Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Demons, Devils, or Other?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 5182634" data-attributes="member: 20741"><p>I always preferred Devils back-in-the-day and that preference has continued over the years. Devils have a sense of menace behind them because of the organization and sense of purpose that they bring to the encounter.</p><p></p><p>There is also a sense from the players that Devils are not "sort of" evil. They are, literally, evil incarnate. There is nothing worse -- except an Archdevil. And all of them play for keeps.</p><p></p><p>I think it is also fair to say that as a DM, I never feel that I am crossing the line when playing a devil in an encounter in a manner which optomizes its attacks or causes it to do something ... devilishly clever.</p><p></p><p>For most encounters (most, not all) that are played during a typical game session, there is a certain social contract that the DM is not expected to go *all out* against the players without execeptionally good reason. Whether this "gentlemen's agreement" is to "simulate" the reduced intelligence of the foe or for some other contrived reason is arguable. But whatever the source of the understanding, it's generally expected by players that there is a line that is seldom crossed. I don't mean to say that the default play method is "hold back." But there is a difference, in my mind, between playing the foe reasonably -- and playing him as <strong><em><span style="color: Orange">diabolically nasty</span> </em></strong>as one can. Because once crossed, to go all out against the players can transform the game session into a game of DM vs. the Players. </p><p></p><p>Usually this is unhealthy. However, when the context allows it and everyone involved understands that the gloves are absolutely off and every possible advantage will be pressed, the game takes on a dangerous edge.</p><p></p><p>Some encounters, by their very nature, demand this sort of "gloves are off" approach. For me and the people I play with, Devils are the foes where I have always felt that the "social contract" in the game REQUIRES that the DM not hold back. </p><p></p><p>Everybody at the table understands and EXPECTS that the devil(s) will use every resource that it has to prevail -- as cunningly as possible, too. </p><p></p><p>As a consequence, my players have always understood that devils are incredibly dangerous and will be played for keeps. The tension level always rises as a result. There is a palpable ... respect ... that descends during any combat when there is, literally, devilry afoot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Steel_Wind, post: 5182634, member: 20741"] I always preferred Devils back-in-the-day and that preference has continued over the years. Devils have a sense of menace behind them because of the organization and sense of purpose that they bring to the encounter. There is also a sense from the players that Devils are not "sort of" evil. They are, literally, evil incarnate. There is nothing worse -- except an Archdevil. And all of them play for keeps. I think it is also fair to say that as a DM, I never feel that I am crossing the line when playing a devil in an encounter in a manner which optomizes its attacks or causes it to do something ... devilishly clever. For most encounters (most, not all) that are played during a typical game session, there is a certain social contract that the DM is not expected to go *all out* against the players without execeptionally good reason. Whether this "gentlemen's agreement" is to "simulate" the reduced intelligence of the foe or for some other contrived reason is arguable. But whatever the source of the understanding, it's generally expected by players that there is a line that is seldom crossed. I don't mean to say that the default play method is "hold back." But there is a difference, in my mind, between playing the foe reasonably -- and playing him as [B][I][COLOR=Orange]diabolically nasty[/COLOR] [/I][/B]as one can. Because once crossed, to go all out against the players can transform the game session into a game of DM vs. the Players. Usually this is unhealthy. However, when the context allows it and everyone involved understands that the gloves are absolutely off and every possible advantage will be pressed, the game takes on a dangerous edge. Some encounters, by their very nature, demand this sort of "gloves are off" approach. For me and the people I play with, Devils are the foes where I have always felt that the "social contract" in the game REQUIRES that the DM not hold back. Everybody at the table understands and EXPECTS that the devil(s) will use every resource that it has to prevail -- as cunningly as possible, too. As a consequence, my players have always understood that devils are incredibly dangerous and will be played for keeps. The tension level always rises as a result. There is a palpable ... respect ... that descends during any combat when there is, literally, devilry afoot. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Demons, Devils, or Other?
Top