You're viewing a single thread.
Putting a "random" encounter that didn't exist five minutes earlier in the path of your players, knowing it will be a TPK, is the DM version of murder hobo-ing. You're ignoring the logic of the game and the feelings of the other players so you can have fun killing things. You're not fixing the problem, you're becoming part of it.
i don't see the issue, in theory. if players have chosen to live by the sword, the dm is meeting them on their level by allowing them to die by the sword.
and you never know, maybe it's an op party that could make it a close match. maybe the players had warnings and brought the god's wrath on their heads anyway.
as with all things, there are contexts where it is appropriate and contexts where it is a wild overreaction. but this is a meme comm, not a nuance factory.
Then the meme doesn't make sense. The DM doesn't look like they're having fun, they look spiteful. If the DM's actions aren't spiteful, the meme is poorly made.
"They hated him because he told them the truth"
I agree, there are tons of different approaches a DM should take instead of just killing their party for no reason.
The main one would be to have a discussion with their players about what kind of campaign they want to run, so that everyone is on the same page.
Everyone at the table has the right to have fun, players and DM alike. But it should be a team effort.
I never get more hate than when I say "hey, this toxic DM behaviour is bad and you shouldn't do it." This time, it's "responding to violent PCs with an unreasonably powerful NPC out of spite just reinforces a player vs DM mentality."
See also "the illusion of choice isn't a brilliant trick, it just removes player agency" and "if one person's idea of fun doesn't match the rest of the group, remove that person, even if that person is you."
It's called teaching a lesson. Murder hobos do not respect the game. By giving them this encounter, they will get down from their high horses learning that sometimes things are not what they look like and they should be more careful and smart about what they're doing.
That's not the lesson they'll learn. The problem is that they don't care about the game as a living story, but as a game they can win through violence. Using this encounter will just tell them that the DM can cheat to win.
To quote the show Sharpe: "Flogging teaches a soldier only one lesson. How to turn his back."
The dm can cheat to win yes. That is also the lesson. Which means trying to beat the game is a hopeless goal. And if you think this is the game, you're gravely mistaken.
The comparison to flogging is simply dumb. It's completely irrelevant.
Now you can be a dumb player and refuse to learn anything from this encounter. It can spark a discussion then.
That's better communicated through... communication.
I don't know about you, but if I were playing a game to win and my "opponent" reveals that they can just cheat and instakill me whenever they feel like, I'm more likely to just stop playing the game than to try to play it for fun. Even if I did try to play it for fun, it would be hard to really enjoy it when I know that any encounter can just be a big middle finger.
If you don't explicitly tell people what they're doing wrong and how to fix it, it's unlikely that they'll figure it out on their own.
Ok, 3 things.
First, who ever said that this encounter was ever meant to end in a tpk? Not me. Not anyone I read mentioning this encounter. Bahamut is a benevolent god, not a moronic asshole like murder hobos.
Second, murder hobos are not playing to win, they're playing moronic assholes in a power fantasy. But anyway, both murder hobo and playing to win make problem players.
Third and finally, this encounter is a narrative tool that can take a campaign back on track. A discussion alone doesn't have this power, because the characters changing their behaviour suddenly would break the story.
Whether it ends in a TPK isn't relevant. If you're playing capture the flag and your opponent reveals they can just teleport your flag to their base it'll have roughly the same effect. If the GM can just say "you lose now" it'll seriously demotivate anyone who is trying to enjoy the game, for whatever reason.
Overall, the difference between having an in-character "please stop being murderhobos" moment and having an out-of-character "please stop being murderhobos" moment comes down to how likely it is for the players to take the message to heart. If it's just some dude that's telling them to stop being murderhobos and is an unwinnable fight if the players refuse, that sets a distinctly different tone than the GM pausing things for a moment to explain the current situation to the players.
Both can work, but keeping it as a narrative element has a higher chance of failure, since it's possible the players could interpret this as just another NPC encounter instead of the GM's thinly veiled wishes for the future of the table.
Overall, the only people who care about the story are the people at the table, and having a moment of jarring change in the characters to set the narrative back on track is fine. You'd probably want to do something like that anyway to paper over the past behavior, otherwise the players could listen to you and be understanding of what you want, and still get punished for the stuff they've already done.
You should really try to understand what game you're playing. Ttrpg are not competitive games, so your comparisons with competitive games are missing the point entirely.
I'll state bluntly : if you consider the game as a competitive game, you are a problem player.
It is a good thing to show the players that the game is not a competition because as a dm you are the one to decide how hard it will be.
The game cannot be competitive. Do you get that?
It's just an analogy. Here; let me try one more time.
If you're playing a horde shooter and your friend reveals they can just spawn a boss on top of you at any time, it kind of kills your desire to keep playing - at least with them.
No offense, but you seem overly fixated on all the wrong things.
Lol how long will you reference games that have nothing to do with ttrpg? And then I would be the one focusing on the wrong thing?
Do you understand that the dm is fundamentally unable to cheat?
Do you understand that the dm can make things difficult just as much as he can make them easy?
Do you really expect that the player should never face anything they can't murder?
I'll drop the analogies since they're clearly confusing you.
You also seem to have lost the plot here. We're talking about the proper way to address a table of murderhobos and bring them back in line.
Sure, throwing an unwinnable encounter at your players to punish them for their behavior is potentially a way to do that - but in my experience it's more likely to foster an adversarial relationship between the players and the DM. Even if the players get the message it's possible that they might interpret it as "play my way or else".
If your players are all murderhoboing, there's clearly a disconnect in your expectations for the table. The best way to address these kinds of disconnects is through open communication. If you pause things to make it clear that people aren't playing in the way you'd prefer, you can have a genuine discussion about how to roleplay that can take as long as it needs to. You can come to compromises or draw attention to things much easier than if you just throw an unwinnable scenario at them to humble them. If your players are all murderhoboing and all want to murderhobo, maybe you're the odd one out and you need to change your expectations. Or find a new table. But you won't know for sure until you have that discussion on a level that a super-NPC can't get you.
you still don't get it.
you must be a miserable person to TTRPG with.
I guess I should stop using analogies then.
The point isn't whether the players are competing with the DM. The point is that there's two people playing a game and one person can just screw over the other whenever they feel like it. Painting that in a competitive setting hits closer to home for a lot of people since they're more likely to have experienced that themselves. It wasn't meant to be indicative of how I perceive a good player/DM relationship.
I'm sorry, I had no idea it would confuse so many people so badly.
opponent
???
when is the DM an opponent?
Never, hence the air quotes. It's an analogy. I've been over this already with someone else.
opponent
yet you don't use airquotes elsewhere. you really think the DM is a rival to the players, it shows in the shit you're writing out.
imho, you've been playing the game wrong for a long time. you need to stop thinking of the DM as some counter to your players and instead think of them as an orchestra conductor.
I shouldn't have to explain this shit to you either. you're either being willfully ignorant or motivated to start some shit. not my monkeys,not my circus.
@mojofrododojo Maybe it's a client issue ? Because I see the quotes
https://lemmy.world/post/30340298/17319855
ctrl-f opponent, his reply to /bouh for example.
but thanks for chiming in
@mojofrododojo Yes, this is exactly the response I screenshoted. It has quotes, unicode of said quotes are U+201C before and U+201D after.
I don't know why you think punishing misbehaviour through senseless violence to "teach them a lesson" is irrelevant. Especially since you're not teaching them to behave like you think you are; you're just teaching them to be powerless and resent you. If they think the game is "win or lose" and you tell them "you can't win", they'll stop playing. They'll turn their back.
Now, what were you saying about "refusing to learn anything"?
Because you're not hurting people but imaginary characters that have been exceptionally evil.
If you can't see the difference you're a complete idiot. Do you know what a story is? What a game is? What morale is?
Do you know what allegory is? Just because you don't match a story 1:1 doesn't mean you can't learn something from it.
And yes, I know what morale is. It's that thing you destroy when you twist the game to punish the players for not doing what you want. Especially since the players don't see the world or characters as anything other than a game, so they don't think of the GM as punishing anyone but them.
I'm trying not to sink to your level and insult your intelligence over and over, but you really should be able to pick this up if I spell it out to you enough times.
You know what? You're the only one here thinking that this encounter is meant to end in a tpk. Which tells a lot about the kind of person you are.
Your comparison is simply stupid. Deal with it. You don't understand the point I'm making and you're crying like an entitled player would if he couldn't do anything he like at the expense of everyone else. What am I supposed to tell you? You're defending a spoiled kid making a mess here and using dumb comparisons to make your point.
This encounter can serve as a narrative tool to put the campaign back on track. It gives the characters an opportunity to change. If you can only see that as a punishment you have the maturity of a child.
Bahamut isn't going to kill them unless they force him to, and even then one of those "canaries" will have ressurections prepared specifically for that contingency. Bahamut is going to force them to atone, and stop getting the attention of literal gods.