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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zelda Themelin" data-source="post: 5836405" data-attributes="member: 167">That totally depends in dm/pc:s. Some dm styles cause players to rebel very easily because it always seem world is against them, every npc is jerk, traitors, and if there is some nicer one, that npc always dies. In horrible way that players can't stop.Your story would sound very different what kinda dm is running it and to what kinda players. You didn't answer my post really. But told this story. But I answer that one.I was trying to say, that dm can't at the same time say "game for you ends if you go evil" and constantly build "traps" to corrupt pc:s. Unless that replaces "death" in game, and that has been told. Otherwise it is bad behavior.and seems dm likes to play "evil" stuff way too much and wants just pc:s to be good guys so they are easier/more gullible/ready to accept quests without rewards and high chance of failure.I despise these "always be good so I can laugh at and abuse your pc:s" dm:s.They are often same guys who think CN = insane, does random actions, pretty much same as CE (and you see that the way npc:s of said alignment). However I add it was rather common back in a day to say if you go evil you become npc. Still so in some games we play. Player actively go for "evil" choices. Without constant dm manipulation that is. This is probably same player who likes player vr player fights and likes to talk how "my character would so kill your chracter". Based on my experiences naturally.Protecting child from evil can be fun adventure unless run by these dm:s. I mean when you aren't set for failure. I woudn't like that kinda plots when I am new in group. Killing the kid is not really "corruption" plot-line. It is too simple and easy choice to protect kiddie until their evil ritual date has passed. And kick some badguy ass. It would get old soon, if it would be constant thing and we could do nothing else for fear it would happen again. Boring. Plus I hate being reactive all the time. If I feel I am two steps behind baddies I will start doing things so that they would react to me instad.What you told earlier about rings/choosing who will die I would hate. Well maybe it was pc idea and your players liked it, for me it would be just two wrong choices. Unless it would make sense, like party's allys would be targeted by assassins and we would be awere of clear and present danger, then we would try to arrange our friend's some pretected area etc. and some of them would just refuse to leave their lives. Which happens in real life too, some people rather risk dying  than abandon all they know. Unless it is like that it smels like relationship thingies when asked to "choose me or that friend of yours, or I leave you, show me which you love best". Ok, if there is no in-game caring involted and protection is merely political/alliance thing where certain risks are acceptable.Based on what little I know about your games, I'm pretty sure, that even if there is some things I really like there are some serious style-clashes. Also, I run games to evilsih pc:s (mosty greedy, powerhungry, ruthless sector rather than psychotic demonworshipper peasant-slayer). I don't think D&D is all about heroic game. I love rather many styles.</blockquote>

Verification