Quote from: multiarms on March 29, 2023, 09:06:22 AM
Is there a link to a source of J. Scott G or someone else actually saying that PC death without player consent is a hate crime? Because if not, then this video is just ranting against a straw man.

Straw man. I went and looked at Garibay's YT channel. The dude posts 3-4 short videos a day - it looks like they're all just him rambling while driving around in his car. Weird. And he gets like 50-100 views per vid. So he's nobody.

https://www.youtube.com/@JScottGaribay/videos

Diversity and Dragon brings the reciepts like a qualified investigative jurnalist:

Quote from: Omega on March 29, 2023, 08:42:54 AM
Theres still a good share of players ok with a PC death.
But these fringe nuts have been at it a while now.
Theres also been a resurgance of the old complaint of "Theres more combat rules than talking rules! I  can NEVER talk to an NPC everrrrrrr! waaaah!"

When did we in the west switch from : If it's not forbiden by the rules it's allowed to "If the rules don't say I can do it then I can't!"? To top the WTAFF shitcake with the cherry of "I can't see myself in the game!"

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 02:30:42 AM
OK, so I finally listened to the OP. Besides the point over death, Pundit suggests the reason is PCs being a fantasy version of oneself rather than a different persona to immerse in -- and that this is something new since 2015 or so with snowflake SJWs.

As an old-timey RPGer, that sounds ridiculous. Immersing yourself in a persona unrelated to your real self is artsy-fartsy extremism that doesn't match what most players are trying for. They want to drink beer, eat pretzels, and kill some monsters - with some jokes and funny voices thrown in. Knights of the Dinner Table started in 1990, and it was already old stereotypes that the players would play fantasy versions of themselves. The whole schtick of KoDT was how the players will act in-game exactly how they want to as themselves. And that's what lots of players have always done.

That said, the KoDT crowd also are fine to play a fantasy version of themselves and have that character killed. It's no big deal. They just roll up a new fantasy version of themselves. So basically, I don't think playing a fantasy version of yourself is the root cause of opposing PC death.

---

I think the biggest issue is the genre that the group is going for. I've played in a bunch of RPGs which had basically no chance of death - like Champions or the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG. I've also played RPGs with a high chance of death like Call of Cthulhu. The Forge / Story Games crowd was often into their dramatic tragedies - like Fiasco - which often involved character death.

So I'm opposed to the idea that killing characters is a war crime. But I also think it's fine to play a game with no (or almost no) chance of death like Champions or Buffy or Toon. To me, it's a game. There doesn't have to be some great purpose - you just sit with your friends, play, and have fun.


EDITED TO ADD: Here's a link to the discussion that I think Pundit was referring to.

https://twitter.com/jsgaribay/status/1637808367505666048

In an authentic "am I living in the upside down world or taking crazy pills?" moment I agree with Jhkim, almost 100% not sure about the artsy-fartsy extremism line.

Most players end up playing humans in rubber suits BECAUSE they can't even begin to grasp an alien mind (such as Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Vulcans,etc) so they play a human but with parts removed, diminished or turned up to 13.

In the same way most players play a fantasy version of themselves, especially when they start playing, in rare occasions the PC becomes a person that doesn't act like the player, but this is only after a while, I've never seen a player not having to think what his PC would do from the word go.

Now, playing Toon has it's own rules and expectations, if I started complaining that there's no death in it I would be laughed out of the room (and rightly so), conversely playing D&D has it's own rules and expectations. Far be it for me to say you're playing it wrong if you house rule that the characters when run over by a truck only go flat but blowing up their own thumb returns them to full health, on the other hand you (the royal you) are a stupid moron if you complain about PC death in D&D, run your own game and house rule it to play as you like.

A few comments.

1)
Yes people have always lost their shit over dead characters, but that was usually established characters with lots of rad items. The average D&D 5e campaign was revealed to be, what, 6 sessions? You're melting down over a character that still has the new-car smell. Not comparable at all.

Also, it's not that gaming hasn't always had whiny cry babies, it's the ratio and the expectation. Way more obnoxious weirdoes play now that before, and the new expectation is that the GM coddle toxic behavior, rather that shame or toss the bad apple.


2)
Yes, some of us can get more immersed in roleplaying characters. I can go to my mental wardrobe, put on a character, and the character has an adventure. I have characters with very different morals, and responses to problems and challenges, than myself. I haven't played myself in a different hat since my early 20's.

A few characters that have really resonated with me, for whatever reasons, they're practically separate entities. I'd liken it to method acting, but without the obsessiveness.

It sounds pretentious/weird, but for me it's not difficult or confusing. I can just turn it on and off.



Rekall Rep: "Let me ask you one question. What is exactly the same about every single vacation you have ever taken?"

Quaid: "I give up."

Rekall Rep: "You. You're the same. No matter where you go, it's always you. Let me suggest that you take a vacation...from yourself. I know, it sounds wild. It is the latest thing in travel. We call it the Ego Trip."

I'm kind of stuck on both sides of this debate. I always identified quite personally with my characters, I always hated when they died and I always tried to give them backstories, and as a GM I generally tried to give characters every chance to survive (barring deliberate self-sacrifice, outright antisocial behaviour or the stupidest possible decisions), but I also recognize that real excitement generally requires real risk, that the dynamics of a collaborative game are not the same as the dynamics of an authorially-created story, and that (most important here, I think) the loss of a character need not constitute a personal and intolerable attack on the player.

(It sometimes can be, but that is a product of bad interpersonal behaviour, not a form of oppression inherently baked into the rules.)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 29, 2023, 02:11:53 PM
I'm kind of stuck on both sides of this debate. I always identified quite personally with my characters, I always hated when they died and I always tried to give them backstories, and as a GM I generally tried to give characters every chance to survive (barring deliberate self-sacrifice, outright antisocial behaviour or the stupidest possible decisions), but I also recognize that real excitement generally requires real risk, that the dynamics of a collaborative game are not the same as the dynamics of an authorially-created story, and that (most important here, I think) the loss of a character need not constitute a personal and intolerable attack on the player.

I don't see it as an either-or. It depends on the genre and the campaign expectations.

• It's wrong to say that killing a PC is a hate crime. I've had lots of fun in Call of Cthulhu and other deadly RPGs.
• It's also wrong to say that PC death is necessary. I've had lots of fun in Champions and the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG where PC death is effectively off the table, but the PCs can still fail and have other consequences.

Quote from: multiarms on March 29, 2023, 09:06:22 AM
Is there a link to a source of J. Scott G or someone else actually saying that PC death without player consent is a hate crime? Because if not, then this video is just ranting against a straw man.

RPGPundit won't link to the YOuTube channel, due to the fact that the douche bag in question doesn't need any more traction to his channel. I'm with RPGPundit on this one. As the English say, he's a nutter.

Quote from: THE_Leopold on March 29, 2023, 10:53:48 AM
Diversity and Dragon brings the reciepts like a qualified investigative jurnalist:

Strawman Festus? Nope. Facts be the facts, as revealed in the vid.
When do you apologize to Pundit?

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 02:30:47 PMI don't see it as an either-or. It's wrong to say that killing a PC is a hate crime. ...It's also wrong to say that PC death is necessary.

I don't know that I would describe PC death as necessary, but I think it has to be present as a reasonably possible outcome to bad player choices for the good choices to provide the psychological payoff sought.

If we're redefining the nature of the activity to specifically and formally exclude the possibility of character loss against the player's will, well, nothing's wrong with that if everyone in a particular group is down for it, but I think it's reasonable to object that that is not the same kind of game as the hobby has classically concentrated on, and that maybe a different game name and audience outreach is appropriate. Even more acutely, it's reasonable to object that preference for the old style over the new is not a morally inferior choice.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 29, 2023, 02:42:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 02:30:47 PMI don't see it as an either-or. It's wrong to say that killing a PC is a hate crime. ...It's also wrong to say that PC death is necessary.

I don't know that I would describe PC death as necessary, but I think it has to be present as a reasonably possible outcome to bad player choices for the good choices to provide the psychological payoff sought.

If we're redefining the nature of the activity to specifically and formally exclude the possibility of character loss against the player's will, well, nothing's wrong with that if everyone in a particular group is down for it, but I think it's reasonable to object that that is not the same kind of game as the hobby has classically concentrated on, and that maybe a different game name and audience outreach is appropriate. Even more acutely, it's reasonable to object that preference for the old style over the new is not a morally inferior choice.

His specific examples of games where death was off the table were effectively the genres of Superhero Comics (and Champions specifically has always favored silver age camp), Looney Tunes and Teen Supernatural Drama.

The idea that death should be on the list of believable outcomes while playing Bugs Bunny or even Elmer Fudd or Wile E. Coyote would actually be genre breaking. I would say the same about a setting intended to ape c. 1961 superhero comics. Even the antagonists don't usually die in those genres (or if they do in Looney Tunes they receive a halo and wings and promptly return for the next short).

Failure? Sure. Death? Absolutely doesn't fit the genres mentioned.

At times I feel like a lot of people (including many of the schlock dork age of comics writers) seem to think that protagonist death is the only potential consequence with any meaning... but it's really not. If anything, trying to write around the CCA demonstrated many ways to achieve peril without death as the only outcome.

One particular module for Arcanis when they had developed their own system that I particularly loved because it set the rather more heroic tone they were going for involved a bandit ambush where if the PCs were defeated, they'd wake up in the ditch with their wounds bound but missing all their weapons, armor, mounts and other valuables... because, it was explained, you can only rob a dead man once.

Similarly, a band of slavers would try their best to take PCs prisoner on the grounds they could be worth big money if sold to a gladiatorial arena.

Or an adventure where the threat was they would fail to save a village full of people in time. Or the one where you're trying to identify an assassin before they can get to the king.

There are all sorts of ways to put the PCs under threat off loss that do not require the stakes to be their own personal deaths.

Can personal death be one of the possible stakes? Sure. Must it always be the only possible stake or the threat is meaningless? Not at all.

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 02:30:47 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 29, 2023, 02:11:53 PM
I'm kind of stuck on both sides of this debate. I always identified quite personally with my characters, I always hated when they died and I always tried to give them backstories, and as a GM I generally tried to give characters every chance to survive (barring deliberate self-sacrifice, outright antisocial behaviour or the stupidest possible decisions), but I also recognize that real excitement generally requires real risk, that the dynamics of a collaborative game are not the same as the dynamics of an authorially-created story, and that (most important here, I think) the loss of a character need not constitute a personal and intolerable attack on the player.

I don't see it as an either-or. It depends on the genre and the campaign expectations.

• It's wrong to say that killing a PC is a hate crime. I've had lots of fun in Call of Cthulhu and other deadly RPGs.
• It's also wrong to say that PC death is necessary. I've had lots of fun in Champions and the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG where PC death is effectively off the table, but the PCs can still fail and have other consequences.

So, IT IS "an either-or".

Meaning you don't expect the same in a game of Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Toon, etc.

From this we can extrapolate that expecting Toon style of lethality while playing Call of Cthulhu is dumb. Now, you could totally play Toon in a "Call of Cthulhu" world, where everything is silly an OMG so random, if that tickles your (the royal you) pickle hey, more power to you.

Jumping from that to demand, cry and stomp your feet that D&D SHOULD play as Champions, Toon, etc, regardless of the table (the DM is at fault, remember?), is not only dumb but stupid and authoritarian, if that's the way that you (the royal you) want to play house rule the shit out of it OR find a game that already plays as you want it.

The key word is should, in every table at all times and if someone doesn't like it that someone is EVIL and should be ostracized from society (that last part hasn't been voiced but if you really think that's not the next step I have a bridge in San Franshitcko for sale).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 29, 2023, 03:42:21 PM
From this we can extrapolate that expecting Toon style of lethality while playing Call of Cthulhu is dumb. Now, you could totally play Toon in a "Call of Cthulhu" world, where everything is silly an OMG so random, if that tickles your (the royal you) pickle hey, more power to you.

Jumping from that to demand, cry and stomp your feet that D&D SHOULD play as Champions, Toon, etc, regardless of the table (the DM is at fault, remember?), is not only dumb but stupid and authoritarian, if that's the way that you (the royal you) want to play house rule the shit out of it OR find a game that already plays as you want it.

Sorry if I miscommunicated. I agree that this is dumb. There's nothing wrong with high lethality games, and I love my Call of Cthulhu.

What I was trying to say that I also don't agree with the opposite extreme who say that playing without PC death is meaningless and unfun for everyone.

Non-death games isn't just Toon level silliness.

I enjoy several superhero comics that oppose the grimdark trend of the 1990s, like Silver Age classics or retro like Astro City. When I played classic Champions, it was common to emulate these. If a villain defeats the PCs, then they'll be captured and used as leverage -- or perhaps they'll be put in a "deathtrap" that they can escape from. Even if a PC goes through an extreme like falling into a volcano, that's a clear setup for them to have a "radiation accident" and come back with lava powers and their memories gone a month later. Technically the Champions rules allow for random death, but we had an agreement that if that was rolled, there would be an option to have a dramatic twist around it so the PC didn't permanently die.

The same goes for my Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG games. By the rules, it costs just 1 Drama Point to have a twist and avoid death, which effectively eliminates random death. The expectation was that characters could go through terrible loss, but they wouldn't be randomly dropped. The PCs all had things they cared about, and those could be lost or destroyed. The games tended to be darker, but it still kept to the genre and Main Cast were never randomly killed.

I think there are two different boundaries when comparing superheroes to something like Toon.  In Toon, you cannot die, without changing the rules.  In many sub genres of superheroes, you are unlikely to die as a genre convention, but this is not true "in world".  Besides, there can still be plenty of death happening to NPCs.  It's hard to kill your Champions character on purpose in most cases, but if you set out to suicide by GM, eventually you'd get there--especially if you were an annoying player in the process.

Fantasy runs a wider gauntlet on that same continuum, but it still comes down to death is some degree of unlikely/likely in the normal course of events, and then it escalates from there based on player behavior.  There's all kinds of sub genre expectations and lines here too.  For example, I run mostly about a half/half mix of heroic fantasy and sword & sorcery.  So you'd expect more deaths, on average, than pure heroic fantasy and less than a lot of the grittier genres.  However, I also mix in a fair amount of operational play and mystery.  There is a premium on recon.  If the players don't gather information, their characters will die like they are unnamed sidekicks in a Conan story--barring a timely run of good luck.  If they do gather information, they've got a fair expectation of going through several adventures without losing anyone--barring a long run of bad luck.  The more cautious players sometimes don't mess with things that look nasty, because they  are cautious.  Others take chances.  The ones that take chances are more likely to die, but also more likely to find something interesting and helpful.

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 04:25:23 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 29, 2023, 03:42:21 PM
From this we can extrapolate that expecting Toon style of lethality while playing Call of Cthulhu is dumb. Now, you could totally play Toon in a "Call of Cthulhu" world, where everything is silly an OMG so random, if that tickles your (the royal you) pickle hey, more power to you.

Jumping from that to demand, cry and stomp your feet that D&D SHOULD play as Champions, Toon, etc, regardless of the table (the DM is at fault, remember?), is not only dumb but stupid and authoritarian, if that's the way that you (the royal you) want to play house rule the shit out of it OR find a game that already plays as you want it.

Sorry if I miscommunicated. I agree that this is dumb. There's nothing wrong with high lethality games, and I love my Call of Cthulhu.

What I was trying to say that I also don't agree with the opposite extreme who say that playing without PC death is meaningless and unfun for everyone.

Non-death games isn't just Toon level silliness.

I enjoy several superhero comics that oppose the grimdark trend of the 1990s, like Silver Age classics or retro like Astro City. When I played classic Champions, it was common to emulate these. If a villain defeats the PCs, then they'll be captured and used as leverage -- or perhaps they'll be put in a "deathtrap" that they can escape from. Even if a PC goes through an extreme like falling into a volcano, that's a clear setup for them to have a "radiation accident" and come back with lava powers and their memories gone a month later. Technically the Champions rules allow for random death, but we had an agreement that if that was rolled, there would be an option to have a dramatic twist around it so the PC didn't permanently die.

The same goes for my Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG games. By the rules, it costs just 1 Drama Point to have a twist and avoid death, which effectively eliminates random death. The expectation was that characters could go through terrible loss, but they wouldn't be randomly dropped. The PCs all had things they cared about, and those could be lost or destroyed. The games tended to be darker, but it still kept to the genre and Main Cast were never randomly killed.

Nowhere do I say it is.

We seem to be speaking past each other, let me see if I can convey my point:

Complaining that a game where PC death is a distinct possibility is stupid, people should either house rule it so it does what they want or better yet find a game that already does what they want and play that.

Superhero games aren't bad because PCs don't die, it comes with the genre (unless you're emulating Watchmen or other dark and gritty (edgy) comic). The same can be said about Pulp, the heroes don't die, they get captured, suffer amnesia, etc.

Death is only ONE fail condition, there are others, but complaining that Champions doesn't have a DCC style funnel where the PCs die or that the PCs won't die ever is just plain stupid.

Like wise, if playing Toon I insert Cthulhu as an antagonist my players would be either demented or stupid to expect the same play style than in CoC.

Returning to 5e, the rules HAVE death as a possible outcome (even if they then go out of their way to remove it by spells, etc), so you need to be either demented, stupid, disingenuous or a combination of all to complain that the PCs can die.

Rounding it all up: It's utterly retarded to expect CoC to play like Champions or D&D to play as CoC, unless the GM established something at the start of the campaign that reasonably makes the players to expect it.