Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2556183" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>thats the scripting. With a high level threat, you script in "reasonable" or "sufficient" clues ahead of the encounter to give the PCs time to turn away etc. You don't throw 20th level threats at them the same way you throw 3rd level ones. scratches head. Maybe i am spoiled by my players but i don't recall ever hearing a group say "yeah this one will kill us but lets do it anyway", at least not in seriousness.IMX if PCs decide to go for the "it will kill us" option its not because they know what they are doing and are just being stupid. its because they have insufficient info. Whatever "subtle clues" i tried to give were insufficient for them to get that "this one will kill us", and not that they got that and wanted to die anyway.Since i am the guy providing every ounce of info to them, if tyey have insufficient info and get killed on account of it, its far from them paying for "their own bad decisions." now, on an individual level, sometimes things just misfire, like when a monk player said out loud "wow that monster just did over half my hit points in a single round" who then decided to stand anf fight for "one more round" to the amazement of everyone at the table and in spite of several strongly worded hints. but i have never had an entire group all brain fart at the same time. So when that looks like what they are doing, i usually look to what i failed to get across.see above. with the Gm being the source of all info they base their decisions on, the Gm cannot easily wash his hands of responsibility for their making what he, armed with all his knowledge, considers bad decisions.IMX if an entire group has the same brain fart, its more likely stemming from the info mismatch between "what the gm thought he said" and "what they heard" and not just because as a group to a man they suddenly "get stupid."the Gm populates the world with circumstance, options and chellneges... so he is not divorced from "the challenges the party meets". he may not be totally in control of it, but its also not fair to ascribe it to the party alone.indeed, i find that with good script, the weaker player's abilities can be critical, even moreso than the others. I just don't find that happening "as a matter of course" but happening when the Gm scripts the challenges to highlight these traits.which are made within and shaped by and at least severly influenced by if not practically controlled by all those "GM activities" and the info they get from him.Sorry, and i know some Gms like to think they are referrees who just lay things out and from their its all on the players etc... but that to me in my experience is nonsense. groups of players tend far more often than not to draw reasonable conclusions based on what the Gm gave them and rarely just knowingly decide to be suicidal. A Gm refusing to acknowledge his role in the PCs decisions, good AND bad, is one to be avoided IMO.But, I am perhaps wierd that way. I love referees for competitve wargames, not for rpgs.in a competitive wargame the forces for both sides, the scneario, circumstance and terrain  etc are set up to be competitive. A referee is all you need there.[/QUOTE]

Verification