|
To get back on point, I will provide an example of a time in the past when I did not fudge the dice, and in retrospect wish that I had. I once had the same player's character die twice in the same game session, back in 2nd edition when raise dead was not so easily come by and character death at lower or even lower middle levels meant rolling up a new character.
<snip story>
In retrospect I wish that I had either taken the last roll myself and fudged it, if necessary, or just flat-out ruled that he hit the ocean. How would others have dealt with the situation?
Ruling he fell in the ocean is one possibility.
Changing the failure conditions is another possibility. If you succeed, you heroically swing through the riggings - but if you fail by a certain amount, you can't progress. If you fail by more, you slip and are holding onto the rope for dear life. It's hard to know at that point that his luck would be so spectacularly bad, however.
More realistic options, once you realized he could likely die again, is to allow the other members of the party, if it's at all possible, to roll to attempt to save him. Or roll that each attempted dex check, if the failure isn't by too much, slows his fall enough, though it doesn't stop it, to "reset" the falling distance.
I don't know the rules for falling in that edition, but if there was damage to be rolled, I might have "rolled low". I like that option least, however.
It doesn't matter what you meant. It matters what you said. Story teller is a bad word in gaming circles. I did not say that is what you meant. I actually assumed you did not mean that and meant to say something less inflammatory. Which is why I worded it in such a way so as to suggest you use a more neutral term.
What are these "gaming circles" of which you speak, who think "story-telling" is a bad word (maybe I should spell it s@#$y-t@#$%^g), and PF/D&D is a combat game and a combat game only? I'll have to visit them some time, as I haven't encountered them in the last three decades. Ah, you mean your gaming circle. That's a bit different, then. I'd still be happy to visit, as I'm a friendly guy and open to just about anything gaming-wise.
Sorry about the sarcasm. Sometimes I see a target I just can't resist, and some of your statements just had a big ol' bullseye on 'em. Bad of me, I know. What can I say, I'm weak.
I've been playing RPGs since the early 80s and I've never heard of Story Telling in general as bad thing. In fact White Wolf games focuses on that exactly. They call it the Story Teller system for collaborative story telling.
In D&D Story Telling is style of play. One I prefer actually. The random dungeon concept is kind boring after a while. We did that as kids with the red box D&D basic set. Why were we in the dungeon? It didn't matter we just were. On to the combat and loot.
Ideally, fudging AGAINST players never happens.
If the adventure wasn't tooled for optimized adventurers, retool it. Fudging against players is just mean.
/sign
I only fudging for for the players fun or the general adventure storyline, but always try to let the player don't know it, if the player know you're fudging against them, for what ever reason, they will loose the trust in you and DMing relies on trust.
|
To get back on point, I will provide an example of a time in the past when I did not fudge the dice, and in retrospect wish that I had. I once had the same player's character die twice in the same game session, back in 2nd edition when raise dead was not so easily come by and character death at lower or even lower middle levels meant rolling up a new character.
The first death came as his 5th level rogue character was picked off at night in the streets of Waterdeep by a poison-wielding assassin that was stalking the party (back then poison could actually kill a character). He failed the save against poison.
Hindsight may not be the answer but perhasp the assassin could have used some kind of sleep poison and then tortured and maimed the Pc in some way. Like losing an eye or hand. Then the death turns into a piece of RP as the player tries to get his revenge. I've used drow for this more than once and the other players started cipping in ideas for more torture as they realised that it wasn't going to be a fatal ending.
The second death came during a storm at sea. While 60' up in the rigging, his replacement character, a 4th level rogue, failed a fairly easy Climb Walls (or Climb Rigging) roll and started to fall. I gave him a Dex check to catch himself right away and be hanging by one hand from the rigging rather than falling, and he failed that. I gave him two more chances to make a Dex check and catch himself on the way down (although he would have taken some damage from the wrench to his arms). He had about a 75% chance to make each, but failed both. Then I allowed him a fifty/fifty roll to see if he would hit the deck or go into the sea, where he would take less damage and his friends would have a chance to save him from drowning. Remember this was back in the days when a fall could actually kill someone, too. He obviously failed that, too, hit the deck, and died.That player did not have fun in the game that night. He failed not because he did something stupid, but because he acted heroically and had colossally bad luck. Rolling up a new character twice in the same night isn't a lot of fun for most people. Therefore, since I view my roll as DM, in part, as ensuring that people have a good time, I believe I partially failed that night. The player's a good guy, and we still game together to this day, but it took him a while to get over that, and I felt bad about it.
In retrospect I wish that I...
Sometimes a DM can have an off-day. Sometimes they take it out on the players by not being totally on the ball or fully prepped. Fudged is useful in those instances when you find things are getting out of hand.
I should say I have made plenty of these mistakes over time. especially when I was playing on a weekly basis. Now I play less often, I'm better prepared and more likely to head such situations off at the pass. However how about the rogue falls to the deck, goes straight through a wooden grating into the bunks and hammocks causing numerous broken bones but no deaths. Lots of nasty sailors gunning for him on the rest of the voyage. Or have him land slap dab on the captain killing him instead.
Any good BB?
Cheers
To get back on point, I will provide an example of a time in the past when I did not fudge the dice, and in retrospect wish that I had. I once had the same player's character die twice in the same game session, back in 2nd edition when raise dead was not so easily come by and character death at lower or even lower middle levels meant rolling up a new character.
<snip story>
In retrospect I wish that I had either taken the last roll myself and fudged it, if necessary, or just flat-out ruled that he hit the ocean. How would others have dealt with the situation?
Ruling he fell in the ocean is one possibility.
Changing the failure conditions is another possibility. If you succeed, you heroically swing through the riggings - but if you fail by a certain amount, you can't progress. If you fail by more, you slip and are holding onto the rope for dear life. It's hard to know at that point that his luck would be so spectacularly bad, however.
More realistic options, once you realized he could likely die again, is to allow the other members of the party, if it's at all possible, to roll to attempt to save him. Or roll that each attempted dex check, if the failure isn't by too much, slows his fall enough, though it doesn't stop it, to "reset" the falling distance.
I don't know the rules for falling in that edition, but if there was damage to be rolled, I might have "rolled low". I like that option least, however.
All good answers. I did the best I could on the fly to give him a chance to save himself. Since I know you like the math, I did some back of the envelope calculations and believe I arrived at a less than 1 percent chance that he would fail all those checks (a 0.15625% chance, to be precise, if my quick math is accurate), but fail them all he did. The bottom line, however, is that, unless you believe I was correct in the way I did it, and shouldn't feel bad about it, it comes down to either DM fiat or fudging to save him.
Good stuff
Good ideas, and I'll stock them into my DM catalogue for future use if a similar situation occurs in the future. I suspect, however, that some of the anti-fudging folks would also object to DM fiat like that, but perhaps not.
Yes, it is fine if you want to ignore 99% of the rules and not have any combat actions occur while playing D&D/PFRPG. But one then has to start wondering if you are using the best system for what you are trying to accomplish. At that point, you are more trying to force a square peg into a round hole. As an analogy, if you purchased a moving truck, but only ever drove yourself places with it and never moved anything, one would wonder why you just didn't purchase a car instead. It would seem a better use of your resources.But it might make sense to buy a van instead of a car if you're going to need some extra space now and then and only want one vehicle. During extremely roleplay heavy sections of the game I don't find that the system in use makes a great deal of difference, so the system might as well be D&D/PFRPG as anything else. While combat may be rare in such games, it's also nice to have a system that handles it well when it occurs.
So if somebody likes a game which spends most of the time in fairly systemless roleplay, with occasional bouts of dice-run combat, then D&D works fine as that system.
Yes, it works fine for that, but my point was that other systems might work better in that case. e.g. Maybe the WW system mentioned above might actually be a better choice for some groups than D&D/PFRPG. And I am not saying these groups shouldn't be playing D&D/PFRPG or they are doing Badong. I merely suggesting that instead of using a flathead screwdriver for a phillips head screw, how about thinking about using that phillipshead screwdriver over there. The flathead will work, but is really the best tool for the job? Heck, often times a butterknife will work, but again, is it the best tool for the job?
White Wolf is the exact reason why saying 'story teller' to gamers is like saying a certain 6 letter word to an African American man. It's just not kosher.
Wait? What?!?
I'm a gamer, and I've never found "story teller" to be offensive in any way. I have many gamer friends, none of whom find it offensive and many of whom enjoy White Wolf games.
For that matter, this forum is a gaming community and "story teller" is often seen as a positive thing by people here.
If anything is an offensive term in my gaming groups (or here judging by the responses,) it is the idea of a tabletop RPG with a "win condition."
That player did not have fun in the game that night. He failed not because he did something stupid, but because he acted heroically and had colossally bad luck. Rolling up a new character twice in the same night isn't a lot of fun for most people. Therefore, since I view my roll as DM, in part, as ensuring that people have a good time, I believe I partially failed that night. The player's a good guy, and we still game together to this day, but it took him a while to get over that, and I felt bad about it.
In retrospect I wish that I had either taken the last roll myself and fudged it, if necessary, or just flat-out ruled that he hit the ocean. How would others have dealt with the situation?
In my games heroics can get you killed, and the threat of knowing you can die while trying is what makes it heroic. If the DM is going to bail me out it kind of makes my endeavor not worth so much. I can't really feel heroic without a true threat. I do know players that would like to be saved, so neither decision is wrong. You just have to do what is best for the current group of players.
Ah ! Metagaming !! That's the word I was trying to remember...As player can you say that you have never matagame ? Isn't it the same issue, deep down, has fudging for a DM ?
Its not the same, both are (in my opinion) detrimental to the game despite the fact that some groups might enjoy doing both/either. I just see the game as a better thing without either.
Both DM and player can metagame, having a character that they represent use knowledge that this character does not have in that character's decisions.
Both DM and player can 'fudge' though its more universally called 'cheating' when it is done by a player. Should a player roll a die and say that they hit AC 32 when they actually rolled a 1 they have 'fudged' the dice. Should a player misinform a DM that their character actually prepared 'resist energy' when they didn't they have 'fudged'.
Both actions can occur by any participant in the game. I happen to believe that the game, itself, is a better one when neither is happening.
-James
And I still disagree because if the players are there more for a good time then death can kill the mood. I personally prefer a no-fudge game, but I realize that people play for different reasons,and in different ways. The reasons I listed are why no way is universally good or bad. As I said before if I was running for certain board members the campaign would be gritty, but for others I would fudge more depending on the group. I would not do it a lot because I could not stand to DM a game where the players never have a chance to die, but helping the players out is something I don't mind.
The 'win condition' people are taking offense to in no way resembles what I am saying it does, even after repeating the definition to.
Actually, your definition exactly describes what I consider to be offensive about "win conditions." I know you feel that couldn't possibly be the case, but it is...
The 'win condition' people are taking offense to in no way resembles what I am saying it does, even after repeating the definition to.Actually, your definition exactly describes what I consider to be offensive about "win conditions." I know you feel that couldn't possibly be the case, but it is...
I'm sorry to say so, M. Green, but you have been displaying a remarkable tendency towards rhetorical tautology.
Which leads to the question of what kind of mindset does it take to not regard accomplishing character goals as a victory? Do you consider failure to be a success?
Simple answer, having fun is the victory.
My characters goals are completely unrelated to this. If the story is entertaining, I have fun. Even if the entertaining part of the story is my character's hilarious-but-heroic failure. I consider that to be the win.
As for me, I have to wonder what kind of person only considers the game to be rewarding if their character gets what he/she wants...
Which leads to the question of what kind of mindset does it take to not regard accomplishing character goals as a victory? Do you consider failure to be a success?Simple answer, having fun is the victory.
My characters goals are completely unrelated to this. If the story is entertaining, I have fun. Even if the entertaining part of the story is my character's hilarious-but-heroic failure. I consider that to be the win.
As for me, I have to wonder what kind of person only considers the game to be rewarding if their character gets what he/she wants...
So since "fun" is divorced from the actual game issues, why can't players have fun and have the dice fall where they may? "Succeeding" or "failing" isn't about "fun", having a good time with your friends is. Why do so many GMs feel they have to provide "success" or "failure" by fudging in order to get "fun" if "fun" isn't determined by those things?
Which leads to the question of what kind of mindset does it take to not regard accomplishing character goals as a victory? Do you consider failure to be a success?The 'win condition' people are taking offense to in no way resembles what I am saying it does, even after repeating the definition to.Actually, your definition exactly describes what I consider to be offensive about "win conditions." I know you feel that couldn't possibly be the case, but it is...
Failure can lead to very fun gaming sessions. If fun is what you are looking at then failure in this case would be a success.
So since "fun" is divorced from the actual game issues, why can't players have fun and have the dice fall where they may? "Succeeding" or "failing" isn't about "fun", having a good time with your friends is. Why do so many GMs feel they have to provide "success" or "failure" by fudging in order to get "fun" if "fun" isn't determined by those things?
Easy...you can just let the dice do what they do, if that's what's fun for the players.
But, if the players' fun would be ruined by nothing more than a string of extremely bad luck, then why can't DMs use fudging as one of many tools to defend the players' fun? (I don't mean coddle your players and ensure they never die. I mean just moderate the extremes of chance.)
If the players want to have a particular BBEG be obviously massively powerful, why not fiat that the BBEG's non-combat skill auto-succeeds for dramatic effect?
I'm just not sure how it's much different than having a player/group roll Perception checks when there's nothing to see, just so they don't meta-game every time you have them do so.
|
|
So since "fun" is divorced from the actual game issues, why can't players have fun and have the dice fall where they may?
They can. I haven't seen a single DM say that if a player expresses a wish for no fudging, the DM in question would ignore that request and fudge anyway. What I am seeing is people taking the opposite position - that players that prefer fudging in any form are always wrong.
In my games heroics can get you killed, and the threat of knowing you can die while trying is what makes it heroic. If the DM is going to bail me out it kind of makes my endeavor not worth so much. I can't really feel heroic without a true threat. I do know players that would like to be saved, so neither decision is wrong. You just have to do what is best for the current group of players.
That player did not have fun in the game that night. He failed not because he did something stupid, but because he acted heroically and had colossally bad luck. Rolling up a new character twice in the same night isn't a lot of fun for most people. Therefore, since I view my roll as DM, in part, as ensuring that people have a good time, I believe I partially failed that night. The player's a good guy, and we still game together to this day, but it took him a while to get over that, and I felt bad about it.
In retrospect I wish that I had either taken the last roll myself and fudged it, if necessary, or just flat-out ruled that he hit the ocean. How would others have dealt with the situation?
I agree completely. It's only the fact that it was the second time his character died during that single gaming session that was uncool. If that had been the first character death that night, I don't think either he or I would have felt bad about it.
I haven't seen a single DM say that if a player expresses a wish for no fudging, the DM in question would ignore that request and fudge anyway.
In fairness, we've had people upthread claim that the players "have no frame of reference," and therefore are unable to meaningfully contribute to that decision, and that it's the DMs duty to secretly fudge things for their own good.
I only fudging for for the players fun or the general adventure storyline, but always try to let the player don't know it, if the player know you're fudging against them, for what ever reason, they will loose the trust in you and DMing relies on trust.So you're saying that 'fudging' violates the trust that the players put in the DM.
Just because you don't get caught doesn't mean what you're doing isn't wrong.
While playing it honest might not get you the exact result that you were looking/hoping for.. it honors that trust rather than endanger it.
-James
Agreeing with James for this instance:
I think that hiding the fudging is wrong. I ask groups before I DM for them to tell me what they like*. If your group wants to earn their stripes let them. Now if they are the type that says they want to earn their stripes but will whine if they die, then fudge away.*That does not mean I let them know about every fudge. You have to allow think they did something right, but at the same time if they are not doing well at all then make suggestions. If they don't make corrections let them deal with the consequences. That does not mean force your playstyle on them. It means let bad decisions have consequences.
@Godz and Jess: But why does fudging make something fun? If the party fails, they still have fun. If the party succeeds, they still have. If the goal is fun, then how does fudging help something that was already fun?
Let's step away from the good fudge bad fudge thing for a moment.Doesn't that sort of thing kind of defeat the entire point of organized play?
It depends on what you want out of organized play or see the advantages of it being; it's definitely not the same thing to all people. It brings out and exaggerates both good and bad aspects of gaming in ways that are really very different from a normal game.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you about fudging in OP, but I also recognize that a lot of the people I play(ed) with didn't see it the same way.
So since "fun" is divorced from the actual game issues, why can't players have fun and have the dice fall where they may? "Succeeding" or "failing" isn't about "fun", having a good time with your friends is. Why do so many GMs feel they have to provide "success" or "failure" by fudging in order to get "fun" if "fun" isn't determined by those things?Which leads to the question of what kind of mindset does it take to not regard accomplishing character goals as a victory? Do you consider failure to be a success?Simple answer, having fun is the victory.
My characters goals are completely unrelated to this. If the story is entertaining, I have fun. Even if the entertaining part of the story is my character's hilarious-but-heroic failure. I consider that to be the win.
As for me, I have to wonder what kind of person only considers the game to be rewarding if their character gets what he/she wants...
Fun is determined by success and failure. It does not mean they can never fail, but some people become discouraged by a string of failures, and others by even one. You as the DM have to decide how to balance the act.
@Godz and Jess: But why does fudging make something fun? If the party fails, they still have fun. If the party succeeds, they still have. If the goal is fun, then how does fudging help something that was already fun?
Easy again...because not every failure is fun. Just like not every success is fun. It's a judgement call.
|
@Godz and Jess: But why does fudging make something fun? If the party fails, they still have fun. If the party succeeds, they still have. If the goal is fun, then how does fudging help something that was already fun?
I'd like to expand upon this and say that it is continuing the fun that is important, not just that they have fun once during a session. I guess in this case it isn't the destination, but the path taken that is the source of the continuing fun. This is part of why I don't buy the "win conditions" argument. If you accomplish everything, then there isn't a game left to play. You start over or look for new goals, which is the road not the destination.
So since "fun" is divorced from the actual game issues, why can't players have fun and have the dice fall where they may? "Succeeding" or "failing" isn't about "fun", having a good time with your friends is. Why do so many GMs feel they have to provide "success" or "failure" by fudging in order to get "fun" if "fun" isn't determined by those things?Which leads to the question of what kind of mindset does it take to not regard accomplishing character goals as a victory? Do you consider failure to be a success?Simple answer, having fun is the victory.
My characters goals are completely unrelated to this. If the story is entertaining, I have fun. Even if the entertaining part of the story is my character's hilarious-but-heroic failure. I consider that to be the win.
As for me, I have to wonder what kind of person only considers the game to be rewarding if their character gets what he/she wants...
Because the dice aren't infallible either. Nor are they impartial, in the way we understand impartiality as an ethical trait of justice. Dice are merely random, which is a type of impartiality I admit, but not one to which any moral value may be assigned. They are meant to stand in for those elements of the story which can not be adequately determined by simple choice.
A good mechanical system should render an appropriate outcome using the vicissitudes of that random element. But even the best mechanical system cannot account for the occasional statistical blip. A series of wildly improbable rolls can utterly derail an ongoing and engaging story at a moment where no dramatic purpose is served by said derailment. And when it happens, it's not the fault of poor DM planning or a flaw in one's gaming style. It's merely a wildly improbable outcome rendered by a statistical blip in a mechanical system intended to model a more pedestrian form of chance.
So what then?
So since "fun" is divorced from the actual game issues, why can't players have fun and have the dice fall where they may? "Succeeding" or "failing" isn't about "fun", having a good time with your friends is. Why do so many GMs feel they have to provide "success" or "failure" by fudging in order to get "fun" if "fun" isn't determined by those things?Which leads to the question of what kind of mindset does it take to not regard accomplishing character goals as a victory? Do you consider failure to be a success?Simple answer, having fun is the victory.
My characters goals are completely unrelated to this. If the story is entertaining, I have fun. Even if the entertaining part of the story is my character's hilarious-but-heroic failure. I consider that to be the win.
As for me, I have to wonder what kind of person only considers the game to be rewarding if their character gets what he/she wants...
I suppose that's exactly why you don't need to fudge at all. Even a TPK can be turned into great adventure in the afterlife. We had a DM do that, after TPK at 10th level we all woke up naked on a Stone Slabs in Sigil, using the Planescape setting in 2E. Turned out to be quite fun.
To me we're talking about two completely different games here. They might have similar features.. like chess and checkers or two different card games, but they aren't the same game.-James
Is it just me, or does it strike anyone else that folks who either claim people with different playstyles are playing a completely different game than they are, or those who actively suggest that those who prefer a different playstyle from theirs move to a different game system, would like that to be the truth or for that to happen so that they would finally be "right" when they say that their way is the one and only true way to play the game?
Sorry to pick on you, James. I'm not saying that this is what you mean or want. Your post was just a convenient one to respond to to express this impish thought.
The whole point of organized play is strict, impartial, uniform play. That way you can rapidly switch DMs and groups and still get the same experience. To get this you have to put up with low quality or railroaded plots among many other negative factors.The moment organized play ceases to be anything other than completely impartial, there is no reason why you should not just play your home games and do whatever you want.
This is seriously off on a tangent, but, no. There are lots of things that are easy in organized play campaigns that are not realistically possible for a home game. (And vice versa, of course.)
For example, large-scale battle interactive events in which 25 tables of players are doing different things that each effect each other and whether they as a combined group succeed or fail at the big picture task.
And I still disagree because if the players are there more for a good time then death can kill the mood. I personally prefer a no-fudge game, but I realize that people play for different reasons,and in different ways. The reasons I listed are why no way is universally good or bad. As I said before if I was running for certain board members the campaign would be gritty, but for others I would fudge more depending on the group. I would not do it a lot because I could not stand to DM a game where the players never have a chance to die, but helping the players out is something I don't mind.And some people LIKE to metagame. If they're having fun.. well great for them.. but its NOT the same game to me.
And if they are doing so 'in secret' then as we both agree.. this is wrong.
To me we're talking about two completely different games here. They might have similar features.. like chess and checkers or two different card games, but they aren't the same game.
-James
So I guess this more along the lines of how many rules/things can you change before D&D/Pathfinder is only D&D/Pathfinder in name only? I hate metagaming too.
Edit: The metagaming comment should have had its own line. I was making a statement. The first sentence is really a question so I added a question mark.
Fun is determined by success and failure.And success is equated as 'fun'?
You realize that this is a circular definition, right?
How is this different from say letting a friend beat you at chess or the like to 'make it fun for them'?
-James
I was not clear. To add to my previous statement of "Fun is determined by success and failure. It does not mean they can never fail, but some people become discouraged by a string of failures, and others by even one. You as the DM have to decide how to balance the act.", I will add that the amount of success and fun, how it is achieved depends on the group. A success for group A may be a loss or nonfactor for group B.
As an example I ran AoW, and Chapter 5 allows for the heroes to finish the chapter, and still allow for a catastrophe to take place. Most of the bad guys died, but the event still took place, so some of them wanted to try to fix it since they failed to prevent it. Another player in the same group did not seem to care.I was in no way saying that allowing someone to win is fun, but I do think it can be for some people. Some people just want the victory(in whatever form), and don't care too much about how it happens.
On a personal note my animal companion died in a game. We won the fight, but I still did not like the fact that it died. In a sense I failed because a companion was dead, but we overcame the boss fight. Some people don't care about the animal companions so they would not care.
In short-->It is mostly a matter of what you want from the game that determines what is a failure or success. The DM has to figure that out for his group, and then decide if he even wants to run the game for them if they are far apart on expectations.
Or the simplest solution could be the correct one. A bunch of casters having a shoot out with spells is a completely different game from a group of non casters who can barely fight non casters 3 levels lower without losing terribly are completely different games (and the latter would be done much better by a different system).People get really offended about this 'one true way' thing, but it's all in their heads. Like it or not you don't always have a choice, and when discussing things where there is a single correct answer it is inevitable you will mention that single correct answer and stress the lack of alternatives. It is what it is is not nearly the same thing as what these people have a problem with, and indeed I am noticing a pattern in which the other side misrepresents their opponent's position and then talks right past them to attack this.
One true wayism =/= actually only having a singular option.
Actually, this post has brought up an interesting experiment for me... Mistah Green, I understand from other posts, your primary part is Druid/Cleric/Wizard/Wizard, optimized for Save-or-Suck fighting, desiring to end fights as quickly as possible.
I'm curious how you'd feel the following combat *must* play out, given the following two parties vs a common foe:
Foe: Adult Black Dragon, CR11.
Encouter Area: Swamp, well away from the Dragon's lair.
Encounter Range: Dragon flies overhead at 300 feet, roll perception checks to see who sees who first.
Dragon demeanor: Hungry and pissed that adventurers are in his swamp.
One party is a 'standard' adventuring party:
Fighter 8, Plate mail, sword-and-board, shield basher with a longsword. Spends wealth on weapon, then armor. Has a longbow for long range, javelins for short-range.
Cleric 8, Selective Channeling, Heavy Armor Proficiency, Healing and Fire Domains. Spends wealth on armor. Spells focus on party buffs first, badguy debuffs second, but tends to spontaneously convert spells to healing.
Wizard 8, Evocation Specialist, Bonded Staff, chooses to memorize all evocations on a standard adventuring day. Spends wealth on AC.
Rogue 8, Ranged, with longbow and focused on archery feats. Spends wealth on Weapons and Mobility.
In the fight, the dragon wants to kill and eat them, they want to kill the dragon. Because of terrain, the fight is likely to occur primarily on the ground (not wet enough to swim, too many trees to fight effectively from above).
What do you foresee happening to this party? Can they defeat the foe?
The other party is an 'optimized' party:
Cleric 8
Druid 8
Wizard 8
Wizard 8
Everything else is the same. What do you foresee happening in this fight?
(I should probably have started a new thread, but I wanted to reply where Mistah Green would see it).
Sorry to pick on you, James. I'm not saying that this is what you mean or want. Your post was just a convenient one to respond to to express this impish thought.I think it was, indeed, a potshot, and I expected better from you. I had a point that I thought that I was making, but it seems to have been lost in this attack.
I am not judging those groups that, for example, like to metagame everything. If they're having fun, more power to them.
But do I see it as the same game? No, I do not. Do you? Are you saying that I should?
I think you have far more latitude in what you consider the same game here. Perhaps none of this makes any difference to you, but it does to me.
Anyway, good day and happy gaming,
James
My apologies again. I didn't mean it as a shot at you personally, but rather at a point of view that you may or may not subscribe to. I regret that I offended you. My bad.
I do indeed see the game as broadly-defined and capable of supporting many different gamestyles, houserules and types of DMs and players. You obviously believe it is more narrowly-defined. Matter of opinion. I'm definitely not saying that I believe you have to think the way I do. I'm just saying that I think it unduly harsh of people to try and say that people are playing a different game or should play a different game if they do things differently. Strikes me as kind of an argument like "everybody who plays D&D agrees with me because everybody who doesn't agree with me isn't really playing D&D." Kind of a circular logic, if you see what I mean.
In any event, my intent was not to insult or antagonize, and my apologies yet again if I did.
As you say, I wish you a good day and good gaming.
Second, a dragon at 3 levels higher sets the bar very high.
I would have said that CR = APL+3 is about the minimum to challenge a party of decent (mechanically) players; otherwise, I pretty much agree with your conclusions. I don't think the "balanced" team even has a prayer unless it's assumed they know this fight is coming and have unlimited time to prep for it. Even then it's touch and go.
Enervation's going to have to go through SR 22, but it still beats most other choices.
Ok, so this:
4th paragraph from the bottom.
is:
SR is a joke to non evokers. So that isn't a factor in the discussion.
How does enervation being a spell that SR applies to not factor into the discussion?
Dragons are also designed under the assumption you'll know they're coming. If you don't they're a lot harder. It's almost, but not quite the same as having a high level caster scry and attempt to fry you if you don't see it coming.
This encounter would work a lot better in 3.5. The balanced party would still be screwed, but classes such as Fighter and Rogue are not complete liabilities.
I'd like to see the arguments for the PF-nerfing of those classes; ideally, compare core 3.5 to core PF. I mean, if the argument is just "a system with 20 splatbooks lets you make characters tougher than a system with 1 splatbook", that's fine, but if it's not I'm wondering what you think I'm missing.
I was in no way saying that allowing someone to win is fun, but I do think it can be for some people. Some people just want the victory(in whatever form), and don't care too much about how it happens.
And that's fine, but that's not really the game.. at least it isn't for me.
And if I found out that someone was 'letting us win' rather than letting us earn a victory I would feel cheated by them, wouldn't you?
On a personal note my animal companion died in a game. We won the fight, but I still did not like the fact that it died. In a sense I failed because a companion was dead, but we overcame the boss fight.
Here's a question: should the DM have miraculously saved your animal companion as 'you didn't like that it died'? Did the DM rob you of some degree of fun here?
-James
I would be upset if I was allowed to win. DM's have fudged for me before, and I can accept it on a limited basis, but it has to be very limited. If I think a DM is fudging too much I start to push the limits of what I can get away with. I normally explain things to him after the game. Ok, so that only happened once, but I would do it again.
I think he did the right thing by killing it. I don't like it when my characters die, but I wouldn't have it any other way. My fun is based on the challenge so I will have fun as long as that happens. While we don't agree with the fudging thing you have a place at my table if we ever meet.