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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 5273165" data-attributes="member: 467">While I wouldn't necessarily use the term "stupid", I do kind of agree with Technomancer's general point. Going into the dungeon *is* dangerous, and the players and PCs know it. More to the point, if the campaign is "typical D&D", there's a known risk of the presence of save or die effects: poisoned needs in door locks, giant falling blocks from the ceiling, basilisks and medusae (I think these count as save or die). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the players/PCs to work to avoid making those saves in the first place (by being careful, etc...)BUT, the farther one moves away from that sort of old school, base line D&D presumption -- tomb raiders looking for fortune and glory in chaos infused labyrinths -- the less one can put the onus on the players/PCs for getting themselves into trouble. If the GM believes in the value added by using opponents with save or die (or energy drain) type effects, but also wants a campaign that is non standard, then it is the GM's job to make sure the players/PCs enderstand the threat exists.I have two examples of failures on my part, as a DM that likes save or die, in imparting save or die effects in play. I learned a lot from these situation and maybe others can too without going through the consequences I had to go through (one of the following ended a campaign and my GMing for the group outright and the other almost did so).1) I sometimes like "outsized" enemies in adventures to remind the players that the world is not appropriately challenged. I.e. just because you are 1st level doesn't mean the CR 20 baddies don't exist. In playing the 3E Dragonlance modules, I decided to use the MMII (I think) Banshee instead of the CR 7-ish groaing spirit in the Xak Tsaroth dungeon -- again, just to remind the players the world is full of powerful evils. I made sure to give the PCs a couple of rounds to run once the encounter started. they didn't run, even after the first PC died outright. They had it in their heads that any challenge in front of them was beatable, and a TPK ensued. My fault, entirely. It was a poor decision to put the banshee in front of them in the first place, and a worse decision to not tell them straight out that they could not win the fight.2) In a different campaign, I had the PCs enter a small town where there were rumors of an evil sleeping in the old town well. To make a long story short, I tried to transfer information to the players all "in character" regarding the threat posed to them. At the time, for whatever reason, I felt that I had done my job correctly and if they didn't take it seriously, it was their heads. And they didn't, and so it was, and it turned into a giant mess. (Those of you that also frequent rpg.net may recall the Great Ninja Bodak thread.) I failed here by not confirming that the players knew they were in real trouble, and by punishing them for my inability to give clear clues.So, my point: save or die is good, and it can improves games, but it hands a great deal of power to the DM and therefore requires a great deal of care in its use. If you're running an old school dungeon crawl in a standard D&D universe with experienced players, I say let the encounter charts rule and the saves fall where they may. But if your doing something else, take care in how you include and apply these kinds of opponents and affects in the game.</blockquote>

Verification