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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sheadunne" data-source="post: 6144987" data-attributes="member: 27570">I never said any such thing. I was talking about the guidelines for creating a god (or at the every least a level appropriate for a god), not creating an appropriate "level" creature for the players to fight. I don't care if the encounter is above or below the party level. The entire point is that there is a roll, even if that roll is nearly impossible to make.The monster is a DM creation, he can do whatever he wants to it, have a rock fall on its head, have it implode, or have a good blast it for 100 points of damage, doesn't matter. That has no effect on the Players. Completely different things. We're talking about the DM effecting players, no one cares about the monster. The fairness relates to DM/Player not DM/DM. That's why we have rules.See above. Not talking about level appropriate encounters here. The encounter presented wasn't level appropriate to begin with. It was clearly above the players, which is perfectly fine. We're only talking about allowing the players to play their characters. And you must be confusing posts because I could care less about the mathematics. I never mentioned anything about them. The god's attack roll could be +100 for all I care, as long as there is a roll. When I said, "Whatever number is appropriate for the encounter, following the guidelines presented in the rules," I was not saying, "Whatever number is appropriate for the level of the players." Two different things. No problem with encounters being far above the players level, I do it all the time, but there will always be a die roll and everything follows the same rules.The reason rules exist in the game is to arbitrate between conflicts in the game. The DM says: The monster hits you (the intent of the action). The Player says: no it doesn't (the intent of the resistance). The neutral dice decide (the outcome). Taking away the Player's ability to say, "no it doesn't" negates any reason for the Player to even be playing the game.   When the DM takes control of the character away from the Player, that is the DM messing with the Player. It happened twice in that scenario. Once when he said, "take 150 points of damage" and didn't give the opportunity for the player to disagree and thus being resolved by the neutral dice roll. And again when he gave one of the players the ability to resurrect the Players without their consent. What's the point of playing in a game where you don't have control of your own character?</blockquote>

Verification