Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Syrsuro" data-source="post: 4573620" data-attributes="member: 58162">You're doing it Wrong! Seriously, it all depends on how much of a stretch it is to keep the players alive and how they feel about it. The real problem with this is that the players eventually figure it out.  So it all depends on whether you never kill them, but occasionally come close so that they feel as if their survival is due to luck and good play OR you never kill them, even if they do stupid and foolhardy things so that they feel as if their survival is meaningless. And we can't tell that from your post. But the best solution is to ask your players how they feel about it. Do they feel that the risk is there, but manageable or do they feel that there really is no risk at all? Are they bored by the 'safety' of the world, or do they feel that this frees them to play non-optimal characters and focus on roleplaying? If someone did happen to die now, would they see this as the odds having finally caught up with them, or would they feel as if a DM-player contract had been violated? In short - you shouldn't be asking us. You should be asking your players. But my gut reaction is that if you are doing it as obviously as it sounds, you are doing it wrong. I admit - it's hard to kill players, especially under the earlier system when death penalties were harsher than they are in 4E. I've pulled a few punches (I think I counted four times in the last year under 3.5, not yet under 4E) and they were mostly cases where I changed a crit into a non-crit when I knew that the crit would have killed the player (not just knocked him negative). But the characters still went down - they just didn't go down and out.  And no one has died in the last year (both 3.5 and 4E). But they have often come close (I had one player down to his last death save in 4E, forcing three players to coordinate their actions to manage to get a potion from the player at the far side of the room to the downed player and into the player in that last round to save him. For whatever reason that player just cannot manage to roll a death save. Ever.). So although they haven't died yet, the threat of death is always there. (And I, too, often look at my kill ratios back in the days of OD&D/1stAD&D and wonder whether the lack of deaths means I'm being too easy on them. But I think that represents a change in the system/hobby not a change in me alone). That said: I'd probably stop changing NPC actions just to keep them alive. The PCs should be doing whatever is most logical for them at the time. I'd consider beefing up the encounters. Most well balanced groups can easily handle level+1 or level+2 so if you are sticking to encounters of their level, you probably should up it a bit.  I"m not sure what 'not strict enough' means, but generally I try to stick to the intent of the rules and not let the players get away with too much. But at the same time, I am trying to encourage 'out of the box' thinking and the "Say 'Yes, but...'" philosophy.  I wouldn't 'go for the throat' and attack players when they are down. I've told my players that, in general, opponents won't do that although bursts and blasts may still hit them and some opponents may specifically be written to go for downed opponents over living ones (especially animals who try to eat their prey). And remember - defeat need not mean death. Some opponents may leave the party alive but beaten, captured, looted, etc. This allows you to have your cake (defeat the party) and eat it (the party survives) too. And it can be used as a tie in to future adventures (revenge is a powerful motive). Carl</blockquote>

Verification