What on earth does that have to do with anything?
Just pointing out how players hostility towards the DM effects things.
Littering the game with instant-death traps is teaching them that every wall and floor could hide instant death. So they will respond rationally: they wish to keep playing, and wish to avoid failure and danger. Thus, they will take every possible precaution to avoid these extreme dangers, which means inch-by-inch exploration (and I don't mean "inches measured on the battlemap"!) and repeatedly going through the same safety checklist each time. That such activity is tedious and has little thought involved is a historical fact--it's the reason Gygax introduced the blatantly gamist ear seekers, which make no sense whatsoever biologically, but perfect sense as a way to scare players out of "standard operating procedure"-induced complacency.
Again, this only teaches the Hostile Players. Once the DM "attacks them personally" with a trap in the game, they will react by being openly hostile. The hostile player feels justified showing their hate as "the DM started it."
It is not rational at all to think "humm, the door to that BANK VAULT was trapped.......THAT means EVERY door is trapped!". Only an irrational person would think that.
Not sure why history matters when your talking about dragons, unicorns, magic, fantasy and fiction. That real world tomb might of had no traps....but it also did not have a magic sword.
Players aren't dumb. They pay attention to the consequences of their actions, and those consequences teach them what kind of game they're really playing. You can say all the live-long day that you don't want murderhobo players, but your GM actions will always speak louder. The second or third time the PCs get jumped by enemies they'd previously shown mercy to, no matter how realistic that might be, they'll learn that mercy is a sucker's game, that the only way to be safe is to always go for the kill. Because their enemies always do--and any assurances they make otherwise are simply lies. Same goes for crime and authority/law enforcement. If they see that crime pays and that the authorities are corrupt, incompetent, or malicious, they will make use of that. If they see that people they ally with frequently betray them, they will stop forming alliances unless betrayal is impossible or (more likely) they intend to beat the betrayers to the punch. Etc.
Well, you can't say "all" players are one thing. And sure some players pay attention...but some do not. And some players never learn anything.
The problem your stuck on here is the One Way problem, that you often get in a simple casual game. If the players just do senseless random actions like "show mercy" it might very well come back to haunt them. You agree this is true, but will quick add it must be rare.....and even more quickly add that as a fan of the players/characters you want to "teach" them that...er...when they make a random choice it will always work out for the best because you will alter the game reality to make it so. It's the kind of "lesson" they teach in "educational" cartoons for kids. The good guys capture the bad guy and show mercy: the bad guy then turns over a new leaf and becomes a good person. Everyone lives happily ever after. It works great for cartoons.
I play the Sumiluation Game: that is to say it's "kinda of" like reality. So if a person who is shown mercy might come back and attack or such is based on the person. Some will never change. Some might change a bit, but will need lots of help. Some need lots of help and guidance. Some can really only do it with magical help. Some might 'just change' too. But you can't just show random mercy to a random NPC and just expect them to transform into a saint in seconds.
There's no malice here. There's no "hatred" of the GM or whatever. It's literally just being rational. If you see that something works, you do it more. If you see that something bites you in the ass all or almost all of the time you do it, you stop. If an action has no value (noting that moral value is just as valid as any other form of value), players will stop doing it.
Except this is the Simple Casual way of looking at it.
The player has their character always throw their long sword at foes: it does not work out so well. So after throwing the sword dozens of times, the player just has the character give up swords and only punch to attack. Rational?
The player has their character shoot fireballs to attack, but when fighting the fire elementals the fireballs do no damage. So this player stops using the fireball spell at all ever. Rational?
You reap what you sow. Fill the world with deadly traps, and players will become hyper-cautious trap-hunters. Fill the world with backstabbing jerks who repay mercy by coming back with reinforcements, and players will spare themselves the trouble of dealing with a second fight. Fill the world with traitorous scum who break their word and betray their allies, and players will avoid ever allowing someone close enough to betray them--or (try to) get in on the betrayal game first. Fill the world with lucrative criminal activity and authority figures that are malicious, corrupt, or incompetent, and players will commit crime and resist/bribe/undermine authority whenever it benefits them.
Again, this is only for the Simple Casual game. In the Simple Casual game, a player can have their NPC just go shopping anywhere and they will have a fair, honest, nice time at the store and be able to buy anything they want.
In the simulation game...well, it depends on where you go...and how your character acts...and what the character does...and all sorts of things like that. Each NPC is an individual, and might act in many ways. Though, by default, many NPCs are greedy, if not out right evil. For example, meeting a demon in a dark alley is no the "best" place to go shopping.
Again, this has drek-all to do with being "hostile to the DM to begin with." It's being rational in response to the actions GMs take. And many, many, many GMs are simply unaware that this is what they're doing. Oftentimes, this is because the GM's desire for "realism" or "challenge" is actually at odds with the tone and theme they prefer, but they don't realize this.
This is true for some DMs.
Again, you use insults and canards, rather than engaging with what I've described. You mock my playstyle as being infinitely permissive, involving no gameplay, difficulty, or challenge, where absolutely everything is sunshine and rainbows forever.
How does this contribute to the conversation? I have told you, point blank, repeatedly, that these descriptions are simply wrong. Yet you keep making them. Why?
I'm sure I never said that.
