Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7933408" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I find I disagree with that being the source of the mindset. Again, I've had that mindset in a game without those effects. To me, Combat as War is all about not fighting fair. Taking out a Goblin Camp by sneaking in and poisoning the soup pot instead of fighting them head-on. Luring the enemy into an ambush where two dozen crossbowmen pepper them with bolts, and the fight becomes 5 on 2 in your favor. I don't feel like, and it hasn't been my experience, that adding in "any attack could ruin my character" adds to the experience. I would also add, that knowing you can hold an enemy safely for three more rounds, and using that tactically to mean other things on the battlefield, can also be part of that process. It is more about the tactics you employ than whether the PCs are scared of fighting the monsters.I've rarely had people change characters if it wasn't for a new campaign. Most campaigns end within a year as well, which might have something to do with that. And, I think you misunderstood what I was referring to with regards to your last paragraph. I meant plans as a GM. For example, I just had a player who had to quit due to a new baby on the way. There was an antagonist I was building up, specifically because of his backstory, that the party had gotten hints of. Now that he is gone, and I told the party his character is acting to counter that villain at the moment. They have no interest in that villain. It doesn't connect to their stories, so the entire plot line is now dead. They cared previously, because their ally cared, but now that their ally isn't there, they don't care about this thread. Maybe it is just a nature of my storytelling, but if I build a line because of a character, and that character is removed from consideration, a lot of plot threads involving that character die too. To take a classic example from movies, Darth Vader would still be a villain for the Rebellion, but without Luke his story would lose almost all of its impact. No one would care, because the character it is most meant to effect isn't there to provide the context. The Cult of Baphomet can still be a villain for the party, but without the daughter of a former cultist to provide a foil for the story, they are just demon worshipping maniacs that the party will slaughter. There is no pathos to enrich the story.</blockquote>

Verification