D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[KYRON45]

I'm certainly not knocking the playstyle as long as that is communicated upfront.
But we are talking about campaigns ending. Sure a TPK can do that - but you could still be having a hell of a time with the group and speak about it fondly after.
That is not what I'm reading from @EzekielRaiden's posts.

I do agree that anyone can play any way they like and that expectations should be discussed.
I've never understood how in a games that track hit points as a measure of your being aliveness that people can be surprised and or upset that their PC dies. Its right there on the page that says when you reach 0 (or whatever the final state is in the edition you are playing) you are dead.
Making characters is easy (well...easy enough), keeping them alive is what the game is about. Take risks fellow travelers...be bold...punch fate in the jibblies!!!!

I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Have a great day fellow gamers!!!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

no, they're not trolling, they're making a good point and i can see exactly where they're coming from, "a good compromise is where both parties are dissatisfied" absolutely is an awful perspective, because it implants in people the idea that 'if you compromise you're going to be unhappy with the result

Which is true. Just not as unhappy as if you don’t compromise and get nothing at all.

Real life is full of no good choice situations. You just have to pick the least bad.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you had to hazard a guess why do you think that is?

Well, for those 4e games:

One was because the DM felt called to get involved in political causes (ones I personally agree with, so it was merely bittersweet, not frustrating). One because the DM was trash and I never wanted to play with them again, the only time this has ever happened with 4e games in my personal experience. One because it was intentionally just one adventure (this was more recent than the one-year search but still counts.) One was because I managed to scrape a group together and...we didn't really gel and had a Really Awkward Moment that I think poisoned the long-term prospects. One because the DM ghosted us for reasons we never learned. And, IIRC, one because the DM got sick and we couldn't find a replacement.

So like, I know why all of them happened, and none of it was something I had any control over. And yes, five games really is "incredibly rare" when you went looking for a whole year and one of those games was literally something you scraped together yourself by contacting other 4e-interested players and trying to forge a group out of them.

I suspect the unfamiliarity between DM and players in the online community allows for deadlier combat.
In other words the DM is less invested in the characters since his connection to the players is weak and this also explains why an online DM can disinvest from the campaign a lot easier. One would, I guess, be far more responsible with players and the campaign if they were family, friends and people you meet in-person.
Do you agree?

Two of these games were run by friends of mine. Not close friends, I admit, but friends nonetheless, and most of the players were people I knew. I warned both of them (which I felt comfortable doing because they're friends) that low-level 5e could be extraordinarily lethal and that it was probably wise to start at level 2 or better yet level 3. I was ignored. I then tried to make my character decisions specifically to help the group survive...and it didn't make a difference.

So, no, I don't really agree. Cases where that difference you note should have prevented this not only didn't, but had absolutely no effect.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which is true. Just not as unhappy as if you don’t compromise and get nothing at all.

Real life is full of no good choice situations. You just have to pick the least bad.

No, it is not true. Sometimes, everyone actually is HAPPY with a compromise. It isn't always possible, but it does happen.

Your assertion is false if even one single compromise has ever occurred in all of human history where nobody was actively unhappy about the result. Are you willing to commit to the idea that not one single compromise, in all of human history, failed to make every single participant unhappy?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I DID.

Exactly one player in my game subsequently decided to become a GM. He GMs games that aren't to my taste either--and he knows this. That's why he didn't offer me a place at his table, and he was frank with me about that. But he also said that if he ever ran a game he thought I would like, I would literally be the first person he'd ask (or second, after his SO.)

"If you want to be a player, become GM" has 100% failed. Hell, worse than my attempts to find a game as a player--at least there I did actually get to play a little, even if the games folded for various reasons.

You’ve probably addressed this before but have you tried a Local Game Store? Or a local game cafe? Or your local library? Maybe you’d have more luck with in person gaming.

When I started playing 5e about 9 years ago, I started up a group at the local game cafe (I realize I’m lucky to have one in my town and for them to let me advertise a group.) I ran that group for about 4 years - and I use the term “group” loosely as players came and went over the course of the campaign but we ended the campaign with 2 of the 5 original players and 2 more that joined about 9 months in. All strangers to start. Our current online group still has 5 of us from those days and 2 of them now DM as well.

I guess my point is: it can take time and a bit of luck and perhaps, yes, a bit of (the gentler definition of) compromise

 

[AnotherGuy]

Good grief @EzekielRaiden, that is a series of unfortunate events.
Some of us will likely find most of our happiness in the game when we DM.
It certainly was for me - I couldn't find someone consistent enough and the one time I did, they were horribly inexperienced (for my tastes).
Funny enough it was a 4e game.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's in large part a GM failing to hit the curveball thrown by the players.

Players playing heroic characters is very, very, very common in this hobby. I’m not sure it qualifies as a « curveball » for the DM.

That said, why did the players join that game in the first place? Or was it pitched as one thing and then run as another?

I honestly don’t think the DM even thought of it much. Definitely didn’t mention it in his pitch.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do agree that anyone can play any way they like and that expectations should be discussed.
I've never understood how in a games that track hit points as a measure of your being aliveness that people can be surprised and or upset that their PC dies. Its right there on the page that says when you reach 0 (or whatever the final state is in the edition you are playing) you are dead.
Making characters is easy (well...easy enough), keeping them alive is what the game is about. Take risks fellow travelers...be bold...punch fate in the jibblies!!!!

I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Have a great day fellow gamers!!!

I am not upset about the possibility.

I get upset about, as I have said many many times on this forum, deaths that are all three of: random (=caused by something completely beyond player control, e.g. dice, or DM whim, or secret rules the player wasn't allowed to know, etc.), AND irrevocable (=the death cannot, in practice, be reversed), AND permanent (=the death won't be un-done on its own).

A player choosing to do something really foolish, which they were warned could have deadly consequences, isn't a random death--it's well-earned, and thus perfectly acceptable even if it's permanent and irrevocable. A player accepting that their character very likely will die, e.g. as part of a heroic sacrifice, is a non-random death and thus acceptable, even if it is permanent and irrevocable. Getting critically hit by an attack at just the wrong time is a random death, but if the PCs have access to resurrection methods (even if they cost money/resources/etc.), then it isn't irrevocable. Or if, say, the PCs all die, a genuine Total Party Kill, but then they get woken up by an angel who recovered their bodies and had them resurrected, with the expectation that they'll help said angel deal with the thing that killed them in the first place. ("When vengeance serves the cause of justice, even one such as I cannot call it evil.") Or if, say, a PC definitely dies...and then somehow stands up anyway? Suddenly we have a HUGE, JUICY story hook, what the hell happened to make this be the case????

But the type of deaths Lanefan and other OSR fans speak of are exactly those three things. Almost entirely random, often resulting from information the players couldn't possibly acquire or the fact that the dice are so damned swingy almost anything could happen and nothing can be predicted or managed at all. Resurrection is heinously expensive (I don't mind cost--I do mind "you'll never afford it unless you go almost-permanently into debt or save up for literal years of sessions") and gated behind very high-level spells (again, "you'll never get it unless you have a cleric that survives for literal years of sessions"), and deaths are always permanent.

Death is a good and valuable tool. It is not only just one consequence among many, it is by far not the best nor most useful consequence. Hurting, or even just threatening, the things, people, or status that a PC cares about is almost always a superior tool for producing interesting, engaging gameplay and roleplay. Death terminates both. You can't play the game with a dead character, and you can't roleplay a dead character (well, I guess you can but "laying there silently" isn't exactly engaging!)

 

[FrozenNorth]

Ultimately GM doesn't have to compromise.

I'm running 5.5 or 2E no it's or buts. Up to you if you want to play or not.

I think your response is what makes @Micah Sweet’s post feel so disingenuous.

IMO This is why some GMs end up running games they don't like and get burned out. The players don't want to compromise (and the culture tells them they shouldn't have to), and the GM gets tired of enabling play he doesn't care for.

It claims that GMs are burning out because of the demands of their players and the players’ unwillingness to compromise.

Fact is: No GM is ever forced to run a game they don’t want.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You’ve probably addressed this before but have you tried a Local Game Store? Or a local game cafe? Or your local library? Maybe you’d have more luck with in person gaming.

When I started playing 5e about 9 years ago, I started up a group at the local game cafe (I realize I’m lucky to have one in my town and for them to let me advertise a group.) I ran that group for about 4 years - and I use the term “group” loosely as players came and went over the course of the campaign but we ended the campaign with 2 of the 5 original players and 2 more that joined about 9 months in. All strangers to start. Our current online group still has 5 of us from those days and 2 of them now DM as well.

I guess my point is: it can take time and a bit of luck and perhaps, yes, a bit of (the gentler definition of) compromise

I sincerely appreciate the suggestion, but a combination of economic and mental health factors make this...not a particularly actionable piece of advice. But I truly do appreciate you offering an alternative (particularly one that hasn't frequently been suggested.)

Good grief @EzekielRaiden, that is a series of unfortunate events.
Some of us will likely find most of our happiness in the game when we DM.
It certainly was for me - I couldn't find someone consistent enough and the one time I did, they were horribly inexperienced (for my tastes).
Funny enough it was a 4e game.

Yeah...I sometimes wonder if I'm not cursed. Like I know that's just magical thinking at work, but jeez louise if it isn't rough.

The worst thing is, back during the lead-up to 5e (early-mid 2014) I actually was in a WONDERFUL 4e game. Great players, great DM (ironically, a former old-school DM giving 4e a spin because it was cheap and he appreciated the design work), great sci-fantasy homebrew setting, DM was 100% on board with rolling RP concepts into the ongoing story. It was great stuff. Then the DM had a critical family emergency (on top of having a five-year-old son with fragile health) that would require him to rearrange most of his and his wife's life to deal with the consequences. Pretty sure that campaign had a shot at hitting Epic tier if it hadn't died, but I completely understood why the DM needed to end the game. Real life always comes first, always has, always will, and caring for your family is non-negotiable.