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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 6394288" data-attributes="member: 66434">Glad you managed to pull that one off! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The example kind of drives home my point though. HotDQ is very much an adventure path style adventure. As such it assumes certain things, certain basic things like investigate/ attack the camp because the PCs are heroes and that is the adventure. In these types of adventures not only is the DM partially responsible for the fate of the PCs, he/she is assuming the larger share of that responsibility. To me it seems that no matter how careful your group was, or what precautions were taken, you got ambushed and HAD to fight that group of NPCs because the DM wanted that fight to happen. If the fights are set piece encounters it is largely the DMs fault if there is a TPK or similar disaster. Removing play at the strategic level from control of the players places a heavier burden on the DM. In an open sandbox featuring strategic level control in the hands of the players, the DM isn't really creating specific encounters. The players choose their options, which may or may not lead to combat encounters. The players get to do the majority of determining the nature of combat engagement. With this capability comes the majority of the responsibility of what happens to the party. Surprises are an exception, but a careful group can take steps to minimize their exposure to ambushes. There is much less weight on the DM in such a campaign which is why I prefer them. When players have more control over the events that can lead to PC deaths then there is more acceptance of the harsher consequences arising from those deaths.</blockquote>

Verification