Player Fucks Around And Finds Out

Stumbled across this post on Twitter a while back:

Player does something stupid, suffers the consequences, and then disingenuously claims that they were were "punished" solely for what they consider to be roleplaying.

My initial thought was, were I GMing, I'd have just had the mob boss beat the character unconscious. After all, they were going to be ransomed and/or interrogated. But then we don't have the entire story: what led up to them being captured? Is this the only obnoxious thing the character did to the mob boss? Did they kill one or more of his henchmen? Did the DM say something like, "Are you sure? He looks really pissed, like he's itching for an excuse to butcher one of you."

Even without that I've no sympathy, and am guessing the DM made the right call, which is to have the mob boss act in whatever manner he thought was appropriate. Your character died? I guess lesson learned, then. Not to not spit on the mob boss when he's got you trussed up to the point where you can be auto-killed--though it should be obvious there's going to be some degree of retaliation--but that your character can die in a (mostly?) unexpected, non-heroic way.

This is necessary. This is what makes your heroic actions actually heroic, what gives your successes substance. It also of course provides a learning experience.

Millennial morons like to pretend that roleplaying games like D&D are about "the story", that contrived events should only occur when it's dramatically appropriate. That their characters are special—not just because of increased hit points and other various features and abilities not afforded to the average person—and deserve some form of "plot armor", so that they can make brash, stupid decisions and not suffer consequences both reasonable and expected.

Unless, of course, they both consent and it's sufficiently "dramatic". Their self-described "hero" is heroic, not because you happened to die doing the right thing, that you actually risked something selflessly, without assurance that any supposed sacrifice wouldn't be in vain, but only because your imaginary character's death was permitted at that point in time. You know, just like actual heroes, who only ever perform heroic deeds knowing that there would be some sort of payoff.

It's entitled wish fulfillment.

These procrastinating posers hate their lives, hate themselves, hate everyone that they perceive to be happier, more talented and successful than they are, and roleplaying games are a brief escape from their regrettable, but almost always self-inflicted realities. Here they can create a smarter, stronger, sometimes more attractive avatar and go on a self-indulgent, self-righteous, morally repugnant crusade without the inconvenience of having to actually leave their parent's house and do anything.

More than that, is the control. They don't like not having control over their own lives, or even their emotions, and that frustrates them all the more. This is why they drastically overreact to every little minor incident that doesn't go precisely as expected. This is why they get so disproportionally deranged when they "lose", and want safeguards so they can pretend to be heroes, and pretend that their so-called victories are legitimate.

In their fragile minds, it's easier than growing up and learning to roll with the—sometimes metaphorical—punches, which would make them emotionally mature and better able to handle day to day life. No, better to coerce others into behaving in a way that at best might delay their infantile, irrational, and/or imagined ire, all to reinforce their delusionary elfgame deeds.

The good news is some people are in support of this outcome, and are actively calling out the emotionally stunted. Of course, there are those opposed to it: 

Aram can't even be bothered to address the actual point, which was that the player wasn't punished for "roleplaying", but because of their own actions. Instead Aram tries to mislead you into thinking that the DM did what he did to "teach a lesson", and implies that the DM doesn't care about the well-being of his players, as if their well-being is the DM's responsibility. As if the DM is a goddamn babysitter. As if Dark Dungeons was a cautionary tale.

Aram is a moronic, spoiled, child-brained egomaniac who, unsurprisingly, has pronouns in his bio:

You can apparently book him as a DM. In case you want a DM who won't honestly challenge you, who will ensure that your ten pages of cringy clichés mis-framed as character background won't be in vain, who will just let you win so you don't have to feel the sting of...rolling up another character and jumping back in, I suppose.

This next guy tries to mis-frame it as a lack of creativity, as if DMs are just by default slaughtering characters left and right to the point where they no longer care, as if the Dungeon Master's Guide tells you to do this at the earliest opportunity, as often as possible, context and circumstances be damned:

His suggestion? Hit the character once, then threaten death. This will somehow make it a "creative" death. I'm curious if he criticizes the average player for killing monsters they run into? The rogue for picking the lock on a door? The cleric for healing? After all those solutions are so obvious, so easy. Of course, even if they were given a warning the player would just whine about not having any agency. Millennials are so predictable.

It's funny: he considers killing a defenseless (emphasis on the "s") character as a "big red flag", when really it's pronouns in the bio.

I'm sensing a theme, here. Let's see what the next moron brings to the table:

Here we go: whiny millennial without any real problems calling Dungeons & Dragons a collaborative storytelling platform. Not even a game, but a platform. I like that he tries to dress it up, make it sound more intellectual, more important and serious than it really is. Like how in Tropic Thunder "Four Leaf" Tayback claimed he was in waste management, when he was really just a garbage man.

It's a game. A silly game. And games need a threat of actual failure, of loss. Otherwise there's no tension, no purpose really. Like playing a game with God mode on: it might seem fun, at first, but it's really not, and as long as there's nothing too damaged with your brain you'll realize it sooner or later. If you want to "tell stories", I'd recommend writing a novel, but I know you won't because that takes time and skill. 

Plus it's harder to continuously farm attention for your starved ego in between bouts of lying to everyone on social media about how you're "totally writing a book".

In case you were wondering, yeah, he's another pronouner:

At least he mixes it up a bit by pretending to be both male and neither gender, at the same time, because that makes sense. I don't know or care what a demisexual or polyamory shipper is, but I wouldn't trust my kids around this sex pest.

This was one of the more lengthy and entertaining exchanges:

So, uh, Mythir, I guess. As with the other guy, she thinks killing a character is boring. As if that should be the deciding factor in anything and everything the DM does. As if everything should be a nonstop roller coaster of contrived excitement. You want to talk about boring? Here's her Twitter bio:

Are you surprised to see pronouns at this point? Claiming to be a 1,250 year old vampire is new, and sad, even as a joke. Though I am curious how far she takes it. You think she wears plastic fangs?

Well thank God for that. But Pundit is correct: anyone whining about a dead character would similarly whine about any sort of defect or deformity (all while claiming to care about so-called ableism). Mythir knows this, but doubles down as infantile woke millennials are wont to do, and continues to project:

Oh, the irony of a pronouner accusing anyone of being one of "THOSE people". So she thinks killing characters is boring, you should maim them, Pundit points out that also wouldn't work, because woke millennial morons like Mythir would still piss and moan, so she's now going to accuse Pundit of "desperately" attempting to derail a "stronger point" and trigger her.

Which isn't what Pundit was going for, but unsurprisingly Mythir is triggered all the same (not that I think there's ever a conversation in which she doesn't get triggered). At no point does she point out how maiming or crippling a character is inherently less boring/more creative. She just claims killing PCs is always boring, and that any other option is always the more creative approach. Why? Because she's a petulant millennial that thinks she's always correct.

Pundit being older and wiser (not that that's any sort of meaningful hurdle when engaging with millennials) then points out that you shouldn't be seeking to punish the players. Spot on. The mob boss doesn't kill the character because the DM wants to spite the player, the mob boss kills the character because that's what he would do.

In one of the first 3rd Edition campaigns I ever played in, at some point we found some tomb or temple or some such, a bunch of shadows (I think) attacked, and us being pretty low level and not having any real means of fighting them ran. I forget why, but the sorcerer/barbarian tried holding them back, using disrupt undead to distract them so we could escape, and he died in the process.

We went back for the body later during the day, when all the shadows were gone, and I'm sure at some point got an NPC to raise him after doing some sort of quest. Now, he wasn't "punished" for his sacrifice. That's what happens when you try to hold back a swarm of shadows and you're like 3rd-level, and this is what made his actions noble, at least in the context of a game.

This is also something attention-starved posers are unable or unwilling to grasp: story emerges from play. You don't force it. That makes it false. You play, and it happens. Not all events are memorable. They can't be, otherwise none of them would stand out.

The sorcerer/barbarian didn't have a pow-wow with the DM, asking if he could "sacrifice" with the guarantee that we'd escape. He didn't say that he was going to stay behind, and then get permission from the DM to kill him. He made his choice, and there were consequences (and an upside in that everyone else escaped).

Mythir's response is very telling: she doesn't address the fact that "doing what the world demands" makes it at least seem real, as opposed to an obvious, imaginary game world where you are more likely to act/react in accordance to what you think the DM would do (or thinks he should do "for the story"). Instead, she tries tackling the story angle, accusing Pundit and some imaginary group of DMs being against story.

How? Because Mythir is one of many whiny narcissists that mistakenly believe that D&D is a collaborative storytelling game. It's not. It's a roleplaying game. You are doing yourself a disservice by pretending otherwise. You are robbing yourself of genuine victories, made all the sweeter due to both the threat and yes, even occurrence of unexpected, genuine defeat. But you don't care, because you think your false successes will make you happy.

It's blatantly obvious that they don't, but keep telling yourself that you're happy, that you're "having fun" with your spoon-fed achievements that your good-intentioned-if-disastrous DM is all too willing to hand you, anything to keep up the pretense of joy. Like an irresponsible parent giving her child candy just to shut it up.

Really, it's your loss.