rd350lc

I agree. It is for that reason that I run a low risk, low reward game. I like the players to survive, and it is for that reason that I run a low risk game. I do tend to put in humourous aspects in my game, that the players may appreciate (or may not). One of the funniest ones I have put in was having a dungeon created on polar graph paper-and I describe the corridors as being rectangular. It was amusing (from the gamemaster's viewpoint, at least) in seeing the players find rooms where they could not fit in.

This is a new subject for game masters. I tend to be a low risk, low reward game master. This is a thing I did that really annoyed the players, but certainly was not dangerous. When the gaming genre started over 40 years ago (I remember the time), most of the scenarios were in underground settings, and the maps were drawn using graph paper. I still do this to an extent. One of the most infuriating things that I did (but fun for the game master) was to lay out a dungeon using polar graph paper, and describe it as regular rectangular co-ordinates. The players got really annoyed when the map they were creating did not work out-in that there were rooms in places where there should not have been a place for these rooms. I really had fun playing this out. And there was no cheating, such as placing teleport areas, and the like.

I like the first alternative the best-but I make sure that I make it up to the player of the dwarf character.

True enough. But, I don't like killing off a character just because he is playing in CHARACTER.

I agree with this. I am not afraid of letting the characters win, but I do try to be fair. And, if the characters happen to get lucky in combat, or take out my main opponent in one shot-so what. I don't care, and I will celebrate with them. I try to be completely impartial. I follow the advice that Eric Wujick had told me during a seminar that he had. In his game (and in mine), there are only two ways for a character to get killed. They are 1) through character actions (and I do try to provide hints when there is a potentially lethal situation), or 2) through combat. If, in a fantasy setting, a character finds a pistol, puts the barrel in his mouth, and pulls the trigger, thinking that this is some kind of magic item that will improve his character, and the player is playing the character IN CHARACTER-well, the pistol will happen to be unloaded. The PLAYER may know what a pistol is, but the CHARACTER would not. That is an example that Eric gave. Combat is another thing. Runequest is a dangerous game, and smart players will avoid combat.

I do have to agree, Runequest is a dangerous game. In my campaign, I have had players take down a high power Vampire with one blow. This happened twice while I was gamemaster. A critical hit to the head for maximum damage will take out almost anybody. In the classic game (2nd edition), the cults of Chalana Arroy and Seven Mothers have Resurrection as a reusable 3 pt Rune Spell, so Resurrection is possible. Not sure about other editions, as I prefer the 2nd edition, with minor tweaks. Also, the supplements Cults of Prax, and to a lesser extent, Cults of Terror, form some of the best gaming rules that exist. Not only do they give additional rules for play, but they give BACKGROUND for these rules, which I have found to be rarely done. Some other game systems do give background, but the rules are lost in the background, so I find this of limited use.