Dark Eternal
First Post
alsih2o said:
Agreed.
Actually, they had quite a few enounters that were far more challenging than this one should have been. They've proven to be quite ingenious with high-powered encounters, and in general they have employed excellent tactical deployment and good group dynamics to get the edge over enemies that would have otherwise proven too strong for them to deal with. I felt that it was because of their success ratio with high-challenge encounters that the group had begun getting so headstrong.
The session before this one, the party had organized an assault on a dragon's lair, where two adult blue dragons and a half-dragon spellcaster held court. The total encounter had an EL of 22. I had very specifically made certain they knew how strongly the odds were stacked against what they were planning, but they went through with it and pulled it off. It was a near thing, but they stuck to their guns and pulled off a win. This was not the first time they'd conquered such high odds, either. On the flipside, however, they've also encountered situations that were beyond what they could hope to achieve, and have shown remarkable restraint (for gamers) in picking their battles. If they can't reach a group consensus on a 'winning' tactic or scenario, they'll chalk it up as too dangerous and find alternate solutions to combat. So make of this what you will...
I can see how this might come across in such a fashion. However, while it certainly is a double standard, it's one that my players have been well aware of since they were all 1st level pc's, and I've always believed they agree with my underlying reasoning. It's not as though this is a one time occurance; there are two different kinds of encounters in my game, and both see very frequent use.
The first kind occurs when the group is involved in an encounter that doesn't really have anything to do with the plot of the game. These (which I call standard encounters) are just to feed xp to the group, help provide the 13.3 encounters necessary to reach next level, and provide obstacles to the party. They include random encounters, and placed encounters that aren't overly threatening or meaningful. As a rule, they have an EL of the party's level or lower. The main reason I use them is to provide a level of comparison for the rarer and much more dramatic 'Heroic encounters'.
During these, I will remove half my DM screen to cue the players that they are facing a Heroic encounter. I will then roll all dice where the players can see them, so that everyone knows that I'm not fudging. None of the players have ever objected to this method, and after 16 levels or so, it's definately not new to them anymore.
So while you and yours might object to the tactic 'sight unseen', as it were, I will respectfully point out that it's just as fair and valid a DMing tactic as any you use. I don't believe the call of 'bad DMing' is warranted.
Last edited:
You like the campaign as much as I do. You would do no such thing!
