Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5276590" data-attributes="member: 61155">It doesn't have to be random. But part of the argument here has been that if you didn't take 'appropriate precautions', you deserve to die. But you don't always get that chance. Whether entering a room with an enemy you couldn't predict, or even having high-level wizards come after you, that Finger of Death might just be another spell in their list. That trap might just have a Wail of the Banshee that wipes the party in the corridor. That random house in the woods might just have a Bodak.&nbsp;'Good' game or 'bad' game, the system provides these possibilities. And they could well be justified by the DM! But you can't just blame him if the system has them in it. You can't say, &quot;Save or Dies are fine, and these hundreds of times they've been a problem, its just the DM's fault. He should have fixed the system on his own. He should have run things 'right'; it's his fault for not running a 'good' game.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp;Raven CrowKing, if you want to know the basis for my previous statements, here's all the proof you need. &nbsp;Look, BryonD - the situation isn't that limited. Our choices aren't, &quot;Fight enemies with Save or Die&quot; or &quot;Have trivial encounters that never challenge you.&quot; &nbsp;Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is 'lame or pathetic' for fighting the wizard with &quot;Finger of Booboo&quot; - or are cowards who shy away from challenges - just isn't cool. &nbsp;You like Save or Die spells. I get that. You have the right to that preference, and it provides the tension you want in the game you play. But it isn't the only way to play. &nbsp;And those who object to Save or Die have many reasons for doing so. Often because they feel it doesn't make for dramatic, heroic deaths they are looking for. That doesn't mean they object to death as a whole, that doesn't mean they run from any true challenges, that doesn't mean the enemies they fight are completely trivial battles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5276590, member: 61155"] It doesn't have to be random. But part of the argument here has been that if you didn't take 'appropriate precautions', you deserve to die. But you don't always get that chance. Whether entering a room with an enemy you couldn't predict, or even having high-level wizards come after you, that Finger of Death might just be another spell in their list. That trap might just have a Wail of the Banshee that wipes the party in the corridor. That random house in the woods might just have a Bodak. 'Good' game or 'bad' game, the system provides these possibilities. And they could well be justified by the DM! But you can't just blame him if the system has them in it. You can't say, "Save or Dies are fine, and these hundreds of times they've been a problem, its just the DM's fault. He should have fixed the system on his own. He should have run things 'right'; it's his fault for not running a 'good' game." Raven CrowKing, if you want to know the basis for my previous statements, here's all the proof you need. Look, BryonD - the situation isn't that limited. Our choices aren't, "Fight enemies with Save or Die" or "Have trivial encounters that never challenge you." Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is 'lame or pathetic' for fighting the wizard with "Finger of Booboo" - or are cowards who shy away from challenges - just isn't cool. You like Save or Die spells. I get that. You have the right to that preference, and it provides the tension you want in the game you play. But it isn't the only way to play. And those who object to Save or Die have many reasons for doing so. Often because they feel it doesn't make for dramatic, heroic deaths they are looking for. That doesn't mean they object to death as a whole, that doesn't mean they run from any true challenges, that doesn't mean the enemies they fight are completely trivial battles. [/QUOTE]

Verification