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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9562635" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Looked in the mirror. Determined that I did not cause the car accident in England that nearly killed one of my players. Determined I did not give my close friend's Grandmother-in-law Alzheimers, nor did I get his wife pregnant with two children, nor did I alter his career or relationship in a way that we drifted apart. Determined I did not cause another player to move to Texas to pursue his career. Determined I did not alter the laws of my state, driving two close friends to flee the state out of fear for their safety. Determined I did not cause my friend to leave a job he hated and end up on a schedule that forced him to drop the group. I might be responsible for deciding to run at a High school where I temporarily worked, but not meeting with teenagers outside the school in violation of the policies of the profession. That could be my bad. Could also be responsible for deciding to run at college, where we intentionally allowed ourselves to be open to new, incoming people, so the groups shifted every year pretty regularly, I could be at fault for going with the guild policy of being open to new people, and understanding that people were coming from out of state and had to go back home.Oh right, none of this was about whether or not I'm a horrid person who drives away anyone who could possibly call a friend, left desperately clinging to online relationships as my only connections to people. This was about the fact that I've met a wider section of the gaming audience than you have. But thanks for bringing that all up as a smokescreen and strawman about my point. Real feel good moment for me to mentally go back over all the friends I've lost.Still has not a single thing to do with my point. You might as well be talking the price of eel.Right, because you believe in "teaching people a lesson" instead of even considering meeting them halfway. Or in acknowledging how the game actually functions in such a way that a dagger to the throat isn't actually a deadly threat unless you homebrew it to be so.That is fine as your opinion, but two of those game design ethos's have been the most popular DnD has ever become. Pathfinder EXISTS because of 3.5 to the point people called it 3.75You can not like the game design, and that is perfectly fine, but considering how it has shaped the MAJORITY of the TTRPG community and games? You can't say your opinion is objectively correct.You realize those numbers are largely meaningless, correct? "Level 6" is a meaningless thing. It means what we want it to mean. You could make level 6 capable of destroying mountains, and still have your chart have that flatter power curve. But what you wouldn't have is people more like commoners. Because that is ENTIRELY separate. And even back in the days of 1st and 2nd edition... PCs killed gods. From the very very beginning, PCs could be god killers, with power equal to the gods. Now you are going to say that was very high level... but expand your chart out. You either need to weaken the gods and their foes... or basically cut off that traditional part of play and say it is impossible. And NONE of this alters what IS. The game is not this, I will agree with you on that, so when talking about people who like the game as it is, play the game as it is, and how things should be approached with people who enjoy playing the game as it is.... whether or not you would prefer the game to be different really doesn't apply.Rogue cunning action with plenty of terrain. Giant has low wisdom, so low chance of spotting the, Hill Giant is stupid, so might not be able to come up with a counter plan. Rogue peppers them with shots until they die. Any spellcaster, with the correct terrain and the right spells could potentially cause massive damage by taking advantage of hazards, auto-hits, and some potential spell/ability combos (Flaming sphere + Druid Wildshaping into a small crevasse comes to mind)Funny how you were the one limiting yourself to "Stand in front of it and hit with sword"To find out something was dangerous, wouldn't they ALREADY be seeking information? Why should they have to seek out information that a place exists and is dangerous, then seek out even more information to narrow down the danger? Should they then be required to seek out EVEN MORE information to make sure the areas around the dangerous area aren't dangerous? Leading to them seeking out EVEN MORE information...And some point, they have sought out information, and you as the DM need to give them something useful. Not "well, I've decided that the threat here is too careful to ever leave any clues to its real nature, so the players have no idea what they are really walking into" because at that point they literally stand no chance, and after you stand no chance enough times? You stop bothering. If putting in effort and not putting in effort give you the same result... what's the point of trying?</blockquote>

Verification