Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9621064" data-attributes="member: 6915329">No, here is his advice:&quot;If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players. A good system enables that by moving questions of success or failure to a die roll or some other disinterested mechanic rather than relying solely on GM fiat (though fiat has a very useful place in TTRPGs as a whole).&quot;The GM should defeat the players; a good game should have defeating the players be part of the rules rather than only having it be up to the DM.And the only example he gave was killing three players in one turn. It wasn't &quot;the players had to work hard to get past traps and riddles.&quot; It wasn't &quot;the players had a very difficult fight against the BBEG and its minions.&quot; It wasn't &quot;the players had tough but fair fights against some monsters.&quot; It was &quot;three PCs got decapitated in a single turn because I, the GM, somehow managed to roll really well three times in a single turn.&quot;Do you have another definition for the words &quot;defeat&quot; and &quot;foil&quot; that makes sense in context with &quot;decapitating three PCs in a single turn&quot;?(Also: even if this is a game where you need an 18 or higher to hit, how likely is it that someone will roll that three times in a single turn? Was this using the 1e rules (I just looked it up) where you needed to roll a 20 or higher, but it didn't need to be a natural 20 because you could add the sword's +3 bonus, and Mearls was maybe also adding in additional bonuses, like for high Strength? If so, and he was using the game he's been developing on patreon, then I hope that he took notes because his sword feels quite OP.(And let me point out that giving a weapon of that power level to an NPC is GM fiat. Unless this was purely a playtest in his mind.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 9621064, member: 6915329"] No, here is his advice: "If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players. A good system enables that by moving questions of success or failure to a die roll or some other disinterested mechanic rather than relying solely on GM fiat (though fiat has a very useful place in TTRPGs as a whole)." The GM should defeat the players; a good game should have defeating the players be part of the rules rather than only having it be up to the DM. And the only example he gave was killing three players in one turn. It wasn't "the players had to work hard to get past traps and riddles." It wasn't "the players had a very difficult fight against the BBEG and its minions." It wasn't "the players had tough but fair fights against some monsters." It was "three PCs got decapitated in a single turn because I, the GM, somehow managed to roll really well three times in a single turn." Do you have another definition for the words "defeat" and "foil" that makes sense in context with "decapitating three PCs in a single turn"? (Also: even if this is a game where you need an 18 or higher to hit, how likely is it that someone will roll that three times in a single turn? Was this using the 1e rules (I just looked it up) where you needed to roll a 20 or higher, but it didn't need to be a natural 20 because you could add the sword's +3 bonus, and Mearls was maybe also adding in additional bonuses, like for high Strength? If so, and he [I]was [/I]using the game he's been developing on patreon, then I hope that he took notes because his sword feels quite OP.[I][/I] (And let me point out that giving a weapon of that power level to an NPC [I]is [/I]GM fiat. Unless this was purely a playtest in his mind.) [/QUOTE]

Verification