Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7941415" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=6688277]@Sadras[/USER] - your exchange with [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] seems to have covered most of it, but I'll offer my own take.In his DMG, Gygax allows that zero hp suffered by a well-played PC (and hence resulting not from poor play but from bad luck) might be &quot;commuted&quot; to some lesser consequence (eg maiming or unconsciousness) that still recognises what it is that the monster has done (ie defeated the PC in cmbat). As I think I already posted in this thread, I don't find that an objectionable approach, not even in the challenge-based game that Gygax favours.In your example the conflict was an evasion skill challenge. The PCs lost, and - it seems - perhaps due to less-than-optimal play, but not necessarily bad play given their knowledge and experience. The consequence for failure impicit in the situation was being caught by the Astral Dreadnought - and instead of running that as a combat you've just hard-framed them into the demiplane instead (in the fiction, they've been swallowed).That might count as force if you have a player who really wanted to fight the dreadnought! But as you describe it, it seems like the players are quite happy with your framing and don't want to contest the premise that their PCs got swallowed by declaring contrary actions.And I don't even think it's inimical to challenge-oriented play provided that the players (and their PCs) suffoer some sort of meaningful loss that correlates with their defeat. (It would need to be more severe than what they would have had to pay to escape, or else escaping would be no more a win than being swallowed. This would be one way of distinguishing challenge-based play from story-now-type play in this context.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7941415, member: 42582"] [USER=6688277]@Sadras[/USER] - your exchange with [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] seems to have covered most of it, but I'll offer my own take. In his DMG, Gygax allows that zero hp suffered by a well-played PC (and hence resulting not from poor play but from bad luck) might be "commuted" to some lesser consequence (eg maiming or unconsciousness) that still recognises what it is that the monster has done (ie defeated the PC in cmbat). As I think I already posted in this thread, I don't find that an objectionable approach, not even in the challenge-based game that Gygax favours. In your example the conflict was an evasion skill challenge. The PCs lost, and - it seems - perhaps due to less-than-optimal play, but not necessarily [I]bad[/I] play given their knowledge and experience. The consequence for failure impicit in the situation was being caught by the Astral Dreadnought - and instead of running that as a combat you've just hard-framed them into the demiplane instead (in the fiction, they've been swallowed). That [I]might[/I] count as force if you have a player who really wanted to fight the dreadnought! But as you describe it, it seems like the players are quite happy with your framing and don't want to contest the premise that their PCs got swallowed by declaring contrary actions. And I don't even think it's inimical to challenge-oriented play [I]provided that [/I]the players (and their PCs) suffoer some sort of meaningful loss that correlates with their defeat. (It would need to be more severe than what they would have had to pay to escape, or else escaping would be no more a win than being swallowed. This would be one way of distinguishing challenge-based play from story-now-type play in this context.) [/QUOTE]

Verification