NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5304173" data-attributes="member: 18280">Sorry, but you are adding significant material to what is presented in order to draw that conclusion. I am not aware of a single instance in any game I have ever played, as player or GM, even under the crappiest GMs I have ever known, where a player's decisions didn't have an impact on the game, nor any game where, at times, a single roll did not decide everything. This has been brought up in previous discussions, and in all cases it has been demonstrated that player choices led to the fateful die being cast.How, exactly, does this mean that PCs were always given warning signs of encounters?  It is a specific answer to the idea that “BAM!  The PC is dead without having gotten to make any decisions!”  That is clearly wrong.  Unless the monster jumps out of the closet at the start of the game, the PC got to make decisions.Looking for warning signs is a decision.  Not looking for warning signs is, equally, a decision.  You do not need to be given warning signs to make a decision.  Heading out into the blue and hoping for the best may be a bad decision, but it is a decision. But, again, if there is ever a single roll disconnected from everything else you've already got bigger problems than SoD. I've never seen it happen. I've never seen a "Bodak in the window" scenario play out where the only choices involved where whether or not to play a rogue, go on the adventure, or be the party scout. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But, if it did happen to you, the GM involved was (IMHO) at fault. Sorry, but that is (again, IMHO) not good GMing!Same response as above applies.  The argument that SoD is bad because the players make no decisions is a poor argument, at best.  As has been pointed out by others in this thread, the circumstances of the bodak in the window probably should not have resulted in the rogue’s death as described.  IMHO, that was a case of classically bad GMing.And it isn’t classically bad GMing because the “PCs entering an encounter uninformed” – it is classically bad GMing because the GM ignores the ameliorating efforts of the PCs in order to create a desired outcome.  The PC rogue sneaks up to the cabin and peers in the window.  He does so successfully, which rather indicates that the inhabitant(s) are not looking at him.  But, rather than treat the encounter as one in which the PC gains information (which he undertook, please note, significant risk to gain), the GM decides that the bodak’s gaze attack applies.This is the same sort of bad GMing involved with efforts to frustrate player attempts to acquire knowledge because it will “spoil the surprise” or otherwise change how the GM expects things to work out.  If the game includes low-level divination spells, and these spells can be used to learn what spells are in an enemy wizard’s spellbook, not letting the attempt work “just because” is bad GMing.IMHO.  YMMV.I mean, look at all the background text in many modules.  I have heard people – some of them in this thread – complain that there is “no way” the players could learn that background information.  Then, in this thread, the same folks complain that they, effectively, shouldn’t be giving the players information.  Why not allow the PCs to try to find out what’s in Elmonster’s spellbook?  Why is it trite to allow natural clues as to what lives around the Ruins of Ruinous Runes?Is doing so going to ruin your narrative? What do you think makes a better game: 1. You encounter Some Awful Creature. 2. You hear about Some Awful Creature, come across a carcass of its kill (which demonstrates that it could take down a manticore in flight, and seems to have some sort of acid attack), then spy the creature on the wing, and only then have to deal with it to meet some goal. I am firmly on the side of (2). You may call it "bubble wrapping every encounter"; I call it "creating anticipation, fear, and dread".Again, how does “The opportunity to anticipate encounters is more effective than simply plopping a monster in front of the PCs” become “PCs were always given warning signs of encounters”?As for “at the very least were always making informed decisions that lead to whatever their fate may be” you seem to miss the idea, no matter how often repeated, that it is the player’s responsibility to ensure their PCs are informed.  The players, not the GM, determine when the PCs have enough information to act.  The GM’s obligation is to make sure that doing so is possible if pursued in a manner consistent with the campaign milieu.  Generally speaking, it is better for the GM to allow the players to have more information rather than less, because context.No one is arguing that both scenarios do not, AFAICT.Fair enough.  But if you agree that “The possibility will often be there” that is close enough to my point that we can simply agree to disagree.  Or maybe my players are just really good at their jobs, and have some idea where signs are likely to be found.Can we use this as an example of how I use footprints?  It is a pbp, appearing effectively in “real time”, and is old enough that I cannot be accused of rigging the results (unless you think I have super-genius intelligence and predicted the need to do so long ago, anyway!  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> ):  <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/playing-game/112911-lakelands-six-adventure.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/playing-game/112911-lakelands-six-adventure.html</a>I was going to ask how these are a matter of luck, but you already answered my question:Again, if you are at all unclear on the concept, Gygax’s advice in the 1e PHB really cannot be beat.If they run into a giant, half the party could be dead before they’ve been given that option.Agreed that it's all about being able to make informed decisions to determine your character's fate, and, yes, those decisions come up before combat ever starts.  Disagree that this is only “sometimes true” – the only exception being the GM starting a game with “roll for initiative” or something like that.  Agreed that there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting, and that this is not necessarily simply the result of a world lacking consistency or a bad GM. Sometimes it is because the players thought they had enough information to go on (and were wrong).  Sometimes it is simply bad luck.But, again, saying “that there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting” again ignores an important concept – the larger the creature’s environmental impact, the larger its footprint.  I may not be certain about the pine martin, but I would know a moose print, a deer print, or a bear’s track.Likewise, Bilbo & Company certainly knew about the dragon and the goblins, but didn’t know about the spiders setting out (local impact), although within that location the footprint became obvious.  The footprint of the deer was less obvious than the footprint of the black squirrels, because there were more black squirrels than deer.Is this actually hard to grasp?“Potentially predictable” =/= “easily predictable”.If this is a primary objection to my argument, it is an (unintentional) strawman.IME, with many, many players over many years and in many places, the vast majority of players do not need “really exceptional knowledge-gathering capabilities (super divination spells or other info-gathering tricks)” in order to perform necessary information gathering well. Cool.  But, again, that isn’t an argument that SoD is bad; it is an argument that using SoD in certain ways is bad. That said, though, I don’t find your Scenario Two as consistent as you do.  Your bodak is way too close to the hobgoblins for my comfort.  Nor are there any other indicators present apart from what the hobgoblins know.  Also, if the bodak is that close to the level entrance, with nothing preventing it’s going to Level 6, why haven’t the PCs heard anything about it before now?Nonetheless, if we accept it at face value, yes, you are dead.  There are dozens of branching points of decisions here.  But if most of those decisions are uninformed, how much responsibility do you accept for that as a player?  I mean, didn’t you make a decision to go down to Level Seven, informed by the knowledge that you still hadn’t learned anything about what’s down there?RC</blockquote>

Verification