Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6983991" data-attributes="member: 6785785">[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] I'm not sure what thread it was in, but I don't think I have commented in this one, so it must have been somewhere else. My knowledge of 4E is pretty limited, so I wouldn't feel all too confident to offer much in that regard.Generally speaking, though, I think you missed my point or that I was unclear. I said I like to include encounters that are beyond the PCs from a combat perspective. I did not mean that the encounter would require them to flee, although I may have provided that as an option. It really depends on the circumstances and the intended goals of the group at the time, but I'd think that when PCs run up against a foe that is beyond them, there are usually several options that they can use....diplomacy, guile, stealth, magic, fleeing....it really depends on the campaign and the game world and many other factors. I definitely don't use these tactics to railroad players. Maybe an example would help...the Millenium Falcon didn't assault the Death Star head on because doing so would be certain death. Instead, they tried to flee...but were then pulled in by a tractor beam. They then used a mix of many tactics to infiltrate the personnel and get what they came for.I certainly never intended to imply that I put the PCs into a situation where they had no choice but to flee or die. However, what I want to avoid is my campaign's equivalent of Han Solo saying "Let's do this, boys" and fly head on at the Death Star with guns blazing....and then somehow succeed. I believe that I mentioned this approach to the game in order to alter my players' perception that every potential combat they faced was winnable. I didn't want them to assume that just because this is a game that it meant they should engage in combat at all times assuming victory was possible. I mentioned other methods I use to help accomplish that as well. If I remember correctly this was about a group of PCs who didn't see an orc army as a threat. So that kind of set us on a discussion of aligning player and character "thought" as much as possible. So having not been privy to this whole exchange between [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] and yourself, from the last few comments, I think perhaps he is citing that same conversation, or ones similar to it. Some folks like to take the monsters right out of the MM, plop them down into a battle map, and then not treat them as much more than obstacles for the PCs. Which means the stats are paramount and little attention seems to be paid to how such a creature may actually behave. Which can be fine...but it has an effect on player expectation. I simply cannot view monsters or villains without also taking into consideration environment and tactics. Three elements that can all affect an encounter in drastic ways. Many folks seem to only want to have to worry about one of those three. I hope this wound up being relevant to you guys' discussion. If not, then I'll attempt to get back on topic by saying of 4E monsters: I kind of liked minions, and that I agree with the others who mentioned that they liked having different tiers of humanoid villains, and that I wish 5E would do more of that.</blockquote>

Verification