|
I'm considering possibly GM'ing my first long-term path/campaign (actually it would be Emerald Spire). I already have a group of players interested in such a game which would be a fantastic group with which to play.
Certain paths (or super dungeons!) have the notoriety of becoming super deadly, sometimes very quickly (again I'm thinking of Emerald Spire).
So, you have a bunch of players you envision playing with over multiple months and they're playing some very deadly areas. As a GM, do you do things to try to ensure they don't get permanently taken out of the game? There's all sorts of dynamics that could go along with it, such as bad feelings and ill-will among the remaining players. I would suspect that this could happen among the happiest of gaming groups. No one wants to see the group dissolve in front of their eyes due to one or more character deaths.
It would seem a delicate balance needs to be struck. You want to be fair, keep to how things are written (esp. if going by PFS rules), make it challenging, but you also don't want to kill off the party too early (or maybe not at all; at least until they've achieved close to or at the deepest depths).
|
I have been thinking the same subject myself. I recently started GMing Emerald Spire for two local groups using PFS rules. I too have my concerns about character deaths, because my two groups consist of four characters per group. One PC death could ruin the whole groups efforts.
I've expressed these concerns to my players. Instead of sheltering them I decided to roll openly (I usually do it behind my screen) and let the dice land where they land. I hope this will get my players to think tactically and play safely and work as a team. With Emerald Spire, I think that too much handholding will diminish the awesome superdungeon.
I still hope I won't kill anybody before they have the means of raising their characters. But if it happens, it happens.
|
|
I have been thinking the same subject myself. I recently started GMing Emerald Spire for two local groups using PFS rules. I too have my concerns about character deaths, because my two groups consist of four characters per group. One PC death could ruin the whole groups efforts.
I've expressed these concerns to my players. Instead of sheltering them I decided to roll openly (I usually do it behind my screen) and let the dice land where they land. I hope this will get my players to think tactically and play safely and work as a team. With Emerald Spire, I think that too much handholding will diminish the awesome superdungeon.
I still hope I won't kill anybody before they have the means of raising their characters. But if it happens, it happens.
If you weren't in the confines of PFS; would you be flexible about how they raise characters if the need comes up? Like, maybe you can have the party indebted to a temple and they have to forgo certain future proceeds of their dungeon exploration?
|
|
If you weren't in the confines of PFS; would you be flexible about how they raise characters if the need comes up? Like, maybe you can have the party indebted to a temple and they have to forgo certain future proceeds of their dungeon exploration?
I'd show some flexibility. I really admired how the Order of the Amber Die handled these problems in their Emerald Spire run. Instead of just killing pc:s, their GM made intelligent opponents make intelligent decisions concerning the PC:s.
If I'd GM Emerald Spire in normal campaign mode, I'd too make different decisions. In PFS I'm more restricted, but I accept that and my players accept that.
Check out their amazing Emerald Spire campaign notes, stories and level by level synopses here. Spoiler alert though.