- If the checks involved were not multi-tiered all-failstate checks. That's garbage design to begin with.
I dont even understand this sentence ...
I think what Niara's trying to say here is that they have a problem with the encounter having multiple dice checks that can each individually lead to your character's death. I for one agree that this is bad design but since it's been a while since I played through this encounter and don't really remember it well, I can't confirm if this is an accurate assessment.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Niara
In talking about how you'd love to do it as a DM you're also highlighting an additional design failure - Everyone else just stands there and watches you feed your head to the Illithid and does absolutely nothing, and there are no options or prompts for them to do anything, in any way.
Wrong ... There are options, you just need to search them actively ... instead of simply expect the game to guide you step by step ... this is not tutorial anymore. O_o
(i shall instert video here, when it will be uploaded ... youtube is somehow stubborn today. -_-)
The problem here is that your companions are not independent entities anymore ... YOU are in control ... that means, if you want THEM to do something, YOU must be the one who will do it.
But as you can see, options are right there.
You make a lot of good arguments here but this one I still can't agree with. Especially the one about companions not being independant entities. They very much are, at least as much as any companion in any crpg. They can still make choices you don't control, initiate dialogues, make judgements on your actions, etc. A significant part of the game will consist of their character stories, which will require them doing things outside of your control, such as Asterion secretly killing animals for blood.
As a more in-depth example, at the encounter with the Gith patrol, Lae'zel will turn to your character and and seek a prompt from them for how to talk to the patrol. You're not expected to directly take control of her, and I would argue that such an option actually makes *less* sense than any of your companions stopping you from gettingn eaten by the mindflayer. What with the fact that if it got to eat, it would presumably regain some amount of strength and be able to be a greater threat to them, so killing the thing would be in their best interest. My point though is that I don't think you can argue that the companions are no longer independant and shouldn't be expected to act independently when they act independently all the time, up to and including speaking up for themselves in dialogues.
And one final thing, the game never teaches you that you can select other characters outside of combat (unless they started doing that in patch 4, I could have missed that). I'm being lenient on this point though since while I think we should judge Early Access on its own terms, I also accept that it only makes sense for tutorials to be among the last things added since they have to finalize all the content and stuff first.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Funny enough, i had the very same situation in my last tabletop session ... we get to classic Indiana Jones and invisible bridge situation ... we were suppose to proove our thrust by cross the abyss, but our Wizard decided to levitate instead of steping into the void ... DM decided that she did not proove her thrust, and therefore the invisible bridge unmaterialized for her ... when her levitation ended, she begin to fall ... and now: DM: Dont you want to reactivate it and get up? Wizard: No. DM: Really? Wizard: No. DM: You keep falling into the abyss ... all you can see is the edge more and more distant. DM: Dont you want to reactivate it and get up? Wizard: No. DM: Im trying hard to hint you here ... so: REALLY? Wizard: Oh ... okay, i levitate back up and try to cross the bridge on foot. DM: You crossed the bridge safely, as the rest of the group did before you.
Funny story, but not exactly great desing if you ask me. :-/
Also I think that your DM's choice is perfectly valid from a storytelling perspective. People differ and it ultimately comes down to what the players at the table want, but I personally believe that part of a DM's job should be steering players away from dumb, unsatisfying outcomes. If the player wanted their character to face the consequences of their actions then fine, if in-character there was no way to avoid the fall, then fine. But if the character could still cast levitate and carry on then to have them die from not doing it would to me seem pointless and unsatisfying, and I wouldn't let my player do that unless they understood that that was what was happening. So as far as story design, helping a player make an in-character choice that makes sense feels like good design to me. But like I said, that's just my philosophy when it comes to DMing.
