GM rules that a player character has died

>GM rules that a player character has died
>Player consensus rules that said player did not in fact die
>The game continues--both parties refusing to back down

A game without compromise or mutual understanding is destined to crumble.

This is the perfect setup for a revenant. PC did actually die but through sheer angry stubbornness, force of will and pedantry he's come back to finish what he started.

What sort of Schrodinger's Cat shit is this?

I can't really imagine such a state lasting very long.

You leave. The dead player should leave if the GM says he's dead, either because he's dead or because he isn't getting along with the GM. The others should leave because they don't agree with the GM so obviously can't keep playing with him, and the GM should either discuss it or try to compromise to figure out how to settle the conflict if he doesn't want his came to fall apart.

Anyone who stays in this situation is an idiot.

got a greentext of what happened?

If youre going to start a thread about stupid shit that never happened, at least make an entertaining story out of it.

>GM refuses to roll for "dead" player
>Another player takes on the roll of GM, but only for the "dead" player

This exact situation happened to me

>final session, GM is pressed for time
>my character is holding the line against a fucking tide of enemies while the others engage the Lovecraftian elder-god dragon thing they're trying to help out
>he goes down in the final turn, just in time for our reinforcements to arrive and cut a swathe through the enemy and the elder god dragon thing to finally give up and die
>we're packing up and he just narrates the finale, goes "oh yeah, your character doesn't make it"
>when he's surrounded by allies and takes a solid minute to bleed out due to being a tough fucker
>entire table calls bullshit

GM should learn his place. Without players, he would have no friends. Cater to the players or suffer isolation, servant!

Whether you like it or not the GM is always right.

The literal role of the GM is to be an arbiter for situations like this. All the players have signed the social contract and agreed to this. They can state their case of course but the GM is ultimately the judge and for the sake of the game they should accept that and move on.

Granted if there are numerous situations where the players and the GM are disagreeing like this, then a wider discussion needs to happen on what's happening. However players tend to get unreasonably upset about character death even when deserved.

>GM is always right

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA

How you gonna have a game without a GM to run it?

Get a GM that knows their place. Players who understand this can become good GMs for the rest of the group, rotating as seen fit

Player consensus

Entitled millennial player detected.

Become the GM?

>get a GM who know his place
>get players who know their place
Jesus fucking christ

>can't agree on whether a PC is dead or not

Try acting like adults.

Either have one of the players GM or just don't run a game. No game is better than a bad one

Thats what I said, players who understand this can become good GMs

>>GM isn't always right

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA

>GM is always right

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHHHHHAAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA

What the purpose for killing the character? Since it was not a dice roll that pretty shitty.

Spoken like someone whos never played a game of Baron Munchausen.

>P-please GM....I-i mean master....O-Overlord! S-spare my character....If you will it of course.... your word is law after all.....

>PC dives head first into lava naked

would you need a dice roll to know he is dead?

Given that high level PCs can survive lava baths? Yes.

Depends, are they playing TOME?

They could survive it, but I would interpret that as suicide unless they were somehow tricked/forced to do it and want to live. That's entering the territory of describing cutting your own throat and then rolling damage instead of just being declared dead

What the GM says is final. I suggest breaking up the group because one of two things is happening. Either the GM is arbitrarily fucking people over and the group is sick of his shit, or the players are shitheads who do dumb shit and then try to bully their way out of consequences. Either way the fact that you are arguing with the GM over what happened means you don't respect him. Ending it is in everyone's best interest.

didn't mean to quote

Quick Reply is the bane of our collective existence, user.

The fuck?
Character died, end of fucking story. Pick out another character or just watch the rest of the game.
If this is "rock falls, you died" type of death, then your group at this point reached crumbling point and the show is over, so pack your things and look for new group.

what's the point of having a GM if everybody is going to disrespect his authority?

>GM
>Authority

Help me with a theory I'm working on and answer a question, do you mostly play tabletop online?

The game was over, it made the story poignant, why do you give a shit?

Consider that question for a while and we can talk about it.

no, I find online tabletop experiences too clunky. I have a RL group that meets up every other week. My best friend is the DM (I have DM'd in the past), but DMs have no authority and we make no qualms calling out bullshit rulings

Your group isn't meant to, nor will it, last.

Sounds like you had some fun with your friends but are looking for something more or less serious than what you currently have. Maybe your entire group is.

But when you sit down to play whoever has taken on the job of preparing challenges and story hooks for you is entitled to make decisions about how things go. Nominally this is the job of the dice, but nothing says you have to use dice.

If a player character does something ludicrously stupid, like try to fight a dragon alone, a GM is well within their rights to say "you die heroically, but you're still dead." No rolls required. Decent GMs will warn you if your shenanigans will likely get you killed. Great GMs will find some way to get you back on the railroad without noticing it.

It has lasted over 10 years kid

I doubt that you've even been alive that long

It's true, but no point continuing this line of conversation since nothing can be proven one way of the other. It was getting dull anyways

>always
ehehehehehehehehe

I've been GMing for 20 years now (holy shit, btw) and playing RPGs for 25 years now.

I know how to cultivate a group that will keep playing even when they have scheduling difficulties and what the signs of a group breaking up are.

You guys are almost The Pixies.

Wait that reference is probably too old for you. Uh... One Direction.

Ah but this isn't suicide though is it? This is someone dying before aid can be rendered. If this was RPG with clear and defined rules, stats to keep track of when a character casts off the mortal coil, you'd be damn right that I would call bullshit on 'storytelling' if the D.M claimed I am dead before the rules tell me I am.

>Get a GM that knows their place.
Which is?
I know my place as the GM: run a good game that doesn't fellate the players, but doesn't fuck them over, either. You don't want me? Okay you faggots can GM then, I've seen how well that goes. Actually, they do have another person who is as good a GM as me now, I'd say, so they probably would do well. Literally only bad thing is that he uses the "adventuring guild" crutch, and frontloads too much of the lore. But that's fine.

>made the story poignant
>made the table angry
Your story ain't shit if the people involved don't like it, and if it makes no sense.

I hope you realize that trying to use kid as an insult is the same as holding a neon sign over your head saying that you are between the ages of 12 and 15, right?

>Your story ain't shit if the people involved don't like it, and if it makes no sense.

Stories have conflict and drama. A story where everything goes your way isn't a story. Quit being an entitled baby.

You're playing a game, I assume with friends.
It's not about authority, it's about making it enjoyable for everyone.

No, seriously. This medium is played for enjoyment.

Stories do have conflict and drama, yes. They also happen to run on something called logic, and such is how conflict and drama pose a threat at all. I'm not arguing against having someone die in a fight, or letting everything go smoothly, but going "oh, right, and this guy died" right after isn't drama or conflict.

Entertainment != Enjoyment

Do you require all movies to have happy endings?

I'm not saying that the DM in question didn't handle it poorly; I don't know, I wasn't there. But the player seems to prioritize his own "logic" over the story at large, which is entitlement.

>A story where everything goes your way isn't a story.
[not the same user] It kind of is, that's the purpose of being a story teller being in control of where the story goes. Now differentiate between a story telling and a role playing game with emphasis on the word game, where everybody being equal including the D.M agrees to abide by a set of rules governing play and there is an expectation the D.M as rules arbitrator / referee who is supposed to be judging fairly and impartially suddenly decides to put on a story teller hat and kills of a P.C hand waving away the rules because he perceives it would 'poignant' clearly contrary to the rest of the group's opinion, is kind of a dick move.

If you insist on mechanical terms I'd say it's a coup de gras where you choose to fail the save since that's what is basically being described. This does make PC's oddly proficient in suicide, but I can live with that.

If you assume that the rules of whatever system you are playing are capable of simulating an entire fictional universe, sure, you are correct. However, most (well-designed) TTRPGs clearly give the DM some dramatic wiggle room to improvise because no system can simulate every interaction. The DM is not equal to the players and the DM is not just a meat-computer that outputs results based on system-rules. If that were the case, you wouldn't need the DM at all, just a book and friends that aren't assholes.

If you want wish fulfillment go read a harem LitRPG book.

What blows my mind about this is the GAME WAS OVER. It was literally over. There was no reason to get upset.

>Stories do have conflict and drama, yes. They also happen to run on something called logic
user, you have absolutely no idea how stories work. Stories rely on suspension of disbelief; the better you are as a storyteller the further your audience will be willing to suspend their belief.

>everybody being equal including the D.M agrees to abide by a set of rules governing play
You're unclear on the balance of power in the gaming relationship; by allowing someone to GM you are giving them the opportunity to tell a story with your assistance. That's why a GM can limit character options, bar certain materials, tell you that you can't learn that school of spell, etc. The whole point is they're setting up a story for you to explore. You may be a co-author, but you've given the arbitration over to the GM.

If you can't handle that sort of relationship, you should probably stick to wargaming.

If everyone in the group was angry, then it was neither entertaining nor enjoyable, and the GM failed. It's not a difficult concept to parse.

[Same user] If you wish to commit suicide I have no issue with that, my point is the DM decided to pull a 'rocks fall your character dies' move without so much of a thought toward the likelihood of it happening.

But in that case its clearly a situation that the rules DO cover. Just randomly killing off a character when it makes zero sense is not good drama, or good dming.

>by allowing someone to GM you are giving them the opportunity to tell a story with your assistance.
Lmao
No
Dming isnt storytelling. Both you and the dm are both playing a game. The game involves some components of storytelling but if you just want to tell a story write a fucking book

It's not 'simulating an entire fictional universe' we're discussing the OP's premise, most RPGs have some mechanism to mathematically distinguish between 'almost dead', 'not quite dead' and definitely dead.

From what it sounds like, you should stick to FATE. Things are supposed to be governed by an internal logic, which is what suspension of disbelief is based on. Not to mention, your ideals of what a DM gets to say and do are fair, but that sounds very much like your own experience with it, and not others. Quite frankly, I don't think many people would play with such a dynamic save for your friends and those you've cherry-picked-- which is probably the best way. However, your whole "it's a story, don't be mad I killed off your characters after it ended and you have no agency anymore" sounds like a bit more like they're YOUR characters than the person who made them. Like going "oh, thanks for taking care of this dog," then beating it once they hand it over to you, and going "what? it's not your dog."

>Dming isnt storytelling. Both you and the dm are both playing a game. The game involves some components of storytelling but if you just want to tell a story write a fucking book
Agreed, couldn't have put it better.

>forever DM
>games hosted at my house
>complete control
>everyone has fun
I am a very benevolent dictator.

>muh devils advocate

GM was in a rush and fucked up, seems as simple as that.

>Player consensus rules that said player did not in fact die

If the players decide that they all find magical wands of do-whatever-I-want, does that mean they do?

>The cop says you're under arrest.
>Your friends agree that you are not.
The GM is the guy in charge. You can try to talk him out of a ruling, and you can even threaten to walk if he doesn't change it, but until such a time as you depose him, the players have no authority to overrule him.

That's not what's being discussed, taking D&D as a frame of reference because it illustrates the point nicely suppose the character is at -8 hit points death occurs at -10 according to the OP his allies are aware of the situation and are on the way is 2 rounds enough time to get to him and stabilize his condition or are they delayed for further rounds for whatever reason and death occurs. That's the type of consideration that should have been factored not 'rocks fall your character dies because poignant'

Being a GM is like being the captain of the ship.
You can't have two people steering the ship because it will eventually crash and everyone drowns.
It's nice to think things could be different but that's just naive.

That's definitely not what the post says, but even in your example, if the character is at -8 hp, and the players aren't able to get to them in time to stop them from dying (like you say in your example), then the character is dead.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Unless you're playing a game that's rules say "the GM controls everything unless all the players agree the GM is wrong", then regardless of how "fair" you think it is, the character is dead.

If all the players think it's bullshit and the GM is just being a dick, then they should find a new GM or and continue from their alternate-universe in which the character did not die.

But that character definitely died.

Fiasco, Inspectres, Ten Candles...

You are not a good GM. In fact, you are a shit GM with shit players. RPGs are collaborative endeavors, you have no claim to authority over anyone, and your belief that your word is somehow worth more than that of the other players is a sign of a mentality that's not conductive to good gaming. Your group is going to last a lot less than the other guy.

t. An oldfag.

You don't get what Fate is about and exhibit all the signs of D&D brain cancer.

You're definitely not an oldfag if you have the childish opinion that players crying that their death wasn't fair and demanding the story be re-written in a way that always makes them come out on top is "good" GMing.

>if the character is at -8 hp, and the players aren't able to get to them in time to stop them from dying (like you say in your example), then the character is dead.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying use the rules wherever possible to determine if the character dies, don't just hand wave it away with some bullshit you decided on the spot because that way leads to resentment.

OPs situation honestly depends entirely on context. Players often take their character deaths poorly often enough to read the situation as entitled players whining, but there have also been plenty of situations in which a GM does a "rocks fall, everyone does", which is fairly infamous.

Some people play with the GM as an infallible ruler of the world, but the best kind of group is flexible on both ends, and typically a majority agreement is the best route to go with imo to keep group cohesion.

>You guys are almost The Pixies.
>Wait that reference is probably too old for you. Uh... One Direction.
I'm not the guy you were responding to, but I don't think the Pixies are too old--at least not for me--just too mediocre for me to care enough to learn anything about them. I also don't know anything about One Direction because I'm not twelve. But... uh... what was your point? If you could put it in terms of dad rock that would help.

>Dming isnt storytelling. Both you and the dm are both playing a game
These aren't mutually exclusive things. That you seem to believe they are means you lead a sad gaming life.

>Things are supposed to be governed by an internal logic, which is what suspension of disbelief is based on.
No, it's not. Suspension of disbelief doesn't have a relationship with logic. Belief, particularly in a story being told absent evidence, is an inherently illogical act; literally in the same vein as taking something on faith.

You should shut the fuck up now, unless you need to further prove you don't understand the subject matter.

>You are not a good GM.
Hey, that's great that you've got opinions. They're wrong, but that's probably not a new experience for you.

Shit, uh. The Eagles? They broke up, right? Take this metaphor wherever you want, man. It's the least I can do for a guy about to lose his gaming group.

Suspension of disbelief is something that the GM/Storyteller is required to keep in mind, not the players. It is the storyteller's job to not break it, not the players/viewers. This is because things will be taken on faith to a degree, based on the world and its rules as a basic framework. If the players are taken out of it, it is the failure of the GM.

Every player was taken out of it. The GM screwed the pooch.

DMing is like sailing, when the DMs illusion of authority is gone the party loses cohesion, in the same way that a captain that loses authority loses his ship. campaigns only survive if the authority of the DM is agreed.

this thread should be pruned and deleted from the archive. the players should be executed via firing squad and they should be contained in sealed train cars until their execution date to prevent them spreading their toxicity. This treachery is an evil that threatens pen and paper rpgs very fabric.

Just let the stupid fucking character die. Death shakes things up.

user do you know what suspension of disbelief is? It's when something is fun or compelling so you're willing to ignore it's absurdity. It's how one immerses oneself in fiction. You don't by suspending disbelief, believe something is real: you're simply saying "I don't care that it's not real, this is enjoyable". Suspending disbelief is a purposefully illogical act but it does related to logic in that you do it with relation to a piece of fiction that operates on rules that differ from reality, and it can be broken if you break those rules in a way that stretches the enjoyment too thin.

It's sometimes not fun to play a game where threats are actually non-existent (do to GM finagling in this instance) though NPCs act like they're present because it's an example frustrating kind of rule breaking. The GM is in a position of relative authority on most things, however by breaking things in that manner he can loose that: if he hand waves or alters things to encourage things that the group enjoys, or alternative just sticks to a rule based arbitration of events, the suspension of disbelief is maintained. If he makes a story that no longer is fun to play, he has failed and lost his authority on the manner: his authority is dependent on the players willingness for him to have it, and they probably aren't if he controls the handful of people who are player characters. Writing an ending honestly should involve their input if it includes them and their actions in consideration. It's not a video game with a cut scene at the end. If you, after their regular form of agency is gone, tell them all they died and they reject that ending, you broke their suspension of disbelief. You weren't as good a storyteller as you thought. You've lost that authority.

There are lots of times where you could go on to explain them dying that wouldn't break disbelief for the record, explaining how their actions led to it would be great. It's all in the approach.

Basic gameplay necessitates character death as a possibility. Take that away and you got fun intellectual wanking for a couple of hours, which can be fun in small doses, but come on!

Stop.

Don't mansplain things you clearly don't understand.

This is a silly argument. No, character death doesn't need to be a possibility. There's plenty of games where your characters cannot die that function perfectly. You only need death in violent scenarios because that's the form risk takes in those scenarios. Your definition of what TTRPGs can be is too narrow.

Death doesn't need to be an actual death, but a failure state that removes a character from play is necessary to meet the definition of a game, and games that involve combat or exploring require death to be a necessity.

I agree with this to an extent, though there are exceptions when the people involved are mature adults and can get over minor problems, repair bridges and all that.

But authority isn't something immutable. A GM can in fact do something so godawfully retarded that their authority had to be questioned. In your sailing analogy, it'd be like telling a sailor to jump overboard, or taking a sledgehammer to the walls. If you appear to be incompetent or insane, it's not the players' fault that the ship went down.

Where's that definition, user? There's differences between setbacks or failure states versus character removal. Games don't need to threaten you to be games, and if by your definition some TTRPGs aren't games then your definition is wrong.

Death is one of many failure states, and it need not be the sole one that matters.
>when the people involved are mature adults and can get over minor problems, repair bridges and all that
This.
I don't always agree with the calls my GM makes, hell, he made one recently that enormously screwed me, but I accept that he is running the game in good faith, and so accept the cards I am dealt.
If a call is made that is so egregious that it must be questioned, or it's reasoning isn't transparent, I pull the GM aside and ask for an explanation. What I won't do is throw a fit at the table, or do what a player once did to me and run onto Veeky Forums to badger a dev that used to post here for a "Clarification" in order to go over my head.

>a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

That's taken from google, but in a nutshell. A "game" is a competitive activity. There's a losing state or a winning state. If such a thing doesn't exist in that context, then it isn't a "game." It can be fun, it can be like a game, but it isn't really a game. That also means there is nothing wrong with running such a thing at your table, but it can get old fairly quick if you aren't with a very creative group of people.

this is understandable but by discussing it with him instead of straight up disagreeing and actively ignoring the offending thing and going as far as taking rolling responsibilities is dismissing his authority entirely. I would argue that it's better to find a new ship with a better captain than straight up mutiny. once it's in a players mind that the illusion of authority is an illusion, it makes it easier to make Micro transgressions later (as much as i hate that term it applies here.)

if you have to circumvent your DM, it's already gone too far. a session ruined by a DM is ruined, no matter the actions taken by players in character or otherwise. at that point your best recourse is to either leave that campaign and let a player or outside DM take over or to pressure the DM (which i would only suggest if the DM is otherwise a good DM or friend)

What's the point of having a DM if you'll disagree with their rulings? That's literally their function.

>
>this is understandable but by discussing it with him instead of straight up disagreeing and actively ignoring the offending thing and going as far as taking rolling responsibilities is dismissing his authority entirely.

i miss stated my point here. i meant to say while discussing it with him is obviously the mature way to do it, once you're at the point of taking responsibilities assigned to the DM away from him then the mature option is already out the window.

Then by this definition TTRPGs are not games. Good job.

...