Why the fear and hatred of Disjunction?

[Ciaran]

Have you noticed that "tough" DMs who don't hesitate to kill a character on a bad roll or a mistake are much more liked than "mellow" ones who always try to find a way out for their players ?

No. And by that, I don't mean that it's true and I haven't noticed it, but that in my experience, I have noticed that it is not true. Thanks.

 

[el-remmen]

No. And by that, I don't mean that it's true and I haven't noticed it, but that in my experience, I have noticed that it is not true. Thanks.

But. . . But. . . He's describing me!

And as for the fear and hatred of disjunction. .. well, it is all about the style of game you play in. I would destroy all of the party's magical items without a second thought, unless one or more of the items was some kind of McGuffin needed to move the current adventure along - and even then - I'd rather play out the consequences of that loss than pull my punches.

Heck, I even have a lesser version

 

[Psion]

This is extremely skewed and can easily result in unintended massive screwing over of some PCs by the DM with a single spell.

I don't think you are understanding me.

This goes back to the classic carnard of DMs who put lethal effects in their games, but then fudge the dice when they are introduced. If you didn't want players to die in the first place, you shouldn't have put the lethal effect in the game. Same goes with MD. Unless the DM feels the current magic item load is out of balance, there is the opportunity to correct the balance, or the DM desires the imbalance, then the DM should not be putting MD in the game.

If you aren't willing to endure the effects of any trap, plot twist, monster, etc., would logically introduce, you shouldn't be putting it in the game.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Well I, for one, would have no qualms using Disjunction in one of my games.

Why ?

Because, like someone said, it can actually add to the gaming experience.

Have you noticed that "tough" DMs who don't hesitate to kill a character on a bad roll or a mistake are much more liked than "mellow" ones who always try to find a way out for their players ?

Have you ever wondered why that is ?

Many players (myself and my players included) get their kicks out of challenging encounters, intricate politics and actual risk. The fact that they know their fate hangs on their decisions and the roll of a dice is actually enough to make them sweat. And when they do succeed, they know that it's only through luck and skill, and not the whim of their DM. Hence the sweetness of victory.

When you're playing with a nice DM who never kills players (or does it when there is absolutely no other choice since they screwed up so much), you won't enjoy your successes as much as you would have. A keen +4 rapier is worth that much more when it almost killed you in the hands of a skilled duelist.

Why am I speaking about death ? Because it's the same with disjunction. It could and should be used sometimes. Not always, because it has significant drawbacks for the BBEG. Your players won't use it because they want the loot, and your bad guys shouldn't as well - unless they're outmatched and it looks like their only chance.

But if they do use it, well, tough luck. Part of being a hero is facing this kind of challenge.

Personally, I feel you citing 2 opposite ends of the DM scale?

On the one hand, it's a never kill GM.

On the other, it's someone who will kill you.

IMO there's a wide gulf of playtypes between the two.

I'd lean a little towards the second type. Although there's a lot of ifs/buts and how does this work to that?

Personally, my ideal territory is 'fair' encounters, played viciously. With a sneaking feeling that the GM is rooting for us, but won't fudge things!



Back on topic - 100% agree with your conclusion - something to be used in moderation. Has downsides for the BBEGs as well and that does need to be bourne in mind... nothing worse than NPCs being played like disposable one shot villans (unless theres a good reason for it).

 

[KarinsDad]

If you aren't willing to endure the effects of any trap, plot twist, monster, etc., would logically introduce, you shouldn't be putting it in the game.

100% agreed.

 

[KarinsDad]

Personally, my ideal territory is 'fair' encounters, played viciously. With a sneaking feeling that the GM is rooting for us, but won't fudge things!

This is the best way I have ever heard this described.

Although, I think I would phrase it just a little bit differently:

Personally, my ideal territory is 'fair' encounters, played viciously. With a sneaking feeling that the GM is rooting for the bad guys, but won't fudge things!


If the DM is rooting for the bad guys as opposed to the players, then he will not "subconsciously" fudge things in the PCs favor. If anything, he will pick the best possible tactic he can conceive of for the bad guys given the NPC's knowledge and the current situation. Remembering that the DM has to often play more than one NPC in an encounter, it is easier for him to make sub-optimal decisions just due to the heavy workload and the newness / unfamiliarity of many encounters. Players, on the other hand, tend to only play one PC (and possibly a cohort) over many gaming sessions, hence, they are more familiar and experienced with their tactics.

 

[Quartz]

How do they handle power word kill, gate (e.g. balor), and similar spells, I wonder?

A 10th level BBEG can easily have access to Wish (from an Efreet) and the like. They can have Gate from a Candle of Invocation or Bead of Karma. The Balor might not come himself but send a minion. Power Word Kill will kill one PC, but does not prevent Ressurection. Wail of the Banshee is easily countered, if you're prepared. As in most enterprises, if the PCs just rush in, they're much more likely to fail. They're going up against the BBEG, so he should have something special. And you know what? Running away is sometimes a really good tactic; then the PCs can come back later, and this time he's already used his one-shot item.

You not only simply don't like players to lose their stuff, but you don't like them to have a chance of losing their stuff.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

You not only simply don't like players to lose their stuff, but you don't like them to have a chance of losing their stuff.

We'll put it this way:

One can run many types of fun RPG game sessions in which one does not piss off the player base.

One cannot run any type of RPG game session if one HAS pissed off the player base.

I have whole bucketfulls of interesting and fun things to do with my RPG, things that the players find challenging, engaging, and fun. Janking their spells and equipment with one spell is challenging, but not particularly engaging or fun. YMMV, but I wouldn't say my games have particularly suffered because that one spell doesn't get tossed around alot.

--fje

 

[Sejs]

'Efreet', 'wish' and 'easily' rarely belong in a sentance together.

 

[Psion]

'Efreet', 'wish' and 'easily' rarely belong in a sentance together.

Sure they do. "You can easily screw things up trying to extract a wish from an efreet." See?