PC deaths

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.

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

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!

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

>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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Please type your post again, this time in English.

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.

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.

...

>"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

>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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

Checked!

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

Your memes are too dank for this sinful earth

>"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.

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.

Veeky Forums 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 Veeky Forums and the circle jerk faggots on that site.

>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

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

>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.
>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.>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.

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

>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.

>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 Veeky Forums'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.

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

>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.

>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 Veeky Forums 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.

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

fascinating

>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.

No.

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.

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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

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

>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, user, 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?

>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

>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.

>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.

> (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.

>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 user 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.

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.

>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.

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?

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.

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.

...

I'm not the original user 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.

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

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.

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?

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

It's obviously bait, but when has that ever stopped Veeky Forums?

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.

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.

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.

...

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)

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.

Sorry I think you're looking for Veeky Forums 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.

Nice work demonstrating just how wrong OP is.

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.

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.

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!

Autism

>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

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

>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? Veeky Forums calling themselves 4channers?

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

>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.