Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Character play vs Player play
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6412353" data-attributes="member: 5143"><p>I disagree. Part of clever thinking is working WITHIN the boundaries you are given. Player's have control over their characters, they don't have control over the world around them. They can't make an NPC grow a beard through wishful thinking. If their plan requires the NPC to have a beard when the NPC doesn't have one, then it isn't a good plan.</p><p></p><p>I don't think it's hurting anyone to do this. Clever players should say "No? No beard...alright, that plan won't work...let me come up with another plan." It might require a slight revision of their plan: "No beard, eh? Well, I'll have to shave mine then so I look more like him. I swore I'd never do this, but it's needed for the plan to succeed." Or, if there's no workaround, a clever player should be able to come up with another plan.</p><p></p><p>Player's plans should not work 100% of the time. In fact, I believe that complications are exactly what cause the most interesting stories.</p><p></p><p>I also really have no idea how an NPC having a beard would make a player feel like he had no control over his character.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I let players take any action that makes sense given the situation at hand. If I describe a room filled with lasers and cameras guarding the gem they want to steal and one of the players says "I just walk up and take it." the plan will fail, 100% of the time. They came up with a dumb plan. That isn't about deviating from "my idea of overcoming the obstacle". It's that there are solutions that would work and solutions that obviously won't work. Coming up with one of the poor plans and expecting me to say yes to it is dumb.</p><p></p><p>This is still a game and there will be right and wrong solutions to problems. The game is in figuring out the right solutions based on the information you have. And in searching for the information if you don't have enough.</p><p></p><p>I want the players to win. But I want them to have to work for it. Saying yes to everything they say does not make them work for it.</p><p></p><p>It is NOT more clever for a player to figure out a solution that involves smashing the door. Smashing things is the default answer for every adventurer ever. It also purposefully removes the focus of the game from the characters who would be more likely to figure out the puzzle in character.</p><p></p><p>I'd likely have planned the puzzle so that solving it was the one solution to opening the door, yes. If not, then there was no point in creating the puzzle in the first place. Because the first thing every group I've ever played with would try is smashing open the door. You have to put characters in a position where the first answer isn't the best answer in order to remove them from their comfort zone from time to time.</p><p></p><p>I love to reward out of the box thinking. But once again, it needs to fit the situation at hand and work within the physical laws of the universe, established fact and the facts that I established in advance of the game session starting. You can't just say "I make a 20 diplomacy check to convince the army to leave. You didn't expect me to do that, did you? So it's out of the box thinking and it should be rewarded. The whole army leaves. You have to say yes to me!"</p><p></p><p>Convincing the army to leave isn't an available option even if it's an out of the box answer. The army is evil, they have goals that they want to accomplish. A player's plan doesn't trump the motivations of the NPCs. They might be able to find the right leverage to use on the leader of the army to convince him to leave...but that requires work. More than just saying "This is my plan!"</p><p></p><p>They knew that the NPC in question wasn't acting of his own free will. Everyone they spoke to said that he'd never hang himself and that he was acting strangely lately. It was foreshadowing the succubus that they'd meet later. They don't know WHAT caused the strange behavior in the man, but they do know something did.</p><p></p><p>This sort of foreshadowing is used in TV all the time. The bad guy appears to be working for some mysterious organization but before the heroes can figure out what it is, the man is killed, leaving the trail cold...for now. Then the show can bring back the organization again in the future and slowly reveal more information about it. But not before the heroes go on a number of other adventurers.</p><p></p><p>The point is that the information required to solve a problem isn't always available immediately. Sometimes you need to be patient and wait until you have enough information to solve the problem.</p><p></p><p>The player in question just has 0 patience and gets angry when anyone asks him to be patient.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 6412353, member: 5143"] I disagree. Part of clever thinking is working WITHIN the boundaries you are given. Player's have control over their characters, they don't have control over the world around them. They can't make an NPC grow a beard through wishful thinking. If their plan requires the NPC to have a beard when the NPC doesn't have one, then it isn't a good plan. I don't think it's hurting anyone to do this. Clever players should say "No? No beard...alright, that plan won't work...let me come up with another plan." It might require a slight revision of their plan: "No beard, eh? Well, I'll have to shave mine then so I look more like him. I swore I'd never do this, but it's needed for the plan to succeed." Or, if there's no workaround, a clever player should be able to come up with another plan. Player's plans should not work 100% of the time. In fact, I believe that complications are exactly what cause the most interesting stories. I also really have no idea how an NPC having a beard would make a player feel like he had no control over his character. I let players take any action that makes sense given the situation at hand. If I describe a room filled with lasers and cameras guarding the gem they want to steal and one of the players says "I just walk up and take it." the plan will fail, 100% of the time. They came up with a dumb plan. That isn't about deviating from "my idea of overcoming the obstacle". It's that there are solutions that would work and solutions that obviously won't work. Coming up with one of the poor plans and expecting me to say yes to it is dumb. This is still a game and there will be right and wrong solutions to problems. The game is in figuring out the right solutions based on the information you have. And in searching for the information if you don't have enough. I want the players to win. But I want them to have to work for it. Saying yes to everything they say does not make them work for it. It is NOT more clever for a player to figure out a solution that involves smashing the door. Smashing things is the default answer for every adventurer ever. It also purposefully removes the focus of the game from the characters who would be more likely to figure out the puzzle in character. I'd likely have planned the puzzle so that solving it was the one solution to opening the door, yes. If not, then there was no point in creating the puzzle in the first place. Because the first thing every group I've ever played with would try is smashing open the door. You have to put characters in a position where the first answer isn't the best answer in order to remove them from their comfort zone from time to time. I love to reward out of the box thinking. But once again, it needs to fit the situation at hand and work within the physical laws of the universe, established fact and the facts that I established in advance of the game session starting. You can't just say "I make a 20 diplomacy check to convince the army to leave. You didn't expect me to do that, did you? So it's out of the box thinking and it should be rewarded. The whole army leaves. You have to say yes to me!" Convincing the army to leave isn't an available option even if it's an out of the box answer. The army is evil, they have goals that they want to accomplish. A player's plan doesn't trump the motivations of the NPCs. They might be able to find the right leverage to use on the leader of the army to convince him to leave...but that requires work. More than just saying "This is my plan!" They knew that the NPC in question wasn't acting of his own free will. Everyone they spoke to said that he'd never hang himself and that he was acting strangely lately. It was foreshadowing the succubus that they'd meet later. They don't know WHAT caused the strange behavior in the man, but they do know something did. This sort of foreshadowing is used in TV all the time. The bad guy appears to be working for some mysterious organization but before the heroes can figure out what it is, the man is killed, leaving the trail cold...for now. Then the show can bring back the organization again in the future and slowly reveal more information about it. But not before the heroes go on a number of other adventurers. The point is that the information required to solve a problem isn't always available immediately. Sometimes you need to be patient and wait until you have enough information to solve the problem. The player in question just has 0 patience and gets angry when anyone asks him to be patient. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Character play vs Player play
Top