>Finish a campaign that lasted over a year on a completely

>>50708493
I'd say you have a right to feel annoyed. They are your characters after all. Perhaps if the DM had left some way for them to be revived, perhaps even to help you later on, that'd be much more understandable.

>>50708493
I would leave the game and never come back

>>50708493
This would bring a fairly targeted "The fuck are you doing, GM?" from me.
As a player and GM, I have a rule: The pcs belong to the player, and are not to be used in a way that is disrespectful to the player or the character's accomplishments".
They are heroes (or villains), and they EARNED that title, dammit, it needs to be respected, or the magic is gone.
I would tell off the GM, explain why I was leaving his game, then wish him well and break away.

I used to game with a GM who decided to follow up an eight month long campaign where my Paladin had been an upstanding good guy in the face of unrelenting bad shit being thrown his way by revealing he had fallen to evil because the dutchess he had fallen in love with at the end of the last campaign was secretly a vampire. I think that was the only time where I left a campaign over being fucking pissed off at the GM instead of scheduling problems.

>>50708625
I would have been.... upset.
Like South Korean president upset.

>>50708508
>>50708615
I talked to the GM a bit about what happened and how I was feeling, and he explained tht in-universe the bad guy had earned the title of "The Demoralizer" for a reason, and this was the only way of making us as players feel the full extent of "devastation" his psychological warfare brings. I'm thinking it worked too well, because I really might just drop the game.

Agreed. You need to either:
a) tell your DM to fuck off
b) suggest he go out and come in again with a different stupid idea

>>50708687
If my current GM did that to our retired characters, I would be mighty pissed off.

I don't care that the new villain is called that, killing off the last characters off-screen is more cancerous than killing the background family.

Fuck that GM and Fuck his shit

>>50708687
Naw, man, a line was crossed.
He could have just as easily cast down some great work the old pcs did, or better, bring the old pcs low so that the new pcs need to rescue them, inheriting their titles.
Which would be awesome, and I want to do that. Run into an old pc, well into their years and settled down, but they take the time to impart to you knowledge of their skill and might for a new generation of heroes.
Fuck, I want that to happen to me...

>>50708493
That's cheap heat that doesn't even make sense in character. Why would your new characters care about some schmucks? They don't know your previous characters.

>>50708493

>>No see guys the new villian of the new game is AWESOME enough to beat even your bad ass characters
>>BBEG inevitably ends up being shit you beat in two rounds of combat and wouldnt have been able to do anything to your old characters
>>Shit DM is shit

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself becoming forgotten and irrelevant

You should slap him in the dick and tell him that was to 'demoralize" him

You're a whiny little child who can't hand the idea that BBEG kill heroes and present themselves as world ending threats.

This guy >>50708625 has a legitimate complaint. You're complainign that the heroes who saved the world were killed by an evil force out to destroy everything. That's what evil villains DO. They KILL HEROES. They present themselves as a threat to be overcome because the previous heroes died. They died fighting the good fight. You should be fucking happy they did, and go wrest vengeance from the heart of evil and defeat him.

Your feefeees being hurt because something bad happened to your previous character - whom you were not using, by the way, and was now a plot device for the GM to use - are why SJWs now rule the world and ruin good things.

Man up and take REVENGE, you limp wristed COWARD!

>>50708687
What's worse than flat out killing your old characters? Permanently crippling them so they can't affect anything, leading them to support the new generation of heroes.
Because killing them provides martyrs. Leaving them crippled and alive actually causes more morale damage.

I'd be pretty pissed too, but honestly >>50709122 is right. Just go along with the game and see where it leads. If it doesn't look like he had an actual plan other than shock value then do what you will. It's a little ridiculous to just stop playing on that note, it makes you look thin skinned and overly attached. GM is probably just trying to make this campaign more epic than the last so give him the next session.

>>50708493
Not being too touchy at all, that's pretty targeted.
It would be cool and all if the next campaign started after the death of your last characters if they died ins some interesting way, but not like this. Imagine if the GM told a tale of mighty warrior kings who lived a long prosperous life and are now dead in their old age. The kingdoms morn, a new era of strife will surely follow. That would keep the memory of your old exploits alive, allow for new conflict, and not feel like a dick move.

File: IMG_8656.jpg (25KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 443x332px

>not having the first session be with the old characters
>not investigating the new BBEG plans
>not falling into a trap and being swarmed by overwhelming forces
>not fighting with all your might trying to stall long enough to pass on an important info on the BBEG's weaknesses
>not having a dramatic and personal ending to the characters history
>not having closure
>having "lol they all died and were raped and mutilated and pissed on oh and also had their souls destroyed"
shiggy diggy
Don't listen to these faggots calling you a pussy, your DM is an ass

>>50708687
Sounds like a Neegan rip-off to me

File: star-trek-next-generation-lieutenant-commander-worf[1].jpg (38KB, 700x535px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 700x535px

>>50708493

>Turning your characters into Worf

Even taken at its best, this makes your GM lame.

>>50708493
killing off these characters..could work. However doing it off-screen is kinda shitty. You should have been there fending off low level mooks while the old party fights and dies

>>50708493
Shit DM is shit. You're right to be pissed.

File: Charles Rosecraft.png (18KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 128x128px

Ignore me please

>>50709122
>>50709317

File: Mary Spencer.png (19KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 128x128px

Why can't we bee friend?

>>50709122
Nah, you're just a tired hack devoid of inspiration who can't figure out how to make your audience emotionally involved in your story without resorting to the lamest of cliches. You'd fit in nicely with OP's GM.

>>50709122
People like you are why players return to bad GMs like battered housewives
>I-it might be ok! He says he has a good reason!
>I can make it work!
>I have to stay, for the sake of the players!
No, you dumbass. When someone does something so mind boggling retarded and doesn't even grasp that they did something wrong, the correct course of action, if you can't talk then round, is to leave. Or at least get them to acknowledge it was a bad idea.
It's just going to happen again and again if you don't, because as far as he's concerned, it's a good idea and he may as well reuse it the next time he wants some cheap shock value

>>50708493
I had a gm do something kind of similar.
>Campaign ends.
>Party manages to eek out a victory against overwhelming odds.
>One pc wound up a tad corrupted.
>pc goes on to kill two other party members and maim a third in the interlude to the next campaign and then become the bbeg.
>maimed pc becomes guide for next generation of pcs before heroically sacrifices himself to save new pcs from bbeg.
It was a hell of alot of fun.

>>50709907
See, that's different. There's a damn good reason why that happened - if a PC basically got compleated, of COURSE he's going to turn evil. And you got closure with Obi-Wan sacrificing himself for you. Compare to "lol your PCs got shit on, get fucked, it's for the emotional impact"

I wish my players cared enough about the story to not see an old pc dieing as a symbol of of that can die I need to become mechanically stronger.
Why am I only ever able to find the murdest of murder hobos.

>>50710049
There's little difference. There's plenty of reason for OPs PC to have died. If they're such a big hero, of course they'd go fight the BBEG, and if the antagonists threat isn't bs and actually warrants a new campaign and not just having you old PCs save the day, ya he's gonna win and probably kill the PCs. The spear is just a solid way to make sure the campaign doesn't turn into "save and resurrect our spetial old characters".

>>50709122
Shit GM detected.

>>50708687
Here's the thing, though. Despite being heroes in universe, your new characters didn't know your old ones, right? It was a really meta move, and very uncalled for.

>>50709688
No it isn't. you're just triggered that the GM introduced someone who was tougher than your old characters.

>>50709845
Yet here you are, siding with OP's whiny little crybaby. He's not even man enough to take a stand, he's just going to go hide and cry about how the evilbad GM killed a character he isn't even fucking using. Triggered much?

>>50709896
"Nu uh, the bid bad gyu is too weak to kill my super special retired characters? Why should we have to do anythign at all, the big bad guy couldn't win against my ex-character, we'll justy let them solve the problem!"

You're like a little kid claiming the bullets are bouncing off your forcefield, because something bad could never happen to YOUR retired character.

>>50710106
Worse player complaining.

>>50710152
"But, but, muh special snowflake!"

>>50710106
he's right you know

>>50709122
>and was now a plot device for the GM to use
fuck off
as a forever GM, taking your players' characters for yourself, especially if they were attached to them and/or were just good characters, is a total dick move
manning up and getting revenge is one thing, but honestly I'd feel like shit if someone fucked up my setting or one of the NPCs I really like for their own purpose or something

>>50708625
As the kind of guy who always plays heroes, I'd be absolutely livid...

If that wasn't my fetish.

It's a huge bummer, for sure. Definitely a shitty move to take away player agency like that. And, while easy to fix with i l l u s i o n s or other bs, I can't imagine the game will get to the point where that's an option

>>50709122
Problem: That's make most players spite the GM rather than the villain.

There's a reason why unceremonious deaths of main characters offscreen are very rare, and when it does happen, is received very negatively.

>>50708493
More than that I think just recycling the setting is really lazy.

>>50710504
>Troll arguing with entire thread
Too obvious/10

>>50708493
That sounds like a plot twist from Dragonball.

>>50708687

Your GM seems confused. This is a game. Games are meant to be fun. You're not characters in his bullshit novel. A line was crossed, and you're justified in walking. Take the other players with you if you can and run a good game.

>>50710504

I see you're confusing 'edgy tryhard' with 'mature'.

Hope you're enjoying your winter break from school.

>>50708493

See I might have done this, because it is interesting and sets up the new campaign. But I never have done it off-screen. I would have let the players play their old characters one last time, fighting a hopeless last stand to let their new characters escape.

>>50708493
>Am I a bad person for having lost all interest in the new game over this

Ya, in a way you are. That's not your character anymore, that time is past, what you're playing right now is your character. And if you old PC is the big cool hero/leader you make them out to be, they'd sure as hell better go fight the worlds new BBEG, and if there's any really justification to this campaign, he better beat them bloody/dead. The spear is just making sure that this doesn't turn into a "save muh spetial peecees" campaign.

Honestly, considering all the typically "good" endings there are, there's nothing wrong with a "bad" ending in a sense, especially if it's to set up the BBEG. Hopefully the DM uses the former PC deaths well, and the campaign turns out solid.

>BBEG mind controls the old PCs
>Old PCs end up becoming boss fights for the new PCs
Is this cliche/corny as balls?

>>50710504
Back in my day, rusemen actually put effort into it.

>>50712635
It is very cliché, but it's cliché for a reason. It's cuz throwbacks like that are tight.

>>50710504
This bait is so obvious that I actually feel insulted.

You literally just threw the whole fishing rod into the water and expected the fish to impale themselves on the hook for your benefit.

For shame troll-kun, for shame.

File: 1446930053695.jpg (5KB, 235x220px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 235x220px

>>50708493
>kings and leaders in their own right
>died in a border skirmish

That's some lazy writing right there.

>>50710090
There's a huge difference.

For one, the maimed PC actually served a purpose to the next generation of PC's and then died to protect the next generation from the BBEG.

Compare to OP where they just started the campaign with their old PC's dead, bodies desecrated, and souls irreparably damaged to the point where they could never be revived off screen with no way to affect the outcome in a meaningful way, just because the GM wanted to set up cheap drama that doesn't even work because only the PLAYERS will care about the old PC's since the new PC's never interacted with them and had no reason to care.

It's about on the same level as starting off campaign with the main character's family being killed/raped/maimed/etc. just to set up the BBEG as supreme evil of the land. On paper this should work but in reality, it just encourages the player to never give a fuck about the setting again beyond whatever monsters you throw into his way to slaughter for XP.

>>50715807

>on paper this should work but in reality, it just encourages the player to never give a fuck about the setting again beyond whatever monsters you throw into his way to slaughter for XP.

Yeah, if you are too willing to murder shit the players care about as a GM you'll push them into stopping caring. Heck, it also works in movies. No one gives a shit about the people who die in a gorefest horror movie as you know 90% of them are not making it to the end.

>>50708493
It's basically impossible that you've gone through a full campaign with that DM, without getting ample chance to figure out what a massive unbelievable faggot he was.

In fact, the chances that he would've cocked up the original campaign and given you good reason to hate him are over 90%, given what we know about him now.

So I guess it never happened. But otherwise, you should've seen the signs. You should've known: your disappointment was caused by your DM, but you could've prevented it.

>>50708493
You're right to be put off, but not because your characters died. You should be put off because this is incredibly lazy storytelling.

I too would drop this GM.

>>50708493
Yeah that's pretty cheap.
I totally understand it, but it's pretty lame.

>>50716135
There are times when a good DM falters and ends up backsliding into the realm of THAT GM anon.

My best buddy is a forever GM and towards the end of our 5e campaign, he started to do shit like making someone's character auto-miss because he threw a (magical) ax at an airborne target because "it wasn't designed to be aerodynamic" and causing the same character to break one of his longswords because he rolled critically fumbled an attack roll.

I still game with him and tbqh the 5e campaign was starting to drag on since one player wouldn't shut the fuck up and another player couldn't focus to save his life but at the very least, I can see where someone might take a step back in quality or have a shitty idea during an important moment.

>>50715602
>all heroes and kings die in a heroic manner
Genghis Khan would like a word with you

>>50708687
Like basically everyone else here I think that was a bad move. Technically the old characters became NPCs and getting rid of them might be better than the GM being forced to play them - in the end they're still your characters and sooner or later he wouldn't be able to let them act as you would have. But the execution was poor.
At least he should have told you before the new campaign that he's going to treat them as any other NPC. Demoralizing the players from the get go wasn't the brightest idea in general. But if he goes for something like that, at least he should have given them an epic last stand against the new BBEG witnessed by the new characters in game.

What I can't support is the "burn all the bridges" some people promote here. Yeah, your GM pulled a bad move. That happens with humans. Transition between campaign can be difficult if you want to tie both of them together in an interesting way.
In the end you know your GM is able to lead interesting campaigns as proofed by a whole year of play, imho that should give him some credit. It might have been a bad start but jumping the ship might let you miss good games in the future.

Your DM needs a time out.

Next session give him a sheet and tell him he's playing. DM for everyone. Show him how it's done.

>>50716326
Why would a King be on the front lines of a border skirmish?

So, what do you pussies do when the DM says that the age has advanced 400 years and all of your old PCs are dead, buried, and probably forgotten? What's the difference between doing that and having them die off screen again?

>>50717018
One, the one you just listed is removing PCs from the game whilst still respecting them and their accomplishments. The other is outright killing them for an emotional "gotcha" as a hook. The first one let's you continue in an existing world without baggage, the other takes your accomplishments and shits on them.

>>50717018
There's a difference between "Your PCs had lives filled with adventure and romance, eventually succumbing to old age and rising to glorious Valhalla" and "Your PCs were brutally slaughtered well before their time, their bodies desecrated and souls torn asunder so even a glorious afterlife is stolen from them."

>>50717072
Really? Because it seems that its the reverse from a logical standpoint. One is forgotten, and the others die as a matyr. Seems like some double standards going on in this thread here.

>>50717100
Who said anything about that rising to glorious vallhalla? If they died of old age, they're sure as fuck not getting in. You only get in through battle. With the second option, going after the guy who killed the former heroes seems like a far better plot.

>>50717018
One is a natural consequence of mortality and still respects the PC's accomplishments by having their legacy be seen centures after their death.

The other is just reducing the old PC's to a cheap prop that the GM threw away for a cheap jab at drama without respecting their legacy as characters while retconning them from the narrative off-screen.

You're literally asking the difference between a time-skip where the old lady who gave your character a home died of old age and having the old lady be found dead in a pool of her own blood with a prolapsed anus without you having an opportunity to stop it.

If you can't tell the difference then you're the cancer killing ttRPGs.

>>50717183
>One is a natural consequence of mortality and still respects the PC's accomplishments by having their legacy be seen centures after their death.
How? They are forgotten.

>>50717207
>How? They are forgotten.
We still remember George Washington even though he died centuries ago anon.

For PCs that became heroes and kings, it's highly unlikely that people would just forget about them unless you go out of your way to outright retcon everything that happened in the previous campaign.

At which point you're still a shitty GM.

>>50717263
>We still remember George Washington even though he died centuries ago anon.
Then he doesn't qualify as "forgotten", now does he, genius?

>>50716280
I guess I'll have to agree with that. People do make mistakes, and not everyone masters DMing on the sort of philosophical level where you realize the underlying reason why never to do the kind of thing that OP's DM did.

So, yeah, I think you're right that OP's DM might not necessarily be full-blown That DM, but actually just an okay DM who fucked up big.

>>50717324
You're the one who brought up the idea of the PC's being forgotten because of a massive time skip genius.

I'll spell it out for you, i-f t-h-e-y a-r-e k-i-n-g-s a-n-d h-e-r-o-e-s t-h-e-n t-h-e-y w-o-u-l-d n-o-t b-e f-o-r-g-o-t-t-e-n.

You don't just become a hero or a king just by slaying goblins in some cave, you have to have accomplished something major that would've been worth recording in the history books. So your entire premise of the heroes being forgotten is flawed from the onset unless you go out of your way to retcon everything that happened, which would make you a shitty DM.

>>50717018
>the age has advanced 400 years and all of your old PCs are dead
Then that means the story of the old characters was untainted. Good end. Perfect. 10/10, would play with DM again.

>>50717143
Replace Valhalla with literally any other Good-aligned afterlife and stop splitting hairs. In games like D&D where souls are scientifically real and the afterlife is a tangible place you can travel to (or at least commune with), getting your soul destroyed is much worse than dying. Even without that D&D presumption, killing the previous PCs offscreen just to hype up your new Big Bad is cheap and clearly pisses some people off. You're better off honouring the old PCs than pulling shitty tactics like his GM did.

>>50717388
>You're the one who brought up the idea of the PC's being forgotten because of a massive time skip genius.
Yes, and you've failed to meet that qualifier at every turn, moron.

>>50717403
>>50717388
Note that his original post set up a bunch of absurd concessions that you have to make in terms of the premises for your discussion.
He's clearly not interested in discussing; his intent from the beginning has been to stir shit.

>>50716569
>having kings who don't fight on the front lines
Richard the Lionheart would like a word with you

>>50717431
Answer me this simple question, why would someone who is important enough to become a king or a hero be forgotten just because they died 400 years ago?

Short of some cataclysmic event that wiped out 99.99% of civilization, I cannot fathom how an important figure would be forgotten after only 400 years, especially if they earned that title by slaying some world ending BBEG that would've caused the end of the world as we know it.

It's poor story-telling, history doesn't go away just because a lot of time passed, otherwise we wouldn't have history at all.

>>50717453
An exception, not the rule.

>>50717470
>Answer me this simple question, why would someone who is important enough to become a king or a hero be forgotten just because they died 400 years ago?
Most people barely even care about history as it is, and you're asking why anyone from a medieval fantasy society, whose lifespans are on average about 50 years, would care about some nobodies who didn't do anything for them some 400 years ago other than maybe stop one tyrant from becoming the next tyrant?

You're over inflating the importance of modern day history and placing it as a burden on a fantasy society.

>>50717630
>Heroes and Kings
>nobodies

Okay, you're retarded.

Last (You) you'll get from me, make it last.

>>50717734
Cute. Come in here, fail every condition, then storm off butthurt. Great tactic. You can keep your (you), I don't need it.

>>50717776
If you spent more time being subtle about it then he probably wouldn't have left.

Here's a (You) from me too, now can you please GTFO?

>>50717888
No. I will haunt this thread and call you out until it runs its course.

>>50708493
>BBEG's spear anihilates souls, meaning the old PCs are deader than dead - they're irrevocably gone beyond any magics
Everything before this was a dick move, but I could grin through it if it was leading somewhere, but denying them even an afterlife, that's low, I'd probably interrupt the GM right there and demand to know what the fuck

>>50708687

"The Demoralizer" as an *in-universe* title? This is a joke, right?

This sounds like the nickname disgruntled employees would give to bad middle management, not the title earned by a ruthless villain through a campaign of slaughter. It's asinine.

Just try it out.
"Morgoth the Demoralizer"
"Saruman the Demoralizer"
"Lord Sidious the Demoralizer"

It's patently absurd.

>>50718045
Sounds good to me, honestly. Maybe stop pushing your opinions onto us for a moment?

File: 28397823.png (936KB, 644x644px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 644x644px

>>50718056
>Maybe stop pushing your opinions onto us for a moment?

>>50715913
meanwhile in a slice of life some one can die even in a comical manner and their death will have huge weight to it because its unexpected, everyone is effected and the plot now has the consequences of a meaningful person dead

>>50718056
"Demoralizer" is on the same tier as tryhard edgy bullshit as Shad(ow) the H(edge)hog

It's the type of name you give a Saturday morning cartoon villain, not a serious threat that's supposed to inspire fear into the hearts of men.

>>50718115
Wow, it's almost like he's playing a dorky table top game or something.

>>50718113
Hell, remember when Mr. Hooper died on Sesame Street?

They actually took a moment and acknowledged his death even though it was a kids show about learning your ABC's and 123's.

>>50718136
>tfw Sesame Street shows more maturity then Game of Thrones or modern Comics

>>50708493


That is fucking stupid. Why not have some of them die and some be npcs?

ie- one of them now leads the [group you need to work with] so they're an important npc, one is missing and maybe you find out that he died but you get some cool item he had and the other former PC is like ya man rip in peace get his body back etcetc

Like, heroes deaths/epilogues.

aggh this makes me so angry

>>50709317
UNDER-FUCKING RATED

>>50718130
If you acknowledge that you're playing a "dorky table top game" then why are you playing it?

More to the point, why would you open up a new session with the old PC's dead and erased from existence if the point of tabletop is to fuck about with your friends? Do you just not understand how that would start off the campaign on a sour note after spending a year giving their old PCs a proper sendoff with all their accomplishments leading to a satisfying conclusion?

>>50718210
>If you acknowledge that you're playing a "dorky table top game" then why are you playing it?
Fun. What a retarded question. Why did you even bother responding?

>>50718130

Somebody whose spear can eradicate your very immortal soul doesn't "demoralize" people. He terrifies them. "Demoralizer" is trivial by comparison, and the title is blatantly aimed primarily at the players-they're supposed to be the demoralized ones.

>>50718226
I think the ones demoralized in that situation are the people of the world who relied on and supported those heroes from before, wouldn't you? In that case, the title seems like it would be properly aimed at the world, instead of the players.

Oops.

>>50718219
So we acknowledge that you're doing this for fun in spite of how dorky it is.

With that being said, why would you open up a new session with the old PC's dead and erased from existence if the point of tabletop is to fuck about with your friends and have fun?

Do you just not understand how that would start off the campaign on a sour note after spending a year giving their old PCs a proper sendoff?

>>50718243
Actually it really wouldn't because nobody outside of the new PC's are even aware that the souls of the old PC's are erased from existence.

Oops.

>>50718226
with that inmind the GM has clearly mistaken being spiteful to the players for being a Player punch

Also I'd give hima bunch of titles "Soulslayer" "Denier of eternal rest" "bringer of Oblivion" The Living Cesation"

>>50718248
It's only a sour note if you're a huge pussy who can't handle bad things happening to your character. Do you cry every time a trap is sprung on you?

If I couldn't handle something as basic as that, I'd go play dungeon world.

>>50718278
Uh oh! You put words into OP's mouth that didn't exist before? Who said "removed from existence" means removing from history or their memories?

Oops. You're brain dead.

>>50718287
It's not even the fact that you had a bad thing happen to our old characters, it's the fact that you started off a new campaign by throwing our old characters into a bin and making it so our proper sendoff never happened off screen.

We're sitting down to play this game for fun yet you had us encountering our older characters long after they were dead with nothing to be done aside from learning that they are now deader than dead. Not only is it an all around shitty thing to start the campaign on but you did so without even giving our new characters a chance to avert the tragedy.

File: 26196-8732-16444.jpg (19KB, 420x354px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 420x354px

>>50709122
Preach it, brother

>>50708493

Sounds like the classic anime asspull of "the best way to establish how strong my new cool character is is to have him murder things that are established as very strong and that the audience loves! AH AH AH AHHHHH"

>>50718307
Stop with the semantics, you know perfectly well what I meant.

The newer PC's are the only ones who are aware that the BBEG has a means of destroying someone's soul. So since they're the only ones who are aware of the BBEG's power, the BBEG wouldn't be able to demoralize anyone since the only ones who cared about the old PC's deaths were the players who played them earlier.

Oops.

>>50718420

shut the fuck up both of you holy fucking shit

>>50718278
They would if they knew this "Demoralizer" carried a stick that could erase your soul from existence. Then again, I would take >>50718282's "The Living Cesation" ([sic] and fucking all) over "Demoralizer" any god damn day of the week.

Also, a requisite warning that the Anon of >>50718287 is just a troll, and only a mid-tier one at that. Please cease all communication until it leaves, or shits up the thread to the point of deletion. Thank you, and remember happiness is mandatory, so let's see you smile!

>>50717930
>>50717776
>>50717630


what the fuck did I just read

"it is impossible for [fictional setting] to have people who remember a great hero/king/important figure! therefore, it is unbelievable that the gm could have made the former pcs be remembered by the people! impossiblrE!111

are you fucking retarded?

>>50718420
Actually, no, you're objectively wrong on your premise. There is literally no indication that nobody knows what that spear does, and even if they didn't, the mere act of destroying the former heroes would, yes, actively demoralize people. You're just getting butthurt at the thought of your special snowflake being touched in inappropriate places and taking it out on OP.

Also, protip: Repeating my passive aggressive mannerisms at me just makes it incredibly painfully obvious that you got butthurt by it the first time around.

Oops.

>>50718504

The crux of the argument is that "it's not REALISTIC that PEOPLE ARE JUST FORGOTTEN! SO THIS ARGUMENT IS STUPID!", but then fails to take into account that the heroes going off on a dangerous journey and then losing to a more powerful foe is actually the most realistic outcome for a band of people who have taken up a dangerous hobby, and the only reason people give half a shit is because a person's special snowflake is off limits for literally no reason even when they're not in active control of it anymore.

>>50708493
OP, you have my condolences. Both for your GM pulling a shitty move, and the trolls infesting your thread.

File: naked and wrong.png (143KB, 285x204px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 285x204px

>>50709122
>first half of your post
I don't think you are right, from what i see it seems the DM is being a hack. This is either a quick and easy way to avoid having have the PCs interact with their former characters of cheap hooks. Reminds me of the shit dm that gave us all 100 in plat and then took it away to begin the session.
It's not clever and it doesn't necessarily work for all characters. Not everyone plays a hero you know, my halfling was a physician and a con man and poorly optimized for combat would have fucked off or sold his friends out.
What you get instead is the possibility that a bunch of characters acted out of character because the dm wants quick and fast emotional fodder.
>second half
anon, the whole point of that move is to pull at someone's "fee,fees"
>>are why SJWs now rule the world and ruin good things.
>youdon'tactuallybelievethisandifyoudoithinkyouareattotalfaggotevenwithmyhatredofathoritarianneomarkistsandtheircorpratistallies

either way, your hatred of this anon's feelings does not stop it from being shit

>>50718591

Both of you fuckwits were born.

Oops.

>>50708493

I had something in game effect me pretty badly too. I really liked my character, now I don't respect him and I'm kind of waiting for him to die. I just stay because the other players are my friends otherwise. I haven't bothered doing much roleplaying since, I just show up and roll dice.

Some DMs are spergs and just don't understand why you're upset. Can't fix them, just find new places to play or hope it doesn't come up again.

>>50708493
It's a new campaign with new characters. I'd tend to look at it like a parallel reality. It's like how what happens in JJ Trek has absolutely no bearing on or relation to the original series. Or how Darth Vader was never the emo kid shown in the prequels. So just treat it as a What If?, Elseworlds, Twilight Zone, Sliders, Temporal Paradox-type thingy. Besides, you never know; your GM may actual give you the chance to save your old characters through some sort of magical / mythical / mystical shenanigans.

With all of this said, it does seem like your GM didn't properly consider how his scenario might rub players the wrong way, and I quite understand why you're unhappy.

>>50708493
I'd fucking walk and see if anyone else wanted to join the new game I plan to run.

>>50708493
This is an extremely banal and hamhanded way to introduce the new bbeg, so yes, you are right to be annoyed.
Especially with the lengths he went to.

>>50708720
>Run into an old hero, well into their years and settling down, but they take the time to impart to you knowledge of their skill and might for a new generation of heroes.
>literally the plot of Boku no Hero Academia

File: tumblr_n0g9zn0ASX1rnoavlo1_500.jpg (67KB, 500x669px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x669px

>>50708493
That is an awful and worthless thing to do. He should be ashamed. It's also super boring cliche to do that.

Though it does remind me of the time I was forced to TPK a game that we had to end, and then 10 years later I picked it back up where it left off on a different tangent with some of the same characters. That was fun as hell to pull off.

File: PRETTY sure we're in the evil lord's realm, Jimmy.jpg (680KB, 2560x1706px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 2560x1706px

>>50719665
A better GM would have done the dirt simple obvious hook. Like the idiot easy one you can do with this scenario.

"You are New PCs. Old PCs left across the ocean because of New Evil. Oh wow news came back they're TOTALLY VANISHED or look at this [poor context picture of Badguyland Papers shows Bad Guy holding up legenadry sword/dildo/loli favored of the former PCs with rude gesture of triumph] driving them all fuckbug mad with WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR GUYS and HE TOUCHED OUR STUFF so you end with WE GOTTA GET SWOLE TO SAVE OUR DUDES AND GET THAT STUFF FROM THAT FUCKER"

>>50710999

Trips wisdom

>>50708493

I've played this game before.

In Chrono Trigger, I played a group of time traveling heroes that eventually became so strong that they could punch a space god on the face and kill it. Didn't matter what I was fighting or what I was hitting, robots or T-Rex's, I took them apart with my bare hands or with magics so great they cooked everything on the screen. My party literally used time travel to bring another character back to life. Everyone went back to their lives as total badasses.

Then I played the sequel, Chrono Cross. I was super hyped.

>"Remember all your beloved characters from the first game? Remember how they mastered time, death, and magic? Aren't you excited to hear the epilogue to what your invincible old school party did after Chrono Trigger ended? "
>"They all died like pussies. Yup. They killed an extradimensional space god, but sure, a mid boss that you beat multiple times in Chrono Trigger led a band of regular ass dudes with medieval weaponry to their castle and killed them. Yup. Your party leader that soaked a space laser that shattered a continent? Killed by a regular sword! Isn't that more satisfying and realistic for these characters?! This isn't bad writing at all!!! WHY ISN'T ANYONE ENJOYING THEMSELVES!?"

I think Cold Steel the Hedgehog shouldn't GM edgy fuckin bullshit.

File: image.jpg (97KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1024x1024px

>>50709122

>>50709122
Shit GM Found

into the trash with you and your opinions m8

>>50710999
This

File: BIG BAIT.png (125KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 500x500px

>>50710504
>you're just triggered that the GM introduced someone who was tougher than your old characters.

File: elf fucks.jpg (111KB, 985x929px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 985x929px

>>50709122
Here's the thing - did the GM have to do that?

He could have had the old PCs die, but in a manner that didn't let the new PCs know. He could've even gone out of his way to have them killed one by one, to give a sense that the players had a limited amount of time before the old heroes fell, and they had to hurry up and git gud so that way they could stand in their place in the fight against evil.

But no, the GM had to go for something utterly melodramatic that will intentionally hit the players in the gut, and you can't really argue that something like that is a great motivator. The players have no means to immediately get revenge - it's distant, and possibly even hopeless - how could these newbies do anything, when these grand old heroes couldn't - in a goddamn border skirmish, no less, not a marshalling of the BBEGs armies or something? It makes the last year of gaming suddenly worthless. It lacks grandeur, anything for the PCs to cling to and fight for the sake of.

You laugh at the idea of feelings being hurt, but at the same time call for them to take revenge...but if they aren't supposed to feel bad about what happened, why are they supposed to go and take revenge again? Just because the story demands it? Fuck you.

>>50721242
Not to mention that the new PCs probably had nothing to do with the old PCs, so why should they feel overly invested in revenge anyway?

File: this.jpg (126KB, 340x480px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 340x480px

>>50710999
When was the last time a player looked at something horrible that happened in game and went, 'man I really had that BBEG?' No, they know the GM is the source of their ire - and even if it was a pre-designed dungeon that the GM put no work into, he's still the one that didn't take it out or change it.

As much as we wish it weren't so, there is still an ugly mentality of players vs. the GM, because the GM can't say anything was really outside of his control.

>>50717630
I am going to point at one thing for you: Constantine's Arch.

He took bits from monuments related to other great Emperors - Hadrian, Augustus, Trajan - and put them on his monument, to associate himself with them. And this was a public monument - the Romans knew propaganda and used it well.

So, I think if the Romans can remember a few different guys that lived from anywhere to a couple hundred years to maybe less than a hundred years before Constantine enough that he will go out of his way to associate himself with them, I think that a fantasy society can remember a king or hero, especially if they somehow get immortalized in song or myth (cue Charlemagne).

File: image.jpg (94KB, 640x845px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 640x845px

>>50710504
You're seriously not this stupid right?

>>50720804
I fucking hate Chrono Cross.... why did they go so out of their way to shit on the achievements of the previous game

>>50721416
You're making the same mistake I pointed out above, which is involving realism in it, and then not realizing that the people with the dangerous hobby dying to a greater foe that they mobilized to act against is actually a very realistic ending to the original story. Why is this "realism" allowed for, and not the other?

>>50709122
>The GM killing the family off-screen of the PCs for cheap drama points is okay
No, anon, you're the cancer.

>>50718045
"Konrad Curze the Demoralizer"

>>50709229
Killing the group's favourite characters off-screen for drama is a very shitty thing to do.

>>50709317
This

>>50710664
About what?

>>50712068
A few problems you overlooked
>The former PCs can be complete strangers to the new PCs. Not friends, not mentors, nothing. Why would the new PCs care about their fate?
>Going onward from the first point, this course of action influences the players on a meta level, which is bad if you didn't know.
>Killing 'special' characters that the players like and got attached to off-screen is generally seen as bad form by the GM. Because it's very cheap drama. It encourages people to make pure murderhobos

File: Hack.png (692KB, 851x476px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 851x476px

>>50709122
Oh, we all know the world is full of chance and anarchy
So yes, it’s true-to-life for characters to die randomly
But news flash, the genre’s called fantasy
It’s meant to be unrealistic, you myopic manatee

>>50721465
I dunno, why are you such a worthless subhuman fuckface?

>>50712068
No, the spear is "You know that thing you had fun with? Well, I just raped it right the fuck out of existence, and its utterly destroyed forever, no happy ending. Ever."

Fuck off.

>>50721465
The guy I was replying to made a point about modern history, I showed an example from ancient, non-modern history, to show that arguing that it's simply modern perceptions of how people are remembered isn't really valid. Simple as that.

>>50708687
Sounds a bit dickish but maybe just maybe the gm has some plottwist in store like in the end, you break the spear of bbeg and all the captured souls arise to heaven as they should, that would be something I would do.

>>50720343
That's how you do it!

>>50708493
GM sounds like kind of a dick DESU

>>50722226
it said annihilate. not capture.

File: proud_tradition.jpg (53KB, 400x557px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x557px

>>50722780
desu desu baka senpai senpai

>>50708493
Holy fuck OP. It's a fucking game. The previous campaign was finished. Who the fuck cares. Grow up.

>>50717453
and he was just the best king

>>50717100
With one, things are left up to your own interpretation to how they ended up after the events of the previous campaign. All die of old age eventually, so this isn't a shocker.

With the other, it's a shitty off-screen decision that all your previous characters died to some guy, outside of your control. Fuck's sake, he added "soul ripped apart".

>>50723159
Because then they would go get the old PC's ressurected so that they could have them deal with the problem and avoid the scenario entirely.

Have you even run a game in your life?

>>50723186
and thats a bad thing how? that could be a journey in and of itself. Find the magic mcguffin of raise the old PC's to act as allies in the final confrontation with the BBEG. Sounds pretty standard to me.

>>50722887
>It's a fucking game

>Grow up.

>games

I think you're on the wrong board,

>>50722887
You don't give a whiff of a damn about the game, why play at all?

File: berkley-gulp-2-saltwater-peeler-crab-natural-sea-fishing-bait-packs-of-5-9612-p.jpg (168KB, 1600x1421px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1600x1421px

>>50710504

>>50720804

This.
Even then, that was a VIDEO GAME where the creator(s) were entitled to do whatever they wanted to because it was their work.
The GM doesn't own the player characters. Having them so pathetically die off screen for cheap shock value to the PLAYERS is just lazy and inconsiderate.

>>50711760
>Games are ment to be fun

look at this scrub

>>50721672
I guess BTFO'ing you hard makes me "subhuman".

>>50722161
Point still stands.

>>50725569
No, we got your point.

Your point is as worthless as you are. You are defending dogshit DMing. Go shovel it down elsewhere, we don't need to see you eating shit, subhuman troll.

>>50720804
To this day I maintain that CC is functionally no different from someone's shitty, edgy fanfic sequel to Chrono Trigger complete with shitty environmentalist themes that don't actually make any sense thrown it.

>>50723186
How exactly is that an issue?

It'd be much easier to swallow than "all your characters are deader than dead, isn't my BBEG evil players?"

At least if we chose to ressurect our old PC's, that would be a journey in and of itself and give our new guys a chance to give a shit about our old PC's as they resurrect them and learn more about the BBEG.

Have YOU ever run a game in your life?

>>50725823
>Uh oh! I literally don't have a defense!
>Shit, he might find out I'm retarded!
>Better insult him instead to let him know I still think I'm in the right
>That'll show him.

>>50726000
Yeah, you resurrect them, and then your party size just doubled, which is a nightmare to DM for and balance around. It's also just plain bad story telling. I take it you really HAVEN'T run a game in your life.

>>50726144
Party size isn't an issue if we're talking about NPCs. It's quite easy to give NPCs reasons for why they aren't participating in combat and it's even easier to deal with them outside of combat since you'd just need to acknowledge them when they're needed for the plot.

Hell, I've played and run campaigns where the number of NPCs was equal to the number of players in the party and it ran smoothly because they were only acknowledged when their services were required, like the strong man who could help carry a heavy device or the mage whose forte was water magic escorting the party through an underwater cavern.

But hey, I get it, you've never run a game before and only have horror stories off /tg/ to use for your argument. It's fine, it makes you retarded, but at least it's retardation that you can grow out of with practice.

>>50726226
>NPCs are the same thing as prior PCs
Brain damage, clearly.

Party full of non-fighting units or people weaker than the PCs != Each player having two active characters on the field.

Any excuse to make them "out of the picture" would result in either complaints from the players (Why the fuck WOULDN'T my heroic guy fight?) to plain, poor storytelling. (Uh...he can't fight because...uh...he sprained his ankle! Yeah! Real bad! No, what are you doing, the cleric can't heal him, go away).

You should take it from me because I've actually played a few games unlike you.

>>50726288
>Party full of non-fighting units or people weaker than the PCs != Each player having two active characters on the field.
Fucking strawman. He never said that.

The characters can be off doing other things to help save the world, but, you know, you don't have that sort of fucking imagination.

>>50726354
You're right, he never said that. That is literally my point. My point was he was using an example of him having NPCs that were not prior heroes, and thus their abilities were limited to certain story situations, as opposed to a group of people who are capable of probably handling the problem on their own.

Think for once in your life.

>>50726288
>Party full of non-fighting units or people weaker than the PCs != Each player having two active characters on the field.
What? What sorta shitty campaigns have you been in? In any game I've played or seen, each player only gets one character to play as. Nobody with a functioning brain would force you to control multiple characters at once during combat and the reason why is because 1) it'd cause meta-gaming tactics and 2) it'd lengthen the time it takes to resolve turns.

When I said "take them out of focus," I meant as like, while the PCs are busy with threat #1, the other characters are busy holding down the fort so threat #2 doesn't come in. Have you never seen a story where the secondary characters are busy achieving goals to help out the protagonists? It's the same difference.

Knowing this, no wonder you're so ass-ravaged over this idea, I would be too if I had a GM who was worth less than the dirt under my toenail who forced me into this over complicated shit.

>>50726394
>You're right, he never said that.
Then why are you bringing it up? It has nothing to do with the argument and only exists so you have an easier point to argue against.

Literally the definition of a strawman argument.

>>50726415
>In any game I've played or seen, each player only gets one character to play as
I was actually speaking metaphorically, but to answer your question, the concept of more than two characters at once was actually fairly common a long time ago, but that was back when most RPGs would kill your character at the drop of a dime.

When I said two characters actively on the field, I meant Current Character and Prior Character, not that they were actively controlling both.

>Have you never seen a story where the secondary characters are busy achieving goals to help out the protagonists?

Yeah, I've seen those stories before, and they're universally poorly written.

>HERE ARE THE GUYS YOU WERE SO FOND OF!
>Okay, now they're in the way. They're going to have to deal with this issue off screen while you guys go do stuff.

Which, funnily enough, seems to be your example that you even posted. Why even bother at that point? And then what happens when the Current PCs decide "Wait, no, that's retarded. Lets all move together as a unit, we can kill that group in a matter of seconds, leaving out time as a constraint, then we can all move in on the BBEG and take him out twice as fast"?

>>50726482
Claiming something is a strawman when it's not isn't helping your case. I'm pointing out that there is a distinct difference in what that poster is saying with reality. Sorry you're too retarded to get that. Here's my last (you) to you, unless you get a decent argument.

File: slide-page-08[1].jpg (255KB, 448x538px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 448x538px

>>50708493
It's quite common for our DM to "wipe the slate clean" when starting a new campaign, usually by doing something to the old characters.
so I tend to conceder them dead when a campaign ends.

>>50708687
I kinda like it when DM's use head-ology.

That said.
He's a dick, If after hearing your issue he doesn't give you a chance to save/restore/magic your old character back/free by say destroying this spear or magic

>>50718045
this sounds like a job for
>THE MOTIVATOR

>>50726502
>Claiming something is a strawman when it's not isn't helping your case.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
>he typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's actual proposition.[2][3]

>>50726394
>You're right, he never said that.

Again, literally the definition of a straw man.

>>50726611
MR MOTIVATOR

>>50726502
>I was actually speaking metaphorically, but to answer your question, the concept of more than two characters at once was actually fairly common a long time ago, but that was back when most RPGs would kill your character at the drop of a dime.
Has nothing to do with this discussion, stay focused.
>Yeah, I've seen those stories before, and they're universally poorly written.
Give me three examples where that's ever the case, I'll wait.
>And then what happens when the Current PCs decide "Wait, no, that's retarded. Lets all move together as a unit, we can kill that group in a matter of seconds, leaving out time as a constraint, then we can all move in on the BBEG and take him out twice as fast"?
You can either increase the difficulty to account for the bigger party size, set up road blocks that make the players choose to either waste time as a group or push ahead at the cost of leaving some people to slow down the threat.

>>50726394
You know, I just realized.

You're probably OP's shitty DM, that would explain why you're defending this dogshit so hard.

>>50726662
I'm so glad someone got that
I was starting to feel old

>>50726666
>Give me three examples where that's ever the case, I'll wait.
I don't really see the benefit to anyone's argument here for that. I could go look up three stories, I could tell you one or two where it happened in games I was a player as, but ultimately, we're just going to talk about whether or not that's a good idea and why, and we can skip over the examples for that. But if you still want your examples to argue a point:
1. Sentai. Power Rangers, Kamen Riders, etc, often have the old hero returning for just this purpose. While enjoyable as fanservice over many series, I don't think any one would call any Sentai excellent story telling, and if they did, I'd have to question their tastes.
2. Anime. Anime often does this, usually in shounen series like with bleach or naruto, and usually that hero is relegated to telling the main character "I'll hold them off here! You go on ahead!" after very minor help when he's supposed to be a bigger badass than the main character.
3. Video game RPGs love doing this. Usually, when it happens, the main character either fucks off because he was a cameo appearance to "go deal with something", or he's just plain better than the main character, and you wind up asking "Why isn't he just solving this instead of me?" like with Dragon Age or Fallout.

I would like three examples from you on places where they work excellently, add to the story, and are not just overt cameos dedicated to fanservice.

>You can either increase the difficulty to account for the bigger party size[..]
First, you cannot if you've stated what the problem is ahead of time. "We'll take care of this mob of demons-" "Wait, lets go together instead" is a quick and decisive way to end that method, and the cost of time will never be so great that ending an encounter faster won't be a more viable option.

>>50726669
I am not, nor ever will be, OP's DM. If you don't believe me beyond that, you're paranoid and nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

>>50726932
>I don't really see the benefit to anyone's argument here for that
Then you're admitting that it's a subjective issue that depends varies from person to person.
>I would like three examples from you on places where they work excellently, add to the story, and are not just overt cameos dedicated to fanservice.
1. AtLA had a finale where the rest of the gaang dealt with separate objectives while Aang fought against firelord Ozai, which also included the white lotus, featuring Iroh and Bumi and other secondary characters that helped them during their journey.
2. Gurren Lagann had an instance where Kamina appeared while the rest of the team and inspired Simon to power through the delusions of the anti-spiral to ultimately confront it and save Nia.
3. MMZ3 ended with Zero learning that his body was a copy and that Omega was the original Zero., it was also remembered as being one of the best fights in that series.

>>50726932
>First, you cannot if you've stated what the problem is ahead of time. "We'll take care of this mob of demons-" "Wait, lets go together instead" is a quick and decisive way to end that method, and the cost of time will never be so great that ending an encounter faster won't be a more viable option.
The only thing that we've established so far is that there's a mob of demons, the exact number of demons hasn't been said and if it's obvious that there's a shitload of them and they choose to stay, double the number you were originally planning to account for double the party size.

It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that the BBEG sends a mob of demons with the intentions of killing the party, even if he knows that the best they can do is slow them down long enough for his master plan to be completed.

And even if the GM establishes a demon mob that's en route to their location, that doesn't mean that they'd know about every single road block standing in their way.

>>50726932
adding on to >>50727188
>Gurren Lagann had an instance where Kamina appeared while the rest of the team

[...] was basically locked in a white lotus machine that made them live out their ultimate fantasies [...]

Forgot to add this little tidbit when I posted a while ago.

File: 317.png (90KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x501px

>>50726932
This is the most obvious troll ever and you all fell for it

Oh shit, Virt came back, didn't he

He's gone anon to avoid the mods

File: 1568574954.gif (27KB, 158x132px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 158x132px

>>50725569
Not him, but you aren't really BTFO'ing anyone, really.

You are clearly in the autistic minority who doesn't give a shit about the games they play because if you *cared* about your characters, you would be fairly annoyed at how the GM lazily killed them for very cheap drama effect.

Seriously, the slightly better, while still very lame thing he could've done was kill the family of whatever PC the players were playing.

>>50728643
He never really left.

File: MAD.jpg (50KB, 600x884px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x884px

>>50708493
Personally I think you're totally justified in feeling betrayed in some way. You played that character fro a over a year, you have an attachment to them, nobody wants to hear about them being disposed or getting fridged. I had a similar experience.

Once had a character have his alignment forcibly changed from good to evil and geased to kill another party member. I succeeded and wound up playing my character's son as a new PC, letting my old PC to become an NPC.

My old PC apparently became the new king. I tried to have an audience with him on multiple occasions and failed, though another party member did and had sex with him. My old PC became a plot device and very important aspect of that players story, while I was consistently denied any interaction of any kind. Eventually he was killed off, off screen by a peasant revolt just to piss off the other player. Despite him being a king, and a level 10 sorcerer, according to the DM he was killed a by a single arrow by a peasant. Ask what that means,considering he was magically forced to do all his evil actions."Oh he's burning in hell."

I'm still mad about this. The DM made my good character evil, made me kill another party member, then denied any opportunity for me personally to interact with him and disposed of him as a form of cheap drama for another party member and topped it off by saying that my favorite character at the time, who was a very kind person, was damned to hell for all eternity.

>>50708493
I can understand the feeling entirely, but I do have one question for you. Are you 100% sure they're never gonna be revived? Like at all? From the whole "Demoralizer" psychology aspect the DM's using, he seems to be the kind of guy to not let you in on every small detail in the story off the bat. Maybe he's not telling the full truth on how the spear works, just what it APPEARS to do. Maybe the souls get put in some pocket dimension the spear creates or something.

Something tells me there's still a way to save your old character, if he's smart enough to wield despair that way, he's also smart enough to know this can really kill a group if left permanent. He probably just wants you to feel the gravity of this BBEG by making the stakes seem higher then the last campaign.

Just, idk, believe in your DM, dude. He seems like a tricky little memer, but a good one.

>>50731837
Damn, dude. I'm sorry, for what its worth to have some random asshole on the internet feel bad for you.

>>50727188
>Then you're admitting that it's a subjective issue that depends varies from person to person.
No, not at all. I'm saying that you're going to claim that and then suggest all of my examples are wrong, as I intend to do with you, and its a circular problem with no way out.

>>50727331
>The only thing that we've established so far is that there's a mob of demons, the exact number of demons hasn't been said and if it's obvious that there's a shitload of them and they choose to stay, double the number you were originally planning to account for double the party size.
Until someone says "How many?" and you're forced to give an answer.
"Dunno how many?"
"Why not? You saw them right? Hey, we have wizards, lets scry this shit and figure it out."
Your mistake is relying on the porting technique to scrape you out of your already very embarrassing and poorly written corner, and to scrounge for "escapes" until you get one piled on your heap of shit, when the better answer is to just not include the stupid team up to begin with.

Either way, it doesn't matter. If there is an objective point that needs to be dealt with, it's a much smarter idea to head together as one unit.

>>50730879
>You are clearly in the autistic minority who doesn't give a shit about the games they play because if you *cared* about your characters
Gamers are claerly an autistic minority that doesn't give a shit about social issues, so it's okay if SJWs come in and shit everything up.

Your logic is as retarded as you are.

File: what the thousand year fuck am i reading.png (607KB, 654x497px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 654x497px

>>50732462
>Gamers are claerly an autistic minority that doesn't give a shit about social issues, so it's okay if SJWs come in and shit everything up.
anon you don't actually believe this line of reasoning makes sense.
more importantly, nobody throws arround sjw like that.

>>50732758
I wish I could be as naive as you are again...

>>50731837
You must've done something to piss off your DM, probably outside the game.

>>50732980
Actually the one he was pissed at was the other player, the one I had to kill and, subsequently, had his next characters lover (my old PC) and child killed off.

He always got along with me because I was "a good sport" which i think just meant I never complained about anything bad happening, even if they were kind of unfair.

>>50710504
So, when exactly was the last time you GM'd and the players enjoyed their experience?

>>50708687
That's meta as fuck and should be called out like the bullshit it is.

>>50710504
Hiya Virt, nice to see you

>>50732132
>Just, idk, believe in your DM, dude. He seems like a tricky little memer, but a good one.
From personal experience, what ends up happening is you wait weeks, months, sometimes even years, for the GM to give some big payoff to all the bullshit they threw at you, only to wind up disappointed as they proceed to end the campaign on an anticlimactic note because it turns out that they had no intention on giving you a good payoff from the get-go and simply ran a plotline because they thought it'd be "epic" only to lose interest once they realize that they had no idea of where to take it.

That's not to say that's what's going to happen but it happened so often that I'm just jaded and assume the worst.

To this day, I've never been disappointed.

>>50733654
Bingo.

File: Fishing Pole.jpg (121KB, 1600x1584px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1600x1584px

>>50710504

>>50708493
nah, that's pretty terrible on the DM's part. he really should have consulted with the entire group together to run the idea of using this kind of thing by you guys instead of just arbitrarily taking a huge shit on the campaign you guys invested so much time in and wrapped up in a way everybody seemed happy with.

RPGs are a community activity where everybody contributes to the game, not a novel written by the GM. This is the kind of thing that can cause a gaming group to fall apart.

>>50708493
Luckily the only time anything like this happened was after we left the group.

The game started going full magical realm with, rape,vomit, and mind control making regular appearance in disgusting detail. We tried talking to the DM about it but he just kept saying "shut up ,man up, my game." .

All but one of us quit, the one that stayed told us that all the characters of people that quit were turned into brainwashed sex slaves that lived of the bbegs vomit up until they were executed .

We did not really know them outside of the game and did not bother keeping contact.

From a GM perspective, this is a pretty dumb way to do things. What I would do is have the antagonist claim that his spear destroy souls, but it instead scatters them (maybe in universe soul physics don't allow for the destruction of soul matter or something). Since the old PCs were obviously powerful, the fragments of their souls represent aspects of them, but without the other aspects balancing them out, they attach to things and cause trouble. This adds side-quest potential.

I wouldn't have the reunification of the soul fragments revive the characters though. Perhaps the whole process leaves them too weak. As a final gesture, maybe they pass on a favoured technique or ability onto a character, or empower a piece of equipment before passing on to the afterlife.

Just my two cents.

>>50732462
I fail to see why any of this has to do with SJWs. Stop being a faggot and leave that rubbish out of here. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is an SJW.

>>50708493
>not having the BBEG's spear trap the old PCs souls instead of anhiliating them
>not having shadow versions of the old party as a boss mid-way through the campaign
>not having the souls of those trapped be released as spectres when the spear is broken
>not having the climactic fight involve breaking the spear, as the bad guy is too powerful for the party to kill alone
>not handing the players their old PC's sheet for the second phase of the fight, so they can control both their new and old PC to defeat the BBEG once and for all
>not showing the old PCs move on to their rightful afterlife, their souls finally at rest with the villain gone

Massive missed opportunity on your GM's part desu familia

>>50738226
In fairness, the type of sods who do this type of thing usually never had any intention of giving you a satisfying payoff.

Just "lel death and destruction aren't I hardcore" followed by weeks of disappointment, both in the GM and in the campaign that had such promise before falling head-first into shit lake.

>>50716477

This. The DM sounds pretty crappy, but if noone else is willing the DM at all then I'll still take his side.

>>50737957
I'm merely showing the folly of the argument, as opposed to making a direct connection between SJWs and this discussion, you retard.

>be a newbie DM
>have a great idea set up for players exploring a forgotten mega city (NYC sized)
>have my big baddie meet the party as soon as they are within the walls
>he's supposed to make a comment about treasure, walk around a corner and vanish
>he will appear like this throughout the campaign
>have a side note that states, "If players deal him any kind of damage the final battle starts right then."
>the rogue shoots at his leg with his Xbow
>Natural Fucking 20....
>I sigh, hang my head and tell the party to roll for initiatives
>everyone is wondering what the hell just happened
>the bosses head snaps back and his jaw cracks open until he resembles a snake
>a kind of black oily substance spews out of him and begins to spread across the street and building like a cancer
>the druid says "Fuck this" transforms into a bird and flies away
>rest of the party gets wrecked
>session #3 is the players making new characters.

I think I did this to myself...

File: Autism.png (1MB, 800x474px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x474px

>>50742933
>have my big baddie meet the party as soon as they are within the walls
>he's supposed to make a comment about treasure, walk around a corner and vanish
>he will appear like this throughout the campaign
>have a side note that states, "If players deal him any kind of damage the final battle starts right then."
>have a side note that states, "If players deal him any kind of damage the final battle starts right then."
>I think I did this to myself...
>I think I did this to myself...
>I think I did this to myself...

>>50742970
I wasn't expecting them to shoot the first non-monster they saw, I was just like "Ahead you can see a bald man in a red coat shouting something about a treasure, he-" / "I'm going to shoot him in the leg so he can't go anywhere." And then the fucker rolled. I had no time to run any kind of damage control, I just looked at my notes and saw that staring back at me like; "Yeah, this is your fault buddy, deal with it."

>>50742970
It's a realistic response to being shot at. Chill.

>>50742933
But he's right. You weren't stupid, but at the least very naive. Here's an important lesson for you.

DM Lesson #1: Anything you place in front of the players, they WILL try to steal, kill, maim, or burn. Account for this.

If you want to have something like a recurring villain, you need to make it so that the villain either is unreachable with most attacks, brings some extra force, or the party doesn't know they are villains. Otherwise, some smart ass will, without failure, attempt to attack or provoke him.

>>50743029
Me again >>50743031

On that note, it sounds like you were trying to hide him, which is a good attempt. I think next time, though, you should gauge how the characters react in certain situations to get a feel for if they would shoot a random stranger or not. In your case, what you should have done is switched the villain in disguise for a REAL old man, and then have it bite them in the ass when they lose out on a treasure behind a trap that's basically unstoppable. Gives them a good moral lesson about attacking without information on the subject.

>>50743031
Oh I learned that lesson quick, in the next campaign we ran I jad the players working for the baddie for like three months real time. She was posing as a servant of Athena, trapped within four reflections at the corners of the land they were in, it was only after they killed her husband and freed her did they learn that she was actually one of the elder daughters of the queen of succubi. I was very proud they never figured it out, one detect evil or sense motive check and it would have been undone, but they didn't even consider it.
>>50743068
Fuck, that sounds great, I should have done this, oh well, I'll save it for my current game I'm building.

>>50742970
Don't be an ass.

>>50743601
Naw, he's right, I did it to myself, but it was a learning process, after that embarassing fuck up I am now a wiser DM.

>>50715807
Not that anon, but to be completely fair, I once ran a game where, because of a noble mentor character, the player-characters plunged the world into a century of darkness and misery.

>>50743911
The difference between what happened to you and what happened to OP is that (presumably), the world got plunged into a century of darkness due to the actions of the PC's, rather than it all happening off-screen just for the purposes of cheap drama.

>>50744894
Oh, I know. My point is that PCs go kinda nuts, in my personal experience, when a mentor is introduced; the campaign goes straight to hell, in my case.

>>50745123
That doesn't have anything to do with mentors, it has everything to do with the PC's doing stupid shit that ruined the entire world just because they were butthurt at receiving feedback from an NPC.

It's not the same as someone taking an old character that you had for over a year and then erasing their souls just to give "stakes" and "drama" for the new campaign.

File: Heiss.png (183KB, 236x649px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 236x649px

>>50745169
Oh, absolutely. It's not a counterargument; just an observation.

>>50745169
>just to give "stakes" and "drama" for the new campai

It is drama and stakes. It's just ones you don't like because it makes you "feel bad".

>>50745430
It really isn't, and the reason why it isn't is because it's an event that only affects the players, not the characters.

In-game, the worst that happened is that they found out that someone has the ability to erase souls and even that much is dubious since it's likely the GM just added that little tidbit after game just so the players felt "demoralized" as a result of their old characters dying and getting their souls erased.

>>50745678
>It really isn't, and the reason why it isn't is because it's an event that only affects the players, not the characters.
Incorrect on its basis. Destroying previous heroes is a great way to hurt morale of a populace, as discussed far above you.

>>50745755
Except for all we know, the only people who know are the players, not the characters themselves.

Also, the guy you mention above is was an out an out troll, so I'd advise against citing him as a source to bolster your argument.

>Work to give your PCs good end
>GM gives them bad end anyway

Why would any player be okay with this

>>50746025
>Except for all we know, the only people who know are the players, not the characters themselves.
If your "argument" is to assume things, then we'll be here all day with what ifs.

Also, killing off the current heroes is in no way a bad move on the villain's part. Why wouldn't you want to kill a group that seems perfectly capable of stopping your plan?

Are you an idiot?

>>50721679
>Waaaa, why can't I always have my perfect happy ending!
Ah, I see your the kind of fag that needs permanent gratification at the end of your RP or you simply can't enjoy it, because the exciting and fun journey wasn't enough for you. The door is over there.

>>50721624
>The former PCs can be complete strangers to the new PCs. Not friends, not mentors, nothing. Why would the new PCs care about their fate?
Well they shouldn't. But if this thread is any indication of how people would react to dead old PCs, with several grievances being about an inability to res-them, I'd say again, the spear is to prevent the campaign from turning into a massive "we gotta rez em" story for however long.
>Going onward from the first point, this course of action influences the players on a meta level, which is bad if you didn't know.
I say it's there own fault for being so easily influenced. A good RPer should be able to block meta influences on their actions for the sake of the RP.
>Killing 'special' characters that the players like and got attached to off-screen is generally seen as bad form by the GM. Because it's very cheap drama. It encourages people to make pure murderhobos
Maybe it's that I've seen people get overly attached to characters, bad ones, bland and murderous ones undeserving of their received praise at that. Ones to die on screen, yet players suddenly lose interest in the game and want to drop campaigns if they died. I've kinda grown callus to these woes. And depending on how it's done, maybe it is cheap drama and bad of the GM. I'll admit that I think the mutilation is just pointless. But hey, not everyone dies on screen. And they're the worlds heroes aren't they? So I reaffirm that it makes sense for them to confront the worlds new evil, and if the campaign warrants existing, lose to it. We can agree to disagree.

>>50709317
This guy gets it.

>>50743031

I remember learning this lesson when I wanted to introduce a sort of charming rogue antagonist to the party. They then proceeded to have him trampled to death by their horses for having the gall to ask for protection money in the woods.

Good times.

>>50708493
nah that's a real shitty thing to do, DM should always ask the group how they feel about stuff like that

>>50748498

If it was to prevent the party from rezzing the old PCs, there's easier ways to prevent that by burning the bodies or trapping their souls.

Or just having the old PCs want to stay dead. There's a clause in pretty much all of the revival spells that requires the target to be willing. I'd imagine after heroing for years they'd probably rather enjoy rest in the afterlife than keep fighting every battle.

File: ZHSowwh.gif (2MB, 540x350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x350px

>>50733604
was wondering if anyone else was going to mention this.

>>50708687

Ask your GM if part of his powers involved the ability to target the players.

The only ones who would be demoralized by such an act would be characters with an established link to the previous ones.

if his purpose was to show the effect of the psychological warfare on the party, he was doing so by exploiting a connection that should be beyond his capacity to perceive.

Of course, this doesn't count if your characters are all related/pledged to the previous ones as their lieges.

or, if they really are dead.
if you just found soulless chopped up bodies, that doesn't discount pre-reincarnated characters by the bad guy as collateral.
Hell, they could have facilitated this themselves for some fucked up reason because I have a sneaking suspicion anyone who comes up with the name "the demoralizer" has yet to reach the peak of their public retardation display.

>>50748498
Ah, the troll's back, strawmaning up a storm once more I see.

@50749307
None of that was a strawman. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>50749307
Every time I see him post I think back to Alien 3, where they killed off everyone that survived Aliens but Ripley, and how much that sucked. Imagine if Ripley had died too, that would have sucked even more.

>>50749404
Happy Ending Overide is a hated trope for a very specific reason.

And no, it would have been better, because then I wouldn't have had to watch Aliens 3. Panning shot of everyone dead, smashcut to credits.

Much better then the fuckfest we got. And no Resurrection, too.

>>50708493
That sounds like a writer that can't keep tone steady.

>>50742933
You're running into a case of "Movie/Videogame" logic versus Tabletop logic.

That could totally work in one of those formats, where you can control what the characters do, but this falls apart when you have players controlling characters.

>>50749183
Really? You gotta be willing to be revived? Well color me surprised, I thought it was rather involuntary (for NPCs that is, players of course can decide they just don't want the resurrection to work). In that case I suppose it'd not be necessary for the whole spear thing. Then again, I'd think the party would be far more angry if they spent all that time and did all that work of trying to revive their old PCs to just have the DM say "they don't want to come back". On top of frustration, it'd be frustration at all the time they in essence wasted.

>>50749307
>No argument
>Better call em a troll, that'll show em!
You aren't too bright are you? It's alright, I get it, it probably hurts being called a fag on the internet, but I'm sure your feelings will be ok buddy.

>>50750312
Troll is too fucking stupid to even know the rules of the game.

Shocker.

>>50750312
>the party would be more angry at wasting all that time!

Then you, as the DM, could shut that shit down early, maybe have the players encounter the souls of the PCs through some sort of spiritual contact during their quest to revive them. This is even better because it would allow for closure, and the quest itself could even thematically be about letting go of old things

>>50708675
That's a hell lot of upset.

>>50750312
>it probably hurts being called fag on the internet
I refuse to believe someone as inflammatory as yourself has never been called fag on the internet.

>>50750403
Great idea. Except the entire premise is that the players are butthurt because they lost player agency. This would be the same thing, no matter how you try and bend it.

>"OH, the souls don't want to come back?"
>"Uh, what? That's MY character, and MY character wouldn't say that at all."
>"No, but he changed his mind, see? Look at this spiritual me-"
>"Nah fuck off cunt, that's my character, and I know him better than you, and he wouldn't do that. He'd want to live."

Great plan. Wow. Fantastic DM. Slow clap all around.

>>50747020
see >>50708493 and >>50708687

Also, I understand that from a villain's standpoint, murdering the biggest heroes would be your first priority but that doesn't excuse the GM for setting up the situation in the way that he did.

For one, the characters died off-screen, in a border skirmish, when they were powerful enough to earn the title of kings and heroes from defeating whatever threat required at least 52 weeks of campaign to dispatch.

He could've set it up in a way where one of the old PC's died, and figuring out whodunnit eventually led to the PCs discovering the other older PCs and the campaign from then on could've been averting more death and destruction.

As opposed to this situation where they were thrown away in a contrived way just to set stakes that have no relevance to the new group or drama because it's a meta-jab at the players.

It was just poor form all around, not that I'd expect you to know the difference or anything.

>>50750452
So all you can come up with instead is total invalidation of the prior campaign.

Great fucking job, jackass.

>>50750383
>Everyone in the world plays D&D
>Everyone in the world plays *my edition* of D&D.

Idiot is sniffing his own farts. News at 11.

>>50750475
>This rule is in literally every edition
But please, keep trying to move the goalposts, troll-boy.

>>50750452
You literally have no basis for your argument, the OP said he was upset over the nature of their deaths, not the fact that they didn't get to control them dying.

That and I see no reason to take a made up conversation with a made up group as evidence that you are correct.

>>50750457
Yes, you linked me to the original posts. Nobody said that literally nobody else knew about the battle at the boarder, or that the news would not spread. Do you think that the PCs are just going to keep that info to themselves for no reason? The only OoC knowledge present is the fact that the enemy has the title of Demoralizer, but that in itself implies someone else knows about this person, otherwise there would be no title, would there?

>murdering the biggest heroes would be your first priority but that doesn't excuse the GM for setting up the situation in the way that he did.
This is self-contradicting. It's a first priority of a villain, but he's not allowed to do it? Why? Because it hurt their feelings that something bad happened to previous special snowflakes? That's literally the only reason, isn't it? Because someone's fee-fees got hurted.

>when they were powerful enough to earn the title of kings and heroes [...]
And? Unless the DM made the statement "These guys are literally the strongest people in the universe and no one in the history of ever again in this campaign will be able to defeat them", then there's nothing wrong here. There's always a bigger fish. Hell, we don't even know the levels of the last campaign. For all we know, he could have been playing EL6.

>He could've set it up in a way where one of the old PC's died[...]
That's literally the same thing, except you just limited it to one, and then a bunch of cameo appearances later on. What's the difference here?

>As opposed to this [...]
Contrived how? Meta how? Because everything makes sense in-unvierse and in-character, including villain motivations by your admission. Again, literally the only problem here is someone got butthurt at a story turn, and because they think they have partial ownership over a retired character, they get to complain.

>not that I'd expect you to know the difference or anything.
Apparently I know a little better than you do.

Troll continues to shitpost wildly, utterly unable to emphasize with anyone or anything.

News at 11.

Let's stop feeding him (you)s, yeah?

>>50732462
>Until someone says "How many?" and you're forced to give an answer.
It's hard to tell because they're in a cluster and rushing towards you, you can't make out exact numbers. Simple enough explanation.
>"Why not? You saw them right? Hey, we have wizards, lets scry this shit and figure it out."
So you're going to waste time scrying just how many demons are approaching you...as the demon mob is approaching you?
>Your mistake is relying on the porting technique
And your mistake is assuming that the demons are just going to stand around and wait for you to count them up when they're en route to attack you.

If you don't understand how difficult this would be, perform the following steps.

1. watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2rO6rK99EE
2. Set speed to x2
3. Try to count out how many toads there are within the span of 6 seconds w/o pausing.

Kinda difficult huh? Well imagine doing this in the heat of battle.

You're not getting an exact number chief.

>>50750467
That's how sister stories usually work, yes. It's generally poor form to continue a story in the same universe within the same time-span and regional area but with different characters and ignore the old ones. That's why a lot of stories make a time leap, a regional leap, or completely disconnect with the prior story. If you're going to continue the story but with different characters, the most sensible option is to lop them out of the action. Otherwise, you're left with a ton of "why didn't old hero just do this?" plot holes

@50750501
>Doesn't address first point
>Doesn't address retroclones or d20 likes
>Just uses the label of D&D itself
>Pretending that I'm the one shifting goalposts
Is your style to mimic the No more (you)s for you, my boy. Won't reply next time either.

>>50750504
If you think that conversation has no basis in experience or reality, I have to say, you're pretty inexperienced. Players grow attached to their PC. In the case of OP and all the other pussies in the thread, a little TOO much to a point that they're whining "This is unfair!". Do you have any evidence to suggest people with this mentality wouldn't stick to character motivations to keep them alive despite the shitty attempt to fit your dumb plot hook in?

>>50750613
>It's hard to tell because they're in a cluster and rushing towards you
If they're rushing AT you, aren't you in the same room together? Wouldn't you be able to fight just then? Seems like you made a mistake.
>So you're going to waste time scrying just how many demons are approaching you
Oh, see, here, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were smart enough NOT to pull the shounen trope of "HERE COMES SOME REGULAR MOBS, GUYS! I'LL HOLD THEM OFF HERE! YOU GO ON AHEAD!", and thought that this intel was coming in from advanced because why would you ever split the party for something that stupid? My bad.
>And your mistake is assuming that the demons are just going to stand around and wait for you to count them up when they're en route to attack you.
Your mistake is assuming the players won't ask you how many are physically there, and that the players also will not come up with a way to separate the demon mob from the party as they continue to the big bad, or that the players WON'T actually stand and fight as a unit, forcing your hand to give them either a count or literally spam them with mobs until they call you shitty and leave.

>Guys, a huge mob is coming at you! The heroes says they' stand and fi-
>What? How are a few guys going to stop all of that? We need to form a line and prevent them from getting up at all. Rogue, find a trap door ahead and prepare to close it while we all make a slow retreat
>Uh...shit!

Dumbfuck.

>>50750598
>Why?
Because killing someone off-screen is the biggest asspull you can make, especially in a hobby like this where it's not just YOUR setting or YOUR story being told.

If they had to die, after having played them for at least a year, the least you could've done is make it so the players had a chance to either play out their heroic last stand or intervere in a way that could've potentially saved one of them.

Nobody wants to see someone they enjoyed playing dying off-screen in a contrived way just because the GM had to make it so. And the reason it's contrived is because every old PC just so happened to be participating in a border skirmish at the exact moment that the BBEG showed up with a weapon capable of destroying souls?

At best, one PC should've been there and only because he was leading his army to meet the BBEG in combat. I'm also hesitant to believe that he'd bring his doomsday weapon to show off during a border skirmish unless he somehow knew they'd be there.

>>50750312
fag

>>50750650
No no no, you asserted the claim that that is how the conversation would go down, it is on YOU to provide evidence that it would (you don't have any), not ME to provide evidence to a claim that I did not assert.

All that does is piss the players off and not necessarily give new characters a reason to hate the BBEG more.

>>50750475
>Literally doesn't understand the most basic rules of the game.

For the record, this was a thing since 1st edition.

There's the door.

>>50750650
>@50750501
First day on 4chan I presume?

Anyone else notice how this guy's point keeps changing from "you guys are all pussies!" to "there was no other way to motivate the characters!" because he has to move his goalposts so often?

>>50750839
He literally didn't know that souls could refuse to be revived if they would rather enjoy their afterlife in style.

This is a troll that's eating his own asshole and asking us why we smell like shit.

>>50708493
Your GM clearly wants to go for some kind of hardcore, tears aplenty setting.

Which is fine if that's WHAT YOUR PLAYERS WANT.

Ask your group, not us.

>>50750749
>Because killing someone off-screen is the biggest asspull you can make
Why? For what reason is it an asspull other than hurt feelings?

>[...]the least you could've done is make it so the players had a chance to either play out their heroic last stand[...]
That's legitimately a bigger asspull than what you're arguing against, and plain bad game design. You never throw out enemies that legit cannot be beaten, and if the enemy CAN be beaten reasonably by the party, there's a higher than average chance they'll just do that instead.

>And the reason it's contrived is because every old PC just so
"Uh, hey, what would these Adventurer type guys who went out of their way to save the day and the world be doing out here in the middle of this battle fighting an evil guy?"
"I dunno"
Retard.

>At best, one PC should've been there and only because he was leading his army to meet the BBEG in combat
That I actually will agree upon. Thought there could have been any number of reasons the party was there by themselves (such as heard a rumor of a new threat and decided a small, adventure/infiltration team was the best tactic to use)

>I'm also hesitant to believe that he'd bring his doomsday weapon to show off during a border skirmish
Why would someone leave behind a weapon that is best used in active combat behind at all? Especially if they're the powerful general? That's like saying a player shouldn't use their Elixers until the final battle, and is how you get idiots who game over against regular bosses with 99 of them in their inventory.

>>50750818
>>50750650

>>50750839
>>50750866
>4chan is one person
>Ignoring other points

I'm half tempted to call samefag here. Pleading to the audience for acceptance of your groupthink is not a strong case to be making.

File: holy shit u git.jpg (24KB, 843x159px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 843x159px

>>50750945
okey man whatever you say

>>50708493
what game is this>?

>>50751010
Garfield: Odie's Obliteration (2011)

File: try again.jpg (11KB, 177x153px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 177x153px

>>50750945
>Ignores every single point that disqualifies his position.
>Attacks a position that he made within the same post when it has nothing to do with the actual argument
>Gets butthurt when people call him out on strawmanning.

See >>50726614

This is what you've been doing for the entirety of the thread, that and accusing people of having "hurt fee-fees" when they've already explained why they didn't like what OP's DM did.

Since you seem to be an expert on "doing it right," how about you tell us of a time when you pulled off a similar stunt and the players not only tolerated it but enjoyed every moment of it.

Also, pic related, if only to show that at least two people think you're retarded ITT, which is probably low-balling it.

>>50750945
You're going to bring out a doomsday weapon during a border skirmish, knowing that a party of PC's are present, even though a thousand things could've gone wrong and if they had managed to destroy/steal/seal/etc. said weapon, the entire plot of the story would've been over?

The BBEG's a fucking retard mate, you don't bring out the nukes to decide a little border skirmish, especially when there's a group of powerful PCs who have the power to potentially destroy your doomsday weapon.

Not to mention, what if they were all busy with their own shit, like running a country as a newly appointed king, training serfs, or just traveling throughout the land like a hobo giving aid where needed? If they all weren't conveniently in the neighborhood to participate in this particular border skirmish then the BBEG would've basically brought out the big guns for nothing or risked revealing his trump card too early and having two separate groups hunting for his head once they catch wind.

>>50751189
>You're going to bring out a doomsday weapon during a border skirmish, knowing that a party of PC's are present
1. Refer to elixer argument. If you need me to spell it out, basically, if you go to meet a tough enemy and don't plan on using everything at your whim, then there's a greater chance you'll lose. Whereas if you bring your huge trump card and use it at the start, there's a much larger chance you'll win. Why would you leave it behind?

2. If you're the huge big bad and your doomsday weapon is literally the only reason why you can move the plot forward, you COULD leave it behind, but if you wind up dying anyways, then you won't miss it much, will you? Plus, if you're evil, and you leave it behind, there's a chance one of your subordinates will usurp it and use it upon you when you return, weakened from a battle that could have gone much easier with said doomsday weapon. Why would you leave it behind?

3. If you know it's going to be a big bad PC party, isn't that the ONE TIME to bring out the big nukes?

>The BBEG's a fucking retard mate
Who's the retard here?

>then the BBEG would've basically brought out the big guns for nothing
You're also making this weird retarded assumption that the "doomsday weapon" isn't his standard arm for any battle whatsoever.

You'd make a bad villain at any rate.

@50751089
Oh. It's you again. Post hidden, didn't read, lol.

>>50751089
The really funny part was I was the last one he did that retarded @ shit to, not you. And we both know it.

>>50751249
1. There's a difference between an elixir and a doomsday weapon which is required for whatever nefarious schemes you're attempting to do. It should be obvious by the fact that you have 99 elixirs vs. one doomsday weapon.
1a. You're skirmishing over a border, not the halls of a well fortified keep or castle. If anything, you should let them win and use that as an opportunity to learn more about your opponent's powers.

2. That's generally why you should leave the skirmish to the pawns rather than take out the big guns on the first skirmish of a long-term war.

3. How did you know it was going to be a big bad PC party?
3a. Even if you had a way of knowing, why would you target them as a group rather than one-at-a-time?
3b. What would happen if the PC's got the drop on you and broke your doomsday weapon before it could be used?

It's a plot that's barely held together by bubble gum and prayer, even comic books have more coherent plots than this, and that's saying alot.

>>50708493
I would still play out of pure spite. Every time the GM introduced an important NPC I'd kill them. Anything I could tell he worked hard on I'd fucking destroy. I'd spend every moment of this game destroying all the hard work he put into it until he's given up on the thought of ever enjoying this campaign

>>50751348
>>50751249
What's with the "@" shit?

This isn't twitter you stupid faggot.

>>50708625
How did the GM respond to that?

Imagine your favorite show. You love the cast, the plot was great, even the music is memorable.

Then they announce "Your Show: 2"! And in the first episode they unceremoniously, but irrefutably kill off every previous character for shock value. That wouldn't sit well with anyone, and not because they're sensitive, but because it's bad writing.

A good ending makes a show, but a bad ending can ruin one. Character deaths (in this case, NPCs) should be used tactfully, and with discretion.

>>50751549
He's throwing a tantrum and trying to avoid giving out (you)s as if we were the trolls, not him.

>>50751530

>There's a difference between an elixir and a doomsday weapon
One is a consumable, the other is a one-shot thing that will end the world. The spear, however, seems to be a reusable magic weapon, and there doesn't seem to be a reason not to bring it.

>You're skirmishing over a border, not the halls of a well fortified keep or castle
There's also the possibility that OP did not mean a military maneuver, and instead was referring to a singular battle where the BBEG caught the party.
>If anything, you should let them win
That's laughably retarded. Why?

>That's generally why you should leave the skirmish[...]
"Oh, shit, those heroes are still alive. Fuck, they're coming to the castle. If I send my minions, they'll just lose and it'll be like throwing resources away. Better go myself. I'll bring my spear. The less of them in the world, the better for my army."

>How did you know it was going to be a big bad PC party?
Scrying
Spy
Big Bad invited them out
They were noticed on the way in
It's hard to mask the movements of kings and leaders
Pick your poison.

>why would you target them as a group rather than one-at-a-time?
Because then nobody could argue that the fight was unfair. If you beat the heroes on essentially their own terms, then there's nothing unsure about your victory. With a name like demoralizer, I'm pretty sure that's what would go through the DM's head.

Kill enemy
Demoralize their troops and town
Take over

>What would happen if the PC's got the drop on you and broke your doomsday weapon before it could be used?
The risk of them getting the drop on you remains the same with or without the weapon, but your chance of losing the fight that results afterwards increases without the spear. If they manage to kill you or break the doomsday device is treated as the same outcome in those cases, and has already been calculated before.

Besides
>Magic spear
>Getting destroyed in a single surprise round
That would take some straight up bullshit.

>>50750383
>>50750501
Wow, you've got some serious autism buddy. You should calm down, and realize you're talking to several people. I know it's hard to understand, but 4chan isn't you and 1 other person in all these threads.

>>50750818
>For the record, this was a thing since 1st edition.
That's really great. Superb. I sure wish I could have enjoyed 1st edition. But I didn't. I played a bit of 3.5, then less-broken systems for a long time, and now have started 5e, so I haven't played the series too much. Haven't had the joy of learning every single rule in 5e. So shove off.

>most basic rules of the game.
Oh most basic eh? Funny how we're level 9 and revival hasn't come up as something we should know the particularities about yet. But I'm sure it's among the most basic rules you need to know in 5e, you troglodyte. I must have just luckily made it this far without knowing this basic rule, my mistake.

>>50750403
Ya. That sounds like a pretty nice idea. Doubt OPs DM will do that though, but he can be wishful.

>>50750435
Actually no, I haven't. But I have received some far more creative ones that let me have a good chortle. And I was only inflammatory in response when anon decided to tell a complete stranger on the internet to fuck off. That wasn't very nice of him.

>>50750773
Well that wasn't bad. I'm not sure what the other anon is so upset about.

GM should have just taken them and told you guys to roll new characters. Then your characters are still around, it's like you made them for your GM. You took part in inventing the story of everything, they don't have to die.

>>50751658
>1
Except it's a massive security risk that's disproportionate to the scale of combat.
>2
That makes it worse, you're bringing out your secret weapon at a point where it serves no purpose to do so.
>3
To scope out the heavy hitters and study them for weaknesses, duh. This is super-villainy 101.
>4
If the heroes know where you are then there should be a fucking army tearing their way to your throne room as we speak. Let's not even go into how retarded you are in allowing the enemy to know where you live in the first place.
>5
So GM fiat, gotcha. Next!
>6
That's retarded, a villain never fights the heroes on their own terms, especially when they're going in as a group.
>7
Raises the question, why are you fighting them head on in the first place? And even if they can't destroy it, they can still steal it and lock it up somewhere where you can't find it anymore.

Keep in mind, spells like mage's disjunction were made to destroy magic items.

>>50751697
>Doesn't know the rules
>Gets butthurt when people call him out on it

If you don't know the rules then don't cite them you fag, it's right there in the rules for resurrection and it's been there for over 30 years.

If you don't know this well-known and fairly basic rule then you should leave the discussion to the big boys who know what they're talking about.

Oh wait, you can't, because everyone's calling you a faggot who doesn't know what he's talking about, guess you better just fuck off then champ, better luck next time.

>>50751788
>1
It's literally not. Big threat calls for big guns. If these were literal nobodies, and not former heroes, then you might have a case, but it's not, and you don't.
>2
See above. Higher chances of winning the combat.
>3
Or, you could just...I'unno. Kill them? This isn't James Bond here. "You're literally the only person who can stop my plan. Now I'm going to leave you alone in a slow-moving and easily escapable death room and NOT watch you die. Ta-tah"
I can't speak for everyone, but I firmly believe a majority, myself included, picked up TRPGs over movies and video games specifically to avoid idiotic villains like that.
>4
Maybe they did? Maybe one of them lead their armies to battle the oppositions army, and the heroes got together again to sneak in through a side mission? Again, this isn't bond. It's actually acceptable to let the enemy know where you are provided you have a military to back it up. There are too many details that are being left out, but in the context of what OP said, what the villain did was the best course of action.
>5.
Ha ha how about no, that's not how GM Fiat works. In your own words, that's super-villainy 101. Except this is actually a tactic that works within the rules of the setting as well, and there would be no reason NOT to employ those tactics.
>6.
Unless they're trying to prove a point. Which is a stronger demoralizing tactic here?
"Oh my god! This guy beat the heroes!"
"HE SNUCK UP ON THEM!"
"He must be a coward. We can take him guys! Rally the troops! Lets get vengence!"
"We won't let someone who uses cowardly tactics take advantage of us!"

or

"Oh my god, he beat the heroes!"
"Oh shit, he took them all on at once and killed them!"
"If he's THAT powerful, what chance do we have?"
"I don't even want to fight anymore..."

>7
Because you're a big bad trying to make a point and you don't believe anyone else in your military could do it?

Keep in mind, we don't know what ruleset OP was using.

>>50751893
>1&2
Your entire strawman basically boils down to "I had to use it because if I didn't then the PC's wouldn't know that I had it."
>3
The PC's wouldn't be aware of anything because this was the first conflict where your army fought against them and they'd have no reason to suspect that you're packing a doomsday weapon.
>4
No military leader is going to let the enemy know where they live, that's just asking someone to stab you in your sleep mate.
>5
If the situation involved scrying and spies or whatever, that's all shit that could've been carried out in a session in and of itself. It'd be more interesting than this trash fire at least
>6
Wouldn't it make more sense to let them win a stupid border skirmish to give them a fat head, only to deliver a devastating loss when they needed to win the most?
>7
There's no point in making a point if the enemy already knows where you sleep.

You're a terrible villain and are lucky that everyone else is as dumb as you are.

>>50750838
No, retards do that because they don't want to give (You)s.

>>50752105
Why even reply if you don't want to give people (You)'s?

We have a "hide post" option for a reason.

>>50752120
Because he's a pathetic fucking troll.

>>50752120
I think it's a mix between obfuscating your reply so that you get the last word in ("winning the argument") and not wanting to give someone the satisfaction of a notification on the thread tab's favicon.

>>50752095
>1&2
wut. It's not a strawman, it serves a fucking purpose.
>3
Doesn't matter. The goal of the villain here is to kill the party. Fullstop.
>4
"No royalty is going to let you know where you live, that's just asking someone to stab you in the sleep"
Ahem. Buckingham palace? White house? Stop being a retard maybe?
>5
"Okay, for this session, I'm going to roleplay out my villain spying on your guys and getting details about your movements. You guys just kinda sit there while I roll some dice"
Retarded.
>6
Stronger demoralizing tactic to never let them have a single win, as opposed to letting them win once and crushing them later. The latter is used as a bait to lure a strong enemy into a weak position due to pride.
>7
If they can't get to where you sleep, it's not a fucking issue, idiot.

Serious question, do you only play spy fiction stories? I really still don't get why you keep calling a soul-stealing spear a "doomsday" weapon when it literally has no narrative qualities of that.

File: Smug loli.jpg (338KB, 1369x1183px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1369x1183px

>>50751822
>don't cite them you fag
I wasn't citing anything you mouthbreathing grog. You must skim posts and think you know everything that's written in them you retard.
>well known
>fairly basic rule
So looking at the spells, a cleric can cast resurrection as a 7th level necromancy, which means he does it at 13th level. 13th. Let that sink in for a moment into your dense, retard skull, and realize that something you do at 13th level is neither basic, nor would be know to someone who never had a cleric in their party, or never had resurrection come up in their games on the PC end of things, regardless of how long it's been around.

>leave the discussion to the big boys who know what they're talking about
Problem is you're not discussing anything, you're just shitposting because that's all you have. Why don't you go make some friends outside? You can start at a highway. Try high fiving a semi, see where that leads.

>>50752221
You. I like you.

>>50708687
He could've semi-permanently sealed their souls, preventing them from being resurrected until he was defeated. It functionally and narratively serves the same purpose, but also leaves the possibility of them not being 100% fucked open.

In fact, he could even still do this. The guy's "The Demoralizer", not "The Truther" or "The Artificer". He may not know shit about his spear doohicky, or he does know and knows it's not a permanent solution but keeps quiet to stop mass revenge plots.

>>50752182
>1
Yeah, showing off even though it would be a better decision to hold off on it.
>2
The goal of the villain is to succeed at his plans, killing the party is incidental to that purpose but isn't necessarily required.
>3
Places that lack a means of countering a moderately high PC whose on a mission to fuck your mouth through your asshole?

Also, the white house got burned down at one point and political leaders have been murdered in their own homes before.
>4
No, retard, spend the campaign focusing on the political intrigue of navigating a spy effort without arising suspicion from the powerful PCs. I'm giving you a full course meal here and you need me to explain the concept of eating?
>5
It's more demoralizing to lose against someone that you thought you had a 100% chance of victory against.
>6
The problem is that you won't know they can't get to you until you wake up with a knife in your throat.
>7
Something that's capable of erasing souls has to be a doomsday weapon.

>Troll gets called out on not knowing basic rules
>"You expect me to know the rules, get outta here fucking grog, go outside for once xD"

Listen mate, there are people who have been playing D&D since before you were even a concept of a poor decision in the back of your parent's station wagon.

They know the system inside and out and the rules for resurrection have been around for over 30 years, virtually unchanged.

If you're unaware of the way the rules work then don't bring them up. It's not our fault that you're a retard who's incapable of fact checking, it's your fault for starting an argument on a subject that you're not knowledgeable in while claiming to be an expert on the subject.

Also, stop with the samefag shit like >>50752229
it just makes you look lonely and sad.

>inb4 photoshopped image proving that you're not some sad little troll in the septic tank.

File: 09e1382c58e169d3d0d9320780d9f0fd5cbe1a08_hq.gif (298KB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 540x304px

this thread is beyond retarded
your PCs are not dead
he didn't kill them off
they are not real
you can choose to roleplay as them again any time you want

it sounds like the GM is just trying to raise the stakes after completing a long campaign and he wants to actually put you in danger again
grow some skin

>>50752296
>1
I've literally pointed out at every single turn why it's not a better idea for him to hold off on it. Ostensibly suggesting otherwise doesn't matter. The spear served a purpose of helping him win the battle and also making sure they permanently stay down.
>2
Doesn't matter. Killing them is objectively the better option.
>3
Still a rarity. See, when you own a fortress and have a high military presence, assassination attempts are actually incredibly hard when you have around-the-clock highly trained professionals at your beck and call.
>4
Why? That's clearly not the goal of OP's campaign, and probably not even the type of story anyone wants. You're providing me potato chips and insisting that you've prepared a five star dining experience.
>5
Not as much as trying to go against an enemy that you are aware you have a 0% chance of winning against.
>6
Or you just simply know it because of various reasons, such as distance to get to your place, visibility, the fact that all of your minions are skeletons, because you have spies, etc, etc.
>7
wut? No, that's actually just a pretty standard artifact. Most "doomsday" weapons as you call it in fantasy story-telling are usually weapons that make just ONE GUY super awesome, awesome enough to solo an army. ACTUAL fantasy doomsday weapons like the ones you're thinking of tend to be things like magic rituals that summon a demon hell-god, or a large contraption that powers up someone to godhood and the ability to take out literally everyone, or a spell to summon up a literal army of hard-to-kill minions.

The spear just seems like an above-average neato weapon that's common for these types of stories.

To put it in perspective, when you say he should leave his "doomsday" device behind, what it SOUNDS like you're saying is "Hey, this guy should leave his magnum home cause then a player might try to grab at it", narratively

>>50752382
Uh oh, SOMEONE is getting assblasted in here and has run out of good arguments

>>50752419
The only relevant thing you've said is that this thread is retarded.

It's only gotten worse now that you've shown up.

>>50752438
It would have been better if you had left.

>>50752431
>1
Your reasons why are retarded, it's like breaking out the queen just because you lose a pawn in the early game.
>2
They'd serve more of a purpose in demoralizing the populace depowered, bound, and chained in public.
>3
Yet presidents, Tsars, Sultans, and other political leaders have gotten killed at many points throughout history even with some of the best security for that time period. No security is full-proof, especially in a setting where Rogues exist.
>4
Well Op's campaign is stupid and many people ITT would probably rather have a game of political intrigue than forced melodrama.
>5
What are underdogs?
>6
In a setting where magic exists, distance and visibility is a non-issue. Not to mention, Rogues exist as well.
>7
You're severely underestimating the effect a weapon that can destroy souls would have on a setting where evil energy literally corrupts the fabric of reality.

>>50752431
The only argument you had is that you didn't bother to read the rules because you're not a nerd.

Which isn't an argument.

>>50752451
>See shit on the side of the road
>Purposefully steps in shit
>"Y'know, it'd be, like, better if you lying around where I decided to put my foot down at.

This is what you sound like right now.

>>50752539
>1.
False Equivalency. You still have not addressed the main point.
>2
Bond syndrome again. You're leaving a liability, and the demoralization works better with their corpses on a pike.
>3
No, no security is full-proof, but the larger your activities and armies, the harder it is objectively to hide them.
>4
Many people in this thread would shit their pants if their DM told them that something not-wholly-approved-of-by-mother happened to their character without their express written consent and 2 weeks prior notice, so that's not a great argument there.
>5
...what does that have to do with anything?
>6
In a setting where magic exist, teleport traps, anti-scry methods, and invisibility detection are non issues. Rogues exist on both sides as well.
>7
You're over-stating it because you're out of your narrative element and watch too many spy fiction movies.

>>50752555
>4chan is one poster
I'm not even really reading your argument, I just thought your butthurt was delicious.

>>50752616
>1
Don't use big words you don't understand or claim that I didn't address your point just because I didn't agree with you. Next!
>2
Cut off their limbs for good measure so the rabble can see them squirm. Next!
>3
Which is why you set up decoys and proxies, you live in a world with spells that exist for this exact situation. Next!
>4
People have a right to feel pissed when it involves something they made, it's why you don't fuck with people's creations unless you know they're cool with it. Basic common courtesy.
>5
That sometimes people will fight against 0% odds because it's the right thing to do, which usually ends up inspiring people more than demoralizing them.
>6
Yet all those things can also be countered by a powerful mage w/ friends who know what they're doing.
>7
It's basic logic mate, if binding souls to a dead body tears the fabric of reality, what the fuck do you think erasing them is going to do?

>>50752616
>I'm not even really reading your argument
Apparently you're not reading the other guy's argument either.

>>50752709
>1
Let me dumb it down for you so you can understand.
The spear kills the good guys for good, because otherwise, the good guys would get back up again. That's why the bad man had to bring it with him.
Are you done sniffing markers and eating crayons yet?
>2
>What is regeneration magic?
Your next argument is going to be "Then you take off their arms so they can't regenerate. Next!"
>3
Who said that hasn't been done already?
>4
Yeah, they have the right to feel mad. They even have the right to be giant pussies about it. Doesn't mean they're right for doing so.
>5
"Sometimes someone might fight against 0% odds with lesser forces! That means that we should go the other route where we let them weaken OUR forces and give them a radically higher chance of winning!"
Ahahahahahahaha do you have any idea how stupid you sound? I bet the games you run involve a lot of safe spaces too.
>6
Which can be countered by yet another powerful mage who knows what they're doing better. Here's the secret to an arms-wary in a story-telling medium: The bad guy is always one step ahead. That's why the heroes are usually the underdogs, not the other way around.
>7
No, years and years of story telling in the fantasy genre tells us it's actually the opposite of basic logic, "mate". He's not time warping the souls, he's just making them unusable for afterlife or resurrection. This isn't a doomsday weapon by any stretch of the imagination. Seriously, stick to genres you're good at before you come in and comment on the ones you stink at.

>>50752739
I think I can get the jist of what's going on if one of them devolves and starts chimping out on their keyboard.

>>50752833
>1
The good guys weren't an immediate threat to you, you could've easily misdirected them and killed two birds with one stone if you were smart enough (keyword: if).
>2
You're the one who introduced regeneration mate, not me. Even then, regeneration is a slow process that can easily be dealt with since they're quadriplegics until they're fully healed.
>3
I dunno, the fact that they know where you live?
>4
You call them pussies because they gave a shit about your campaign? Talk about ungrateful.
>5
That's not what I said and you know it, stay focused.
>6
Don't cite mediums when you have no idea of how to even construct a good villain.
>7
If you can name me three stories where someone having the power to erase souls wasn't the byproduct of a potential doomsday scenario then I will not only proclaim that you're right but I'll also post an IRL photo.

You can't because that kinda shit is ALWAYS a big deal and usually the precursor to a potential end-of-the-world event.

>>50752833
Disagreeing with you isn't "chimping out" anon.

Maybe if you weren't such a bitch you'd be able to tell the difference.

File: Big Poppa Pump.jpg (34KB, 642x361px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 642x361px

You got too invested my friend, you found more purpose to your characters than invading subterranean domains, killing their inhabitants, and stealing their loot. Don't let this happen again, you need to make characters who are expendable and easy enough to replace with similar substitutes. I suggest you just make martial characters with true neutral alignment motivated only by money. To spice them up a little, only have them communicate via Scott Steiner and Randy Savage quotes or variations of Scott Steiner and Randy Savage quotes to be setting appropriate.
The best part is if they die, or the DM deliberately kills them off for cheap heat for his new heel, you just make the exact same carbon copy and keep on your business. And you can call the main villain fat! Every single time!

>>50752993
>1
First, yes they are. Second, killing them is on the docket, not misdirection of any sort. You should read up on designing goals for your villains.
>2
I think you need to read up on your internet sarcasm. And the reason I brought it up is because turning them into quadriplegics permanently is literally just as bad as killing them, and some would actually argue worse. What are you even arguing for?
>3
What fact? Thread numbers 3-6 have been full on tangents I've been indulging you in because you seem to misunderstand how things work in general. There have been no basis on them at all, just speculation.
>4
I call them pussies because they get bothered by implications of unhappy endings on things they deem "theirs". I genuinely would love this as a story arc if my DM was running.
>5
That actually is what you're saying. That to demoralize them, you should crush them at their fighting capacity, but you're not taking into account why someone demoralizes to begin with. Spoiler: It's to get them to not want to fight to begin with. If they could just win against their army at 100% fighting effectiveness, then you just bull rush them and win.
>6
Coming from a guy who genuinely told me that a bad guy should get into a fight with a good guy and lose on purpose to "see their strengths"? Oh, you're absolutely adorable, telling me I don't know a good villain from a cliché shounen jump one. What's next? Should the bad guy have 4 generals and let the good guys fight them one-on-one, healing them after every battle?
>7
Mortal Kombat
Dragonball Z
Jojo's Bizarre Adventure.
Should I wait for your picture over where you're going to move the goalposts to, or...what?

>>50753005
>Disagreeing with you isn't "chimping out" anon.
Absolutely agree. Which is why watching him chimp out instead of posting an argument was hilarious and embarrassing on his behalf.

Too bad you're a mad bitch. Stay butthurt.

File: 218862.jpg (49KB, 600x421px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x421px

>>50738226
>>50709317

Would play with /10
Things like these is why i play any rpg and getting to experience it with some friendos is some top shit.

>>50753131
>1
No they aren't and there's likely more than one threat for you to deal with.
>2
If your goal is to demoralize then there are ways to do so without necessarily erasing their souls from existence.
>3
They know where you live, that is something you yourself brought up earlier, it's not speculation, it's something that's a fact for this particular campaign
>4
Then run a game yourself and do this sort of thing with other people. If people get "butthurt" over it then you can always just find new people right?
>5
Your problem is that you're incapable of subtlety or thinking past one step.
>6
Yes, sometimes it's easier to lose the battle to ultimately win the war. This is a strategy as old as the concept of war itself.
>7
Since when does any soul erasing happen at any point during those stories? I know you're retarded, I just want to see how deep you dig the hole for yourself.