Players want to play D&D

>high lethality games
Funnily enough, never once has a PC died in my games. But they start whining and trying to weasel out of shit once they get close to 0hp or are KO'd. It's fucking infuriating.

>"k guys we're gonna play this campaign where you do missions for this adventurer's guild, everyone's cool with it?"
>"yea sure senpai"
>one player plays the typical rogue (that sort of turned into a pirate), writes three pages of background
>another plays a cleric from this place far away, some shit happened with his wife and the gods
>one guy is supposed to be some sort of halfling noble (whiniest fuck of them all)
>the last doesn't even have a backstory

Worst of all is that the first two characters were actually decent, but when I suggest playing a story-based game I don't get any sort of positive response.

I’ve always wanted to play/run a high lethality game where the players run a mercenary company and have to manage its finances. You can send your whole 25 man company into a dungeon, but then you’ll be forced to pay each man his “quest bonus” cost.

This would be sweet because if the players became attached to certai characters, they would be afraid to send them into a dungeon.

I’d prolly run it in savage worlds because that shit can be deadly as fuck if you want it to be. I think it would be fun. But my players o it care about leveling up their characters so I don’t think they’d ever go for it.

Also I think it would be neat i Vinci g the party to invest in better gear for your pet “knight” guy.

>dem phone posting typos

>meatgrinders
I don't like meatgrinders much. But I believe that if you get pummeled to 0 HP from your 52 HP max, and the thought of running away never crossed your mind, you should face some sort of consequence.

>advertise
I'm playing with my friends. Hard to get a group in a tiny town in bumfuckland

If you want kingdom being destroyed hurt players, you should give it to them two sessions before.

>but then you’ll be forced to pay each man his “quest bonus” cost.
So this would lead to them purposefully trying to get the bad adventurers killed, in order to avoid paying them, while leaving the good adventurers alive to use again?

They could fire and hire people as they see fit.

Ah. You mean in the quest? You could just make a rule like “You owe that money to the guys family, it’s in the contract”.

Or make them have a reputation for getting people killed, making their surviving guys demand some sort of raise in wages.

>D&D is for delving in deep dungeons and facing great danger to see if you'll survive, right?
1e: trying to get out of the dungeon alive
2e: trying to pillage an entire dungeon and down every monster
3ePF: trying to outdo every other player in the party in the roflstomp
4e: ham actors become king as all characters are rendered effectively the same, but must vie for pulpit time
5e: the return of diversification and combined arms means you can kill off the rest of the party and take over the pulpit permanently. everyone must listen to your politically infused furry fanfic or suffer the consequences. somewhere there's a treasure chest but who cares

But D&D is adaptable. If they want to play D&D but don't want to die or get badly hurt, you can just tailor that into your expectations and keep the challenge low enough that the risk of death is slight at best, and even that slight chance can be mitigated with "They capture you" or other simple DM parachutes.

The "STOP PLAYING D&D IF THERE'S ONE THING ABOUT SOME ABSTRACT 'DEFAULT' ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE GAME THAT ISN'T TO YOUR LIKING" is just a bad meme only encouraged by assmad contrarians.

D&D isn't adaptable. Roleplaying games as a medium are adaptable. Sure, you can make any RPG do anything, but if you want something specific you're often better served by finding a system that supports it by default rather than bending something else to do so. Adaptation is a powerful tool, but should be used mindfully rather than thoughtlessly.

>D&D isn't adaptable

Stopped reading there. I don't even know why you're so desperate to push your contrarian agenda that you're hoping to lead people on with such blatant lies.

So the only way you can pretend to have a point is ignoring context or what the people you're talking to actually mean? Okay.

Reading the next sentence might be a decent idea though, if you don't want to look like a complete idiot.

this became less and less informative every generation

Okay. I'll take a look.

>Roleplaying games as a medium are adaptable.

So, D&D is adaptable. It's an instant refutation of his own statement. For fuck's sake.

How about you now go and read this post again, and realize that the DRAMATIC CHANGE THAT YOU'RE BENDING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AROUND is really just a slight change in attitude, one that's actually fully supported by the most recent edition of D&D which has a number of fail-safes already built into the system to keep the PCs from dying?

Now, quit it with this bad attempt at defending contrarian bitchposting from people trying to force an agenda-oriented meme where you're supposed to leap from system to system whenever you encounter something you might want to change from a hypothetical default status that only ever exists in a transient form?

Continuing to ignore the actual point doesn't make you seem smart user, and isn't a replacement for actually having a point.

If D&D doesn't support something by default, using another system which does is a legitimate suggestion. That you can adapt D&D to do something is irrelevant, as it applies to any RPG and isn't a reason to keep using D&D if something else would do the job better by default.

Run a different system, say it's D&D with a few things changed.

>If D&D doesn't support something by default, using another system which does is a legitimate suggestion.

Then name the fucking system, don't just get assmad about people playing D&D. If all you say is "STOP PLAYING D&D", your agenda is out in the open.

You can't honestly be this pathetic, trying to defend obvious shitposting like you actually think it's not just obvious shitposting.

But, more importantly, the "default" for D&D is an imaginary concept, one that is made to be adaptable to a group's particular needs/desires, with advice and options on how to customize the game. Suggesting people switch to a brand new system because they don't like a hypothetical, mystical concept of a game made for the most common denominator is so fucking stupid, I'm surprised you can believe that and still spell half the words you used in your post.

>That you can adapt D&D to do something is irrelevant,

Not when the change is just a slight change in attitude, something so minor that you can keep playing the system the players want to play while also satisfying the singular change they would like made to the system.

For fuck's sake, stop looking into distant hypotheticals just to try and save your shitposting's face, all just to try to keep pushing your "PLEASE PLAY SOMETHING OTHER THAN D&D PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE" agenda.

And now you're assuming things I never said? Along with a tirade of insults, that really shows you're arguing in good faith.

Every game has a set of default assumptions that inform the intended experience. D&D has them, just like any other RPG, and they influence what kind of things it works best for. This is a simple statement of fact that's true of every game ever made, even ones claiming to be generic. Everything has design traits and tendencies that make it better or worse for various things.

I'm not really concerned with the earlier points in specific, I'm just quite curious as to your reaction. Since at no point have you ever actually presented any argument as to why people should play D&D even if it isn't by default appropriate for what they're doing. All you've done is attack people who would suggest alternatives. Surely a better approach would be showing how D&D is actually appropriate for it?

I do actually agree with you in this case, that WotC and later D&D's are pretty good for low lethality games, but that isn't the point you focuses on or emphasised. You fell back on an argument which makes D&D itself irrelevant, where the same logic could be applied even if it was something D&D was totally inappropriate before. Wouldn't you agree that your angle there was a bit odd?

>bla bla bla

Nigga, I ain't reading all that.
Summarize your bullshit.

I made a shorter post than you did, and yet you excuse yourself from reading it? Your argument must be incredibly weak, if you resort to things like that to avoid having to actually defend it.

I didn't post bullshit though.
Your post literally started with bullshit, and then you wanted me to keep reading? Fuck you. I fell for that once already.

Look. I'm going back and reading it and... Fuck you, it's just the same fucking bullshit I just refuted, just shoved in a blender and spit out again.

Here's the short and simple. OP's first fucking sentence is "Players want to play D&D".
>Since at no point have you ever actually presented any argument as to why people should play D&D

Wow, you're not even on the same fucking planet as this conversation.
Do I have to go through any more of your dumb bullshit?

So you don't actually have a point? Good to know.

>getting destroyed this fucking hard
>this is your response

Glad to see you at least have enough sense to keep your bullshit shorter now. Now, if you could just learn how to stop shitposting altogether, you'd stop being such a tool.

I'm more wondering if you'll ever actually defend your arguments, since you at no point have done so. You keep repeating the same assertions or changing the subject rather than acknowledging the inherent flaw and intellectual dishonesty in your argument. It's quite telling that you can't acknowledge this, even though we're both aware that in this thread it's clear there's a better and more coherent response than the one you defaulted to. I think you might be so quick to respond to 'shitposting' you've developed a pattern of behaviour that has lead you to act highly irrationally. It might be worth reflecting on it to improve your ability to discuss and argue in future.

The broad, general point I stated above remains true- If D&D does not support something by default, switching to another system is a valid suggestion. In the context of this thread, what OP wants is something later versions of D&D supports, but it is valid to note that old school playstyles and older editions of D&D do not support it, and that the perception of D&D as that kind of system has persisted quite strongly in some circles. If you take 'D&D' to mean that old school high lethality playstyle, as OP seems to do, then 'Don't play D&D' is a valid response.

And, again, you could have usefully contributed to the conversation by pointing out how it is supported, as well as realising that the OP is likely a trollpost with an artificial scenario created to cause trouble. Instead, you repeat a flawed argument that relies on attacking others rather than advocating for why D&D is a valid and worthwhile choice which, again, I find rather telling.

Why does your game have to be so dark and depressing? I get that you might want and expect violence from D&D, but it doesn't have to be the case. While there are probably better rulesets for it, it's really about HOW you play moreso than what you play. And there are plenty of interesting adventures still to be had. I actually wrote a post on my blog about this concept a little while back, which i'll happily link for relevance.
>draconick.com/2017/12/16/slice-of-life-roleplaying-without-combat/

>more bullshit

Summarize, you faggot.
You once again started with bullshit, and worse, you're just heaping more bullshit on top.

Why the fuck should I read your shitposts, when you're clearly not reading mine? Read them again, because you'd stop with these bullshit heaps if you did. But, let's take a look at your post, to show my "good faith", so you can do me the fucking favor of actually reading my post and shutting the fuck up with your bullshit.

>If D&D does not support something by default, switching to another system is a valid suggestion

Not if the only reason they're suggesting it is because they're upset about people playing D&D.

Look at the fucking shitposts. Are they suggesting other systems? No. They're just saying "STOP PLAYING D&D" like they think that's a miracle solution to something that isn't even a problem in D&D. If anything, later editions of D&D are exactly the solution to OP's specific situation (players want to play D&D but don't want to die), but their shitposting agenda which is triggered anytime someone even mentions D&D won't allow them to see that.

But, thanks for trying. It's given people a chance to see how ridiculous you shitposters really are, and how committed you are to your shitposting agenda.

>why D&D is a valid and worthwhile choice

You dumb faggot, I don't have to argue that at all.
OP's players want to play D&D. What do I have to argue at all?

> If you take 'D&D' to mean that old school high lethality playstyle, as OP seems to do, then 'Don't play D&D' is a valid response.

You stupid piece of shit. "That's only a specific style of D&D" is a valid response, treating all of D&D as one type is just making the same mistake OP is.

For fuck's sake, how dumb can you get in your attempts to defend shitposting?

If the only way to continue your argument is to presuppose that your opponent is being disingenuous, it probably isn't a very strong argument. Assumption of sincerity is a necessary for a functional discussion, and if you by default assume anyone criticising D&D or suggesting alternatives is being disingenuous, you fundamentally cripple your ability to actually discuss it.

The key point that you continue to evade is that your initial argument in is inherently flawed. You might be correct in this case, but it's unrelated to the logic you actually attempted to use to support it.

Your exact same argument, that D&D is adaptable and that RPG's do not have things they are more appropriate for, could be used with the same exact structure even if OP was suggesting using D&D for something entirely absurd, like a no magic no combat sci-fi political game.

You even acknowledge yourself that 'Don't play (old school) D&D' is valid in this case and, again, for many people their understanding of D&D is still rooted in old school D&D.

You aren't arguing with any degree of intellectual honesty or rigor and you continue to justify attacking others and making empty arguments rather than contributing or explaining by assuming everyone else must be disingenuous, thereby justifying you being an asshole. All that does is ensure you'll never actually be able to have a decent discussion of D&D with anyone who isn't a total sycophant, and that's just kind of sad.

If your players can't bring themselves to give a shit about things other than being murdered, the group or campaign is bad.

I'll grant that D&D has an uninspired skill system right now...d20 results are highly random, and bounded accuracy keeps little difference between trained and untrained users. I guess it's meant to lean heavy towards everyone being at least okay-ish at everything. But a house rule or two can patch that up pretty quick.

Seriously?

Is this your first time on Veeky Forums? You really think you can defend shitposting by saying "We HAVE to extend everyone the benefit of the doubt! To do otherwise is mean! How dare anyone draw obvious conclusions based on how people keep offering meaningless, contrarian shitposts begging people to stop playing a popular game, rather than advice that might actually solve the issues?" Hell, They didn't even give anything even resembling advice, they just said "sdont play dnd" because they're too busy spamming their contrarian shitposts in every single thread that mentions D&D to do much more than that.

Fuck you. Seriously. You're actually trying to desperately, and I mean DESPERATELY, formulate a hypothetical situation, as opposed to looking at this very fucking thread and seeing the exact thing I'm describing.

>You aren't arguing with any degree of intellectual honesty

Ah. I get it now. You've just been trolling all along.

You’re not old enough to remember when D&D was even like that I’m guessing, and I’m going to further guess that not only are you not in a group, that you’ve never even GMed one.

But not playing D&D is a solution. It might not be an ideal one, but if you are aiming for a playstyle D&D (or a version of D&D) doesn't support, then not playing that system and finding a more suitable alternative is a legitimate suggestion that can, in many cases, improve things. You are making a lot of rather ridiculous assumptions about some quite simple and straightforward suggestions that do nothing to add to the discussion or clarify things, they just turn it into an argument about D&D.

I've been on Veeky Forums a bloody long time. And I've learned that staying polite is surprisingly effective if you actually want to learn something from a discussion. You might want to try it out some time.

I'm just trying to point out that your logic is circular and that your arguments are inherently flawed, seemingly designed to cause shouting matches rather than inform or add something to a discussion. Even if you are correct and that they are all contrarian shitposts, which I doubt, you're still better off taking them at face value and explaining why and how D&D is appropriate for it, because doing so adds to the discussion and informs the OP (in the unlikely event OP isn't a troll) about other approaches he might take. All your posts do at this point is persevere in what you seem to consider an ongoing battle with contrarian D&D shitposting, which I feel like your posts are only perpetuating, rather than stymieing.

Dude.

Dude.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Shut the fuck up.
Shut the holy-fucking-shit-this-guy-isn't-even-on-this-same-fucking-planet-but-still-flapping-his-face-fuck-hole fuck up.

Want to recommend a system that might solve an issue? By all means, recommend that fucking system. That's not what I'm calling shitposting, so shut the fuck up and read my fucking posts already.

Please, please, sugar-on-top, please don't act like anyone is supposed to treat obvious contrarian shitposting like it's anything but. It's insulting that you think it's not obvious to everyone, and that because we're on an anonymous image board we're supposed to treat every post like it's not obvious what the person who made it was thinking.

>which I feel like your posts are only perpetuating, rather than stymieing.

Ooh, you're really scaring everyone from calling shitposting out as shitposting. I guess we should go back to that daily "When you'd realize D&D is garbage" thread and watch that get filled up with people telling the contrarian trolls to stop bitching about a game they don't play.

Imagine if everyone was as much a faggot as they happen to be, but rather than being a shitposting bitch about D&D, they spent all their time shitposting about all the other games they don't want to play. Whoowee, what a shitshow this board would be. Guess we should be glad that only D&D is popular enough to actually have enough contrarian shitposters obsessed with it.

But it isn't obvious. 'Have you tried not playing D&D' is a Veeky Forums meme, but it's also a legitimate suggestion in many contexts, and it's one worth making even if you don't have a specific system in mind. You've not presented any actual case against the suggestion itself, or argued why it's invalid. You've just repeated and asserted the assumptions you fall back on to dismiss it, while also ignoring my point that, even if you are correct, you're still better off not jumping back on your self-righteous bandwagon.

Calling it out is entirely worthless. It either starts an argument or achieves nothing, neither of which add anything to the discussion, and the arguments you attempted to use as part of calling them out were so weak as to be useless, even in a case when you were actually correct.

Even if the worst case scenario is true, and every anti-D&D comment is by a contrarian shitposter, you're still better off replying sincerely with accurate, well reasoned arguments as to why D&D is appropriate in that context. If you make a good argument, evidence your points and explain yourself well- Which is very easy to do in a context like this thread- you make it impossible for them to continue without making their lack of sincerity clear. Always assuming a lack of sincerity, however, simply muddies the waters and only makes further shitposting easier. Your irrational reaction is only harming what you claim to be trying to support. It's just sad.

>>players want to play D&D
>>but they don't want to die or get badly hurt permanently, unless it's somehow agreed on beforehand (aka never)
What's the issue here? You have a better chance of losing Russian Roulette with an empty chamber than you do dying in D&D.

Between HP bloat, heal spells, spare the dying, racial powers, death saving throws, etc. you're just not going to die past Level 3 unless the DM purposefully throws bigger numbers at you or someone in the party initiates PvP.

Depends on if the DM is good or not. If the DM is good then a player death can be really fitting and make for a great moment if it feels earned and in a finely tuned fight. If however one of the players is very passionate about the game and pours a lot into his character where as the DM is pretty mediocre and just puts the character in a situation that's either way too hard or too out of nowhere then the death can feel really fucking annoying since you put all your heart and soul and maybe 50+ hours into this guy only to have him die in an unsatisfying way.

tldr; If you're a good DM, go for it, if not then don't push it.

I really would not suggest playing Savage Worlds. It is a badly designed system with terrible meta-mechanics that encourage not only metagaming but ending session early, it also makes it near impossible for characters to fail at anything. The gun mechanic are broken, and literally do not make sense. The only thing it is good for is being a miniatures wargame, and it even sucks at most of that. Exploding dice make stupid shit happen constantly, the damage is way overkill for 90% of the threats allowing characters to one-shot massive creatures with tiny weapons. On the other end, characters literally cannot fail, because they have three bennies per session which allow them to reroll whatever the fuck they want (not damage rolls, to be fair, but still). And the GM is told he is a piece of shit if he doesn't hand out more bennies for "good roleplaying" (in other words, stupid nat20-lolz bullshit). Also the characters get to roll a wild die with their normal roll and take the wild die if it is higher, thus making them even less likely to fail at anything. Not to mention the cancer of the bennies being basically a safe-space for retarded character actions, CAN and WILL spread to other RPGs you play with this group. Just count down the sessions until your character asks during D&D after failing a roll "can I have a bennie"? No, get fucked faggot. Failure is an important part of RPGs and Savage Worlds throws that shit out the window.

Holy shit. You're not going to quit, are you.
I knew you shitposters were bad, but this is a new low.

Here.
> it's also a legitimate suggestion in many contexts,

You know what? No. Simply, flatly, no.
Suggesting a system is a legitimate suggestion in those contexts.
If you only say "Don't play D&D", that is like someone asking about what kind of oil is best for their car in a cold climate, and recommending that they don't drive a car at all and they won't have that question. Sure, it's technically true, but not to the point where it's a "legitimate" suggestion.
It's just a shitpost.

That's what you're trying to defend. You're doing your best, but you're really only highlighting just how important that shitposting is to you, and that this isn't just some little thing but a distinct agenda that you're willing to leap and prance about in the most embarassing mental gymnastics in hopes of defending.

So, how about this. How about I offer you a simple solution to all this, one that eliminates the hypothetical "Are they or aren't they shitposting?" question entirely.

If anyone wants to suggest an alternate system, actually have them suggest an alternate system. Otherwise, assume that they're too busy shitposting to actually help the person, and the only reason they posted at all is because they saw "D&D" in the thread and they can't help but shitpost about how much they hate the idea of people playing a game they don't like.

>you're still better off replying sincerely with accurate, well reasoned arguments

That didn't work.

>you make it impossible for them to continue without making their lack of sincerity clear.

It hasn't stopped you.

...No?

'Have you tried not playing D&D?', the archetypal form of it, is phrased as a question. An inquiry that awaits an answer. It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, as it opens up options and furthers a discussion.

D&D is so massive that it absolutely dominates the roleplaying space, to the point some people honestly don't think about playing systems other than D&D. I have seen multiple cases where opening up with that question lead to a discussion and a suggestion of a viable alternative, a good result for everyone.

Personally, I tend to think asking the question first is actually better and more polite than just forcing a system suggestion where it might not be wanted, as you're taking the time to establish context and better understand the situation- After all, if they clarify that they don't want a system other than D&D, no harm has been done.

The only thing I'm trying to do is highlight how invested you are in a potentially imaginary crusade, while actively ignoring the options that would be most effective in actually achieving the goals you claim to be striving for, in favour of the things that let you feel self-righteous by being an asshole on the internet.

>'Have you tried not playing D&D?', the archetypal form of it, is phrased as a question. An inquiry that awaits an answer. It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, as it opens up options and furthers a discussion.

Fuck you, you dumb troll.

It's just passive aggressive form of showing how much they hate D&D and think it shouldn't be adapted beyond an imaginary default state, with a touch of elitism that suggests that the reason people play D&D is that they've only played D&D. You act like the person is sitting on the edge of their seat, waiting for the answer to their question, just so that they can offer an actual suggestion. It's a rhetorical shitpost, not advice.

You fucking tool. Hell, what the fuck does whether or not they tried playing other games other than D&D even answer? A lot of games share similarities to D&D, so even if they have played other games it doesn't mean anything, and with so much variance within D&D itself we're looking at a complete non-question that's a pure and simple shitpost.

I'm genuinely surprised you think this all isn't obvious, and that this shitty forced meme is anything except passive aggressive grognards edging along, seeing how far they can go with their shitposting. They already learned they can't do too many of their blatant "D&D sucks" threads without receiving backlash from the majority of the role players here, so they have to stick with what they think is more subtle, while it's still painfully obvious despite your desperate attempts to pretend otherwise.

So, please. Do yourself a favor, if you are as legitimately retarded as you are pretending to be. See an actual game being suggested? Feel free to consider that genuine advice. See someone just saying "Stop playing D&D" in some form or fashion? That's a shitpost.

>spacing

Again, you assert an assumption without any argument. What if you're wrong? How can you be so absolutely certain?

And it answers whether or not they've tried games other than D&D, and often leads into broader questions about what systems they've tried and the traits and tendencies of those systems. A post can, you know, lead towards an answer rather than inherently being one in itself. And you've yet to present any argument as to why it must inherently be a shitpost rather than your assumptions.

Despite what you might believe, I don't dislike D&D. I dislike intellectual dishonesty and obsessive behaviour of the type you're exhibiting, and trying to draw your attention to it. Your actions are based on wild assumptions and actively harmful to the goal you claim to be dedicated to. If they really are shitposts, then an emotional reaction is exactly what they're looking for. Why give it to them?

It's sad that you keep falling back to your assertions without ever actually giving any foundation or evidence for them. It might help to take a step back and reassess things, since you seem to be overly emotionally invested in a war that I think only you are fighting.

That's not to say that there aren't contrarian D&D shitposters, that they exist is self-evident, but I think you're being extremely over sensitive to the point that your intense reactions and zealous defence against all criticism is only going to spur people on. Even people who don't dislike D&D might be tempted to reply to you, as you're clearly easily aggravated and drawn into the kind of emotional replies most prized by trolls. You aren't doing anything to help yourself.

>Again, you assert an assumption without any argument.

You're trying to pretend that any doubt is the same as reasonable doubt. I've provided plenty of argument, but the only thing that you're relying on is the vain hope that just because you can never truly know what someone is thinking, we should never make any assumptions, regardless of how obvious they are.

>It's sad that you keep falling back to your assertions without ever actually giving any foundation or evidence for them.

I've provided plenty of evidence, or, rather, that they have. What you are still, stupidly, demanding is that I do the impossible and remove any and all doubt, rather than just the reasonable doubt, that these people are shitposters.

>That's not to say that there aren't contrarian D&D shitposters,

That's exactly who you're defending, and that's exactly who I'm attacking. Not the vague hypothetical, well-meaning people who see issues and want to offer real suggestions, such as actually saying what systems might alleviate certain concerns, but contrarians who see "D&D" and can't stop themselves from shitposting.

You really want to pretend that's not what's happening, or what's happened even in this very thread. You want to offer up the maxim that "Any doubt is the same as reasonable doubt, and that even obvious shitposters should not be called out as such."

Fuck you. That's the shitty mindset that slowly makes them feel emboldened, to the point that they wind up becoming more blatant with their shitposting. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing that the shitposters want people to think and do, rather than calling them out.

If I see shitposting, I'm calling it out, especially if it's as obvious as the shitposting in this thread. That's why, without hesitation, without even an inkling that you're not a pathetic troll desperate to save face, I can call you out on your own shitposting.

With that said, I think I'm done here. I've allowed you to bait me for far too long.

You've only provided assertions and anecdotal evidence along with meaningless statements about how obvious it is. There's no actual reason to believe that every single post such as that is a disingenuous shitpost and you've not refuted any of my points that you aren't giving them the exact response they want.

All you're doing is repeating yourself, doubling down on your investment and your belief in an enemy to fight, before declaring it over, possibly because you're getting close to actually having to think about the assumptions you're making and whether they're actually valid.

For your sake, I hope you do figure it out one day. Being that intense and angry over something so common and everyday can't be good for you, user.

>the return of diversification and combined arms means you can kill off the rest of the party and take over the pulpit permanently. everyone must listen to your politically infused furry fanfic or suffer the consequences. somewhere there's a treasure chest but who cares

You mean Pathfinder?

You can do heroic fantasy and still have people die.
Shit, I've killed more pcs in 4e expressly because pcs are designed to work together, and when they don't, are easy to pick off singly.
As for OP, did he explain to the players that death is indeed a consequence of dealing in violence with violent people?
I never had that problem with any of my players in 20 some years of gaming because everyone knew from the word go that I didn't pull punches and part of the story is failure.

have you tried playin FATE?

Get a room, you two

The problem is that modern versions of D&D aren't actually designed with that style of play in mind (whatever they may claim) and so they tend to be really fucking bad at it.

You people fetishize anything.

Tbh, I've been actually enjoying RPGs more when the dice don't go in our favor.

Our last Vamp session, for instance, had an NPC roll so well that one of the players got five derangements (mental illnesses) and they'd last a whole year. Another time I nearly died in one hit and then botched the frenzy roll and nearly killed everyone (who still had to be careful because it was so easy to kill me if I got more than one point of damage lol)..

If PCs never fail, then there's a whole kind of story that you're not able to explore. Tbh I still feel like it's "fairer" to cut an arm off than to kill their family, specially if it's not directly their fault (i.e. you gave them enough of a chance to justify them failing this way).

You've got it switched up. Old versions of D&D weren't made for players who didn't want to die or get badly hurt permanently. Modern versions have a number of safety nets that make it very easy for a DM to coddle his players if they want to. In fact, with 5e, as long as the DM keeps action economy in mind, he really doesn't have to worry about any of the PCs ever dying, especially if they're generous with Inspiration Points.

Fix your players. Take one of this and call again tomorrow.

Oh, fuck off, bennieposter. You're an insufferable cunt. You don't play any of these fucking games, you just learn more about them every Thursday or Friday when you pop around to be a faggot.

Have you even played D&D?

>Oh, sure. I'll kill your family
No no boss, my family's deader than doornails. Cut out the middleman for your unoriginal ass.

>Oh, sure. I'll kill your family (which we've never actually met) if you fail, have the princess and the kingdom you don't give half a fuck about (because you're all wandering murderhobos taking on adventures for the sole purpose of material profit) die, or have your magic item stolen only to have you whine at me for an hour about it.

Don't play with murderhobos.

Don't play D&D.

>players all want to die
youtube.com/watch?v=_iYGb8VHjRI

Just play darkest dungeon and avoid other players.. I'm not looking for pen and paper xcom slash football mannager

Death is not the worst thing you can do to a party.

Alternatively, Fate Core uses a concession-based defeat feature, if you're still curious for a different system.

>players want to play D&D
Establish how they know they want to play D&D first. If they've never played an RPG then they don't want to play D&D, they want to play an RPG.