Unearthed Arcana Light, Dark, Underdark - November's Unearthed Arcana

Interesting stuff.

 

[Orlax]

I would only say a fully dead pc is a failure on the dms part is unless the players ask for it, our current game (im playing not DM) a player died when he threw a rock at a molten giant(Giants made from magma from WoW the dm stole them) there big bad and nasty he wanted to talk to one (bad idea) so he threw rocks at it to get its attention(even worse idea) and got well pummled into a small smooshed up mess(we where like level 2i think) in that case its fine imo but other than that i totally agree the game isnt supposed to be dm vs pcs

I agree with everything here. I will amend my previous statement to make room for situations such as this where the player actively volunteers for death. Though I'd likely let them know they are doing something real dumb, especially if the character has a decent int.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would only say a fully dead pc is a failure on the dms part is unless the players ask for it, our current game (im playing not DM) a player died when he threw a rock at a molten giant(Giants made from magma from WoW the dm stole them) there big bad and nasty he wanted to talk to one (bad idea) so he threw rocks at it to get its attention(even worse idea) and got well pummled into a small smooshed up mess(we where like level 2i think) in that case its fine imo but other than that i totally agree the game isnt supposed to be dm vs pcs

I agree with everything here. I will amend my previous statement to make room for situations such as this where the player actively volunteers for death. Though I'd likely let them know they are doing something real dumb, especially if the character has a decent int.

I guess I disagree pretty strongly with both of you. It's never the DM's fault a PC dies unless the DM broke the rules to make it so. This idea that PCs should always win and not have any real threat of death makes me wonder why you all don't just sit around and narrate the adventure? The idea that if a PC dies it's the DM's fault unless the player specifically asked for it? That's a load of bullocks.

PCs can die all the time. Either from really bad choices the player made (like you mentioned), or from a myriad of other factors, like being unlucky in the dice rolls, or didn't plan well enough (not from anything the players did horribly, just that scenarios they may not have thought about).

Monster's aren't meant to automatically lose. Some are. Some are meant to lose only if the PCs plan really well. Some are meant to win. Most aren't any of these, they just exist as part of the game world. It's part of the game for PCs to follow risk assessments for everything they do. Raise dead spells aren't in the game to counter something the DM did wrong.

 

[Orlax]

I guess I disagree pretty strongly with both of you. It's never the DM's fault a PC dies unless the DM broke the rules to make it so. This idea that PCs should always win and not have any real threat of death makes me wonder why you all don't just sit around and narrate the adventure? The idea that if a PC dies it's the DM's fault unless the player specifically asked for it? That's a load of bullocks.

PCs can die all the time. Either from really bad choices the player made (like you mentioned), or from a myriad of other factors, like being unlucky in the dice rolls, or didn't plan well enough (not from anything the players did horribly, just that scenarios they may not have thought about).

Monster's aren't meant to automatically lose. Some are. Some are meant to lose only if the PCs plan really well. Some are meant to win. Most aren't any of these, they just exist as part of the game world. It's part of the game for PCs to follow risk assessments for everything they do. Raise dead spells aren't in the game to counter something the DM did wrong.

They aren't meant to lose automatically but they are meant to lose in the end. They are there to challenge but most assuredly not stop the PC's.

 

[Mistwell]

You're right that I haven't observed this phenomenon... cause as a DM, I'd never actually run my monsters in such a stupid, illogical fashion even though the rules "allow" me to do so.

OK, so you're calling me stupid, as I did it. Because it was a completely naturally way to run it in the circumstances. I then had a conversation with Mike Mearls about it, and he said it was intentionally and expected it would happen in dungeons with some frequency. So I disagree, and please don't call me stupid for it. I suspect when you run into the right situation, you'll see it as well and understand why it makes complete sense.

There is something to be said for trying to run fights at least a little bit "realistically" and not always game the system. LOL.

Raid swarm attacks are realistic. If your societies main advantage is numbers, swarming a single foe to try and hit them (when they're hard to hit) and then flee back makes perfect sense. Indeed, this is the tactic most pack animals use in the surround and harass. I don't know why you think it's unrealistic and stupid, but it's not.

 

[Mistwell]

Not only do I agree, but IMX as a DM, I've found that when I don't game the system in such artificial ways, the players tend to do the same. Kinda neat, that.

I have to agree, the dumber I play my monsters, and by that I mean playing monsters as though they don't know they are in a game system that can be gamed, the more fun my players seen to have, and the more willing they become to also not game the system. Does this mean I purposefully have my monsters make choices that are less than strategically optimal given my knowledge as the DM (knowledge those monsters wouldn't have)? Yes yes it does, and that's totally fine, the monsters aren't supposed to win.

Except it's not artificial. When I did it to my players, it was not the plan, and it was not based on the rules, but it was the natural flow of how things worked out based on the monsters that were attacking them and the location and geography. I'd suggest people not jump to a conclusion to call things stupid, unrealistic and artificial until they've actually run into the situation to see if it actually makes sense in the circumstances. I see a lot of theorycrafting concerning this when I am speaking from direct experience. I posted the map and explained how and why it happened here in detail at the time. Maybe I can find the thread, but I recall a lot of people agreeing it made perfect sense given the circumstances.

Here is the rough map that was in play at the time. I believe it was 7 Duerger who got to attack the fighting holding the hallway at the time, and as Duerger died more took their place.

 

[Sacrosanct]

They aren't meant to lose automatically but they are meant to lose in the end. They are there to challenge but most assuredly not stop the PC's.

Speaking for myself (and pretty much everyone I know personally who games), if I as a player knew that the monsters could not stop us and death wasn't a risk, the first question I'd ask myself is, "Why am I even playing and rolling dice if they mean nothing?"

If you want to play that way, knock yourself out. But I resent the implications that the DM is doing something wrong/is at fault if PCs die in a game. Maybe in your storytelling playstyle, but not with all groups. Heck, with not even with the way the game is designed on a baseline.

 

[Orlax]

Except it's not artificial. When I did it to my players, it was not the plan, and it was not based on the rules, but it was the natural flow of how things worked out based on the monsters that were attacking them and the location and geography. I'd suggest people not jump to a conclusion to call things stupid, unrealistic and artificial until they've actually run into the situation to see if it actually makes sense in the circumstances. I see a lot of theorycrafting concerning this when I am speaking from direct experience. I posted the map and explained how and why it happened here in detail at the time. Maybe I can find the thread, but I recall a lot of people agreeing it made perfect sense given the circumstances.

Oh I'm not saying the conga line issue isn't an issue. That's definitely a thing that can happen when holding a choke point you just have to hope that the one holding the choke point has a good ac, a good healer backing them up, and that their ally's are launching attacks at the goblins that haven't yet attacked in the round/launch some aoe damage out there for the enemy. Sorry for hopping in the middle of your argument. I was just agreeing that sometimes one does have to run the monsters a little less intelligently to keep the game moving well.

 

[Sacrosanct]

View attachment 71768

 

[Orlax]

Speaking for myself (and pretty much everyone I know personally who games), if I as a player knew that the monsters could not stop us and death wasn't a risk, the first question I'd ask myself is, "Why am I even playing and rolling dice if they mean nothing?"

If you want to play that way, knock yourself out. But I resent the implications that the DM is doing something wrong/is at fault if PCs die in a game. Maybe in your storytelling playstyle, but not with all groups. Heck, with not even with the way the game is designed on a baseline.

You are missing my meaning here. I'm not saying they make it through without question. If they just stand there and let it happen then the monster eats them. Bad rolls happen and you get eaten. However if I have designed an encounter the PC's can't hardly defeat without using the exactly correct stratagem, or without expending all of their resources, for the encounter and I tpk them that is entirely a failure on the DMs part. I literally killed my own game with poor execution. As I've said, killing PCs is easy, keeping them alive through their own stupidity is harder (and yes all PCs do stupid things at one point or another just because they have no idea what is going on and I the DM do). The reason we are rolling dice is because we are randomly determining the sequence of events that leads to the players succeeding. Sometimes the dice will say that you don't succeed and that can also be fun and there is nothing that can be done about that. However I as the DM can control what the monsters do in response to the players and I can have them make less strategic choices in favor of more rp based reasonings in order to not kill my players due to a poorly drawn or thought out dungeon. I as the DM can obviate death saving throws by always having my monsters attack the body after the player drops, and that would in fact be the most strategic option at all times, but that's not fun for the players because they would never make it out of the first 5 levels. I can have the monster move from the dropped, but not yet dead player character (the strategically terrible option) in order to not kill the player character and to move to attacking another standing character. It's little decisions like that, or having half the goblins pitch spears past the shield wall, that I'm talking about. Making strategically faulty moves because I'm almost always going to out strategy my players and could just drop rocks on all their heads and kill them should I wish to. In the end the players are supposed to win, it is my job as the DM to convince them they won't and make them ride as close to death, without actually crossing over into it, as I can. It isn't that death isn't always on the table, it definitely is, but it is never the goal of play. The goal of play is for the players to succeed.

 

[Orlax]

View attachment 71768

For the most part yeah, and I don't feel bad for you.