[MENTION=428]RaveN[/MENTION] - You must have more magical items or spellcasters by 6th level than I do in a 2e game.
I have no idea what you have in your games!
If you have 4 players, and an enemy spellcaster gets off 2 save or die spells, then how is that anything but a matter of luck? Sure the players can make choices to avoid those save or die spells, but obviously they failed.
First off, unless the enemy spellcaster is in their bed when they wake up, I would assume that some context existed before this came about. Second off, because the players "obviously failed" in making choices, it doesn't then follow that the consequence is nothing but a "matter of luck".
How do my players magically manage to avoid putting their characters in death traps? I mean, it is obviously possible to do so. Yet, they're generally pretty good at doing it.
Maybe it is because I am providing more context for choices? Maybe it is because I don't assume razor-wire game balance, so that a single bad roll...or even three or four bad rolls....are automatically lethal? Maybe they just know that I won't save them, so they pay more attention?
I don't know enough about your game to know where it differs from mine, but I do know that, in mine, what you see as a huge problem simply doesn't occur after the first few mishaps. The players get smart.
You think that if I'm in the DM's chair and you are in the player's seat with equally competant players, that I can't reduce your party to half strength with a couple good save or die spells at low to mid levels? You think your "player choices" will save you when the dice are against you?
If you provide adequate context, and the consequences of choices flow naturally from the choices made, then either my choices will save me or they will not. I'll tell you one thing, though -- I won't cry if they don't.
If the GM is
trying to reduce the PCs, or kill them, then that's what happens. End of story. In a "Player vs. GM" scenario, the GM
always wins. 4e won't save you.
In a "Context -> Choice -> Consequence" game, where the GM is neither trying to kill you or save you....where the GM, indeed, isn't trying to decide your fate in any particular way, your choices can save you. I see it all the time, first-hand, almost every game I run.
As for what running out of resources "too early" means, it means a plausible place to seek refuge or escape because you had a single bad encounter. You can't go forward, you can't survive going back.
Huh.
I guess you shouldn't have pushed for that last encounter, then.
Here's what I do: As I explore an area, I consider which rooms are potential fallback points, that I can barricade or otherwise fortify. Which ones don't seem to be known to/used by the current inhabitants. Going deep into enemy territory without a fallback point is unwise.
But then, I don't play games where killing everything is the best option. He who lives by the sword, when something else works better, sooner or later will die by the sword. Thankfully, the orcs I parleyed with earlier might be willing to help me escape in return for some ransom. If Tyrion Lannister can bargain with the Blood Men, surely Damien the Undaunted can bargain with the Bloody Eye. Or die trying, of course.
Not every story ends with the PCs on top.
So the choices remain as always... 1) Use magic in your possession to restore disability, if you don't have it because your cleric is a duck then you are screwed. 2) Have a DM that is willing to allow you to retreat even if goes against what was established in the scenerio, or you are screwed. 3) Have some sort of innate ability that allows you to shake off the hp loss and/or disability or you are screwed. 4) Accept you are screwed.
5) Do your best to make the best of a bad situation. That might mean you're screwed, it might not. If what was established in the scenario is that you made enemies with everything behind you, and you also failed to clear out that area, and you also pressed further in without a line of retreat, accept that that was a foolish thing to do, and try to do better next time.
I don't agree with that, and I don't want to toss months of story telling away on a few bad rolls. But you can't deny that those are your four options.
I just did. If there is nothing in the established scenario that you can use, it's certainly no scenario I'm familiar with.....unless the PCs really borked it up, effectively running farther into the dungeon with an angry host at their back. If that's what you did, don't blame the GM for it.
Also, I note that LotR didn't end when Boromir died.....the GM even took the time to let "his brother, Faramir" into the game. Likewise, in A Game of Thrones,
[sblock]although Lord Eddard Stark is a major character, when he makes some poor tactical choices, and is beheaded, that doesn't mean that chapters of story telling are tossed away on a bit of bad fortune. Nor is it altogether clear that the poor tactical choices are
poor choices; we certainly admire the honesty and honourableness of Lord Stark. His arc comes to an end; the world (and the story) is driven forward.[/sblock]
What happens become part of the ongoing tapestry of the milieu; the game need not end. Well, unless you make it so dependent upon these characters, those choices, and this outcome that the players need not be there at all.
There is nothing wrong with choosing to stop, and choosing to play something else. If that's how you prefer to handle character death, by all means do so. But it is a choice; it is not the only option.
RC
