This

You guys all underestimate John Wick's dedication to punishing player characters whose morality doesn't match his standards.

In the new edition of Seventh Sea, every time you perform an evil deed on a list of evil deeds you add a point to your character's "evil" meter and then make a roll, and if you roll under your character's "evil" score they become an NPC villain and you have to make a new character.

You're shitting me.

Nothing wrong if you kill a character and it makes sense story+setting wise

You just gotta talk to your players beforehand

For the ten billonth time, it wasn't written by Wick. Wick hasn't been involved with L5R for many, many years.

Wick's assholery is legendary. He's probably the only game designer who has actually, literally, honest to god, shown up in-person crashing people's games to tell them they're playing wrong.

>do bad things to and kill someone
>their friends eventually catch up to and presumably kill you
>”Oh no how terrible and unjustified! I should get some sort of special snowflake save to fight off a whole gang of guys by myself!”
You never read any fighting fantasy? Fucking softarses

What the fuck.

Does anyone have this list of evil deeds?

The L5R RPG

I have a different list that might help.

>enforcing morality on player characters

Odysseus > whatever Saturday morning cartoon character you think a hero should be.

>Fall from horse
>fell from horse in War
>the war
every time

>All those female reasons
>Then just "Women"

I'm pretty sure it means women trouble, but it still reads "If you're female, you're in."

Lotta Wars out there, user

Consequences aren't the issue. The issue was that the GM arbitrarily decided the character was dead. No perception checks to see if he spots the ambushers. No combat scenario to see if he can survive. Nope, just told the player to roll a new character.

The point isn't that a player should always get out of jail for free.

The point is that the DM killed their character basically randomly over a grudge they held for what was likely months under the flimsiest of reasons and then refused to tell them why.

They're not even teaching the player a lesson here, they're just being a shithead because the player committed a single evil act, and even then it's pretty gray.

>Masturbation for 30 years

Wizard prison

Welcome to the 19th Century.

I'm pretty sure in the original records most of those are all shorthand for more complex issues, but out of context the list is hilarious.

Nope, probably not shorthand. That was probably it. Psychiatric hospitals have always been a bit dodgy. Useful prisons, though.

>The second part of his study involved an offended hospital administration challenging Rosenhan to send pseudopatients to its facility, whom its staff would then detect. Rosenhan agreed and in the following weeks out of 193 new patients the staff identified 41 as potential pseudopatients, with 19 of these receiving suspicion from at least one psychiatrist and one other staff member. In fact, Rosenhan had sent no pseudopatients to the hospital.

This.

>salvation army

Wat.

Gotcha. Kinda embarrassing to miss that considering that I've played it.

Now that I thought about that quote more there is one thing that really bugs me.
It's about "showing" consequences, yet the players can't see the causal link here. Only the GM knows it.

But if I really want to play the devils advocate, the whole "not giving a chance for the player to defend themselves because of a sin from the past" thing could work for the narrative if the NPC that the player murked wasn't given a chance either, thus instilling a form of empathic experience. However even then the causal link should be clearly established.
But again, this is me trying my damnedest to find a time when this could work. RPGs are a group experiences where people aren't competing, thus there should be cooperation between the participants.

Oh man, you don't know about the Salvation Army?

These days, they just collect money at Christmas, right? They're like the Rotary club. Harmless.

Well let me tell you, back in the day...
>The Salvation Army is a Protestant Christian movement and an international charitable organization structured in a quasi-military fashion.

That alone should start to raise some alarm bells. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army

>"An Example of Showing Consequences"
>doesn't actually show consequences to the player
>merely enforces them in-universe and frustrates the player
>thus the player doesn't learn that his actions have consequences, because the player in question doesn't see the causal relationship
>and the player is also frustrated, leading to all-around subpar experience
What did he possibly mean by this?

As you command, my lady

>this is me trying my damnedest to find a time when this could work
You can't. It's "rocks fall, everyone dies" but the players aren't even told about the rocks.

That's why I said:
>"However even then the causal link should be clearly established."
But yeah, I agree that "rocks fall" situations suck ass unless executed properly and right at the end (or before the actual start) depending on the campaign.

>I agree that "rocks fall" situations suck ass unless executed properly and right at the end

It still sucks. What planet are you from where you think that's a satisfying ending?

You can do epilogues you know?

If a player did something thats bound to have consequences and you don't want to kill them, show them the consequences in the epilogue

They won't be able to establish a trade empire if they've pissed off their potential partners for example

If it fits the campaign. They can work just fine with, say, a horror campaign as opposed to one where the PCs had a fighting chance.
What I mean by "rocks fall" is an unwinnable situation. When it comes to execution, bad execution would be just going "ur ded fuk yoo". Properly done there should be understanding between the players and the GM.
"Bad end" can be used as a narrative tool.

Then again, this is coming from the idea that RPGs are about group narrative which can, and does, stem from mechanics rather than just newfangled "narrativist games".
If the RPG is mainly just about the game aspect then yes, changing the rules sucks Nuffle grundle.

Yeah that's why when the gm fucks us out of something I usually wait until the culmination of the plot and then start no showing and saying I'll be there next time. By the time the game collapses they might ask what happened and I tell 'em "You don't know."

Rocks Fall doesn't mean a bad ending based on logical consequences the player parses out. It means saying "fuck you, you lose because I say so". Like what you see in the OP.

I mean yea thats pretty retarded

But i think if you tell your players that its a hopeless horrorsetting - as the other user said its ok for the players to lose

You don't need to "win" an rpg
Its ok to just have a good time even if your characters are dead

I understand you may have tried to quote me as well and yeah, it seems that there was just a misunderstanding of communication.
I equated "rocks fall" as a general bad end, while you equated it with bad, bad end.
Apologies for not being clear.

Also, I just noticed that I unwittingly shot my argument in the foot when I pointed out that mechanics can form narrative. Bad end is usually taking away mechanics.
Despite this inconsistency, I still uphold my main argument that bad ends can be done fittingly and well.

Punishing player in OP's pic way is a pretty terrible practice. I would rather use PC's immoral act as an opportunity for creating a new narrative or an obstacle.

For example, in my recent campaign, party had to deal with a very arrogant successor of a noble house in their travel. He turned out to be a pretty effective antagonist for a session, and by the end of it party decided to keep him as prisoner just for laughs. They kept noble in a locked room of a small mobile base party took from him. I didn't really like that turn of events, but I decided to roll with it.

Several sessions later party had to investigate a stronghold, that held an object of party's interest. Though I didn't plan it originally, I made it so the stronghold was a main base of a Prisoner's noble house, which was lead by an old Matron. She had a vague details about the kidnappers, but players changed a little bit physically during the course of the play, so they couldn't be accused immediately. It resulted in some intense moments when party tried to negotiate with Matron, but with the help of quick planning and a little bit of trickery they were able to finish their business. However party started to feel bad about their decision with noble, so they pulled a scheme in which they were able to return Noble to Matron without attracting much trouble.

It was pretty satisfying both for me and the party.

Deranged masturbation is the best masturbation.

Or at very least make it make enough sense narratively for the players to be fine with it.

I actually really enjoy killing characters as a GM because if you pull it off correctly and not arbitrarily it can really help investing everyone into the plot

>cthulhu campaign
>have everybody make two characters knowing they'd kill themselves in the first couple of sessions
>they do
>no monsters were used but one of the players characters was a cult member and went bonkers, 3 characters die
>from there on out everybody is more careful
>they later come back as horribly disfigured zombies

What upsets me about this most is "the tone and morality of the world can change to reflect the players actions" is good advice. "Your PC got wisked away and murdered without any save or explanation, for something you could never have possibly predicted would result in this" is both stupid, and not even an example OF "the world changing to their actions"

At the very least I'd have chatter and speculation in town about the missing guard and make it plain that people were asking questions and could be finding answers.

No, that's not what happened, OP isn't showing the whole blurb. The "logic" goes

>PC does bad things and kills someone.
>That means, clearly, this is a society where people randomly do bad things to other people, drag them away to dark corners, and kill them.
>Therefore, it can strike without warning and happen to PCs

There was no causal link whatsoever to the PC actions besides on a level of drama.

pdf-archive.com/2014/06/05/l5r-legend-of-the-five-rings-4e-core-rules/l5r-legend-of-the-five-rings-4e-core-rules.pdf

Skip to page 313 of the PDF for the full, idiotic story.

My problem is I can't see any link of causality from the murdered guard (which had to be apprehend for interrogation either via drugs, subterfuge, or a combat encounter) to the enemy plot-gank (no save, no encounter, no roles, just gone, suck it faggot)

That's not showing consequences. Unless there's info not being shared. Maybe the rogue player was plowing the gm's gf. Now thats more causality for a rocks fall then some bum-fuck npc

From the player's perspective, this scenario goes
>Playing game with friends
>Pretty fun
>Things are going well, no problems so far
>Story's ramping up, oh shit son
>City's fucking on fire and shit, wow this is cool
>Looks like the campaign is gonna get wrapped up pretty soo-
>Wait what
>My character gets pulled into an alleyway and ???
>The fuck happened to him?
>The fuck you mean "I don't know"
>This is shit
>Fuck you

I would only do a rocks fall like the one in the OP picture if the character being removed was an NPC being played by a player that had run its course and the player themselves had asked me to let them get rid of it so they could play a different one between PCs

Here's the rest of the context

>The morals of a society are ultimately made by the people living in it. If you live in a neighborhood where crime is rampant, people do not look down their nose at thievery the way someone in a peaceful suburb might. The PCs, as the "stars" of the story, define and magnify the morality of the game world like no one else (except perhaps the villains). If the PCs do not respect others, this is reflected in the state of the world the PCs live in.

>If the world is crumbling around them, and the PCs choose mercy over vindictive slaughter, their actions can change the world. But if the PCs choose to murder in the name of the Emperor simply because the law says they can, their code of Bushido is meaningless, and Rokugan fills with people who espouse the principle of "Might makes Right." The PCs should slowly and subtly find themselves face to face with NPCs exhibiting behaviors very similar to theirs. When the PCs encounter poor manners and negativity flooding every corner of the Emerald Empire, they may begin to see cuasality.

The problem is that he WASN'T killed. If he had his throat slit, that would be okay. Going "You don't know what happened to your character" is dumb, and is just begging for an equally spiteful reply.

Yes, "may see".
However, the players generally expect to know the nature of the setting before they make characters for it, and if the nature and tone of the entire setting can be changed by the players' actions, well, what are the pcs?

Really terrible. It would NOT be terrible if the player was able to roleplay the entire encounter until his death/escape, and the proper rolls were made.

Which edition and which book? I've been reading through 4e and it's pretty good so far IMO.

You know, Samurai were all about 'might makes right', though. Even Lone Wolf and Cub, THE samurai story, had honorable samurai who killed the fuck out of a lot of people.

I mean, Retsudo is this strange combination of an intensely honorable man and a completely evil motherfucker, often both at once.

>kick dog
>a year later get cancer and die
>consequences!
Sure showed me what not to do.

Upthread, it was mentioned. 4e, page 313

post yfw you realize that being in a psych hospital for "the War" is probably the result of serious traumatic stress, best case scenario

He isn't I read the book and it's there
However, nothing is forcing the gm to use that's rule it's not central to the resolution system, the book is just a tool that you can bend as you wish
unless John Wick is one of your player,
he would get angry but it would be quite the coincidence

fpbp

The annoying thing about this seems that it's trying to make a possibly controversial philosophical claim about society in the context of a roleplaying game -- where things like that might not be of interest to the players, and where, if they were, they might not agree. Secondly,
>But if the PCs choose to murder in the name of the Emperor simply because the law says they can, their code of Bushido is meaningless, and Rokugan fills with people who espouse the principle of "Might makes Right."
If this is true, and the players are mighty, then there shouldn't be gangs of goons prepared to garotte PCs. There should be gangs of goons who see the PCs, accurately, as "mighty," and therefore think of them as correct: the people who would challenge the PC's might (and therefore, their "right"ness) would become villains, not average people.

>Imaginary female trouble
Breaking up with your waifu?

John Wick is a fag.

I ran a post apocalyptic campaign in which the characters first adventure was to venture into the ruined city to find medicine for their village. After fighting some weird creatures they reach the hospital which is held by a group of "bandits" (not really bandits but I called them such because that's the generic term). They fought their way inside after negotiations broke down, and found the leader, who was a twenty year old girl. After beating her unconscious, one of the characters found a sterilized scalpel and severed her spine near the bottom. He rolled the D&D equivalent of a 35 on the check, too.

Yeah, that's fucked. But did I powrkill his character as revenge for crippling my NPC waifu? No. They keep her as a prisoner and dragged her around in a wheelchair. I described her sobbing and all the pain she was in, constantly, making sure they were acutely aware what they did to her, having to clean up from her and watch her slowly die of a spinal infection. I took all their edge and turned it back on them to the point one of the players handed me a note saying he apologizes to her, and after that they stopped wanting to play the campaign. That's how you teach edgelords. Not this rocks fall shit.

>After beating her unconscious, one of the characters found a sterilized scalpel and severed her spine near the bottom

I feel like I've read this before

The goal is to make the player cower in fear before the DMs glory. A single glance should cause his bladder to empty and reduce him to a stuttering wreck. If you can't be loved, be feared.

If your imaginary waifu is cheating on you, you got problems.

So... if the players decide to play dirty hippies, everyone around them is also dirty hippie. If they turn into murderhobos, suddenly everyone is also murderhobo. If they act like lolrandumb retards, the world copies them too.

That... sounds like really shitty way to run a game.

not if being cucked is his fetish.

That is also a problem.

best way to win the campaign with that set up is to simply not play.
>w-w-why won't you play my awesome campaign?!
>Oh we are, we simply choose to do nothing. Therefore with your retarded causality setting no one else will do anything at all as well and everything will simply cease to be because everyone DOES NOTHING

>best way to win the campaign with that set up is to simply not play.
>best way to win the campaign with that set up
>way to win the campaign
>win the campaign

>"your character suddenly dies."
>"no I won't tell you why"
>"but also it's your fault"
>"I won't say why it's your fault but it is"
>*thinking*(it's his fault because he fostered a world of murder) "..."
Years later
>Yeah I once punished a player without explanation, but you people reading this can clearly understand MY thought process right?

Consequences are good. This is not how you deal with them.

>quit forcing real world stuff into the game! murderhoboing is how i have fun and you have no right to ruin my fun!

Yeah your player is weird. You would think a basic rape and kill would suffice but no you got to cripple a bitch and wheel her around.
Also, funny how crippling someone and tormenting them via threat by proximity is ok but even fade to black rape is off the table.

>Masturbation for 30 years
>Parents were cousins
>Jealousy and Religion
>Novel reading
>Over taxing mental powers
It's like I'm reading LiarTown, USA

>women
heh

to be ENTIRELY fair, it's either bumbling innocent patsies, or completely irredeemable assholes that walk away from various situations smelling like roses
it's the average kids like PCs who do both good and bad stuff that get it the harshest in this kind of stories

>I feel like I've read this before
You probably have.

>You would think a basic rape and kill would suffice but no you got to cripple a bitch and wheel her around.
He said he wanted to "give her a new life" in their village. He is also legitimately asexual and gets uncomfortable when sex is brought up in games, so I don't even think he wanted to use her as a rape toy. To this day, I don't understand what he was thinking.

>give her a new life
>by paralyzing and imprisoning her

Players, man. Literally no logic.

Stories like these are why the meme of tabletop games dominated by weird, unsociable, and slightly demented neckbeards has survived for over three decades. Except instead of demon rape and torture, its just rape and/or torture now because demons are too mainstream.

I guess he thought she'd find new life sewing or writing books or something. Not taking into account that, while people aren't always starving, they are a few steps away from it, and dead weight that can't feed herself is not going to be taken to kindly.

Like, holy shit. She tried to kill you guys when you invaded her building. Either kill her back, or let her live. At least she did live, though, cause it meant her story arc (weird psychic powers that have a cult seeking her out so they can use her to make contact with their god) got to happen. They ended up fighting to defend her, and she even has a bit of a thing for one of the characters (not the one who crippled her of course, but the one who takes care of her and pushes her wheelchair around).

>opposed by a group calling themselves the Skeleton Army

>Hysteria

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria

An interesting campaign.

The only winning move is not to play.

Sounds like Ravenloft's Dark Powers Checks, but really retarded.

>cthulhu campaign
user, that's cheating.

Most of Veeky Forums would win then.

>He's probably the only game designer who has actually, literally, honest to god, shown up in-person crashing people's games to tell them they're playing wrong.
That is fucking funny as hell.

>masturbation for 30 years
>suppression of masturbation
WELL WHICH ONE IS IT ASSHOLE?

When do you think the diagnosis crosses the line from ordinary sexual abuse into excessive sexual abuse?

Shitty GM on his fedora-tipping high horse. Totally should have roleplayed the entire encounter out, complete with several of the mob cursing the rogue for killing his friend or brother, the poor guard, so that the player might *learn* something (other than being salty over an unexplained character death).

Checked

karma arbitrarily coming back for someone is not real world stuff

real world stuff is bad guys comfortably getting away with being dicks as long as they're reasonably smart about it and well meaning good natured folks being fucked over by them.

Yeah, you need to have basic cause and effect.

If you do something bad, you're not automatically subject to suffer something just as bad in return. That's just common sense.

Now I'm unreasonably frustrated. Thanks, OP.

Rocks falls is a REAL GOOD ending to have after you destroy the occult idol and are bleeding out on the ground as the portal closes and the remaining horrors descend upon you.