S
Sunseeker
Guest
Generally agree. Secret doors lead to shortcuts but also to "special" areas of my dungeons that contain unique treasures, but by that token, unique treasuees often have unique monsters guarding them.
D&D 5E The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"
Generally agree. Secret doors lead to shortcuts but also to "special" areas of my dungeons that contain unique treasures, but by that token, unique treasuees often have unique monsters guarding them.
Satyrn
First Post
I really had no point, other than to say "When determining if the PCs could possibly escape, looking at the stats alone cannot determine that."
I wasn't debating anything.
By the way, you're right that I missed the point of your post - evidenced by you saying I basically agreed with you. You've also said that others basically agree with you, too, yet we keep arguing with you. You know why?
It looked to us like your point was "The DM is to blame for TPKs. Period."
But I see you've clarified that you meant "The DM who railroads his players into a TPK is to blame."
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Goodness, is that what those walls of words resolve to? I'll admit I failed to grasp that every time. That i definitely agree with.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
In open air, perhaps; but we're in a forest here. If the dragon tries to fly through the trees it's not going to get very far, and if it flies above the trees it'll have a harder time finding the PCs - particularly if they do the smart thing and scatter then take cover.
There's a huge difference - and one I think you fail to recognize most of the time - between that...pemerton said:
...and this. The PCs meet a massive dragon, obviously beyond their pay grade - yet while their only reasonable option is to flee they still have a choice in the matter; and who says PCs are ever going to do the reasonable thing?
"The party met a dragon and ran away" might be what appears next day in the game log for that session, but that's merely a narrative summary of the choices made at the time if in fact that's how it went. It could just as easily have ended up reading "The party met a dragon, Alastair made himself a noisy distraction to allow the party to sneak away, Alastair killed" or "The party met a dragon, talked with it, and were allowed to leave with their lives after each giving up a magic item" - you'll never know if you don't play it out.
The choice factor can make for some great RPGing. Does someone decide to be a self-secrificing hero and distract the dragon while the others flee? Does the whole party try to fight the dragon anyway, even though the odds are stacked against them? If the party flees, do they (or can they?) stay together and-or work together; or do they scatter, each hoping the dragon goes for someone else? Do they try talking to and reasoning with the dragon instead of fighting or fleeing?
Or - as happened in my game once - do they do all three at the same time without planning to; where one character talks to the dragon in hopes of befriending it (after telling the party not to attack), another two sneak up and attack it anyway using the talker as a distraction, while the rest of the party takes cover?
Lanefan
Satyrn
First Post
Aye. He kinda says exactly that in the post I replied to, and in his reply to the dragon in the forest illustrated post, you can see him talking about DM railroading and poor telegraphing.
I think we all agree with him. What he meant to say.
ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
... So are not so good with word thingys.... er.. Yep.
So for some reason when I say the same thing and use the words "GM railroading" this is a thing and everyone knows what I am talking about. Part of the reason my posts are so long is for some reason I did not think of that term until a few post ago.. I don't know.. my mind is a weird thing. Makes me wordy. But there is another reason....
I was also trying to illustrate that the GM can railroad players in to broad ways.
1. Directly where the GM gives them one choice that doesn't really matter: "you are in a admatine room, no air holes, you see a magic rune on the roof that denotes an anti magic room, there is nothing in the room except a leaver. what do you do?" <players pull the lever> "the room is electrocuted you are all roasted from the inside out no saves, no death saves since your all on metal and can't escape the effect and its continual so you instantly have 3 failed back to back death saves."
2. Indirect where the GM thinks he is giving the player a choice but the Players don't actually have one or don't believe that have one: "you wake up on a cold metal floor, the walls are stone and bear except a single copper door, what do you do?" <players check for traps> gm says you feel a strange energy on the door an as you approach you feel the hair on your arms stand up. Players rightly guess --- copper door, electricity, metal floor-- Players talk about it and decide to stand on their packs and attempt for one of the players pull the door open with a rope. The player roles to attempt, fails, everyone is electrocuted for half damage since they are on their packs, player tries again and succeeds but still completes the circuit and they are all electrocuted a second time and fall unconscious. The GM roles to see if the rope has burned away or is still completing the circuit roll if 10 or less, it is... players immediately fail 2 death saves, GM roles again DC5 or less since the robe is burning away, it still is.. all players are dead.
In 2 the GM may believe that he gave the players a chance since their planning gave them 2 attempts, depending on the group this could be an easy challenge. The GM may believe that if anyone of them had taken mage hand, telekinesis, or some other spell that let them touch it with magic instead of completing the circuit or teleport out, they could have used that and been fine (which a quick look at there character sheets would reveal they had not). Also, he required a single player to make a dex check to lasso a handle DC 15 and a constitution check DC 15 to pull the handle open but again a quick check of the players sheets would reveal that all his players had used ether dex or con as their dump stats melee taking strength instead of dex and casters dumping dex for constitution for better concentration rolls. This means that they not only had 2 chances to fail but one of them being at a negative. As a result the GM made the world put the players in a room with a life and death challenge made as part of the world with no respect to any players then proceeded to watch them "kill themselves". If the characters had a player with a spell to resolve the issue its and easy problem so the GM might say "it was the players choose to not pick those spells" and "the players choice to not have any dex and constitution player characters" "he just made a trap making if for them would be like cheating". In this case I still say the GM killed the players because they had no choice about entering the room, they just woke up there and the trap was unintentionally designed in such a way that it was very unlikely for these players to survive, there was no real player agency just luck. It's a false choice because the GM can say "you could have tried another way" but It might be they didn't have any other gear that would help. If the GM had looked through there gear, spells, and character stats and found a way out... sure. Then its players over site, if the GM does not it is possible for him to accidentally railroad players to their death. Then if he says "what you can do anything you want, you just did the wrong thing" it falls short of the truth because no they can't. They can only do what the GM lets them do. GM's give agency to players. If a GM world builds independent of his players with no knowledge of there characters skill, spells, and abilities he will make challenges he intends to be hard that they will walk through effortlessly (where a lot of threads about D&D 5e being on easy mode come from I think) and he will indirectly remove player agency and railroad them from time to time until he kills them. Giving players forewarning and ensuring that they have free agency to actually detriment their fate is important in any RPG. When you start pushing players along as a group and railroading them directly or indirectly. At that point your no longer playing together, the GM is just telling a story until the players characters die. If a single player loses free agency that is fine because the group can still continue there story to save them... or not and that player can make make a new character... because free agency... but players are still controlling their story. That's Why I keep saying killing a player or 2 is ok... but a TPK is usually a really good sign of railroading by the GM, unless the GM gave free agency and foreshadowing up to the TPK and that was the fate they chose.
... That is my opinion, anyway. I am sure some people will attack the scenario and not the point am aiming at. I am not good at abstract scenario examples and I usually try to forget the "bad" gaming moments so while I remember character deaths, I can't usually recall all the details on top of not being able to respond to my GMs side of those events so they would be incomplete at best.
Mostly I just want to warn GMs to watch themselves first when "calling CRs too low", "The game is on easy mode", "balance is all off because of the players are power-gaming min/maxers" or the other side of the same coin... "I make my worlds brutal so my players know death is real but I don't make it for them I just make it and is what it is. its really on them if they die", "I don't change my fights when a player doesn't make a session or if they rolled it as a random encounter, its on the players to deal with what ever comes at them", "My challenges are hard in fact I don't know if if any of my players could even meet the DCs with a 20 unless I allow critical success on skill tests, but hay its just the world we agreed to as a group. If this DC is just a little higher than the traps they beat last session with a 19 that is just the way it is" Usually, the problems you get from this kind of play can be at least mitigated with some awareness of the actual player characters instead of just their levels for the CR tables and difficulty tables. The more I have played as GM and a player at the same time the more I see GMs saying these things and realize a lot of hate for "balance" from both sides is because the GM just don't want to take the time to look at their player characters and build for them to make it harder with the same CR battles and/or ensure they are not telling a story by themselves instead of playing a game together. Putting a trap in front of your players that they lack the skill to even possibly meat or exceed in order to even detect it is not "independent world building" it is railroading players and story telling how a player(s) died to a trap. Again ... That is my opinion, anyway.
... sorry for the wall of words... I try to keep it short but fail oh so horribly ...
So for some reason when I say the same thing and use the words "GM railroading" this is a thing and everyone knows what I am talking about. Part of the reason my posts are so long is for some reason I did not think of that term until a few post ago.. I don't know.. my mind is a weird thing. Makes me wordy. But there is another reason....
I was also trying to illustrate that the GM can railroad players in to broad ways.
1. Directly where the GM gives them one choice that doesn't really matter: "you are in a admatine room, no air holes, you see a magic rune on the roof that denotes an anti magic room, there is nothing in the room except a leaver. what do you do?" <players pull the lever> "the room is electrocuted you are all roasted from the inside out no saves, no death saves since your all on metal and can't escape the effect and its continual so you instantly have 3 failed back to back death saves."
2. Indirect where the GM thinks he is giving the player a choice but the Players don't actually have one or don't believe that have one: "you wake up on a cold metal floor, the walls are stone and bear except a single copper door, what do you do?" <players check for traps> gm says you feel a strange energy on the door an as you approach you feel the hair on your arms stand up. Players rightly guess --- copper door, electricity, metal floor-- Players talk about it and decide to stand on their packs and attempt for one of the players pull the door open with a rope. The player roles to attempt, fails, everyone is electrocuted for half damage since they are on their packs, player tries again and succeeds but still completes the circuit and they are all electrocuted a second time and fall unconscious. The GM roles to see if the rope has burned away or is still completing the circuit roll if 10 or less, it is... players immediately fail 2 death saves, GM roles again DC5 or less since the robe is burning away, it still is.. all players are dead.
In 2 the GM may believe that he gave the players a chance since their planning gave them 2 attempts, depending on the group this could be an easy challenge. The GM may believe that if anyone of them had taken mage hand, telekinesis, or some other spell that let them touch it with magic instead of completing the circuit or teleport out, they could have used that and been fine (which a quick look at there character sheets would reveal they had not). Also, he required a single player to make a dex check to lasso a handle DC 15 and a constitution check DC 15 to pull the handle open but again a quick check of the players sheets would reveal that all his players had used ether dex or con as their dump stats melee taking strength instead of dex and casters dumping dex for constitution for better concentration rolls. This means that they not only had 2 chances to fail but one of them being at a negative. As a result the GM made the world put the players in a room with a life and death challenge made as part of the world with no respect to any players then proceeded to watch them "kill themselves". If the characters had a player with a spell to resolve the issue its and easy problem so the GM might say "it was the players choose to not pick those spells" and "the players choice to not have any dex and constitution player characters" "he just made a trap making if for them would be like cheating". In this case I still say the GM killed the players because they had no choice about entering the room, they just woke up there and the trap was unintentionally designed in such a way that it was very unlikely for these players to survive, there was no real player agency just luck. It's a false choice because the GM can say "you could have tried another way" but It might be they didn't have any other gear that would help. If the GM had looked through there gear, spells, and character stats and found a way out... sure. Then its players over site, if the GM does not it is possible for him to accidentally railroad players to their death. Then if he says "what you can do anything you want, you just did the wrong thing" it falls short of the truth because no they can't. They can only do what the GM lets them do. GM's give agency to players. If a GM world builds independent of his players with no knowledge of there characters skill, spells, and abilities he will make challenges he intends to be hard that they will walk through effortlessly (where a lot of threads about D&D 5e being on easy mode come from I think) and he will indirectly remove player agency and railroad them from time to time until he kills them. Giving players forewarning and ensuring that they have free agency to actually detriment their fate is important in any RPG. When you start pushing players along as a group and railroading them directly or indirectly. At that point your no longer playing together, the GM is just telling a story until the players characters die. If a single player loses free agency that is fine because the group can still continue there story to save them... or not and that player can make make a new character... because free agency... but players are still controlling their story. That's Why I keep saying killing a player or 2 is ok... but a TPK is usually a really good sign of railroading by the GM, unless the GM gave free agency and foreshadowing up to the TPK and that was the fate they chose.
... That is my opinion, anyway. I am sure some people will attack the scenario and not the point am aiming at. I am not good at abstract scenario examples and I usually try to forget the "bad" gaming moments so while I remember character deaths, I can't usually recall all the details on top of not being able to respond to my GMs side of those events so they would be incomplete at best.
Mostly I just want to warn GMs to watch themselves first when "calling CRs too low", "The game is on easy mode", "balance is all off because of the players are power-gaming min/maxers" or the other side of the same coin... "I make my worlds brutal so my players know death is real but I don't make it for them I just make it and is what it is. its really on them if they die", "I don't change my fights when a player doesn't make a session or if they rolled it as a random encounter, its on the players to deal with what ever comes at them", "My challenges are hard in fact I don't know if if any of my players could even meet the DCs with a 20 unless I allow critical success on skill tests, but hay its just the world we agreed to as a group. If this DC is just a little higher than the traps they beat last session with a 19 that is just the way it is" Usually, the problems you get from this kind of play can be at least mitigated with some awareness of the actual player characters instead of just their levels for the CR tables and difficulty tables. The more I have played as GM and a player at the same time the more I see GMs saying these things and realize a lot of hate for "balance" from both sides is because the GM just don't want to take the time to look at their player characters and build for them to make it harder with the same CR battles and/or ensure they are not telling a story by themselves instead of playing a game together. Putting a trap in front of your players that they lack the skill to even possibly meat or exceed in order to even detect it is not "independent world building" it is railroading players and story telling how a player(s) died to a trap. Again ... That is my opinion, anyway.
... sorry for the wall of words... I try to keep it short but fail oh so horribly ...
Satyrn
First Post
I think we all agree on that, too.
The initial blowback you got, you got because you told us that a TPK is always the DM's fault.
It strikes some of as a weird thought because we can look back at our our experience as players and say our own decisions led to the TPK, that we are to blame for it, not the DM.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
I'm just gonna pop my head in here for a quick depositing of my 2¢.
[MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION] : I think what's going on is most definitely a matter of DM and Player "style" or "preferred play". In the closest post above this, you wrote:
"The more I have played as GM and a player at the same time the more I see GMs saying these things and realize a lot of hate for "balance" from both sides is because the GM just don't want to take the time to look at their player characters and build for them to make it harder with the same CR battles and/or ensure they are not telling a story by themselves instead of playing a game together. Putting a trap in front of your players that they lack the skill to even possibly meat or exceed in order to even detect it is not "independent world building" it is railroading players and story telling how a player(s) died to a trap. Again ... That is my opinion, anyway."
That right there. I think that is the schism you and some other posters on here are getting hung up on. What that paragraph says, to me, is "a DM needs to make stuff fair for the PC's". The PROBLEM comes when we look at the word "fair".
To you, [MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION], "fair" means "challenges the PC's have a chance of overcoming based on their numbers/abilities/mechanics". A DC 20 trap that half the PC's can make on a 14+ will seem "fair". A situation where being able to speak Kuo-Toa ("aquatic" I guess) will seem "fair" if at least one or two PC's in the group can speak it. But the same thing, DC20 and speaking Aquatic, where none of the PC's can do it at all, or would need to roll 18+, would seem "unfair" to you.
To me (and some others?), "fair" means "all things considered in campaign world terms, a level playing field for anyone, pursuant to the 'life choices' the PC or NPC made while growing up in said campaign world". This you mentioned in your second paragraph, about how a DM just makes stuff "independent of the PC's". In particular "I don't change my fights when a player doesn't make a session or if they rolled it as a random encounter, its on the players to deal with what ever comes at them", "My challenges are hard in fact I don't know if if any of my players could even meet the DCs with a 20 unless I allow critical success on skill tests, but hay its just the world we agreed to as a group. If this DC is just a little higher than the traps they beat last session with a 19 that is just the way it is". This, to many DM's (and players!) of a more "old skool" bent (ones like me who learned DM'ing back in 1981, +/- a year or two) this is the very definition of what a "fair" campaign is like.
When a player encounters a raging river and his character needs to make a DC 16 Athletics test to cross without drowning...and then, 3 months later with all new PC's, the player encounters that same raging river and his new character needs to make a DC 20 Athletics test to cross without drowning. Well, that is not "fair". What this does is the exact opposite, IMNSHO, of what you are claiming it does. You claim it takes away player agency when a PC can't succeed (or has very little chance) when a DM has a DC 20 test for Situation A...regardless of the PC's capabilities and skills. I would submit that by changing what skills are needed for something, or what DC some task is, or what ability/spell can overcome it, based on the players characters, that takes away player agency. It does that because it seems to not matter what the player chooses for his PC; because the DM will never put that PC in an "unwinable" situation. In short, the player and his PC's chance of success is based on what the DM feels it should be...not on what the player chose for his PC.
All in all, the bottom line is simple: You and your players definition of "fair" and what me (and some others) is are more or less diametrically opposed. Neither is "the right way". Both are "the right way"...but for different groups.
PS: Yes, I'm what you...and others...and even myself...could be termed a "killer DM". I have MOUNDS of dead PC's at my feet...probably well over a thousand (been DM'ing since '81). And that's just counting D&D (all editions)! Add in other games and, well, yeah...I'd probably be brought up on crimes against humanity/demihumanity/nonhumanity in a second! My players? Yes. I typically have players stay with me for decades. I have two players who've been with me for about 2 decades now. My late wife was with me for almost 3 decades. One player who just moved down south was with me for just over 3 decades. Many other players have played for years at a time over the span of 3 decades. So I must be doing something right.
PPS: I also have a handful of my players PC's who are, bar none, HEROES and HEROINES in every sense of the word. They are mid to high level (6th to high teens...even three that hit 20th, 20th, and 22nd), over the nigh-on 4 decades I've been at this RPG thing. The players WORKED for those levels! They survived by clever play, dogged determination, and excellent group cooperation. They've downed the Slavers, taken out a demi-god on her home plane, saved entire countries from threats from beneath the earth, removed demon worshipers from the highest levels of government who were bent on sacrificing the entire population, and a myriad of other epic successes. So when we see "Elminster", "Drizz't", and many other FR (the biggest offender) so-called 'heroes'...we chuckle. They're cute and all, but they were created that way and had their 'stories' pre-planned and rigged in their favour. At least many (all?) of the high level major NPC's in Greyhawk were all PC's in Gary's campaign and THEY survived. And all of my players PC's? FAR more impressive when you know what they had to go through to get there! (re: surviving in a supposedly "unfair" world run by a killer DM... Sorry...couldn't resist!).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I'm just gonna pop my head in here for a quick depositing of my 2¢.
[MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION] : I think what's going on is most definitely a matter of DM and Player "style" or "preferred play". In the closest post above this, you wrote:
"The more I have played as GM and a player at the same time the more I see GMs saying these things and realize a lot of hate for "balance" from both sides is because the GM just don't want to take the time to look at their player characters and build for them to make it harder with the same CR battles and/or ensure they are not telling a story by themselves instead of playing a game together. Putting a trap in front of your players that they lack the skill to even possibly meat or exceed in order to even detect it is not "independent world building" it is railroading players and story telling how a player(s) died to a trap. Again ... That is my opinion, anyway."
That right there. I think that is the schism you and some other posters on here are getting hung up on. What that paragraph says, to me, is "a DM needs to make stuff fair for the PC's". The PROBLEM comes when we look at the word "fair".
To you, [MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION], "fair" means "challenges the PC's have a chance of overcoming based on their numbers/abilities/mechanics". A DC 20 trap that half the PC's can make on a 14+ will seem "fair". A situation where being able to speak Kuo-Toa ("aquatic" I guess) will seem "fair" if at least one or two PC's in the group can speak it. But the same thing, DC20 and speaking Aquatic, where none of the PC's can do it at all, or would need to roll 18+, would seem "unfair" to you.
To me (and some others?), "fair" means "all things considered in campaign world terms, a level playing field for anyone, pursuant to the 'life choices' the PC or NPC made while growing up in said campaign world". This you mentioned in your second paragraph, about how a DM just makes stuff "independent of the PC's". In particular "I don't change my fights when a player doesn't make a session or if they rolled it as a random encounter, its on the players to deal with what ever comes at them", "My challenges are hard in fact I don't know if if any of my players could even meet the DCs with a 20 unless I allow critical success on skill tests, but hay its just the world we agreed to as a group. If this DC is just a little higher than the traps they beat last session with a 19 that is just the way it is". This, to many DM's (and players!) of a more "old skool" bent (ones like me who learned DM'ing back in 1981, +/- a year or two) this is the very definition of what a "fair" campaign is like.
When a player encounters a raging river and his character needs to make a DC 16 Athletics test to cross without drowning...and then, 3 months later with all new PC's, the player encounters that same raging river and his new character needs to make a DC 20 Athletics test to cross without drowning. Well, that is not "fair". What this does is the exact opposite, IMNSHO, of what you are claiming it does. You claim it takes away player agency when a PC can't succeed (or has very little chance) when a DM has a DC 20 test for Situation A...regardless of the PC's capabilities and skills. I would submit that by changing what skills are needed for something, or what DC some task is, or what ability/spell can overcome it, based on the players characters, that takes away player agency. It does that because it seems to not matter what the player chooses for his PC; because the DM will never put that PC in an "unwinable" situation. In short, the player and his PC's chance of success is based on what the DM feels it should be...not on what the player chose for his PC.
All in all, the bottom line is simple: You and your players definition of "fair" and what me (and some others) is are more or less diametrically opposed. Neither is "the right way". Both are "the right way"...but for different groups.
PS: Yes, I'm what you...and others...and even myself...could be termed a "killer DM". I have MOUNDS of dead PC's at my feet...probably well over a thousand (been DM'ing since '81). And that's just counting D&D (all editions)! Add in other games and, well, yeah...I'd probably be brought up on crimes against humanity/demihumanity/nonhumanity in a second!
My players? Yes. I typically have players stay with me for decades. I have two players who've been with me for about 2 decades now. My late wife was with me for almost 3 decades. One player who just moved down south was with me for just over 3 decades. Many other players have played for years at a time over the span of 3 decades. So I must be doing something right. PPS: I also have a handful of my players PC's who are, bar none, HEROES and HEROINES in every sense of the word. They are mid to high level (6th to high teens...even three that hit 20th, 20th, and 22nd), over the nigh-on 4 decades I've been at this RPG thing. The players WORKED for those levels! They survived by clever play, dogged determination, and excellent group cooperation. They've downed the Slavers, taken out a demi-god on her home plane, saved entire countries from threats from beneath the earth, removed demon worshipers from the highest levels of government who were bent on sacrificing the entire population, and a myriad of other epic successes. So when we see "Elminster", "Drizz't", and many other FR (the biggest offender) so-called 'heroes'...we chuckle. They're cute and all, but they were created that way and had their 'stories' pre-planned and rigged in their favour. At least many (all?) of the high level major NPC's in Greyhawk were all PC's in Gary's campaign and THEY survived. And all of my players PC's? FAR more impressive when you know what they had to go through to get there! (re: surviving in a supposedly "unfair" world run by a killer DM...
Sorry...couldn't resist!).^_^
Paul L. Ming
ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
So this is the best description in argument I have seen.
I see some common ground here I have been playing since about 1992, when I was younger I didn't know anyone playing and mostly it just was not a something I knew about. We started 3rd edition.
So I get what your saying about a river still being a river. I agree with that 100%. I may even start keeping an excel or something common DCs but I would also argue that the same river could change strength with the rain so there is no reason it would always be DC16 just that keeping it as a base for a starting place and looking at it from a story perspective of what is happening and altering it makes since. That said if DC16 is a raging river it already has a good success fail rate and I have 0 contention with you or me have 16DC for a river since even a player with a -1 strength modifier could still roll 17-20 and make it. Also, being sweapt down river is not instant death. There are multiple options there. They could get a boat. If as a GM did something to give them fatigue (-5) and forced them to cross the river now by swimming or die and the whole group has casters with through away strength. I would just argue that the river was lower than last time due to less rain on the mountains and as result the river is calmer with a DC13. If your still running this group with DC16 or drown but they need to get across or die... then they are pretty SOL with basically a -6. Not that they couldn't roll it since disadvantage is not a guarantee -5 but at this point your making the whole campaign about how they all dropped strength and died from it. Alternatively to lowering the DC you could give them a folding boat so that the river DC is the same but your adjustment is just the cause of having a boat.
If we invert your example and you said the river was a DC21-25 and your group of all new PC's had 8 or 10 STR and don't have athletics they literally have no chance of crossing the river. If your story is pushing them across now with out time to find a solution they just drown or die to what is coming. I agree "fair" is subjective and you make a good point about removing constancy taking away player otpions which I totally agree with but at the same time don't we expect characters to also take on greater challenges while we still grant them free agency? So sure if they go to the same river they passed a 100 times as levels 1-5 I would expect to keep it the same or close to it. At the same time when I would expect them to go to darker, scarier, more extreme places which I would build up with higher DCs. I would however make sure my building curve for the place I sent them was withing the bounds of there capabilities so that I am not railroading them to their deaths. That doesn't mean the old river should get any harder or that if the group changes and they go back to those harsher environments I would keep the same DC if I know the new group doesn't have the skills to compete with DC21-30 on a task.
This is my opinion and I can see merit to what you are saying, I just think we are both talking about the extremes of the same thing. You see lowering or raising for players like meta-gaming and steeling agency where I think its necessary to make the game more engaging but beatable, you make things set in stone and don't change at all and I think placing PCs on a path that they absolutely have no chance of completing takes away player agency because it just means they are doomed to die.
Looking at that I think we both see the other side as the extreme and wrong but a little of both would actually mean the most free agency for players. Its taking ether too far that is the problem and in resisting one we may actually cause the other. Knowing this you may have actually made be a better GM with your post today. I will try to make an effort to resolve so base line DCs but ensure that I never make them out of my groups capabilities to the point that I have stolen choice from them the other way.
Thank you.
Daniel
Last edited:
Justin Kennedy1
First Post
I read that as "Your party is now stronger. It doesn't matter you still need to roll a natural 15! BWAHAHAHA!!
but earlier you said you faced a near TPK by using secrets to get to the BBEG and the DM tanked it so you could win. That sounds like the opposite of what you want to do as a DM?
DC is meant to show how hard something is, by decreasing the odds that a roll will make it. Upping the DC because the party is stronger makes NO SENSE because they are LITERALLY BETTER AT IT! That's like saying a party needs to roll a 30+ to stealth because the rogue has expertise. MAYBE HE'S JUST GOTTEN BETTER AT STEALTHING?!??!?! GL getting the Cleric and Paladin past in full armour that optimised to do OTHER THINGS THAN STEALTHING AND ARE WEARING HEAVY ARMOUR!!! And if you say anything about power-gaming talk to the rogue with a 20 DEX and expertise in stealth and come back...
but earlier you said you faced a near TPK by using secrets to get to the BBEG and the DM tanked it so you could win. That sounds like the opposite of what you want to do as a DM?
DC is meant to show how hard something is, by decreasing the odds that a roll will make it. Upping the DC because the party is stronger makes NO SENSE because they are LITERALLY BETTER AT IT! That's like saying a party needs to roll a 30+ to stealth because the rogue has expertise. MAYBE HE'S JUST GOTTEN BETTER AT STEALTHING?!??!?! GL getting the Cleric and Paladin past in full armour that optimised to do OTHER THINGS THAN STEALTHING AND ARE WEARING HEAVY ARMOUR!!! And if you say anything about power-gaming talk to the rogue with a 20 DEX and expertise in stealth and come back...
