about "the story", that contrived events should only occur when it's dramatically appropriate. That their characters are special—not just because of increased hit points and other various features and abilities not afforded to the average person—and deserve some form of "plot armor", so that they can make brash, stupid decisions and not suffer consequences both reasonable and expected.

Unless, of course, they both consent and it's sufficiently "dramatic". Their self-described "hero" is heroic, not because you happened to die doing the right thing, that you actually risked something selflessly, without assurance that any supposed sacrifice wouldn't be in vain, but only because your imaginary character's death was permitted at that point in time. You know, just like actual heroes, who only ever perform heroic deeds knowing that there would be some sort of payoff.

It's entitled wish fulfillment.

Wow...so was killing him the way to get that across though. What ever happened to being defiant? Or escapist fiction?

Aram can't even be bothered to address the actual point, which was that the player wasn't punished for "roleplaying", but because of their own actions. Instead Aram tries to mislead you into thinking that the DM did what he did to "teach a lesson", and implies that the DM doesn't care about the well-being of his players, as if their well-being is the DM's responsibility. As if the DM is a goddamn babysitter. As if Dark Dungeons was a cautionary tale.

Aram is a moronic, spoiled, child-brained egomaniac who, unsurprisingly, has pronouns in his bio

You can apparently book him as a DM. In case you want a DM who won't honestly challenge you, who will ensure that your ten pages of cringy clichés mis-framed as character background won't be in vain, who will just let you win so you don't have to feel the sting of...rolling up another character and jumping back in, I suppose.

And here...

Here we go: whiny millennial without any real problems calling Dungeons & Dragons a collaborative storytelling platform. Not even a game, but a platform. I like that he tries to dress it up, make it sound more intellectual, more important and serious than it really is. Like how in Tropic Thunder "Four Leaf" Tayback claimed he was in waste management, when he was really just a garbage man.

It's a game. A silly game. And games need a threat of actual failure, of loss. Otherwise there's no tension, no purpose really. Like playing a game with God mode on: it might seem fun, at first, but it's really not, and as long as there's nothing too damaged with your brain you'll realize it sooner or later. If you want to "tell stories", I'd recommend writing a novel, but I know you won't because that takes time and skill.

Plus it's harder to continuously farm attention for your starved ego in between bouts of lying to everyone on social media about how you're "totally writing a book".

In case you were wondering, yeah, he's another pronouner:

So he complains people need to man up and separate reality from fiction...despite admitting that its just a silly game...so who is taking this too seriously?

Again he thinks punishment must be harsh all the time...but I think he is projecting. Hell Gary Gygax would slap him for falling into the " Killer DM" stereotype.

And of course he praise the RPGPundit for saying things

Seriously, death for stupidity is cliché.

 

[ryu289]

Because frankly this doesn't seem like the best solution:

My initial thought was, were I GMing, I'd have just had the mob boss beat the character unconscious. After all, they were going to be ransomed and/or interrogated. But then we don't have the entire story: what led up to them being captured? Is this the only obnoxious thing the character did to the mob boss? Did they kill one or more of his henchmen? Did the DM say something like, "Are you sure? He looks really pissed, like he's itching for an excuse to butcher one of you."

Even without that I've no sympathy, and am guessing the DM made the right call, which is to have the mob boss act in whatever manner he thought was appropriate. Your character died? I guess lesson learned, then. Not to not spit on the mob boss when he's got you trussed up to the point where you can be auto-killed--though it should be obvious there's going to be some degree of retaliation--but that your character can die in a (mostly?) unexpected, non-heroic way.

This is necessary. This is what makes your heroic actions actually heroic, what gives your successes substance. It also of course provides a learning experience.

Millennial morons like to pretend that roleplaying games like D&D are about "the story", that contrived events should only occur when it's dramatically appropriate. That their characters are special—not just because of increased hit points and other various features and abilities not afforded to the average person—and deserve some form of "plot armor", so that they can make brash, stupid decisions and not suffer consequences both reasonable and expected.

Unless, of course, they both consent and it's sufficiently "dramatic". Their self-described "hero" is heroic, not because you happened to die doing the right thing, that you actually risked something selflessly, without assurance that any supposed sacrifice wouldn't be in vain, but only because your imaginary character's death was permitted at that point in time. You know, just like actual heroes, who only ever perform heroic deeds knowing that there would be some sort of payoff.

It's entitled wish fulfillment.

Wow...so was killing him the way to get that across though. What ever happened to being defiant? Or escapist fiction?

Aram can't even be bothered to address the actual point, which was that the player wasn't punished for "roleplaying", but because of their own actions. Instead Aram tries to mislead you into thinking that the DM did what he did to "teach a lesson", and implies that the DM doesn't care about the well-being of his players, as if their well-being is the DM's responsibility. As if the DM is a goddamn babysitter. As if Dark Dungeons was a cautionary tale.

Aram is a moronic, spoiled, child-brained egomaniac who, unsurprisingly, has pronouns in his bio

You can apparently book him as a DM. In case you want a DM who won't honestly challenge you, who will ensure that your ten pages of cringy clichés mis-framed as character background won't be in vain, who will just let you win so you don't have to feel the sting of...rolling up another character and jumping back in, I suppose.

And here...

Here we go: whiny millennial without any real problems calling Dungeons & Dragons a collaborative storytelling platform. Not even a game, but a platform. I like that he tries to dress it up, make it sound more intellectual, more important and serious than it really is. Like how in Tropic Thunder "Four Leaf" Tayback claimed he was in waste management, when he was really just a garbage man.

It's a game. A silly game. And games need a threat of actual failure, of loss. Otherwise there's no tension, no purpose really. Like playing a game with God mode on: it might seem fun, at first, but it's really not, and as long as there's nothing too damaged with your brain you'll realize it sooner or later. If you want to "tell stories", I'd recommend writing a novel, but I know you won't because that takes time and skill.

Plus it's harder to continuously farm attention for your starved ego in between bouts of lying to everyone on social media about how you're "totally writing a book".

In case you were wondering, yeah, he's another pronouner:

So he complains people need to man up and separate reality from fiction...despite admitting that its just a silly game...so who is taking this too seriously?

Again he thinks punishment must be harsh all the time...but I think he is projecting. Hell Gary Gygax would slap him for falling into the " Killer DM" stereotype.

And of course he praises the RPGPundit for saying things he agrees with...despite his both seem to.have poor reading compression:

So she talks about consequences other than death, then the Pundit ignores that...and:

Well thank God for that. But Pundit is correct: anyone whining about a dead character would similarly whine about any sort of defect or deformity (all while claiming to care about so-called ableism). Mythir knows this, but doubles down as infantile woke millennials are wont to do, and continues to project:

Except that isn't a rebuttal but an assertion...that is just special pleading to side step the issue...

Ignoring how the Pundit was FIRED along with Zak S...

Which isn't what Pundit was going for, but unsurprisingly Mythir is triggered all the same (not that I think there's ever a conversation in which she doesn't get triggered). At no point does she point out how maiming or crippling a character is inherently less boring/more creative. She just claims killing PCs is always boring, and that any other option is always the more creative approach. Why? Because she's a petulant millennial that thinks she's always correct.

Pundit being older and wiser (not that that's any sort of meaningful hurdle when engaging with millennials) then points out that you shouldn't be seeking to punish the players. Spot on. The mob boss doesn't kill the character because the DM wants to spite the player, the mob boss kills the character because that's what he would do.

Except that is up to the DM! What the mob boss would do is up to the whims of the DM! The DM is the one who sets the world's rules in the end, and the works is not an already fully-formed entity that the DM has no option to change! That is limiting the power of the DM!

They ignore how punishment can facilitate character growth from the players! I suspect this guy praising Pundit is just like him, a child who let's power go to their head whether or not they are capable of using it in a mature manner.

 

[Blue]

Um, who are you arguing? You've got a wall of text stripped of the name, a link that leads to some captcha thing, and it's seems you have a point to make. Why not try making your point directly and positively instead of arguing against someone who isn't here with quotes that may or may not be the full story.

 

[Deset Gled]

Could you please put NSFW warnings on links when appropriate?

 

[Jd Smith1]

What is the point of this thread?

 

[John R Davis]

I think it is:
Why is the GM punishing me for doing " something my character would do?".

 

[TerraDave]

Its a good title for a thread, maybe even a good subject. I guess someone can start another one.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I think it is:
Why is the GM punishing me for doing " something my character would do?".

Sounds like an argument that started somewhere else.

Ah, " something my character would do" : the excuse that covers so many passive-aggressive and/or blindly stupid actions taken at the table.

 

[Morrus]

@ryu289 so your schtick seems to be linking to and quoting toxic posts from elsewhere on the web, or dredging up old drama from elsewhere. I'm going to close this. If you want to discuss the topic of 'punishing players' and killing PCs, you can start a new thread and discuss that topic directly with your own words.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Seriously, death for stupidity is cliché.

Exactly the opposite: A PC dying because of a stupid action is just Nature taking its course.

And often, it is hilarious (to onlookers).