Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5456293" data-attributes="member: 177">I'll note that we are here dealing with a hypothetical - I haven't actually done this in my game.They're free to continue.  There is a point where there would be no new options available.If we were playing Mage: the Ascension, or some other game specifically designed so that the metaphysics are something the PCs can muddle in when designing magics, they might well think of something I have not that would solve the problem.  But most high-fantasy games, including D&D, have opaque metaphysics - the PCs cannot find or design a new magic without the GM's consent.  If I don't make the new solution available, it simply isn't available. As I said, I'd use this only at the tail end of a bunch of bad decisions or bad luck on their part.  This wouldn't have been the only way out from the start - it is merely their last resort, after they've exhausted other avenues.Why would I set up this final solution?  Because the question of whether you'd willing to just lay down your life (as opposed to risking it in battle) is an interesting one, often seen in heroic genres, and I've had several players over the years who'd have enjoyed exploring the possibility.I get no thrill from killing PCs.  You might want to avoid questions that suggest particular mindsets of others, especially uncomplimentary ones.  It is an ugly rhetorical device, addressing the character of the speaker rather than the speaker's position.  Ultimately, my motivations are not relevant - what matters is if my players have fun.  Even if I did get a thrill from killing them, that'd be okay so long as the players enjoyed the deaths of the PCs.I am willing to destroy the world, or have a TPK.  On the other hand, I'm not heck-bent on destroying the world or killing off the characters either.  So, I am willing to offer them an expensive option, when they've exhausted other avenues.That's a game-setting metaphysics question, and since we aren't talking about a real current running game, we can't reasonably get into it.  It should suffice to say that, in the cosmologies I run about half the time, new rising powers can be a threat where the old established ones cannot directly muddle in the world.  Deus ex machina is a plot device where a seemingly inextricable problem is suddenly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new character, ability, or object.  By definition, it is not something the characters within the narrative have at their disposal.  It is also generally considered poor narrative.  Deus ex machina is, in my experience, less satisfying for the players than expensive solutions the PCs implement.  They'd prefer to save the world themselves, at the cost of one of their own, than having the GM scrape their butts out of the fire at no real cost to them.</blockquote>

Verification