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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Garnfellow" data-source="post: 2907942" data-attributes="member: 1223">This is a joke, right? As a DM I've killed far more characters in third edition than in 1st and 2nd edition combined. Third edition gives me much better tools to make actual in-game challenges that really CHALLENGE the PCs. What's a better measure of player abilities: (1) A third edition encounter that is 4 EL higher than the party's level, or (2) A completely undetectable trap that is only triggered 1 in 8 times and instantly reduces an unlucky character to goo.The first situation is not unusual for a third edition end-of-adventure encounter, is relatively easy to develop using Encounter Level guidelines, will require smart play and a bit of luck, and could likely result in the death of at least 1 PC. The second situation is just capricious, and really only tests how lucky the players are.Because third edition gives me such good and accurate tools to design appropriately challenging encounters, I can turn the danger dial all the way to 11 and not worry about being unfair. In previous editions, where a good DM had to fudge left and right to keep an adventure fair and balanced, I would have really hesitated to push the limit too far when designing and running encounters. And I would have been inclined to "cheat" to help out the players when an encounter went bad for them, because I never really knew for sure what was bad play on their part and what was bad design on mine (or TSR's). In third edition? I lets the chips fall where they may. But if I kill a character, I want the player to say something "Holy crap, those giants were TOUGH," not "Holy crap, I got cheated -- that stupid trap was bull-^@%@*." I don't see why balanced rules automatically imply softness or wimpiness -- if anything, it makes it EASIER for a DM to be even more deadily.</blockquote>

Verification