You do fucking win at D&D.

[Whatever]

See, when you hit the entire party for around oh... 30 damage a round for the next 10 rounds and then you just fuck off and leave, either they can do stuff to stop the damage over time spells or they can just die, as those place a death timer on them of "soon".

That's not a killer encounter, it's just a puzzle for the PCs to solve. They're not even getting attacked while they get to sort it out! If you can't see how that's a softball DM move, I don't know what to tell you.

Also, Delay Death is 1/round level, and it only stops hit point damage. You would have to cast it once the enemies have chosen their target, but before the PC dies. And if they toss a couple of Enervations at you instead of making attack rolls, you're still dead, no save.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

In an actual campaign, my DM had the rule: "If the roll that I made changes the story in a direction that no body wants it to go in, I will reroll", which is backed up a supporting rule "if I roll it three times, it happens".

Additionally, for purposes of this story, there is the rule: "0 hp means you are dead"

After spending 2 sessions making up D&D characters (1st time players for 50+% of the group), our adventurers set out. I was a level 1 wizard with 2 hp (we ROLL for hp because 2nd ed hates you). On the second day on the road, I was hit with a sling bullet for 3-1=2 damage (the maximum).

1 - Is this the direction you, as a DM, want the story to go?
2 - If so, will this lead to more fun or less fun for the players?


There are many great stories where the players had fun, while the characters did not. For instance, the characters lost a key battle, were captured, and had to plot an escape (with limited magic/items).

There are several dumb stories where the characters had fun, while the players did not. The characters obtained a small castle and surrounding lands, and had to establish a currency/trade relationship with surrounding lands.

[Mr. GC]

See, when you hit the entire party for around oh... 30 damage a round for the next 10 rounds and then you just fuck off and leave, either they can do stuff to stop the damage over time spells or they can just die, as those place a death timer on them of "soon".

That's not a killer encounter, it's just a puzzle for the PCs to solve. They're not even getting attacked while they get to sort it out! If you can't see how that's a softball DM move, I don't know what to tell you.

Also, Delay Death is 1/round level, and it only stops hit point damage. You would have to cast it once the enemies have chosen their target, but before the PC dies. And if they toss a couple of Enervations at you instead of making attack rolls, you're still dead, no save.

It's an Immediate action. You can say oh, that takes him to -24? Delay Death. We'll heal you later. We'd also better make sure no enemy casters have anything better to do than Dispel that, or you die anyways.

And either they make their Spellcraft check to realize what just happened and retarget, or they don't and smack the guy down to -200.

It's an encounter that says have mass resists and strong offense or die. It's exactly the sort of thing you can throw at a good party because you know they'll beat it easily, but a bad party will just die and not accomplish anything.

Just like a focus fire fight says have effective defenses that are passive, active, and interrupt based and Delay Death or just kill everything super fast.

These and many more situations are all things a good party can deal with but a bad party will die horribly against.

It also goes beyond merely looking at encounters.

One example I used, and that the grognards completely missed the point on went like this:

Good party starts off with divinations. They learn that they are up against:

A dragon.
A druid.
A psychic.
A shadow demon.
A pair of melee machines.
Various mooks.

From this they can deduce that:
They should have at least one person with See Invis and lots of Dispels for dealing with the big guys.
They should have Magic Circle so they are not mind fucked by the psychic.
They should all be flying so they are not one rounded by the melee machines.
They should be able to quickly put Wraithstrike on the melee so as to take out the dragon before it can move, otherwise people will likely die.
The druid is impossible to counter without knowing more about him, same for the shadow demon.
The mooks are dealt with by generic buffs and standard anti ranged defenses.

So they close in on the bell tower, cast Silence on it then take out the mooks quickly, spend a few rounds chasing the shadow demon around while it annoys the hell out of them, then they kill it before it can escape and warn the others. The group could leave now and do part two tomorrow, but let's say they don't.

Instead they keep advancing, take out the mooks outside as quickly as possible, then start systematically sweeping the main building. First they shake off the death blast, then kill its source... then they pick a door and kill either the psychic or the druid before he's really ready... and if they're fast they can get the other.

Then they come out, see they've gotten the dragon's attention already... it lasts long enough to get off one action, but with Greater Mirror Image and Wings of Cover the target survives at 3 HP. The melee machines come out last, see the all flying party, and either die or swim away in shame.

A few healing charges later and the party is fine.

Bad party vs same scenario:

At most they can learn about the dragon in advance. They're not even aware the other enemies exist, and as they'd get spotted 500 feet out from the bell tower they likely never will as the guards there can just rain down arrows and boulders... they won't do much at this range, but neither will the parties' attacks, and since it'd take 12-13 rounds to close the distance and get in there and longer to get out of engagement range the party will likely die even before considering they rang the bell, alerting everything in the area and giving the party about 5 minutes to GTFO or die to an overwhelming encounter. None of the major opponents need even reveal themselves as the group would die to the lowest mooks.

If by some miracle they actually survived that long they get brutally beaten down by the shadow demon... and not even the gods can help them deal with all the OTHER stuff all at once.

The grogs could only muster some hippie ranting about trees and pointing out it actually takes 40-50 rounds for the bad party to get out of the fire they've just leapt from the frying pan into... as if that helps.

Perhaps you can manage better.

[Whatever]

If the party has access to level 3-4 spells, I'll assume the Druid does as well. That means Scrying, so the party either has amazing stealth (you'll need a lot more than just Silence) or gets ambushed like whoa, since the enemies know that they are coming.

The NPCs can easily have contacts in town who alert them when people show up to ask suspicious questions about this bell tower. That's both enough to start Scrying, and probably get some decent modifiers going.

I have no idea what a "psychic" is capable of (same with "shadow demon"), though, so it's hard to say what they'd add to the preparations. The dragon can contribute a bunch of useful magic items, no doubt, plus the whole flight/breath weapon/crazy melee routine (not sure why it'd be in range for Wraithstrike at any point).

[Mistborn]

If the party has access to level 3-4 spells, I'll assume the Druid does as well. That means Scrying, so the party either has amazing stealth (you'll need a lot more than just Silence) or gets ambushed like whoa, since the enemies know that they are coming.

If the Druid need to know you specifically exist to scry on you. If you are efficient at killing everything you fight like proper muder hobos that's less of a problem.

[Whatever]

Hence the second paragraph of my post. Assuming the players are attacking this bell tower for reasons, they've probably done some detective work beforehand. The PCs are likewise limited in their divinations until they know what they're looking for, and that means Gather Information checks or similar. That's enough to alert the Druid, and get him names, descriptions, and possibly possessions.

Worst case, NPCs can purchase a casting of Speak with Dead for 150gp if their guards start mysteriously falling over.

[...You Lost Me]

This thread is going nowhere. One of you is saying the DM can do whatever he pleases so the players LOSE HAHAHAHAHA, and the other is saying that it's totally reasonable for parties to walk around all the time everywhere being prepared for an ambush because PCs win guise.

Both of those are very stupid taken to their extreme. And they also don't mean anything. So please, take the energy you're wasting on this boring and useless thread and put it into an interesting and useful thread.

[Mr. GC]

If the party has access to level 3-4 spells, I'll assume the Druid does as well. That means Scrying, so the party either has amazing stealth (you'll need a lot more than just Silence) or gets ambushed like whoa, since the enemies know that they are coming.

The NPCs can easily have contacts in town who alert them when people show up to ask suspicious questions about this bell tower. That's both enough to start Scrying, and probably get some decent modifiers going.

I have no idea what a "psychic" is capable of (same with "shadow demon"), though, so it's hard to say what they'd add to the preparations. The dragon can contribute a bunch of useful magic items, no doubt, plus the whole flight/breath weapon/crazy melee routine (not sure why it'd be in range for Wraithstrike at any point).

The enemies in question were vaguely described as divinations don't just spell everything out for you. It takes some degree of deductive reasoning to work out what that stuff actually means. Even then you won't know, and have everything specifically countered which is also the point and is also the point of general purpose stuff.

Scrying first requires foreknowledge of who you should scry on and second requires you have that spell today. If the party fought, then withdrew Scrying becomes a reasonable possibility.

Contacts in what town? The only other things around are:

Various monsters that would like to eat their face. Where "their" means "both sides". Whether or not they are able is another matter.
Lizardfolk. Which live in swamps, much to grog's amazement. They don't have anyone that could scry and it's unlikely the party would go asking them any funny questions.
NPCs friendly to the party that would really rather have these guys gone from their lake.
The psychic was actually a psion who favored telepathy effects, so the Magic Circle prevented them from violently murdering each other.
The shadow demon they couldn't figure out, and so couldn't make special prep for but the general prep, combined with a broad array of abilities and learning as they went was enough. When you get hit with a long dot, stop dots. When the enemy can move through the floor, walls, and ceiling and attack at literally any angle... you might as well go out in the open, because everything is the open.
The dragon came out and fired off a Blood Wind full attack at 60 feetish. That's melee range if you know what you're doing. The point with that is that you just can't fuck around with dragons. If they get a turn, they'll spend it fucking up your shit so kill them before they can move (and since 1: Shivering Touch is banned. 2: Scintillating Scales, this is one of the places those Dispels help., the easy way is not quite as easy).

[Whatever]

A lake? Wait, is this that one encounter from Red Hand of Doom? If you're running a module as-written, then yes, you are almost by definition going easy on your players. By that point in the adventure, the enemies really should have an eye on the PCs and at least be tracking their movements.

I don't know why that Shadow Demon wouldn't immediately alert the entire place. Would a PC rogue engage the enemies for a few rounds and then die? No? Then neither should NPC scout-types.

[Mr. GC]

A lake? Wait, is this that one encounter from Red Hand of Doom? If you're running a module as-written, then yes, you are almost by definition going easy on your players. By that point in the adventure, the enemies really should have an eye on the PCs and at least be tracking their movements.

I don't know why that Shadow Demon wouldn't immediately alert the entire place. Would a PC rogue engage the enemies for a few rounds and then die? No? Then neither should NPC scout-types.

Show me where there's a shadow demon or anything that would resemble a shadow demon in Red Hand of Doom, as printed. I'll wait.

In this case the shadow demon has an AC of only hit on a 20, saves of only fail on a 1, and Blink. Engaging in combat, rather than using the 1/day DDoor instantly is reasonable... and if you don't take him down fast enough, using the aforementioned ability is reasonable.

Edit: If that's what it actually were then the good party would just run right over everything and would if anything be very much overprepared. The bad party would still get detected too early and die before accomplishing much.

[Whatever]

This thread is going nowhere. One of you is saying the DM can do whatever he pleases so the players LOSE HAHAHAHAHA, and the other is saying that it's totally reasonable for parties to walk around all the time everywhere being prepared for an ambush because PCs win guise.

Both of those are very stupid taken to their extreme. And they also don't mean anything. So please, take the energy you're wasting on this boring and useless thread and put it into an interesting and useful thread.

Whoops, missed this before. My point isn't that the players always lose, because the players don't always lose. Most of the time, they win. My point was that players win because that's what DMs, and players, want. D&D isn't a game where you play against an objective difficulty setting, and trying to pretend that it is leads to poor design choices and poor gameplay arguments.

Now, that's not to say that the game is incoherent. The rules are (somewhat) clear, and we have a general sense of how powerful we want PC classes to be (which means, roughly speaking, that we have some idea how tough the challenges they face are, on average). But most of that difficulty is illusory, and players who think they are "earning" wins on some objective measure are just not paying attention.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And you're well within your rights to be wrong. Unless you're saying you personally want to lose? (In which case, go for it, fill your boots.)

As far as D&D is concerned, I don't want to lose any particular game, but in aggregate I want to lose some of them.

If I was playing something like Mouseguard or Toon where the game straight-up says that they're putting a floor on how hard you can lose by that's fine. But D&D, even 4th Edition, still advertises its play experience as 'great risks, huge rewards'. Meaning that the reason why you actually go through rolling the dice with a skirmish with some skeleton marauders instead of just narrating what happens is because there's a chance that you might lose.

If there is no chance for me to lose or win, I don't want to waste time on it. I might as well just roll up on a 'Cinematic Combat Events' chart and then just get on with the rest of the story.

So in order for all of the silliness of character building and combat to mean ANYTHING three things must happen unless the game says otherwise right at the start of the game.

[*] There has to be a chance of losing. It doesn't need to be very high. I personally think, say, 1 in 20 3-month campaigns ending in TPK is a bit too high. But it needs to be there. Otherwise there's no point in combat other than determining minutae. And we could just roll on a series of charts for that.

[*] The chance of willing and losing has to be dependent on choices you made. This can be discrete tactical choices you made in the middle of fighting, choices you made in the dungeon module plot, or even choices made at CharGen.

[*] The players and DM have to stick with the outcome. I'm willing to play a D&D game or any game with the cheat codes turned on. I'll drop any game that turns the cheat codes on after pretending that they weren't going to play with them. Mouseguard eschewing TPKs doesn't offend me because it's baked into the rules. DMs who retcon a TPK not because it makes sense within the context of the story but because they want the game to go on does.

[Dominicius]

Once again we have a thread where we try to identify why players play tabletop. Yes we already had threads like this.

In any case, if we are talking about a game like D&D, it is meant to cater to goals that usually involve physical opposition, so "winning" here usually means slaying the dragon or killing the necromancer. When you make your goal something like character growth or romancing the elven princess the game does nothing to facilitate a sense of "winning". As such you can't really claim that you won D&D when you accomplish those goals because the game did nothing to guide you towards them.

[Mr. GC]

Always wanting to win and sometimes not winning are not mutually exclusive. What matters is that people are wanting to win, are doing things to work towards winning, and otherwise wanting and attempting to achieve this goal.

In a game like D&D winning is about being successful and being successful is about character effectiveness. No matter how creative you are, it matters not at all if your character lacks the ability to follow through. Some people will just make their character effective... others will say they rolled a 20 when they clearly did not and still others just want the enemies to fall over and die when they see their characters even though those characters are the only ones likely to fall over and die.

And it doesn't matter what the conflict is actually coming from because even purely non combat conflicts ultimately end up tying right back into combat since just about everything that counts is level based so yes, even the penultimate basket weaver is high level.

Likewise, the DM can make some guys and that's who you're fighting and you either deal with that or don't.

But this shit where people make a terrible party and this somehow turns all of their opponents into Int 3 Wis 3 creatures simply because anything else would kill them has to go. It only breeds moronic, stagnant gamers in constant denial of everything.

[Fuchs]

But this shit where people make a terrible party and this somehow turns all of their opponents into Int 3 Wis 3 creatures simply because anything else would kill them has to go. It only breeds moronic, stagnant gamers in constant denial of everything.

What matters is that people playing the game have fun. For those who want to have an objective dick measuring contest there's always MMORPGs. There you can win and demonstrate your progress by killing Mob X 1.65 seconds faster than your rival guild. But in D&D? Having an optimized character means nothing, it just means they read a few forums.

I really don't get where this stupid, shortsighted arrogance comes from - other than that it reminds me of a few immature MMOG-Players who are too stuiod to understand that people can have fun differntly.

[Mr. GC]

But this shit where people make a terrible party and this somehow turns all of their opponents into Int 3 Wis 3 creatures simply because anything else would kill them has to go. It only breeds moronic, stagnant gamers in constant denial of everything.

What matters is that people playing the game have fun. For those who want to have an objective dick measuring contest there's always MMORPGs. There you can win and demonstrate your progress by killing Mob X 1.65 seconds faster than your rival guild. But in D&D? Having an optimized character means nothing, it just means they read a few forums.

I really don't get where this stupid, shortsighted arrogance comes from - other than that it reminds me of a few immature MMOG-Players who are too stuiod to understand that people can have fun differntly.

So who are you on theRPGsite?

[erik]

So who are you on theRPGsite?

Hey now, no need to be that mean!

Fuchs didn't say anything objectionable really, other than a possible strawman situation he presented of where the entire party is full of fail rather than just a couple poor stragglers. If people have fun doing that then awesome for them. Just so long as they don't use that as justification for arguing that shitty design is acceptable.

The problem inevitably comes not from when everyone is on the same page, be it under-performing or over, but when characters are not on the same page. When you have people who through no fault of their own chose an option that was presented as being roughly equivalent to another, and it flatly is not the case. Since then the DM is forced to either create his own rule set to bring balance back to the table, or he will either make challenges too easy for some or too deadly for others.

[Mr. GC]

So who are you on theRPGsite?

Hey now, no need to be that mean!

This. Is. TGD!

Fuchs didn't say anything objectionable really, other than a possible strawman situation he presented of where the entire party is full of fail rather than just a couple poor stragglers. If people have fun doing that then awesome for them. Just so long as they don't use that as justification for arguing that shitty design is acceptable.

I'm not sure that is a strawman. I mean it could be, but after dealing with those losers I am now convinced you can have that much stupid in one place. Regardless of whether it's something like 1-2 guys and everything else is fine, or the entire party being full of fail it is still not something you should encourage or enable in the slightest and if not for the fact these things naturally sort themselves out I'd encourage you to actively go well out of your way to shut that shit down whereever you see it. Because the longer they think they are fine the longer it takes for them to realize differently.

[Fuchs]

As long as everyone is having fun they are fine. That is my point. It doesn't matter how "well" they play, as long as everyone is fine.

And yes, you defiently should encourage everyone to have fun. That's the whole point of a game. If a game is not fun it's a failure.

Shitty design is unacceptable, but unoptimized parties? All ok, as long as no one is having issues. If 3 players are fine playing bumbling "heroes" and the 4th wants to play Seal Team 6, well, someone has to give in.

You're arguing as if people are doing it wrong even though everyone involved has fun. And that's something really, really stupid to do.

Do you stand outside restaurants too, and tell people that if they enjoy a pizza they are doing it wrong, they should eat a burger instead, more meat for their buck?

[Stubbazubba]

So who are you on theRPGsite?

Hey now, no need to be that mean!

This. Is. TGD!

That. Was. Irony!

People who get on a soapbox here about how the hobby is crippled by these un-optimized basket-weaving parties are delusional. The hobby is not hurt by people playing differently than you, the same way basketball is not hurt by city league teams. You do not have to enjoy playing with basket-weavers, and that's your right; you can get up and walk away from any table where someone basket-weaves or the DM fudges a roll for someone, and that's totally fine. You can come here and call them idiots and short-sighted and whatever else, but saying that they hurt the hobby and that this kind of thing 'has to go' and encouraging others to go piss in their cheerios for the greater good is crossing the line into deluded, mouth-foaming BadWrongFun idiocy. They do not hurt the hobby; they agitate you. That doesn't make anyone wrong.

[Username17]

Basket weavers actively thwart attempts to improve the rules. If they were really serious about playing the game casually and not really caring whether the rules were bad or they were using bad strategies, I wouldn't have a problem with them as a group. But they aren't. Basket weavers as a group come out in force to concern troll the fuck out of any discussion about how to improve the game on any metric.

Look, if someone actually had the viewpoint that everything was OK as long as people were having fun and different strokes for different folks and nongustibus and all that shit, then logically when I or anyone else wanted to have a discussion about how to make the armor rules scale better or how to nail down item resell prices for trader characters or something then they would shut their fucking faces and let us do that! To each their own, right? Wrong. In reality, these assclowns come out of the woodwork throwing around shitty aphorisms about how everyone can have fun differently or some shit as if it was a fucking argument for inaction. Which of course, it is. Because they aren't actually the gaming equivalent of moral relativists, they are reactionary conservatives who use relativist arguments to concern troll change.

-Username17

[icyshadowlord]

The problem comes when people aren't willing to put in the effort die like the gimps they are and have the audacity to blame the people who are component for their failure. Of course given how much DMs coddle players most people only realize they are gimps after years of playing and then they start screaming like raped apes about "dirty powergamers".

This is why MTP is bad for the hobby gentlemen. When you ask to MTP your way past an encounter you're not being clever. You're telling the DM "waaaaah D&D is to hard let's play pretend instead". Seriously and the OSR folks complain about player entitlement. Reading the DMs mind and sucking the DMs cock are things to be discouraged not embraced.

Tell that to the people at the Paizo forums.

[Mistborn]

Tell that to the people at the Paizo forums.

I may actually do that.

[Mr. GC]

As long as everyone is having fun they are fine. That is my point. It doesn't matter how "well" they play, as long as everyone is fine.

And yes, you defiently should encourage everyone to have fun. That's the whole point of a game. If a game is not fun it's a failure.

Shitty design is unacceptable, but unoptimized parties? All ok, as long as no one is having issues. If 3 players are fine playing bumbling "heroes" and the 4th wants to play Seal Team 6, well, someone has to give in.

You're arguing as if people are doing it wrong even though everyone involved has fun. And that's something really, really stupid to do.

Do you stand outside restaurants too, and tell people that if they enjoy a pizza they are doing it wrong, they should eat a burger instead, more meat for their buck?

Neither pizza nor burgers are objectively wrong.

Basket weavers are.

I again must ask why you're bringing the typical RPGsite stupidity here.

That. Was. Irony!

People who get on a soapbox here about how the hobby is crippled by these un-optimized basket-weaving parties are delusional. The hobby is not hurt by people playing differently than you, the same way basketball is not hurt by city league teams. You do not have to enjoy playing with basket-weavers, and that's your right; you can get up and walk away from any table where someone basket-weaves or the DM fudges a roll for someone, and that's totally fine. You can come here and call them idiots and short-sighted and whatever else, but saying that they hurt the hobby and that this kind of thing 'has to go' and encouraging others to go piss in their cheerios for the greater good is crossing the line into deluded, mouth-foaming BadWrongFun idiocy. They do not hurt the hobby; they agitate you. That doesn't make anyone wrong.

Anyone that thinks the hobby isn't crippled by these morons is hereby banished for 24 hours to the gaming wastelands.

Tell that to the people at the Paizo forums.

I may actually do that.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Basket weavers actively thwart attempts to improve the rules. If they were really serious about playing the game casually and not really caring whether the rules were bad or they were using bad strategies, I wouldn't have a problem with them as a group. But they aren't. Basket weavers as a group come out in force to concern troll the fuck out of any discussion about how to improve the game on any metric.

Look, if someone actually had the viewpoint that everything was OK as long as people were having fun and different strokes for different folks and nongustibus and all that shit, then logically when I or anyone else wanted to have a discussion about how to make the armor rules scale better or how to nail down item resell prices for trader characters or something then they would shut their fucking faces and let us do that! To each their own, right? Wrong. In reality, these assclowns come out of the woodwork throwing around shitty aphorisms about how everyone can have fun differently or some shit as if it was a fucking argument for inaction. Which of course, it is. Because they aren't actually the gaming equivalent of moral relativists, they are reactionary conservatives who use relativist arguments to concern troll change.

-Username17

So if Basket Weaver is the term for people who want the rules to stay murky and bad so they can keep playing Magical Tea Party and getting power from DM pity, what's the term for people who don't try and sabotage other people's design. This seems like large enough category for there to be confusion when multiple people use the same turn.

And, just as a side curiousity, is there any term for the kind of player who always gives his PC a suicide-bomber option as soon as the game allows it?