Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9366645" data-attributes="member: 6801228">You are free to have that opinion, but "the most successful version of the game in its entire history" doesn't seem to be the version I would point to in declaring that the game has not only reached, but exceeded the point where its design makes for a worse game.No problemNo it isn't. Because their plan can still fail in execution. If for example, they go to sneak into the bandit camp and fail to sneak... the plan failed. It was a good plan, but it wasn't executed well. My point was merely that AFTER they have successfully snuck in, I am not going to ALSO require them to roll high enough to hit and ALSO require high enough damage, when they could just as easily bind all the bandits and gag them and achieve the same effect of removing them from the equation. Nor would I have them roll stealth again after every single action they take, because they might fail this time. Because at a certain point of just layering more and more dice onto the plan, I'm telling them "your plan doesn't matter, because I will ensure it will fail at some point via dice rolls"If the info hasn't hit the table yet, it isn't real. I change hidden information all the time, sometimes because I get a better idea, sometimes because I planned it far in advance and the plot changed because of earlier events, sometimes because I realize that it would make for a less compelling story. You are of course free to have everything you think of automatically written in stone and immutable, but that just isn't how I operate, and if I feel like the hidden information is more likely to feel like "you can't melt the lock on the back door, because... it is made of anti-acid metals..." than an actually planned reveal... I'll kick that information to the curb and let them have their plan work. They earned the victory through their hard work.Sure, I can make it make sense. But again, the goal is not to kill the PCs. The more effort I put into "how can I kill this character" the less of actual DMing I am doing. Have I sent assassins after the PCs? Sure, but I'll often have them arrive at a dramatic moment, or have their signature magical tracking spell be obvious to the PCs. Because "and one morning you wake up to find Jake dead, his throat slit" is just... boring. It isn't good for me, for the party, and it doesn't lead to anything interesting. So why would I do it? Even if it is "perfectly reasonable" that a high-level assassin hired by a kingdom could sneak past the party and using the rules I've allowed the party to use, kill their target without being noticed... all that does is make the game worse for everyone. And, no, despite what you may accuse, my not just declaring PCs dead has yet to lead to any of them degenerating into thinking they are unkillable gods who face no consequences. As mentioned before, my players are WAY more cautious that I want them to be even. Because I can challenge them, without killing them. I can have them face consequences, without it leading to the need to have all the rules and scenarios be perfectly reciprocal.</blockquote>

Verification