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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheFindus" data-source="post: 5839981" data-attributes="member: 75791">I think I understand your point.About the troll and the bear cave, though: What is the story here? The bear, the cave or the troll? The main problem I have with wandering monster tables is that most often in my experience, they distract from the actual story. So if the story in your example is a cave in dangerous wilderlands and you are trying to make the danger an issue, then why add a troll to an already dangerous bear? Why not present just the troll as the dangerous opponent? Why is a roll on a wandering monster table neccessary here? If the story is the bear, that, for example, needs to be protected or something like that, all of a sudden the troll makes sense as a story element. Because now the heroes have to protect the bear. But again, no wandering monster table roll neccessary here.What I am trying to say is that because wandering monsters are randomly picked, I find it very hard 90% of the time to see a need for their existance storywise.In the Warhammer 1st edition Doomstone Campaign the heroes are travelling through a mountain range full of dangerous creatures. The adventure designers wanted to bring across just that danger of the environment. So they installed several combats with wilderbeasts across the heroes' track. In that way, all those creatures served a story purpose. No wandering monster table was neccessary.I think I get your angle.I like scenes like the one you are describing. And I have played them in all varieties of roleplaying situations. So I think the scene itself is not part of old-school gameplay by itself. What I do consider part of old-school gameplay, though, is your explanation for an incurring TPK: the players (!) were not smart enough and adventuring is dangerous work.And this is the part that I do not like anymore. Because what is so exciting about playing a scene like this is the danger for your character. If that character dies, it is very anticlimactic and the scene will be remembered by anybody that I know not for the suspense, but the TPK, which nobody will laugh about. And it will not help them with their next characters, either. Because what are these next generation characters going to do? Go back to the same wall? Killing them off will stop play right there. And if you are true to your new character's experience and stay within that new character's state of mind, he will learn nothing from that experience of the old character, because he did not encounter it. The player does, though, and will be working outside of that new character's mindset when he is experiencing his own "I am at the wall" scenario. That, to my taste, is not a good thing.Plus, how to make room for a sucky GM that will not accept some of the stuff the players come up with? Especially when playing modules that have a very specific solution in mind to begin with?So, to quote 4E: to say "yes!" in situations like this and not expecting players to solve a scene based on their own but on their character's experience, I find is a more delightful way to GM. I think it more challenging for the player, too, because you really have to block out the stuff that is not your character.I hate those spells, too. "Teleport without Error" comes to mind. Especially because those spells tended to make non-spellcasters look and feel weak and make encounter design more difficult at higher levels. But that is a totally different subject.</blockquote>

Verification