Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8714479" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Recognizing the red text (glad I scrolled up!) I would like to respond to this in a constructive fashion, focusing on the positives of a "zero-death game."Specifically: There is a difference between knowing that a story should have an end, and picking one specific option for what that end should be. Further, there is a difference between excluding one specific option from the list (or spectrum/space) of possible endings, as opposed to excluding all other options except for one specific possible ending.A well-constructed "zero death" or "low death" game is doing the former thing in both of these comparisons, not the latter: we know that each arc and story must eventually end, but that knowledge does not mean we must set a fixed endpoint, and further, we choose to eliminate one specific destination only, rather than all possible destinations bar one. We may analogize it as a journey. For some, the preference is to journey without map or destination, to go where the wind takes them: a "sandbox," more or less. For others, a rigid, guided tour is all they really want: a "railroad." But there is something between the two, where you do have a map  (though it may be incomplete!), and you can do orienteering, and you can declare in advance, "I just don't want to go to the Mystery Flesh Pit National Park, thanks." That doesn't mean you know where precisely your journey will take you when you start out, only that you know where it won't take you.That's a vital distinction for anyone wanting to engage in this kind of play. Recognizing that there can be certain points or plots or concepts that are no-go. In that sense, it's not dramatically different from stuff like the X-card, at least in principle (certainly the execution is different.)My condolences. I would find it blindingly infuriating to run a game for folks who feel compelled to exploit something offered as a genuine "you can feel safe doing stunts and taking risks" gesture, despite having a mature conversation about it in advance. That would have ended my DMing career very quickly if that's how my players behaved.Well then...isn't that exactly what I was saying before? I refuse to run games for players who behave abusively--that is, exploitation or coercion, rather than pure, genuine enthusiasm. Since I'm (pretty much) the DM for my group, my players have a choice, to be team players who are respectful of the other people at the table (that is, including me), and thus getting to play a game, or being disrespectful, and thus not getting to play a game. Even if they were ruthlessly pragmatic, the choice would be clear. Fortunately, they are absolutely not homo economicus, and do in fact show respect and humanity toward their fellow players (including me.)If your players are legitimately so disrespectful that they cannot restrain themselves, and must exploit absolutely every opportunity no matter how inane or hurtful it might be to anyone else, then yes, this style of play is absolutely not for you. Frankly, I am somewhat surprised that there are any styles of play that are compatible with such a group, since literally all games ever are predicated at least partially on the idea that players play along and embrace conventions of some kind.</blockquote>

Verification