Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5628778" data-attributes="member: 94022">Good point.&nbsp; I will say, for all its problems KotS did assume that the party would retreat at least once or twice out of the keep.&nbsp; I'm not sure where the assumptions started but it does seem to be a general assumption now that once the party enters the dungeon, they don't leave until its cleared.&nbsp; I think players are sometimes as responsible as DMs in this regard.&nbsp; What I don't know (since I didn't start gaming really until about 1999) is whether the player assumptions were driven by DM behavior -- i.e. if the party leaves the dungeon then the dungeon repopulates and the BBEG is even harder to kill since he knows they're coming now.&nbsp; Its definitely a fine balance that DMs have to maintain between realism and carrot/stick tactics.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also true, though the treasure parcel system has at least made things like potions easier to obtain mid-adventure.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I actually meant this as a positive, not a negative.&nbsp; The point being that in general, the party would choose to take a short rest and then press on rather than looking to game as many extended rests as possible out of the DM.&nbsp; I think you'll still always have the &quot;We camp for the night.&quot; when traveling between towns, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yeah, as I said, it becomes a delicate balancing act in my opinion.&nbsp; It can be done to be sure, but I do think you need to be careful.&nbsp; For the record, as a mostly DM, I personally feel that in general, the party should succeed, but that setbacks are good for the game as well.&nbsp; They teach the party tactics.&nbsp; They build tension and/or drama.&nbsp; Plus, they make the successes that much sweeter.&nbsp; I have always felt that retreat is a valid tactic, but that encounters that are designed to force the party to retreat should be relatively rare.&nbsp; As for what the actual success percentage should be?&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; I think this is something that will always vary from table to table.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I actually agree with you here.&nbsp; Those encounters where we are strapped for resources are often the most fun and tension-filled.&nbsp; I don't think they should be done too often (otherwise death becomes inevitable), but they do make for a good time.&nbsp; In the one game I'm a player in, we just finished Reavers of Harkenwold.&nbsp; We finally go to the point where we knew we had one more fight with the BBEG and my runepriest was sitting on 6 HP and no surges and the fighter was at 12 HP and no surges.&nbsp; We pressed on anyway though because from a story perspective, we knew we had to.&nbsp; I ended the encounter unconscious but alive and was eventually healed so it was all good.&nbsp; To have tried to game an extra extended rest out of it though would have cheapened the whole experience to me.&nbsp; It would have felt like playing a video game instead.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riastlin, post: 5628778, member: 94022"] Good point. I will say, for all its problems KotS did assume that the party would retreat at least once or twice out of the keep. I'm not sure where the assumptions started but it does seem to be a general assumption now that once the party enters the dungeon, they don't leave until its cleared. I think players are sometimes as responsible as DMs in this regard. What I don't know (since I didn't start gaming really until about 1999) is whether the player assumptions were driven by DM behavior -- i.e. if the party leaves the dungeon then the dungeon repopulates and the BBEG is even harder to kill since he knows they're coming now. Its definitely a fine balance that DMs have to maintain between realism and carrot/stick tactics. Also true, though the treasure parcel system has at least made things like potions easier to obtain mid-adventure. I actually meant this as a positive, not a negative. The point being that in general, the party would choose to take a short rest and then press on rather than looking to game as many extended rests as possible out of the DM. I think you'll still always have the "We camp for the night." when traveling between towns, etc. Yeah, as I said, it becomes a delicate balancing act in my opinion. It can be done to be sure, but I do think you need to be careful. For the record, as a mostly DM, I personally feel that in general, the party should succeed, but that setbacks are good for the game as well. They teach the party tactics. They build tension and/or drama. Plus, they make the successes that much sweeter. I have always felt that retreat is a valid tactic, but that encounters that are designed to force the party to retreat should be relatively rare. As for what the actual success percentage should be? I don't know. I think this is something that will always vary from table to table. I actually agree with you here. Those encounters where we are strapped for resources are often the most fun and tension-filled. I don't think they should be done too often (otherwise death becomes inevitable), but they do make for a good time. In the one game I'm a player in, we just finished Reavers of Harkenwold. We finally go to the point where we knew we had one more fight with the BBEG and my runepriest was sitting on 6 HP and no surges and the fighter was at 12 HP and no surges. We pressed on anyway though because from a story perspective, we knew we had to. I ended the encounter unconscious but alive and was eventually healed so it was all good. To have tried to game an extra extended rest out of it though would have cheapened the whole experience to me. It would have felt like playing a video game instead. [/QUOTE]

Verification