Mikeydanuke
Mongoose
The other night I GM's the first meeting of my Infernum Campaign # 1 (Thursday group-as opposed to the Infernum Campaign #2 Sunday Group). Things went fairly well, with some good roleplaying on the part of the participants, and the initial adventure was a success for the party, i.e. most of the enemy killed, none of the party died.
Now, I don't wish to give away the plot, just in case any of the Sunday Group reads this forum, but basically, the party died. Or would have if I had pursued the event to it's logical conclusion, but after I explained what had happened (" okay, you guys are attacked by ...."), they did a lot of whining, and sniveling (excellant "groveling" I must say) that I relented, and did not make them roll up new characters.
It was, after all, the first night, and I had never GM'd a game for most of those there, and I figured they needed to learn how I did things more than just the mechanics. So, I let them off with a warning.
As a conversation point then, for those of you that have GM's games in the past, do you:
1) Set up events, and allow the party to pursue them as they see fit, suffering the consequences there of, and reaping the rewards if any?
2) Guide the party from making decisions that will cause them to die by the use of NPC's? (but the party has to actively solicite advice from the NPC's)
3) Intervene to prevent party members from ever dying. (Divine Intervention)
I've always favored setting up events and letting the party pursue them as they see fit.
Which led to an interesting conversation once in a D&D campaign, when a second level warrior complained because the party had died after they had attacked 400 orcs.
Toodles all
Mikeydanuke
Now, I don't wish to give away the plot, just in case any of the Sunday Group reads this forum, but basically, the party died. Or would have if I had pursued the event to it's logical conclusion, but after I explained what had happened (" okay, you guys are attacked by ...."), they did a lot of whining, and sniveling (excellant "groveling" I must say) that I relented, and did not make them roll up new characters.
It was, after all, the first night, and I had never GM'd a game for most of those there, and I figured they needed to learn how I did things more than just the mechanics. So, I let them off with a warning.
As a conversation point then, for those of you that have GM's games in the past, do you:
1) Set up events, and allow the party to pursue them as they see fit, suffering the consequences there of, and reaping the rewards if any?
2) Guide the party from making decisions that will cause them to die by the use of NPC's? (but the party has to actively solicite advice from the NPC's)
3) Intervene to prevent party members from ever dying. (Divine Intervention)
I've always favored setting up events and letting the party pursue them as they see fit.
Which led to an interesting conversation once in a D&D campaign, when a second level warrior complained because the party had died after they had attacked 400 orcs.
Toodles all
Mikeydanuke