>Early game >Facing a wight that flat-out can't be

>>53252239
I would've had something like this.
>The Barbarian with all of his fury strikes the earth with such force the very ground splits open
>The Wight is devoured whole by the hungry soil, never to be seen again
And no, it's not right to throw a wight at the party this early in the game.

>>53252239
>what is undead immunity to critical hits?
Personally, while I wouldn't let the barbarian kill the wight because immune to crits and all, IF he at least suggested he wanted to push the wight away or something, I'd let him knock the thing down a well, through a wall, or incapacitate it in some way, allowing the party some time to think of a more permanent solution.

And definitely not okay to toss a wight against them. Assuming the party is level 1, a wight can kill them in 1 hit, assuming 3.5e.
>Energy Drain (Su)
>Living creatures hit by a wight’s slam attack gain one negative level. The DC is 14 for the Fortitude save to remove a negative level. The save DC is Charisma-based. For each such negative level bestowed, the wight gains 5 temporary hit points.
>A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight.

>>53252239
Could be worse, you could have the PC's fight a Vampire that's a part of the Union of Eclipses despite PC's knowing jack to shit about vampires beyond Default Vampire and Vampire Lord, because of the initial obscurity of diverse vampires, and the content presented in 2e Ravenloft.

Never fuck with a vampire over 500, they're simply Epic level threats that can and will Ream your asshole.

The fucking High preist of Vampires literally shag's lolth, and you'd miss this guy out if you havn't played a 1e module and read carefuly the Hordes of the Abyss splatbook, and even then, they cocked up his deity with a web enhancement which they then fixed in Forgotten Faiths with an even more obscure reference to a Lich deity that became a God by accident when he became a Lich because the lazy-ass fucking cat-like vampire deity who lives in what is literally the Scarlet devil mansion let a Piece of his divinity out for shits and giggles and it somehow latched on to this guy.

Anyhow, this Lich Deity? Literally is you bro, will help you ascend to undeath like a "You can do it!" kind of guy, as if an exemplar of Liches everywhere. Has access to the Luch Domain, so you know he's legit.

I mean you could have him roll that 20 and have the sword bite into the wight's skin but also not harm him. Teach that guy a lesson about not punching above his weight.

>>Facing a wight that flat-out can't be harmed by conventional weaponry
>If they get close it WILL kill them and turn them into more undead

why did you make them fight this?
why not just have them fight real enemies
what do you want them to do run away

>Was it okay to throw a wight against the party to begin with, when they had no means of harming it?
not okay

>>53252239
It depends on the group. My current group is a pretty laid back, goofy, anything can happen kind of group, so yeah, I'd allow something cool to happen. My previous group was a pretty serious campaign where we stuck to the rules hard and fast, so I would have not allowed it then.

Regarding the bonus question, how did you expect them to beat this encounter?

>>53252239
I would find it a perfect opportunity to show how the world works
>the barbarian swings his greatsword with all his might, cleaving a might cleave and cutting wood, rock and ground alike in half
>the wight stands unharmed

Maybe because I live for those little "aw shit..." moments.

>>53252239
Also, the funniest thing about Wights is that they look like Crack Addicts. Or a guy who just smashed their face in a massive pile of the stuff.

Actually I think there was some kind of Class/Prc/Template for a Drug-addict, and Undead pickled in barrels of Alchemical waste.

>>53252545
>how did you expect them to beat this encounter?

Given the circumstances stated above? I most certainly did not.

The wight was a semi-random encounter - meaning that there was one wandering about in the dungeon and that it could bump into the party at any time. The dungeon held magical items for them to find, things that could've harmed the wight, but they never did, mostly because they didn't explore their surroundings well enough.

>>53252542
I suspect OP was trying for a vidya style "beef gate" enemy and lacked the GM-balls to say "the wight punches each of you clear back to the dungeon entrance, cracking your armor and doing five damage" when they tried anyway.

>>53252239
>just make up whatever "but at what price" kind of thing, if you wanted so bad that villain and had plans for hum
>maybe the barbarian is now undead and barbarian, since this would happen
>maybe it's for a greater plan
>the enemy is spying the party via the now sleeper agent barbarian, because of a drop of bad guy blood that dropped into barbarian's eye or something

>>53252504
More like punching above his wight.

>>53252608
I should clarify that by beat, I don't mean kill the wight. I just mean to complete the encounter. How were they supposed to deal with this Wight? Were they just supposed to run? Because then it comes down to the group. If it's a bunch of murder hobos, I think you fucked up, because murder hobos will want to kill everything. If it's a group that's more strategic and is willing to cut their losses, well, then it's more acceptable, but still not really advisable.

>>53252679
CARLOS

>>53252542
Found the fucking casual who wants to win forever.

>playing d20 systems

But yeah criticals don't make the impossible happen. Especially not on a 5% chance like in d20.

He got the perfect hit, exactly where he wanted, with all his might, hugely impressive.

The party have to take (or retake) fear checks as one of the most perfect blows he has ever struck ... does absolutely nothing.

I wouldn't kill the Barbarian though (or I would make a roll for it with a really low chance of it ending in death).

You could just hand wave it, the Wight is so impressed or surprised by the stupidity it lets him leave or doing something non-fatal to him. Or actually make it part of the story with the Wight taking an interest in the foolish Barbarian and trying to turn him.

As for the bonus question, how dare you give a party a challenge that can't be completed by combat!? Seems fair to me as long as there was a chance given for the characters to know the full situation.

>>53252734
>chooses to spend his leisure freetime playing a hypothetical imaginative adventure game where literally anything you can think of might happen if you want it to
>"I'm making it so you have to run away from this ghost! Your characters are cowards I guess!?!? Isn't this so fun and heroic!"

no self respect

>>53252239
>But what would you have done in this situation, were you the DM?
I tell the barb: if you ha a weapon which could damage this entity, it woul have been a deathblow. But now... your weapon just glides through the wight without effect.

>Bonus question: Was it okay to throw a wight against the party to begin with, when they had no means of harming it?

Many, many players have a very gamey attitude towards RPGs... "If my GM confronts me with X I should b able to beat it!" Nope, not in MY game! Ofcoure I stated my premise on this approach very clearly before. Mayb even remembered them when the wight appeared. Sometimes learning requires a tough lesson, if they still try...

If I know my players have such a gamey approach and I'm in shortage of players without it.... then it would be a bad idea to throw the wight at them.

>>53252239
Nat 20 autosuccess is stupid bullshit memes when it's something normally impossible. It would probably break his weapon, but maybe drive the thing back and knock it down, so they can flee.

They can totally hurt it if they use their brains though. Oil and fire, acid, trapping it under rubble so it's not a threat anymore.. plenty of ways to deal with things immune to non-magic weapons.

>>53252991
>Sometimes learning requires a tough lesson, if they still try...
If you are running a game with fellow full grown adults to "teach players a lesson" then maybe there's a reason no one wants to put up with you.

>>53252239
>the idiotic barbarian slams his weapon into the wight, it doesn't do anything

>>53253091
You shouldn't play shitty systems with "weapons can't do anything to this monster because, uh, they need to be magic" anyway.

>>53253200
Why? Magical beings being completely unkillable save by some specific weapon or weapon type is a staple of fantasy, fairy tale, mythology, and religion.

It's a lot of fun and some barbarian being able to ignore the rules because he's just so strong is boring and cheapens the whole effect.

>>53252239
>Early access game
>Facing a night that flat-out can't be used as a conventional release day
>If they get close it WILL look like an unfinished mess and turn them into anti-shills
>Playerbase knows both for a fact
>Lead dev chooses to launch anyway, boasts "You can do anything!"
>Charges in, E3 Hype
>Nat 2.0

>>53252933
>In a hypothetical imaginative adventure game where literally anything you can think of might happen if you want it to I cannot conceive of a single reason why anyone would want to avoid a fight
Maybe you lack the imagination for these games.

>>53252239
>Barbarian cleaves into the wight, shattering the wight's tattered armor
>Wight casually leans in and whispers "Sticks and stones won't break MY bones"

Then things get REALLY spoopy

>>53253751
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkixFyvLHUk

>>53252239
"No, it's 3d6 to roll the stats of your new character, not the d20"

>>53253478
Not the anon you were talking to, but I find that a slightly gimmicky thing to do in a lot of stories.
Take those Rick Riordan books, which are a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. Every series has some form of special metal that's "the thing that kills monsters" which is why you can't pack an SMG to every dungeon run, but then a whole bunch die to being set on fire or tossed off cliffs or even crushed with rocks, and there's no difference in the underlying principles of bullets over throwing boulders other than the scales involved. It can be done well, but it does make the story seem just as contrived and a tad cheap when the only reason the villain wasn't instantly atomized was magical immunity to stuff, even worse when that's taken away and they get obliterated, as tends to happen. Personally I prefer "can't be KILLED short of this thing, but he's not going to be fighting if you blast him with an anti-materiel rifle a couple dozen times, either,".

In this case, no, there's no reason he should be able to hurt the Wight more than superficially, just have him knock it onto its bony arse to leg it, because what constitutes "magic" is clear and there's plenty of alternatives for a party.

File: laughing_saladin.gif (2MB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x200px

>>53253751

>>53253800
Hell, there's even a bit where a dude gets a few swords, melts them down and makes some Celestial Bronze-jacketed bullets for his WW1 plane, then goes and strafes a whole line of monsters. No reason is ever really given why they still all insist on swordfighting and turning into animals to beat each other with other than the odd throwaway "bullets don't work on heroes" line and nothing to back that up.

>>53252449
>And no, it's not right to throw a wight at the party this early in the game.

Except the wight exists in the world, and the characters' actions led to them encountering it.

>level 1 character climbs onto cliff, decides to try to fly
>jumps off
>this anon decides that he takes 0 fall damage because it's not right to throw 5d6 damage at a character this early in the game.

>>53252239

Interesting, my party faced something like this early on. Graverobbing is a strong drug.

A natural 20 still can't hurt something that is immune to physical. Don't reward stupid bullheadedness, there's enough of that.

But NO ONE could hurt it? Sounds like your players had a poorly balanced party.

Anyhow, in our case, it was a wight. I was very strong but unable to hurt it, so I grappled and pinned it so it couldn't use the bad touch on the no-no place, while the only person who could hurt it was a cleric with their little pew pew cantrip.

The Wight died an embarrassing death over quite a few rounds, essentially dogpiled by people holding it down while the cleric chanted like a maniac and slowly erased the foul thing from the world.

>>53252239
>Internet is fairly full of stories wherein a player rolls a natural 20 and their character then automatically and gloriously succeeds at whatever they're doing.

Internet is full of fucking autistic bullshit, OP. Here's the question: do you care about your game making any sort of sense, or do you care about "omg rewl of kewl" where you slowly grow an entitlement complex in your players until they become fucking insufferable?

>nat20! I seduce the medusa!
>nat20! I autokill the tarrasque
>nat20! I literally convince everyone i should be king instead!
>nat20! I literally jump over the wall from pole vault position
>nat20! I literally jump to the moon from standing position XD XD

This kind of shit starts out cancerous and only metastasizes from there.

>But what would you have done in this situation, were you the DM?

He got a critical hit. If we are talking a 3.5 wight, there is no damage reduction or anything so I don't know what you're on about. If you mean a 5e wight, they only have RESISTANCE to non-silvered weapons, so your DM is an idiot, and also the 5e wight, while deadly against a level 1 party, is far from an autokill.

So either your DM's a retard, or you're making up shit. Either way, a nat20 is not an excuse to break the game rule for no fucking reason.

>>53252595
How is that funny?

Wait, what game is this? Because in 3.5 and Pathfinder wights don't even have damage reduction. In 5e they have nonmagical damage resistance, not immunity. They aren't incorporeal. So why wouldn't the party be able to damage it?

>>53253948
No, I'd do this.
>Jump off a cliff to see if you can fly
>Obviously fall
>Your character falls into the ocean, no fall damage because of high DEX and you dove in
>But now you have to roll a fortitude check to see if you're still conscious

>>53254071
>He got a critical hit. If we are talking a 3.5 wight, there is no damage reduction or anything so I don't know what you're on about. If you mean a 5e wight, they only have RESISTANCE to non-silvered weapons, so your DM is an idiot, and also the 5e wight, while deadly against a level 1 party, is far from an autokill.
>So either your DM's a retard, or you're making up shit.

Or he's playing neither of those systems?

>>53253948
>>this anon decides that he takes 0 fall damage because it's not right to throw 5d6 damage at a character this early in the game.

>Don't give full information
>Laugh at anon for working with the available info

>>53254071
>nat20! I seduce the medusa!
Nothing wrong with that, scaly girls need some love too.

>>53252823
How about 3d20 pick the middle?

>>53254117
What other system has wights, barbarians, nat 20s being critical successes, etc.?

>>53254071
A 2e wight is immune to nonmagic weapons as well. They are highly magically reinforced super-undead. While not, say, a lich, they are still very powerful intelligent undead. Why WOULD a normal weapon hurt it?

>>53252991
>Mayb even remembered them when the wight appeared
Is that okay? Isn't it OOC meta knowledge that would make the PCs not even try to circumvent the difficult encounter and just straight up "we retreat"?

>>53252542
>why did you make them fight this?
The players chose to fight it. The DM simply put it there. They chose to attack it full-retard rather than trying to see what it was.

>why not just have them fight real enemies
The fuck does this mean?

>what do you want them to do run away
Maybe characters should consider ways of bypassing a challenge other than hacking it apart. For example lead it in a circle and run past it through a door, close the door. It will take the wight a while to break the door down, so you've got time to light some oil and set up a nice little corridor of death for it. Also you could try to trip it with rope, hogtie it from a distance and pull taught trapping it while everyone else fires arrows.

File: 40f.jpg (18KB, 240x258px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 240x258px

>>53252239
>It's another one of those 'kek nat20' threads

>>53254348
...It isn't?
Read the part that isn't greentexted, nigger

>>53254143
actually reptiles can't feel love.

>>53254103
LOL

Making up bullshit just to accomodate shit-tard players is a good way to ensure they will stay retarded. Have fun being a cuck for your player's stupid decisions, faggot.

>>53254389
>The topic of the thread is a nat20 hit on a 'can't be touched' enemy.

Who's the nigga now

>>53254511
Not even him but the topic is about whether or not is okay to throw immortal enemies at the level 1 party

>>53252493
Are you having a stroke? Do you smell burnt toast?

>>53254511
>>The topic of the thread is a nat20 hit on a 'can't be touched' enemy.
>>53254348
>>It's another one of those 'kek nat20' threads

Pick one and only one, nigga

>>53254333
>can't be harmed by conventional weaponry
>light some oil
>everyone else fires arrows
???

>>53254439
>>53254143

Let me have this ok

>>53252239
>Pick a random god.
>Said god favored his bold boast and allowed him to harm the wight.
Easy.

>>53254487
This, players don't learn from their mistakes unless it costs them a character. If your judgment as a DM shifts, even a bit, it tells the players that the rules are second only to DM fiat, and it'll become a game of "let's entertain the DM like puppets so that he can give us free perks for ruul of kewl xD" which will only breed entitlement.

As much as people love to shit on vidya on this board, a lot of DM's would improve if they ran their games like a video game, in the sense that if the rules state that something is impossible, it's fucking impossible no matter what you do or what you roll.

>>53254556
>light some
how? How do you make fire?

My party travels with fireflies in a bottle like a lamp because we don't know how to make fire.

>>53252239
There's only one true answer to this

>Kill them all, my son, kill them all.

>>53254590
>Giving a literal Deus Ex Machina to a player just because they got a NAT20.
>Giving a literal Deus Ex Machina to a level 1 character just because their player got lucky.
You're the reason most games suck, if nothing's impossible then where's the goddamn risk?

>>53254627
>we don't know how to make fire.
Hang up your sword, "adventurer".

>>53254487
There are millions of lethal creatures in the sea, I could just say "You got eaten by sharks, I said higher you must roll higher than 15 to stay conscious" if I wanted to and who would stop me?

File: 1483163341427.gif (820KB, 275x207px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 275x207px

>>53252239
I usually let anything that's a natural 20 or natural 1 happen.

It's a whole lot of fun when a single roll can change the route of a whole campaign, and it's a good GMing exercise in improv.

File: 1480282387907.png (64KB, 658x901px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 658x901px

>>53254670
Rude

File: ^F946F61E28953EAADFBF0F43B8CFB094E7260F707297946A10^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.png (364KB, 500x321px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 500x321px

>>53254627
>>53254670

>Doesn't know how to make a fire
>but knows how to play DnD

>>53252239
>Barbarian's greatsword follows its path straight to the ground, slamming and tearing apart the stone and dirt with incredible force. The debris creates a small cloud directly upon the wight, who is momentarily blinded.
It's fine to reward naturals. It's a fallacy to assume that rewarding means letting the player become a god and do whatever the hell he wants.

>>53252239
>Was it okay to throw a wight against the party to begin with, when they had no means of harming it?

Sometimes, I run my games like Dark Souls without resurrection. Combat is realistically lethal, you can go to areas where you're not sufficiently leveled, and death is abundant.

But the key thing is that this is not how I normally run a game, and I discuss with the players beforehand if they want to do that. It was fun, and good times were had by all. One dude managed to survive start to finish without dying by sheer idiot luck. The min-maxer died like 16 times.

Basically, communication is the correct answer, not "yes" or "no". As is often the case with pointless /tg/ arguments.

>>53252239
>what would you have done in this situation, were you the DM?
Depends entirely on what expectations I established with my players. But probably killed him. Thing is, he'd know that going in that he should expect to be killed if he behaved recklessly, so it wouldn't come as a surprise.

>>53255386
>It's fine to reward naturals.
No, the only "reward" that a natural should give are the ones that are already codified in the book (namely auto-hit for 20's and auto-miss for 1's).
>It's a fallacy to assume that rewarding means letting the player become a god and do whatever the hell he wants.
When you allow a NAT roll to remove restrictions for the sake of "rule of cool," it generally devolves gameplay into a slippery slope where players expect naturals to ALWAYS mean success or failure in spite of whatever is in front of them and gain a sense of entitlement to always be able to roll, even if the action they're attempting is more inefficient than trying to break down a wall with your head.

I let him cleave it the fuck in twain. 3.5 is ass cancer, and so is throwing bullshit enemies at your players without a damn good reason.

>>53252239
Barbarian rolls to confirm his critical threat, does his damage. Maybe kills the wight, maybe not. Maybe dies and becomes wight #2.

Absolutely fine. Encounters that you have to run from or avoid are fine. Not everything should be solved by shankings.

I'd say he still fails to hit the wight, but maybe startles it and doesn't get instagibbed. He was roleplaying with the knowledge that he wouldn't succeed, so he deserves what he gets in-character and out-of-character (he apparently thought it would make for a good story), but the luck still deserves to be recognised. Not that 5% is THAT insanely unlucky, if every nat 20 turns into miraculous bullshit far beyond the character's physical abilities then 1/20 of all rolls will result in that and it kinda trivialises the whole thing. That sort of "okay you got a nat 20 rolling for something stupid and impossible" thing should be reserved, at the GM's discretion, for a climactic moment for the entire campaign, eg los tiburon pinning a dragon in midair.

>>53252239
I would have had some sort of bonus for criting, if they confirm the crit. But still not had the barbarian do damage.

>>53256000
Oh yes, heaven forbid the world is actually a dynamic landscape where shit isn't scaled to your level by default. No, it should function like a video game where you can't pass the metaphorical chest high wall because the DM determined that you aren't strong enough to make to the realm of CR 3-5 enemies as a group of level 2's.

If you're traveling through a forest, be prepared to find anything from giant bees to trolls. The world doesn't care about "balance," and it's your job to overcome the obstacles before you.

>>53255829
>No, the only "reward" that a natural should give are the ones that are already codified in the book (namely auto-hit for 20's and auto-miss for 1's).
Nope. There's no reason to think the game needs to be played entirely RAW. In fact, the game becomes broken and unplayable quickly if you have uncooperative RAW lawyers.
I'm sorry you have such terrible players, mine always defer to me when determining the outcome of an action. I've also never had a complaint when a natural didn't result in something interesting, which is often done to move the game faster or cover a potential abuse hole.

>>53256314
>hurr muh verisimilitude
>it's okay if I murder my players' characters with something way out of their league because I don't run babby vidyo gaems buzzword buzzword
You must be a really fucking fun GM. Put the random encounter table down, for the love of god

>>53256357
>There's no reason to think the game needs to be played entirely RAW.
There's also no need to add more rules to complicate matters when the game already gives clear and simple answers as far what rolling a 20 and a 1 represents. Also, if you can't fall back to the rules while determining the outcome for an action, it calls to question why are you using such rules in the first place?

>>53256431
>every adventure has to be a tidy walkthrough with nothing but Level Appropriate™ encounters

If the players know exactly what they're walking into, and did it anyways, it's exactly like the earlier example of walking off a cliff. If your character doesn't die when they walk off a 500 foot cliff, then you know for certain that nothing you do in the game really matters.

If you only encounter things that your character sheet says you can kill with a few rolls, then all the creative problem solving is drained out of the game.

I'd say the most a natural 20 would do is scare off the wight temporarily, like turn undead. For a really dark game, I'd follow the rules to the letter, and let the Barbarian's ugly death (from his own foolishness) be a warning to the rest of group.

>>53256431
The only one playing a videogame is you.

In videogames every stage is level appropriated for the character so you can always beat shit up.

You are a /v/irgin

>>53256431
>You must be a really fucking fun GM.
I am a really fucking fun GM, because when my players know that the path will take them through a forest, they take the time to do the research just to make sure that they know what they're getting into before they potentially run into something out of their league.
>Put the random encounter table down, for the love of god
Why, because you want to breeze through the game describing how "awesome" and "badass" your snowflake is? Suck it up, if you don't want to die, make sure that you know what you're getting into beforehand.

If you're setting up a meticulous path where every encounter is planned out and properly balanced to the player's abilities, you're not presenting a world, you're only giving them a theme park ride that exist purely to stroke the mutual ego of everyone at the table.

>>53256686
>Also, if you can't fall back to the rules while determining the outcome for an action, it calls to question why are you using such rules in the first place?
Because they provide a good basis for the game. But if I wanted to play a game that had 100% hardline unquestionable rules that strictly prescribed and prohibited all available actions to the player, I would, and in fact do when that's what I want to do, play a video game. I know it sounds trite but rule 0 is a rule, and in this case it pretty clearly does apply.

>>53256357
>There's no reason to think the game needs to be played entirely RAW

You know, thinking about it, pretty much every game book I've read has more or less said this very thing in it's GM-tips section.

So in a way wouldn't "not playing RAW" technically BE playing RAW since more often than not "go ahead and make shit up if you think it'd improve your game" actually IS one of the "rules as written"?

>>53252449
When this happens in Mutants and Masterminds 3e, a crit allows you to choose between a bonus to your attack's DC, an additional but weaker effect on top of your usual one, or an Alternate Effect entirely.

Approaching this like you would an AE in MnM 3e would be a perfect case for something like that. Basically turning what would normally what would normally be Damage into a Snare Affliction that uses "pummeling into the earth" as the Descriptor. The wight would still get a Resistance check against this, perhaps if this was 5e a Strength check, but it would actually do something unlike the Damage.

>>53256860
>Because they provide a good basis for the game.
Obviously it's not if you have to constantly add or remove elements just to avoid gross imbalance issues.
>I know it sounds trite but rule 0 is a rule, and in this case it pretty clearly does apply.
Rule 0 is a failsafe for situations where the rules don't cover something that's happening within the campaign, not to give shit DM's the ability to freely alter the rules whenever they FEEL as though the rules aren't good enough for their campaign. If the rules aren't to your personal liking, it tells me that maybe you'd be happier playing another game with better rules, where you don't have to constantly rule 0 something just maintain game flow.

>>53253649
>everyone makes a fantasy adventurer with cool weapons and armor and gear that picked to get ready to fight monsters with
>"don't fight this monster, run away like a fag instead!"

>>53256953
Maybe you should have picked the weapon that actually harms the monster then instead of the cool looking one.

>its okay to be retarded because its FUN
kys

>>53256953
>OD&D in a nutshell

>>53256952
who said they were "constantly" doing it?

Are you putting words into the other guy's mouth to puff up a strawman? Because it sure looks like you're putting words into the other guy's mouth to puff up a strawman.

>>53256314
>heaven forbid the world is actually a dynamic landscape where shit isn't scaled to your level by default.
Why would you ever do this
seriously you are playing with your friends for their enjoyment, youa re not beholden to simulate some author's bullshit world, he isn't going to come out of the book and get mad at you.
meanwhile your real actual friends bothered to spend some of their finite and valuable time with YOU as a person, accommodate them, not your love of whatever arbitrary numbers hasbro shat on the page.

>>53256953
The monsters that you're fighting don't give a fuck about how cool you are or how important you think you are. If you see an elephant barreling towards you and you don't have the means to take it out before it runs you over, moving out the way is an optimum strategy and you'd be a fool to think otherwise.

>>53257043
>Why would you ever do this
Because immersion, not him by the way.

I don't give a fuck about the enjoyment of anyone.

>>53257039
>"other guy"
Whatever you say man.
>who said they were "constantly" doing it?
When he said that he uses crits as a means of avoiding imbalance issues and move the plot along, seen here >>53256357
>which is often done to move the game faster or cover a potential abuse hole.

>>53257043
>you are playing with your friends for their enjoyment

Maybe he and his friends enjoy an immersive world where they are at a real threat of dying and must act smart and not do stupid heroic bullshit in order to survive and triumph?

>>53257046
Players care , the DM should care, You know what doesn't ever matter? What the monsters "care about". Why does the DM prioritize the wishes and desires of fictional hypothetical trash monsters instead of the sentiments of his real human being players?

>>53257063
shit dm

>>53256952
>where you don't have to constantly rule 0 something just maintain game flow.
Occasionally rewarding naturals is not that. And that's not how rule 0 works, it's the principle that the rules as written are guidelines to the real game, which is generally the interpretation that the GM gives in the manner he judges most fun for his group, rather than hardline absolutes. I'd suggest reading some of the wordings given for it, the older editions were especially good at conveying it.

>>53257092
>shit dm
Yet I somehow have friends to play with every weekend?

What gives?

>>53257108
Stockholm syndrome
I love the "hurr suck it up buttercup" retards in this thread

>>53257091
Obviously not, the Barbarian player very strongly indicated his idea of fun via his behavior. A good DM picks up on player behavior clues and accommodates them. A shit DM ignores what his players want and insists on his obsolete grognard simulation that no one likes so he can feel smug about punishing his players for bothering to show up with enthusiasm.

>>53257043
My friends aren't cry babies pieces of shit. My friends constantly complain videogames are too fucking easy nowadays. Which was the sole reason we tried Pen and Paper since videogames are easy and boring nowadays, make we should make our own adventures which are hard and more realistic. You are a child.

>>53257043
>Why would you ever do this
Because players tend to have more fun in the long run when they know that nothing in the world that they're playing in, is obligated to be balanced around what they can and can't do.

There's no challenge in overcoming an obstacle that's balanced around you, there is challenge however in meeting an obstacle that you're not meant to overcome through brute force yet beating it anyway through smart play and preparation.

Also, my players aren't bitches who get their panties in a twitch the moment they're not curb-stomping everything in sight, so that's a plus as well.

>>53257108
your friends are as shit players as you are a shit dm.

>>53257166
>>53257131
Stop samefagging.
>stockhold syndrome
lmaoing at your life

>>53257092
>Why does the DM prioritize the wishes and desires of fictional hypothetical trash monsters instead of the sentiments of his real human being players?
Because the world is much larger than the characters and everything in the world happens for a reason, even if the reason boils down to you're stupid and tend to make your own problems.
>shit dm
Whatever you say buddy.

>>53257092
Look, if you only ever face level appropriate encounters that you can win by blindly auto attacking and never having to worry about tactics, you might enjoy that but not everyone enjoys mindlessly killing goblins and instead like a real tactical problem.

Puzzle bosses that cannot be defeated by conventional hacking and slashing but can be dealt with via alternative methods are perfectly good to break up the monotony of four orcs in a 9 by 9 room.

>>53257161
>look at us we are REAL MEN who play elfgames where the GM can just up and kill everyone completely arbitrarily, not like the pansy faggots nowadays
kek

>>53257150
Well the OP never came back at us to say exactly what happened, now did he?

>>53257095
>And that's not how rule 0 works, it's the principle that the rules as written are guidelines to the real game, which is generally the interpretation that the GM gives in the manner he judges most fun for his group, rather than hardline absolutes
Well let me ask you something chief, if the rules are shit then why would you use them as a guideline to anything?

>>53256766
Videogames have all sorts of systems, you dolt. Some scale to level, some have random encounters that fuck your ass as you suggest (which is, incidentally, stupid and unrealistic, so it doesn't even reflect real life or, to borrow the other guy's word, verisimilitude), and some have both the most realistic system and the best for storytelling in the vast majority of cases, which is encounters that are determined and scale by location. Even in bumfuck africa you are not likely to encounter a man-eating lion or a nile crocodile while walking down the road to get a cup of elephant piss to wash your mouth in, you're going to find those things in their habitats, which are places people generally avoid for that reason unless they have big brass balls and a nice long spear.

>>53257131
>Stockholm syndrome
Wew lad

>>53257201
>and kill everyone completely arbitrarily
Realism does not equal Deus Ex Machina

>>53257215
>some have random encounters that fuck your ass
Nope, none do that. Not a single ONE.

>>53257192
>Look, if you only ever face level appropriate encounters that you can win by blindly auto attacking and never having to worry about tactics
strawman, level appropriate challenges can be tactical and hard and fun etc.
throwing a literally invulnerable wight and saying "you were supposed to run away", no one wins.

>>53257214
>if the rules are shit
Mate I never said that. I'm not sure anyone in this thread has said that. I'm no longer sure who you're arguing with, yourself?

>>53257238
>throwing a literally invulnerable wight and saying "you were supposed to run away", no one wins.

So if there's a wight roaming around in the dungeons, it should never ever just happen to stumble to the same place the party is until they find a weapon capable of killing it, even though it'd make all the sense in the world for it to do so?

>>53257201
>hurr durr we woke up a ghost that can't be attacked by swords and when we attacked it with swords rather than anything else it killed us
>hurr durr we jumped off a cliff and the fall damage killed us
>hurr durr I found a suit of armour that damages any enemy that attacks me so the next time I saw an enemy I said "lol, you're so dead" and stabbed myself in the throat, then the GM said I died. What gives?

>>53257150
There's having enthusiasm and then there's being a child who doesn't want to ever be put into a bad situation ever because you're "too cool to fail."

People like the Barbarian are the type who will buy a game like Dark Souls and then uninstall the game the moment they reach a part that they cannot steamroll over using their stats. If they feel that strongly over losing their character because of their own actions then maybe the game isn't for them and they'd do better looking into greener pastures.

>>53257238
This. Just going "hurr you cant kill dis without a dude in a bathrobe or a +1 weapon" makes you a titanic turbofaggot.

File: wizardry 4.jpg (96KB, 584x892px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 584x892px

>>53257234

>>53257238
OP literally didn't throw it, did you even read the thread? He said an NPC informed the players there was a Wight in a certain place. The retarded party moved directly into the Wight without exploring the surroundings first, where they would have the way to beat the Wight easily.

You are That Guy, probably a member of OP's group.

And as other anons have suggested, the Wight was easily beatable with fire.

>>53257286
>committing suicide is the same as dying in an unwinnable combat situation
Retard

>>53257299
That's an old game, what part of "we started pen and paper because modern videogames are easy" did you fail to read?

>>53257201
>Fuck, how was I supposed to know that trolls are only weak to fire?
>Bugged mechanics, amirite fella?
Maybe you should grow a pair and stop taking games so seriously.

File: 180214195.jpg (56KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x360px

>>53257324
A modern game with random encounters that fuck you up, you say?

File: mount stupid.gif (32KB, 500x664px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x664px

>>53257234
>Nope, none do that. Not a single ONE.
Most of those that do that also use it in tandem with the third method (placed or locational encounters), which is also what D&D does if you play by the book rather than rolling for every encounter, but many games do. The reason so few ONLY use that method is that it is both unrealistic and adds nothing whatsoever to the gameplay- It doesn't make for better stories, or a more fun and satisfying experience, or even tickle the realism autism of your average bona fide aspie. Just that special breed of aspie, like you, that dwells firmly atop Mount Stupid.

>>53257234
>Nope, none do that. Not a single ONE.
Dark souls has a key you can start off with that opens the door to Havel the Knight.

FTL the rogue like spaceship game has enemies with two shield levels when you have the engine cruiser with only two lasers.

Lots of games have encounters that will lead to you getting curbstomped in a straight up battle if you don't use a specific technique or move to fight them with.

>>53257317
>I didn't bring the correct key, this door is UNLOCKABLE

>>53257338
>Dark souls has a key you can start off with that opens the door to Havel the Knight.
you can beat him

>>53257092
>Why does the DM prioritize the wishes and desires of fictional hypothetical trash monsters instead of the sentiments of his real human being players?

Well, going by the usual attitude expressed by Old School GM's, you're first mistake is thinking that "players" are "real human beings" and not subhuman trash.

Throwing monsters made for parties several times the player's level is one of the best ways to show how much more clever and tactically minded you are than those plebs on the other side of the GM-screen and the most efficient way to make sure they and their so-called "heroes" know their place, groveling at your mighty feet!

>>53257284
Ultimately the DM is responsible for the wight being there, he decides when/if/how/etc everything that happens in the dungeon.
If he gives a fuck about the players having fun, he can tweak the wight or not have it show up or have the wight carrying the sword with him or an infinite of fun things that are his sole responcibility.
If he doesn't do this and just say "run away" then hes a shit dm.

>>53257343
Ununlockable, actually.

>>53257335
What was the point again?

>>53257338
>Dark souls has a key you can start off with that opens the door to Havel the Knight.
He's talking about 100% random encounters, not just encounters that you are able to face that are completely unfair. That's a placed encounter ie the third method I listed.

>>53257238
>strawman, level appropriate challenges can be tactical and hard and fun etc.
Heheheh, no!

If you're fighting against an encounter that's scaled to your level, it generally means that in most cases, you can get away with throwing yourself at the enemy and killing them using superior DPR.

If you're fighting an encounter that's clearly out of your league, it requires a lot more thought to deal with because one mistake could cost you your life, which ends up being more exciting to some people because now, their choices actually matter.

>>53257327
In good games you can fuck up a troll without fire pretty well. Sure, it helps, but in something like Savage Worlds you can fuck one up pretty badly by running that bitch through: sure, it's probably gonna regenerate, but it's in a pretty bad way and you at least have time to run, finish it off or grab a torch.

>>53257378
Something about how video games don't throw in random encounters that can fuck you up, and are therefore better than killer GMs.

>>53257359
>If he gives a fuck about the players having fun, he can tweak the wight or not have it show up or have the wight carrying the sword with him or an infinite of fun things that are his sole responcibility
How fucking boring. What a shit campaign you run.

>>53257393
>generally
>most
unf give me more weasel words, daddy

>>53257238
>throwing a literally invulnerable wight
Fire damages wights. Lighting a torch and hitting it would damage it. Energy sources like fire would work.

It wasn't an invincible enemy anyway since there were magical items littering the place. Hell, if you even grabbed a magic wand and tried to stab the wights eyes out I as a GM would have allowed improvised weapon damage which can be a lot if power attacked with both hands.

But no, barbarian charges in and tries to hit with an sword that he KNOW will do nothing, because he's daring the GM to kill his character and betting the GM is too much of a pansy to do so.

>>53257401
But I never said the word random encounter, look it up with control F

>>53257343
>not allowing players to kick the door in
Shit. GM.

>>53257436
That would be the equivalent of using fire to stop it.

>>53257409
Well of course he will, they're the closest thing to an argument he has

>>53257424
>some have random encounters that fuck your ass
>Nope, none do that. Not a single ONE.

If you didn't say it, then somebody did.

>>53257343
Should be a window nearby

>>53257336
>It's unrealistic to encounter a troll in its natural habitat
>It adds nothing to the gameplay when players have to actually learn how to manage risk rather than throwing dice until the problem is gone.
Okay dude, whatever you say.

>>53257300
>You are That Guy, probably a member of OP's group.
calm down daydreamer.

>>53257317
>charging a ghost who isn't even attacking with a weapon that can't hurt it and can potentially kill you in one hit isn't suicide
You're right, it's terminal stupidity, punishable by death. Much like jumping off a cliff or stabbing yourself in the throat.

>>53257343
Just be polite and knock.

>>53257354
Nice Strawman.

File: 1491861488547.jpg (23KB, 640x559px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x559px

>>53257460
You are, aren't you?

File: free shrugs.jpg (48KB, 449x642px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 449x642px

>>53252239
>Internet is fairly full of stories wherein a player rolls a natural 20 and their character then automatically and gloriously succeeds at whatever they're doing.
Those stories are fiction written by people who don't actually play RPGs. You can disreguad them.

>But what would you have done in this situation, were you the DM?
I'd do what every other DM would do, which is what ever the rules say I should do. In D&D that means it's an automatic hit with extra damage. If the monster he hit is immune to that damage then too bad for the barbarian.

>>53257482
>implying it isn't true
I say this as a BECMI fan

>>53257482
It's what you said, though, isn't it?

>>53257063
>I don't give a fuck about the enjoyment of anyone.

>>53257350
>>53257388
>you can beat him
Sure, if you roll 50 nat20s in a roll. If you open a door and there's a fuck huge dude in armour charging at you wielding a club the same size as yourself you aren't going to survive unless you are kitted out and know exactly how to fight him or you leg it. If you do something dumb, like try blocking him with your shield he'll smash you into the floor.

Much like attacking ghosts with a nonmagical sword.

>>53257359
How absolutely boring and trite.
>Now usually, Orgath the death fucker would totally turn you into his personal butter dumpster but luckily *fudges dice* he left his weapon in the other room and is *fudges dice* currently dealing with a case of the runs, so you get a surprise round, with advantage, and if you hit, you automatically crit on your damage rolls.
If you're in an area where you can fight monsters out of your league, you should actually have them be monsters that are out of their fucking league. If aren't out of their league then it begs the question "is anything *actually* out of our league or he just saying that to make ourselves feel better?"

>>53257514
>I don't give a fuck about the enjoyment of anyone.
That's me, the other post is not me.

Who cares about the enjoyment of others? We get together to chat and play pretend. If you don't like it you are free to leave. No one ever leaves though.

File: killing monsters you can't kill.png (136KB, 1071x518px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1071x518px

But you could've gotten the wight easily if you had just applied some thought instead of going in blades swinging. There are many more options besides running or being killed.

Was the encounter so unfair after all?

>>53257451
completely nothing to do with this thread, but do-able. burn a part of a forest to stop a forest fire from spreading... one's a managable fire, the other one's a complete desaster. fight fire with fire etc

>>53257409
>>53257452
>Focuses exclusively on "weasel" words
>Doesn't offer a counterpoint
>Claims the other guy has no argument
Wew lad.

>>53257559
If your players don't enjoy it, why do they stay?

>>53257547
>If you do something dumb,

Then don't be dumb, problem solved. If you were in real life against him, you wouldn't try to block a club the size of you.

>>53257458
Are you fucking retarded, or a third party that has the two of us confused? I was saying you should encounter trolls in their natural habitats, and not encounter them when you aren't stupid enough to enter a troll's territory without a torch. He was saying (you were saying? assuming you're backpedalling now) that encounters should be entirely random and you should be able to encounter trolls where the fuck ever because it makes things more "exciting" if there's constantly a 5% chance that you just arbitrarily have a tpk and that's where it ends, or a two-hour-long unrewarding headache of a fight that everyone hates impeding story progression because you're a shitty GM. If you care more about that kind of thing than story you actually literally should be playing hard videogames rather than tabletop, because tabletop has absolutely nothing to offer in that regard besides extra steps you have to do by hand that a videogame does not. Tabletop is about story and character progression. Combat is there to spice it up and offer conflict in a way that is both simple to execute and allows dynamic situations for the characters so it isn't just collaborative low-brow genre fiction. It is not, however, there to test the players' skill at loading dice so they don't inevitably wipe on the first session of every campaign because you typically roll up an inescapable, invincible enemy that can kill any of them in one hit in the first twenty encounters.

>>53257396
>In good games you can fuck up a troll without fire pretty well.
Y'mean games where everyone takes turns stroking each other off in the circlejerk?

>>53257580
>wew lad
w e w l a d

>>53252492
Immunity to crits and sneak for undead was such a trash mechanic.

>>53257583
The only one that claims they don't enjoy it is the Stockolm syndrome anon that can't believe people can have fun in realistic worlds.

The only thing I said is that I don't give a fuck about fun. I don't create a story based on fun. I don't grant my players stuff based on fun. I don't make companions for them based on fun.

I don't do anything for fun. All I do is follow the logical steps of the world they live in.

>>53257570
No, no, the correct phrase is "fight doors with fire".

If the door doesn't go away you need hotter, more intense fire.

>>53252239
The wight claps in approval of his valor, and gives him a chance to run.

Do the players have some other means of defeating the baddie? In which case, generally yes. Other wise... well... generally yes. Unless your game is designed as a hack and slash, having things they can't beat is a good thing.

>>53257626
shit dm

>>53257626
But at the end of the day, when you really get down to it, the reason you do that is that it's fun for you all.

If it weren't, why would you? What then would be the point?

>>53252239
The blow cracks the wight in the skull with such tremendous force, sending him reeling back falling prone on the ground. The wight begins to rise, rattled and stunned, but ultimately unharmed.

This should establish that no matter how well they roll, they are NOT killing this wight with what they have now, and they have to run. It also gives them an opening to do so, as the wight is stunned for one round, and prone. The barbarian still saved the day with his ballsy move, but the Wight is still an established threat.

>>53257646
Cracks me up everytime.

>>53257580
The weasel words were used specifically to pre-empt any actual counterpoints, ie evidence to the contrary. That's what they're there for. The subtext is "YES, I KNOW I'm wrong, but you aren't allowed to TELL me that because I only said 'generally' or 'mostly'!! The exceptions prove the rule haha in you're face loser,,,,,,,,,,,"

>>53253800
>Personally I prefer "can't be KILLED short of this thing, but he's not going to be fighting if you blast him with an anti-materiel rifle a couple dozen times, either."

I actually really like Larry Correia's Monster Hunter International series for this (and the fact that it's the insane lovechild of /k/, /x/, and /tg/). Silver is the go-to for taking down werewolves and other supernatural baddies, but it's because they can't heal from it or it burns them - throw enough crap at it and it WILL die even if it's mundane. Fire is a great method, too. The protagonist takes one down in the first book by shooting it ten times with a .357, beating the absolute living shit out of it with every object available, then shoving it out a window several stories up onto a double-parked Lincoln Navigator and dropping a huge desk on top of it.

Later on, a bunch of nigh-invulnerable ancient vampires get cocky and confidently walk towards a National Guard roadblock the monster hunters are working with. Said Guardsmen and hunters are packing .50 caliber machine guns, Mk19 automatic grenade launchers, and at least one rocket launcher, and while it doesn't completely kill them, they all get ROYALLY creamed by utterly mundane means.

It takes a whole lot of it, but in the MHI setting, dang near anything can be killed by enough bullets, fire, and explosives. They even nuked a Great Old One, though admittedly that mostly just gave it the equivalent of a nasty burn.

>>53257513
Yeah, don't get me wrong, if everyone's on board before hand those kind of meat grinders can be fun, it gets to the point where it becomes a sort of black comedy as Bob the Fighter VIII gets eaten right after opening the door because as it turns out there's a Draco-lich just chilling in the burial mounds right outside of Sleepy Little Town for whatever reason.

>>53257513
It really isn't. You don't need to play OSR to find elitist twats who think that players should be grateful to have a chance in participating in their campaign.

>>53252239
If it's a group of new guys, I'd have the wight be staggered or knocked down or temporarily inconvenienced, but will get back up to continue the fight soon.

>Bonus question: Was it okay to throw a wight against the party to begin with, when they had no means of harming it?
Sure. Especially if they know about the wight and have some method of accomplishing whatever their objective is without killing the wight.

>>53257585
I didn't do something dumb like fight him, I legged it all the way back up the stairs and halfway across the battlements, then did something dumb like stop to see if he was still following me.

Fucker is fast on his feet for a guy in full stone armour.

(later on when equipped with better gear I went and back stabbed his ass but I had healthy respect for the giant stone club)

>>53257648
>If it weren't, why would you?
Friend's duty or responsibility I guess?

I would rather stay home but they keep calling me "Hey are you free tomorrow so we can continue playing?". Can't say no to a friend I guess. I get free food so that's nice.

>>53257660
>then shoving it out a window several stories up onto a double-parked Lincoln Navigator
God that is some really cheesy poetic justice

>>53257514
>It's what you said, though, isn't it?
Nope.

>>53257648
Maybe he's being paid like a Dungeon Giggalo.

The barbarian dies horribly but slowly, allowing the other characters to run to safety.

/thread

>>53257686
Well to be fair in real life. You would hear CLANK CLANK behind you and you wouldn't need to turn your head.

Luckily in D&D you can implement the CLANK CLANK so that your players don't die as well.

>>53257606
>fun is a circlejerk
Welp, pack it up everyone, RPGs are over

>>53257660
This sounds badass. But I do like SW's rule where "invulnerable" enemies can't ve killed by anything but their weaknesses, but ramming a regular ol' sword through its face will definitely hold it back from killing you for a while.

>>53257660
Fuck off, MHI is retarded shit that reeks like some 14 year olds supercool superedgy homebrew campaign after he watched all the Underworld movies hopped up on Red Bull.

>>53257678
You're right, but the "ha ha, you died because you didn't poke every flagstone with a ten-foot pole first" pricks invariably play OSR

>>53257725
>not just narrating that the barbarian swung his axe at the wight, and upon realizing it does no damage to him. The barbarian utilizes its impulse to hit the floor below the wight fall of stagger. Giving the party time to regroup and rethink

You don't need to kill it with the nat20, but saving the party is good enough.

>>53257657
to be fair though, that kind of thing is "Internet Arguing 101", right up there with "cite your sources, that way I can either declare myself the winner when you refuse to go track down an exact quote, or if the source IS provided, dismiss it as invalid because... reasons", as always such tactics are only chicken-shit when the other guy uses them, even if- no, /especially if/ you yourself used them earlier in the same argument.

>>53257657
You sound like someone who read about fallacies in 3rd period but lack the motivation to actually learn what they actually mean.

>>53257754
>disintegrating a vampire by firing a stream of grenades into his chops isn't awesome
You'd be a really shit Hunter player

File: 1387086264865.jpg (48KB, 392x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 392x500px

>>53257598
I'm not going to read any further into your post unless you either a) shorten it or b) format it in a way where it's not a huge block of text.

>>53257822
Sounds more like lolrandom XD to me.

>>53252542
In Curse of Strahd, I had the players at low level being chased by Werewolves. They eventually come across a warhorse drinking from a puddle, and a knight in bloodied, battleworn armour leaning against a fence, gasping and wounded.

He wearily greets the party, claiming that it is a shame that they have to see him in such a weary state, the wolves howl in the distance and the knight hurriedly tells the players "The Skinwalkers are upon us, they will be here quickly, in my boot, a knife."

When the players reach for the knife, two swarms of rats erupt from his armour revealing nothing but a long-dead skeleton, where his tabard was crisp and stained crimson with blood, is now tattered and crusted with dried filth. His warhorse that stood behind you just a moment ago likewise, a mere pile of fetid bones and tattered, rusted barding half buried in the mud, the knight has clearly been dead for years.

The party are then attacked by two werewolves, none of them have magical weapons so only the wizard can harm, the Paladin not wanting to spend his last divine smite when they were expecting undead later. a pair of rat-swarms between the party and the knights body, which has a Silver dagger in his boot.

They could have ran if they wished, or they could try to fight, though many of them could not harm the wolves directly they had options, in our case, the Ranger started clearing through the rat swarm while the Rogue tackled one of the werewolves, grappling it to pull it away from the others. The Paladin stood infront of the wizard taking the dodge action, ready to defend the caster with his protection fighting style.

Eventually they got the dagger after the wizard killed one of the werewolves, then they swiftly stabbed the one the Rogue was grappling to death soon after.

>>53257778
Dude, it is a FUCKING NAT20! I fucking will describe the barbarian slowly dying for a full minute in total John Carpenter gore porn detail.

That barbarian deserves a death that will be sung by minstrels for years.

Four sessions later, I will still make my players roll to see if they fall asleep or keep on hearing their old pal screaming in agony to leave him behind.

>>53257547
To be fair since Dark Souls is a skillbased/strategy rather than luckbased/strategy game (another leg up videogames have on tabletop if you only care about combat like some kind of nonce, and assuming that you aren't a skill-free baby that refuses to git gud despite pretending you have a big ol' cock that's hungry for hard combat) it's not really equivalent to rolling a bunch of nat 20s. Even a new character can whittle him down, even pretty fast if you find your iframes and bs him a lot. It's an extremely difficult encounter early on, especially if you haven't played something like Demon's Souls or Monster Hunter before and don't even know the basics, but it's beatable if you're very skilled, very clever or some mix of the two.

I mean, SL1 runs exist, so yeah.

>>53257625
Tell me how stabbing a dead guy in the heart is going to harm it?

>>53257790
I can't help but notice you've chosen to attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

Nice of you to concede defeat early and save everyone reading this some time.

>>53257842
Google Task Force VALKYRIE. I'll wait.

>>53257879
>WoD faggotry

Oh, look, I was right.

>>53257854
who said it has to be the heart or other vital organ?
Assuming it's an undead with a physical body there are still going to be points of structural weakness.

>>53257904
>it actually gives players a chance to win, this means it's faggotry
lol okay

>>53257854
Perhaps the heart is where whatever force reanimated it is located? Or perhaps for a second it reacts like a living man would when stabbed through the heart?

>>53257831
Sorry for not accounting for your diminutive intelligence and/or shitty level of education.

A) I didn't say trolls should not be encountered in their natural habitats, I suggested they should ONLY be encountered in their natural habitats or in exceptional, predictable cases.

2: Having a flat, fairly high chance (eg one face of a d20) that any given encounter results in the entire party dying because it's an unstoppable foe at their level is unrealistic and makes the game shitty.

ג- Tabletop is about story, and pre-placed encounters or encounters that are rolled based on location are better for story.

IV. If you don't care about story and only care about challenging combat, tabletop is not for you, and you should be playing videogames instead, which are more efficient for challenging combat at the expense of being less flexible for storytelling.

And fifth of all, you're probably a shitty DM if you're the guy I was arguing with before.

File: shutterstock lmao.jpg (7KB, 262x193px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 262x193px

holy fucking shit post-3.5 D&D was a mistake

>there is literally a faggot in this thread arguing that you should never end up in a scenario where running is the best idea, and that if you attack something you should always be able to kill it, and that having any person/monster ever appear that is more powerful than the PCs is bad DMing

haha oh wow, this used to be a hyperbolic meme shitpost years ago that new players to the game who only knew recent editions would think like this, and now it's reality. we really World of Warcraft now.

>>53257774
First off, in a dungeon where there are deadly traps around every corner, you should really take your time in how you progress through the area so you avoid killing yourself or other members of the party.

Second, OSR games had mechanics for wandering monsters, which made it so that people couldn't always afford to poke every block with a 10ft. pole since the longer they stay, the more likely it is that they'll encounter a monster that will either attack, alert others, or (rarely) offer them some help.

Third, you can find killer DM's with a god complex in any system under the fucking sun and the argument being made is that if you rush into shit and you're unprepared, you deserve to die, not that you should die because you didn't take an hour scouring a 5x5 room.

>>53257904

Let's be honest here, no matter what he said you were still going to say it sucks regardless of it's quality right?

>>53257877
>I can't help but notice you've chosen to attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
Y'mean like how you focused your entire post on me using "weasel words" rather than the actual content of the argument?
>Nice of you to concede defeat early and save everyone reading this some time.
Couldn't have put it better myself.

>>53257977
>3.5 D&D was a mistake
Fixed, go back to jerking it over caster edition

>>53257774
I have to say, it sure was nice of >>53257982 to show up and illustrate your point like that,

>>53258040
that edition came out before you were born. respect your elders, boy.

>>53257973
>A) I didn't say trolls should not be encountered in their natural habitats, I suggested they should ONLY be encountered in their natural habitats or in exceptional, predictable cases.
Which would be the forest, where trolls generally live, and are a possibility in encountering if you're wandering around for long enough.
>2: Having a flat, fairly high chance (eg one face of a d20) that any given encounter results in the entire party dying because it's an unstoppable foe at their level is unrealistic and makes the game shitty.
There's a huge difference between a monster being very difficult and being impossible to defeat.
>Tabletop is about story
And most stories will throw obstacles that the protagonists have no way of overcoming, so they have to overcome them in different ways.
>If you don't care about story
Never said that.
> you're probably a shitty DM
If that's how you feel, you don't have to play at my table then.

>>53252239
While the blow does no damage itself, the sheer force staggers the Wight, causing it to become a little less confidant and act on the defensive.

>>53258115
>There's a huge difference between a monster being very difficult and being impossible to defeat.

How do you define "impossible to defeat"? With cunning and a bit of luck, very little is truly impossible, certainly no trolls.

>>53258080
Nigga please, I was born around when 2e hit.
It's a lot better than 3.5 too

>>53257977
all those are literally true, the fact that you disagree for no actual reason shows your are a shit dm

>>53258152
twist: I said post-3.5 because that's when the faggotry started dummy, it's not my favorite edition either

>>53258153
So you say there should NEVER be a scenario where running is the best idea?

What about when your last encounter ended with the party grievously wounded and lacking in spells? Should the DM put all random encounters on hold until they've rested?

File: 000b50039394dc92b94647eba85f37f0_bill-murray-youre-awesome-memes-youre-awesome_600-455.jpg (78KB, 600x455px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x455px

>>53258028
>Couldn't have put it better myself.

wait... so you actually -were- conceding there? Oh dang, I just figured you were just being the usual butt-hurt autist you typically see arguing here, but to have you actually confirm that you're throwing in the towel is not something I'd expect to see here. I have to admit, it really speaks to your character. This hobby needs more of you're kind of honesty.

>>53258153
>walk up to city guard
>smack him in the gabber
>get murdered by a gang of five armored coppers

BUT I CAN DO IT IN ELDER SCROLLS REEEE WHY CAN'T I KILL DRAGONS AT LEVEL 1

>>53258182
There shouldn't be random encounters, every fight should further the story.

>>53257393
How to spot THAT GM

>Shit fights are fun bro.

>>53258205
I know you're being hyperbolic and all, but Elder Scrolls guards will kill you dead at early levels.

>>53258206
So the party can linger about in the dungeon until the end of time without the dungeon throwing stuff at them to keep them on edge and waste their resources?

>>53257948
>who said it has to be the heart or other vital organ?
That's what a crit generally means, you hit them in a way that dealt more damage than normal, rather than just scoring nicks and notches in the few moments where they're open to your attack.
>>53257957
>Perhaps the heart is where whatever force reanimated it is located?
>Or perhaps for a second it reacts like a living man would when stabbed through the heart?
Undead are more like automatons than a living creature anon. It'd be like saying that crushing a golem's head should automatically make it stop trying to kill you.

>>53258176
>a unified system for special abilities and an easy way to make combat less arbitrarily bullshit is "faggotry"
Go sit at the back of the short bus, son

>>53257317
Only unwinnable by attacling it wit weapons. If the players can't think of any other Avenue that's their own fault. Plus op made it sound like they had access to magical weapons just didn't take the time to search around and find them

>>53258043
>I have no arguments but I must post.

>>53258236
>all undead work like this regardless of setting
läl

>>53258230
No. But also players won't do that, they will want to get to the end and see what happens. So the GM should make the dungeon fit the players expectations and not waste hours of their lives by throwing random trash mobs for no reason.

>>53258245
Oh please, we know for a fact OP claims there was magical weapons, but we know by his wording he never told the party anything.

If there was magical weapons about, the party would have jumped at the chance of them.

The likely scenario is the OP hid the magic items behind the wight, and thought he was a witty and useful GM by turning it into Scooby Doo.

No fucker enjoys playing Scooby Doo in their DnD game, it just encourages avoiding monsters,

>>53258281
What if the players' expectations are a survival in a deadly labyrinth with limited resources and dangerous foes lurking behind every corner?

>>53258295
>If there was magical weapons about, the party would have jumped at the chance of them.

And then what, magically be gravitated to the precise location where the magic items actually are? No actual searching required?

>>53258313
Then go for it.

>>53258137
>With cunning and a bit of luck, very little is truly impossible, certainly no trolls.
Exactly.
>How do you define "impossible to defeat"?
Encounters where victory is less than 0% even in favorable conditions, with prep time, and instances of concurrent good fortune among everyone participating in taking on the enemy.

An example of an impossible to defeat enemy would be a Terrasque as a level 1 party.

>>53252239
It grabs the greatsword in one hand and shatters it, throwing the barbarian back and laughing. It says that the only reason the barbarian isn't dead is because he's amused.

Either that, or have the attack reveal one of the wight's weaknesses. "No weapon may harm it"- what about an accidental headbutt?

>>53258195
>wait... so you actually -were- conceding there?
No, just telling you that you that it was nice of you to concede defeat early and save everyone time in reading once it became clear that you ran out of arguments to make.

I thought that one who boasts about being an intellectual would've been able to determine this on their own but I suppose this is what separates true intellects from the plebs who read terms with no context.

>>53258337
So then we have the retarded catch 22 problem every shit GM gets into when they think they're smart

>Oh you need to find X
>But I as the GM will never tell you where X is until you fill out the right quotas of rolls, Meanwhile, the unkillable Scooby Doo Villian is still chasing you.

See, the thing you shit GMs don't understand is all this stupid shit does is waste time.

You want the magic items in the party's hands, give them the nudge. make them work for it, but don't make them use a fucking magical metal detector while trying to fend off an unfun, boring non-encounter.

>>53258153
Here is why you are a fucktard:

1) there are plenty of interesting creatures in the game that are not automatically hostile but may become hostile if you do something they dislike. it is perfectly fine to have the players meet a dragon at level 1, let's say there's a rumor that a small dragon is offering a reward (quest hook) but like most dragons he is notoriously vain, so if you don't kiss his ass he will unleash the flames. so basically, it's up to the players to not be fucking retarded, if you want to take the quest then apply the meat in your skull and realize you can't call the dragon a dumb nigger or randomly try to cut off his toe. what is roleplay and problem solving.
2) there might be some risky scenarios that you might still want to pull off. let's say you know there is a grave in some graveyard with a diamond in it, but there are wights there. they're too powerful for the party to kill, but you can probably run away if they come at you. so there, you can get a decent treasure and if shit gets too hot, then the party fucks off. having the equivalent of video game level scaling in a tabletop game is the dumbest shit ever, since the main reasons video games have level scaling is that they are less free systems so you don't have as many creative options to solve problems as you would in a tabletop game. people who want level scaling in D&D don't want to play D&D or roleplay, they want to play a hack and slash video game
3) sometimes you fuck up and have to run, the DM shouldn't gimp the town guard and let you murder them because *you* fucked up, that's absurd. you should run away.

if you still disagree then you can be safely written off as some video game-raised teenager idiot with shit opinions, I just wanted you to know where people are coming from. it's not just nostalgia.

File: Wightsexplained.png (213KB, 606x450px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 606x450px

>>53252239
I hope someone has said this already but after reading the same circular replies ten times I'm not bothering to check.

If you see something that is out of your parties scope to handle, you retreat and intelligently plan countermeasures to the threat. I've done this to my own players plenty of times, because I expect at least one character to ICly have the acumen to know when to explore alternative solutions. How lazy can you be to to asspull a one hit out of a natural 20? How lazy can you be to OHK a player with a monster mechanic?

Attached is the closest thing I could find to this 'player killing move'. If you lose a level at 1, you go to 0. You're effectively reduced to 'commoner'. If the barbarian wants to be IC(and probably OOC) retarded and jump on the proverbial sword, let him roll his saves.

I am dissapointed in this thread.

>>53258218
>Shit fights are fun bro.
I'm not the one going on about how every fight should be catered to my party's whims rather than for what makes sense for the area they're in.

>>53258227
they won't in morrowind + later games if you know what you're doing

>>53258278
Undead within the context of D&D are creatures that are powered by negative energy, it's the reason why undead will automatically work to destroy any living creatures around them.

>>53258337
They're fucking magical items, if they don't stick out like a sore thumb then someone's fucked up.
If all else fails rub the wizard or rogue on them or something.

>>53258402
you done with your tantrum yet?

The only thing that matters is if the game is fun.

>>53254333
>running in circles forces enemies on a loop of also running in circles instead of beelining straight for you
>it will take time for this INCORPOREAL creature to BREAK a door instead of just passing through it
>this same incorporeal being will be forced to run in a straight corridor of fire instead of passing through walls, ceiling or floor
>tripping a ghost
>hogtying a ghost
>firing arrows at a ghost will work while stabbing won't

At first I was going to ask if you even know what a Wight is, now I want to ask if you ever played an actual RPG before.

>>53258453
I just explained what makes the game fun, roleplaying and problem solving. Not some lobotomized hack and slash pseudo-video game.

>>53258436
>>53258401
You're not going to find a magic item just by walking through the front door anon, generally it requires you to explore the area for a bit.

If you think that's a waste of time and all, why even have dungeons for players to explore, rather than having set piece encounters where every other major foe is carrying a magic item for them to use the moment they cross the threshold?

>>53258411
The game is after all just that, a fucking game.

If you're making Scooby Doo encounters, you're a fucking shit GM and you just escalate the problem.

>You can't harm the wight without magic items
>We just run away I guess

And then you, as the GM, have fucked yourself in the ass, because now you need to think of in EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER why the party can't just run away from the encounters.

That's why your logic is stupid, you WANT your Party to WANT to explore dungeons, not to be Escape artists.

>>53258466
Clearly you're the one here that doesn't know what a wight is. D&D wights are quite corporeal.

>>53258491
But there are many ways to deal with the problem outside of just trying to stab it. See >>53257566

If the party thought of none of those, then maybe they just aren't very good at this game.

>>53258402
>if you don't agree with me you're a dumb retarded vidyo gaem teenager
stop please, my sides

>>53258485
>B-But you need to FIND the magic item.

If the Wight is sitting at the Dungeon entrance, and the only things they can use to kill the wight are IN the dungeon, then you're expecting the party to run INTO the dungeon to find the magic items, PAST the Wight.

So why even go in there, Oh that's right, they wanted to play Adventurers, not Cowards.

>>53258482
you didn't explain shit, you just vented your irrelevant rage for no reason

>>53258527
But if you don't agree with him, then what do tabletop games even have that video games don't?

>>53258453
>>53258527
If I wanted to play a game where I all needed to do was cheese RNG and mash the A button, I'd play video games with the god-mode cheats turned on.

I play tabletop because it allows me to meet encounters that I can't just steam roll with superior damage and defense and if that's what YOU want, then let me point you over to something like fire emblem or something

>>53258518
>Low level party
>Need to instinctively know how to carry acid/fire and other such things
>Half of those options are "Help the Monster" when the OP shows the Wight is just a cunt.

>>53257585
Tbf in dark souls one you can block shit way bigger than havels hammer. You can block swings from the asylum demon

>>53257234
Someone's never played a roguelike.


Ever.

>>53258543
I just explained three different scenarios in which running away and having monsters more powerful than the party is good

you didn't read the post

>>53258590
There is literally no Scenario where having the Party Run away is good. It's literally the worst thing for a GM to have the party do.

If the Party run away from every encounter, what's the fucking point?

>>53258565
>I can't just steam roll with superior damage and defense and if that's what YOU want
You are schizophrenic if you think that anyone was arguing for this, keep ranting at imaginary arguments no one brought up. Try to reread this entire thread to see where you got off track or don't bother because no one cares.

>>53258491
>The game is after all just that, a fucking game.
And not every game is going to be super happy baby funtime frolicks where every enemy can't actually hurt you.
>And then you, as the GM, have fucked yourself in the ass, because now you need to think of in EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER why the party can't just run away from the encounters.
I think the question you should be asking yourself is why players shouldn't run away from encounters that aren't at their level. There's no reason why they shouldn't, there are alternate ways of earning XP outside of combat, and running away carries much less risk than staying and getting murdered, so why shouldn't they run whenever possible?

>>53258548
Imagination, nigga. That and being able to throw together your own plot instead of being dragged around someone else's.

>>53258565
So Fire Emblem is just cheesing RNG and mashing A? wew

>>53258534
>If the Wight is sitting at the Dungeon entrance
Who said that the wight was sitting at the entrance?
>So why even go in there
To find treasure?

>>53258615
I just explained it
>>53258402

>>53258615
>literally
Party did something stupid and antagonized someone too powerful, rolls go against the party, party is caught red-handed of a crime and city watch is coming...

>If the Party run away from every encounter, what's the fucking point?
Who said "every"?

>>53258633
See, it's this stupid argument that shows you're a shit GM.

>Y-you're just a casual baby by not trying to crush your party at level 1
>There are other ways to get XP.

You're basically saying running a Scooby Doo game is good. It's not.

Honestly I'd rather have my characters die than run way, that's just gay as fuck. At least if my guy died I could joke about how badass he was.

>>53258631
>If you put in encounters that the players can't easily beat, you're a shit DM
It's fairly loud and clear what demographic people like you are looking for.
>So Fire Emblem is just cheesing RNG and mashing A? wew
Any RPG that allows you to level grind can be cheesed and won by mashing A. Although a more apt reference would've been Final Fantasy or something along those lines.

>>53258615
>There is literally no Scenario where having the Party Run away is good.
Except for various situations mentioned ITT that explain why running away is the better option?

>>53258686
>You're basically saying running a Scooby Doo game is good. It's not.
You are schizophrenic if you think that anyone was arguing for this, keep ranting at imaginary arguments no one brought up. Try to reread this entire thread to see where you got off track or don't bother because no one cares.

>>53258708
Dude it was the the literally impossible to harm wight, not to steamroller weak encounters. You warped it in your head to fuel whatever daydream you were having.
There you got me to personally correct your misconception, consider your rant a rousing success.

>>53258753
There were many things the party could've done against the wight, besides fighting or fleeing. Again, see >>53257566

>>53258697
>adventure start
>meet a random way too dangerous creature
>I run at the thing and hit him
>You are torn apart and eaten

Is that badass for you? To me it's pathetic

>>53258686
So what, you're saying that people should just be forced to stand in a line, trading hits against roughly equivalent mobs until one side falls down and they get the magic item?

There's no in-game explanation for why a group of people with self-preservation wouldn't run away from a monster that they have no way of dealing with at that moment and the only way that it could possibly make sense, is if you played it like some sort of video game where each encounter that isn't story based can be skipped and bosses can never be ran from.

>>53258674
>>53258665

Because, my bad GM friend. Why would you ever stay in an encounter when running is the best option ever?

You know the reason why people start with goblins and bandits and other useless fodder is to wean people into heroics and staying in encounters?

Nobody likes playing games were the encounters are easily solved, and YOU make the encounters the easiest because they will just avoid them.

As a GM, I like encounters, both combat and not. I do not like my Party avoiding them because they're afraid I am trying to TPKO them.

Every single fucking scenario posted by your autistic ass can be solved by you speaking Out of game going "look, the situation WILL go south if you fuck up"

I have never let my party try and kill town guards "For the lulz" because A) I don't play with retards B) I literally stop them and tell them that shit is retarded unless it's perfectly valid like corrupt guards or an Evil Campaign.

>>53258734
Yeah, and they're all bad examples. Nice work

>>53258742
That is exactly what you are arguing.

>>53258787
Right, how about you try listening to my argument instead of being a huge Sperg.

Encounters should be tough, they should push the party to their limits, but they should not be so strong they discourage the party from taking the initiative.

THAT is what your autistic ass is doing. You are a bad GM.

>>53258778
It would be my trying to salvage a 4-hour waste of time with some shit GM that throws huge CR enemies at a new party, at least I could wrap up my involvement and get an anecdote out of it and wash my hands of it.

>>53258793
I really think you've at some point come to think someone here is arguing literally every encounter in the game should be ghosts the party cannot fight.

No one ever said that and basically you're a moron who has to make strawman arguments to "win" the debate.

>>53258753
>Dude it was the the literally impossible to harm wight
No it wasn't, there were plenty of different options that other anons have suggested that don't boil down to choosing between
>fight
>run
like some shitty JRPG.

>>53258686
People are arguing with you because you are a literal meme, what you think is "shit GM" is actually "classically good GM" and it was foretold that people like you would exist. Arguing with a literal meme is pretty obnoxious.

But to keep this post on track and less antagonizing, I (not the guy you're replying to) have explained multiple times why running away can be necessary.

>you want to do something risky and can't win in a direct fight, so run away is your backup plan. or maybe you fly away. or hide. there are mechanics in the game to hide, tip: you don't always need to use them to assassinate everyone
>you goofed and don't want to be arrested
>there is a scenario where an obviously powerful creature is there who will kill you, but if you play your cards right you can avoid it, like talking or tricking it. if that fails, run away. you don't have to kill everything in the game.

if you think it's "shit GMing" to not always make every interaction with monsters a murderhobo fest, then do yourself a favor and never play any edition of D&D older than 3.5, or plenty of other games that are new today. how on earth did it come to this that some people think you should literally never run a dragon in early game because players are all retards who will try to kill everything and that it's bad GMing to not make the game a combat video game?

>>53258836
This "debate" is the most insane delusional solipsism I've seen in a while. People are literally making up whatever they want to argue against.

>>53258855
Oh shut the fuck up with your autistic Buzzword posting.

It is shit GMing, you promote running away as the best tactically sound option.

Let me post you the question that you simply cannot understand because you Don't fucking GM.

How do you make your party do anything when they start seeing every encounter as a honeypot?

>>53258822
>Encounters should be tough, they should push the party to their limits, but they should not be so strong they discourage the party from taking the initiative.
You're not going to be forcing anyone to push their limits with encounters that are within the scope of shit that they can defeat though. Hell, if you calmed down and reread the thread, you'd find that anons have offered solutions that would actually allow the party to defeat the wight, even if it is difficult to kill using mundane weapons.

>>53258875
And no one ever changes their minds, or comes out of their bunker, or even considers the very possibility that they might not be absolutely 100% right. They do this not because of any exchange of ideas or positions, but simply because they want to win. And they never do.

It's a gigantic waste of time and I have no idea why anyone would even bother.

>>53258901
For the millionth time, when did anyone say you need to run away from "every" fight? Yet that precisely is what you are constantly arguing against, that someone here is running some weird Scooby Doo game where all you ever do is run away.

This is the shittiest strawman ever.

>>53258839
Like what, talking to it?
If it's corporeal and a fucking BARBARIAN hits it with his full strength, that shit is going to be knocked down, undead monster or not. So yeah, in OP's scenario something should come out of it.

Hell, if it's a corporeal creature then who the fuck wrote it as being invulnerable to having its skull shattered with a good swing?

>>53258793
>Because, my bad GM friend. Why would you ever stay in an encounter when running is the best option ever?
Because the argument was centered around creatures that the party couldn't actually defeat at the exact moment that they've encountered it. If the party can deal with the threat, they'd have no reason to run.
>>53258793
>Yeah, and they're all bad examples.
How is setting a wight on fire a "bad example?"

>>53258855
Why not handcraft reasonable encounters that are fun instead of randomly hoping that the players don't blow up your campaign by wanting to actually fight the monsters that the DM sets in front of them.

Put some thought into it instead of random pointless deathtrap encounters to please the Ghost of Gary Gygax "I punished my STUPID players in this fictional leisure activity! I sacrificed everything for you Gary!"

>>53258937
>Like what, talking to it?
Like setting it on fire for one.

>>53258931
I know it's hard for Autists to actually learn social things. So let me point it out for you.

If you force constant "Flee or fail" encounters onto a party, They WILL assume every encounter will be like that, and they will act like that accordingly.

>Okay, you managed to flee the Wight but now there are giant bats
>We run away
>Now there are Wolves
>Run away
>Bandits
>Run away

It's the easiest option, because YOU are focusing the party to put their survival as the main focus of their game, So they WILL put their survival above all the shit you try and make them do.

BAD GM.

>>53259000
>constant
You're still doing it.

>>53258943
>>53258962

It's the GM's fault they don't know fire would harm a Wight then.

>>53258565

>I play tabletop because it allows me to meet encounters that I can't just steam roll with superior damage and defense

...In which RP system can't you do that? Cause I sure as fuck can't think of any.

>>53259000
>Okay, you managed to burn down the Wight but now there are giant bats
>We shoo them away with torches
>Now there are Wolves
>Throw them some meat
>Bandits
>Diplomacy

This shit isn't hard.

>>53258901
>autistic buzzword posting

ironically that phrase had 2 buzzwords

anyway, it boils down to you seeing the game as a series of encounters for loot and level ups, which is more of a video game. RPGs started out as you know, roleplaying games. D&D is not a game about fighting, it is about roleplaying. the point as the DM is to make interesting situations, which can be combat or often, non-combat. it's not to make a steady stream of muh balanced combat encounters that can only end with the one side dead. if you think it is, *you* are the bad DM.

this is going to blow your mind, but there is such a thing as a campaign where combat is rare, and it is more based on diplomacy. there are adventure modules for TSR D&D that basically require you to run away if you randomly encounter certain monsters, but you'll maybe be able to kill them later.

you do not have to specifically plan ever encounter as some kind of balanced combat situation because D&D is not a video game, it's about interesting situations. also, you can gain experience from non-combat accomplishments. I would hate to play in your games because your shit sounds like a brainless vidya-inspired combat fest. if you think such combat encounters are the only interesting way to run the game, again, *you* are the shit DM.

Given the situation, I think it would make sense to stun the wight and allow the party to book it. I hate that DnD fighters and rogues don't become herculean myths. Sheer force of will and luck should account for something.

Whether or not its acceptable to throw the wight at an early party depends on the DM and the group. It's cool if the DM either has a set world with set encounters and the party is explicitly told they might be in situations they cannot handle OR the DM is rolling from random encounter tables. The DM creates and sets the tone of the story, being forced to flee is an acceptable story as long as the 'actors' are informed and leaned on to do so.

>>53259018
It is. Exactly that. EVERY example of a flee or fail encounter in this thread is bad, and will be avoided by the party

>Oh a young fickle dragon is offering a quest

They'll pass on that

>Diamond in graveyard with wights

Not worth it.

>Sometimes you fuck up and have to run

The PCs will decide when this happens, it's not the GM's place to make this scenario purposefully happen.

>>53259000
>Putting regular human people and animals on the same level with a deathless horror from beyond the grave, its eyes glowing crimson in the dark, its breath rasping, its very presence chilling the air

Just because you have the common sense to maybe back away when the latter comes calling doesn't mean you couldn't stab a wolf or a human bandit.

>>53259021
From OP's wording you can infer the players aren't newfags. As they knew what a Wight was and still decided to engage it.

>>53259038
Are we playing Unarmed Defenseless Civilian Mystery Solvers?

>>53259038
Why when running costs no resources and solves them all?

>>53259080
If you can deal with an encounter without starting a fight, why wouldn't you? Fights are deadly. Someone could die.

>>53259099
You'll probably trip on a root and then some wolves are on you.

File: amputate.jpg (383KB, 1018x1032px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1018x1032px

>people insist on replying to this idiot
They're either baiting successfully or genuinely too stupid to understand the concept of encounters being more than battles of attrition, it's not worth arguing with them.

>>53259080
Sounds like a lot of faggots in this thread need to play that game, anon.

Since they can't think of any way to beat opponents other than murdering them. Not the guy you replied to.

>>53259099
You get no exp from escaping without trying.

>>53252239
I would have given him a favorable result that hampered the wight somehow, allowing him the chance to retreat. Maybe pinning it to the ground, knocking it over, or dropping some debris or a tree or something on it. He wouldn't have hurt it, but delayed it.

Bonus: Depends how it was handled. Most times I'd say no, but I could see a tense, escape thriller arc around trying to avoid this thing until they can get the magic weapon that can kill it being fun. The players would have to be experienced enough either in the system or with that GM to know that they shouldn't be fucking around when the wight shows up though.

>>53259053
>They'll pass on that
>Not worth it.

Sounds like you just play with shit players who have your same mindset and metagame in the most stupid way possible. You can screech in this thread all you want about how muh combat encounters are the only way to make the game fun, but the reality is people have and will continue to create and experience fun situations that aren't video games in tabletop form. If you think occasionally having to run away makes it impossible to have fun, your imagination is shit and DMs with shit imaginations are bad DMs.

>>53259044
Right, So you whine about Strawman arguments, then assume every game I run is a tomb of horrors.... because I build my encounters around the party and not use a random monster table?

>>53258281
So in your games do the players take a long rest after every fights why not? There isn't any random encounters to interrupt them.

>>53259119
>forgetting to reply to a specific anon
Good job.

>>53259120
>You get no exp from escaping

You also get no exp from dying, so now you have your Party picking and choosing fights so they can grind their exp.

>>53259159
Or they could try diplomacy or sharing their food, which DOES give them experience.

>>53259113
>at least one class is designed expressly for making other people die in a fight, and due to shit design isn't much good outside of it
>the backbone of D&D is its combat system and has been since it evolved from Chainmail
Gee I dunno, why are we fighting in a system designed for fighting where everyone can contribute if the shit's on?

>>53259159
You know, players are SUPPOSE to learn when to pick a fight. You describe something normal as a negative.

>>53259021
>It's the GM's fault they don't know fire would harm a Wight then.
That's literally the same logic that people like to use when they get BTFO when playing a game.
>"How was I supposed to know that blocking caused damage?"
>"How am I supposed to kill this guy?
>"How was I supposed to know it'd be weak to fire?"
Protip: you don't, so you experiment, you find ways around the problem, and when you find something that works, you use it.

Or, in simpler terms, git gud

>>53259099
It doesn't solve it, it just makes you not die. Maybe you can come back later when you're more prepared, maybe you can just find someplace where getting shit done is a little easier?

Also the idea that if players feel like they have to run once, it's all they'll do is horribly asinine.

>>53259186
Thieves scout and deal with traps. Wizards are the limited-use all-purpose problem solvers. Clerics heal. Fighters fight.

Fighters are there for when battle is inevitable. They don't need to be involved all the time, just as the wizard doesn't need unlimited spells.

>>53259204
>all characters are expected to know the contents of the Monster Manual and what works on what horrible abomination, regardless of background

>>53258295
You're assuming an awful lot. He says in post that they didn't search well enough and that he was random not place
>53252608
Not his fault his players didn't check the rooms. Based on the barbs behavior they clearly don't think things through

>>53259215
I'm starting to think you don't even play PnP games Autism-kun.

>>53259159
It's simple. No risk no reward.

Deal with it, fagget.

>>53258295
>>53252608
The actual post my b

>>53259232
In-universe peasant stories and folk superstitions go a long way, anon. Combine that with a good vivid description and the problem goes well away.

>>53259240
>Didn't search well enough

This is code for "They failed their perception checks"

>>53259254
See, here is the problem, you already knocked the wind out of their sales when you send an unkillable enemy at them and tell them "High Risk, no Reward, Run away"

>>53259277
>This is code for "They failed their perception checks"

Ah, but that assumes they're playing one of the crap editions.

>>53259232
roll a knowledge check. DM could potentially literally tell you how to beat it.

>>53259271
So then the DM needs to give the Players some info.

BUT THAT'S LIKE A VIDEO GAME

No wonder RPGs are dying, who would put up with this crap.

>>53259229
>you should sit and be useless in all situations that don't fall under your purview
>oh wait wizards can make most problems an absolute mockery with the right spell
>welp

>>53259232
>he doesn't have any party members proficient in nature or arcana

>>53258383
Chill bro. No-one wins in an autism fight

>>53259133
Not him but I assume that every game you run is you throwing a horde of disposable enemies at our optimized party so that we have something to do that doesn't actually take any brains to do as we sit along the railroad listening to you go on about your narrative.

>>53259133
No. Also be a good lad and stop calling everything a straw man and then replying to straw men. I guess I have to simplify things for you.

Here is my perception of your argument:
>you should never have to run away because encounters should be level scaled to the party and if they ever end up in a potentially lethal situation, it is your fault as the DM

Is this correct or no? If not, state your case.

My argument is:
>it's perfectly fine to occasionally have to run away for whatever reason, it won't ruin the game because I trust the players to roleplay and problem solve and not be retarded. people have been playing this way for decades and it's only fairly recently that this combat-centric view has been mainstream. in my games, the players use their heads and don't treat everything as a murderfest, and realize they can die if they do stupid things. sometimes, there will be a minotaur they can't kill, but they might be able to trick. sometimes, the guard might be after their heads, and they know that they are too weak to take on an entire city of guards. basing your entire game around building combat encounters that level scale to the party is a shit way to DM because it severely limits your ability to create interesting situations for the party and makes dying an actual possibility to add tension to the game, instead of just handwaving death away with GM fiat. the players know they can never die in such a game, which is boring.

>>53259304
Only if they ask.

If they ask stuff, you tell them. It's not rocket science.

>>53259299
No, it assumes their GM is a useless cock, and seeing as the NPC told them there was a wight, but not any hints on how to kill or stop said wight, sounds like the GM did the stupid trap of

>HERE IS EVIL STRONG ENEMY
>ROLL DICE UNTIL YOU LEARN THE POKEDEX ENTRY

>>53259277
If they run away without fighting the monster, no reward
If they fight, realize its unkillable, and run away. I reward them

Like I said. No risk, no reward. If they manage to kill it using their brains, which is the point of the encounter, no enemy is unkillable. I shower them with rewards.

>>53259331
No, that's just you making a boatload of assumptions based on severely limited information.