|
If you don't want your character to die then why are you playing Pathfinder?
Who said they wanted zero risk of death for characters ? Not many posters I wager.
Let me rephrase that. If you want control over your character's death, why are you playing Pathfinder?
This is not a rephrase. You are trying to put opponents to your stance in a pseudo-logical trap ;-)
I do not want control over my character's death, but I want influence on important things in the shared gameplay, such as the risk of character death. Because stopping to even try to name your characters because they die so quickly is NOT fun (personal experience speaking).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I read in this thread, I have already cornered two profiles of bad GMing.
One is focusing on the story rather than the characters. Who cares that PCs die if I get to tell my awesome story ? Players do, just so you know.
Another is teaching players through bad things happening to their PCs. Do some actual talk with your players about what you dislike. It shows respect to your fellow gamers (and I suppose friends).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.
I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.
If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.
Yep, yep and yes.
As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.
Yes, be very careful about the +4 ECL, and take note of the groups weaknesses and strengths. What is likely to counter them (go easy on that).
Absolutely great if you want to play like that.
If you want your characters to be larger than life heroes and not die silly ignominious deaths, that's also great.
All this talk of traps makes me want to say something; if a character dies to a trap, that's not an arbitrary death. That's EXACTLY what the trap is there for! It was designed to do that very thing! What's arbitrary/ignominious about that? Your character died doing what they are there to do(adventuring), to a thing that was doing what it was designed to do(stop adventurers)... Asking that not to happen just sounds petty and selfish.
Character dies choking on a chicken bone at the tavern during "downtime"? Yeah, that's arbitrary. Rocks decide to randomly fall out of the clear sky? Arbitrary(although likely provoked).
Character dies inside a dungeon, when they are supposed to be on their toes, to a trap/random encounter? That's not arbitrary; that's what those things are there to do!
D&D/PF has a myriad of options for dealing with traps. If you don't want an "arbitrary death," take better precautions. Hell, grab a wand of Summon Nature's Ally 1 and just send weasels and varmints scampering about the dungeon, if you don't feel like having an actual Rogue in the party.
Random Encounters and Traps are part of the game. They are a part of the territory. They are a part of adventuring. I've had some incredible, memorable moments happen during what were supposed to be throwaway random encounters. I've had character persona-altering effects happen, that nobody saw coming. I wouldn't trade out the opportunity for entirely new, unscripted events happen, for anything.
YMMV
P.S.: Anybody ever watch "The Goonies"? How boring would that movie had been, if all the traps in the caves just "did a little damage"? They survived and plethora of lethal traps, and find a pirate ship full of gold.
Walking through a few ill-placed slight inconveniences, on their way to undeserved treasure, would've made for a horrible story. Just my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I read in this thread, I have already cornered two profiles of bad GMing.
One is focusing on the story rather than the characters. Who cares that PCs die if I get to tell my awesome story ? Players do, just so you know.
Another is teaching players through bad things happening to their PCs. Do some actual talk with your players about what you dislike. It shows respect to your fellow gamers (and I suppose friends).
Why can't characters dying, be part of the greater story? Not in a forced, scripted way, but seeing the biggest, toughest member of the party get dropped is certainly the story equivalent to the crap hitting the fan. Maybe another character uses that death as a motivator for their own goals; maybe they seek to avenge the fallen character, maybe they keep a memento of their fallen ally. I've played characters who carried a token of each party member who died, and often used their weapons in battle as a means of keeping that character with them in the fight.
Agreed on group communication; it is important for the players AND the DM to be on the same page when it comes to play styles. I've never condoned "teaching those PC's a lesson" in-game; if something needs to be said regarding the game, we discuss it together as a group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?
I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.
Because, I daresay for most people, the more heavily invested they are in their character the more painful it is to have that character die, because it feels like they are losing that investment. People typically don't like to go through painful experiences if they don't have to, so people tend to not like having their character die, especially when the circumstances make it feel as though the death was unnecessary or meaningless.
This isn't a difficult concept.
Actually I am a unique bird in that I find the above concept really odd. For me, by no means anyway else, if there is no chance of death, whether it is seemingly meaningless or it is some sort of martyed act of sacrifice, what is the point of playing. Again this is me. I've never understood vehement loathing of the Save or Die and other similar mechanics. It is genuinely befuddling to me no matter how many times it is has been explained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D/PF has a myriad of options for dealing with traps. If you don't want an "arbitrary death," take better precautions. Hell, grab a wand of Summon Nature's Ally 1 and just send weasels and varmints scampering about the dungeon, if you don't feel like having an actual Rogue in the party.And that's exactly what I don't want to do. I don't like that approach to gaming. I didn't like it back in 1st edition when it was about sending horses and hirelings and I don't like it now. I don't find traps fun to deal with. I don't enjoy playing in a trap heavy game. I don't like the paranoid attitude they encourage.
I don't find it fun.
I don't enjoy losing characters to them, much like I don't like losing characters to random encounters or mooks. I don't even particularly care for too many irrelevant resource draining combats, but at least those generally allow a bit more interaction than the traps do.But thank you for telling me yet again that I'm having badwrongfun.
And this is why communication is so important. My groups have told me "hey, we don't care for X form of adventure" and I steer them around it. If the group isn't having any fun, then the whole time becomes a drag. If you aren't into traps, the GM can move the game away from reliance on them. Don't like demons? Undead? Social interaction? Dealing with shopkeepers? There are all sorts of things that one or another group doesn't care for. Talk it through and let them know that there may be the stray interaction with the misliked thing, but overall you'll try to keep it down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But thank you for telling me yet again that I'm having badwrongfun.
Thank you for letting my opinion affect you as though I were making blanket statements regarding all of gaming.
I was expressing my opinion on the topic. My bad. I'll be sure to cater every one of my responses to your delicate play style.
But thank you for telling me yet again that I'm having badwrongfun.
Thank you for letting my opinion affect you as though I were making blanket statements regarding all of gaming.
I was expressing my opinion on the topic. My bad. I'll be sure to cater every one of my responses to your delicate play style.
And that derogatory term there, is exactly where you are saying he's having badwrongfun.
And that derogatory term there, is exactly where you are saying he's having badwrongfun.
But thank you for telling me yet again that I'm having badwrongfun.
Thank you for letting my opinion affect you as though I were making blanket statements regarding all of gaming.
I was expressing my opinion on the topic. My bad. I'll be sure to cater every one of my responses to your delicate play style.
Yes, actually. In my response, not my original comment. If this person is going to internalize my honest opinion and make this about them, personally, I'll oblige.
Not sure what the "yet again" is referring to, though.
All this talk of traps makes me want to say something; if a character dies to a trap, that's not an arbitrary death. That's EXACTLY what the trap is there for!
Considering it is the GM that ultimately puts a trap somewhere, that would mean the trap is there because the GM wants to kill the character. This pretty much the definition of an adversarial GM. GMs are trust to be impartial arbitrators of the rules (at least during actual play time), a GM that shows a bias against the players is betraying that trust.
Character dies inside a dungeon, when they are supposed to be on their toes, to a trap/random encounter? That's not arbitrary; that's what those things are there to do!
Just so you know, a synonym for arbitrary is random.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk of traps makes me want to say something; if a character dies to a trap, that's not an arbitrary death. That's EXACTLY what the trap is there for!Considering it is the GM that ultimately puts a trap somewhere, that would mean the trap is there because the GM wants to kill the character. This pretty much the definition of an adversarial GM. GMs are trust to be impartial arbitrators of the rules (at least during actual play time), a GM that shows a bias against the players is betraying that trust.
Eh, to a degree. But you gotta figure, a well-placed crit from a house can kill a wizard. So, if a DM isn't supposed to put anything dangerous or potentially deadly as obstacles in the game, what are they supposed to put in to challenge the players?
I'm not advocating "killer DM" tactics. By all means, keep it reasonable within CR/ECL guidelines.
Character dies inside a dungeon, when they are supposed to be on their toes, to a trap/random encounter? That's not arbitrary; that's what those things are there to do!Just so you know, a synonym for arbitrary is random.
Actually, I did not know that. Thank you for the heads up!
** spoiler omitted **
True, but it would've made for a different kind of story in that case(potentially worse).
Again, I'm not calling for DM's to start killing off PC's all willy-nilly; traps and such have a fixed CR, just like monsters.
If a group is hardlined against using traps, and the DM goes along with it, then that's cool for that group. I'm not telling other groups how to to play. All I'm saying, really, ALL I'm saying is that I personally prefer a style of play where, if an adventuring character happens to die while adventuring, then it's not the end of the world.
Adventuring is dangerous business, I simply like to play the game with that frame of mind. If someone doesn't, then good for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if someone doesn't want near limitless character choices including those of race, class, feats, skills, etc. then probably PF/3.x might not be the right game for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, the d20/D&D/PF engine/system/whatever you want to call it, does lend itself to a variety of different games. It works well as a foundation, and can be customized infinitely depending on wants and needs of a game.
Personally, I'm a "the more options the merrier" kind of guy, but if someone wanted to run a magic-less, Dwarf-centric game, for example, they could. It'd take a little fiddling with the numbers, but it could work, and be just as valid as any kitchen-sink game.
Some setting are very restrictive, and lend themselves to personal taste and flavor over raw mechanics. Ravenloft is pretty restrictive, removing some core races, heavy alignment guidelines, and having a general low-magic feel. Scarred Lands has some pretty hefty restrictions on classes and races(Druids in particular). Depending on the era of play, some Dragonlance games have no healing magic whatsoever. Yet all of these are perfectly accessible d20/PF-compatible settings.
On one hand, it's easy to assume someone is playing the "wrong" game for removing so many parts of the system, but on the other hand, there are tons of valid examples of good games not utilizing the full extent of the game's options.
If a group chooses to never use traps, then that's perfectly fine(for them).
All this talk of traps makes me want to say something; if a character dies to a trap, that's not an arbitrary death. That's EXACTLY what the trap is there for!Considering it is the GM that ultimately puts a trap somewhere, that would mean the trap is there because the GM wants to kill the character. This pretty much the definition of an adversarial GM. GMs are trust to be impartial arbitrators of the rules (at least during actual play time), a GM that shows a bias against the players is betraying that trust.Eh, to a degree. But you gotta figure, a well-placed crit from a house can kill a wizard. So, if a DM isn't supposed to put anything dangerous or potentially deadly as obstacles in the game, what are they supposed to put in to challenge the players?
I'm not advocating "killer DM" tactics. By all means, keep it reasonable within CR/ECL guidelines.
Character dies inside a dungeon, when they are supposed to be on their toes, to a trap/random encounter? That's not arbitrary; that's what those things are there to do!Just so you know, a synonym for arbitrary is random.Actually, I did not know that. Thank you for the heads up!
** spoiler omitted **True, but it would've made for a different kind of story in that case(potentially worse).
Again, I'm not calling for DM's to start killing off PC's all willy-nilly; traps and such have a fixed CR, just like monsters.
If a group is hardlined against using traps, and the DM goes along with it, then that's cool for that group. I'm not telling other groups how to to play. All I'm saying, really, ALL I'm saying is that I personally prefer a style of play where, if an adventuring character happens to die while adventuring, then it's not the end of the world.
Adventuring is dangerous business, I simply like to play the game with that frame of mind. If someone doesn't, then good for them.
I imagine that a well placed crit from a house can kill allot of things ...
I just thought I'd give my 2cp.
My only issue with death is the revolving door it creates in the story. Most books is a group of heroes not nameless hero number 86 with number 87 waiting on the sidelines. I like to see the same group of heroes from the beginning of a story to the end.
Not saying anything is wrong and i get the threat of death but it's a tricky situation to me I want my character to finish the story not be an easily replaceable random person.
I imagine that a well placed crit from a house can kill allot of things ...
Dangit, that was supposed to say "house cat." But yeah, houses have been known to kill witches and whatnot, so I'd imagine a low-level wizard wouldn't fair much better.
EDIT: Which reminds me, sorta: one of my old groups did use Daern's Instant Fortress as a weapon. They'd toss it out, crush enemies under it turning into a tower, then they'd put the tower away. Like something out of a cartoon.
Pretty sure we weren't using that item correctly...
An analogy I saw in another thread was if the same lethality applied to settings. As a DM, would you be okay if a series of unlucky dice rolls meant you would lose your setting? All the cool ideas you had for the setting have to be thrown away and you have to make a new setting from scratch.
Actually I would imagine this happens in almost every game as far as the cool ideas. Dm comes up with cool ideas but they will never get to see gametime unless the dm forces them onto the players and if the players decide to do what the dm had renotely planned. Sooo many cool ideas have been shelved because either players went a different route or solved things to early or bypassed the triggers for cool ideas.
As far as losing ur setting, players can do so by casting wish if they so please and change whole towns, continents, organizations, almost anything to their whim. They can flood and destroy towns, bring down organizations, raise up new leaders etc etc. Thru the players actions, if they wanted to they can change the setting to not even resemble what it first started out as. Also quite simply, they don't even have to do wish, they can just planeshift if they so chose and decide not to come back.As far as players deaths, I believe first and foremost what's really important is what is decidedat the beginning of the gane or told when a player first starts. If the dm tells the ayers that you are letting the dice fall however they may and there is the possibility of the player's character dying, and the players accept that to play the game, then really what's to argue about in this situation. John creates his character in 30 mins and steve creates his in 3 weeks, both know that their character can die any time due to the dice gods. It doesn't change the fact that they either have a lot or none invested in their character, that's the understanding they agree to when they decided to play. It doesn't stop either from investing or not investing in their characters, they just both know that their character can die by the will of the dice.
If it wasn't stated at the beginning, the player should ask what the dms view on players death in game is and decide if u wanna play with said person.
Now I do agree to be up in arms about purposely killing off a character or the dm going back on his views which they stated to you, yes that's grounds for discussion and walking.
But imho I think its one of the ayers responsibilitys to ask certain questions to dms before they jump head first into a game to better know and understand this person to see if they are good for you. Imho if u don't ask these questions, then when this stuff goes down, u are partially at fault as well if u never asked and assumed.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another vote here for not wanting paranoia to be a cloud constantly hanging over the table. That doesn't apply to just traps but to lethality/difficulty in general.
Some people want to be able to focus on the roleplaying and immersion side of things. For many of those, being forced to fret and worry over the mechanical side of things to reach a high bar of optimization and preparedness (or apparently animal cruelty) is a huge turn off. And they are not playing the game wrong.
Also, it's not a choice between Lego My Dinner With Andre difficulty and Dark Souls difficulty. Enough with the damned false dichotomies already. It's a spectrum. And different players are going to have different preferences on where their games fall in that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.Wait, why do they have to learn and adapt? Can't you just discuss how the game will be done?
God forbid anyone be expected to learn and adapt rather than just having everything be adapted to them...
Three questions for you Vivianne, if a character were to keep walking into traps when does an "arbitrary death" become a "death due to carelessness"?If these traps are deadly as you claim, then a character cannot walk into them continuously. They would be killed by the first trap and then not be able to walk into any more traps, what with being dead and all.
Do you think traps should be respected and players show caution and planning when progressing through a dungeon?No. The solution is to instead not go into labyrinths filled with death traps and oozes to search for gold coins and gems. If dungeons in the world are as dangerous as you paint them, then the only reasonable decision for a character to make is to not go in these dungeons. Instead, you should hire idiots with no sense of self-preservation to go through the dangerous labyrinth for you. They are expendable. If they survive, you can ambush them outside the exit and take all the loot they gathered!
The other option is that you roleplay a suicidal character who goes into these dangerous dungeons with the intent of suicide by trap. But that's necessarily not something that works for every character.
Lastly, does a multiple trap set-up offend you more (a dungeon that kills your char steadily via multiple traps) or traps (and monster-trap fusions) that can kill a pc quite quickly in one go?The former. But only because it seems to assume that wands of CLW and Lesser Restoration aren't available.
No, wrong right off the bat. I did not ever claim every one of my traps is lethal, just that you can have very lethal traps and trap combinations.
|
|
God forbid anyone be expected to learn and adapt rather than just having everything be adapted to them...Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.Wait, why do they have to learn and adapt? Can't you just discuss how the game will be done?It's a game. It's entertainment. It's supposed to be fun.
Sure, I can learn and adapt to deal with things I don't enjoy, and will and have when the rest of the game was good enough to make up for it, but I still don't enjoy it.
If the group in general doesn't enjoy that particular kind of challenge, why shouldn't they adapt the game to their tastes? Especially when it doesn't even require house rules or fudging or anything other than just de-emphasizing certain kinds of challenges.
Group in general is not the individual person.
If the group in general does not enjoy a particular kind of challenge, they will likely not let that GM run anymore.
If one person wants special treatment, it is significantly less fun for everyone else who just wants that one person to adapt rather than expecting everyone to adapt to one person who is unwilling or unable.
That is when it is an issue.
Three questions for you Vivianne, if a character were to keep walking into traps when does an "arbitrary death" become a "death due to carelessness"?If these traps are deadly as you claim, then a character cannot walk into them continuously. They would be killed by the first trap and then not be able to walk into any more traps, what with being dead and all.
Do you think traps should be respected and players show caution and planning when progressing through a dungeon?No. The solution is to instead not go into labyrinths filled with death traps and oozes to search for gold coins and gems. If dungeons in the world are as dangerous as you paint them, then the only reasonable decision for a character to make is to not go in these dungeons. Instead, you should hire idiots with no sense of self-preservation to go through the dangerous labyrinth for you. They are expendable. If they survive, you can ambush them outside the exit and take all the loot they gathered!
The other option is that you roleplay a suicidal character who goes into these dangerous dungeons with the intent of suicide by trap. But that's necessarily not something that works for every character.
Lastly, does a multiple trap set-up offend you more (a dungeon that kills your char steadily via multiple traps) or traps (and monster-trap fusions) that can kill a pc quite quickly in one go?The former. But only because it seems to assume that wands of CLW and Lesser Restoration aren't available.
That is really disappointing you don't think traps should be respected. If the players keep out of trap infested areas, well, so much for adventure. Novelty + exploration+ risk + excitement = adventure. If you don't want part of that equation, risk, you are missing out.
If you don't want your character to die then why are you playing Pathfinder?
Let me rephrase that. If you want control over your character's death, why are you playing Pathfinder?
Yep, yep, lol.
There are monsters with save vs die effects, massive amounts of damage can be dealt, and you can be hit with so many hits you get dizzy calculating the damage. It can be a rough game some days.
Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.Because players must learn and adapt to your style of play. Even if they prefer another.
Are you angry with me thejeff? Did I kill a player of yours in the past?
If the game has trap filled dungeons, they need to find a way to get through or around said dungeon (sometimes I do throw in a means of avoiding the dungeon entirely and get to the objective), or avoid it entirely and deal with the consequences of that. I do like sandboxes, but if players don't want to enter risky dungeons as brave heroes I may ask "so why are you here?"
^_^ Hi all.
Just thought I'd weigh in here. I personally love being invested in a character, and yes their death saddens me. That being said, rolls are rolls and death is a part of the game.
There are a select few times I take issue with a character death:
Inappropriate encounters: By this, I mean the GM (either intentionally or from lack of experience) slams a party against an impossible encounter, with no way the part can avoid it. Think level five 1's vs. CR 16 that just lands on the road they're walking down. This does -not- include when the party is full of idiots that challenge the king in front of his 9,999 elite guard.
Bad calls/making up rules: This one frustrates me the most, if/when a GM kills a character by making a "ruling" that is not in the rules, or is simply against the rules. For example, ruling that 2 allies under confusion passing through each other square triggers the "attack last attacker" reaction, causing the fully buffed level 6 fighter to mash the level 3 squishy. Yes, I almost had this happen, and would have been quite mad as it was clear the GM just wanted the fighter to kill someone for giggles.
Other than that, rolls are rolls, death is part of the game.
I absolutely agree with you RedJack Rose, but you sound to be a pirate, so it was inevitable.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.Because players must learn and adapt to your style of play. Even if they prefer another.
They don't have to do anything. Nor does the GM.
Your solution appears to be that the GM must adapt, because adapting is easy, but asking the player to adapt to the group is a problem because they would prefer not to.
The player can find a new game and the GM can find new players. Bless them all and may they be happy.
But no one gets to tell anyone what they must do.
Yeah, as a dm I am so very pleased when the players really get into it, gung-ho and they push the game in the direction they like.
The current party I am dming for are serious dungeon bashing ladies. Remorseless and driven in many ways. The other parts of the game that can be in, they mostly gloss over, with only some sessions on building a group of like minded adverturers, resolving problems/conflicts and rping.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about getting special treatment. I said above, if the group was into heavily trapped/high combat gaming, and there were enough other things I liked about the game, I'd deal with it. But it's not something I enjoy and it detracts from the parts of the game I do enjoy.
And yet you keep saying "I".
"I" is one person, who wants what that one person wants. If the group doesn't agree with that one person...
"Deal with it" implies sacrifice on your part. It is a game, if you don't like it, you can move on to one that you do and if the GM can't find people who like what they are running, they cease to be able to GM.
There is no gun to your head, and maybe another game is on the horizon you might like better.
But don't stick around and tell people you are "dealing with it". That is patronizing and arrogant, IMHO.
Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.Because players must learn and adapt to your style of play. Even if they prefer another.Are you angry with me thejeff? Did I kill a player of yours in the past?
If the game has trap filled dungeons, they need to find a way to get through or around said dungeon (sometimes I do throw in a means of avoiding the dungeon entirely and get to the objective), or avoid it entirely and deal with the consequences of that. I do like sandboxes, but if players don't want to enter risky dungeons as brave heroes I may ask "so why are you here?"
I'm not angry. I'm a little irritated with the constant refrain of "Why are you playing if you won't play like me?", but it's no more than that.
But to respond, what if the game doesn't have trap filled dungeons? Pathfinder doesn't. Pathfinder doesn't have dungeons at all. It has rules for traps and for dungeons. It has modules you can play that have traps and dungeons, but there's no requirements anywhere for the GM to make heavy use of them.
Any more than every session of the game must consist of a dungeons with a trap and 2-3 fights with the last one being a boss fight.
My character's actions and motivations are different than mine. Given sufficient reason, he'll go into the trap-filled dungeon and play the brave hero. At least until I get bored with it and give up on the game.
I want to play the hero. I want to buckle swashes (or is it swash buckles?), swing from chandeliers, duel my arch-rival, rescue dragons from evil princesses, etc. I don't even mind dying heroically in the process. I'm not fond of slogging step by step down a corridor throwing summoned animals in front of me to see if they...
Trust me, you don't want to set off the trap in front of you while you are in THAT corridor. It doesn't end well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Humans are adaptable creatures with great imaginations. I think my players will be fine.
Or they will rail at the injustice of my dming, and I will make a statement on the inevitability of death and go make a hazelnut coffee.
And with this, we roll back around to the argument from the other thread(s) that the amount of time/energy/thought invested is equal or equivalent in any way, shape or form.So you are saying that as a DM, you wouldn't be okay with a series of unlucky dice rolls meaning the death of your setting?
I don't now if he's saying that, but I would say it.
If so, and if it's just a matter of how much time and energy was put into the setting, then this would imply that the more time and effort players put into their characters, the worse it is to kill them off arbitrarily. Is there a point at which someone has put enough work into their character that it crosses the line and it's now bad to randomly kill off their character? What about the other side of the line, with DMs? If a DM doesn't put enough work into crafting a setting, is it okay to kill off their setting?
Games like D&D and Pathfinder already make it harder for your character to die as you spend more time and effort. As your PC goes up in level, its harder to kill them (and easier to bring them back if they do die).
Also, if a DM doesn't put enough time and effort into a setting it does tend to die (he loses his players) and no die roll can save it.