GM refuses to bring PCs' hp into the low negatives

>Instead of passive aggressive shit like this just talk to the GM.
Wont work. You need to communicate in a language they understand and the type of dm that does this obviously doesn't understand conflict, but will 100% understand being passive aggressive.

Ask the GM when you'll face something actually dangerous. Preferably right after a "hard" fight where most of the party was reduced to just over half health.

TFW this is my problem.
I can't be harsh on the PCs no matter what.
I don't even fudge the dice, since all rolls are done in the open. I just "advice" the right tactics to the players when I see they are doing poorly while intentionally making enemy movement retarded, "forgetting" their abilities and so on.

Though no one ever complained about that.

I only killed PCs thrice.
Once I killed off a guy who made retarded "le ebin comical" character, who was pissing everyone off and doing retarded shit that had to make him killed.
The other time two characters accidentally died because I screwed up the mechanics of the system + unlucky crits

>I can't be harsh on the PCs no matter what.
Because you're a bitch.
>I don't even fudge the dice, since all rolls are done in the open. I just "advice" the right tactics to the players when I see they are doing poorly while intentionally making enemy movement retarded, "forgetting" their abilities and so on.
To be honest familia, you might as well be fudging dice since you're still handling the PC's with the goddamn kiddie gloves. I can't see what you roll behind the screen but I will notice the moment the enemy stops using their abilities just because we have our backs to the wall. Either go big or go home faggot!
>Though no one ever complained about that YET.
FTFY
>I only killed PCs thrice.
Through DM fiat and a gross misunderstanding of the rules, good job.

I follow the two mistakes rule in combat. Make two bad mistakes in a fight, and you should be in the dying phase.
Note: getting really unlucky constitutes as a mistake

you sounds like a faggot. I don't even track my PC's hp or stats during combat. 3-5 people should be perfectly capable of communicating status and strategy with each other.

>getting really unlucky constitutes as a mistake
Fag.

Kek. I know that what I'm doing isn't good, hence i named it a "problem" but this fit of rage and projections you have just thrown is so cringy its actually amusing.

Also
>YET
No, I'm pretty sure at least 3 out of 4 players of my current group don't really care. We're all fairly at the same ground, in "storyteller" rather than "gamer" camp tbqh I'm the only one who actually did read the rulebook

If you know that you suck then why are you getting so defensive over me calling a spade a spade? Sounds like you were fishing for compliments and didn't expect someone to call you out on your bullshit.

>I just "advice" the right tactics to the players when I see they are doing poorly while intentionally making enemy movement retarded, "forgetting" their abilities and so on.
Yeah, so just play your game with yourself while we go grab a beer, see ya. Not.

But user, I'm not defensive, I'm just stating my amusement over encountering a sperglord who can't help himself from throwing condescending fit of weak insults over a thing that takes place among the people he doesn't know, very likely on another continent.

Reading this post gave me a chuckle, really

>"I-I-I'm not mad!"

Nice picture of yourself.
c'mon, read your post. You know everything i have written is true

Now who's projecting?

And here we discover very firm evidence that Veeky Forums is autistic.

>As if that wasn't already self-evident.
It doesn't take much to piss off the average fa/tg/uy, it's why we have so many bait threads and a lack of OC nowadays.

Arguably, we're becoming worse than /v/, and it's sad.

You have literally thrown fit of rage in text form for everyone to see. How is pointing it out projecting?

...

Because you think that anyone who calls you out is inherently angry when all I'm doing is confirming that you are, in fact, a shit DM.

Why even post at all if you didn't want someone, somewhere to potentially tell you that your suspicions are correct, you should be thanking me for donating time out of my day to tell you how much you need to improve.

You're welcome btw

I'd just take the opportunity and play a class or build that wouldn't survive under more hostile GMs.
Despite the bitching and theorycrafting, D&D is lots of fun.

I make up damage rolls and AC on the spot. Sometimes I softball it, but I always follow through with what the dice say.

I had only one GM who did this. In his defense, it did make a great story. We played CoC.

...

>Because you think that anyone who calls you out is inherently angry
Except I'm not, notice how I did only reply to you and not to Geez, why would I do that, hm?

And I'll pass on the "advice", call it projecting if you want but your behaviour is a massive redflag. You may not share my flaw of being too soft but still, GMing is much more than that and you strike me as a kind of GM who neither me or anyone from my current group would like to play with

worse yet is when the DM tries to cover for some bullshit because they suck at rules like delayed blast fireballing an entire third level party because they wanted a magical trap and just occams razor'd it or sent in a ton of hobgoblins because they saw the word goblin and assumed weakness.

Keep crying faggot.
>Geez, why would I do that, hm?
Because I fractured your ass and popped that fragile ego and now you're going into a 'tism spasm to regain what little dignity you think you can salvage?
>You may not share my flaw of being too soft but still, GMing is much more than that and you strike me as a kind of GM who neither me or anyone from my current group would like to play with
Yeah, probably because I'm not willing to play with the kid gloves for you or the rest of your group when it comes to combat. Don't worry, I've dealt with pansies like you before and I wouldn't want you at my table either.

Wow, you just gave me another sensible chuckle

>That's about time when you have your character intentionally get themselves into a situation where they're likely to get really hurt just to make the GM bend the game into a knot just to keep you alive.

I actually had this happen... a character who did tons of stupid shit in between really crazy but really bad-ass stuff that had the rolls and the skill tier to back it up. Like jumping onto flying beasts attacking an airship and stabbing it to death them jumping onto another one, soaking the fall damage. But then he'd go and start robbing random civilians and would get shot at by the city guard and I realized that he was basically screwed and was going to die in a retarded way, I would ass-pull to have him saved, and the other players called me out on it.

We're going back to that campaign in a few weeks and he's gotten himself into a situation where he will almost certainly die.

>Like triggering the AoO of multiple enemies and using ranged attacks in threatened squares.

Except I've done this in two cases where it was actually tactically viable.

We both know that you're fighting back tears as you typed that up.

If I notice that the GM us fudging dice the tension of any combat is completely lost to me. And with it, my interest. Its a roleplaying game. To me, the game part is equally as important as the roleplaying.

The keyword here is "notice." If the GM is being obvious about how often they fudged the rolls in your favor, you're right, it does end up causing people to lose interest.

I get the same vibe.

But i should also mention that many GMs overestimate their dicefudging skills. Or when an enemy is about to attack, the GM hesitates and asks player 1 how much health he has remaining, and then the enemy suddenly switches tactics or their target. Or when the GM suddenly "miscalculated" the distance or amount of dice from fall damage. It's very obvious.

Thanks for the (You), now go take a bath with a toaster.

No it isn't, not for all GM's.

Some people thinks before the attacks, and can said to themselve "Nah, 18 is too much for them in their state, more like 12" without it being so obvious. The key is that if the player had 11, the GM shoudln't jeopardize the situation by saying "Mmmh No finally it's 8."

I hear what you say, I have a DM that does exactly that. We made a Rise of the Runelords where we got kill at absolutely every corners by enemies that he didn't think through, but we "survived" each time.
It killed the heroic vibe of the adventure and all possible RP ("We need to kill Karzoug, the uber-mage of the lost empire !" "Wo wo wo calm down. We get killed each time we enter a room, I say we find five badasses and give them this problem"

But it is just one GM. I got another one that know how to do it, don't want us to get killed but managed to make us sweat during the battles.

My pc died during a fight with some balors. DM let me run them later in the game when the next encounter rolled around. I killed them in two rounds. If they could do it now, I know the dm was holding back because the pcs where 2 levels higher.

this is why random damage sucks

I play with a group that only seems to fuck up and kill themselves during peacetime.
Sometimes it is just easier to say the stupid asshole lives than go though introducing a new character into the campaign because your mage fell into a hole on the way back to town.
It is never a good idea to coddle players during important events though.
At that point you might as well just read them a story.

?

Roll out in the open. I don't understand what is so hard about it. In fact its easier to not cover up your dice. When the players get fucked its not you fucking them and when the game goes soft on them its not you being soft. Its RNG or if anything the system and at that point play a better system that accommodates the lethal or non-lethal story you want.

Because not everyone like to die of a stupidly low roll for a challenging-but-manageable skill-check or attack.

Even among one group, you will have the one that want brutality, lethality, of a RNG-driven game, and other that just want to enjoy the ride.

It's up to the GM to do what he wants and, if it fits his view, accomodate every kind of player.

The only rule i break is i allow for cheap ressurections or the players to make a new character one lvl below the average lvl of the group.

The only thing I do wrong is exist.

Question. Is the DM doing it because he's new to DMing and doesn't want to kill players with poorly tuned encounters?

I did that occasionally when I was still learning how to build encounters and mistakenly would throw the party into a situation that they couldn't handle.

>implying everyone on Veeky Forums is part of the hivemind and posts the same things, and is therefore a hypocrite

OR

>trendy relativism tries to pretend that all opinions are equal

Either way, KYS for attempting to be a smartass and failing hard.

What is worse.
>Monty Haul
Or
>Gray morality

[shit justifications intensify]

Gray morality, especially if you're a paladin.
>GM sets up a campaign where a bunch of orcs are terrorizing the countryside.
>Kill a few orcs.
>Slowly realize that orcs are "misunderstood" and that humans were slowly pushing them out of land that was rightfully ours.
>Party inevitably splits between helping these poor dindus reclaim their land and saying "fuck it" and wiping them out anyways.
>Paladin is locked into a crisis of faith.
>Meanwhile, innocent people are still being murderfucked in the background by these "noble" savages.

At least with Monty Hauls, we get cool shit that we can mess around with but with gray areas, literally everything you do is wrong and everything you do will fuck you over later, so what's the goddamn point?

>t. Someone who has never had to deal with an autistic who thinks he's right.
Meaning that you're either new or you are one.

Opposite is just as bad

First encounter for us ended with a one of the wizards bleeding to death because the opponent was a bunch of bandits on horses with javelins in open terrain. Also in-setting we are on week 3 or 4 of our adventure and the only one with supplies left is the aforementioned dead wizard player because he refilled his rations when he rerolled off of the starting gold.

We'd hunt but the first 2 weeks were in a desert and the second 2 weeks were in a forest that got burned down.

>party's wizard had been stacking maximized chain lightning on single enemies with a bullshit staff for over 1k damage
>GM is totally okay with it
>neutral-turned-evil NPC attacks me with chain lightning, certain death if stacking still applies
>shove rulebook into GM's face
>GM bans chain lightning stacking on single target
>mfw party wizard is mad at me forever after

Did you ask where the fireballs came from?

That could be a great scenario for a paladin if the GM isn't shit. Big if.

This is what I do as a GM. If the players can use something, so can the NPCs.

I like soft GMs, but then it would be better he stopped doing such traps so he didn't have to fumble dice.

Except that you cannot fall by killing Orcs.

You can, but not the ones raiding villages. So just defend the villages until you figure out a more long term solution. Of course that's if the GM is not a nugget and just going to make you fall for not following his railroad

>Those raids were justified so you fall for trying to stop them!
Fuck you Doc

>You can, but not the ones raiding villages.
No you cannot because Orcs are Chaotic Evil creatures.

If the GM is playing the noble savages troop that clearly isn't the case in the campaign.

Then he shouldn't use Orcs a chaotic evil race. He should use human barbarians instead.

'Often chaotic evil' does not always equate to ALWAYS EVIL ALL THE TIME. Especially since the entry in the monster manual specifically mentions that the orcs in the entry are the warriors who leave their homes to raid others.

It does imply a predisposition to evil. So you are justified in slaying them because it's help the world become safer.

>Then he shouldn't use Orcs a chaotic evil race. He should use human barbarians instead.

Sure the DM is a faggot but you were still wrong so who's the real faggot hmmmmm?

I'm not OP.

>you are wrong
Orc lover, a chaotic evil race should be killed in spot. This is why they have those aligments, evil in DnD is not relative. Only faggots DMs would have a problem with that.

How long have you known you are autistic?

>be proven wrong
>you're autistic
Kek.

Yeah, though it's likely a cultural predisposition than a genetic one- it's not as if orcs are demonic or whatever. If removed from a harsh, war-hungry culture where they have to be evil raiders in order to survive, orcs have a chance to be just as good or lawful as any other sentient being.

Then again, I as a GM tend to play alignments as well as the paladin's code of conduct rather loosely.

So in my campaigns paladins only 'Fall' if they do something extreme, like lethally poison others, or make a vow on their honor or break it. I wouldn't make a paladin fall just because they killed a, say, neutral orc, or even a good one if they had good reasons for it.

...

How is Not-5e treating you?

>Yeah, though it's likely a cultural predisposition than a genetic one- it's not as if orcs are demonic or whatever.
They were fallen elves however.

I like 5e because it makes Gnollfags salty.

It does? Why?

So are Drow, and we know that at least 90% of all drow are Chaotic Good rangers who duel-wield.

Because Gnolls are 100% demoniac and evil.

Kek.

But why wouldn't you at least try to talk?

> wanting permadeath

unless you are having said player reroll to the level of the rest of the party good luck nanny sitting a lvl 1 till they get to the level of the group again