Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9365841" data-attributes="member: 6801228">1) Sure, it could go back to how it was before they changed it... but I wonder if they changed it for a good reason, and that change would just happen again if they decided to go back? Seems like that might be an important detail to consider2) Didn't AD&D popularize having a stable of characters to choose from, and the West Marches style of game where multiple each Player had multiple characters? Sure, it might not happen in every game like it did in the games I played, but it does still happen. 3) You don't see how changing the HP and damage so that a minotaur's charge could cause multiple broken bones, requiring months of healing, might cause an issue where a minotaur is the first challenge in the dungeon, and that means the party needs to retreat after the first encounter? And sure, adventuring should be dangerous... but at some point the Players are the experts, right? At some point they should be the ones who go and deal with the problem, and are equipped to handle it without immediately being punked by the monsters.Right, how is knowing they will survive and that death is impossible a BAD THING? Yes, I'm aware that tripping over my own shoelaces could kill me in real life if I have bad luck, but that doesn't mean that players understanding their own capabilities is bad. The only way I can see this as being bad, is if you want a 30ft fall to potentially be deadly regardless of level, which means a 10 ft fall as well, which I just don't get the reasoning behind, except "people IRL are super fragile"Odds determine what? Lava would be difficult terrain (no rules state it is more than that) and you would take 10d10 damage. Max 100 damage. So if they are within 30 ft of an edge to get out, and have more than 100 hp, they will survive, guaranteed. There are no more odds to this than if someone could survive 3d6 falling damage.ROFLOL. Are you joking? Please tell me you are joking? No, I do not need to give them a "We Win" card. Favoring them and not setting out to stack things against them is not the same as deciding they are not going to struggle or fight. But, if I have a situation where I think "Well, that is a good plan they came up with, it isn't what I had planned, and it doesn't fit these hidden details they don't know about.. but it is a good plan" then I might change those hidden details and let them execute a good plan. I work to encourage and reward them, not to brow beat them into submission.Yeah, sure, the DM needs to have fun to. I have fun by making sure other people have fun. I have fun revealing things to players and seeing their faces light up. I have fun cackling menacingly and hamming it up for them, so they can feel excited when they beat the boss. If I want a script where the hero dies because they didn't know about the lich's divination... I'd tell the group I'm cancelign the night and focusing on writing my book. Me having fun doesn't mean I need to allow instant death for my players, just because I allow them to instant kill. Just because a player might trap a necklace to explode to kill someone, doesn't mean I need to have exploding jewelry to sneak out to my player's characters, so they can explode too. A good plan, well-executed, doesn't need to be burdened by additional rolls to "earn it" nor does it need for the players to fear that I will work to kill them. Because, again, the point is to challenge them. Not kill them. Character death is bad for me as the DM, it is a pain in the neck, causes all sorts of problems, and gives me NOTHING unless it was scripted with the help of the PC for a story beat. Just deciding "well, you guys slept in different rooms in the inn, and the assassin rolled higher than your passive perception -5, so you all died in the middle of the night, new campaign?" is not only pointless, but it is just being a jerk.</blockquote>

Verification