Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nathal" data-source="post: 664595" data-attributes="member: 1809">The DM is not the enemy but the supposedly impartial arbiter of the rules.&nbsp; He ought to scale things according to challenges that are in proportion to the power and experience of the group.&nbsp; If they play it smart they are more likely to live, and if they are totally reckless...then their characters will probably die.&nbsp; It is simple. That does not mean playing the monsters or NPCs dumb...just make sure the enemy does not have a gross advantage over the PCs, according the guidelines given.&nbsp; You wouldn't have a 20th mage fight a 5th level adventuring party would you?&nbsp; It's called game balance.But CR considerations were not the main focus of this thread. The question concerned typical character reactions to any foe(s) with a dagger, crossbow, or bow readied and aimed and winning initiative.&nbsp; Characters with higher hit points are less likely to surrender in such situations, figuring they could take a few hits.&nbsp; If a character had an elven archer standing before him ready to fire a glowing arrow of eldritch power into his face the reaction would likely be different.&nbsp; &nbsp; No, not usually.&nbsp; There are guidelines such as Challenge Rating and encounter level to aid, plus the DM can know his players preferences in the sort of adventures they enjoy and the level of hack &amp; slash, etc.&nbsp; What the heck are you talking about, &quot;ignore the books&quot;?&nbsp; The balance is built it, though not as as straight-jacket, and certainly not as a pure and absolute rule (CR is ballpark).&nbsp; I only ignore the book when it says something that I disagree with in a broader sense.As if there were only one way to play high-level D&amp;D, or D&amp;D in general...as if there were no spectrum of style.&nbsp; You are spouting a bunch of rhetorical garbage tonight.Hey man, put up a poll if you're that curious.&nbsp; I've played with dozens of GMs, most of whom employed situations wherein there was some danger of capture if defeated in combat.&nbsp; Within those situations it was not uncommon to be surrounded and warned, &quot;drop your weapons and surrender or pay the consequences&quot;!&nbsp; The same is seen in books and movies all of the time.&nbsp; It's fairly self-evident.Did I say there was something wrong with the unrealistic nature of D&amp;D?&nbsp; NO, I DID NOT.&nbsp; Good god man, who gave you a wedgie?&nbsp; The &quot;reality&quot; of the typical D&amp;D world is anything but realistic.&nbsp; That is part of why I like the game...because it is fantasy.&nbsp; Why do you argue a point on which we agree?&nbsp; High-level D&amp;D does not necessarily equal a constantly high mortality rate among player characters...unless that is what the DM designs.&nbsp; If it were any other way then that would represent a flaw in design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nathal, post: 664595, member: 1809"] [B][/b] The DM is not the enemy but the supposedly impartial arbiter of the rules. He ought to scale things according to challenges that are in proportion to the power and experience of the group. If they play it smart they are more likely to live, and if they are totally reckless...then their characters will probably die. It is simple. That does not mean playing the monsters or NPCs dumb...just make sure the enemy does not have a gross advantage over the PCs, according the guidelines given. You wouldn't have a 20th mage fight a 5th level adventuring party would you? It's called game balance. But CR considerations were not the main focus of this thread. The question concerned typical character reactions to any foe(s) with a dagger, crossbow, or bow readied and aimed and winning initiative. Characters with higher hit points are less likely to surrender in such situations, figuring they could take a few hits. If a character had an elven archer standing before him ready to fire a glowing arrow of eldritch power into his face the reaction would likely be different. No, not usually. There are guidelines such as Challenge Rating and encounter level to aid, plus the DM can know his players preferences in the sort of adventures they enjoy and the level of hack & slash, etc. What the heck are you talking about, "ignore the books"? The balance is built it, though not as as straight-jacket, and certainly not as a pure and absolute rule (CR is ballpark). I only ignore the book when it says something that I disagree with in a broader sense. As if there were only one way to play high-level D&D, or D&D in general...as if there were no spectrum of style. You are spouting a bunch of rhetorical garbage tonight. Hey man, put up a poll if you're that curious. I've played with dozens of GMs, most of whom employed situations wherein there was some danger of capture if defeated in combat. Within those situations it was not uncommon to be surrounded and warned, "drop your weapons and surrender or pay the consequences"! The same is seen in books and movies all of the time. It's fairly self-evident. Did I say there was something wrong with the unrealistic nature of D&D? NO, I DID NOT. Good god man, who gave you a wedgie? The "reality" of the typical D&D world is anything but realistic. That is part of why I like the game...because it is fantasy. Why do you argue a point on which we agree? High-level D&D does not necessarily equal a constantly high mortality rate among player characters...unless that is what the DM designs. If it were any other way then that would represent a flaw in design. [/QUOTE]

Verification