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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7452961" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya! [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], rather than respond point by point and end up with another mini-novel, I'll just make a few comments about your last reply to me.Re: The DM makes the tables/charts...so he's ultimately accountable. I don't think this is a fair assessment of claiming it's "still the DM's choice". At least not any more than anytime any other dice are involved in the game. Having a random encounter table for The Giant Hills written up weeks, months or years prior to the PC's going there doesn't put the DM 'on the hook' for when PC's encounter a Hill Giant there that kills them all. By that logic, a DM who writes "Room 22: Cooking Room - a large fire pit is in the center, with a huge 4' diameter glass cauldron (2" thick) suspended over top from chains attached to the ceiling, containing an undulating dark-grey mass. In the cauldron is a Grey Ooze that attacks any who come within striking distance"...is "responsible" for when the wizard with only 11hp's rushes over to the cauldron because he wants it because it's glass. And then gets one-shotted by the ooze.     ...     No, the DM is not "responsible" for the wizards death. The ooze was there, regardless of who was going to investigate it, because that was the result from the Players choosing to enter that particular room. Re: DM giving info to let Players make informed decisions. I've always said that the players should have means of gathering info to make informed decisions. I think what you and I disagree on is the specificity of that "information gathering". To me, having the setting described and the inhabitants of the setting able to convey information is all I "need" to do. I need to be able to describe the world to the Players. In this description there will be names of people, places and things. These people, places and things will have potential "information" that the Players can consult in order to make informed decisions. If the PC's just head off into The Giant Hills without asking anyone even WHY they are called The Giant Hills....well, it's NOT a failure on the DM's part. That's on the Players. By what I'm reading from you, you would see it as an important thing for the DM to somehow 'impart' this information to the Players, assuming they "accidentally overlooked" or "didn't realize the potential danger" by having, say, a farmer on the road say "Ho there, travelers! Are you lost? The way you're heading leads into The Giant Hills! A dangerous place, infested with ogres, Hill Giants and even Stone Giants!". Is this correct? If so, that's fine....not my style, but a totally acceptable method to use. I would consider that sort of method "new skool", where the DM is more inclined to volunteer information more than only impart it if the Players "ask" (via PC interaction, history/skill checks, etc).Re: A TPK has to have DM approval. Sorry, firm disagree here. But we already established that, right? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> In my mind, a DM has no more given approval for a TPK than the Players have for rolling bad on their PC's Hit Point's. When dice and random chance are involved, the "approval of the result" is, imho, out of the hands of the DM and the Players. Simply stating that the DM or Rule called for a roll in the first place doesn't shift the result of that roll to the DM/Player for "choosing to roll". Now, a DM or a Player who outright chooses to do something knowing full well the result...yes. Obviously. (we had one player, playing a Lizard Man Fighter waaaay back in a City State of the Invincible Overlord campaign with 1e AD&D had his PC jump off a huge underground waterfall that fell into darkness below...because a particular song from the Last of the Mohican's soundtrack was playing; the song from when the two women choose to jump off a cliff rather than be taken by the mohawks; the song just stirred up too much involuntary emotion at that exact time...so...over he went. Pretty...epic...and confusing...but definitely memorable! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ). But if a random dice roll is called for something...be it Skill Check or Random Encounter...once the dice are thrown, that's pretty much it. Do I think a DM should "choose" to have or not have an encounter, and or what that encounter is with? Yes. I believe a DM is fully justified for doing that; he's the DM. But at the same time, a DM who chooses to roll the dice should abide by the results almost every time. Sometimes rolling dice "for effect" when deciding a result before hand is a good tactic for a DM to use. But this should be used extremely sparingly! Otherwise the game becomes, again imho, more of a DM trying to 'force' an outcome to a story/plot/whatever. If a DM is doing this to much or all the time...just go write a short story or book already. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />PS: Lord Stark was a PC. So... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification