TheRPGSite

There's a reason why 5e gamers feel like their character dying in regular D&D play is somehow an attack on their very selves. It's because they're doing the exact opposite of what you were meant to do with characters in D&D.
#dnd5e
#dnd       #ttrpg   #osr   

Will listen later tonight, but the title alone made me LOL.

Pundit,

Great video. Looks like Meatball likes the Gonzo book! (10:18)

Modern SJW players probably want to cancel any DM / GM, who dares to kill off their fantasy RPG character.  Oh the horror of it all!!!  ::)

If you think about it, killing someone's PC is like killing a part of them! All PCs are just vehicles for wish fulfillment fantasies

One thing you touch upon is the absurd tendency nowadays to write huge backstories for first-level characters. It's very funny when such characters get killed off soon thereafter.

I've always absolutely hated how a lot of RPG players just hate dying. I can name many times I've had a situation where a PC rolls were bad and they got killed by a kobald or a goblin or something like that. And they start blaming me as the GM. I'm not an adversarial GM. I'm not actively trying to kill the players but I am trying to stress challenge and that death can happen. But so many people watch Critical Role and just see RPGs as "a collaborative storytelling exercise" where they are the stars and constantly need "super awesome" moments where they do "super awesome" things. In an RPG what happens is the story evolves from what the players do. But so many of these people want to force their story onto the game and have it go exactly like they want in their heads.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on March 28, 2023, 04:11:22 AM
One thing you touch upon is the absurd tendency nowadays to write huge backstories for first-level characters. It's very funny when such characters get killed off soon thereafter.

I had a player in a recent game who did that. They got annoyed I didn't remember their backstory. I have to deal with 7 other kids. I'm not memorizing their badly made fantasy novel. They can participate like everyone else. And let the story evolve from player actions like everyone else.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 06:21:58 AM
I've always absolutely hated how a lot of RPG players just hate dying. I can name many times I've had a situation where a PC rolls were bad and they got killed by a kobald or a goblin or something like that. And they start blaming me as the GM. I'm not an adversarial GM. I'm not actively trying to kill the players but I am trying to stress challenge and that death can happen. But so many people watch Critical Role and just see RPGs as "a collaborative storytelling exercise" where they are the stars and constantly need "super awesome" moments where they do "super awesome" things. In an RPG what happens is the story evolves from what the players do. But so many of these people want to force their story onto the game and have it go exactly like they want in their heads.

A big problem here is that having your character die in an act of heroic self-sacrifice which saves everyone else IS a "super awesome" moment where they did "super awesome" things. The dipshits just don't understand that.

Quote from: Zelen on March 27, 2023, 07:03:06 PM
If you think about it, killing someone's PC is like killing a part of them! All PCs are just vehicles for wish fulfillment fantasies

Has there ever been a time when it hasn't been that way? I thought the entire point of TTRPGs was to play characters that serve as vehicles for wish fulfillment fantasies.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 28, 2023, 06:28:18 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 06:21:58 AM
I've always absolutely hated how a lot of RPG players just hate dying. I can name many times I've had a situation where a PC rolls were bad and they got killed by a kobald or a goblin or something like that. And they start blaming me as the GM. I'm not an adversarial GM. I'm not actively trying to kill the players but I am trying to stress challenge and that death can happen. But so many people watch Critical Role and just see RPGs as "a collaborative storytelling exercise" where they are the stars and constantly need "super awesome" moments where they do "super awesome" things. In an RPG what happens is the story evolves from what the players do. But so many of these people want to force their story onto the game and have it go exactly like they want in their heads.

A big problem here is that having your character die in an act of heroic self-sacrifice which saves everyone else IS a "super awesome" moment where they did "super awesome" things. The dipshits just don't understand that.

How often does it actually go down like that, though? Usually when a PC dies is cuz of a bad roll, or a lucky roll from the enemy. There's nothing heroic about it, just random roll of the dice. And the next most common way of dying in a TTRPG is a result of poor player decisions. Good, but again, not heroic acts.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 28, 2023, 07:36:15 AM

How often does it actually go down like that, though? Usually when a PC dies is cuz of a bad roll, or a lucky roll from the enemy. There's nothing heroic about it, just random roll of the dice. And the next most common way of dying in a TTRPG is a result of poor player decisions. Good, but again, not heroic acts.

The rareness is part of the appeal, especially when it happens organically instead of because the player decided it was time for the character to die.  I'm not saying that the grind of "killed by goblin #5" or "fell in a pit trap, again!" can't go too far.  It certainly can, especially if neither the GM nor the players are learning from their mistakes.  However, it's a group mistake to go too far the other way, too, as it cheapens all the "achievements", including heroic death.

I've introduced some players to old school play recently.  We've had multiple instances where someone commented that they thought that they had earned what they won.  They used those terms, not me putting words in their mouths.  In other words, their reaction was the opposite of entitled.  Some of them are relatively young, too. :D  One player has a character that has cheated death so often it has become a running gag.  It's mainly been bad luck that has put him in that position, too.  In other words, with all the bad luck he has had, he should have died some time ago, but having just scraped buy feels like an achievement--for the whole party.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 28, 2023, 06:28:18 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 06:21:58 AM
I've always absolutely hated how a lot of RPG players just hate dying. I can name many times I've had a situation where a PC rolls were bad and they got killed by a kobald or a goblin or something like that. And they start blaming me as the GM. I'm not an adversarial GM. I'm not actively trying to kill the players but I am trying to stress challenge and that death can happen. But so many people watch Critical Role and just see RPGs as "a collaborative storytelling exercise" where they are the stars and constantly need "super awesome" moments where they do "super awesome" things. In an RPG what happens is the story evolves from what the players do. But so many of these people want to force their story onto the game and have it go exactly like they want in their heads.

A big problem here is that having your character die in an act of heroic self-sacrifice which saves everyone else IS a "super awesome" moment where they did "super awesome" things. The dipshits just don't understand that.

Exactly.  A couple years ago, we had one of those Gandalf vs. the Balrog moments where the party pyromancer sacrificed himself for the group, even tossing his mi-go pistol (we were playing Hyperborea) to one of the other PCs as he fell.  The players still talk about it, and one PC still packs that pistol.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 28, 2023, 07:36:15 AM

Quote from: Zelen on March 27, 2023, 07:03:06 PM
If you think about it, killing someone's PC is like killing a part of them! All PCs are just vehicles for wish fulfillment fantasies

Has there ever been a time when it hasn't been that way? I thought the entire point of TTRPGs was to play characters that serve as vehicles for wish fulfillment fantasies.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 28, 2023, 06:28:18 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 06:21:58 AM
I've always absolutely hated how a lot of RPG players just hate dying. I can name many times I've had a situation where a PC rolls were bad and they got killed by a kobald or a goblin or something like that. And they start blaming me as the GM. I'm not an adversarial GM. I'm not actively trying to kill the players but I am trying to stress challenge and that death can happen. But so many people watch Critical Role and just see RPGs as "a collaborative storytelling exercise" where they are the stars and constantly need "super awesome" moments where they do "super awesome" things. In an RPG what happens is the story evolves from what the players do. But so many of these people want to force their story onto the game and have it go exactly like they want in their heads.

A big problem here is that having your character die in an act of heroic self-sacrifice which saves everyone else IS a "super awesome" moment where they did "super awesome" things. The dipshits just don't understand that.

How often does it actually go down like that, though? Usually when a PC dies is cuz of a bad roll, or a lucky roll from the enemy. There's nothing heroic about it, just random roll of the dice. And the next most common way of dying in a TTRPG is a result of poor player decisions. Good, but again, not heroic acts.

How often do players talk about getting characters killed by mundane mistakes compared to how often players talk about their character sacrificing themselves for the greater good? That should tell you which is more important to your players.

As long as PC survivability is proportional to the effort needed to create a new character, then death is fine.

AD&D1e had the right level for its lethality; roll 3d6 six times, pick race, pick class, roll starting hp, pick basic gear, done. If your PC dies you can have a replacement ready in 5-10 minutes and just need to wait for the next opportunity to be inserted into group (I remember a LOT of PC prisoners found in dungeons in those days).

Similarly, Champions point-buy meant it took a lot more time to make a PC, but conversely the rules and superhero genre made death relatively rare (but unconsciousness and exhaustion common). If your PC died it might be next session before you could play again, but the odds of needing to were quite low.

By contrast, A Time of War (the Battletech RPG) sent you through a lifepath character building experience wherein your PC earned xp towards specific attributes and skills (and sometimes lost xp to them) and got pools of xp to spend on slightly wider categories at each stage, after which you total the xp earned for each stat and skill... but the system used the same 1-in-36 chance per shot (and Mechs can take a lot of shots per turn) of a headcap instantly killing your PC... at which point you have to start the path over again.

The first time we played it, one of us got headcapped 10 minutes into the campaign and had to spend the rest of the session making a new PC. When the second PC died due to sheer bad luck with the dice and faced the same prospect... well, that was the last time we played A Time of War RPG despite our love for Battletech as a wargame. The character creation time to death ratio was too skewed to be worth it.

I will also lay some of the blame for a mismatch of text to mechanics. The further into D&D you go, and certainly by 3e, the character creation rules were full of descriptions of how you're creating a heroic character and that you should spend time developing their background and personal details that make them unique.

If the system mechanics then turn out to be a meat grinder that chews up characters every session, well, there's a mismatch of expectations and mechanics. Why is a meat grinder system wasting page count telling you to imagine backstories for PCs who stand barely a 50/50 shot at surviving the first session?

It should be saying "who you were before doesn't matter; you're cannon fodder; but maybe some of you will survive long enough to make a name for themselves." That sets the lethality expectations appropriately compared to "you're a hero with a past and motivations" (but then you die like D-list X-Men during an crossover event).

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 28, 2023, 07:36:15 AM

Quote from: Zelen on March 27, 2023, 07:03:06 PM
If you think about it, killing someone's PC is like killing a part of them! All PCs are just vehicles for wish fulfillment fantasies

Has there ever been a time when it hasn't been that way? I thought the entire point of TTRPGs was to play characters that serve as vehicles for wish fulfillment fantasies.

The obvious counter point is all the games that have random character generation. I never wished to be a female cleric disowned from her noble house, but I played one and it was interesting and fun. Wish fulfillment is just one mode of role play.

Everyone wants treasure. Is doling out loot wish fulfillment? I don't think so. Wish fulfillment has a specific meaning. When done badly, it provides rewards without risk or challenge. Or the story arc is forced in a way that satisfies the players but makes less sense than other conclusions.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 28, 2023, 07:36:15 AM

Quote from: Zelen on March 27, 2023, 07:03:06 PM
If you think about it, killing someone's PC is like killing a part of them! All PCs are just vehicles for wish fulfillment fantasies

Has there ever been a time when it hasn't been that way? I thought the entire point of TTRPGs was to play characters that serve as vehicles for wish fulfillment fantasies.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 28, 2023, 06:28:18 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 06:21:58 AM
I've always absolutely hated how a lot of RPG players just hate dying. I can name many times I've had a situation where a PC rolls were bad and they got killed by a kobald or a goblin or something like that. And they start blaming me as the GM. I'm not an adversarial GM. I'm not actively trying to kill the players but I am trying to stress challenge and that death can happen. But so many people watch Critical Role and just see RPGs as "a collaborative storytelling exercise" where they are the stars and constantly need "super awesome" moments where they do "super awesome" things. In an RPG what happens is the story evolves from what the players do. But so many of these people want to force their story onto the game and have it go exactly like they want in their heads.

A big problem here is that having your character die in an act of heroic self-sacrifice which saves everyone else IS a "super awesome" moment where they did "super awesome" things. The dipshits just don't understand that.

How often does it actually go down like that, though? Usually when a PC dies is cuz of a bad roll, or a lucky roll from the enemy. There's nothing heroic about it, just random roll of the dice. And the next most common way of dying in a TTRPG is a result of poor player decisions. Good, but again, not heroic acts.

Sure, there's a certain amount of wish fulfilment. But if it's all without risk, including death of the PC, it's hollow and pointless.

As far as dying from acts of stupidity or pure accidents (poor dice rolling), oh well, suck it up buttercup. Roll up a new one.

Ironically, video games like Darkest Dungeon are closest to the original PnP experience.

Point of order!

DMs DO NOT kill PCs (at least not the good ones), the players kill their own PCs with stupid decisions most of the time. Suicide by DM if you will.

IF the DM did kill your PC chances are one of you is a total douche.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 28, 2023, 02:51:29 PM
Point of order!

DMs DO NOT kill PCs (at least not the good ones), the players kill their own PCs with stupid decisions most of the time. Suicide by DM if you will.

IF the DM did kill your PC chances are one of you is a total douche.

You are correct. But by the logic of these people, as a GM you put a challenge there and didn't make it easy enough to beat. Therefore Matt Mercer says that's bad game design because killing players is bad design. Therefore it's your fault as GM for putting challenges there in the first place you sweaty try hard grognard.  No matter what you say it will always come around to them not having fun because you are a bad gm because you didn't do the specific story they wanted in their heads.

Fucking narcissistic shit. I hate it.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 02:57:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 28, 2023, 02:51:29 PM
Point of order!

DMs DO NOT kill PCs (at least not the good ones), the players kill their own PCs with stupid decisions most of the time. Suicide by DM if you will.

IF the DM did kill your PC chances are one of you is a total douche.

You are correct. But by the logic of these people, as a GM you put a challenge there and didn't make it easy enough to beat. Therefore Matt Mercer says that's bad game design because killing players is bad design. Therefore it's your fault as GM for putting challenges there in the first place you sweaty try hard grognard.  No matter what you say it will always come around to them not having fun because you are a bad gm because you didn't do the specific story they wanted in their heads.

Fucking narcissistic shit. I hate it.

You are correct, but missed my point:

By saying the DM kills PCs we cede the grammatical ground by calling it what THEY call it. From that you have already lost the debate.

DM's DO NOT kill PCs, period.

If a DM kills a PC then either the DM or the player are a douche.

I've played 5E a few times and I tried dying but couldn't pull it off.
It's way too forgiving than 1E.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 28, 2023, 04:02:06 PM

You are correct, but missed my point:

By saying the DM kills PCs we cede the grammatical ground by calling it what THEY call it. From that you have already lost the debate.

DM's DO NOT kill PCs, period.

If a DM kills a PC then either the DM or the player are a douche.

I agree with you.  I think the exception is illuminating, though.  I never kill PCs now. (Nor do I save them when they manage to kill themselves.)  I did outright kill a few when I started, because:  1. I was young, not very wise, and riddled with teen-age emotions.  2. My players were the same way, and some of them had it coming. :D

The kind of people that think killing a PC is a hate crime are functionally adolescent, foolish, and self-wallowing in teen-age emotions.  So I have no doubt that when a group of them gets together and one of them GMs, it goes down exactly in the way they complain about.  The GM probably did kill the character, and the character probably deserved it.

A better fix for the problem would be for the participants to grow up, but that is hard.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 06:21:58 AM
I've always absolutely hated how a lot of RPG players just hate dying. I can name many times I've had a situation where a PC rolls were bad and they got killed by a kobald or a goblin or something like that. And they start blaming me as the GM. I'm not an adversarial GM. I'm not actively trying to kill the players but I am trying to stress challenge and that death can happen. But so many people watch Critical Role and just see RPGs as "a collaborative storytelling exercise" where they are the stars and constantly need "super awesome" moments where they do "super awesome" things.

Hating PC death goes back long long long before Critical Role, though -- especially random death like being killed by kobold #27. I got into Call of Cthulhu at some point and learned to love PC death, but I also knew lots of people in the 1980s who hated PC death and preferred games like Champions or Star Wars D6 where death is extremely rare.

I think the most important thing is to get player buy-in at the start. That's one thing I like about Call of Cthulhu -- the players who sign on are enthusiastic about PC death. With D&D-ish games, players joining may not be clear on what sort of game it is, so I try to communicate more clearly about expectations.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 06:21:58 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on March 28, 2023, 04:11:22 AM
One thing you touch upon is the absurd tendency nowadays to write huge backstories for first-level characters. It's very funny when such characters get killed off soon thereafter.

I had a player in a recent game who did that. They got annoyed I didn't remember their backstory. I have to deal with 7 other kids. I'm not memorizing their badly made fantasy novel. They can participate like everyone else. And let the story evolve from player actions like everyone else.

Again, this depends on expectations. While I've played a few old-school D&Dish games where PCs start out like "generic fighter", most of my games have more detailed setting, and I'll ask players about their character background. Typically, I try to have starting characters that feel like actual people.

I do this even in Call of Cthulhu with its high mortality rate. The horror is less interesting if the PC is just a token, and the player yawns and just pulls out a new character sheet after the last one dies.

I think there's a strong "kids these days" factor at play here. I remember people in the 80s losing their minds when their characters died. But we were all kids, and everything seemed like a bigger deal than it looks now in retrospect. 5e brought a ton of new people to the hobby, specifically *young* people. And the game itself is published by a *toy* company keen to attract younger players.

Any parent knows kids are a lot more narcissistic than folks in their 40s, 50s, 60s. And get upset more easily. 5e players are young. OSR players less so, and there's a selection bias as a lot of folks come to the OSR seeking a grittier more deadly style of play.

Sure the older versions of D&D are deadlier than the later ones and the style of play has changed. But it's also at least partly a generational thing. Give these young 5e players a few years. Eventually a good number will get bored and crave a different gaming experience. And 30 years from now they can complain about "kids these days."

Finally listened and...

If your character cannot die, whatever you do in the game is irrelevant and means nothing. There are various degrees of the likelihood of dying depending on genre, but death must exist or you are wasting your time.

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

I agree with jhkim. IME the traditional typical D&D player does not really distinguish their personality from that of the PC. As Fighting Fantasy put it, "YOU are the Hero!". But that's very different from rejecting the possibility of PC death. Players are 'stepping on up' and playing to win, which needs the possibility of loss.

Since there are plenty of RPGs where PCs almost never die, I think the problem is with a mismatch between 'snowflake' D&D expectations and D&D game rules. 5e D&D can still be pretty brutal, just like every D&D edition. Lost Mine of Phandelver can easily TPK a 4 PC party of novice players at several points - I saw this in play.

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!"

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.

They do remember that D&D has spells to revive dead PCs, right?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 29, 2023, 09:42:21 AM
They do remember that D&D has spells to revive dead PCs, right?

the sheer INCONVIENCE of the downtime between shifts at the barrista is unpossible for New Wave/Critical Role players to tolerate. 

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. :D

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.

Quote from: S'mon on March 29, 2023, 02:57:49 AM
I agree with jhkim. IME the traditional typical D&D player does not really distinguish their personality from that of the PC.

My experience is that there is nearly always some overt aspect of the player in the PC, but also some notable differences.  I rarely see a player "play themselves" and I rarely see one immerse into a completely different personality.  In fact, now that I think about it, I'd say the most common thing in my long-term players is that they develop 2-4 "character personalities" which they repeat from game to game.  It's not quite what I mean, but picture a player doing, for example, "Clint Eastwood as the man with no name" playing the character. 

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

The RPG says this about Plot Twists:

Quote
Once per game session, each character can spend a Drama Point and get a "break." This is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card. ... If you decide that a Plot Twist is not possible, the player gets the Drama Point back.

So it's far from guaranteed that a player could rely on that. Not that there's anything wrong with your group playing it differently, but it doesn't appear to be the default approach.

Quote from: blackstone on March 29, 2023, 02:33:24 PM

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.

That douchebag's YT traffic is in the dozens. Pundit even mentioning him by name gives this guy and his channel more visibility than anything he could do on his own. Honestly it's kind of embarrassing that Pundit paid him any mind at all. But the nutter certainly served as a convenient straw man for a rant about players these days. Kinda feels like picking on a kid who rides the short bus to school though.

Quote from: Krazz on March 29, 2023, 05:13:38 PM

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

The RPG says this about Plot Twists:

QuoteOnce per game session, each character can spend a Drama Point and get a "break." This is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card. ... If you decide that a Plot Twist is not possible, the player gets the Drama Point back.

So it's far from guaranteed that a player could rely on that. Not that there's anything wrong with your group playing it differently, but it doesn't appear to be the default approach.

Why would you quote the "Plot Twist" section, when on the very same page there is a separate use of Drama Points that is explicitly for "Back from the Dead"? From that same chapter on page 128,

QuoteBack from the Dead
...
A character who dies may, by spending Drama Points, make a triumphant return. No return from the grave is ever without complications, however, and not even Drama Points can erase the problems that result from cheating the Grim Reaper.

I agree that "Plot Twist" isn't necessarily sufficient to prevent PC death, but "Back from the Dead" is. It even explicitly says that even if the player doesn't have enough Drama Points, that they can go into debt and pay the Drama Points back later.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 29, 2023, 04:53:01 PM
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.

Yes, we are talking past each other. I agree with everything you say here.

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ksgpStk8kRY/We6JhqN_mwI/AAAAAAAANBY/nYWFsH_L9E8wxSdQXsCisJIrjj7ipI2TACKgBGAs/s1600/dark-dungeon2.gif)

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 07:54:26 PM

Quote from: Krazz on March 29, 2023, 05:13:38 PM

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

The RPG says this about Plot Twists:

QuoteOnce per game session, each character can spend a Drama Point and get a "break." This is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card. ... If you decide that a Plot Twist is not possible, the player gets the Drama Point back.

So it's far from guaranteed that a player could rely on that. Not that there's anything wrong with your group playing it differently, but it doesn't appear to be the default approach.

Why would you quote the "Plot Twist" section, when on the very same page there is a separate use of Drama Points that is explicitly for "Back from the Dead"? From that same chapter on page 128,

QuoteBack from the Dead
...
A character who dies may, by spending Drama Points, make a triumphant return. No return from the grave is ever without complications, however, and not even Drama Points can erase the problems that result from cheating the Grim Reaper.

I agree that "Plot Twist" isn't necessarily sufficient to prevent PC death, but "Back from the Dead" is. It even explicitly says that even if the player doesn't have enough Drama Points, that they can go into debt and pay the Drama Points back later.

Thanks, I hate that game/mechanic.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 30, 2023, 02:27:14 AM
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ksgpStk8kRY/We6JhqN_mwI/AAAAAAAANBY/nYWFsH_L9E8wxSdQXsCisJIrjj7ipI2TACKgBGAs/s1600/dark-dungeon2.gif)

I'm gonna name my next thief Black Leaf in honor of Marcie. RIP babe.

Quote from: rytrasmi on March 30, 2023, 09:38:28 AM
I'm gonna name my next thief Black Leaf in honor of Marcie. RIP babe.

There was an RPG group at DragonCon one year passing out pins that said 'I Killed Black Leaf'.

Honestly, the argument is a little silly. High lethality games should avoid complex and heavily involved character generation unless you have the opportunity to generate multiple characters and swap them in (Paranoia or Twilight 2000).

The more time you ask a player to spend cranking out their PC, the more they're going to get attached to it. Don't be surprised if they don't feel inclined to just let that PC slip off to the great beyond.

That being said, declaring it a hate crime is ludicrous and should be responded to by hitting those saying it with a wiffle bat.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 30, 2023, 10:17:04 AM
That being said, declaring it a hate crime is ludicrous and should be responded to by hitting those saying it with a wiffle bat.

Or invite them to a game.  Then a day or so later, send them a note that the character they were going to play in your game, died--before they could create it.  Oh well, when we have another character for you, we'll let you  know. :D

Quote from: Jam The MF on March 27, 2023, 06:00:47 PM
Modern SJW players probably want to cancel any DM / GM, who dares to kill off their fantasy RPG character.  Oh the horror of it all!!!  ::)

Too many players, too few DMs/GMs.  Players cancel us, but they can be cancelled as a player.  I knew a player who was so bad I kicked them out and they were kicked out other groups as well to a point where they couldnt find a game anymore.

Meanwhile if a player needs to leave my group I always can find a replacement quick.

I have had a few problem players but they are gone so fast their heads are left spinning.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 06:21:58 AM
But so many people watch Critical Role and just see RPGs as "a collaborative storytelling exercise" where they are the stars and constantly need "super awesome" moments where they do "super awesome" things. In an RPG what happens is the story evolves from what the players do. But so many of these people want to force their story onto the game and have it go exactly like they want in their heads.

That's the crux of the problem.  Critical Role are not actually gamers (they may off the show) they are just actors acting out a scripted game.  What they do is nothing what real gaming is like.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 30, 2023, 02:27:14 AM
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ksgpStk8kRY/We6JhqN_mwI/AAAAAAAANBY/nYWFsH_L9E8wxSdQXsCisJIrjj7ipI2TACKgBGAs/s1600/dark-dungeon2.gif)

Oh no, please dont leave!   ::)

Those people get kicked out of my game and I move on without thinking about them again.

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 07:54:26 PM

Quote from: Krazz on March 29, 2023, 05:13:38 PM

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

...

Why would you quote the "Plot Twist" section, when on the very same page there is a separate use of Drama Points that is explicitly for "Back from the Dead"?

Because you mentioned using a twist to avoid dying, not a different named mechanic that doesn't avoid death.

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 07:54:26 PM

Quote
A character who dies may, by spending Drama Points, make a triumphant return. No return from the grave is ever without complications, however, and not even Drama Points can erase the problems that result from cheating the Grim Reaper.

I agree that "Plot Twist" isn't necessarily sufficient to prevent PC death, but "Back from the Dead" is. It even explicitly says that even if the player doesn't have enough Drama Points, that they can go into debt and pay the Drama Points back later.

Sure, but if they spend lots of points and go into debt, then they're far more likely to die again. And if they spend just 1 point as you suggested, the rulebook says:

Quote
Coming back next Season costs one Drama Point (that means the player is going to need a new Cast Member until then).

So I can't imagine that players who get upset at dying will be much happier with their PC sitting out the whole season and having them fall behind in experience.

This is *bizarre* to me.

No death in TTRPG's means there are no stakes that matter. The whole point of playing a RPG is to play another person - *even* if you model it after yourself.

Ideally you're going to make changes for the purposes of exploring the boots of another perspective somewhat adjacent to your own. Or if you got the chops, you go full out. But without Death as a possibility - I'm not sure how this even happens, when you lose in boardgames, it's the same effect, you're OUT of the game. When Pac-Man gets caught by ghosts, is this some kind of hate-crime against round people that like to eat shit?

And yes, even in Supers people die - it's happened in the comics through all ages, and the only reason the trope of coming back is a thing is because comics are serialized adventures. Yes, it should be rare(er) in TTRPG's for PC's, but in my games it happens on occasion and we do make a big deal about it. But it is ALWAYS on the menu.

Quote from: tenbones on March 30, 2023, 06:05:02 PM
This is *bizarre* to me.

No death in TTRPG's means there are no stakes that matter. The whole point of playing a RPG is to play another person - *even* if you model it after yourself.

Ideally you're going to make changes for the purposes of exploring the boots of another perspective somewhat adjacent to your own. Or if you got the chops, you go full out. But without Death as a possibility - I'm not sure how this even happens, when you lose in boardgames, it's the same effect, you're OUT of the game. When Pac-Man gets caught by ghosts, is this some kind of hate-crime against round people that like to eat shit?

And yes, even in Supers people die - it's happened in the comics through all ages, and the only reason the trope of coming back is a thing is because comics are serialized adventures. Yes, it should be rare(er) in TTRPG's for PC's, but in my games it happens on occasion and we do make a big deal about it. But it is ALWAYS on the menu.

Yep, I have had characters die.  It sucks but you except it, move on and create another character.  I wont tolerate players that whine about dying.  If you can't deal with it, go play in someone else's game.

Luckily for me I have had young and older characters and all of them knew that death was a possible. 

Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 30, 2023, 10:17:04 AM
That being said, declaring it a hate crime is ludicrous and should be responded to by hitting those saying it with a wiffle bat.

Yep. There's an intelligent discussion to be had about lethality in RPGs, but calling character death a hate crime ain't it.

I can't be a whatever-crime if its not a crime in the first place. Perhaps the whiners mean that its a though-crime to impinge upon their delusions by imposing constraints, but "hate-crime" is worth more buzz points.

Between my characters that died and stayed dead, and the ones that came back, I much preferred the ones that stayed dead. One came back from the mythological underworld by divine intervention, and one was revived after taking a heart stop attack in a supers game. Kludgy because AED do not work that way, but the super power was ambiguous too.

GM: "X damage from chain lightening"
Me: "I'm dead"
GM: "Well... Maybe..."
Me: "No, its fine."

Quote from: GhostNinja on March 30, 2023, 06:30:24 PM

Yep, I have had characters die.  It sucks but you except it, move on and create another character.  I wont tolerate players that whine about dying.  If you can't deal with it, go play in someone else's game.

Luckily for me I have had young and older characters and all of them knew that death was a possible.

I dunno if I'm "fortunate" in that I've never had anyone whine at me for dying at my table in decades. And I recognize this is a relatively new thing... but if it ever happens, I feel sorry for that player and the reaction he'll get from me and my table.

And it could result in getting the boot if they don't nut-the-fuck up. But the reality is I'm pretty good of explaining how things operate in my campaigns, so overly sensitive types that aren't willing to try some "deeper" play, usually are weeded out quick.

I see a whole lot of "wow, that's a crazy attitude" combined with "luckily I haven't had to deal with that."

Maybe it's not really that big of a problem.

Quote from: Festus on March 30, 2023, 09:11:35 PM
I see a whole lot of "wow, that's a crazy attitude" combined with "luckily I haven't had to deal with that."

Maybe it's not really that big of a problem.

"It'll stay in the universities guys!"

Yeah, no, that's not how these lunatics operate. If you play at conventions, LFGS or online you'll soon see this shit start creeping in. Just like with the "safety tools", we also had one or two people claiming it wasn't "that big of a problem".

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 30, 2023, 10:25:28 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 30, 2023, 09:11:35 PM
I see a whole lot of "wow, that's a crazy attitude" combined with "luckily I haven't had to deal with that."

Maybe it's not really that big of a problem.

"It'll stay in the universities guys!"

Yeah, no, that's not how these lunatics operate. If you play at conventions, LFGS or online you'll soon see this shit start creeping in. Just like with the "safety tools", we also had one or two people claiming it wasn't "that big of a problem".

So what are you going to do about it? Get Congress to pass a law mandating 20% more character death? Form a hit squad to hunt down soft DMs? Or just stoke each other's outrage in a circle jerk echo chamber?

I tried 5e for awhile and ditched it because I wanted a game with more risk. No one is going to tell me how I should play.

But here's the thing: if no one gets to tell me how to play, then I don't get to tell someone else how they should play. That's how freedom works.

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 12:55:36 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 30, 2023, 10:25:28 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 30, 2023, 09:11:35 PM
I see a whole lot of "wow, that's a crazy attitude" combined with "luckily I haven't had to deal with that."

Maybe it's not really that big of a problem.

"It'll stay in the universities guys!"

Yeah, no, that's not how these lunatics operate. If you play at conventions, LFGS or online you'll soon see this shit start creeping in. Just like with the "safety tools", we also had one or two people claiming it wasn't "that big of a problem".

So what are you going to do about it? Get Congress to pass a law mandating 20% more character death? Form a hit squad to hunt down soft DMs? Or just stoke each other's outrage in a circle jerk echo chamber?

I tried 5e for awhile and ditched it because I wanted a game with more risk. No one is going to tell me how I should play.

But here's the thing: if no one gets to tell me how to play, then I don't get to tell someone else how they should play. That's how freedom works.

That's a great strawman you built there, are you sure you can defeat it alone or need help from a thousand more enlightened centrists?

Quote from: tenbones on March 30, 2023, 08:54:22 PM
I dunno if I'm "fortunate" in that I've never had anyone whine at me for dying at my table in decades. And I recognize this is a relatively new thing... but if it ever happens, I feel sorry for that player and the reaction he'll get from me and my table.

And it could result in getting the boot if they don't nut-the-fuck up. But the reality is I'm pretty good of explaining how things operate in my campaigns, so overly sensitive types that aren't willing to try some "deeper" play, usually are weeded out quick.

I agree.  I usually will give them a warning and not just outright kick them from the game because that can be a bit harsh.  But if they don't (as you eloquently stated) Nut-the-fuck-up then they are going to be gone from the game.

The game is supposed to be fun for both the players and the GM/DM and I will be damned if I am going to let anyone who will ruin anyone's good time stay at the table.

Quote from: Festus on March 30, 2023, 09:11:35 PM
I see a whole lot of "wow, that's a crazy attitude" combined with "luckily I haven't had to deal with that."

Maybe it's not really that big of a problem.

No one is saying it's a huge problem, people are saying it does happen.  There are snowflake players out there who have the attitude "it's my way or the highway" and they quickly find out that if the behave badly it's the highway.

One of the PCs in the game I'm running flubbed two saves and got turned to stone.

You could see the players' thoughts when I straight up said, 'Sorry, your friend is now a lawn ornament'. Suddenly the stakes had gotten a bit more serious (and mind you, we're all canny bastards; they had been damned careful but their luck went dry at a crucial point).

Now, fortunately, this group refuses to throw away anything that could be useful, and I'd dropped a few cursebreaker rods into the loot early on. They remembered those, and used it to dispel the petrification. But it was definitely a 'oh shit' moment.

Kids these days...

There are games that are lethal.  I've died many times pushing my luck on a 6th tour in the hopes of mustering out with a Imperial Scout Ship benefit (Traveller). DCC and MCC funnels are a blast.  Alien and Call of Cthulhu are usually a game of attrition to see which PC last the longest (or pulls a Ripley and escapes alone).  Paranoia isn't fun unless you mulch yourself at least twice in the service of Friend Computer (who is all knowing and I love very much).

Dying can be wildly entertaining.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2023, 01:08:58 AM

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 12:55:36 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 30, 2023, 10:25:28 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 30, 2023, 09:11:35 PM
I see a whole lot of "wow, that's a crazy attitude" combined with "luckily I haven't had to deal with that."

Maybe it's not really that big of a problem.

"It'll stay in the universities guys!"

Yeah, no, that's not how these lunatics operate. If you play at conventions, LFGS or online you'll soon see this shit start creeping in. Just like with the "safety tools", we also had one or two people claiming it wasn't "that big of a problem".

So what are you going to do about it? Get Congress to pass a law mandating 20% more character death? Form a hit squad to hunt down soft DMs? Or just stoke each other's outrage in a circle jerk echo chamber?

I tried 5e for awhile and ditched it because I wanted a game with more risk. No one is going to tell me how I should play.

But here's the thing: if no one gets to tell me how to play, then I don't get to tell someone else how they should play. That's how freedom works.

That's a great strawman you built there, are you sure you can defeat it alone or need help from a thousand more enlightened centrists?

Ok, so now what? You drew a comparison to "this shit ... creeping in" and safety tools where people said it wasn't a problem. To me that implies some kind of forewarned is forearmed attitude, a "we must learn from the past" warning. But nobody here seems to need the warning. Consensus seems to be no one has time for this hand-wringing over character death BS.

If there's no call to action, nothing to be done, then what's the point?

I had a CoC character die, and then the GM (who enjoyed the character's antics) started to walk it back, but since the death was glorious and meaningful, I insisted he stay dead.

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 10:50:59 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2023, 01:08:58 AM

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 12:55:36 AM


So what are you going to do about it? Get Congress to pass a law mandating 20% more character death? Form a hit squad to hunt down soft DMs? Or just stoke each other's outrage in a circle jerk echo chamber?

I tried 5e for awhile and ditched it because I wanted a game with more risk. No one is going to tell me how I should play.

But here's the thing: if no one gets to tell me how to play, then I don't get to tell someone else how they should play. That's how freedom works.

That's a great strawman you built there, are you sure you can defeat it alone or need help from a thousand more enlightened centrists?

Ok, so now what? You drew a comparison to "this shit ... creeping in" and safety tools where people said it wasn't a problem. To me that implies some kind of forewarned is forearmed attitude, a "we must learn from the past" warning. But nobody here seems to need the warning. Consensus seems to be no one has time for this hand-wringing over character death BS.

If there's no call to action, nothing to be done, then what's the point?

LOL, somehow "Emperor" Festus thinks he can dictate what we do or talk about depending if he thinks it`s a productive use of our time.

Dude, this is the internet.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2023, 11:53:55 AM

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 10:50:59 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2023, 01:08:58 AM

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 12:55:36 AM


So what are you going to do about it? Get Congress to pass a law mandating 20% more character death? Form a hit squad to hunt down soft DMs? Or just stoke each other's outrage in a circle jerk echo chamber?

I tried 5e for awhile and ditched it because I wanted a game with more risk. No one is going to tell me how I should play.

But here's the thing: if no one gets to tell me how to play, then I don't get to tell someone else how they should play. That's how freedom works.

That's a great strawman you built there, are you sure you can defeat it alone or need help from a thousand more enlightened centrists?

Ok, so now what? You drew a comparison to "this shit ... creeping in" and safety tools where people said it wasn't a problem. To me that implies some kind of forewarned is forearmed attitude, a "we must learn from the past" warning. But nobody here seems to need the warning. Consensus seems to be no one has time for this hand-wringing over character death BS.

If there's no call to action, nothing to be done, then what's the point?

LOL, somehow "Emperor" Festus thinks he can dictate what we do or talk about depending if he thinks it`s a productive use of our time.

Dude, this is the internet.

LOL So there is no point. Hey, that's fair enough! I'll see myself out.

Cheers!

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 12:00:17 PMLOL So there is no point. Hey, that's fair enough! I'll see myself out.

Cheers!

(http://thebitchywaiter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/et-bye-felicia.gif)

I find some of the arguments weird because my experience is that I've had fun playing lots of Call of Cthulhu and some other high lethality games, but I also have had fun playing Champions and Buffy and other low-lethality or no-lethality games.

Quote from: tenbones on March 30, 2023, 06:05:02 PM
No death in TTRPG's means there are no stakes that matter. The whole point of playing a RPG is to play another person - *even* if you model it after yourself.

Ideally you're going to make changes for the purposes of exploring the boots of another perspective somewhat adjacent to your own. Or if you got the chops, you go full out. But without Death as a possibility - I'm not sure how this even happens, when you lose in boardgames, it's the same effect, you're OUT of the game.

Having played several games where death isn't on the table, I'm happy to answer questions about them. I'm not sure exactly what to say, though. In my experience, almost everything works exactly the same. The PCs have goals and try to achieve them. Sometimes they win, sometimes they fail.

In the rare case when a PC would die, instead of stepping out to create a new character, the player steps aside and helps figure out what an appropriate explanation would be for why they don't die - and what the consequences should be. Sometimes the player will stay in the action by taking over an NPC while their PC is out. (That's a practice I've often done in many situations aside from character death - like when a PC is hospitalized or has some obligation.)

I'm confused by the board game comment, because in every RPG that I've played, killing a PC doesn't mean that the player is out of the campaign. They just create a new PC and rejoin. This can have its own issues in terms of game play. I've noticed in Call of Cthulhu that new PCs can become cannon fodder. The whole group is protective of the few experienced PCs who have somehow kept their sanity, but new PCs are cheap and expendable - so there's a tendency to use new PCs to scout and test what is dangerous. This makes sense for a tactical commander of the group, but it makes the horror less effective. In general, I find the threat of death doesn't make for effective horror in RPGs.

Quote from: Krazz on March 30, 2023, 05:28:05 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 29, 2023, 07:54:26 PM
I agree that "Plot Twist" isn't necessarily sufficient to prevent PC death, but "Back from the Dead" is. It even explicitly says that even if the player doesn't have enough Drama Points, that they can go into debt and pay the Drama Points back later.

I can't imagine that players who get upset at dying will be much happier with their PC sitting out the whole season and having them fall behind in experience.

In my experience, players have a much easier time having their PC be off-screen for a few sessions than to having their PC permanently dead.

Quote from: JackFS4 on March 31, 2023, 10:12:38 AM
Kids these days...

There are games that are lethal.  I've died many times pushing my luck on a 6th tour in the hopes of mustering out with a Imperial Scout Ship benefit (Traveller). DCC and MCC funnels are a blast.  Alien and Call of Cthulhu are usually a game of attrition to see which PC last the longest (or pulls a Ripley and escapes alone).  Paranoia isn't fun unless you mulch yourself at least twice in the service of Friend Computer (who is all knowing and I love very much).

Dying can be wildly entertaining.

Yep I agree.

I think a character dying in the lie of duty, dying as a hero while sad is also really cool. 

Yeah my character died, but he died a hero.  That's awesome to me and makes me remember them more fondly.

Death is short hand for "Loss condition that bites."  It need not be death but it does need bite.  As opposed to loss conditions that don't do anything much or even pretend loss conditions where the player has the character get all upset, but nothing substantial occurred.  It's common for loss conditions to be worse than death, at least to some players. 

I haven't personally seen many people freak out about real loss (death or otherwise), but I have seen it a few times (usually in a public place, in a table next to mine), and heard players complain about it happening in another game.  Heck, I've heard players freaking about it when it didn't even happen in their game, but they were afraid that it would.  Since my games would not be attractive to such players, I don't even get to the point of booting them over such antics. 

Calling out death is just a proxy for what they really mean, which is they don't want to ever feel the bite of the consequences of their own actions.  If they said it that way, they'd come across even more entitled and stupid, which is why most of them sense that it is a bad tack.

I even get it on one level:  Yeah, sometimes it's fun to turn the game onto easy mode, break out the cheat codes, and do some mindless zombie killing.  I prefer that kind of thing occasionally in video games where I don't have to bother other people with the mindless play, but if several mindless people get together, they aren't hurting anything by doing it in a group.  What pushes it over the edge is the angst and the drama all out of proportion to what is happening. 

There's also the dynamic where most players I've seen in games without serious loss conditions get lazy.  You need the threat of loss to really engage in play. Or at least many players do.  It's a lagging indicator.  One near death is sometimes enough to get the players to pay attention again.  You might even get several months of good play out of it.  Eventually, if there is no perceived chance of real loss, the laziness sets in again, as a slow rot.

Sometimes I think that the hobby would be better served if introductions for most beginners were real meat-grinders with disposable pre-gens.  Let every new player lose a few characters quick, then spend some time in game where it takes you an hour to make your character and death isn't likely.  The tree of roleplaying must be occasionally watered with the blood of red shirts--or something like that.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 31, 2023, 04:16:05 PM
Death is short hand for "Loss condition that bites."  It need not be death but it does need bite.  As opposed to loss conditions that don't do anything much or even pretend loss conditions where the player has the character get all upset, but nothing substantial occurred.  It's common for loss conditions to be worse than death, at least to some players.

Agree. While death makes sense in many circumstances, a lot of people seem to have the expectation that doing anything at all foolhardy is supposed to earn you a character death in D&D. If you're trying to play heroic fantasy and the heroes try to do heroic stuff, but fail due to bad rolls or some other thing -- And the only tool you're using as a DM is, "You die" then you're probably not really going to get much of the style of game you wanted.

Quote from: Zelen on March 31, 2023, 10:47:53 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 31, 2023, 04:16:05 PM
Death is short hand for "Loss condition that bites."  It need not be death but it does need bite.  As opposed to loss conditions that don't do anything much or even pretend loss conditions where the player has the character get all upset, but nothing substantial occurred.  It's common for loss conditions to be worse than death, at least to some players.

Agree. While death makes sense in many circumstances, a lot of people seem to have the expectation that doing anything at all foolhardy is supposed to earn you a character death in D&D. If you're trying to play heroic fantasy and the heroes try to do heroic stuff, but fail due to bad rolls or some other thing -- And the only tool you're using as a DM is, "You die" then you're probably not really going to get much of the style of game you wanted.

I mentioned it previously, but Arcanis actually had some pretty good alternatives on the "consequences that bite"... beaten unconscious and robbed of all weapons, armor and valuables... sold into slavery (again losing all goods, but also needing to escape)... being magically branded on the forehead for heresy (in a VERY religious setting)... losing all sorts of favors owed because you failed to rescue someone in time... etc.

Death was on the table too, it just wasn't the ONLY option on the table.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 31, 2023, 04:16:05 PM
Calling out death is just a proxy for what they really mean, which is they don't want to ever feel the bite of the consequences of their own actions.  If they said it that way, they'd come across even more entitled and stupid, which is why most of them sense that it is a bad tack.

I even get it on one level:  Yeah, sometimes it's fun to turn the game onto easy mode, break out the cheat codes, and do some mindless zombie killing.  I prefer that kind of thing occasionally in video games where I don't have to bother other people with the mindless play, but if several mindless people get together, they aren't hurting anything by doing it in a group.  What pushes it over the edge is the angst and the drama all out of proportion to what is happening. 

There's also the dynamic where most players I've seen in games without serious loss conditions get lazy.  You need the threat of loss to really engage in play.

First of all, I don't think it's bad to be lazy. As I see it, there's nothing wrong with easy play where you kick back, enjoy some beers, good company, and a fun adventure. It's just like going out with your friends and hitting a ball around, instead of playing for stakes.

I'm not sure this is even correlated to character death. I've had one-shot Call of Cthulhu and D&D games where we played this way including character death. We just joked and messed around, and when a character died, we just shrugged and rolled up a new one. The supposed serious consequences of character death is illusory.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 31, 2023, 04:16:05 PM
Sometimes I think that the hobby would be better served if introductions for most beginners were real meat-grinders with disposable pre-gens.  Let every new player lose a few characters quick, then spend some time in game where it takes you an hour to make your character and death isn't likely.  The tree of roleplaying must be occasionally watered with the blood of red shirts--or something like that.

Yeah. Ideally, beginners should try a variety of different games - like a meat-grinder on the one hand, and a no-death game on the other. Then they can see what they like.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2023, 12:55:50 AM
Death was on the table too, it just wasn't the ONLY option on the table.

  One of the ironies is that through removing things like level loss, permanent destruction of magic items, etc., WotC has pushed the game towards 'death as the only consequence.'

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2023, 01:26:46 AM
I'm not sure this is even correlated to character death. I've had one-shot Call of Cthulhu and D&D games where we played this way including character death. We just joked and messed around, and when a character died, we just shrugged and rolled up a new one. The supposed serious consequences of character death is illusory.

For some players, yes. For other players, definitely not.  It's running about 50/50 in my experience, but I'll grant that's a skewed, if sizable sample.  Nor is this correlation limited to character death or other serious consequences.  Some players respond much more strongly to in-game carrots and sticks than others.  There are player who, if you tell them their characters are epic heroes, will act like in game, despite all mechanical or campaign event evidence to the contrary.  In other words, they are fully bought in on the premise of the game even when it actively works against them.  There are player who, no matter what you tell them about the premise, will always take the "physics" and events into account, even to the point of going against the premise if that's where it takes them.  And of course, lots of players fall somewhere in the middle of that, but few of those are directly in the middle.

Also, "consequences that bite" are consequences that are serious consequences to the player who feels them, and to a lesser extent, the other players at the table.  Death is usually a serious consequence.  So it's a good stand in.  But that's part of my point, it's not death per se that mitigates the lazy player syndrome when it is possible, but the bite.  If you premise the game such that no one cares if their characters live or die, then death by definition isn't serious for that game.  That doesn't change the fact that it is in other contexts.

I sometimes run Cartoon Action Hour, which emulates Saturday morning cartoon shows from the 80's. As a result, death, long term injury, and dire consequences are almost completely non-existent.

When running it for some new players, one of them had basically an existential crisis at the concept of a game with no death. I had to spend a lllootttt of time helping him get his brain aligned to it. But now he loves it, and goes with the flow, because the sessions have shown him the liberating freedom of just having fun.

CaH is a palate cleanser for me, because I often run things like Dark Heresy and Call Of Cthulhu, which are very dark and dangerous. IMO players benefit from having different 'gears' they can switch to for games, much like a car uses different gears on flat land or a hill.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on April 01, 2023, 09:43:01 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2023, 12:55:50 AM
Death was on the table too, it just wasn't the ONLY option on the table.

  One of the ironies is that through removing things like level loss, permanent destruction of magic items, etc., WotC has pushed the game towards 'death as the only consequence.'

Well you see, the exact same audience that complains about character death use the exact same "arguments" against those other things too.

They want their participation trophy damnit!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 29, 2023, 12:22:48 PM

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!

Oh those sorts are all over 5e when it suits them.
Want to wade through a pool of lava? Sure! 5e allows that!
Fall from orbit? Sure! 5e allows it!

Fly into a wall and take no damage? Sure! 5e doesnt say theres any crash into stuff damage!
Swim miles under the ocean unprotected and take no harm? Sure! 5e doesnt say theres any depth pressure!

Always when it suits them

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on April 01, 2023, 09:43:01 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 01, 2023, 12:55:50 AM
Death was on the table too, it just wasn't the ONLY option on the table.

  One of the ironies is that through removing things like level loss, permanent destruction of magic items, etc., WotC has pushed the game towards 'death as the only consequence.'

Well, I do consider level loss a poor mechanic for more mechanically complex systems where the effects of losing a level requires more than just subtracting some hit points and consulting a different line on the attack matrix. I think 3e did fairly well with its negative levels that imposed penalties and deferred the level loss until essentially the end of a session (at least if you were doing a dungeon crawl).

The other thing is, back in the day with ongoing campaigns as originally intended to be played (including replacement characters starting back at level 1), being set back a few levels wasn't quite as onerous as it would be in the modern "adventure path" environment where sidequests to regain levels and "catch up" aren't a presumed part of the campaign.

Point being, in old school play, level loss (provided you didn't die from it) wasn't quite as onerous or permanent (in the sense of forever being behind the rest of the party) as it became in 3e, which I suspect is why it was removed from subsequent editions and replaced with "suffer X penalties for Y period of time" as that was the practical effect of the loss in old school campaign play... just expressed differently.

Similarly, high level 3e often turned into rocket tag of which side could get off a Mordenkeinen's disjunction first... I think the players would have preferred death (it would have been quick and anything short of a TPK could be handled through resurrection spells) to the time they lost over three million gp worth of magic items to a single disjunction spell.

Similarly, I know many a player more than willing to rush in against orcs and ogres who utterly balked at the prospect of facing a Rust Monster.

I have "Afflictions" in my system that serve a similar purpose to level loss (subcategories of curses, diseases and injuries) in terms of lasting hindrances that can be afflicted upon the party by various means and don't go away just by sleeping for a night (indeed injury and disease afflictions can often get worse if untreated).

Another thing that I find useful in terms of stakes is to encourage the party to make use of hirelings and henchmen. Then I make sure to roleplay them so they aren't just random mooks. When you're a month out from civilization and relying on the capabilities of your support personnel for various tasks gets killed, it can up the stakes (one group lost both their hireling hunters and now needed to devote personal time and effort to hunt for game themselves or the expedition would potentially starve).

That was another thing later editions lost. The PCs became islands with no outside attachments rather than the anchors of a larger group where losing a henchman or part of your mercenary force represented a significant loss of time and resources and capabilities.

So, yes, I tend to agree; the more modern "PCs are an island on an adventure path" style does tend to remove many of the potential "consequences with bite" save death... and even that often gets muted because those adventure paths often lack good on-ramps for replacement PCs (who need to pretty much be the same level as the PC being replaced so much of the sting is gone).

It's basically a limitation of the direction chosen for official D&D material, so much so that if a new edition simply leaned into the "your PC is your avatar in this world" and introduced something like "respawn points" into the setting where PC avatars just appeared (minus any progress since they last visited a respawn point) at when their HP dropped to 0, I would actually find such a system refreshing in its honesty.

Level loss is the Devil. Better to sit your players in a chair with a hole cut out, and bash their genitals, like in Casino Royale.

"AAIIIIEEEE! OOOOOWWWWW! Thanks again for not doing Level Loss, AAAGGHHHH!"

Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2023, 06:00:36 PM
Pundit,

Great video. Looks like Meatball likes the Gonzo book! (10:18)

She was endorsing it!

Quote from: Rhymer88 on March 28, 2023, 04:11:22 AM
One thing you touch upon is the absurd tendency nowadays to write huge backstories for first-level characters. It's very funny when such characters get killed off soon thereafter.

Ironically, what made "huge backstories" a thing was largely that people were no longer playing long-term campaigns.  When players know their character has no future, they want to give him a more impressive (and usually ridiculous) past.

Spread the word, share the video!

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 28, 2023, 06:28:18 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 28, 2023, 06:21:58 AM
I've always absolutely hated how a lot of RPG players just hate dying. I can name many times I've had a situation where a PC rolls were bad and they got killed by a kobald or a goblin or something like that. And they start blaming me as the GM. I'm not an adversarial GM. I'm not actively trying to kill the players but I am trying to stress challenge and that death can happen. But so many people watch Critical Role and just see RPGs as "a collaborative storytelling exercise" where they are the stars and constantly need "super awesome" moments where they do "super awesome" things. In an RPG what happens is the story evolves from what the players do. But so many of these people want to force their story onto the game and have it go exactly like they want in their heads.

A big problem here is that having your character die in an act of heroic self-sacrifice which saves everyone else IS a "super awesome" moment where they did "super awesome" things. The dipshits just don't understand that.

In my Star Adventurer (Star Wars) campaign, we recently had an amusing situation where an Imperial Inquisitor found the group and the two force-user characters were each tripping over themselves with trying to be the one who heroically sacrificed themselves to let the other escape.

Quote from: Festus on March 28, 2023, 06:52:30 PM
I think there's a strong "kids these days" factor at play here. I remember people in the 80s losing their minds when their characters died. But we were all kids, and everything seemed like a bigger deal than it looks now in retrospect. 5e brought a ton of new people to the hobby, specifically *young* people. And the game itself is published by a *toy* company keen to attract younger players.

The majority of D&D 5e players are Millennials.
It's one thing to be a 15 year old who absolutely freaks out when their character dies. It's another entirely when it's a 37 year old who's so emotionally stunted as to want to declare that DMs everywhere (not just in their own games, in all games) should not be allowed to kill any PC without "player consent" or else they're a Nazi Trump Supporter.

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

Therefore I don't need to.

Quote from: Festus on March 29, 2023, 06:04:42 PM

Quote from: blackstone on March 29, 2023, 02:33:24 PM

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.

That douchebag's YT traffic is in the dozens. Pundit even mentioning him by name gives this guy and his channel more visibility than anything he could do on his own. Honestly it's kind of embarrassing that Pundit paid him any mind at all. But the nutter certainly served as a convenient straw man for a rant about players these days. Kinda feels like picking on a kid who rides the short bus to school though.

As I think I pointed out in my video, Garybay was convenient, but he is definitely NOT alone in this view. A lot of the storygame crowd have made this same argument repeatedly, about "consent" for PCs to die.

Quote from: Festus on March 31, 2023, 12:55:36 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 30, 2023, 10:25:28 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 30, 2023, 09:11:35 PM
I see a whole lot of "wow, that's a crazy attitude" combined with "luckily I haven't had to deal with that."

Maybe it's not really that big of a problem.

"It'll stay in the universities guys!"

Yeah, no, that's not how these lunatics operate. If you play at conventions, LFGS or online you'll soon see this shit start creeping in. Just like with the "safety tools", we also had one or two people claiming it wasn't "that big of a problem".

So what are you going to do about it? Get Congress to pass a law mandating 20% more character death? Form a hit squad to hunt down soft DMs? Or just stoke each other's outrage in a circle jerk echo chamber?

I tried 5e for awhile and ditched it because I wanted a game with more risk. No one is going to tell me how I should play.

But here's the thing: if no one gets to tell me how to play, then I don't get to tell someone else how they should play. That's how freedom works.

Until they DO tell you how to play, at a convention.
Or at a gaming store.
Or online in virtual table top.

Or by designing products that have these elements built in.

Or by grooming a generation of children who will then physically assault you if you don't play D&D the "diverse" way.

Or by eventually passing laws where something you say in your own home could be reported to the FBI and they arrest you for Hate Speech.

At what point in the slippery slope are you going to realize that saying "stop" to a gang of psychopaths is probably a good idea?

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 01, 2023, 01:58:52 PM
It's one thing to be a 15 year old who absolutely freaks out when their character dies. It's another entirely when it's a 37 year old who's so emotionally stunted as to want to declare that DMs everywhere (not just in their own games, in all games) should not be allowed to kill any PC without "player consent" or else they're a Nazi Trump Supporter.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 01, 2023, 02:04:55 PM
As I think I pointed out in my video, Garybay was convenient, but he is definitely NOT alone in this view. A lot of the storygame crowd have made this same argument repeatedly, about "consent" for PCs to die.

I've been running and playing games at SF Bay Area conventions for about twenty years. In that time, I recall two significant incidents:

One was in a original series Star Trek game using the HERO System. I gave out character sheets, and there wasn't any phasers or other equipment on the sheets. One player demanded, and I said that phasers weren't personal equipment, and this being original series, phasers were always one-shot-one-kill (or unconsciousness if set on stun). He argued for a few minutes that they needed to be written up as powers, then walked out of the game.

Another was in a multi-GM Call of Cthulhu event, where PCs jumped between worlds and the players were shifted between games. There got to be an in-character argument between PCs, and at some point, one of the players got upset at the raised voices to the point that they stopped the game and got the con staff involved.

---

The second would match with your stereotypes of sensitive snowflake -- but my point is that it's rare even in what presumably is the wokest corner of gaming.

Lots of story games are dark and/or horrific - and many are built with PC death assumed, like Fiasco, The Mountain Witch, etc. For example, I've run several games of the horror story game Bluebeard's Bride at local conventions. For that, I did use an X card since it is written into the rules. However, I still had several PC deaths in my runs. In theory, the players could have stopped that by touching the X card, but they didn't.

To be clear - people like Garibay exist, and I'm on your side as far as PC death being part of fun games, having played and run many fun Call of Cthulhu games along with other games. I just feel like you're raging against people who would otherwise be on your side.

House rules for 5E

(hat tip: RPG Pub)

Putting the character in mortal danger is consenting for the character to die if the roll turn out that way. This whole mess is about freedom from consequences. If the player was not willing to let the character die, the character should have stayed back in town and tried to avoid disease instead of going on a dangerous journey to a dungeon full of deadly traps, lethal monsters, and who knows what other nasties. Some poor excuses for players only want selfish wish fulfillment and ego padding. That it is a game, and loosing at the game is the stake of winning it.

Greetings!

*SIGH* I sometimes wonder, where the Hell do these kinds of narcissistic, entitled crybaby players come from? I now that they exist, *somewhere out there*--certainly online, Twitter, and so on, but where in the real world? Perhaps I have met them ace to ace, but didn't know it otherwise? In game groups at home and with friends--for years now--I have never really encountered these kinds of players. Even at game store game groups, and at conventions I have been to--I can't say I have encountered these terrible people. Maybe a handful, years ago, over the years.

I always tell my players, that their characters live in a harsh, brutal world, where they can easily die a grim and savage death, whether they are killed by a sword, or torn apart and eaten by some terrible monster, death is always near, whether from bad luck or their own stupidity or poor judgment.

In decades of playing, I can probably count on one hand how many players I have encountered--face to face--that didn't or couldn't seem to comprehend and accept that reality of the game campaign.

Perhaps strangely, probably the absolute easiest people that understood these simple dynamics were when I taught my nieces how to pay D&D. They were 11 and 9 years old at the time. Likewise, my brother-in-law's two nephews, and a niece--all three were under the age of 14 at the time when he and I introduced D&D to them.

The kids were all absolutely bloodthirsty savages! They all exalted cheerfully--and competitively--in slaughtering their enemies and rivals, and howled in dramatic anguish and laughter when their characters died in some horrifying manner. In every such occasion, they were chomping at the bit to roll up new characters to get back into the action! On some occasions, some of them literally went through rolling up a new character every game session, usually becoming wiser players after losing two or three characters in rapid and brutal succession. Every step of the way though, was hysterically fun and an absolute blast. These experiences were similar when the nieces and nephews also invited some of their friends over to join our games. They would all compete against each other, shouting and laughing, regaling each other with the details of how their characters died from stupidity, or their own poor judgment, bad luck, or also when they simply died heroically fighting against the evil monsters! It has ways been exciting, thrilling, and fun to them.

I find it pretty fucking sad that 10 and 12 year old kids embrace RPG's with more fun, common sense, and maturity than these alleged "adults" that everyone talks about.

On that note, as well, I have played with dozens of kids--and not one of them acted like these brain-damaged, pathetic gamers people talk about that cry and whine about their characters dying. I can think of one 10-year of girl that cried when she lost one character, briefly, though she was also eager to roll up new characters and get her revenge! She thus recovered in good form in less than an hour, and proceeded on being stronger and even more belligerent and ready for violence!

Normal gamers shouldn't play with these pathetic, mentally-ill narcissists. Swiftly and ruthlessly reject them whenever they are encountered.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, some ideas are so stupid that a normal person would never even consider them.  To think something--or more accurately, to believe something--that stupid, a person must be "educated" into it first.  When you find a group that is that willfully stupid, you'll find behind them someone who taught them to be that way.

Yeah, I've had a fair share of pre-teen to young teen players, and never found one that way. Now, I did have some that got a little upset about losing a character, or even having something bad happen to a character.  But it was the same way they would have reacted to something happening to a character they liked in a book or film.  They were emotionally invested, but it wasn't something that they considered out of line.

I always tell my players to have a backup character ready because there's a good chance that their character will die.

Quote from: Aglondir on April 01, 2023, 11:06:31 PM
House rules for 5E
(https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/5e-dd-players-think-killing-a-pc-is-a-hate-crime/?action=dlattach;attach=3129)
(hat tip: RPG Pub)

Death at 0hp had already been abandoned by AD&D1e for -10 (roughly twice the starting hp of a fighter; and with 1 minute rounds equated to bleeding out over 1-10 minutes).

I guess all those old school players were whining too much when their characters died so Gygax changed it to be more lenient.  ::)

The idea that this is some new phenomenon is laughable.

When I saw the video was replying to J. Scott Garibay, I knew not to get worked up about it.

He just stirs up shit to get get views.  Gamer's should instead of addressing him should ignore him so he doesn't get the attention he deserves.

J. Scott Garibay doesn't have a clue about what he is talking.

Ok I am only going to post this once.

The RPGPundit said that there were people trying to destroy the hobby and I thought he was being overdramatic (he does at times have a tendency to do so) but in this case he was 100% right.

I apologize to the RPG Pundit.

Quote from: SHARK on April 02, 2023, 03:51:01 AM


I find it pretty fucking sad that 10 and 12 year old kids embrace RPG's with more fun, common sense, and maturity than these alleged "adults" that everyone talks about.



SHARK

I can directly attest to this. I've had groups of adults scream, shout, and throw chairs at me when they didn't get their way with the dice. I actually spent about 5 years away from RPGs because I couldn't deal with toxic players anymore. But man this game I'm doing with some kids has restored my faith in RPGs completely. If anything, they're starting to say I'm too lenient and demanding more death and violence in our current Keep on the Borderlands Savage Pathfinder campaign. I'm not the sort of GM who's openly hostile and mudcore to a party. So it's a learning experience for all. But these kids are going to terrify other GMs when they do more games.

Quote from: SHARK on April 02, 2023, 03:51:01 AM
I find it pretty fucking sad that 10 and 12 year old kids embrace RPG's with more fun, common sense, and maturity than these alleged "adults" that everyone talks about.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yep.  I have a couple of young players in my group and they are there for the game.  They don't know or care about people trying to turn a hobby that's supposed to be about having fun into something political. 

I don't and never would allow any of my players to do that in my game.  If they try they are gone.

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 03, 2023, 10:46:54 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 02, 2023, 03:51:01 AM
I find it pretty fucking sad that 10 and 12 year old kids embrace RPG's with more fun, common sense, and maturity than these alleged "adults" that everyone talks about.

I can directly attest to this. I've had groups of adults scream, shout, and throw chairs at me when they didn't get their way with the dice. I actually spent about 5 years away from RPGs because I couldn't deal with toxic players anymore. But man this game I'm doing with some kids has restored my faith in RPGs completely. If anything, they're starting to say I'm too lenient and demanding more death and violence in our current Keep on the Borderlands Savage Pathfinder campaign.

Hi, King Tyranno. Sorry to hear about the toxic players you had to deal with.

Over the years, I've encountered a bunch of toxic players as well. As a group, I think the worst that I've dealt with were some World of Darkness groups from the 1990s on. That isn't necessarily inherent in the game, but the games seemed to draw in a bunch of awful players. I also hated the tournament dungeon scene of the 1980s with competition to get the most points by "solving" the dungeon correctly, as well as some of what I saw in 2000s organized play like Adventurer's League - which seemed to cater to the worst players. I enjoyed Knights of the Dinner Table humor - which is mostly from mocking bad player tropes.

The place where I differ a lot from Pundit's points in his video is that idea that such toxic players who throw fits over PC death are a new thing, especially that they're a new thing that comes from young modern SJWs playing a fantasy version of themselves.

I think there have always been bad players, and players who hate PC death. There are lots of ways to help players enjoy PC death -- maybe that's another thread.

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 03, 2023, 09:28:43 AM
Ok I am only going to post this once.

The RPGPundit said that there were people trying to destroy the hobby and I thought he was being overdramatic (he does at times have a tendency to do so) but in this case he was 100% right.

I apologize to the RPG Pundit.

I'll do you one farther: the Woke Cult (and don't kid yourself, it's a cult) are doing more than destroying the RPG hobby. By making a cornerstone of the story-telling cycle the concept of not having the prospect of death in the story itself, it completely neuters the entire Hero's Journey by making it meaningless. Because without the characters going through the crucible of doubt, fear, the chance of death, it goes completely against what it means to BE a hero. This has deep psychological meaning. It's part of our existence.

To quote Capt James T Kirk "You know that pain and guilt can't be taken away with the wave of a magic wand! They're the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away, I need my pain!"

Kirk losing his best friend, his ship, were key components in his growth as a character.

Why?

Because he learned from those confrontations and sacrifices. He had a better understanding of life and appreciated it more.

It's part of his journey.

Without adversity, the journey the PCs take is meaningless. Now, I'm not saying that every single encounter should be wrought with fear and trepidation. On the contrary. But part of the overarching reality in the world the PCs live in should be "death is real".

Quote from: blackstone on April 03, 2023, 03:18:44 PM
I'll do you one farther: the Woke Cult (and don't kid yourself, it's a cult) are doing more than destroying the RPG hobby.

To what benefit?  Once it's destroyed then what? Are they going to move on to something else?  Are they destroying it because they don't like others having fun.

Quote from: blackstone on April 03, 2023, 03:18:44 PMBy making a cornerstone of the story-telling cycle the concept of not having the prospect of death in the story itself, it completely neuters the entire Hero's Journey by making it meaningless. Because without the characters going through the crucible of doubt, fear, the chance of death, it goes completely against what it means to BE a hero. This has deep psychological meaning. It's part of our existence.

To quote Capt James T Kirk "You know that pain and guilt can't be taken away with the wave of a magic wand! They're the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away, I need my pain!"

Kirk losing his best friend, his ship, were key components in his growth as a character.

Totally agree

Quote from: blackstone on April 03, 2023, 03:18:44 PMWhy?

Because he learned from those confrontations and sacrifices. He had a better understanding of life and appreciated it more.

It's part of his journey.

Without adversity, the journey the PCs take is meaningless. Now, I'm not saying that every single encounter should be wrought with fear and trepidation. On the contrary. But part of the overarching reality in the world the PCs live in should be "death is real".

Totally agree.  I am not sure the mob is going to get 100% results with what they are doing.  But they may destroy D&D.  But then, there are other games people can play instead including all of the OSR games.

the Cult of Woke has taken hold of movies, comics, and games for the past ten years.
It does seem to be losing it's grip, but as you know cults can be tenacious.

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 03, 2023, 03:29:30 PM

Quote from: blackstone on April 03, 2023, 03:18:44 PM
I'll do you one farther: the Woke Cult (and don't kid yourself, it's a cult) are doing more than destroying the RPG hobby.

To what benefit?  Once it's destroyed then what? Are they going to move on to something else?  Are they destroying it because they don't like others having fun.

Benefit has nothing to do with it.  It's all about control.  They want control of everything. Anything they can't control, they want to no longer exist.  For any given thing, they don't really care which result they get.  This is the first hurdle to understanding why it can't be reasoned with.

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 03, 2023, 09:28:43 AM
Ok I am only going to post this once.

The RPGPundit said that there were people trying to destroy the hobby and I thought he was being overdramatic (he does at times have a tendency to do so) but in this case he was 100% right.

I apologize to the RPG Pundit.

Well, thanks.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 01, 2023, 02:08:14 PM

Until they DO tell you how to play, at a convention.

But they haven't done that to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 01, 2023, 02:08:14 PM
Or at a gaming store.

Or this.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 01, 2023, 02:08:14 PM
Or online in virtual table top.

Or this.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 01, 2023, 02:08:14 PM
Or by designing products that have these elements built in.

I won't buy or play them.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 01, 2023, 02:08:14 PM
Or by grooming a generation of children who will then physically assault you if you don't play D&D the "diverse" way.

I'm a parent of a 20 year old gamer. Ran a two year campaign for him and three friends and another dad when then boys were 13-15. We didn't play that way. Ran another campaign for a group of 20-somethings (I'm 58) and didn't play that way. I get my hands dirty and do my part.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 01, 2023, 02:08:14 PM
Or by eventually passing laws where something you say in your own home could be reported to the FBI and they arrest you for Hate Speech.

We have this thing called the Constitution which has a provision called the First Amendment.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 01, 2023, 02:08:14 PM
At what point in the slippery slope are you going to realize that saying "stop" to a gang of psychopaths is probably a good idea?

We can play this game all day. We can take any belief, trend, behavior we don't agree with and give a hyperbolic, apocalyptic spin. Doesn't make it real.

Quote from: blackstone on April 03, 2023, 06:34:11 PM
the Cult of Woke has taken hold of movies, comics, and games for the past ten years.
It does seem to be losing it's grip, but as you know cults can be tenacious.

Well the problem is the things the WOKE Cult got ahold on became crap and the companies started losing money.  When they lose money they wake up and ask themselves "Why are we listening to these idiots?"

The Woke cult cannot lose their grip fast enough.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 03, 2023, 06:40:40 PM

Benefit has nothing to do with it.  It's all about control.  They want control of everything. Anything they can't control, they want to no longer exist.  For any given thing, they don't really care which result they get.  This is the first hurdle to understanding why it can't be reasoned with.

That makes sense.  For RPGS it only seems they have been able to get a grip on D&D, with everything else basically doing it's own thing.

I guess they want to destroy the hobby because with the OSR there is no way they can gain full control.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 04, 2023, 04:27:47 AM

Well, thanks.

I am man enough to admit when I make a mistake

Quote from: Festus on April 04, 2023, 09:09:05 AM
We have this thing called the Constitution which has a provision called the First Amendment.

We have this thing called the Federal Government that creates agencies filled with unelected officials that reinterpret laws to infringe our rights and drop cases whenever they might loose in court. See how well our right to self defense, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment is protected by the government. If that is somehow different because firearms are dangerous or lethal, then the popular rhetoric that "words are violence" ought to eliminate that distinction.

"The fact is that those who do not see themselves but who see others, who fail to get a grasp of themselves but who grasp others, take possession of what others have but fail to possess themselves. They are attracted to what others enjoy but fail to find enjoyment in themselves."

― The Book of Chuang Tzu

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 04, 2023, 09:14:14 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 03, 2023, 06:40:40 PM

Benefit has nothing to do with it.  It's all about control.  They want control of everything. Anything they can't control, they want to no longer exist.  For any given thing, they don't really care which result they get.  This is the first hurdle to understanding why it can't be reasoned with.

That makes sense.  For RPGS it only seems they have been able to get a grip on D&D, with everything else basically doing it's own thing.

I guess they want to destroy the hobby because with the OSR there is no way they can gain full control.

This was one of their biggest motivations for OGL 2.0, aside from naked greed. They had hit pieces on the OSR in the acess media a few weeks prior to that debacle.

Quote from: Doctor Jest on April 05, 2023, 12:48:25 AM
This was one of their biggest motivations for OGL 2.0, aside from naked greed. They had hit pieces on the OSR in the access media a few weeks prior to that debacle.

So they will get control of the latest edition but that's about it.  Depending on how many people even bother to switch over to the new version (which it just being updates, WOKE changes and trying to get people on the VTT) that might not even work.