The DM doesn’t need to trick the players into attacking if that’s exactly what is expected of them. This is no different from a trap in a dungeon. If the players’ first reaction to anything is killing and looting (and the game wasn’t about that from the get go), it’s a valid reminder that they better watch out for consequences.
“We attack this random old man!”
“Gotcha! It was a Dragon God in disguise!”
You see how it’s a trick? You see the deception?
If you live in a high-crime area and put a shotgun trap behind your door, then you are guilty for the murder of anyone who dies trying to break into your house. Should they have tried to break into your house? No. Should you have killed them? Also no. You’re not in the right just because they’re in the wrong. It doesn’t work that way.
Why is throwing Bahamut at the players knowing they’ll pick a fight with him a better solution than just talking to them?
Just in case this wasn’t clear, we’re talking about a meme. There’s no “full context” behind it, it’s a quick setup for a laugh. You can’t expect to take the meme at face value, that the party became muderhobo out of nowhere and that bahamut also comes out of nowhere because the DM is a bitch.
In a real situation, the more likely thing to happen is that the many other things the DM threw to get the players back in line failed, so it’s time to bring the big guns. It’s likely that the group had a talk out of the game discussing their situation and their possible future. Likely being the keyword here because, again, you’re assuming that this comes out of nowhere, but there’s no “real” table being discussed
Why is throwing Bahamut at the players knowing they’ll pick a fight with him a better solution than just talking to them?
Because it gives the players an opportunity to acknowledge that in game.
TLDR - you’re missing the point because you’re assuming a lot of stuff that isn’t even hinted at anywhere.
You assumed my assumption, but it honestly doesn’t matter if it came out of nowhere or not. Step one is talking to the players like adults about the problem. Step two is removing a player from the game, possibly yourself. There is never enough buildup to justify introducing an OP enemy to guaranteed kill your players as a punishment. Even if there was, you should have left the game long before that point, and should leave the game now instead of firing that big gun.
Why do players need to acknowledge it in game? That’s not where the problem is. The problem is among the players, not the characters. You don’t solve OOC problems within the game.
I don’t think I’m the one assuming a lot of stuff and missing the point here.
Nobody said “hey, maybe turn down the murdurhoboing?”, they chose to trick the players into attacking a god.
2 assumptions here, one that “nobody said…” and also one that the DM “chose to trick the players”.
More importantly, there’s your implicit assumption that a chaotic murderhobo party facing bahamut in disguise can only be the result of “things going wrong”, that “someone” is making the experience bad for the DM. This is pretty clear from this bit:
Step two is removing a player from the game, possibly yourself
And how you’re replying elsewhere: “if it’s bad, just leave”. To reach such conclusion you have to assume that:
“something is going wrong”
nobody talked about it out of the game
nobody did anything else to try avoiding the “wrong” situation
there were zero “warnings” (nothing else happening in game could be said to be a hint of escalation of a problem to godly level)
all players are completely oblivious to any traps or tricks the DM could set up
setting up bahamut in disguise like is meant solely to kill the characters, ignoring the many different possibilities as to why he could show up (“teach a lesson”, give a warning, setup for plot)
There is never enough buildup to justify introducing an OP enemy to guaranteed kill your players as a punishment. Even if there was, you should have left the game long before that point, and should leave the game now instead of firing that big gun.
Just because you cannot think of an escalation that leads to a god showing up in a game doesn’t mean that nobody else can. Just because you can only see this setup as “rock falls, everyone dies” doesn’t mean that everybody else will use it exactly for that.
What the hell is the meme you’re looking at? In the meme I see, the DM is annoyed by the current environment of murderhoboing and responds by introducing a Bahomet in a way where the players clearly don’t know who he is and haven’t met him before. The DM chose to add him, just like they chose every element of the campaign thus far and they chose to continue playing among murderhobos. The only reason Bahomet was included was as a punishment, and it’s fucking baffling you insist that’s not what’s happening.
I can think of several reasons to have a god show up in a game. I can only think of one reason to respond to the players being murderhobos by introducing a god in an innocent disguise and saying “try it, bitch”. What do you think is the point of the meme if not “the players are being murderhobos, so I’m going to punish them by making them pick a fight with a god”?
Yes, the party all snapped at the same time and started murder hoboing and it definitely wasn’t talked about before hand by the party or the dm.
Listen, it sounds like you’ve been traumatized by some passive aggressive dm. I cannot think of a reason you’re so passionate about this.
It really feels like you’d be a part of the “doms don’t need aftercare” crowd too.
One of the closer examples of this actually happening is a party was underneath an alchemist shop in the sewers which I said smelled of sulphur. The newest person to the party their first move down there was fireball. I literally said “are you sure?” While giving him the look. Anyways most people made their dex saves and it was a lesson in fuck around find out. They became a great player and meshed really well with the game. But saying something and doing something are two different things. I told them before this event I will reward them for being smart and punish for not being observant. You need this ability to do things like this in game in order to smoothly, without breaking the flow, push the players in the right direction.
You don’t have to be in that style of game, you also have the ability to ask the DM how they want to run the game.
There are games out there for any type of player and dm. If you think it’s the dm’s JOB to make you happy then I do not want to be a part of any game you’re in. This is a group game.
Holy fuck, are you not paying attention? It does not matter if it was sudden or not. If it got to the point that the DM was willing to twist the narrative to kill the entire party, they should have already left.
I haven’t been traumatised. Heck, I’ve barely ever been a player. I just don’t know why people are being so defensive of vindictive DMing. It’s deeply unhealthy. Doms do need aftercare, but they also shouldn’t go into their fun with spite on their mind.
Your example is NOT an example, because that player was not murderhoboing. You weren’t vindictively adding an element to the game to get him killed, you were organically reacting to their actions with details that had already been established. Your consequence made sense, and it made the game more fun for everyone involved.
It is a DM’s job to make sure everyone had fun at the end of the session, DM included. Technically, that’s everyone’s job, but the DM is the one with more authority. This doesn’t mean bad things can’t happen, but nobody should be outright miserable. If one person’s fun would detract from someone else’s fun, then either a frank conversation is needed or someone should leave to find that fun elsewhere.
When I’m a DM I reward people being clever or following through with hints I give them. I like having those little puzzles in the middle of a game.
If I am running a game where I kill a party it’s because they didn’t listen to anything and were basically cutting anything that I wanted to do out.
I don’t want to be in a dungeon crawler. Video games tend to do those better.
I don’t want to run a dungeon crawler. I could just set up a module for people to do.
I tell players before hand what I expect of a player. If they like it they play, if they don’t I’ll find another. It’s that simple.
I expect an amount of bullshittery, that can be fun. But I never enjoyed participating in a murder hobo session. If my game starts out fun, then goes murder hobo direction, I’ll get my fun.
If you don’t want to play in the type of game the other players want to play in, you leave. That’s the same for regular players and the GM. If it’s just one or two people making it less fun for other people, you kick them. No need to keep playing with them so you can punish them in game. I never get far enough in the game to punish that kind of player, because they’re already gone.
Honestly, this runs on the same logic as murder hobos. You’re not having fun, so you decide to get your fun by ruining someone else’s.
Why? You’re not having fun playing that game. What you want to do won’t be fun for everyone else. You didn’t like the game to begin with, so there’s no point in giving it a satisfying conclusion. There are better things you could do, like setting up a game you’d prefer. Why waste your time playing that last session?
Reading horse shit like this turns me into such a boomer. Even when players are misbehaving these days you’re supposed to coddle them and never question their right to a power fantasy, where absolutely nothing bad ever happens to them, they’re never challenged and they’re never tricked. It’s pathetic, and why the balance of DMs to players is worse than ever.
You absolutely ARE questioning their right to a power fantasy. The “hey, maybe turn down the murderhoboing” is the “are you sure” before you kick them from the table. I’m not going to coddle them and never question their right to be at the table, or their right to have their characters die satisfying deaths. I’m removing all power they have in the game in a single sentence.
Nobody said “hey, maybe turn down the murdurhoboing?”, they chose to trick the players into attacking a god.
The DM doesn’t need to trick the players into attacking if that’s exactly what is expected of them. This is no different from a trap in a dungeon. If the players’ first reaction to anything is killing and looting (and the game wasn’t about that from the get go), it’s a valid reminder that they better watch out for consequences.
You see how it’s a trick? You see the deception?
If you live in a high-crime area and put a shotgun trap behind your door, then you are guilty for the murder of anyone who dies trying to break into your house. Should they have tried to break into your house? No. Should you have killed them? Also no. You’re not in the right just because they’re in the wrong. It doesn’t work that way.
Why is throwing Bahamut at the players knowing they’ll pick a fight with him a better solution than just talking to them?
Just in case this wasn’t clear, we’re talking about a meme. There’s no “full context” behind it, it’s a quick setup for a laugh. You can’t expect to take the meme at face value, that the party became muderhobo out of nowhere and that bahamut also comes out of nowhere because the DM is a bitch.
In a real situation, the more likely thing to happen is that the many other things the DM threw to get the players back in line failed, so it’s time to bring the big guns. It’s likely that the group had a talk out of the game discussing their situation and their possible future. Likely being the keyword here because, again, you’re assuming that this comes out of nowhere, but there’s no “real” table being discussed
Because it gives the players an opportunity to acknowledge that in game.
TLDR - you’re missing the point because you’re assuming a lot of stuff that isn’t even hinted at anywhere.
You assumed my assumption, but it honestly doesn’t matter if it came out of nowhere or not. Step one is talking to the players like adults about the problem. Step two is removing a player from the game, possibly yourself. There is never enough buildup to justify introducing an OP enemy to guaranteed kill your players as a punishment. Even if there was, you should have left the game long before that point, and should leave the game now instead of firing that big gun.
Why do players need to acknowledge it in game? That’s not where the problem is. The problem is among the players, not the characters. You don’t solve OOC problems within the game.
I don’t think I’m the one assuming a lot of stuff and missing the point here.
2 assumptions here, one that “nobody said…” and also one that the DM “chose to trick the players”.
More importantly, there’s your implicit assumption that a chaotic murderhobo party facing bahamut in disguise can only be the result of “things going wrong”, that “someone” is making the experience bad for the DM. This is pretty clear from this bit:
And how you’re replying elsewhere: “if it’s bad, just leave”. To reach such conclusion you have to assume that:
Just because you cannot think of an escalation that leads to a god showing up in a game doesn’t mean that nobody else can. Just because you can only see this setup as “rock falls, everyone dies” doesn’t mean that everybody else will use it exactly for that.
What the hell is the meme you’re looking at? In the meme I see, the DM is annoyed by the current environment of murderhoboing and responds by introducing a Bahomet in a way where the players clearly don’t know who he is and haven’t met him before. The DM chose to add him, just like they chose every element of the campaign thus far and they chose to continue playing among murderhobos. The only reason Bahomet was included was as a punishment, and it’s fucking baffling you insist that’s not what’s happening.
I can think of several reasons to have a god show up in a game. I can only think of one reason to respond to the players being murderhobos by introducing a god in an innocent disguise and saying “try it, bitch”. What do you think is the point of the meme if not “the players are being murderhobos, so I’m going to punish them by making them pick a fight with a god”?
Yes, the party all snapped at the same time and started murder hoboing and it definitely wasn’t talked about before hand by the party or the dm.
Listen, it sounds like you’ve been traumatized by some passive aggressive dm. I cannot think of a reason you’re so passionate about this.
It really feels like you’d be a part of the “doms don’t need aftercare” crowd too.
One of the closer examples of this actually happening is a party was underneath an alchemist shop in the sewers which I said smelled of sulphur. The newest person to the party their first move down there was fireball. I literally said “are you sure?” While giving him the look. Anyways most people made their dex saves and it was a lesson in fuck around find out. They became a great player and meshed really well with the game. But saying something and doing something are two different things. I told them before this event I will reward them for being smart and punish for not being observant. You need this ability to do things like this in game in order to smoothly, without breaking the flow, push the players in the right direction.
You don’t have to be in that style of game, you also have the ability to ask the DM how they want to run the game.
There are games out there for any type of player and dm. If you think it’s the dm’s JOB to make you happy then I do not want to be a part of any game you’re in. This is a group game.
Holy fuck, are you not paying attention? It does not matter if it was sudden or not. If it got to the point that the DM was willing to twist the narrative to kill the entire party, they should have already left.
I haven’t been traumatised. Heck, I’ve barely ever been a player. I just don’t know why people are being so defensive of vindictive DMing. It’s deeply unhealthy. Doms do need aftercare, but they also shouldn’t go into their fun with spite on their mind.
Your example is NOT an example, because that player was not murderhoboing. You weren’t vindictively adding an element to the game to get him killed, you were organically reacting to their actions with details that had already been established. Your consequence made sense, and it made the game more fun for everyone involved.
It is a DM’s job to make sure everyone had fun at the end of the session, DM included. Technically, that’s everyone’s job, but the DM is the one with more authority. This doesn’t mean bad things can’t happen, but nobody should be outright miserable. If one person’s fun would detract from someone else’s fun, then either a frank conversation is needed or someone should leave to find that fun elsewhere.
When I’m a DM I reward people being clever or following through with hints I give them. I like having those little puzzles in the middle of a game.
If I am running a game where I kill a party it’s because they didn’t listen to anything and were basically cutting anything that I wanted to do out.
I don’t want to be in a dungeon crawler. Video games tend to do those better.
I don’t want to run a dungeon crawler. I could just set up a module for people to do.
I tell players before hand what I expect of a player. If they like it they play, if they don’t I’ll find another. It’s that simple.
I expect an amount of bullshittery, that can be fun. But I never enjoyed participating in a murder hobo session. If my game starts out fun, then goes murder hobo direction, I’ll get my fun.
I don’t know what y’all expected.
If you don’t want to play in the type of game the other players want to play in, you leave. That’s the same for regular players and the GM. If it’s just one or two people making it less fun for other people, you kick them. No need to keep playing with them so you can punish them in game. I never get far enough in the game to punish that kind of player, because they’re already gone.
Honestly, this runs on the same logic as murder hobos. You’re not having fun, so you decide to get your fun by ruining someone else’s.
If the DM leaves the players are dead anyway. Might as well do it with a bang.
Why? You’re not having fun playing that game. What you want to do won’t be fun for everyone else. You didn’t like the game to begin with, so there’s no point in giving it a satisfying conclusion. There are better things you could do, like setting up a game you’d prefer. Why waste your time playing that last session?
Generally the frustration builds in that session. You don’t decide it will be the last session beforehand.
Then why do you need to finish the session? Just quit on the spot and see what you can make of the rest of your evening.
A TPK is a pretty quick way to end the session.
And some people need to have their stories complete.
I’m the kinda guy that stopped watching a 12 episode series on episode 11. I don’t regret it. It wasn’t a story worth completing.
Reading horse shit like this turns me into such a boomer. Even when players are misbehaving these days you’re supposed to coddle them and never question their right to a power fantasy, where absolutely nothing bad ever happens to them, they’re never challenged and they’re never tricked. It’s pathetic, and why the balance of DMs to players is worse than ever.
Also, are you expected to continue to DM a game you’re not comfortable with? Fuck that noise.
You absolutely ARE questioning their right to a power fantasy. The “hey, maybe turn down the murderhoboing” is the “are you sure” before you kick them from the table. I’m not going to coddle them and never question their right to be at the table, or their right to have their characters die satisfying deaths. I’m removing all power they have in the game in a single sentence.
Definitely met some players who seem to think the DM is only there to keep players having a good time