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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertliguori" data-source="post: 4218501" data-attributes="member: 47776">First, it would probably help it the spelling 'genre' were used.  Next, as a first attempt, I'd say that it means that characters can't reach reasonable conclusions.  For instance, they can't note that the horde of goblin runtlings go down with just a stab from the beleaguered wizard's emergency backup dagger, and decide to use non-attack autodamage area attacks. This is the logical thing to do in-game (that, or start dissecting minions to discover why Flaming Death Murder Meteorite which deals umpdy-d6 (and half damage on a miss) will fail to kill minions 5% of the time.Most annoyingly, the problem could have been solved much more elegantly with the tools and conditions already existing in D&D 4E.  Give each minion a bloodied value and a dead value.  Minions that get hit for their death amount die.  Minions that get hit for between their death amount and their bloodied amount are bloodied; minions that get hit twice for this amount die.  In the case of high-level minions that should actually not go down with two hits from a peasant with an ax handle, you can use resist all.We have not seen the minion descriptor be context-sensitive, is the thing.  Hell, I'd love to see minion as a template that could be applied to normal monsters to make them cannon fodder-ish, with the proviso that the template should only be applied when the monsters are in a group and facing attacks that will kill them outright 90% of the time.  What I don't like are 9th-level orcish minions remaining orcish minions when they're attacking a village full of non-9th-level adventurers.  I want stats for what the orcs are in the gameworld, and the ability to simply to make my life easier.I'll rephrase the statement, then; the way the DM chooses to dramatically frame the scene is not the be-all and end-all of what should happen.  In fact, I've found that I get better results by abandoning "I want there to be a climactic showdown between the party and the necromancer." and going with "The necromancer has these goals, and these resources.  You have these goals, and these resources.  He's going to try to kill you as hard as he can; I'd advise you to return the favor." and working from there.  There are three outcomes here, based on my choice.  Either I design for the scripted setpiece climax, or I work organically.  If I work organically, I run the risk of unfun outcome.  However, I've personally got a lot better player reception from the encounters in which I had stopped trying to reach an outcome as GM and started running with what the NPC would do.  Sometimes this meant desperate retreat, and PC death.  Sometimes it meant watching my carefully-prepared villain blow a Spot check and then go the way of the Raiders of the Lost Ark swordsman.  But on the whole, the highs of careful planning, desperate improvisation, and honest victory outweighed the highs of a carefully-planned encounter.  More interestingly, the stories my players tend to remember are the ones that begin with me looking at my notes for the evening, sighing, tossing them up in the air, and saying "OK, give me five minutes, then we'll run with this."</blockquote>

Verification