Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="roguerouge" data-source="post: 4213334" data-attributes="member: 13855">Okay. I'll see what I can answer. Before we start, though, remember that this is about personal lessons, not objective truths about good gaming for all campaigns. See my sig.The problem is that duplication often leaves a base uncovered. In one of my campaigns, two players designed characters without much regard to party needs. At first, I was in your camp. Now, my character is the third string skill monkey, despite having been designed first. My skills very, very rarely get the spotlight.So I ended up being the team player and re-jiggering everything to make my guy become a front line guy, but you know what they say about square pegs and round holes. I feel a bit resentful towards that player because my guy gets knocked unconscious in 3/4 of the combats as my character tries to do what a Ranger simply can't do: be a tanking hit point soak. And he asked me about it at the time, but I was like, "Sure! Go ahead! What's the harm?" Now I know better. The DM's coming to my rescue with a prestige class, so my guy just has to survive a few more levels. Also, we have two identical blasters and, as a result, no utility casters in a 7 player party. We have no access to the wizard's enchantment, illusion, and divination schools, and limited access to abjuration and transmutation. Well, that's just silly! There's a reason for the shot clock, though, no question. And I prefer it if people confab over the interwebs. But DnD tactics at mid to high levels are flexible enough that it's really rewarding if you take some time to work together and some encounters need that. YMMV. It's probably a table thing. I've been using 1e and Paizo mostly. I'm not talking about railroading, here. I'm talking about having an idea of where your character or campaign is going to go and what you'd like an end goal to be. It's so rewarding when the paladin dies defending everyone else as they flee the zombie horde. It's much less so if you're just slow in heavy armor. It's so rewarding when you get to face off against ancient enemies from first level. It's awesome when you can see the plot horizon and have an idea of what just might be the choices on the other side. But there should be endings, not written in stone and not fated, but you should know that you are building towards an end, and hopefully one with a better world due to the PCs' actions.YMMV. But note that I said that the character must be ABLE to die. The possibility of losing and losing BIG is what I'm talking about here; consequences, you know? A great thing that happened to me in one campaign was when, after a year, the idea that the DM couldn't let us die was broken. And the best thing that happened to my campaign that I DM was when I applied that principle to my single PC campaign. Having her PC unconscious, one of her NPC friends die in front of her, and the party's fate in the hands of her BFF with two levels in expert sent the message that anything could happen ... even though I was her boyfriend, the dice determined the combats.</blockquote>

Verification