Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5665475" data-attributes="member: 3820">Actually, I think today's "<a href="http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dmxp/20110825" target="_blank">The Villain's Fault</a>" makes a pretty eloquent pitch for villains as considerably less than omniscient and untouchable until Just The Right Time. It's good advice; at worst, it makes "pet" villains a little more bearable as they clearly aren't meant to be more perfect than the PCs, and at best it makes the players want to see more of a villain. The value of that "at best" can't be understated. This is what GMs who want to emulate the popularity of Darth Vader or the Joker or Thulsa Doom are looking for. Villains that players are happy to have multiple meetings with, not villains that make the players feel like failures if the villain isn't dead at their feet the first time they come into conflict. Yes, you still want to beat them bad at the end, but the real victory is in making even interactions where you don't kill the villain enjoyable. Railroading and fudging dice rolls may assist those interactions if you have a plan, but of themselves they aren't going to guarantee it, and they can easily make the problem worse.</blockquote>