Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
breaking the healing rules with goodberries
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6686234" data-attributes="member: 5834"><p>I'm past that state of DMing. I have zero interest in killing players continuously at this point. I could do it at will as a DM. There is nothing a player can do to survive a DM intent on killing them. The cards are stacked in a DM's favor. It's not a matter of "Old School" thinking. It's maturing. The game was not built to kill players. It was built to challenge them, while allowing them to develop characters over multiple levels.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>There is no soft-balling going on. Once again, already done status-quo DMing. It does not work for my group. If I just toss out some guys I dreamed up without taking into account the party's capabilities, the party will wipe them out. </p><p></p><p>The disconnect is happening because Hemlock has interpreted "challenging the party without killing them" as "not trying to kill them." This is not correct. The idea behind challenging a party without killing them has to do with encounter creation and has nothing to do with intent. The enemies are always trying to kill the PCs unless they have some alternative goal like imprisonment or slavery. What I try do is design the encounter where they can achieve victory. Why would I have to do that? Because I have designed many encounters that killed the PCs. </p><p></p><p>I'm pretty sure you've been doing this long enough to have had similar experiences where you are designing an encounter. You think the encounter is damn cool. You think the party can handle it. Then you run the encounter, they end up getting pasted. Then you have this group of pissed off players that feel you screwed them, especially if you designed the encounter in such a fashion they had zero chance of winning. You didn't realize this would happen until you killed the party. I learned this lesson having done it to parties more than a few times. So I've found when learning new system as I'm doing in 5E, it is better to error on the side of caution so I don't put players in no-win situations. That is not fun for anyone. I'd bet it wouldn't be fun for Hemlock's players either. </p><p></p><p>I don't get how Hemlock doesn't get what I'm talking about. To me this is easy to understand. If some of the more experienced DMs told me the same concept, I'd understand immediately what they were talking about. I wouldn't refer to it as soft-ballling or "trying to protect the party." I'd say, "Oh experienced DM. He has probably killed the party a ton and dealt with the unhappy after effects." Have you not done the same thing over the years DMing? Accidentally killed the party with an encounter you made far too strong? You must have done this more than a few times because either the monsters were too strong or the tactical choice you made was something the PCs didn't have the means to counter magically or tactically. I can't imagine a guy that's been playing as long as you have hasn't done this many times, especially when learning a new system.</p><p></p><p>That's the idea behind my thinking. Not "soft-balling" or this other trash. I have to self-police as a DM to avoid killing because when I do design encounters to challenge the PCs, I employ some very ruthless tactics intent on doing the job. I don't want to create a situation where the PCs can't win, though sometimes I do create situations where they have to run. They usually figure out it's time to run by the time a few PCs are down. I get a little worried when things get so hectic they start saying, "This looks like a TPK." That usually only happens if they start dropping too fast without doing any damage to the opponent. That's usually a sign I made the encounter too strong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 6686234, member: 5834"] I'm past that state of DMing. I have zero interest in killing players continuously at this point. I could do it at will as a DM. There is nothing a player can do to survive a DM intent on killing them. The cards are stacked in a DM's favor. It's not a matter of "Old School" thinking. It's maturing. The game was not built to kill players. It was built to challenge them, while allowing them to develop characters over multiple levels. There is no soft-balling going on. Once again, already done status-quo DMing. It does not work for my group. If I just toss out some guys I dreamed up without taking into account the party's capabilities, the party will wipe them out. The disconnect is happening because Hemlock has interpreted "challenging the party without killing them" as "not trying to kill them." This is not correct. The idea behind challenging a party without killing them has to do with encounter creation and has nothing to do with intent. The enemies are always trying to kill the PCs unless they have some alternative goal like imprisonment or slavery. What I try do is design the encounter where they can achieve victory. Why would I have to do that? Because I have designed many encounters that killed the PCs. I'm pretty sure you've been doing this long enough to have had similar experiences where you are designing an encounter. You think the encounter is damn cool. You think the party can handle it. Then you run the encounter, they end up getting pasted. Then you have this group of pissed off players that feel you screwed them, especially if you designed the encounter in such a fashion they had zero chance of winning. You didn't realize this would happen until you killed the party. I learned this lesson having done it to parties more than a few times. So I've found when learning new system as I'm doing in 5E, it is better to error on the side of caution so I don't put players in no-win situations. That is not fun for anyone. I'd bet it wouldn't be fun for Hemlock's players either. I don't get how Hemlock doesn't get what I'm talking about. To me this is easy to understand. If some of the more experienced DMs told me the same concept, I'd understand immediately what they were talking about. I wouldn't refer to it as soft-ballling or "trying to protect the party." I'd say, "Oh experienced DM. He has probably killed the party a ton and dealt with the unhappy after effects." Have you not done the same thing over the years DMing? Accidentally killed the party with an encounter you made far too strong? You must have done this more than a few times because either the monsters were too strong or the tactical choice you made was something the PCs didn't have the means to counter magically or tactically. I can't imagine a guy that's been playing as long as you have hasn't done this many times, especially when learning a new system. That's the idea behind my thinking. Not "soft-balling" or this other trash. I have to self-police as a DM to avoid killing because when I do design encounters to challenge the PCs, I employ some very ruthless tactics intent on doing the job. I don't want to create a situation where the PCs can't win, though sometimes I do create situations where they have to run. They usually figure out it's time to run by the time a few PCs are down. I get a little worried when things get so hectic they start saying, "This looks like a TPK." That usually only happens if they start dropping too fast without doing any damage to the opponent. That's usually a sign I made the encounter too strong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
breaking the healing rules with goodberries
Top