The creation of cheesesteaks contribute to the ongoing bovine genocide. Also, they look gross.After traveling through Texas, and seeing herds upon herds of cows doing nothing but standing, sleeping, and eating... without ever seeing one WALKING...
Well obviously everything in Texas is a worse version of everything outside of Texas.
Not if it's the point of the game. I've even played in one before. It was in L5R, we played, maybe 6-7 sessions, then most of us died in a series of quick, horrible deaths. The next session, it was 20 years later and we were playing our characters descendants, which was the whole point to the first part.
What that your "A pirate says what?" group?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cheesesteak combines steak (awesome) with (cheese) awesome.I am lactose intolerant and still I understand that when you put awesome with awesome, everyone wins.
Unless a cheese steak killed your father, I can see no reason you could feel this way...and even then through your sadness a part of you would understand the death came from a place of deliciousness...
Not liking cheese steaks...inconceivable...
;)
Most of my food is restricted to what I buy directly from local farms or markets, which means less meat in general and most of that chicken and rabbit. My tastebuds just find commercial beef terrible now... same thing goes for a lot of cheese.
Combine that with the fact I keep a lot of my dairy and grain intake separate, and a meal that is traditionally a pile of greasy, gristly beef slathered in low-grade cheese-like product, some onions and bell peppers with their nutrients fried out and saturated in fat thrown in as an afterthought, all crammed into a bread of chemically-treated and refined flour, is not something my body recognizes as food anymore.
Irori and Kurgess frown on Philly cheesesteaks... gotta keep my gods happy. :P
Most of my food is restricted to what I buy directly from local farms or markets, which means less meat in general and most of that chicken and rabbit. My tastebuds just find commercial beef terrible now... same thing goes for a lot of cheese.Combine that with the fact I keep a lot of my dairy and grain intake separate, and a meal that is traditionally a pile of greasy, gristly beef slathered in low-grade cheese-like product, some onions and bell peppers with their nutrients fried out and saturated in fat thrown in as an afterthought, all crammed into a bread of chemically-treated and refined flour, is not something my body recognizes as food anymore.
LOL, you've really bought into the whole "organic foods" mantra haven't you? I don't suppose you'd be surprised to learn that no study ever performed has shown any long-term health benefits whatsoever to an "organic" diet compared to buying your food at Walmart.
In fact, some studies have actually shown the reverse... Lots of "organic foods" tend to be more septic than foods purchased at the sneered at big box stores.
So good luck dude!
|
;)Most of my food is restricted to what I buy directly from local farms or markets, which means less meat in general and most of that chicken and rabbit. My tastebuds just find commercial beef terrible now... same thing goes for a lot of cheese.
Combine that with the fact I keep a lot of my dairy and grain intake separate, and a meal that is traditionally a pile of greasy, gristly beef slathered in low-grade cheese-like product, some onions and bell peppers with their nutrients fried out and saturated in fat thrown in as an afterthought, all crammed into a bread of chemically-treated and refined flour, is not something my body recognizes as food anymore.
Irori and Kurgess frown on Philly cheesesteaks... gotta keep my gods happy. :P
"I don't even OWN a TV!"
BTW, RD must play in about 5-6 weekly games given the number of "in a recent game, this happened" posts.
On topic, the mythical DM in question should have prefaced the game with letting the players know this was an intro into another campaign arc. I think it is a good way to let the players in on the world, the main protagonists/antagonists and setting before the 'real thing' kicked off.
But seriously, shame on the PCs for not checking the letters before confronting the wizard first. Even if it were not a harmful trap, it could have just been the wizard's top secret recipe for cheesesteak sandwiches. It makes no sense for the PCs in question to suspect something was up and travel ALL THE WAY back to the wizard without trying to confirm their suspicions by reading the letters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of my food is restricted to what I buy directly from local farms or markets, which means less meat in general and most of that chicken and rabbit. My tastebuds just find commercial beef terrible now... same thing goes for a lot of cheese.Combine that with the fact I keep a lot of my dairy and grain intake separate, and a meal that is traditionally a pile of greasy, gristly beef slathered in low-grade cheese-like product, some onions and bell peppers with their nutrients fried out and saturated in fat thrown in as an afterthought, all crammed into a bread of chemically-treated and refined flour, is not something my body recognizes as food anymore.
LOL, you've really bought into the whole "organic foods" mantra haven't you? I don't suppose you'd be surprised to learn that no study ever performed has shown any long-term health benefits whatsoever to an "organic" diet compared to buying your food at Walmart.
In fact, some studies have actually shown the reverse... Lots of "organic foods" tend to be more septic than foods purchased at the sneered at big box stores.
So good luck dude!
I don't recall him saying it was organic, just bought locally. I am guessing you are both in the USA, in which case I can understand why he doesn't like the beef - commercial beef over there is by EU standards unfit for human consumption because of the hormone content, which makes it a lot heavier in fats than the beef farmed on this side of the pond.
That fat content, that IS shown to be unhealthy...
As for your bread, it contains a lot of corn syrup, making it richer in sugars for no readily apparent reason save that somebody had a lot of corn syrup they couldn't find another use for.
Now a proper, lean steak with real mature cheddar cheese (made in Cheddar gorge, of course), in bread with only 'bread' in it...that is delicious! And actually, not to unhealthy...
Most of my food is restricted to what I buy directly from local farms or markets, which means less meat in general and most of that chicken and rabbit. My tastebuds just find commercial beef terrible now... same thing goes for a lot of cheese.Combine that with the fact I keep a lot of my dairy and grain intake separate, and a meal that is traditionally a pile of greasy, gristly beef slathered in low-grade cheese-like product, some onions and bell peppers with their nutrients fried out and saturated in fat thrown in as an afterthought, all crammed into a bread of chemically-treated and refined flour, is not something my body recognizes as food anymore.
LOL, you've really bought into the whole "organic foods" mantra haven't you? I don't suppose you'd be surprised to learn that no study ever performed has shown any long-term health benefits whatsoever to an "organic" diet compared to buying your food at Walmart.
In fact, some studies have actually shown the reverse... Lots of "organic foods" tend to be more septic than foods purchased at the sneered at big box stores.
So good luck dude!
I don't recall him saying it was organic, just bought locally. I am guessing you are both in the USA, in which case I can understand why he doesn't like the beef - commercial beef over there is by EU standards unfit for human consumption because of the hormone content, which makes it a lot heavier in fats than the beef farmed on this side of the pond.
That fat content, that IS shown to be unhealthy...
As for your bread, it contains a lot of corn syrup, making it richer in sugars for no readily apparent reason save that somebody had a lot of corn syrup they couldn't find another use for.
Now a proper, lean steak with real mature cheddar cheese (made in Cheddar gorge, of course), in bread with only 'bread' in it...that is delicious! And actually, not to unhealthy...
LOL, so you've bought into the "fat is bad" narrative I see. And the "Oh no! Hormones!" narrative too.
Sigh. Again, ZERO actual scientific evidence of health problems. Just as there is ZERO actual scientific evidence of health problems from "genetically modified foods" yet they are treated like nuclear waste....
Oh well, no sense in letting science get in the way of our preferred narratives, is there?
The bottom line with health is that there is nothing wrong with eating American beef, cheese or just about anything else you can buy at your local King Soopers or Krogers so long as you eat smart. And if you buy all of your food "organic" and still eat stupid, you'll get just as sick as if you ate at McDonald's three times per day.
But there's no point to this, I just found it humorous that he bragged about his eating habits. I run into this all the time.
We had a major spinach e. coli oubreak in the USA recently. A major source of the DEATHS caused by the outbreak were traced to spinach sold in ORGANIC food stores.
The irony.....
LOL, you've really bought into the whole "organic foods" mantra haven't you? I don't suppose you'd be surprised to learn that no study ever performed has shown any long-term health benefits whatsoever to an "organic" diet compared to buying your food at Walmart.In fact, some studies have actually shown the reverse... Lots of "organic foods" tend to be more septic than foods purchased at the sneered at big box stores.
So good luck dude!
Well, I'm not going to get sucked into some rambling debate about our ag/food industries just because of one flippant comment about a popular junk food (especially not on an RPG discussion forum), but I will say this:
I come from a family of farmers, don't buy into some singular "organic food mantra" that you are alluding to, and don't "sneer" at Walmart. Our modern food supply is statistically the safest in history for sepsis, but there are a number of fundamentally bad things about our food production.
Since I reevaluated and altered my lifestyle, I: have a better appreciation of what is going into my body, spend less on my food consumption than I used to, and am significantly healthier both mentally and physically. Considering that, you can keep your luck, dude... I'm copacetic without it.
EDIT: And I didn't "brag" about anything... my comments were in context to ciretose's joke about needing cheesesteaks killing my dad to not like them, etc.
How is anything in this scenario fun for the players?
It sounds like a bad high school game. "Look at me! I'm the DM and I'm so awesome with my explosive runes rules knowledge!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, RD must play in about 5-6 weekly games given the number of "in a recent game, this happened" posts.
Please note that in ABSOLUTELY NONE of my scenario threads do I ever say anything of the sort. In fact, me saying "in a recent game, this happened" (or something similar) is one of the fastest ways to determine one of my true experience threads from one of my scenario threads.
As long as I've been a member of these forums, I've never deliberately mislead people in my phrasing. Most people on the internet are just accustomed to making assumptions and quick judgements. That's a problem with the people of the internet, not with me.
My actual gaming experiences range from once a week to once a month, varying widely due to work schedules and the like.
LOL, so you've bought into the "fat is bad" narrative I...
Too much fat is bad, end of. The more you eat of it, the more you gain, and the worse it is for your health. Of that there is no scientific controversy at all - if you weigh 500lbs and have an equator instead of a waistline, you have a health problem.
The beef-hormone dispute is unresolved as far as the EU are concerned. I confess as a Brit I am genetically predisposed to oppose the French, but they do care about their food and stick to their guns about it. What I can say from personal experience is that eating in the US piled weight on me faster than I could count it; after every meal I felt bloated and sluggish. I'm not talking about restaurant food here, I'm referring to the same food I would cook and eat at home in the same portions. Eating the same foods (although probably not the same ingredients) in the same amounts in the UK lost me weight when I came home.
My experience was not alone - many visitors from the USA I know had to eat carefully in the USA to maintain healthy weight, and yet found themselves able to eat what they liked, when they liked without any concerns in the UK. Maybe it's not the hormones in the beef, maybe it's something else like the corn syrup that gets into just about everything, or the fact that more foods are processed, I don't know, but it was my experience.
No need to buy into anything when you have personal experiences!
The whole food thing is severely off-topic. Please get back on track or don't bother posting to this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought Cheese-steaks were the topic. Much better than the OP, in any case.
I'm not sure why its relevant whether:
1) this actually happened
2) this is a thought experiment that wasn't ever going to happen
3) this is something RD thought about doing as a DM and wanted feed back on before trying it.
Seriously- does it matter to the overall question? Not one bit.
Answer the question or shuffle off to some other thread..
-S
I'm not sure why its relevant whether:
1) this actually happened
2) this is a thought experiment that wasn't ever going to happen
3) this is something RD thought about doing as a DM and wanted feed back on before trying it.Seriously- does it matter to the overall question? Not one bit.
Answer the question or shuffle off to some other thread..
-S
It's relevant in that it's not yet clear whether this was meant to be a straight-up railroad to a TPK or whether the players were supposed to have any agency in this at all. My impression based on the OP is that it's the former.
The whole food thing is severely off-topic. Please get back on track or don't bother posting to this thread.
Sorry. Now, assuming we replaced the explosive rune parchments with US-made philly-cheese-steaks in order to make the king explode, would these have the same effect as the explosive runes, or would the party discovering them and eating them early merely advance the TPK forward to an earlier point in the adventure...
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
...what?
Now that RD has made it clear that this is a thought exercise and not a real example of something that happened. I would say that there is no problem with the scenario as such, because no party would be stupid enough to carry the documents unopened all that time and keep them with them while confronting the bad guy.
If they were then they deserve to die as a learning experience. If the GM forces them into that situation with no way of preventing it (eg cannot open or discard scrolls by using the quest spell or similar) then he's a prat and not worth having as a GM.
Also a good cheesesteak is a rare and wondrous thing, but a bad one is far easier to find. The choice of cheese should determine the ratio of onion to peppers but so often it's the price that does so.
I wouldn't particularly enjoy a game where the GM intended the players to die, unless the players knew that was going to happen and were okay with it.
That said, I played in one pretty recently. GM pitted a 15th level Sorceress and a horde of hundreds of her undead minions against four 5th level PCs.
We won.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just read the concept and thought it would have been a great campaign to be a part of.
The death at the end was a little crappy, but understandable, and very fitting based on the players actions.
Rule Note: - I would have allowed the dispel to work that way as it is a choice to auto dispel, he can choose to take 20 on the roll taking the worst possible situation first... its a stretch of the rules, but within its bounds, and then available to players in the campaign...
The use of explosive runes was great, I thought something was fishy with the letters (and only having the king being able to read them) though I thought the letter might contain, "these messagers are assassins and are here to kill you" when I first read TPK.
RD - great use of storyline, plot and an epic player fail. They should have done their homework about the Mage before facing him down.
And if any mage asks if you still have something on you they provided the answer is always "NO!" or yes followed by Nooooooooooooooo.
Rules: For the explosive runes I would rule each player rolls the damage they can't avoid, then reflex for each of the players separately and then roll to see if they take half damage if within 10 ft of another player carrying a letter.
If any survived, they get to roll initiative as they wizard won the surprise round... any low level party would have been wiped by this.
As a campaign I would have set it up as players accused of a crime they didn't commit, with having to prove it was the wizard and they were tricked into delivering the letters...
Could have a feel of Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers and multiple other movies where the heroes are treated as villians by the government.
The thing with the letters was due to player actions more than GM actions, and only a low level party should have been taken out by that.
A party with enough levels would have things like that stashed on extra-dimensional storage devices to protect them from harm (the item as well as the character from the item)
That been said, it was player choice.
If a pilot of a starship chooses to crash into a building at top speed to kill the bad guy, its not the GM's fault the rest of the party on the ship also died... likewise if the characters fight in the starship, shoot the pilot and controls and complain the GM railroaded them.
So as a player I would have been upset at first, but after talking with the GM about what he intended for the party to do, and their campaign I would have been more upset with the group telling them we need to pay more attention next time, and never accuse a wizard in their tower while carrying an item they crafted...
btw - explosive runes are not the only thing that can do this ;)
|
Honestly, as the gm if I misunderstand a rule regarding a spell, I just state that the spell the npc has is one he researched that works the way I am explaining.
That seems unfair and disingenuous to me. I mean a player's expectations of how the game works are predicated on it actually working the way it's outlined in the books (plus any House Rules layed out in advance), and they can't do that if you aren't really playing by the rules or are doing so only when it's convenient. It's the same principle as making up new house rules mid-combat...it's generally bad form, and not fair to the players. It's a violation of the players' trust in the GM to be fair, and the socialcontract that implies.
I've played in games where the GM pulled that kind of thing. They were...unpleasant. Things would either work or not based on the GM's mood and how much he or she liked you, not whether they should or any believable internal logic...and thus there was never any certainty or ability to predict the odds of success of anything.
That's not the kind of GM I want to play with, or be.
It really isn't necessary as gm to contrain yourself to the descriptions in the book.
Of course not. But there's an obligation to do that ahead of time, and intentionally. Not ipso facto because you messed up. Or at least I feel there is.
Personally, I would be perfectly fine with this turn of events, for a couple of reasons:
1. If I receive clues that my employer is a bad guy, the first thing I'd do is wonder what we were carrying to the King, and investigate the letters. Simply returning to him with said letters still intact and on my person would seem like a pretty bad idea. Hence my demise would be my own doing, not the DMs, who may have simply reacted to what I chose to do.
2. Trapped letters delivered through proxy seems like a fine way for a BBEG to attempt an assassination on a prominent person like the King. Since the evidence (and the proxy) is destroyed, there is nothing leading back to the BBEG.
I'm glad that style works for you and your gaming group, but I would never play in one of your games. I've played with DMs that work like that. I didn't feel like we were collaboratively telling a story, but rather that we (the players) were bit characters in the DM's story. If there are no consistent rules, the game world isn't believable. The combats are no fun because they turn out how the DM wants them to, not how the dice rule. Sometimes, an epic defeat or epic success because of random luck is the best story, and I'd rather have an honest loss than a contrived-by-DM win.
...
Honestly, I think I agree with BOTH of you...
I really wouldn't like it if the rule ONLY applied to my characters,and the NPCs can do whatever they want... 5' step and 3 attacks?? no problem!! 4 move actions? WHY not?!!
That's not cool.
However, I ALSO agree with Cranewings in the realm of magic. All wizards are expected to come up with their own spells. If I have an effect that I want the wizard to do, that doesn't exactly fit the spells as written.... then YEAH, that wizard worked up his own version of the spell.
This applies to PC OR NPC...
However, If by SOME chance... the PCs WIN that fight, THAT spell is in the wizards Spellbook!!!! If I fought through all that and only found the generic Explosive runes, I'd be VERY Annoyed.
And REALLY... using that kind of DM fiat is fine.... Using it to complete a TPK would be just be poor form.
The creation of cheesesteaks contribute to the ongoing bovine genocide. Also, they look gross.I would argue that Cows wouldn't still be around if they were not delicious.
I don't know; people would probably still breed them for milk, leather, and fertilizer.
|
|
I'd like to preface this with a note: cranewings, you may be a great GM, I have no idea having never played with you. None of this is intended to be taken as a personal insult or anything, and it's very possible that your players are fine with the way you run things. I wouldn't be, and I think many people, if they were to emulate your style as presented would make their games less fun. So I feel the need to argue against the philosophy espoused.
I don't get what the difference is between the GM mistaking how a spell works for an NPC and playing it that way, and figuring out that the spell doesn't work how he thought and changing it after the fact to meet the expectations in the book.
The first is a mistake, and when called out on it, the GM can say something like "Well crap, I guess that doesn't work then." and play from there. The second is a concious choice to cheat the players in an unfortunate and (in this case) fatal way.
What is important is the consistency of the GM's train of thought. Take the stupid exploding runes spell. If the players pulled out the rules stating that the spell combo doesn't work, would anything else in the plot happen the way it did? Of course not. Certainly the wizard wouldn't have confronted the PCs. It is much more important that the explosive runes spell be the one the GM intended rather than some rules lawyerish thing from the book.
Let's flip this around. If a PC set up a plot like this, based on an incorrect understanding of the spell, without telling you the full plot just "I'm writing these letters." would you then retroactively allow them to research the new version of the spell when it was revealed it didn't work? I doubt it, and if you don't (but do for the villain) you're favoring your NPCs over the players by not letting them screw up (which is another thing I've seen GMs do...and a very unpleasant one). Retroactively not ever making a mistake with your villains is annoying, unrealistic, and unfair.
Whatever you'd do for a PC, that's what you should do for the villain. Though, really, you should just put some more effort/research into anything that'll be having this major an impact on the game.
In my opinion, the spells in the book are example spells for the PC spell book - the end. They have absolutely nothing to do with the powers and abilities I give NPCs. For that matter, character creation has nothing to do with NPC rules. The closest I'll ever give my players is a roll to determine CR within a range, as a mechanical tool to explain their characters' abilities to gauge a threat.
Sure. And I'm completely with you on this (though, as someone mentions, his spells, unique facets and all, should be in his spellbook). I'm just not cool with doing it retroactively. You do that and your villains are suddenly infallible (at least in certain areas)...and infallible enemies are much less fun for everyone than fallible ones.
This sort of goes back to my main idea about combating rules lawyers. If I give an NPC an ability that isn't legal, and a player wants to complain, I will not fix the NPC by changing it the way they are asking. I will always add levels until the action becomes legal. I've noticed this cuts the whining from players down to zero.
Yeah, if you want to 'rule by fear'. Open communication (including complaints) is a vital part of making a game work right, as you can then actually run a game that the players actually all want to play. Removing avenues for this is a bad call, IMO.
Jesus. Then please don't play in one of my games. Note - I didn't invite you.
She was making a point regarding divergent playstyles, not asking for an invite. No need to be defensive.
We aren't collaboratively telling a story. You are RPing a single character. I am running a world. You are interacting. There is not story, just some things that happen. If you can tie it together into a narrative after it is over, good for you, but that wasn't the point.
Maybe you are. Some people are telling a story, others are accurately reflecting a world, others playing a complex game where the object is to do X. Narrativist, Simulationist, or Gamist. Indeed, almost everyone is doing one of those three things (or several of them in combination). If you're doing something other than those...you're in a very small minority.
And what you're talking about is completely against both the second and third of those. It breaks immersion if reflecting a world, and it's unfair idf playing a game. If telling a story collectively it's also unfair to the players since it makes their contributions less meaningful. Only if telling a story where the PCs are incidental (or, I guess, doing whatever you're doing...your description is less than clear on that) is this kind of thing sensible, and the 'incidental PCs' game is not mostly a very fun kind of game to play.
Two things, first, all I said is that the GM is going to remain consistent with his idea. This is more consistent the playing by RAW because RAW is really bad. Unless you are a PF rules lawyer who plays by picking options based on the rules instead of just telling the GM what you are trying to do, it doesn't matter what is in RAW. All that matters is that your action was adjudicated fairly. RAW doesn't do that.
In character creation it's a somewhat different situation. You're certainly not obligated to let a character in just because it's rules-legal, I agree. But once the game begins? The RAW are fair. Regardless of how good they are, they are consistent while people are...not. The rules do not, for example, level up NPCs because the GM finds you personally annoying, or allow his girlfriend's character to have arbitrary bonuses to all her stats. And perhaps more importantly, the rules are what the players have agreed to follow. Now, if, in the course of play, you run into a rule that doesn't make sense, changing it is fine, but a decision that should be made by the group, not just the GM (or at the very least, the PCs should be informed of it). That way they can plan around the way the world their characters are in actually works.
Worse still, you are buying into one of the main illusions of the game: that it is fair. It isn't fair. It doesn't matter how many rules we play with or how well you know what my NPCs powers are before I play them because nothing affects the outcome of the battle more than the CR of the encounter, which is picked arbitrary by the GM.
Of course the GM can be unfair if he wishes. I think we'd all agree that a fair GM who violates the rules left and right is better than an unfair one who sticks to them to the letter. But a fair GM who either sticks to the rules or changes them officially (House Rules, y'know) is better yet, since his fairness is in a predictable form. And yes, I do consider fairness to be something a GM should be striving for. Not necessarily in a 'all fights are fair' sense, but in a 'my rulings are consistent across cases' sense.
If you believe that it is the GM's responsibility to know the rules, just so he can set up fights for you to always win so that your little story comes off, why even bother with rules or dice at all? You already know the outcome - you win. See: making up the other person's stupid argument, arguing it, and finding its conclusion for the other poster works both ways. Maybe you should try confining yourself to directly replying to the words on the screen instead of pulling back into your cold dark memory of where your bad DM hurt you and applying it to the current conversation.
Uh...that's a lot of hostility, man. The GM arbitrarily deciding things does indeed often result in what she's talking about. That may not be your intent, or happen in your games, but it's a perfectly logical result of the attitude you are advocating.
Yeah, and this is what I tell me players: my NPCs work however it is that I think they work. If an NPC has a power or ability that he could not normally do at his level, consider that I am doing you a favor by reducing his level in other respects. Point it out and I'll bump his hit dice back up. My clear rules ahead of time is rule zero. I am running the game, not the book. If you don't trust me or like that, leave. I don't argue with gamers at a game. Do not argue with me about rules because the rules allow me to pick any level of power for any bad guy, making the rules otherwise moot. You play your character and worry about nothing else.
And I refuse to play in such a game. Without a clear understanding of how the physics of the world you are playing in operate (ie: the rules it goes by) it is impossible to plan logical or effective courses of action. I shouldn't need to predict whether the GM likes daredevil stunts to know whether slinging off the chandelier is a good move, it should be clear from the game I'm playing and any House Rules listed.
And if a GM is making a meaningful rules mistake, I'm gonna tell him so. If he then tells me it was an intentional change, that's cool, though I might request a House Rules document so I know about such changes in a more general sense. But if it's just a screwup, I'm calling him out on it. I am not a 'yes man' or a lackey who will ignore obvious mistakes simply because the guy making them is in charge. Now, I do try not to be disruptive, and often wait till the end of the session to note such things (if they're relatively minor, and most are)...but it's important that evertyone's on the same page with this stuff.
Or to put it another way, from an old argument I had once: The GM has the last word on rules debates, he does not have the only word.
|
|
Ugh, I don't have the energy to retort a reasoned post that is that long.
Totally understandable. I'm having a slow morning...
I'm probably not as extreme in real life as I'm coming off.
Me, too, actually. Or I suspect so anyway, it's hard to tell how extreme I'm coming off...
I'll just focus on this part because it is more closely tied to the OP.
Works for me. :)
I handle this by striving not to favor NPCs, even those I put a lot of work into. I try not to invest in the outcome of an encounter, so that the players do not feel motivated to hide complicated rules bending or rules suspicious plots from me. That way, if there is a problem with what they are planning that their characters would know about, or a rules conflict that would spoil their turn out of ignorance, I can just tell them.
Definitely a good strategy to employ (and one I use myself). Still, it is a 'What if?' question more than something likely to occur. I've still had PCs attempt such things a time or two, after all...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, Cranewing says basically "if I screw up a spell as a GM I can always treat it as a researched spell and keep the game going" and he gets SLAMMED as a badwrongfun GM by people who tbink he just said "my games are a horrible mess of NPC favoritism, GM railroading and I smell funny."
I love these boards. It's like a daily course in human psychology...
I wouldn't particularly enjoy a game where the GM intended the players to die, unless the players knew that was going to happen and were okay with it.
That said, I played in one pretty recently. GM pitted a 15th level Sorceress and a horde of hundreds of her undead minions against four 5th level PCs.
We won.
I can't be the only one who wants to hear the full version of this story.
Get back here.
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
Yar.
Indeed. If you're* gonna drop names, at least make sure it's the right one!
* you as a generalization to all people.
~P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
LOL, Cranewing says basically "if I screw up a spell as a GM I can always treat it as a researched spell and keep the game going" and he gets SLAMMED as a badwrongfun GM by people who tbink he just said "my games are a horrible mess of NPC favoritism, GM railroading and I smell funny."
I love these boards. It's like a daily course in human psychology...
Apply that same principle to discussions about politics and religion and you'll see why I had to swear off OTD.