Poll: Dying in Table-Top RPGs

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
I generally DM in a way that makes most battles seem somewhat of a challenge. And I generally don't let characters die unless they do some really stupid shit. (Or stuff I just can't resist like a character standing on top of a mountain in wet copper armour yelling "I hate all gods!" :p) But jokes aside, when a the dice just go completely against the players during a particular battle, I tend to cheat a little in their favour. Likewise, if the players tend to roll amazingly well during a battle intended as being difficult while I roll horribly, I will cheat against them a little.

But I've only ever had 2 deaths (technically 6 because of a party wipe) during my years of DMming. The party wipe happened because the party decided it was a good idea to, as level 4~5 characters, try and murder the queen. In broad daylight... With half a dozen royal guards around her... Without a plan... All because she was 'technically' lawful evil aligned.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
Once Im DMing a campaign that isnt so focused on the specific characters, I think I will try to ramp up the challenge. I also will try to teach my players to fix some bad behaviors. I need to make them understand that running away is an ok response to an overwhelming fight. Unfortunately it might be awhile.
 

Windcaler

New member
Nov 7, 2010
1,332
0
0
Im a very old school DM and Ive always found the best way a player can die is in some memorable and meaningful fashion. You never want players to be put in a save or die situation because that just cheapens the whole experience. You want death in the game to have meaning and perhaps the most important part of the whole thing is the in game funeral. Make it a reflection of the character and the things they accomplished, the good and the bad times.

Now I know a lot of GMs dont do it anymore but Im a firm believer in the ceremonial burning of the character sheet after the session is over. Its a final farewell for everyone and can even spark new creativity in the players so that a similar situation doesnt happen again
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
If you're playing an RPG video-game and you get curb-stomped by a boss, guess what pops up: the "Game Over" screen. There's no reason this shouldn't be the same with table-top games.

Here's another way to look at it: if the characters can't die, then there's no real challenge. If there's no real challenge, why bother fucking around with character sheets and dice in the first place? A DM coddling the players by playing in a manner in which the players can't die is essentially granting god-mode to the players. At that point you're not even playing a game, you're just telling a story as a group. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but as I said: I feel at that point you're not playing a game.

That said, I'm not without some mercy. It's no fun for anyone if a party member (or members) gets taken out early due to crappy rolls of the dice, as such whenever I DM I'm pretty liberal with Resurrection mechanics. Pretty much the only way to reach a game-over state in a game I DM is if it's a full-party wipe. There's some catches that go along with it so that it doesn't reach DBZ levels of trivializing death, but in the end we're all there to have fun.
 

wings012

Elite Member
Legacy
May 5, 2020
717
155
48
Country
Malaysia
If it is a long campaign, having someone die early or in the middle and then sit out of the rest of the sessions would be a damper.

Maybe allow dead players to roll a new character and write them back into the game. The new character will be underleveled and all that jazz, but that's the price they have to pay.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
RJ 17 said:
If you're playing an RPG video-game and you get curb-stomped by a boss, guess what pops up: the "Game Over" screen. There's no reason this shouldn't be the same with table-top games.

Here's another way to look at it: if the characters can't die, then there's no real challenge. If there's no real challenge, why bother fucking around with character sheets and dice in the first place? A DM coddling the players by playing in a manner in which the players can't die is essentially granting god-mode to the players. At that point you're not even playing a game, you're just telling a story as a group. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but as I said: I feel at that point you're not playing a game.

That said, I'm not without some mercy. It's no fun for anyone if a party member (or members) gets taken out early due to crappy rolls of the dice, as such whenever I DM I'm pretty liberal with Resurrection mechanics. Pretty much the only way to reach a game-over state in a game I DM is if it's a full-party wipe. There's some catches that go along with it so that it doesn't reach DBZ levels of trivializing death, but in the end we're all there to have fun.
When you die in a video game and get Game Over, you reload.
 

Laxer

Consensus has been reached
Feb 17, 2010
12
0
0
Wings012 said:
Maybe allow dead players to roll a new character and write them back into the game. The new character will be underleveled and all that jazz, but that's the price they have to pay.
Why not let them roll up characters at or near the level of their surviving peers? This seems very harsh in a level-based game such as D&D. What if someone dies at level 10, do they hide in the back for the rest of the campaign as they will never catch up in levels? Thresholds on certain levels or a return at the same level sans some magical gear would seem to be a better solution.
 

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
1,741
540
118
I've never played, but on a conceptual level I like systems like Mordheim. You can die in an engagement. But its not permanent. At the end of the session, you roll a dice on the injury table and your character is left with a permanent reminder of their unfortunate demise.

I like this because you can still die and rack up negative consequences, but the game isn't just over for a single party member until next campaign, or diverting everyone back to accommodate one player. After all, it is a social activity, right?
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Saelune said:
RJ 17 said:
If you're playing an RPG video-game and you get curb-stomped by a boss, guess what pops up: the "Game Over" screen. There's no reason this shouldn't be the same with table-top games.

Here's another way to look at it: if the characters can't die, then there's no real challenge. If there's no real challenge, why bother fucking around with character sheets and dice in the first place? A DM coddling the players by playing in a manner in which the players can't die is essentially granting god-mode to the players. At that point you're not even playing a game, you're just telling a story as a group. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but as I said: I feel at that point you're not playing a game.

That said, I'm not without some mercy. It's no fun for anyone if a party member (or members) gets taken out early due to crappy rolls of the dice, as such whenever I DM I'm pretty liberal with Resurrection mechanics. Pretty much the only way to reach a game-over state in a game I DM is if it's a full-party wipe. There's some catches that go along with it so that it doesn't reach DBZ levels of trivializing death, but in the end we're all there to have fun.
When you die in a video game and get Game Over, you reload.
And if the party wipes in one of my games, we start a new one. :^)
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
RJ 17 said:
Saelune said:
RJ 17 said:
If you're playing an RPG video-game and you get curb-stomped by a boss, guess what pops up: the "Game Over" screen. There's no reason this shouldn't be the same with table-top games.

Here's another way to look at it: if the characters can't die, then there's no real challenge. If there's no real challenge, why bother fucking around with character sheets and dice in the first place? A DM coddling the players by playing in a manner in which the players can't die is essentially granting god-mode to the players. At that point you're not even playing a game, you're just telling a story as a group. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but as I said: I feel at that point you're not playing a game.

That said, I'm not without some mercy. It's no fun for anyone if a party member (or members) gets taken out early due to crappy rolls of the dice, as such whenever I DM I'm pretty liberal with Resurrection mechanics. Pretty much the only way to reach a game-over state in a game I DM is if it's a full-party wipe. There's some catches that go along with it so that it doesn't reach DBZ levels of trivializing death, but in the end we're all there to have fun.
When you die in a video game and get Game Over, you reload.
And if the party wipes in one of my games, we start a new one. :^)
I like resolution. I dont know about you, but my world has a continuity. If the heroes dont stop the Demon God from destroying the world, well, I cant exactly start a whole new game.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,090
305
88
Saelune said:
And if the party wipes in one of my games, we start a new one. :^)
I like resolution. I dont know about you, but my world has a continuity. If the heroes dont stop the Demon God from destroying the world, well, I cant exactly start a whole new game.[/quote]That is why i avoid world ending plots.

There are enough bad things that can happen and still leave a world that can be used by surviving or new characters seeing the scars of the previous failure.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Saelune said:
RJ 17 said:
Saelune said:
RJ 17 said:
If you're playing an RPG video-game and you get curb-stomped by a boss, guess what pops up: the "Game Over" screen. There's no reason this shouldn't be the same with table-top games.

Here's another way to look at it: if the characters can't die, then there's no real challenge. If there's no real challenge, why bother fucking around with character sheets and dice in the first place? A DM coddling the players by playing in a manner in which the players can't die is essentially granting god-mode to the players. At that point you're not even playing a game, you're just telling a story as a group. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but as I said: I feel at that point you're not playing a game.

That said, I'm not without some mercy. It's no fun for anyone if a party member (or members) gets taken out early due to crappy rolls of the dice, as such whenever I DM I'm pretty liberal with Resurrection mechanics. Pretty much the only way to reach a game-over state in a game I DM is if it's a full-party wipe. There's some catches that go along with it so that it doesn't reach DBZ levels of trivializing death, but in the end we're all there to have fun.
When you die in a video game and get Game Over, you reload.
And if the party wipes in one of my games, we start a new one. :^)
I like resolution. I dont know about you, but my world has a continuity. If the heroes dont stop the Demon God from destroying the world, well, I cant exactly start a whole new game.
Same with mine. If the party wipes (which doesn't happen often, but it has once or twice), we reconvene next week and

A: Play someone else's game.
B: The players have made new characters and I've tweaked the story to imply that the forces of darkness (or what have you) have gained more power and influence in the world since the previous band of heroes failed.
Edit:
Pretty much what this guy said:
Satinavian said:
There are enough bad things that can happen and still leave a world that can be used by surviving or new characters seeing the scars of the previous failure.
If we continue my game, a new group of heroes rises due to the world getting worse off due to the failure of the previous band, and they intend to do everything they can to put things right again (or something along those lines).End Edit

It's as the other part of my original post in this topic said: if there's no actual threat to your players, then you're not playing a game. Your telling a story as a group, and as such you shouldn't even be bothering with character sheets and dice in the first place...all you're doing with those is wasting time at that point because hey: there's no ACTUAL threat to the players, therefor it doesn't matter if they've got a 9 in their Strength stat or an 18. They're already playing in god-mode anyways, might as well let them walk around and just be able to succeed at anything they want because "they're the heroes and we can't have them fail."

And thus all tension and sense of genuine conflict is removed. Personally I find such things to be boring, but that's just me. As I said: if you're more interested in just constructing and telling a story as a group, then by all means have fun with it. I just don't consider such activities to be table-top gaming.

In games: there's always a chance that you'll lose. In stories: the heroes always win.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
RJ 17 said:
Saelune said:
RJ 17 said:
Saelune said:
RJ 17 said:
If you're playing an RPG video-game and you get curb-stomped by a boss, guess what pops up: the "Game Over" screen. There's no reason this shouldn't be the same with table-top games.

Here's another way to look at it: if the characters can't die, then there's no real challenge. If there's no real challenge, why bother fucking around with character sheets and dice in the first place? A DM coddling the players by playing in a manner in which the players can't die is essentially granting god-mode to the players. At that point you're not even playing a game, you're just telling a story as a group. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but as I said: I feel at that point you're not playing a game.

That said, I'm not without some mercy. It's no fun for anyone if a party member (or members) gets taken out early due to crappy rolls of the dice, as such whenever I DM I'm pretty liberal with Resurrection mechanics. Pretty much the only way to reach a game-over state in a game I DM is if it's a full-party wipe. There's some catches that go along with it so that it doesn't reach DBZ levels of trivializing death, but in the end we're all there to have fun.
When you die in a video game and get Game Over, you reload.
And if the party wipes in one of my games, we start a new one. :^)
I like resolution. I dont know about you, but my world has a continuity. If the heroes dont stop the Demon God from destroying the world, well, I cant exactly start a whole new game.
Same with mine. If the party wipes (which doesn't happen often, but it has once or twice), we reconvene next week and

A: Play someone else's game.
B: The players have made new characters and I've tweaked the story to imply that the forces of darkness (or what have you) have gained more power and influence in the world since the previous band of heroes failed.

It's as the other part of my original post in this topic said: if there's no actual threat to your players, then you're not playing a game. Your telling a story as a group, and as such you shouldn't even be bothering with character sheets and dice in the first place...all you're doing with those is wasting time at that point because hey: there's no ACTUAL threat to the players, therefor it doesn't matter if they've got a 9 in their Strength stat or an 18. They're already playing in god-mode anyways, might as well let them walk around and just be able to succeed at anything they want because "they're the heroes and we can't have them fail."

And thus all tension and sense of genuine conflict is removed. Personally I find such things to be boring, but that's just me. As I said: if you're more interested in just constructing and telling a story as a group, then by all means have fun with it. I just don't consider such activities to be table-top gaming.

In games: there's always a chance that you'll lose. In stories: the heroes always win.
Tension is overrated. Most movies, most games, you know the heroes win.

Its fine if people have different preferences, but there is too much subjectivity in what people find fun. Im interested in everyone's idea of it, but I feel its too often presented as the "correct way" and its off putting.

And my players like combat. Sure, I myself could go an entire campaign with no combat, and even sometimes prefer to have smaller fights be verbally roleplayed than rolled and moved on a board but they want their fights, and I accommodate that. There is value in how you succeed as much as if you do at all too. I and alot of others prefer to reload a battle in Fire Emblem if even a single person dies. Some people think it nullifies the point of the game, but really it adds a new layer of challenge.

I have one player who likes to climb to high spots and drop down on his enemies, while another shoots fireballs from on his Pegasus, and another creates clouds of darkness and tentacles. Plus I mean, what about fight anime? There is little tension in if they will win, but people like the spectacle of how.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Saelune said:
Tension is overrated. Most movies, most games, you know the heroes win.
Movies: yes, games: you can still lose. I'll touch more on that in a bit.

Its fine if people have different preferences, but there is too much subjectivity in what people find fun. Im interested in everyone's idea of it, but I feel its too often presented as the "correct way" and its off putting.
Before going on, let me just clarify something real quick: your topic asked how other table-top gamers approach player-characters dying. So that's what I did: tell you how I approach death in games, everything else has just been my justification/reasoning behind it. I'm not trying to assert that this is how things should be done and if you're not doing it this way then you're doing it wrong.

And my players like combat. Sure, I myself could go an entire campaign with no combat, and even sometimes prefer to have smaller fights be verbally roleplayed than rolled and moved on a board but they want their fights, and I accommodate that. There is value in how you succeed as much as if you do at all too. I and alot of others prefer to reload a battle in Fire Emblem if even a single person dies. Some people think it nullifies the point of the game, but really it adds a new layer of challenge.
And I'd disagree with you on the notion of "it adds a layer of challenge". All you're doing is hitting the reset button on RNG until the story comes out the way you want it. I'd argue real challenge is moving forward knowing that your badass just died. I'd go so far as to say that you could get the same value out of just waiting for someone to post a plot synopsis and reading that rather than spending money on a game which you seem to be treating as a visual novel with combat mini-games.

Again, though, don't take this as me telling you that you're doing it wrong. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind my point of view. You do you, whatever makes the games you play (video game or table top) more enjoyable, then by all means: go with that.

Plus I mean, what about fight anime? There is little tension in if they will win, but people like the spectacle of how.
Again, though: anime, movies, books...these are all non-interactive activities. The heroes always win because that's a demand of the story, tension is built in a different way because the person experiencing the story is just along for the ride. In games, however, there is a second layer of tension: the tension that comes with possible failure. Not only do you have the story building tension as it would in an anime or movie, but there's also the possibility that you'll screw things up yourself.

On that note, I'd disagree with your notion of "there's as much value in how you succeed as there is in whether or not you succeed at all." If you can't fail to begin with, then the means to your ends make little difference. It doesn't matter how your players killed the giant ogre Gorthok, the Mountain Crusher because in the end they're going to do it anyways. Did your Pegasus rider hit him with a fireball or a REALLY BIG fireball? Who cares: he's still dead. Did your dark hentai tentacle summoner rip him limb from limb or just manage to choke him out? Doesn't really matter, the heroes were going to win anyways. Did your climber-dropper manage to crush the ogre's skull or did he just bounce off his shoulder? Not important, the fight's going to be won regardless.

My over-all point is that if you ask me, per your tastes as you've described them: I'd say you shouldn't be bothering with dice and what-not at all. Just take it in turns to tell your part of a story, because that's all you seem to be interested in doing. Which once more brings me to the overall point of my perspective:

RJ 17 said:
In games: there's always a chance that you'll lose. In stories: the heroes always win.
...seriously though, if you reset Fire Emblem every time someone dies then you're doing it wrong. :p
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
RJ 17 said:
Saelune said:
Tension is overrated. Most movies, most games, you know the heroes win.
Movies: yes, games: you can still lose. I'll touch more on that in a bit.

Its fine if people have different preferences, but there is too much subjectivity in what people find fun. Im interested in everyone's idea of it, but I feel its too often presented as the "correct way" and its off putting.
Before going on, let me just clarify something real quick: your topic asked how other table-top gamers approach player-characters dying. So that's what I did: tell you how I approach death in games, everything else has just been my justification/reasoning behind it. I'm not trying to assert that this is how things should be done and if you're not doing it this way then you're doing it wrong.

And my players like combat. Sure, I myself could go an entire campaign with no combat, and even sometimes prefer to have smaller fights be verbally roleplayed than rolled and moved on a board but they want their fights, and I accommodate that. There is value in how you succeed as much as if you do at all too. I and alot of others prefer to reload a battle in Fire Emblem if even a single person dies. Some people think it nullifies the point of the game, but really it adds a new layer of challenge.
And I'd disagree with you on the notion of "it adds a layer of challenge". All you're doing is hitting the reset button on RNG until the story comes out the way you want it. I'd argue real challenge is moving forward knowing that your badass just died. I'd go so far as to say that you could get the same value out of just waiting for someone to post a plot synopsis and reading that rather than spending money on a game which you seem to be treating as a visual novel with combat mini-games.

Again, though, don't take this as me telling you that you're doing it wrong. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind my point of view. You do you, whatever makes the games you play (video game or table top) more enjoyable, then by all means: go with that.

Plus I mean, what about fight anime? There is little tension in if they will win, but people like the spectacle of how.
Again, though: anime, movies, books...these are all non-interactive activities. The heroes always win because that's a demand of the story, tension is built in a different way because the person experiencing the story is just along for the ride. In games, however, there is a second layer of tension: the tension that comes with possible failure. Not only do you have the story building tension as it would in an anime or movie, but there's also the possibility that you'll screw things up yourself.

On that note, I'd disagree with your notion of "there's as much value in how you succeed as there is in whether or not you succeed at all." If you can't fail to begin with, then the means to your ends make little difference. It doesn't matter how your players killed the giant ogre Gorthok, the Mountain Crusher because in the end they're going to do it anyways. Did your Pegasus rider hit him with a fireball or a REALLY BIG fireball? Who cares: he's still dead. Did your dark hentai tentacle summoner rip him limb from limb or just manage to choke him out? Doesn't really matter, the heroes were going to win anyways. Did your climber-dropper manage to crush the ogre's skull or did he just bounce off his shoulder? Not important, the fight's going to be won regardless.

My over-all point is that if you ask me, per your tastes as you've described them: I'd say you shouldn't be bothering with dice and what-not at all. Just take it in turns to tell your part of a story, because that's all you seem to be interested in doing. Which once more brings me to the overall point of my perspective:

RJ 17 said:
In games: there's always a chance that you'll lose. In stories: the heroes always win.
...seriously though, if you reset Fire Emblem every time someone dies then you're doing it wrong. :p
Yeah, I asked how they like it, not what is the "right" way. There is a difference between "I like challenge and tension" versus "If there is no tension you're doing it wrong".

And there is more challenge to get through a fight with no casualties, than it is to just accept what happens and continue on. Whats harder? Winning a game of Chess, or winning a game of Chess without losing any pieces?

The memories my group has begs to differ with the idea that how doesnt matter. "Remember when you..." doesnt happen when you just dont actually have anything happen.

And we play off the dice. We describe the results. We make a point of just making the CR, and decimating it. Rolling a 15 on a DC 15 versus rolling a natural 20 is the difference between "You just barely manage to land on your feet, stumbling slightly" or "You backflip over the bed of spikes, landing nimbly on the otherside as you snear at how easy it was".

We like that stuff.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Saelune said:
And there is more challenge to get through a fight with no casualties, than it is to just accept what happens and continue on. Whats harder? Winning a game of Chess, or winning a game of Chess without losing any pieces?
I'd say winning a game of chess after dropping your Queen is harder - and more exciting/exhilarating/fulfilling - than asking your opponent for a redo every time you drop a piece.

We like that stuff.
And that's all that's important. I've said my piece and argued the logic behind it, so I hope you can see the merit behind my way of doing things. But like I said in the last post: you do you. Play however works best for your group so that you all have the most fun with your games. :D
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
RJ 17 said:
Saelune said:
And there is more challenge to get through a fight with no casualties, than it is to just accept what happens and continue on. Whats harder? Winning a game of Chess, or winning a game of Chess without losing any pieces?
I'd say winning a game of chess after dropping your Queen is harder - and more exciting/exhilarating/fulfilling - than asking your opponent for a redo every time you drop a piece.

We like that stuff.
And that's all that's important. I've said my piece and argued the logic behind it, so I hope you can see the merit behind my way of doing things. But like I said in the last post: you do you. Play however works best for your group so that you all have the most fun with your games. :D
Alot of people in this topic told me Im playing DnD wrong and even told me to basically not play it because of it. Including you.

Edit: This is the part in question from you, btw.

RJ 17 said:
It's as the other part of my original post in this topic said: if there's no actual threat to your players, then you're not playing a game. Your telling a story as a group, and as such you shouldn't even be bothering with character sheets and dice in the first place...all you're doing with those is wasting time at that point because hey: there's no ACTUAL threat to the players, therefor it doesn't matter if they've got a 9 in their Strength stat or an 18. They're already playing in god-mode anyways, might as well let them walk around and just be able to succeed at anything they want because "they're the heroes and we can't have them fail."
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Saelune said:
RJ 17 said:
Saelune said:
And there is more challenge to get through a fight with no casualties, than it is to just accept what happens and continue on. Whats harder? Winning a game of Chess, or winning a game of Chess without losing any pieces?
I'd say winning a game of chess after dropping your Queen is harder - and more exciting/exhilarating/fulfilling - than asking your opponent for a redo every time you drop a piece.

We like that stuff.
And that's all that's important. I've said my piece and argued the logic behind it, so I hope you can see the merit behind my way of doing things. But like I said in the last post: you do you. Play however works best for your group so that you all have the most fun with your games. :D
Alot of people in this topic told me Im playing DnD wrong and even told me to basically not play it because of it. Including you.

Edit: This is the part in question from you, btw.

RJ 17 said:
It's as the other part of my original post in this topic said: if there's no actual threat to your players, then you're not playing a game. Your telling a story as a group, and as such you shouldn't even be bothering with character sheets and dice in the first place...all you're doing with those is wasting time at that point because hey: there's no ACTUAL threat to the players, therefor it doesn't matter if they've got a 9 in their Strength stat or an 18. They're already playing in god-mode anyways, might as well let them walk around and just be able to succeed at anything they want because "they're the heroes and we can't have them fail."
And then I clarified myself because it wasn't my intention to come off sounding like I was telling you how to play. All I was saying is that from my point of view you're telling a collective story more than actually playing a game. Above all else, all that matters is this: if this is how your group has been playing and everyone enjoys themselves then keep going with it.

The responses you received are the type you should have expected to receive purely by making a topic like this, asking people what they think of your play style. That has been my intention: to offer my personal perspective on your play style, but don't let me or anyone else tell you how to run your group.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
8,411
16
23
RJ 17 said:
Saelune said:
RJ 17 said:
Saelune said:
And there is more challenge to get through a fight with no casualties, than it is to just accept what happens and continue on. Whats harder? Winning a game of Chess, or winning a game of Chess without losing any pieces?
I'd say winning a game of chess after dropping your Queen is harder - and more exciting/exhilarating/fulfilling - than asking your opponent for a redo every time you drop a piece.

We like that stuff.
And that's all that's important. I've said my piece and argued the logic behind it, so I hope you can see the merit behind my way of doing things. But like I said in the last post: you do you. Play however works best for your group so that you all have the most fun with your games. :D
Alot of people in this topic told me Im playing DnD wrong and even told me to basically not play it because of it. Including you.

Edit: This is the part in question from you, btw.

RJ 17 said:
It's as the other part of my original post in this topic said: if there's no actual threat to your players, then you're not playing a game. Your telling a story as a group, and as such you shouldn't even be bothering with character sheets and dice in the first place...all you're doing with those is wasting time at that point because hey: there's no ACTUAL threat to the players, therefor it doesn't matter if they've got a 9 in their Strength stat or an 18. They're already playing in god-mode anyways, might as well let them walk around and just be able to succeed at anything they want because "they're the heroes and we can't have them fail."
And then I clarified myself because it wasn't my intention to come off sounding like I was telling you how to play. All I was saying is that from my point of view you're telling a collective story more than actually playing a game. Above all else, all that matters is this: if this is how your group has been playing and everyone enjoys themselves then keep going with it.

The responses you received are the type you should have expected to receive purely by making a topic like this, asking people what they think of your play style. That has been my intention: to offer my personal perspective on your play style, but don't let me or anyone else tell you how to run your group.
I was looking for new ideas. I wasnt looking for a bad mood. However I found both. (Though Im sure some would argue I always find the latter >~>)

I wasnt asking for criticism of my play style (atleast not in if its the "right way" anyways). I described how I tend to play, and then I asked how others like to play. I never asked for the right way to play.

Despite how some have framed their responses, I am considering them for future DMing, but I probably wont be looking to play with any of them any time soon.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Saelune said:
Well I do apologize if my end of our conversation pushed you further down the "bad mood" path, because that certainly wasn't what I was intending. Like I said: what's important is that your group is having fun. Take what ideas you want from this topic, but just leave the rest and chalk it up to generic internet bilge. :p