Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mohoender
The problem is to reach the good balance. With AD&D the lethality is too high and doesn't help the game anymore. However, we make fun of the GM, pointing out that none of us ever saw the end of one his game.
|
Lol!
Dunno if that's a compliment to the GM.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mohoender
For my part, I'm not all forgiving but the casualty rate of the Star wars game I sited was high. Nevertheless, it was justified. The team had to assassinate someone (an arm dealer) but, instead of entering the house and killing the guy, they chose to blow up the building (one of them bright idea) in the middle of an Imperial army base with a full navy group orbiting the planet. Saddly for them, the basement was full of explosives and the time on the charge they set up was too small (1 minute only) and they didn't have enough time to take cover (they let the bright guy do all the job  ). In the game that ended with the Empire winning they put the mission on hold to save one of their comrade, they should have finished the mission first. |
True. That approach is good as it keeps players focused. It's refreshing to see gamers playing both sides in the Star Wars millieu. Gives everyone a lot of opportunities for wheeling dealing and thuggery.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mohoender
As a result, they failed and the guy died anyway. If you forget to play with your brain you die. In T2K, that's even worse of course.
|
Always the best approach. Although deep inside no player really wants to have a character die, my group has matured a bit these days (or so i like to think!). a sort of its not whether you live or die but whether you played well and everyone had a great time. for some reason though, d&d4 brings out the power-gaming streak in them.