Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5276444" data-attributes="member: 957">Shrug, there has always been a &quot;being a hero is part luck&quot; element of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Gygax was very clear about that.&nbsp; I have not used a wander monster table in years.&nbsp; That isn't to say that &quot;random, non-plot-related&quot; monsters don't make regaular appearances.&nbsp; But a medusa, for example, doesn't make sense as just happening to be somewhere.&nbsp; A basilisk certainly could.I 100% agree that older versions of the game had a clear &quot;gotcha&quot; element built in.1E, in particular, was much more about &quot;in the dungeon&quot;, and the whims of fate on an encounter by encounter basis.&nbsp; Not that it started and ended there, but that element of the story was distinctly prominent.Also, &quot;only be used in very specific circumstances where the PC's have ample opportunity to prepare themselves&quot; is a major exagerration of what I said.&nbsp; Certainly having some specific circumstances where the preparation to take on a specific threat is part of the story cna be great fun.&nbsp; But, there are options where no specific knowledge is needed, but a general preparation still makes sense.All the counter argument keep insisting on removing the example from all context whatsoever.&nbsp;&nbsp; A basilisk may be a decent wandering encounter.&nbsp; But, a basilisk randomly in room 14b really makes no more sense than a medusa.&nbsp; Ecology and history and culture also fit.&nbsp; If there are one or more basilisks down in the caves, or a catoblepas in the swamp, then there is going to be some kind of knowledge in the surrounding area.&nbsp; When all is said and done, things should work the way they should work.&nbsp; Making them less threatening just to make them less threatening does nothing but steal the fun of facing the threat.At the end of the day, if the fun is strongly attached to &quot;getting the story right&quot;, then no amount of fun added by removing save and die is going to outweigh the fun removed by the gamist disruption of the story.&nbsp; I don't remotely expect that everyone will have the same desire for story above all else, that I have.&nbsp; But that is my reason.&nbsp; To me, if you get medusa wrong, then you got the story wrong.&nbsp; I don't see any merit, for me, in having a live character in game that misses the very elements that make the game fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5276444, member: 957"] Shrug, there has always been a "being a hero is part luck" element of D&D. Gygax was very clear about that. I have not used a wander monster table in years. That isn't to say that "random, non-plot-related" monsters don't make regaular appearances. But a medusa, for example, doesn't make sense as just happening to be somewhere. A basilisk certainly could. I 100% agree that older versions of the game had a clear "gotcha" element built in. 1E, in particular, was much more about "in the dungeon", and the whims of fate on an encounter by encounter basis. Not that it started and ended there, but that element of the story was distinctly prominent. Also, "only be used in very specific circumstances where the PC's have ample opportunity to prepare themselves" is a major exagerration of what I said. Certainly having some specific circumstances where the preparation to take on a specific threat is part of the story cna be great fun. But, there are options where no specific knowledge is needed, but a general preparation still makes sense. All the counter argument keep insisting on removing the example from all context whatsoever. A basilisk may be a decent wandering encounter. But, a basilisk randomly in room 14b really makes no more sense than a medusa. Ecology and history and culture also fit. If there are one or more basilisks down in the caves, or a catoblepas in the swamp, then there is going to be some kind of knowledge in the surrounding area. When all is said and done, things should work the way they should work. Making them less threatening just to make them less threatening does nothing but steal the fun of facing the threat. At the end of the day, if the fun is strongly attached to "getting the story right", then no amount of fun added by removing save and die is going to outweigh the fun removed by the gamist disruption of the story. I don't remotely expect that everyone will have the same desire for story above all else, that I have. But that is my reason. To me, if you get medusa wrong, then you got the story wrong. I don't see any merit, for me, in having a live character in game that misses the very elements that make the game fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification