Failure! - the Art of Loss.

Here's a hot take for you.

If a game ends with a TPK it doesn't necessarily mean...

• the game was bad.
• the encounter was 'too tough'.
• the GM was a bad GM.
• the players were bad players.
• that someone made a mistake.
• that the GM should have fudged.

The nature of gaming has changed significantly in the last fifty-five or so years, and the nature of the games themselves have changed with it. While you have those people who insist that D&D is a 'wargame' because of its roots, you'll see them in the same breath talk about how the story is important, and how GMs should fudge dice rolls or ignore results (or even monster blocks) for a good story.

I find it a touch hypocritical, but whatever.

It seems the expectation is that a 'good campaign' is one where the characters go through it, grow and evolve, have their dramatic moments, and typically see the story to the end -- they face the bad guy, there's a conclusion, plots wrap up, etc.

Me? I see that as a nice ideal. I don't see it as even remotely a sure thing.

It isn't that that's the wrong way to play, but the mechanics these days - for most games - support that style of play. And then there's games that don't, but the group does it anyway.

Consider.
BECM:  0 hit points, dead.  Save-or-Die effects and Instant Death effects. Level Drain.

5e D&D: 0 hit points, you get three saving throws. No instant-death or save-or-die (99% of the time). Maximum HP loss (recovered with rest or restoration) rather than Level loss.

Someone who came in with BECM is going to have a very different view of gaming compared to someone who cut their teeth with 5e. Those coming in later are more inclined to want to see the story / campaign play out, and expect the game to cater to that expectation.

And again, they're not necessarily wrong to expect that. To them, when you sit down you're telling a story - like you might see in a heroic novel or movie. Where the group faces critical threats, but always get by and there's a critical, dramatic climax near the end.

Not the kind of game I'm used to.

I'm more looking at games as a 'parallel world' I get to explore. There's no grand design, no major 'plot' or 'story'. The world doesn't function that way.

Rather, the world exists. The characters exist. How do they interact with the world? What are their goals and interests? Where do they want to go?

And, ultimately, do they make it?

A guy I know ran a Palladium Fantasy campaign.  The PCs were recruited by a Noble Paladin (NPC) of Significant Level, and were heading off to clear out some location.  They got ambushed by goblins.
One dropped from a tree onto the Paladin - natural 20.  Death Blow.
The Paladin died in an instant, sending the PC party into a panic. Nobody saw that coming, including the GM. It completely derailed the plot as it was.

I ran an adventure for Levels 5-8 or so, for a 36th level Cavalier-Paladin and a Bard of about 5th level.  They wound up in a chamber with stirges.  The cavalier went forward. The stirge rolled a critical hit and killed the cavalier instantly. The bard escaped with her life and left the region.

These are stories that get traded around because they're unexpected. They derail the idea of 'the heroes make it to the bad guy and face off'. Just like the story of a young archer facing a demon lord and putting an arrow through the thing's head to end the fight immediately, rather than having a climactic battle.

Does the plot derail? Definitely.
Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily.

My default when coming into a game is 'we play by the mechanics', and 'the mechanics reflect what is possible in the setting'. It is not 'we're here for the story, and if the mechanics get in the way, then we ignore them'.

You want that, I'd like to know at Session 0, so I can adjust my expectations and decide if that's the game I want to play.

Because here's the thing - when there's a story / plot / arc, the campaign tends to end when that's done. And I'm not interested in that - I would much rather see where the world goes, and where my character's place in that world is - even if it means seeing my character get cut down mid-way or even in the beginning.

I'm there to explore the world, not explore the story. The story is the character's actions in the world, and how the world responds.  It isn't a plot that's laid out for the group to discover and work their way through.

Because life doesn't necessarily work that way - books and movies do. And I'm in it for the 'parallel life in a parallel world' than working on a book or film.

And, to bring this around... that sometimes means there's a TPK.
And that's okay.

Sure, a number of discussions have been said about 'the PCs wake up captured' or 'the PCs wake up in the temple having been rescued' or whatever. If this is how things were discussed in Session 0, or the mechanics reflect that, then sure. But I don't feel it should be a consistent thing.

Sometimes, it's 'alright, damn.  New characters.' The world isn't necessarily nice, and it's not necessarily a given you're going to make it to the end.

Maybe the next party will be a bit more careful.

Neither way to play is wrong, mind.
But the way I get into games ... they seem less and less common, and I feel we're missing something by avoiding those kind of things.  The idea that 'yes, you can lose. And it's okay to lose.'