>PC deaths Meant to be running a game of DnD for a load of

>Your job: Giving a balanced story and challenging yet balanced fight
>Their job: Not being Fucking Retarded

Tell him that if he doesn't want to reroll, then he should act with a vague sense of self-preservation like any other actual adventurer would.

I don't like your houserules to be honest.
Just ask them to change the race or class and if you want them to keep dying, the level thing too.

>>52930055

Trying to apply the exact same style you're used to to a new group with no adaptation or compromise rarely goes well. Roleplaying is very much a matter of preference and opinion, so it's easy to see why you're encounter conflict.

Although specifically for this, fuck you-

>I've been trying to explain that it's not a punishment

Why the fuck is character death a punishment? What sort of sense does that make? Who are you punishing, the player? Why are you punishing them, that they made a bad call or had an unlucky dice roll?

>>52930055
>it wouldn't make sense from a world perspective if every time somebody died an somebody with their exact skills and combat style showed up
Gee, it's not as if rangers form conclaves, and someone from the same conclave could show up when he heard his friend died, nope!

>>52930055
>I explained that if they die they'll have to reroll their character a level below and a different class, since that's how we do it my my 3.5 group.

Your group sounds shit to be honest, you are That GM

Small wonder new players without sacred cows to cling to are calling your stupidity out

>>52930055

Uneven levels/XP is pointless garbage and you should feel bad. Outside of a few instances where games make operating in a narrow range work, it always sucks.

Your system is even worse than most because it actively creates a negative feedback loop. People who die get lower level characters who are more likely to die, while those who survive just get further and further ahead.

>>52930055
>So far they're not having it and they keep using the "BUT MUH FUN" argument as to why I shouldn't use this rule.
>What's your take on this /tg/?

as the gm your job is to run the game your players want and will enjoy playing, if you won't work with them and ensure they are getting what they want from the game you should not be running a game for them

>>52930055
That you are being monstrously inflexible, as is a habit of DMs who have been playing the game too long with the same people.
The losing a level thing was always stupid, but you are taking it further and telling them what they can, and can't play, something that is a players' decision to make unless you have some classes unavailable.
>>52930364
>new players without sacred cows to cling to
This.
You are allowing "muh traditions" to stand in the way of fun, and that is being a poor gm.

>>52930055
>I've been trying to explain that it's not a punishment if they can just reroll the same character with a new lick of paint every time,

maybe your players don't want an antagonistic game like that, especially if they are new

take some time out, either accept that this group has different expectations to you and adjust your style to ensure everyone is on the same page and having a good time or be honest and say you don't want to play a game you won't enjoy, rather than force them to play something they are clearly not interested in

at the end of the day this is a social, recreational activity. Your way works for your group, but clearly not for this new one. Neither approach is right or wrong.

>>52930055
Because it perfectly make sense that everytime a character die, a new guy with a different skill set, but still lower level than the party, show up.
Oh yes, it makes perfect sense.

Put it this way. I am not a fan of Catan. But if someone asked if I wanted to play Catan I wouldn't start yelling until they played Chaos in the Old World instead, I would either say "OK" and play Catan, deciding I valued the social experience of playing games even if it isn't my favourite game, or I'd say "Nah, I don't fancy playing Catan"

Why a level below? That's the only question i have otherwise it seems reasonable.

>>52930144
>Why the fuck is character death a punishment?
Because you should be trying not to die. Also, it's a game.

>>52930331
Gee, it's not as if OP's setting might have rangers that are completely different from your dumbfuck assumptions, and that might not be a thing in his setting, nope!

>>52931578
Then they're not rangers anymore are they? But some bullshit homebrew class.

>>52930396
>You are allowing "muh traditions" to stand in the way of fun, and that is being a poor gm.

"Fun" literally does not matter, as fun is (1) subjective, and (2) should not be considered a goal of RPGs. If fun is your goal, then you should not be playing an RPG, because there are so many things that require far less effort for far more fun. Drinking, ass-fucking, coke-snorting. Hell, fucking is free. And I'm pretty sure most people would agree that D&D is not better than sex. So...why play RPGs? There is more reason to play them than the stupid-ass instant gratification that OP wants. That's why D&D 5e has you level up to level 2 after the first session: normies and roasties want instant gratification. They want to level up after zero effort, just like in Diablo or Dark Scrolls or Skyrim or one of those other crap-ass games they play. That's why RPGs have been casualized to hell and back, to make them more "fun." But you know what? They aren't fun, for a huge percentage of the fanbase. And don't pretend it's a democracy. The kind of game they make is based on whatever latest demographic the jews who run the company want to pander to. "Muh traditions" is not the issue here: the issue is pussifying the games. Are you such a spineless faggot you can't even stand a challenge in a game that has no actual bearing on your real life? The DM is well within his rights to do this. If characters keep dying, maybe it's because their players are being retarded, and they should learn to stop being retarded. Generally speaking, the only way a person can die over and over in an RPG is if they are not only doing stupid things, but ignoring the advice of their comrades and doing Darwin-Award-tier shit to get killed off. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. That's how life works, and running an RPG like that makes it more engaging.

>>52930055
I don't know about your group, but I'd instantly drop your game once I heard about the level thing. Oh, you died? Well, now your new character is even more likely to die!

I don't really see why you need to be punished further, once your character is dead. You can't force people to role play or care.

>>52931817
what retard anyone play a game that isn't enjoyable.

File: IMG_0488.jpg (153KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 500x500px

I would go for a d6 roll with 1-3 being -30% to -10% xp penalty and 4-6 being 5% to 15% benis xp.

>>52930396
>>52931817
And, this isn't even covering the fact that some people just constantly want to make new characters, and disrupt the flow of the campaign. In a Pathfinder campaign I am currently running, one player is on his sixth (6th) character. Guess what level they are? Level 5.

Not to mention all the character deaths I've seen have involved (1) a guy going to visit a suspect in a crime alone without even telling the rest of the party where he is going, (2) a character literally charging into an orc camp alone throwing fireworks while the rest of the party just watches him die, (3) wandering through the dungeon SINGING after they had already been rebutted once so the enemy had time to prepare, and he got sneak attacked by four rogues that were otherwise going to divide their attention between the entire party.

Most characters deaths are suicide.

>>52931946
Please type your post again, this time in English.

>>52931996
How about just letting them restart at 1 level below the rest of the party (i.e. if rest of party is level 5, start them at level 4, and maybe if they are halfway to level 6 give them XP halfway to level 5). That way you encourage consistent characters, but don't have them held down by their own level until they might as well quit the campaign. That's how I always did it. You start one level below the rest of the party: not one level below your last character, that's just a spiral of doom.

>>52933284
That is what I have been doing lately.
I used to allow players to pretty much continue as is but I learned rather quickly that letting people rerun the same guy with very little consequence is a breeding ground for that guys.

File: image.png (174KB, 640x956px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 640x956px

>>52931817

>>52931817
>"Fun" literally does not matter, as fun is (1) subjective, and (2) should not be considered a goal of RPGs

>fun should not be considered a goal of games

go fuck yourself with a rusty pipe buddy

>>52931817
>If fun is your goal, then you should not be playing an RPG

then why the fuck else would i play a game einstein

key words

PLAY

GAME

GAMES are something people do for enjoyment
PLAY is a leisure activity done for pleasure

so either your mom drank so much fucking methanol while you were in the womb, sprung from the seed of your father who is also your uncle you were born looking like something from the monster manual, or you were dropped multiple times on your head as a child onto a concrete floor from several storeys up, because goddamn son you're more retarded than the whole fucking special olympics

>>52930055
Just run the game without death then if they're new, you don't want to put them off tabletop RPGs.

They sound like twats though

>>52934171
I can't agree harder.

If the game isn't fun, you're absolutely doing it wrong. More than this, everyone should be enjoying themselves.

Also, if you lose a game honestly and you feel like the rest of the experience was unsatisfactory, then something is wrong with how the game is built.

>>52934171
>>52934211

They're either a troll or terminally stupid. It's easy bait to fall for, I've done it before, but it doesn't deserve a response.

>>52930055
Dying means you lose your character. That has mechanical and fluff consequences. You don't punish them extra by penalizing their level or potentially forcing them to play something they don't want to.

Too many players treat character death, which is part of the game system, too seriously. But if your players are new, you should pull your punches a bit. At this point, you should be facilitating their growth as players and exposing them to what kinds of things are in the game. They will branch out on their own, given time.

Death should be a threat much more often than a reality, because it keeps the stakes up.

>>52934383

This very much depends on the kind of game you're running, though.

I think too many GMs rely on death as a way to keep the stakes high without really considering their goals or intentions. While the threat of death is easy, it's also far from the only method, and in some contexts its far from the most effective one.

High lethality games are all fine and good if that's what you're into, but too many people seem to assume that as the norm rather than asking whether it fits what they're trying to achieve.

>>52933284
This is less restrictive than automatically losing one level. In many cases losing 30% at the lowest result may not even de level a character. It also serves to dissociate the dead character from the new one.

>>52930055
>if they die they'll have to reroll their character
Obviously, yeah.
>a level below
Retarded. Losing a character you've grown attached to is punishment enough, and it puts players on a downward spiral where they're constantly playing catch-up with the rest of the party.
>and a different class
Tolerable, I suppose. It encourages people to try new things.

>since that's how we do it my my 3.5 group.
Maybe, rather than forcing your own house-rules down their necks, you should tailor the rules to match what they want to play? Once you've got them hooked into the hobby and they aren't going to leave in a huff, then you can try introducing more restrictive house-rules.

>>52930055
Checked!

Yeah, it seems like he wants to play something different than you: ditch him and find a player who enjoys your game more.

>>52931817
Your memes are too dank for this sinful earth

>>52930055
>"the only class I'm interested in playing is ranger!"
Your player is not interested in playing DnD. Your player is interested in writing Legolas fapfics and confused the two. Either tell him to wean of the videogame respawn mindset or kick him.

There's nothing wrong with the level drop. Exp systems default to allowing catch up, and you can always give them an extra little challenge or task to help fill out their character while also catching them up. I put new PCs 1 level below party, unless the party has begun a level drift. Rules leave it arbitrary what level they come back at, so far as I know it's just as much a "houserule" to say they start at the old character's level or to for a level 1 restart. You are the arbiter. Arbitrate.

File: 1493109468375.jpg (80KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 540x540px

>>52930055
OP ignore the faggots in this thread and ignore your faggot friends. go along with what they say and then when they act like retards and die then tell them to reroll.

bringing back a character is piss fucking easy at high levels and surviving at low levels is piss easy so the only reason to die is being a retard.

if a battle isn't in their favour and they stay they deserve to learn the hard way.

take it a step further tell them they have to change race and background too.

don't let anyone ever tell you that adding risk makes DnD less fun. seeing if your players can survive actually threatening dungeons is what makes GMing fun. GMing shouldn't be a burden of watching your players traverse baby mode dungeons just because you're afraid they will get upset when their character breaks their leg falling down a pit trap.

/tg/ is full of never DM's who think that anytime a band of goblins ignore the tank and go right for them that the DM is That DM trying to kill them for no reason. ignore all advice from this site, you may as well be on reddit for all the difference between /tg/ and the circle jerk faggots on that site.

>>52935983

>There is only one way to play the game and that is the way I personally prefer, everyone with a different experience or preference in terms of playstyles is having badwrongfun

>>52936066
>the entire thread is telling OP that he's wrong and that his game is shit

>one guy agrees with his method

>uhhhh stop having fun wrong strawman activated.

you argue like a woman.

>>52934211
>then why the fuck else would i play a game einstein

There are loads of other reasons, but your pleb mind is so simple that it's not even worth explaining because you'd just laugh at it, since anything that isn't done for FUN is just laughable. Stupid fuckin nerds, right?

>so either your mom drank so much fucking methanol while you were in the womb, sprung from the seed of your father who is also your uncle you were born looking like something from the monster manual, or you were dropped multiple times on your head as a child onto a concrete floor from several storeys up, because goddamn son you're more retarded than the whole fucking special olympics

now you're just making me laugh.

>>52934244
>If the game isn't fun, you're absolutely doing it wrong. More than this, everyone should be enjoying themselves.

You are correct that the game should be fun, but if your goal is "fun" in itself then you are just a retard. Also, no, not everyone should be enjoying themselves. Some people just don't belong in the game, and that's that. The DM should not pander to every fucking player. That is not his job. If you do that you are a shit DM who ends up with bland campaigns by trying to suck every player's cock simultaneously.

t. DM who has been literally paid for his services unsolicited and also won 2 GMing awards, so I think I know what I am talking about. Stop being a cuck and run the game you want to. People are usually so desperate to play they'll go along with it and your integrity will be maintained. However, no one respects a pussified GM who constantly salivates over doing whatever his players want.

>>52936365

Protip- Fun is not a mutually exclusive property with anything else you might be thinking about. While you sit on your high horse talking about the virtues of fun free gaming, we already have all that alongside, y'know, actually enjoying ourselves.

>>52934457
>This very much depends on the kind of game you're running, though.

Yep, you can either be running the right kind of game that has actual consequences for your actions, or the wrong kind of game that's just a powerwank and you and your players need to kill yourselves.
>>52935774
>Your player is not interested in playing DnD. Your player is interested in writing Legolas fapfics and confused the two. Either tell him to wean of the videogame respawn mindset or kick him.

This.>>52935983
>bringing back a character is piss fucking easy at high levels and surviving at low levels is piss easy so the only reason to die is being a retard.

Also this.

>>52936400
This weak old bait again? It's getting really stale, kid. Here's a pity (You), I guess.

>>52936400

>t. DM who has been literally paid for his services unsolicited and also won 2 GMing awards, so I think I know what I am talking about. Stop being a cuck and run the game you want to. People are usually so desperate to play they'll go along with it and your integrity will be maintained. However, no one respects a pussified GM who constantly salivates over doing whatever his players want.

2/10, kinda blatant but got me to reply for the sheer gall of it. The fact you completely skipped over basic skills of being a good GM pretty much clinched it.

File: harrypotter_beard.jpg (8KB, 206x215px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 206x215px

>>52936403
>Fun is not a mutually exclusive property with anything else you might be thinking about.

It is when you chuckle-fuck cocksuckers invade our hobby in hordes, after watching Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things. You then go to watch Critical Roll where you can see some Rooster-teeth style hipsters and dried-out roasties playing D&D and shrieking orgasmically every time they roll a natural 20, constantly doing stupid shit for the lulz and generally trying to create as much comedy as possible, so as to create a roaring cacophony of autistic laughter and pounding the table jolting their bottles of microbrew. That is your idea of ""fun"", you cunt, and that is the reason why you are destroying the RPG scene. It's all "LMAO nat20 time for the DM to suck my dick" bullshit. And it's /tg/'s fault for creating all these greentexts that get spread around on Tumblr and Imgur and even fucking Facebook. The paladin who hates orcs story, the gay-marriage campaign story, Los Tiburnos and Sir Bearington. All stories about the oh-so-fuckin-hilarious antics of some group of faggots, turns out to be these peoples' first exposure to D&D. As a result, they treat it like a party game, like a round of Cards Against Humanity, and try to do the most RANDOMM thing possible. THAT is what you get when you prioritize ""fun"", instead of playing the game the way you are supposed to (i.e. not this party game nat20-fetishization bull shit) and letting the fun emerge naturally from that. Which it will, assuming you have the type of players who belong in the hobby and can handle a serious campaign. Everyone else can get the fuck out of RPGs and never return.

>>52936484

Ohh, you're just a malodorous old gatekeeper using fun as a buzzword rather than talking about actual enjoyment of the hobby. My mistake.

>>52936423
>basic skills of being a good GM

What? Pussifying your game to pander to stupid shits who do nothing but play fucking Skyrim or Dark Scrolls where their dumb-ass antics have no meaning because they can just keep hitting F1 to respawn until their fucking hearts explode? Allowing some dumb fuck who wants to play a Legolas rip-off to replay the same character every time he dies and fuck up the flow of the story just because he continuously does dumb shit? I guarantee you that 90% of player character deaths are completely deserved. They are usually literal suicides. Especially in D&D 5e where the game has been so pussified that it is nearly impossible to die. It's gotten to the point that they pander to normalfags so hard that not only do you level up after your first combat in D&D 5e, but you also cannot die in Adventurer's League official play. They just keep bringing your character back to life with some weird scar or some shit. It'd be a kind of cool idea if it weren't for the reasoning behind it: they don't want anyone to have a bad experience playing D&D even though half the fucking point o the game is the tension, that you *might* die, but they destroy that because weak-minded normalfags and roasties can't handle that.

Stop fucking responding to bait.

>>52936531
>Ohh, you're just a malodorous old gatekeeper using fun as a buzzword rather than talking about actual enjoyment of the hobby.

I'm neither old nor malodorous. Unless 26 is old to you teen fucks who do nothing but play fucking video games then get an entitlement complex from them. No, if you do stupid shit, you are going to die, and you don't just get to respawn. I honestly hope the stupid little chuckle fuck in OP's story gets a goddamn brain tumor and learns the value of real world consequences. Fuck that little twat, I get annoyed just imagining what he is like. He quite literally wants to "respawn" in D&D. That is what he is trying to do, and that is why OP is 100% in the right and everyone whining at him about being anti-fun needs to neck themselves. If your death has no consequences you might as well not play the fucking game, or just remove the possibility of dying. Seriously just remove it, he is about to play the same character anyway. He does not deserve the value of that tension when he is squandering it by basically getting a respawn button to play the exact same character with a new name slapped on whenever he wants. This is the entitlement mentality that RPG players have now, and /tg/ supports it because it's FUN, it's FUN for everyone and FUN is all that matters. So long as everyone's having FUN it doesn't matter what stupid shit you do. You could stop playing D&D entirely and just all squat on the table and start shitting all over your character sheets and so long as everyone is having FUN then it's okay and you are still playing an RPG too because anyone who says you aren't is anti-FUN. Remember kids, all that matter is that you are having FUN.

>>52930055
>players enjoying a leisure activity in their spare time
>OP insists that he will prevent them from having fun while doing so

fascinating

>>52936654
>having actual consequences for players' actions is a bad thing.

He's well within his rights to kick them out of the campaign after their first death.

>>52936565
No.

>>52930055
I do the same thing for my games, Honestly just prepare some options for them incase they die so that they aren't left dumbfounded and with nothing.

>>52930055
Personally I believe that your job as a DM is to create a fun world for the characters to explore. This doesn't mean that everything that happens is level-appropriate, but that also doesn't mean everything can skullfuck them from a kilometer away. Sometimes there should be unwinnable encounters you should just run away from, and if you choose to act full retard then you bear the consequences.

I think the "one level lower" rule is a bit harsh for newbies though. Just let them reroll a character from the same level. And if rangertard chooses to leave because of his own shitty decisions in his PC's life, that's one less shitty player for you. The 'different class' thing is pretty silly too, especially for newfags.

>>52936400
>lol, I'm gonna hype myself up with no sources and tell you bow wrong you are about your general statement

It was not even a good try, man. I ain't even mad, just full of pity.

>>52937277
>I think the "one level lower" rule is a bit harsh for newbies though. Just let them reroll a character from the same level.

Death is too harsh for newbies. When they reach -10 hp they just go unconscious for an hour. That way it's not too hard on their poor pampered asses.

File: 1477633570394.jpg (91KB, 736x1078px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 736x1078px

>>52930055
>What I do for my games:
New characters comes back at half (HALF!) the dead character's level.
They level up 1 level per session until they are back to their are back to where they were previously.

In situations where events go long and we have to pause the session in mid combat or event. That's fine they still gain the level between sessions, but in our group characters don't attain new levels until they've rested.

Yes the half is brutal, but it's the penalty for dying, and they eventually make it back to par. On the positive side it allows a player to ease into their new creation instead of having a smack ton of new abilities to learn all at once.

>>52937572
My group gets one mulligan, so the first death doesn't count. After that anyone dying is a reroll:
>Level 1 (or whatever level the campaign started at)
>different class, race, and background

File: 1470159462264.jpg (60KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x375px

>>52930055
>I've been trying to explain that it's not a punishment if they can just reroll the same character with a new lick of paint every time
Why do you feel the need to punish the players?

No, anon, the correct argument to make is not that there is no punishment, but that there is no RISK if character death is not permanent. You're supposed to sell them on the idea that victory is made sweeter by the threat of defeat, and a defeat without cost is no defeat at all. You're supposed to ask them how a hero can rise if he can never fall. You are supposed to show them that without darkness there can be no light, that without sorrow there can be no joy, that without despair there can be no hope.

What the fuck is wrong with you and how can you call yourself a DM?

>>52936127
>y-you're just all ganging up on me saying that fun matters and all game members should reach mutual agreement like adults
>t-that's just a faggot woman circle-jerk buzzword buzzword!
wew kid

>>52936400
>Some people just don't belong in the game, and that's that. The DM should not pander to every fucking player.
The way the op seemed to portray it the whole group disagreed with the houserule and at least some were threatening to leave the game over it, that's hardly your strawman of pandering to some singular problem player and giving into every little whim and demand from everyone though you seem to busy jerking yourself off to think straight.

>>52930055
>it wouldn't make sense from a world perspective if every time somebody died an somebody with their exact skills and combat style showed up
But it would make sense that the party would specifically seek out new members to fill the vacancy in skill-set. If they lose their only expert in traps/magic then you can bet they're going to try to get a new one.

How exactly new/replacement characters show up and join the party can vary based on what fits the story and game but if you're just having them walk up as "yep I'm the replacement character for ___" then it's stupid shitty game design regardless of whether they're the same class or not.

>>52930385
>>>52930055 (OP)
>Your system is even worse than most because it actively creates a negative feedback loop. People who die get lower level characters who are more likely to die, while those who survive just get further and further ahead.


Isn't this how real life works? If you fucking die you're not gonna get as far ahead as the guy who lived. And no one's fucking cloning you to take your own place. I'm not saying d&d is reality or realism, but Jesus fuck this rule at least makes some sense. Plus, from an old school perspective, this is the exact type of thing you do to teach players about consequences. D&D is a game where anything can happen, well enough. But it's also a game where you're supposed to weigh options and then act. So, Fuck you. I wouldn't use this method, but I understand why OP does.

>>52940482
>Isn't this how real life works? If you fucking die you're not gonna get as far ahead as the guy who lived.
No if you die you're just dead, are you retarded?
>And no one's fucking cloning you to take your own place
Yeah, no one is cloning you, this isn't supposed to be the same character or a clone, it's a different fictional entity so why should their power be based on a different entity controlled by the same player?

>Plus, from an old school perspective, this is the exact type of thing you do to teach players about consequences
There are already obvious consequences in them losing their character and whatever equipment they've gathered during the adventure but that's completely beside and ignoring the point that anon made and you quoted that it can create a negative feedback loop because the lower level character is more likely to die again and continue to lose levels.

Like I can't even tell what the fuck your argument is because you're just talking around what you're responding to.

>>52930055
You are 100% in the right OP.

Allowing your players to remake identical chars after death would completely nullify the use of resurrections.

In 3.5 ed IIRC you dont even need the characters entire body for a resurrection, just a pinky finger or earlobe will suffice.

I personally do: 1000gp full rez no lvl loss

500gp rez with a loss of 1 point to a random attribute

100 gp rez lose a lvl and 1 point random attribute.


Trust me they will be doing their bestest not to die.

>>52940624
>muh negative feedback loop

If a lvl 6 cant survive in a group of lvl 7s either the player or DM is retarded. Your point is also retarded.

>he'll lose equipment thats punishment enough
I've never been in a group that lost a teammate and just decided to leave all their gear to rot. Not only that, any new char would start with gold and equipment so a party could get incredibly wealthy in a short time by just dying over and over again.

>>52940814

Do you even have a point, or are you sticking to baseless assertions so you can pretend to have one without actually having to defend it?

>>52930055
1. Teach them about the various spells to raise dead.
2. Tell them you've reconsidered and will let them roll the same class if they take a 2 level penalty instead.

>>52940722
Well of course resurrection should be the first recourse if available.

I think a lot of anons were interpreting the op as automatic upon death since it's a houserule and more details weren't given.
The whole part of the player threatening to leave if they died and couldn't play a ranger certainly implied that the issue was forced class change more than anything.

File: Replying to bait.jpg (16KB, 240x200px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 240x200px

>>52936565

>>52940814
I'm not the original anon you were talking to, my point is that you quoted what they said but then completely failed to actually address or counter it and just spouted a bunch of unrelated shit, you retard.

>I've never been in a group that lost a teammate and just decided to leave all their gear to rot.
Way to miss the point, faggot.
Obviously, the average group isn't going to bury their fallen comrade with their loot but they're not likely to donate it to the replacement character out of the goodness of their hearts either. They're either going to keep it for themselves or sell it besides exceptions where it helps the party overall to give it to the replacement, like a heal-boosting item for a healer.
>Not only that, any new char would start with gold and equipment
There is suggested starting gold/equipment value but it's entirely up to the dm what equipment you're actually allowed to purchase or how much money you get.

>so a party could get incredibly wealthy in a short time by just dying over and over again
Do you really think that allowing a player to make a replacement character of the same class/level FORCES you to give them full treasure for endless suicides?
Like you seriously can't imagine a middle ground between allowing players to teleport in infinite bags of money or penalising them for repeated deaths till they might as well just stop playing because their first level character is irrelevant in a tenth level campaign? If you're not just baiting then you're legitimately autistic or retarded.

>>52940966
Holy shit you're right

>if they die they'll have to reroll their character a level below and a different class

OP you're a massive faggot. Ressurections are part and parcel of dnd go fuck yourself, not only would i quit, i'd melt your d20 and fold all the pages in ur dm handbook

>>52941271
To be fair I don't think it's unreasonable to limit resurrection since it has a lot of implications for story and balance but things like the paladin's holy order sending a replacement or the wizard's old buddy from magic school coming to avenge him are staples of games and maintaining a balance of characters to fill all roles is the assumed standard.

>>52941271
Resurrections are not available at low levels due to the cost of operation.

Just like American healthcare!

...God damnit. Is remaking one level lower just a slightly more subtle version of those stupid GOP D&D jokes, where it's a rigged system where the rich get richer and it's no fun unless you're already ahead?

>>52941461
There is a good chance this whole thread is bait but who knows.

>>52941487
It's obviously bait, but when has that ever stopped /tg/?

File: bloodandthunder.png (58KB, 107x272px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 107x272px

>>52930055
I feel bad for you, but it's what you get when you run a game for kids who expect tabletop games to be like their videogames where choices and consequences mean nothing.

I've been running a low magic game for the past year (not DND).

Combat is deadly and my players treat it seriously, thinking and then trying out alternate methods of resolving a situation besides brute force from the front, because they know if a player character dies, that's it. No raising, no resurrections. They can play whatever they want assuming they meet the requirements, but they start like everyone starts, at 1st level.

So far, there have been zero complaints. If you want some better players, maybe head to the /osr. Good luck.

File: All_the_fucks_I_googily_give.gif (123KB, 500x387px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 500x387px

I was going to read and reply to this thread, but then I quickly realized that I would just be punishing myself.
And I'm not here for that.

Good day to you, gentlemen.

>>52939679
fuck off DM's world is law has always been the rules.
if the DM isn't enjoying it then it will just turn to trash.

have fun when you're sent on mugufin collecting missions every week.

File: fun buzzword.jpg (68KB, 680x738px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 680x738px

>>52931817

>>52930391
beta cuck detected

without a GM the players have nothing. They will eat whatever I feed them and they will like it or fuck off and make their own game (Spoiler: they won't and if they do, it'll be shit and they'll grovel to come back)

>>52941512
Meh. Honestly I don't think players should get attached to levels or classes because it enforces mechanical thinking instead of lateral thinking to find solutions to problems. Like instead of saying "we aren't high enough level to fight (x)" they should be thinking "how can we fight (x) at our current level" and use terrain, traps, gather allies, sell their souls for power, research and acquire macguffins etc.

OP sounds like he isn't going for this though and is looking to provide, ironically, a video game experience a la Dark Souls where he's more interested in punishing the players as opposed to working player death into the narrative. Like you would have the replacement characters come from some relation to the players back story or events that happened in the campaign.

It's and old one, but the Silverclaw archives have some good ways of justifying everything OP wants to do in-narrative when their party members die.

I guess what I'm saying is his position doesn't come off as unreasonable, but he does.

It's not the worst thing to make an exception or a compromise. Like hey maybe the first death the can have their characters twin brother come into the fray but after that it gets ridiculous and they have to switch it up. After that they have to either switch classes, or take a level penalty to reflect that high level Rangers just don't grow on trees. After that it's a class switch AND a level penalty because Adventurers are dying a lot lately around the world and the ones on the parties level have their own shit going on. Maybe the party is getting a reputation for members dying so only those looking to prove themselves are willing to join.

It allows for a progessive effect of the parties actions on the narrative of the world as well as an IC reason for the death "penalty".

OP just made it about his dick swinging ego instead of sitting down and thinking for 5 minutes on how to justify it as something that makes the game better.

>>52943476
Sorry I think you're looking for /lit/ to write your stories.

> What are modules.

I avoid people making same characters by making them roll for stats. The stats they get are from a table of all the possible point buys. Those get randomly assigned to abilities. They can swap any 1 stat around. E.g Trading the Strength score for the Intelligence score.

I don't like DMing for parties with different levels. But whatever floats your boat.

>>52936607
Nice work demonstrating just how wrong OP is.

>>52941537
well said

I have a chainmail coif. I forged it myself, link by link, under the tutelage (that means instruction, for all you millennials) of a master smith in Jórvǐk (the true name of the town the weak men call York).

When I put the coif on, you enter the dungeon. You are no longer you, you are part of the D&D world. You commune with the spirits of Gygax, Reynolds, Wick and Arneson. Your words are no longer your own, they are your character's. You do not "play" at it. You become it. When I wear the coif, you are not in a brightly.lit lounge, you enter a contract. You explore crumbling keeps and deadly donjons. You court fair maids and duel devilish dragons. It is not "fun" any more than a life fought for on the edge of peril is "fun".

If one of you should die, I put on a black hood. Black for death. A tale has ended. A candle is lit. And you leave, and I tell you when you may return.

This is not a game in the sense you think. This is not mere spectacle for blithe enjoyment. When I wear the coif, you are being given a window into infinite worlds of fantasy. Real lives in every detail. Respect them. Live them like they were your own.

>>52941240
Nope, most groups will keep the dead characters gear for the player, unless they don't want to use their old gear.

If you die you go back to level 1. Fuck you if you dont like it. Want to dm in my stead? Go right ahead. I dont even want to be forever gm anyway.

>>52945587
Dude what.
You need to get out more.

God, so many fucking entitled little niggers in here!

I fucking hate this permaplayer scum. Tell me something, you damn retards, why the fuck do you even play?

For challenge? How the fuck is it a challenge if you can't fail, if there is no consenquence to your fucking up, doing something wrong or just having a bad roll? Yes, even a bad fucking roll - why the fuck would you get only the benefits of good rolls? Why the fuck even roll then, just say PCs always succeed on every fucking task, you entitled little brats? Are you little children, that you can't take failure?

Do you play for the story? Oh, wait, no, it's not "story", it's "RAILROADING REEEEEEEEEE", is it, you goddamn shits? You get fucking offended by an implication that everything doesn't fucking revolve around your shitty little Mary Sue, but when left alone you don't fucking know what to do, but you'd rather sit in fucking silence than try to follow a storyline.

Is it character development or roleplay? Because, if it is, you can all fuck off because we all know you'll always end up as fucking murderhobos trying to kill everyone, including each other. And every fucking NPC is either a joke to you, a threat, or a fucking victim. You approach everyone with the tact of a Gestapo agent with a chronic migraine. You are unable to establish basic relationships with anyone except yourselves. You kill each other because the DM didn't provide you with a fucking reason why you should care about each other. At this point, why the fuck do I even need you? I already doing 90% of everything by myself.

Why the fuck should I as a DM tolerate any fucking shit from you trash? Spend a week planning sessions, crafting a story, plotting events and encounters... Your only fucking duty is to show up once a week and you have face to fucking make demands? No, fuck you! Be fucking glad someone is making an effort to entertain you, and if it isn't to your liking, say thank you and fuck off!

>>52945587

Autism

>>52930097
>Tell him that if he doesn't want to reroll, then he should act with a vague sense of self-preservation like any other actual adventurer would.
/Thread

>>52945876

Hey man I woke up and showed up to your session! I did my part why wont you do yours?

>>52936531
>gatekeeper
Ive noticed this term being used more often lately.
Isnt it classic tumblr vocabulary? How come that shit is suddenly okay here? Whats next? /tg/ calling themselves 4channers?

>>52931817
>(2) should not be considered a goal of RPGs
Get. Out.

>>52943223
>fuck off DM's world is law has always been the rules
Yeah and it's basic common sense for anyone not on the autism spectrum that if the dm ignores and directly goes contrary to what players want out of the game they'll tell him to fuck off and find a new group which seems to be what some of the players are threatening.

>if the DM isn't enjoying it then it will just turn to trash
And the same is true for the players even if your autism can't let you recognise basic social norms of considering other people and what they want too.

>have fun when you're sent on mugufin collecting missions every week
Nice non-sequitur.

>>52945803
Then don't give the new character a bunch of bonus treasure?
Like seriously this shit isn't rocket science.

File: 1477525718864.png (13KB, 239x23px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 239x23px

>>52945876
>expecting anyone to read this wall of whining

>>52945876
>say thank you and fuck off!
If any of the shit you spew was true, why would they thank you?

>>52946201
>Yeah and it's basic common sense for anyone not on the autism spectrum that if the dm ignores and directly goes contrary to what players want out of the game they'll tell him to fuck off and find a new group which seems to be what some of the players are threatening.
It goes both fucking ways. Good riddance, there's fuckton more players to choose from than DMs.

>And the same is true for the players even if your autism can't let you recognise basic social norms of considering other people and what they want too.
Oh the fucking irony! How about applying that to someone else other than yourself, you shittard?

>>52946254
In a manner of speaking, you colossal retard.

You don't like the way I DM, or the story, or whatever? You're free to go and find someone else. We can talk, I can adapt to a point, but I'm not going to let you shit all over what I made, nor am I going to be a slave to your munchkin demands, nor I'm going to let you perpetuate this mentality that a DM is a slave to players. Have fun trying to find someone else to cater to your shit.

>>52946455
I'm not seeing anything to disagree with, except for the enormous strawman earlier.

You speak with reason and say what I wanted to hear, why did you write such a post earlier, I wonder?

Death comes with penalties. Most of the time, when they are running, the dead man's gear is left behind. A character starting at a level lower is, frankly, quite stupid, and if you ever have a player like the rangertard in OP's post, a certain spiral of salt and whining.

In my case, I've never had troubles with my death players, they usually want to try new stuff and we always have a spare character that levels alongside the party (in a sense, it always has the minimum xp for the level), because the catching up would be insufferable if not.

>You don't like the way I DM, or the story, or whatever? You're free to go and find someone else. We can talk, I can adapt to a point, [...]

And who asked more of you?
You that's all that's needed, just remember to revise the table's rules BEFORE someone dies. Preferably at the first session or earlier.

>[...] nor am I going to be a slave to your munchkin demands[ ...]

That just sounds like a 3.X trauma.

>>52930331
Worst post so far.

>>52930364
No, You're wrong, his ruling is objectively good and your opinion is what it is likely because you're the entitled, whiny, shitter-type player.

>>52930385
Exactly!! That's the point. It fosters a "get good at the game or get the fuck out of my group" mentality, which if I've learned pne thing from/tg/, is the only mentality to have.

>>52930443
It does :) glad you agree, anon.

>>52931562
Best post on /tg/ right now.

>>52941537

>I feel bad for you, but it's what you get when you run a game for kids who expect tabletop games to be like their videogames where choices and consequences mean nothing.

You know, I keep hearing people say this sort of shit...but video games are not even lining up with that. Rogue Like games are having a massive boom with even non-roguelike games taking on more and more elements of them.

I mean, this is the time when stuff like Enter The Gungeon is a well liked twin stick shooter and it's permadeath.

>I'm not seeing anything to disagree with, except for the enormous strawman earlier.
>If any of the shit you spew was true, why would they thank you?
Hold on, you lost me there. You say I spew shit, but you don't disagree with me?

Also, while PC death from OP triggered me, I've never had problem with that exact thing. Actually, it might be one thing where I've always found common ground with players.
I have had problems with players acting in all the ways i mentioned, until the campaign dies because I have no desire to GM any more, and then them whining that my games are shit and that I should run something to their liking. And I have a feeling I see a lot of this mentality here on /tg/. No, I don't owe anyone anything.


>That just sounds like a 3.X trauma.
Yeah, it is. But why do you think it's exclusive to 3.X?

>>52946389
>Oh the fucking irony! How about applying that to someone else other than yourself, you shittard?

If the majority of the players want something and one doesn't (Even if he's the GM) he's clearly the odd one out.

File: 1473890506759.png (84KB, 4000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 4000x4000px

>>52930055

>>52945887
>>52945869
>get out more
>autism

Have you ever worked for anything in your privileged, sheltered lives? Have you torn material from the Earth with your hands, hammered it into shape with your own vis in the burning heat of the forge, that vital den of sweat and fire and power? Have you finished your day-labour holding in worn, working hands something you can look at and say "this is MINE! ONCE IT WAS THE EARTH'S, BUT I TORE THE WORLD'S FLESH FROM ITS CARCASE AND WITH MY HANDS, MY CUNNING, MY DETERMINATION, WROUGHT IT THUSLY?"

It sounds like you never have, and until you do, you cannot understand what it means to be fire-thief, forge-fanner, iron-tamer, VIKINGR. I learned the forge in Jórvǐk, home of the Norsemen. While you learned the blockchain I, light-footed Loki-like, stole fierce-fire from Freyr's forges.

>>52946707
>Hold on, you lost me there. You say I spew shit, but you don't disagree with me?
I just thought the "thank you" part funny, and that earlier angrier post was really just a strawman, or a projection of a history of really shit players, but when you actually argued, well, yes, you made sense.

My players are just happy to play, and I'm happy to play on a game I found on /tg/.

>Yeah, it is. But why do you think it's exclusive to 3.X?
The amount of splats and the use of munchkin in your post. I don't know any other system requiring a bibliography on the charsheet. (GURPS is an exception.)

>>52936484
U = mad

I don't have a problem with character death, unless it's due to some bullshit like a roll on a random encounter table that results in some bullshit monster showing up that one shots a character before they even get to act in initiative.

if you can't engage your players enough to stop them doing stupid suicidal shit as a matter of course and so you need a mechanical disincentive beyond "your guy died because you made a bad call" to teach your players to give a shit, they probably don't care about your game and you're probably the problem there

make an engaging game with a narrative your players give a shit about and they won't do stupid shit and you won't need retarded mechanical punishments to deter them fron doing it

>>52946712
Agreed. But I see way more players whining about DMs than other way around.

>>52937203
This right here, is very sound advice from a person with a good WIS score.

>>52946774
Any complains are void if the death was due to a d100 landing on "ancient black dragon" in a backyard. It may be consistent with the area, but it's not like they could do anything about it.
(Unless they had the option to take another path, but still.)
>>52946788
There are more players than DMs per group.

>>52946812
>Any complains are void if the death was due to a d100 landing on "ancient black dragon" in a backyard
Get fucked. I will absolutely complain if the dice fuck me without any input from the players.

>>52946812
>>52946825
That's what I meant.
I fucked up the rewriting, sorry.

>>52946566
Why is it unreasonable to assume that the new members of a group are less experienced?

>>52946856
I'd like some explanation about why are you asking this before potentially ramming my heel into my throat.

>>52946756
Yeah, I tend to get into blind rage about that.

And yeah, I have a long history of .... let's rather say incompatible players, to be fair. But it's not just that, it's the lack of respect for the DM overall. And the amount of whining by the different parties (players vs DM) seems to be counter-proportional to the amount of effort put into the game.

>The amount of splats and the use of munchkin in your post.
I meant the kind of person who wants everything without any effort, or is content to cheese through the game without any challenge. Maybe I misused the word.

>>52946913

>But it's not just that, it's the lack of respect for the DM overall.

And what IS the correct level of respect for a GM?

>>52946879
Given a character death, why, in universe, does it not make sense that a new member likely has accomplished less than the surviving group?
Obviously a group has no use for someone significantly below them, but if they had ready access to equal or better options, why didn't they expand already? A groups collective experiences contribute to their levels.

>>52946923
In universe is not unreasonable, but is as reasonable as the contrary, why would the druid in the Blackwoods even know of your company of similar level misfits when you arrived here three days ago?

Out of universe it means that I'll have to juggle numbers on the fly, which will potentially kill the rest because I'm used to having prep time and misasuming the new character can take a fireball, or just fudging it and not being an actual challenge (Or else it's little different from a "rocks fall, everyone dies" scenario).

In the end, it's preference, but seeming as it causes more hurdles than anything actually helpful or funny, I labelled it as stupid.

If your group find it's helpful or funny, or preferable for any motive, then it works and it ain't stupid. Just remember that while the DM does most of the work, it's still only one of the players, and if all the players disagree on the tablerules, you will all have a bad time and should come to an agreement or disband.

>>52946913
Yeah, but you got the point across.

>>52946921
A bit more than that you have for your fellow players. If it's too low, you likely have a problem with the whole group.

>>52946921
Basic understanding that, considering the DM does more work than you and that there's less DMs than players, you're in no position to make any DEMANDS.
Respect DM's playstyle, rulings and story. Talk shit out, see if you can come to a compromise, accomodate each other... and if it still doesn't work (and yeah, maybe it's because HE's shit) - leave. Don't whine.

>>52930055
Sounds like your fun and his fun simply aren't compatible, and that's fine

But it might be worth a shot to run a death-less game with different punishments and failure conditions, you might enjoy it

You could also work with him and give his PC a magic item that lets him revive as a ranger... at a cost (and not necessarily as the same guy)

Also, that's a concerning rerolling system and I would personally avoid your group. Losing a character is already its own punishment, losing levels on your next character takes it too far

>>52946754
You bought a bunch of Chinese made cheap metal links from a museum shop you cunting vikingboo.

File: fun is a cuck measure.jpg (641KB, 1350x1067px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1350x1067px

>>52931817

>>52947160
You challenge my honour? You claim me craven? Thou liest. Know this - I tamed the earth, toiled with true men to forge something myself.

>>52936607
>D&D entirely and just all squat on the table and start shitting all over your character sheets and so long as everyone is having FUN

As long as everyone is enjoying themselves and knows shitting on your sheet is not playing by the rules or in fact playing DnD at all, I see nothing wrong with this.

>>52936607
The only acceptable death is permadeath, you poser. Your character dies, you don't come back to the table, friendo. You don't get to play anymore, you don't get to "come back to life", and you don't get to listen to what other's have been doing, cause you. are. fucking. dead. Find another group.

>>52930055
>PC deaths
This is a good thing, without the threat of death there is no real satisfaction and the game just becomes mental masturbation.
>reroll their character a level below
This is retarded as it often punishes a player for what is plain bad luck. "oh sorry the 1/4 CR troglodyte rolled a crit on top of its multi-attack and instantly killed you."
>different class
Completely agree.
>they keep using the "BUT MUH FUN"
You sound like a retarded cockmongrel. How about you talk to your players like a normal human being instead of bitching on a Taiwanese fingerpainting forum.
>tl;dr everyone involved is a faggot

>>52945587
This would make a good pasta.

Forever DM here.

My biggest fear when DMing every sunday is that, fr some reason, my players are just showing up out of politeness and no one is actually enjoying the game.
Every session I get a grip in my heart because I always ask them if everyone is enjoying it and they all give me this Bret Favre head nod like they're thinking about what they're going to have for dinner.
I've had a player die during a boss encounter, but the party paid for his resurrection, and I guess it was only from then on that they started taking it a bit more seriously.

My point is, violence is the only answer people understand, and you can't let your fear of players not enjoying your game stop you from killing them.

>>52948276
If you purposefully avoid equating players to characters, this sounds way more interesting,

>>52948276
If they werent enjoying it they wouldn't show up.

People dont sit around for 12 hours out of politeness

>>52945930
No.

>>52939762
>The way the op seemed to portray it the whole group disagreed with the houserule and at least some were threatening to leave the game over it

Good. OP should kick them out. What a bunch of entitled little fucks. If you're going to threaten to quit the group to get your way, then you can leave now before you use that threat to get everything you want. I don't negotiate with terrorists.

>>52943321
He's right, though. "Fun" just rapes the discourse of gaming discussion. "This was fun" "oh cool I thought it was fun, too" Bam. Conversation dead.

Whereas you can talk about what aspects of the game made it fun, did it have good mechanics, was the world it took place in interesting and fun to explore? Etc. Same with RPGs. Saying D&D is ""fun"" means absolutely nothing, because of what a generic descriptor it is.

>>52949072
You could try to ask them?
If I had a conversation about a game and fun was never mentioned I'd be at least wary.

Also, there is a bast difference between what you argue and what the cap says. You have an argument.

>>52949124
>If I had a conversation about a game and fun was never mentioned I'd be at least wary.

That's because you converse on the level of a child.

>>52949146
Any actual argument?

>>52949124
>Also, there is a bast difference between what you argue and what the cap says. You have an argument.

Both sentences in the cap are completely true.

>Fun is just a buzzwordw hen you can't actually think of any real reasons why the game is good

it gets misinterpreted as "games shouldn't be fun" but what the anon means is, it's an absolutely stupid description of a game, and also "the game is fun" is a worthless description of its quality because of how generic it is. Some people look for something other than """fun""" in their games, anyway.

>Either way, being amused or entertained with something, and being immersed, are not the same thing [commas added for clarity]

This is also true. You can enjoy playing Angry Birds but it's not exactly immersive. Same with some chuckle-shit Rooster-Teeth style RPG session where the whole point is to get 20-something nu males to pound the game with autistic laughter over some retarded antics a character pulled off. That might be entertaining but it sure isn't immersive because those fucks don't even know how to roleplay properly.

>>52930055
I only take issue with the "a level below" thing. If it the party average, I'd be fine with it. If it was a level below the average party level, too many deaths would result in the game going backwards because the average would keep decreasing.

>>52949164
That is the argument. That you can't understand why precision in expression matters is a sign you have yet to mature.

>>52949234
Somehow, the "when" flew over my head.
Thank you the clarification.

>"the game is fun" is a worthless description of its quality

On this I disagree, its is generic, but it has to BE. Be fun because of [Setting/NPCs/Narration/Mechanics].
of course it's practically worthless if the person you talk to can't/won't elaborate, but it should and can be used as part of a description.
My language doesn't have a word for fun, you know? Ours means "Distraction"
>>52949330
Ok.

>>52949072
>Whereas you can talk about what aspects of the game made it fun, did it have good mechanics, was the world it took place in interesting and fun to explore?
Hey, asshole over here thinks you have to grow up, because the use of a word in a larger description and dialogue is the same as all the description being that word, and you said fun twice.

>>52947730

>This is a good thing, without the threat of death there is no real satisfaction and the game just becomes mental masturbation.

This sentiment has always struck me as a sign of shitty players or a GM utterly lacking in creativity.

There are no end of ways to make a game satisfying, compelling and challenging without always falling back on the threat of death as the only real stake, and id you can't see that then what the fuck is wrong with you?

Death is a potent tool, but overusing it just blunts its impact and created a situation where people have no reason to care, which likely leads to stupid mechanical penalties like the one in the OP.

>>52930055
Starting them off a level below only makes it more likely they'll die again (if you aren't pulling punches and fudging rolls). Death is a punishment by itself, it sucks having your character die, it sucks having to grind the session to a halt for a minute to send one player off to roll a new character. Death sucks, and rightfully so. That said, a new character should start out with the same experience everyone else has. Death is the punishment for death, you don't need to add shit.
tldr: Your house rules suck, I wouldn't agree to them either.

>>52946694
> Rogue Like games are having a massive boom
Not that guy, but are they? I'm looking at the 25 global top sellers on steam right now, and except for Nier automata, Dawn of war 3, and Expeditions vikings, everything is some sort of fps and none of them feature permadeath.

>>52950940
I think he's saying somewhere in the top 100 you'll find darksouls III, and that's enough to justify a change in videogames in his mind.

>>52951016
Yeah, my point is that most videogames don't have any choice or consequence because most gamers just reload if they die or they don't like how something went, pickpocketing over and over until they get something.

MMOs have the same problem, they just let you respawn with almost no downsides.

These teach a whole new generation of roleplayers that death isn't something to be afraid of, so they'll just keep trial and erroring their way through everything instead of trying to use their head to solve things like a real person would if their life was on the line.

>>52953358
Go play ToME.
It makes me angry at how bad I can be at a game.

>>52953420
You don't have to sell me, I love roguelikes, but anyone saying they're popular instead of niche is just crazy.

>>52953512

So you're complete ignoring the massive popularity of roguelites, games using those mechanics in a dozen different genres?

>>52953569
>most roguelikes are free
>they are still niche and obscure compared to actually popular games which have millions of sales and millions of players

really makes me think

>>52947207
Autism. You forged autism.

>>52953512

A roguelike game is one belonging to a subgenre of role-playing video games characterized by a dungeon crawl through procedurally generated game levels, turn-based gameplay, tile-based graphics, and permanent death of the player-character.

Pretty much screwed itself in the foot in terms of wide audience appeal unfortunately.

>>52930055
Kill them all, OP. When my players get unruly I just make them suffer. If you set the precedence that you're the authority at the table they typically don't fuck with you or quit playing.

But if you want a more moderate solution, just explain your reasoning. With inexperienced players if you explain the reasoning for your actions they'll usually be more open to them. Also letting them play the character they like without killing them too early on. Bail them out of a stupid situation they got themselves in once or twice, but if that's enforcing bad habits refer to my previous suggestion. The more they play the character the more they'll see others and maybe want to try something new in the future.

>>52931064

Because it's the equivalent to the level loss you'd suffer if your character was revived from the dead via magic.

It's an old standard, and at the very least dates back to 3rd edition.

In older editions, like 1st AD&D, you started back from 1st level.

Beat your players with a cardboard tube until they comply.

>>52930055
>I explained that if they die they'll have to reroll their character a level below and a different class,

Im not a fan of putting them down a level since my groups cant be assed to keep track of fight experience points. We generally level off of quest XP.
But im literally stealing the roll a different class part. Its so elegant I can't believe I never thought of it. Being forced to play a fighter after my paladin died would have been awesome. Or ranger dies having to go rogue/fighter, or barbarian.

Fuck, if I had thought of this in the moment I probably wouldn't have let my party rez my characters before.
Make a quest of that shit.
Historically when a beloved character dies my players pool all their cash and resources on the spot to bring them back. Its usually put them in the pocket of a patron of some sort too.

But just forcing a new character of a different class feels more elegant.

>>52949403
I like you.

What language is yours if I might ask?

File: nut.jpg (144KB, 1804x1014px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1804x1014px

>>52930055
characters are meant to die.
bringing them back ruins the fun for the DM, having to DM for the same characters over and over and trying not to put them up against things that might kill them sucks and it just becomes a way of sucking off your friends and making them feel good without any enjoyment for yourself.

no don't make any interesting events happen near the party, the party’s wizard decided that he only wanted to take fire spells so if a dragon is in the area just delete him from your world, wouldn't want your wizard to maybe learn to diversify his spell book with things like dimension door for escape scenarios the hard way.

just make it so parties only ever run into things that they can handle with ease. wouldn't want them picking up bad habits such as like running away, my 45 speed is meant for chasing not running or god forbid they sneak around things, stealth is for stealth attacks only, not avoid fights you can't handle.

the first team a noob party make will always be a piece of shit, death and other misfortunes is how you teach them.

it's not hard to survive when you're good but players will never get good if you don't show them the repercussions of playing stupidly.

if dying makes all the sessons before it SUDDENLY not fun then your party are spoiled children and shouldn't be playing RPGs.

don't get me wrong, resurrection and jumping through realms to bring them back is a whole lot of fun for both players and DM's but if you establish that any church in town will bring you back, who the fuck's going to play safe? it should be reserved for player spells, items and of course for those who can find their way to heaven or hell and pull them back.

>>52954002

>characters are meant to die in a specific playstyle of game which is not to everyone's preference or taste.

ftfy

>>52954055
>wizard we're in trouble we can't take this fight teleport us out of here
>I can't I learned wall of fire in my spare time
>didn't you just get done learning fireball? why didn't you get something to keep us alive.
>I got like a theme going on here

ahh the roleplay is deep. remember guys strong monsters and large factions only exist when your party is high enough level to fight their way through it. make sure if they accidently forget to account for random crits that falling rocks saves them so they can bring their dead to the local church for the price of a dental filling.

>play to survive the DM's world
>the DM should never change his world so players can survive in it.

>>52954268

I'm not quite sure what your inconsistent rambling is meant to convey or articulate?

Although the point made in >>52949416 is also relevant, even in high lethality games of all sorts. Even if death is an expected and common part of the experience, that isn't an excuse for a GM not to use other methods to raise the stakes and keep things tense. If there's never any tension outside of scenes where direct bodily harm is a possibility, you're doing something wrong.

>>52954314
don't worry guys, sure we died but we can just make our characters with diffrent names at the same level and keep playing.

oh yeah, I'm sure their deaths will teach them to play better.

you still haven't explained why the DM is required to keep the world nice and safe for his party. why should they be able to fight everything they encoutner. as long as they're not woken up by 16 owl bears theres nothing wrong with reminding them of their mortality.

if they can't survive these they clearly don't understand what they are up against. unpreparedness leads to death this should be rule 1.

and again if they had fun for 3 sessions then die on session 4. how is that suddenly a shit DM? they got themselves killed.

I'll keep saying this. surviving is really fucking easy if you use your brain.

your nieche faggot build should only be good based on it's merit not because you wanted to try something cool and special so the DM better not throw anything at you that you can't handle.

fuck you and your rerolling the same exact characters method. it's fucking gay. it's not fun. so don't say "uhh stop enjoying things different to me" because if you actually tried playing it the classic way where death was something you avoided and not something that sometimes happens when everything goes wrong at once then you'd know how much better it is.

don't get all uncomfortable because you're a pussy DM or because your DM lets your special snowflake weasel beastmaster survive.

>>52941379
>he DM can I play as a friend of my old character
>sound cool write up a character sheet
>done how does it look
>wow thats pretty good, will make a great NPC
>now write up a new class faggot.

>>52954415

I'm not saying the GM necessarily needs to do anything? I'm saying that there are different ways of playing and enjoying RPGs and that they're all equally valid. It's just a matter of finding a group who enjoys the same things you do.

Sometimes, particularly in IRL situations where you have a lack of players or available games, an element of compromise is needed, finding the best way to run a game everyone can enjoy, even if specific people might not having things exactly the way they prefer.

>>52954415
>so don't say "uhh stop enjoying things different to me"
But that's you. That's your argument that you're making, don't suddenly go against it.

And the classic way of playing was to absolutely reroll the same exact characters, everybody from the TSR days has explicitly said so. That's WHY death was able to be so prevalent and arbitrary in 1st and 2nd edition, your characters could easily be replaced.

>>52954415
>because if you actually tried playing it the classic way where death was something you avoided and not something that sometimes happens when everything goes wrong at once then you'd know how much better it is.

>don't say "uhh stop enjoying things different to me"

are you retarded or merely illiterate

OK, time to stop getting wise with OP and just say it straight

It's cool that OP has a system that works for his regular group and a good idea of what he and they expect from D&D. If that's how they've always played, if that's what they want from their games, that's fine and they shouldn't change.

However, what OP seems to be monumentally asspained about is that some other people want something different from the game to what he does and they won't change their ways, and he won't change his ways.

OP needs to take a fucking chill pill and realise that other people wanting something different from RPGs, a hobby which has hundreds if not thousands of different fucking rulesets most of which say right there in the fucking rulebook "This is a creative game, have some fun, make sure everyone's getting what they want from the game", is not a bad thing.

OP also needs to man the fuck up and just say "look it's cool you guys want to play D&D but to be honest I'm not feeling what you want from your campaign so I'll bow out" if he's so massively butthurt that not everyone wants the same thing from games he does.

>>52950940

They sorta are. They are a LOT more popular these days than they were before.

Enter the Gungeon, Rogue Legacy, Crypt of the Necrodancer, Hand of Fate, Darkest Dungeon.

They are not generally the massively advertised and budgeted AAA games out there but they are a lot more popular than they've been in years past.

>>52955806

Fuck, Binding of Isaac basically kickstarted the roguelite trend and years, years later it's still massively popular, getting continued support both official and fan-modded.

>>52955816

Yeah, it's why I don't really hold much to the 'It's being a modern video game player that makes someone want things to be less lethal'. I can't think of too many old-school permadeath games as many of them had either a lives system or just save and restore to a previous save.

>>52930055
Honestly it's understandable how some people would not want their character to die, but some folks are just flat out cunts when it comes to losing in games, they get mad when their special snowflake character dies.

>running 5e for people who claim to be seasoned veterans of "Old-school style" D&D
>They get a random encounter against a creature who is described as a "hulking creature, giant in size, that is seemingly made out of stone"
>They fight it without asking any questions
>explain their hits are barely doing anything to it
>the cleric almost gets tko'd in one hit
>they all take their next two full rounds to charge in and attack
>Character X gets k/o, not even dead
>player of said character Immediately says "I do not consent to this form of role playing"
>Everyone gives a resounding "what?"
>replies "There was NO telegraphing that he was a super high level encounter, I'm just going to leave"
>everyone tells the guy to calm down
>he starts going on about how he gets mad when he has "no agency" over how his character ends up
>After he's calmed down, in order to keep the guy from sperging out anymore, I introduce a demi-god character to reluctantly deus-ex machina away the beast.
>Same player even mentions that another GM had made a similar "bad move he didn't feel good about" by killing someone else's character the day before

Honestly, when I play, I'll admit it feels shitty to lose a character, but life ain't fair, so I just suck it up and roll up a new one.

>>52956120
You're now aware that 3.0 was released 17 years ago.

For some, that can be 'old school'.

>>52940482
>isn't that how real life works

Kys

This thread had better be bait

>>52949330

Wow, what a pretentious little snot.

Please die.

If I die in a campaign, I fucked up. Maybe the dice were unlucky. That's the breaks.

If I know the party may be about to die and I can justify having played a character who cared about his companions, I may try to draw the foe away and buy the party time to escape at my expense.

If I have even a modicum of control over my death, I try my damnest to make it so that the party can at least benefit in some way.

I'm saging this post and making a new thread specifically to kill this thread because I hate it