The only group I knew who enjoyed having the constant looming threat of TPKs was a group that didn't run long campaigns with continual narratives; they just did different one-shots every week, a few of which extended into 3-shot games. So there was never a long standing risk of unfulfilled narrative for them
I am kind of confused as to what exactly you think the DM's role really is. If the DM truly wants to let the players have agency, that also means they have to let them go off and die. Like, is the DM supposed to just narrate things that the players do? If it's impossible to TPK, then am I really free? Like, are they just trying to tell you a story? Because sometimes the story of the characters is, they all decide to do something really dumb and they all die. Or we just roll all 1s and the DM rolls all 20s. Sometimes shit happens. To me, the DM's role is to create a world for the players that lets the players tell their story, and to then have the world react to the players stories in a believable and interesting way. Sometimes, the only satisfying conclusion for that is the characters fighting for their lives against a very real threat. Sometimes they lose. I have never TPKed the party, but I've never tried to avoid it either. I've also never been in a TPK. When I don't show up to session, I've literally come back to TPKs however, and the party has told me how it happened (and then the DM tells me I need to either res the party or go get a new party or something). It's usually not that the DM was really trying to cause one, it's usually that players were doing something really dumb and preventable. Almost every player death I've ever witnessed has been due to them not paying attention to things the DM is saying and then walking head first into a very preventable death. The other times it's they roll a nat 1 on a save or die and those I will agree, completely suck balls. And from my view as a player, being at a table where dying is a consequence of things happening is kind of necessary for me to enjoy things. If I walk out as the only one alive because I listened to the the DM, I used every ability at my disposal, if I wracked my brain thinking of the every solution, it feels way more rewarding than the DM saying "well, I didn't think any of you should die, so I'll just whisk you away to safety." The latter would actually piss me off. And I love consequences. Many of the things I do change the world and it almost always makes sense for there to be dire consequences for my actions. Some of those consequences are dangerous, and that makes the story make more sense, makes it so my actions matter and so that I feel like my character has reason to do what they do. Not every combat or situation or even social encounter needs to feel that intense, but having those moments can really let your players shine if they're up for it. Having the game be consequence free really makes it feel like nothing you do matters or has any impact, and a TPK is a type of consequence that has to be there for it to really make sense.
I think you may have misunderstood my point. I specifically gave a caveat about being dumb (twice) and validated having some characters die, just not all of them. I can only speak from my own experience, and much of that experience has been awful, between outright cruel DMs and a dice curse worse than Wil Wheaton's. I'm very glad that yours has been better, but I will still advocate for communication on expectations. There is room for everyone's roleplay, as long as no one is forcing someone else to do something they don't want to do.
@@HanabiCraft Yes, what I mean is if literally everyone is doing something stupid or are following the stupid, then I don't think the DM trying to drag them out of that bad situation is a good thing, I think it takes away from the players that want to succeed in that bad situation on their own merits, even if they happen to fail. That can result in a TPK, I'd rather that than the DM trying to create a scenario where we don't, assuming it makes narrative sense that we'd already be in it somehow. I even think it makes for worse stories since I personally think deus ex machina is bad story telling, which is what a panicking DM trying to save the party is usually going to resort to. Unless what you mean is "do TPK dumb parties" but the impression I got was try to keep some of them alive somehow because the TPK is bad even then. If you mean "do TPK dumb parties, but don't if they're not doing dumb things", I think that's pretty reasonable, though I don't personally follow that style. I try to avoid creating situations where even a single PC death could happen unless the players make bad choices, I rarely leave that up to die rolls, so I'd actually go even a step further and say that even a single death shouldn't happen unless someone does something dumb. The communication you're talking about can be hard. I've literally had DMs saying to us as players "that'll probably get you killed" or the classic "are you SURE you want to do that?" and we just did it anyway with players fully expecting we'd survive it in spite of that warning. Sometimes players just overestimate themselves and run headlong into death. Sometimes the party pulls off enough incredibly hard fought, hard won wins and assume the DM is going easy on them, get complacent and then die to something really dumb later on even if the DM is explicitly saying "yeah don't fight this." Players can be stubborn creatures sometimes, I don't think the entire onus should be on the DM communicating with the players, players should also be a little flexible in how things develop.
Even in stories like that, the main characters usually make it to a climax before being out played. TPKs tend to happen at any harder-than-average encounter ime
This campaign I'm playing a paladin, and every single combat has begun with my character entering the room, saying "Hello!" politely and being attacked immediately. Talk to monsters recognize talk to monsters. DM definitely plays a lot of morally ambiguous "monsters," but also is like "no, if these guys are fascists, and you're in their little demonized outgroup, they're not down to talk" or even "this is a literal mindless demon." I appreciate having both, in terms of story-building.
Oh, right, on topic! TPKs typically suck ass, unless everyone has agreed that *that's* the kind of survival horror shit they wanna play. Most DM's worth their salt can turn a TPK encounter into something that actually furthers a character's story. If death is "that's it for your character," lame. If the characters all die... And thennnnnn... Well, that's a much different story, and really engaging. Why have we been brought back? How did we avoid death? What gives? Anyhow, if you can make it meaningful, then use the tool. If you can't, "Uhhh... a big ol' bird swoops down and carries the party to safety. It drops you in its nest, where an elderly wizard sits, listening to a massive egg with a stethoscope. 'QUIET!' she says. 'I'm studying these birds. Ornithomancy. Let me guess. You were all about to die to a bunch of skeletons or something?'" Just save them. Who cares. Now there's a bird who evolved a symbiotic relationship with adventurers, saving them moments before death in order to get some kind of favor done. The dice help tell the story, but if the party just gets absolutely diced in some miserable slog of a TPK, that's horrifying, pointless, and stupid. But if you're willing to let them die, you don't *have to* make that be the end of the story.
Which does remind me, the type of DM you describe, who has an adversarial attitude toward their players, I will *never* understand. Like, my dude, you have *the power of narrative canon* at your disposal. If it's you vs. the players, you win every time, because what you say happens *happens*. DM's can't be competing against the players to "win". There's no competition. You can just say "your brain explodes and you die." "Oh this monster can cast power word kill as a legendary action and also twice during its turn." Don't play *against* your players, give them the challenge they need or want.
The thing of it is, there are plenty of other games where TPKs aren't likely. Purely story-driven. And those are fun. Just like games where TPKs are a foregone conclusion. A game like D&D, or Pathfinder, or something in that vein, represent as close to a happy middle-ground as you can reasonably expect. Telling a rich story is the goal. But for a great story, there must be stakes. And not every great story has a happy ending. TPKs can be a satisfying ending. Look at the Star Wars film Rogue One. I've been GMing since 89, when I was 11 years old. What spurred me into doing it, was my first DM, a friend's older sister, who was objectively awful. We TPK'd four times before we even got to the dungeon. That was not fun. We played on because she was older, and insisted that's how the game goes. I was not convinced of this and went out and got my own DMG. No surprise when I discovered that she wasn't running things properly. She was tormenting us for her amusement. Next session, I quit and announced to the table that I was going to start running a game, and we left. The first TPK that happened wasn't until I was 22. It was a new edition, and we were getting back into D&D after a long run playing World of Darkness games (Vampire, Werewolf etc.). It came about because the players simply didn't really know what their characters could do and they also didn't co-ordinate very well. It was a learning experience. The 2nd TPK was a boss encounter where the first few rounds, the dice rolls broke really bad for the players. To their credit, they committed and kept going. Despite several "outs" I presented for their characters when it became clear they were going to lose. Diminishing returns reached critical mass, and PCs started dropping. The others fought on, not out of desperation, but out of acceptance. "We're not going to survive, but we're going to defy this evil to our last breath." The evil won. And our next campaign was set in the same world where that evil had won. A new batch of heroes rose to fight it. When the final fight against this boss happened, I'd even had some of its minions be undead thralls of their old characters. Basically a good example of how a TPK doesn't have to be the end of the story. Just the end of a chapter in it. The TPK you seem to be talking about here is the result of adversarial GMing. Which, I agree, is not fun. But not all TPKs are like this. I believe they should always be a possibility in a middle-ground game like D&D, but not the goal. And as long as the person behind the screen isn't gleefully murdering PCs (That's what beloved NPCs are for) as the TPK unfolds, it's not a bad thing. It's just an outcome. And when they happen, they don't feel good. But not every tale has to. I honestly don't believe every tale should.
Exactly! As long as everyone is coming to the table eyes open, there's no problem! The problem is when there's a lack of communication and the assumption that everyone has the same play style
Players who enjoy combat typically enjoy risk and wouldnt be having as much fun without a chance of a "game over" so as a GM with those players its kind of my job to provide that risk. Im not saying GMs should intentionally tpk but as long as the risk is described appropriately and youre not railroading players into unescapable death traps an earned TPK is earned. If you take the kings crown the guards are going to attack, if you drink poison youre going to get sick, and if you fall into a volcano you fall into a volcano. You say if you want combat where you can die play warhammer but i would counter and say if youre just trying to roleplay play Cypher, PBTA, Kids on Bikes or even Burning Wheel
I mean, I did caveat against stupid behavior, lol Unfortunately, literally all of my TPK experience has been with malicious GMs, and I can only speak from my own experience. I'll check out those systems! Thanks for suggesting them!
@@HanabiCraft How silly of them, like theres any sport in trying to kill pcs when you control everything. A warning about Burning Wheel, although heavy roleplay mechanics are baked in it takes inspiration from Song of Ice and Fire (game of thrones) so not the best for a whimsical romance story where everyone lives.
I geuninely have never understood how anyone has managed to have a TPK as a DM that wasn't intentional. It's not like the rules in the book are a pair of handcuffs, or divine laws that you HAVE to follow. If it looks like a TPK is coming, oyu are never forced to just let it happen because the rules say it should. I will always agree that it is WAY better for your story if one person miraculously survives. Or the BBEG may just decide to let one of them live just to spite them or prolong their pain and torment now knowing that their whole team/party/family is dead. There are so many ways to adjudicate and work with the story that can be created from a fully downed party as well. I fully agree with your points and just came here to comment because you deserve the views, and the algorithm help as well! Love you forever and ever! <3
I'm sitting right there with you and 1000% agree. It's make believe. The make believe should be fun, right? I suppose the difference itself doesn't matter, it's the mixing of the two ideologies in one group that make for unpleasantness. 💖 you a millionty times!
A take on reconciling storygaming with Simulationist gaming: MEOW. Tl;Dr: There's a lot to the game, and the roleplaying in the game, that needs choices and consequences, and it's not necessary to conflate NEEDING to TPK with any style of the hobby with some lethality or which interrupts romance tea time theater. ... You've been very frank about what you object to here in your video, to the point of simply wishing those who disagree with you not be recognized as game masters that anyone should play with. I've got to point out that, though you haven't explicitly called for the rejection of these people from the hobby at large, you are gatekeeping in exactly the same way grognards have received mountains of hate for in the past. They can't get away with generalized judgements painting huge demographics of players with such broad strokes as you have here, without basically being called bigots. I'll give a response as I understand it from the other side (without in any way attempting to present myself as a representative). Emergent roleplay immersion requires engagement with the struggles of the setting, as the setting is what makes TTRPGs deviate from LARPing one's private solipsistic backstory reenactment. Being a part of the setting makes it a group story that's being told together. It being emergent makes the story that is being told together be organically grown from shared experiences. The story is bigger than only the PCs or their character sheets. But having no danger makes settings toothless... facing the danger together becomes only posing and feigning investment instead of heroism, about a catwalk instead of a romance. The sake of the wider story is what transcends individual dramas. The wellbeing and success of the realm, when that's allowed to matter, as the means by which The Shadow (dun dun dun) is resisted or defeated... and that becomes meaningless when The Shadow (dun dun dun) is toothless and the danger is gone. No need for character sheets, or spectacular abilities for PCs, or dice, if there's no Gamist element. And that Simulationism and scope is why the series of game sessions is called a "campaign" taken from momentous movements to achieve change or conquest against adversity... the term taken from military or political doings, regarding the nation or the people. If combat is neutered then there is no roleplaying, because there's neither role nor (game)playing... it's only theatre club, and no choices matter, and all of it, even sessions with no dice or rules involved, fails to be engaging beyond that separated story. The suspension of disbelief makes it all just "Oh wow, oh so random" sensationalism with ever increasing demands for surprises but where those can no longer succeed at being surprising; suspense with no consequence becomes even more feigned; romance more and more masturbatory or solipsistic. Like that line from The Incredibles: "if everyone's a superhero then no one is", but consequence-less roleplay makes it a process of doing the same thing to anything fantastical, mysterious, romantic, suspenseful, heroic, amazing, supernatural... they call the result "grey goo". Having any chance of a TPK does in no way mean anyone is trying to teach anyone a lesson. Any lethality should be from representing the game's challenges or setting, and guiding the players into understanding those challenges... that's not PvP attitude, or even setting vs players. ... Anyway... there are games out there for theater sports with no dice and no choices and no risk. They can be fun , too. To me they feel like more like party games or reenactments than a TTRPG... maybe they should be called TTRP and encouraged to be what they are. Some would say that they shouldn't try to make all games out there be just like them. I do think, by the way, with the concept of railroads and the state of most D&D modules out there... balanced encounters have a reason to be something people argue and analyze the crap out of. If the entire premise of everyones' invested time is to try to face a reasonable challenge and be pushed in that direction by a DM... then agency isn't possible without PCs having a chance beyond a Mercer's "...certainly try." I personally think railroaded games and balanced encounters suck. I want to be a DM who provides lots of information about how dangerous what PCs are up against is, and encourage fleeing to a point that almost strains immersion.
Thank you for your time and effort in crafting this comment! I think a major difference between me and the gognards is that the grognards say "don't like it, don't play"; whereas I am saying "communicate and obtain consent." I don't say "you're a bad gm" with the intent that the TPKing GM not be a GM at all. My intent is that they not be *my* GM, and not be the GM to anyone who shares my roleplay proclivities. Theres room for both schools of thought as long as no one's trying to *force* someone else to do it their way. Consent is key! Also, I find immense satisfaction in what you describe as "theatre club," and would prefer social/parlor roleplay to hours of rolling dice that tell me I can't hit. 🙃
As a Sisters player, I shall speak a blessing upon thee, good servant of the Emperor: May you always find yourself gaming with a group that is of the same mind as you, so that you may have fun with your games, and may your communication always be clear enough to avoid arguments regarding intentions and expectations. Ave Imperator!
My party that has been going on for over 2 years accidentally tpk because our dm forgot what level we were, he thought we were level 12 but we were actually 10. So the party is in basically hell trying to find out way out. So we still get to play our silly guys and make fun of our dm(lovingly)
Oh, no! I'm so glad your DM found a way to continue the story and give you all a fitting continuance for your characters! That's the right way to handle it, imo, if a TPK is unavoidable! I hope you can escape hell and get sine really good character transformation from it! 💖
the only tabletop store that would host ttrpg campaigns in my town recently closed bc the community had been slowly shrivelling up until it died. for some reason, everyone became obsessed w one specific DM who'd ALWAYS finish every story w the aim to TPK... i don't get it. i like storytelling too, character development, bad and dumb (in-character) choices, plot-led choices rather than strategic ones (which would produce a better outcome, sure, but it would be at the expense of keeping my character consistent). apparently that was a bit too big of a task for my local ttrpg community. :(
I'm so sorry. The loss of a dedicated Third Place is devastating for a community. I hope your local scene can recover, and that you can find a steady group that fulfills all of your hopes and story desires.
I do agree that if the plan is for a good roleplaying session...that the GM/DM/StoryTeller should not just let the story end with a whimper. if there is going to be TPK then that should be communicated or other things planned for that eventuallity. Not doing so feels like lazy encounter design. Also Miao, MIAO! MRrr. Mrow! Mew, Mrew. Miao, MAo...
I dont have too many opinions on this, but I can agree that I'm much more into the rolepkay of things. Like yes, tention equals conflict, equals keeping things interesting.... that being said, I'm also not a big battle fan with D&D in general (or in any game). So, I extra hate the threat on my characters life. But I do have friends that love the battle and nearly dying, but personally... I could never. Lol But when it comes to killing off characters... I think that's only okay if a party member wants to leave the group for whatever reason and concents to the death of said character. / Or if the player wants to change characters and both them and the DM agreed to the death/made it impactful. But again, I dont know too much about this. Lol Side note: You should have known when you made the channel that it was, in fact, the cats channel.
I'm not sure why I ever thought it would be mine, lol. Everything that's mine is his, after all! I'm all about consent, and character death is definitely one o those things that I think should be discussed and agreed to before play ever begins, much less a full party wipe
Very cool vid! A few years back when it snowed one weekend at Naka, that was my all time favorite time there so I'm glad as well that it's coming back to March. I've found that the affordable Neewer mics help isolate a lot of voice work in areas like the dealers room surprisingly well.
I may be conflating the complexity of the character sheet with he complexity of the system in my memory 🙃 why yes, here's the slot where my mother's maiden name goes, how could I forget?
The first spray came out and I instantly took a deep breath and sigh and my shoulders dropped by several inches. Ahhhhh, thank you for your service. 🎉❤
Players who hide disruptive behavior behind, “But that’s what my character would do,” need a heavy dose of discovering what every other character would do in response.
Hey! You're allowed to be sad or any other feeling you got. It's fine. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. girrrr... 🤪 Love these videos. Keep up the great work. I admire your ability to make videos this good.
I love the wisdom you're sharing about D&D. I'm interesting in writing stories for my blog, using D&D as a writing tool to give me ideas, and make the process of writing lots of fun. But it is just amazing to hear an experienced player talking about what group play is really like, so thank you so much for that, I really appreciate it!
This was a spectacular video! I haven't seen anyone talking about D&D lay out such a conscientious set of rules, this was really fantastic, I mean it! Thank you for taking the time to share your gaming experience, it definitely helped me get some insight into what would and wouldn't work in a group setting.
As a forever dm, getting gifts or bribes, I always feel SUPER awkward... because, I feel obligated to reciprocate at the cost of my own plans and fun, and it becomes a table-sized arms race to get the most advantage over the story. I like making it a bit challenging, and I feel like I can when I get, even jokingly, bribes I can't let them feel valued...
Perhaps think of then as tribute? Or hosts gifts? Tokens of appreciation? I'll wager they're meant more as appreciation than a title for tat, and if the word "bribe" makes you feel uncomfortable, you should tell them that. You deserve to be appreciated and also to feel comfortable about being appreciated.
Right? 😂 MY rule is no PVP. That includes undermining others player's goals and fun, stealing, withholding info that is going to get them killed, blackmailing the game (my character doesnt want to go, you need to spend your time convincing me), etc. All of it is PVP in my dictionary. This doesn't mean you can't play a disgruntled antisocial thieving loner. It means that YOU as the player have to keep finding reasons for your character to go on the adventure anyway, to participate anyway, to support the other players.
@Joshuazx I hear you. When I first heard about session zero as a concept, I didn't get it. Then I remembered the games and groups wrecked by mistrust and behaviors not everyone signed on for, and realized why it makes a lot of sense.
Wow... My parents never mentioned I had a sister and yet here you are. 😅 Seriously, though. I'm new to your channel and I love that you're so knowledgeable about RPGs. Holy buckets. Keep up the good work!
Mine told me I'm an only child, but perhaps they stole me away in the night, so that I might have a true Hero's Journey upbringing and triumph over the dark, edgy backstory? Who's to say? Thank you for sticking around and for cheering me on. It means a lot to me. 💖
What's this talk about nourishment? How can I nourish a soul when it's languishing under a rock and I'm kept under one Sisyphean boulder or another? Do you live in a world where that kind of thing is even an option??
I, too, live under the heavy boot of the capiralis system, but there are secret moments that we can steal away for ourselves. Keep them secret. Keep them safe.
Righteous! But it also wants me to run games in multiple small groups featuring loners, evil, antiestablishmentarian, would-be spotlight hogs with bombs going off all over the place
story/role play heavy rpg based off the Chronicals of Amber by Roger Zelazney. character creation is point based and encouraged competition between players by having them bid on their rankings in the four attributes (endurance, psyche, strength, and warfare). conflict was resolved through creative description and comparing attributes and powers. back im the days of custom personal web pages and web ring there was a large online play-by-email community.
D&D 5th Edition being in-between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder (presumably you mean PF2e)? lol, that doesn't make sense at all. 5th Edition is almost inarguably less rules-heavy, and has less customization options, than both of those systems.
I can see it either way, but there is a nuance to why 5E is a chore to understand and run. I found it easier to run and play in campaigns in 3.5 up to level 20. In 5e, the PCs are so bloated with features, many using their own little rulesets, that it is twice as much work to keep all of the balls in the air as GM or player. It is hard to remember everything my characters can even do. It becomes a clashing fuzzy logic superhero game and rules-lookup festival at high level. I understand that there were 'dead spots' in leveling in 3.5, 5th level was notoriously dry. But the accumulation of rules-bound options to fill every lull has made 5e seem like the only things you can do or try in the game are the ones for which you have a specific spell, skill or feature. Spells with rules for saves at the star, edn or first time encountered are a mess. Even skilled players and DMs confuse them all the time. Magic missile is supposed to have a single die roll for damage. That's not intuitive to anyone. Lighting/darkvision rules are a mess, confused further by about a hundred variations. Everything under the sun is skill check, but not jump? Tool proficiencies and performance are a mess. All of this is addressable of course, but it is for me, more work than prior versions because of inconsistencies and rules that seem inferior to very common homebrews.
@@ra-tyrin I respect your opinion. I’d probably bet that +90% of the community would disagree with you, though 😅 But to be fair, it’s even stated in the video that it was an “unpopular opinion,” so to each their own I suppose, lol
So I appreciate your perspective but I kind of have an issue with that for rule. You say that if a player withholds information in a way that is preventing someone else from having fun, they are playing Wrong. Well, I would counter that by Saying if the dungeon master has given that player information that only his or her character knows then that player was meant to have the option of withholding that information and if another player has a problem with that, that's the second players Issue for meta-gaming because that players character doesn't even know that that information exists. As a dungeon master if I provide information for only a single character and not to the rest of the characters it is clearly my intent to that that player may if they wish withhold that information or they may tell their other party members. If I want information to go to all party members equally I present it to all party members equal.
There are absolutely times when that happens, of course! I love giving my experienced players moments like that, because I know they'll spin it in a way that will make a really interesting story point. These are just meant as general guidelines and are directed toward newer players and DMs that may stumble over such things before they have the experience to handle those stickier situations.
It seemed to me like they were specifically talking about moments when PLAYERS decide to withhold information, not DMs. The campaign I’m currently playing is my first, and my DM has been working on this world for over a year and naturally each player has secrets in their backstory that only the player and our DM know. However, when it comes to our sessions and current gameplay, we always communicate everything we know (aside from lore that’s meant to be kept secret for the time being). For instance, a while ago we came across a situation where only my character was able to talk to these OC cave creatures because of my speak with animals. I could have just made the session based around me, due to my ability to speak to them, but instead my character translated as much as possible to my teammates so that I didn’t overshadow my friends too much in that session. There are times when hiding info is good for lore reasons, but overall, not communicating with your teammates is never a good thing. Also, very often the people who withhold useful info from other players, tend to be the more self centered and narcissistic players. People who care more about the attention and focus of their character rather than the enjoyment of the group
This has the makings of a good starting point for a conversation. Answer, imo, is for the DM to prep players well. I think it should be the same impulse which realizes that a character concept or agenda that PC may have won't be fun for a group social event; filtered out and troubleshot before having a chance for related complications to arise in-game. Also that opportunities for GMs to shine in really connecting with players on their PC's motivations and positively hooking them into enjoyable and less contentious situations. If a player wants to go out of their way to mess with the experience everyone is having, then perhaps there is a reason for that and they haven't really been included in what's going on or haven't been separated from the private story that they want to involve themselves with that's separate from a more compersive appreciation of caring about group fun or the fun of others.
Be careful when pulling back the curtains when communicating with your players. Some of the best moments are the organic story points or preceived story points
Protip: Not the biggest fan of Hasbro (owners of Dungeons and Dragons), the D&DBeyond dice roller has been duplicated in Google. Type Dice Roller in the search, it's just as good!
I also am not a huge fan of the parent company. Is there a better campaign managing software that can he used to auto-load in information for encounters?
@HanabiCraft there is a site called DemiPlane it has most of the official books and even some third-party content. This character management system has other games, like Candela Obscrura (Beta), Vampire 5e, and soon to be Starfinder. There is a cost, but is is reasonable.
Any time you want to come to the Cultural Events activities (as long as I'm with Naka) Just let me know. We'll get you the backstage/inside scoop, with sprinkles!
