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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Someone" data-source="post: 3631719" data-attributes="member: 5656">That's good. As it happens frequently, I feel we're running in circles, telling each other exactly the same. What I can't get is the idea of the DM going against the PCs and trying hard to kill them. A battle of DM against the PCs would be quite stressful and boring for me, from both parts of the table. What I like and try to do is a battle of PCs against the world.If the bad guy has a small army and is being bothered by the PCs he's not going to sit idly and wait until he's defeated. If he feels threatened he's going to mass his resources and hit the problem as well as he can: it's the bad guy who's killing the PCs, not the DM. If the party underestimates the giant, the giant is going to kill them, not the DM, and so on. Of course there's going to be PC deaths: they are the ones that fight monster vastly more powerful and intelligent than themselves (or at least than a regular human); if the DM roleplays them well it's going to be dangerous for the PCs. Otherwise it'd destroy the game's consistency, but on the other hand the internal consistency helps the players. If they know that the bad guy is arrogant, they may come with a plan to attract him to the front of his small army (EL be damned) and defeat him. An adversarial DM would, on the other hand, backpedal on his description of the bad guy as being arrogant because then the players would have an opportunity to defeat him; I don't think that's what has been advocated by some in the thread, but their poor choice of words certainly made it sound that way.</blockquote>

Verification