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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6197223" data-attributes="member: 22424">Occasionally, when designing an encounter I'll screw up - I'll accidentally use the stats for one type of giant in place of another, or place way too many bad guys, or whatever. And suddenly, through no fault of their own, the PCs are not just outmatched, but heading for a TPK.In those cases, I'll adjust things to give the PCs an escape route that might not have been there otherwise. It's still up to them to take it - and if they don't, then we let the TPK stand, but I'll at least give them the chance.The rest of the time, I'm very much of the "lie the dice lie as they fall" school of DMing.No. Just assign smaller challenges in the first place.About a decade ago, I took the opposite tack with DMing - that I'd only kill a PC if the players did something stupid, that I'd fudge rolls to keep them alive, and so forth. And I rolled in secret to facilitate this.Now, I roll in the open, and don't particularly protect PCs.And, sure enough, it does affect player decision making, and rather more than I expected it would. They'll still have their characters take risks - this is still a game after all, and those risks aren't actually very great - but they take those risks knowing fine well that their characters may well die. In other games, they know that they almost certainly won't, and they thus tend to be a bit more cavalier about the whole thing.I don't think there's any "right" answer to the question. It's all a matter of what the individual DM and individual group wants. But I do think the decision to protect (or not to protect) the PCs is one that has a significant effect on the flavour of the game.</blockquote>

Verification