DMs are too easy on their players
Mouseferatu
Hero
Mort said:
Ditto.
Well, they're not mutually exclusive. A game can be tough and fun. When I think back to those really punishing 2e mega-module boxed sets that were coming out every 15 minutes, I remember laughing a lot in between all the nail-biting. Its like humor in horror movies, its a stress reliever.Mallus said:
Gothmog
First Post
Mallus said:
Thats fine- whatever works for you- different people have different ideas of fun. I personally see 3E as akin to playing a video game in god mode in many cases. It takes a DM really trying to challenge PCs in 3E to seriously harm and kill them. Even DMs I would classify as killer DMs in other systems or 1e/2e had fairly pushover games in 3E IME.
sniffles
First Post
Remind me never to game with you, Edena. 
I don't think it's necessary to be under constant threat of death to feel challenged. But that's just me.
I agree with you about not necessarily giving everyone equal treasure, though. I don't have to have a cookie just because the guy across the table has a cookie.
I don't think it's necessary to be under constant threat of death to feel challenged. But that's just me.
I agree with you about not necessarily giving everyone equal treasure, though. I don't have to have a cookie just because the guy across the table has a cookie.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
I like being DM'ed "toughly". I don't blame the CR system much, however. An "equal CR" encounter is a pushover, but some DMs think most encounters should be pushovers. (Yawn.) I'd rather face fewer, tougher encounters.
I've seen DMs go easy in lots of campaign. Exalted was one of the worst offenders (in campaigns that I've been in), and Exalted doesn't have a CR system.
I've seen DMs go easy in lots of campaign. Exalted was one of the worst offenders (in campaigns that I've been in), and Exalted doesn't have a CR system.
I didn't suggest that tough and fun were mutually exclusive... only that a game can be non-lethal and still (thoroughly) enjoyable.phindar said:
I'm also not a big fan of the lethality=challenge meme. A game can totally remove character death and still be perceived as highly challenging. Check out shilsen's Story Hour and accompanying player commentary.
Gothmog
First Post
Mort said:
I saw a LOT more death in 1e/2e. Poisons and monster special abilities were often save or die, PC ACs weren't as formidable and they were hit more easily, and with the 3.5 revision, most save or die effects are gone. True, monsters are tougher in 3E, but PC are MUCH tougher than in previous versions of D&D, and their save bonuses are usually high enough that only a very unlucky roll will kill or incapacitate them. Maybe I've played with more cautious players than most people and we haven't seen as much death in 3E, but 1e/2e seemed like inherently much deadlier systems, even when good tactics were used.
Gothmog said:
Interesting, my experience has been completely diffferent.
With the prevalent save or die effects, high crits and high damage output of monsters, I've seen even "pushover encounters" be devastating.
For example - party of 5 17th level characters runs into 3 fire giants. Party completely underestimates what the fire giants can do and the Druid and the ranger end up dead. The ranger had made arangements and was braught back to life (but weakened) and the Druid staid dead (player rolled a new 15th level character).
As I stated above, I've found 3e (and 3.5) characters more fragile, not less.
You should really check out shilsen's Story Hour... Hell, you should check out the Story Hour in my sig that shilsen plays in. I'm nowhere near the same level of Rat-Bastard DM, and I'd be averaging a death every two or three sessions without the use of a liberal Action Point mechanic to prevent PC death.Gothmog said:
