Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 2640732" data-attributes="member: 12037">Well, most posts have been complaining about PC death and save-or-die effects being bad. &quot;You have an assassin plotting to kill a PC, how awful!&quot; and &quot;You're abusing your power as a DM, why not just send a balor after a 1st level party?&quot; type stuff. That is completely unfair, IMO, and a DM who feels the need to give all PCs a passive chance to overcome every scenario is doing his players a disservice, IMO.My assumption is that if the PCs act in a paranoid mannar, then it will be more difficult for the assassin to pull off his plan. Maybe I'm putting my method of operation too much into this, but when I plan a session, I detail the NPCs plans and how they will work out as if the PCs do nothing. Then, as the game progresses, I play out the NPCs based on what the PCs are now doing, if that makes any sense.So, lets say the PCs know that they've angered an evil empire who is out for their lives and act accordingly. They actively make preparations to keep a look out for enemies. They set up watch in the inn as they sleep. They do things that will make the assassin have a hard time with them. I don't think KM plans to ignore these kinds of things. However, if the PCs do nothing to prepare against an assassin, and one of their heads gets blown off becasue of it, my sympathy is not with the PC or his or her Player.EDIT: Personally, I DM under the general assumption that &quot;Town is Safe&quot; for most of my games and run the game accordingly. However, I know this isn't for everyone, and while, yes, my style is in conflict with that aspect of the scenario, I'm not going to think others should be holden to my belief that the PCs should usually feel safe in towns/cities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ThirdWizard, post: 2640732, member: 12037"] Well, most posts have been complaining about PC death and save-or-die effects being bad. "You have an assassin plotting to kill a PC, how awful!" and "You're abusing your power as a DM, why not just send a balor after a 1st level party?" type stuff. That is completely unfair, IMO, and a DM who feels the need to give all PCs a [i]passive[/i] chance to overcome every scenario is doing his players a disservice, IMO. My assumption is that if the PCs act in a paranoid mannar, then it will be more difficult for the assassin to pull off his plan. Maybe I'm putting my method of operation too much into this, but when I plan a session, I detail the NPCs plans and how they will work out as if the PCs do nothing. Then, as the game progresses, I play out the NPCs based on what the PCs are now doing, if that makes any sense. So, lets say the PCs know that they've angered an evil empire who is out for their lives and act accordingly. They [i]actively[/i] make preparations to keep a look out for enemies. They set up watch in the inn as they sleep. They do things that will make the assassin have a hard time with them. I don't think KM plans to ignore these kinds of things. However, if the PCs do nothing to prepare against an assassin, and one of their heads gets blown off becasue of it, my sympathy is not with the PC or his or her Player. EDIT: Personally, I DM under the general assumption that "Town is Safe" for most of my games and run the game accordingly. However, I know this isn't for everyone, and while, yes, my style is in conflict with that aspect of the scenario, I'm not going to think others should be holden to my belief that the PCs should usually feel safe in towns/cities. [/QUOTE]

Verification