I think I figured out 4th ed

[TheAuldGrump]

do you find it easier to run low level 3e or lower games?
because I simply said it was more difficult, not impossible. From a DM point of view I found that you have to pull your punches so to speak in the early levels, mostly ( but not entirely) due to a lack of hp.

That may be the crux of the matter right there - I don't pull my punches. So there is the point of disagreement.

If the PCs are not willing to retreat, regroup, and rethink then I have no problems with them dying.

It is, in point of fact, the major reason that I prefer lower levels, both as a player and a GM - victory means more when it is hard won.

That said - I very seldom have more than one TPK in a campaign, and most often not even that - players can learn that a first level PC waking a sleeping Wyrm is not long for the world, and to walk without rhythm.

The Auld Grump

 

[TheUltramark]

well certainly to each their own

I've been the fighter waiting for the theif and mage to make new characters - and end up watching the game or whatever non-role-playing task can be found to do. - just my point of view

 

[TheAuldGrump]

well certainly to each their own

I've been the fighter waiting for the theif and mage to make new characters - and end up watching the game or whatever non-role-playing task can be found to do. - just my point of view

Yeah, but you are changing the balance, then complaining that the balance is off. So, ummm, yeah - maybe that was your problem? Play it straight, and let the players make their own mistakes, don't blame the system for something that you changed.

If there is an available NPC then let the player of the dead PC take the NPC over, or let them roll for the bad guys. You can keep the player busy without compromising your game.

But don't complain about having to pull punches, because, really, you don't need to. A first level party can handle a CR 1 or 2 pretty well without needing to cheat.

While I let the dice fall as they may, and don't pull punches, my players are generally savvy enough to not get their characters killed - I would rather have the players learn early that death can happen than spend the rest of the campaign cheating to keep them alive because they have been rewarded for bad habits.

Generating a new first or second level PC is a lot easier than having to roll a new twelfth level because they never learned that sometimes running away is the best choice.

The Auld Grump

 

[TheUltramark]

Yeah, but you are changing the balance, then complaining that the balance is off. So, ummm, yeah - maybe that was your problem? Play it straight, and let the players make their own mistakes, don't blame the system for something that you changed.

If there is an available NPC then let the player of the dead PC take the NPC over, or let them roll for the bad guys. You can keep the player busy without compromising your game.

But don't complain about having to pull punches, because, really, you don't need to. A first level party can handle a CR 1 or 2 pretty well without needing to cheat.

While I let the dice fall as they may, and don't pull punches, my players are generally savvy enough to not get their characters killed - I would rather have the players learn early that death can happen than spend the rest of the campaign cheating to keep them alive because they have been rewarded for bad habits.

Generating a new first or second level PC is a lot easier than having to roll a new twelfth level because they never learned that sometimes running away is the best choice.

The Auld Grump

I don't recall changing any balance. All I said was plenty of times I have been in 1st level games, as a fighter, and early on the wizard gets hit one time and he is dead, then thief takes a stiff shot and down he goes, and before I (the fighter) can kill the bad guys, half the party is dead, and the flow of the game grinds to a hault.

I agree with your post though, and you make some very valid points, especially when you say you have to keep the players aware that there is the threat of death, and that running IS an option.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't recall changing any balance. All I said was plenty of times I have been in 1st level games, as a fighter, and early on the wizard gets hit one time and he is dead, then thief takes a stiff shot and down he goes, and before I (the fighter) can kill the bad guys, half the party is dead, and the flow of the game grinds to a hault.

I agree with your post though, and you make some very valid points, especially when you say you have to keep the players aware that there is the threat of death, and that running IS an option.

Ah- I apologize. I thought that you were the one running the game.

That... makes a big difference.

It may be that your GM did a poor job of balancing things, or that your group did not cooperate well, or that your dice hate you.... (My own dice hate everyone. Folks have learned not to borrow my dice, not because I will snarl and bite in order to stop them, but because I will smile and let them.... ) Too many variables at that point.

It takes changing the balance out of your control, so, again, I apologize. In your instance it could have been a poorly balanced low level scenario. It feels different when you are always the one running the game. The few times that I have played, instead of running, balance has not seemed off, but since I am the one who trained the people running the game... it is likely that they remembered to read the DMG.

The balance is there, in 3.X, but if the GM doesn't try for it then that won't matter.

4e looks to be much more modular, which is one of the things that I dislike about it - but it does make balancing an encounter much easier.

The Auld Grump