Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5278621" data-attributes="member: 957">Certainly &quot;gotcha&quot; has a solid basis in D&amp;D history.&nbsp; But I think that it is much less common today, at least to my experience.&nbsp; And my games don't run on that basis.I can only recall one time when there was not some form of mitigation.&nbsp; I can think of times when the players missed it.&nbsp; And I can specifically recall my wife's character turning to stone (and ultimately remaining stone forever) in response to a bad roll in what was pretty much a &quot;random&quot; basilisk encounter.&nbsp; And that death is brought up from time to time with fondness and chuckles.&nbsp; That was pretty close to without any mitigation, but I elected to through in some &quot;quality statues&quot; right before.&nbsp; And that could certainly be called &quot;unfair&quot; to use one clue and play &quot;read my mind&quot;.&nbsp; But that wasn't the point.&nbsp; They were relatively high level and it was a bad roll against a minor threat.&nbsp; So it goes.&nbsp; But, not only was THAT encounter fun, and not only is THAT encounter remembered well, but also, every encounter since has gained a little bit from it because the players know that they are playing in a &quot;organic&quot; (if you will) setting and dangers lurk around every corner.But, some form of mitigation is certainly very typical.&nbsp; If the monsters don't work the way they are supposed to, then they are flat out wrong.&nbsp; As far as I am concerned, if a creature slows you, it isn't a medusa.&nbsp; It may be a fun monster.&nbsp; But it ain't medusa and if you say it is, I consider you flat wrong.But, having the rules do the monsters right is not the only part of a good game.&nbsp; It is the DM's job to make a good story and narrative that works for everyone's fun.&nbsp; Even the guy who gets suprised by the medusa and rolls a 1.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5278621, member: 957"] Certainly "gotcha" has a solid basis in D&D history. But I think that it is much less common today, at least to my experience. And my games don't run on that basis. I can only recall one time when there was not some form of mitigation. I can think of times when the players missed it. And I can specifically recall my wife's character turning to stone (and ultimately remaining stone forever) in response to a bad roll in what was pretty much a "random" basilisk encounter. And that death is brought up from time to time with fondness and chuckles. That was pretty close to without any mitigation, but I elected to through in some "quality statues" right before. And that could certainly be called "unfair" to use one clue and play "read my mind". But that wasn't the point. They were relatively high level and it was a bad roll against a minor threat. So it goes. But, not only was THAT encounter fun, and not only is THAT encounter remembered well, but also, every encounter since has gained a little bit from it because the players know that they are playing in a "organic" (if you will) setting and dangers lurk around every corner. But, some form of mitigation is certainly very typical. If the monsters don't work the way they are supposed to, then they are flat out wrong. As far as I am concerned, if a creature slows you, it isn't a medusa. It may be a fun monster. But it ain't medusa and if you say it is, I consider you flat wrong. But, having the rules do the monsters right is not the only part of a good game. It is the DM's job to make a good story and narrative that works for everyone's fun. Even the guy who gets suprised by the medusa and rolls a 1. [/QUOTE]

Verification