Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nathal" data-source="post: 664416" data-attributes="member: 1809">I knew a GM that had two different levels of monster or NPC.  One was "cannon fodder" and the other was "full player status".  The cannon fodder monsters and NPCs would fall before the PCs like wheat before the scythe.  Or he would create cannon fodder that would be apparently tough, but he would know in advance that the PCs would win.  Thus he never kept stats for the cannon fodder creatures and NPCs.  He allowed critical hits with instant death effects based entirely on the player's battle tactics descriptions, and the more knowledgeable the player was in the ways of combat the better his chances were for a dramatic victory.Monsters and NPCs of "full player status" would follow the rules more closely, have all of their stats written down.  Yet these characters were notoriously difficult to harm, often recurrent.  Still he allowed insta-death effects, but only if he deemed the description of the means adequate to the task.  This set up a situation where it was competing knowledge rather than dice rolls determining outcomes.As a player in such a game, I felt that either I killed everything too easily or my own personal knowledge of "realistic" combat was inadequate. Or that if I could not "wow" the GM with my intricate details on each strike of the sword that I was at a disadvantage.As a DM I hated to run a game that way because when random chance is taken out of the picture---and if I can actually anticipate whether the player characters are going to win or loose in almost every situation---then I get very bored.  Fair battle, fine, but predictable?The instant-death problem seems to annoy DMs far more than players for this reason.  Many DMs get bored if they know what is going to happen, and I think this contributes to the problem of the "knife at the throat" dilemma.  They want the player-characters to have to contend with real danger, which becomes harder and harder to do at high levels.  Attempts at capture is a favorite plot device of DMS, and yet capture without the aid of magic is almost impossible against high level fighters who would rather cut their way through opposition.  I have never known a player who had less fun because he could hack his way through a band of would-be kidnappers or bounty hunters trying to truss him up like a pig.  The complaint for DMs comes most often, I think, when they wish to create an exciting potential for capture.  Because capture is usually carried out at knifepoint, it requires the PCs to feel as if they are in real danger of dying due to resistance.  Beyond 1st level this situation is harder to create.  It is admittedly difficult to be in that frame of mind when ones fighter character has 100 hps or more (or even less for that matter).Realism is right out the window with HPs and always has been.  One has two options (probably more than two, actually, but it is 2 AM and this is the best I can do right now).  Either prepare for the eventuality that all attempts to capture and detain PCs require complete subduel (charge!), or allow for insta-death effects for called shots when initiative is won (look out!).  If the latter idea is used the players will often resent being intimidated into capture or getting killed with a lucky called shot on a surprise round.  If the "cannon fodder" versus "full-player status creature" idea is used then real chance is usually out the window and the whole game becomes more of a LARP relying on actual combat "expertise".  Clearly, it's a mess.  One cannot expect the players to respond "realistically" to a capture situation because the DM has them surrounded by bowmen.  The default rules speak to a very different outcome...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification