ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
So, looking back at this thread, I'm noticing a certain ... trend. Which I tried to illustrate by adding emphasis to certain words in that quote.
Let's take two classic examples of the extreme ends of running a game. The meatgrinder, and the Monty Haul campaign.
In the meatgrinder, deaths happen frequently. Players are assumed to have backup PCs ready to roll into the campaign. Difficulty is set insanely high, and survival is not only not assured, but often unlikely.
In the Monty Haul campaign, it's not a question of survival; it's a question of how much more awesome can you PC be? How much more treasure, how much more magic, how much power can the PC (with, ahem, the DM's assistance) acquire?
Both of those serve different needs, and both can be fun. But they tickle different parts of the brain. People that are very attached to particular characters probably won't enjoy a meatgrinder (because they won't know which character will make it), and people that enjoy challenges won't enjoy a Monty Haul campaign.
TBH, you are extrapolating your particular views as to what is, and isn't, appropriate gaming to a universal view as to what is and isn't appropriate for DMs in general. There seems o be some element of an adversarial view - and perhaps you've had an adversarial DM in the past (in which case, I'm sorry, that's terrible). But that's not how all table work.
For example, some tables prefer a series of challenges (combats) that are carefully calibrated to the abilities of the party.
Other tables prefer more free-form, open world, campaigns, where the party chooses whether to engage in combat. But they don't have the safety net of knowing with certainty that the world has been set up to their level.
There is no right, or wrong, in this. Different tables are run differently. When I run intro tables for kids, I calibrate all combats to "easy/medium" status, because I want it to be fun! OTOH, when I'm running for grognards, they know that the combats aren't calibrated, and they have to choose when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and when to run. Because that's how they like to play.
They key is that the expectations of the players are met. To the extent that it's a new table, it should be session 0. If the DM is planning on running an OSR-style meatgrinder, and the players are expecting heroic fantasy, then everyone will be unhappy. But this isn't an issue of blame, or fault, so much as it is an issue of communication.
So, I read this a couple of times and realized there is a defiant disconnect between my intent and the message you are getting from my posts. With my long wordy style it is likely that I am not clear. So...I will try to clarify as briefly as I can. Hopefully my words don't get in the way.
While I have had some bad experiences form GMs I have had good experiences from the same GMs the bold words I used were to push a point using in part wording others used. The real discussion as I see it has 3 parts.
1. The GM has full control over the world and the evens that happen in it. As such the GM bears responsibility for the word and the players perception of it. So in away if a dragon/Trap/Cliff TPKs a group the GM killed them.
2. Free agency or Free will of players is an important part of GMing which makes the difference between telling a story and playing a game. (your argument mainly as I see it) However, The GM must be mind full that while the players should be allowed to control themselves and face the consequence of those actions players perception of their own agency is often seen through a narrow window of what they perceive through details passed of a much greater reality in the GMs mind. As such the GM takes on some responsibility of player agency in the fact that players are often "stumbling in the dark" making judgements on a small bits of information when larger options "exist" in the GMs mind. This sometimes results in the GM see the players has having made a choice when players feel like they only have one option based on "indirect guidance" from how they interpret the GM's dictation of the world thought that window. This can be both unseen by players and GM's since interpretations may at times very even when both can repeat it back word for word so they appear to be on the same page. GM's don't just build the world, they see the world, they control the world and players see a cheep copy the re-make based on their interpretation of it. So Free agency is significantly colored by the "indirect guidance" provides which is created by this separation of what they are given in diction by the GM. (My argument, also frequent in the forums just a point of story telling and interpretation of posts)
3. GM's don't just build the world they are a guiding hand and a story teller. My side of free agency in discussion point 2 is about passive misconception. However, GMs drive players both passively and actively weather they want to or not. So my 3rd point is that players rely on active story telling from the GM. This is not a misconception it just a fact that if you started a game with "Okay what do you do?" without background players would be very confused and much, if not all the work a GM does is gear to end. The GM sets the stage, the GM sets up story hooks, the GM creats the NPCs/villians/monsters, and provides it to the players. This is not to say Players can't be given free agency to ignore all the GM pre-made hooks and go do something else but when players do that what a GM does (like it or not) is create new story hooks on the spot. Now most hooks lead to some level of danger. Some are dead ends and players need to find something else when it is done. Some are tapered by the GM to lead back to old ones the GM had already created. What can happen thought is that the GM makes many hooks, some leading to deadly encounters and sometimes the players take that story hook and run right down the line way faster than intended and end up fighting bosses the GM expected them to fight at level 8 at level 5. At that point the enemies are too powerful and despite good planning the GM has to adjust the enemies or TPK the group. (I had this explained to me during a campaign where that exact thing happened with my first GM, because he allowed free agency.) We made an accidental B-line strait through secret doors and traps right to the end bosses by accident... The GM was shocked but altered the enemies so we had a chance to win instead of TPKing the group. That way we still had a chance to continue... Other GMs did the same and told me it was our fault for finding the secret door he made and running into enemies we were not ready to fight (From my view that GM TPK'd group since we were following his hook to his goal for us and because of our free agency we did better than expected ... and died for it).
My point that "Only GMs ever TPK groups." is that because players only control themselves, short of player vs player or group suicide, the GM has some part of leading the group to a TPK. While one player can easily kill their own character (as long as the GM doesn't save them from themselves) with a bad mistake and/or role, if the whole group is having fun and doesn't want to end their campaign it is highly unlikely for them to make a group decision to all die or to make individual decisions to die back to back unless they were lead there by the GM ether by subtle indirect guidance, drawing a story hook to a natural high point, or simply because the players see their characters in a place within the GMs world where that action is the only thing that makes since to them and it would destroy their immersion and enjoyment of the world to do anything else. If the GM set it up as a heroic moment for them to all die together as a level 20 ... sure. If it happens earlier and it was not intended by the GM to be a campaign killing moment, that's when a GM needs to stop and say "oops" I need to alter this a little on the fly so that their is an option which lets at least one of them live so the story can continue. If the players are provided a way out of a mechanical/story corner that does not break immersion they will likely take it proving that given free agency that is not where they would or wanted to go. They felt compelled by GM design. If they don't change course then the TPK was the players choice and if the campaigns ends it will be on and a credit to the GM for have written a satisfying ending which should be a goal of every GM. If the story feels unfinished maybe the next campaign is in the same setting following group of heroes inspired by fallen heroes sacrifice.
Last edited: