|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 6:44AM
#431
|
|
|
What you are iserith refuse to admit is that there may be those who find death, and what might happen afterwards far more fun and interesting than any of the options put forth here. iserith is just interested in putting forth his way as the best way to handle things and isn't really interested in evidence to the contrary.
I admit that I have an opinion and that my opinion is this legacy design style can lead to problems with meaningful choice that are easily worked around.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 6:48AM
#432
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I'm still not understanding why a paranoid dragon would let his lair be found by a bunch of pipsqueek adventurers, by the way. It could literally invest 0.1% of its hoard and put up enough defenses to make its lair absolutely unfindable and unenterable to any non-epic creature.
For a wise creature it appears to be remarkably stupid.
First, Dragons are exceptionally greedy and don't like to part with its horde. Second, the adventurers are those chosen heroes and can find things that would confound most of the rest of the world. Third, who said it didn't have any traps? People have been talking about them seeing the dragon, so I've been opperating on the assumption that they successfully got there. The reality is that the traps would also likely have killed the adventurers before they ever got to it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 6:51AM
#433
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
The reality is any dragon with more then 3 braincells would protect his lair with a simple cloaking ritual that'd prevent anything under level 20 from even realising it exists when they're looking straight at it.
But that's mostly because reality is boring, though.
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 6:54AM
#434
|
|
|
First, Dragons are exceptionally greedy and don't like to part with its horde. Second, the adventurers are those chosen heroes and can find things that would confound most of the rest of the world. Third, who said it didn't have any traps? People have been talking about them seeing the dragon, so I've been opperating on the assumption that they successfully got there. The reality is that the traps would also likely have killed the adventurers before they ever got to it.
Maybe some dragons are exceptionally greedy. Just like some of my NPC merchants are exceptionally greedy.
As for the traps, it only makes it "real" if they're as high level as the dragon, huh? It's unrealistic to assume that the traps are level-appropriate, interesting challenges the PCs can overcome on their journey to the dragon's lair?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 6:56AM
#435
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I didn't say "good choice." I said "meaningful choice." If you run a game of meaningful choices, the example of being given the choice of going to the dragon's lair to die is not meaningful. It's punitive in the face of countless other options.
This is also a matter of game style. For me and my players, for a choices to have meaning, death has to be in the mix. If you play a game where the PCs cannot die because you just don't let them have that option, nothing really matters. The game becomes a yawn fest because none of the encounters or decisions made inthe game have any spice and the world is blase and boring because it doesn't matter if you spit on the dragon, the King, or Bane. Also, the choice to go and get yourself killed by an ancient red dragon IS a meaningful choice. You personally just happen not
We're talking about people who choose to go because you gave them that choice.
Yes. Unlike you, I don't believe in limiting the players by removing choice.
You placed things in your world with which to interact. They didn't.
Yep. Well, sort of. Their interactions and actions within the world place things all the time.
They simply made a choice and you simply decided it would mean their deaths.
To be fair, my players wouldn't be that stupid. And if I was playing with stupid players or newbies who did not know better, I would warn them that they would likely die ahead of time. If they still persisted in going, their deaths would be 100% their fault. If you know the possible/potential/probable consequences of something and choose to do it anyway, you have no one to blame but yourself.
In my opinion, that's not the best way when given so many other options to make it more interesting.
Fair enough. You can play your game that way. I will continue to play my game the way I and my players like to play our game.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 7:04AM
#436
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Maybe some dragons are exceptionally greedy. Just like some of my NPC merchants are exceptionally greedy.
Traditionally, all D&D dragons (including good ones) are greedy and horde treasure. If you home brew yours to be something different or home brew a specific dragon to be different, that's fine for your game, but has no bearing on a talk in a D&D thread about D&D dragons. Home brew and House Rules are only really fine for discussions specifically about those things or as advice to someone on how to do something.
As for the traps, it only makes it "real" if they're as high level as the dragon, huh? It's unrealistic to assume that the traps are level-appropriate, interesting challenges the PCs can overcome on their journey to the dragon's lair?
My dragons have more than half a brain. Why would a 1000+ year old ancient dragon with the knowledge AND ability to make awesomely strong traps make a piddly spike pit for the low level group to encounter? Working under the premise that the dragon is wise enough to want to keep its lair secret (and all of them all), it wouldn't make weak traps to drive off people. It would make strong ones to kill them.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 7:15AM
#437
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2011
|
First, Dragons are exceptionally greedy and don't like to part with its horde. Second, the adventurers are those chosen heroes and can find things that would confound most of the rest of the world. Third, who said it didn't have any traps? People have been talking about them seeing the dragon, so I've been opperating on the assumption that they successfully got there. The reality is that the traps would also likely have killed the adventurers before they ever got to it.
Maybe some dragons are exceptionally greedy. Just like some of my NPC merchants are exceptionally greedy.
As for the traps, it only makes it "real" if they're as high level as the dragon, huh? It's unrealistic to assume that the traps are level-appropriate, interesting challenges the PCs can overcome on their journey to the dragon's lair?
At this point, seems this thread is in a circular argument about style; that is simply not going to be settled. Interesting how this thread has become quite centered on the nature of dragons and how expectations are set in a campaign world. On one hand, we have the notion that being true to the traditional mythos of dragons, as well as other lore, is central to the game of some groups. On the other hand, we have groups that like toying with expectations and turning things on their head.
Incidentally, a lot of the ideas presented in 4e focus on turning expectations upside down, specifically dragons. Both draconomicons throw out the idea of metallic good, chromatic bad. Instead, they have personality tendencies described, and none that I recall have a default alignment other than neutral. The door is open for stereotype busting. Hence, messing with expectations and stereotypes is not only a valid way to make the game more interesting, but is encouraged in 4e.
It’s your campaign world and you know what you and your players like. Love the traditional high fantasy mythos? Great. Find that approach dull? Mix it up. We’re not going to see anyone convinced their group is having the wrong kind of fun.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 7:29AM
#438
|
|
|
At this point, seems this thread is in a circular argument about style; that is simply not going to be settled.
Only at this point? 
Interesting how this thread has become quite centered on the nature of dragons and how expectations are set in a campaign world. On one hand, we have the notion that being true to the traditional mythos of dragons, as well as other lore, is central to the game of some groups. On the other hand, we have groups that like toying with expectations and turning things on their head.
Incidentally, a lot of the ideas presented in 4e focus on turning expectations upside down, specifically dragons. Both draconomicons throw out the idea of metallic good, chromatic bad. Instead, they have personality tendenciesdescribed, and none that I recall have a default alignment other than neutral. The door is open for stereotype busting. Hence, messing with expectations and stereotypes is not only a valid way to make the game more interesting, but is encouraged in 4e.
It’s your campaign world and you know what you and your players like. Love the traditional high fantasy mythos? Great. Find that approach dull? Mix it up. We’re not going to see anyone convinced their group is having the wrong kind of fun.
At its heart, I believe this aspect of the thread is simply about questioning assumptions. Where do these assumptions come from? What do they mean? Why do we hold to them? Because a lot of these assumptions are examples of legacy design. Part of that goes back to the OP's problem which clearly demonstrates that not everyone was on the same page in terms of their expectations. When the OP incorporated things that clearly belonged to another edition with different assumptions, it led to a bad outcome.
A lot of DMs, myself included, learned to run games under older rules systems with established certain realities based on their ruleset and the lore of the time. And those elements can leak their way into 4e games which operate with certain other realities and assumptions. At times and especially with certain of those elements, it can set up potential conflict. It doesn't mean it will. Kalex and Max might be great storytellers and excellent DMs even with these carryover elements and their players might not know anything different or prefer the particular assumptions I'm addressing. But the boards are full of examples of people who ran into problems because of it. Thus, I think it's good to question these assumptions and examine them on their face both to expand possibilities and limit legacy design issues.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 7:44AM
#439
|
|
|
The problem is after 5 or 6 pages people forget what the other people said, even what they said.
To resolve this I think you should all get on a conference call and have a marathon argument, repeating the same arguments back and forth until the last person drops - and that person is the winner!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2011 - 8:05AM
#440
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2011
|
...What you are iserith refuse to admit is that there may be those who find death, and what might happen afterwards far more fun and interesting than any of the options put forth here. iserith is just interested in putting forth his way as the best way to handle things and isn't really interested in evidence to the contrary.
And what YOU refuse to talk about is that this thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with players who find a TPK to be fun and interesting.
Instead, this thread was about "sore losers" who were sore because they didn't find the outcome fun or interesting.
I know what Iserith, Centauri, Pluisjen, myself, and Vellis suggest, but I don't remember... what advice are you offering to the original poster to deal with an entire group of players who feel like a TPK was a cheap and lame ending to the game?
New DM Tips
Show
- Trying to solve out-of-game problems (like cheating, bad attitudes, or poor sportsmanship) with in-game solutions will almost always result in failure, and will probably make matters worse.
- Gun Safety Rule #5: Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. (Never introduce a character, PC, NPC, Villain, or fate of the world into even the possibility of a deadly combat or other dangerous situation, unless you are prepared to destroy it instantly and completely forever.)
- Know your group's character sheets, and check them over carefully. You don't want surprises, but, more importantly, they are a gold mine of ideas!
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a problem if the players aren't having fun and it interferes with a DM's ability to run the game effectively; if it's not a problem, 'fixing' at best does little to help, and at worst causes problems that didn't exist before.
- "Hulk Smash" characters are a bad match for open-ended exploration in crowds of civilians; get them out of civilization where they can break things and kill monsters in peace.
- Success is not necessarily the same thing as killing an opponent. Failure is not necessarily the same thing as dying.
- Failure is always an option. And it's a fine option, too, as long as failure is interesting, entertaining, and fun!
"Broken or not, unbalanced or not, if something seems to be preventing the game from being enjoyable, something has to give: either that thing, or other aspects of the game, or your idea of what's enjoyable." - Centauri
|
|
|
