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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9576707" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'd have to move it back at least a step or two:1. Why was the grick there?  I don't mean in an in-setting sense, but why did the GM place it there (and yes, there's always a reason, even if the reason is something about verisimilitude or using a random encounter chart to force pace)?2. Given the above, what intention did the GM have as to how that was going to work?  Was a grick an appropriate encounter for the party as a whole, and the problem was the small subset of the PCs was too weak to deal with an encounter not-inappropriate for the whole party?I won't put out any sort of expected encounter that I don't think the PC group can't probably handle if they go about it smart anymore, so the answer to the first part was "Because I expected the PCs to hit it, and it was part of the gameplay loop going on."  It'd have been a fairly appropriate encounter for the PC group (maybe even a weak one depending on the game involved).  I'd certainly have warned the two players that it was manifestly unsafe wandering off from the rest of the party, but at the point they insist on doing so, they're choosing a deliberately hazardous tactical choice and if they pay the price for that, they do.  If I'm going to run a game with potential death in it at all, this is the sort of case where it seems appropriate.Frankly, its been many years since I GMed for a group that would do something like this other than as a reconnaissance operation, and then they'd have been sending people set up to do that well, and with the rest of the group as ready to respond as they could be and keep their distance.</blockquote>

Verification