>DM says he isn't afraid of killing players >Half

>>55197235
I could see why he'd threaten the players if the adventure was that boring. Poor slob must be desperate at this point.

>complaining about an actual challenge where they might actually lose the fight
This is the nu-male generation of RPG players, /tg/. This is what you asked for, this is what you supported with your laissez-faire and friendliness. A bunch of faggots who want to fuck around with no consequences, want their hands held, want the DM to suck them off. This is where fudging rolls comes from, this is where the "Three Clue Rule" comes from, this is where "you can't make puzzles because low-IQ players will get triggered" comes from, this is where "every encounter has to be tailored to the party because if the barbarian is useless in a long-range combat they will get triggered" bullshit comes from. A load of limp-dick faggot-ass players who whine about everything. If they can't even man up enough to play a goddamn RPG then what the fuck are they worth as human beings?

>a bloo bloo we TPK'd because we fought something without any thought as to whether we should
>a bloo bloo someone caught us off guard with the oldest trick in the book
>a bloo bloo the enemy used tactics and we didn't so we lost
>a bloo bloo i fell off a cliff i was fighting near that shouldn't have happened, this isn't like the nat20 greentexts i read on tumblr! wahhhhh!

>>55197313
I think he was complaining that he wasn't killed, they were just unconscious despite the DM saying he killed players.

>>55197367
You retard you're not supposed to reply in any form. He's after the (you)

>>55197313
If this isn't pasta, it should be

>>55197235
>Not affair of killing players.

He's said players not characters. He saying not affair of killing you the player anon.

>want to murder my party on fair terms
>they diplomacy their way into an advantageous position and I don't really know how to play the pregen-adventure villains effectively to make them legitimate thrrats

How do I get gud
Should I just 'cheat' and throw in gangs of higher-level threats

File: Consider the Following.jpg (153KB, 480x546px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 480x546px

1. Did you fight something without planning the fight around your surroundings and what the enemy was capable of
2. Did any of the PC's do stupid shit
3. Did you try and fight something that you should've run from
4. Was the DM just being a shit to prove you're in a "tough" campaign

>>55197502
Going to need some more info on the system and campaign.

File: When the shitposter shows up.jpg (88KB, 622x944px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 622x944px

>>55197313
5/7 Pasta friendo

>>55197873
Previously Pathfinder, now 5e
The party has come into 'ownership' of a fortress in contested territory between two nations with an uneasy cease-fire
They've contracted a band of hobgoblins to actually hold the fort

The next session is the commander of the army that hired them to clear the fort learning that they've decided to keep it for themselves. I'm not sure if I should let them have it or what.

>>55197959
Ah, so you're deciding if the commander is going to allow them to keep the fort or if he's going to be angry about it? I don't think he should just let them keep it, but he wouldn't attack them over it necessarily. Just be pissed off. You could have him hold a grudge and reappear later in the campaign. Make him into a side villain even.

>>55197399
He's right though. There are far too many shit players and far too many desperate DMs willing to pander to them.

>>55197959
>>55198156
Sounds like the commander might like to beseige them, but it would be sensible for him to hold off on something like that because it might provoke the other nation by having an army march right up near their border.

The idea of making him a (potential) minor antagonist sounds good, but I think the player party should have a chance to negotiate too.

>>55197305
fpbp