Warren Okuma
First Post
Ask them what they don't like about your game, then fix it.
My complaint is house rules. I don't like most of them.
My complaint is house rules. I don't like most of them.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How to get rid of the adversarial tone in the game
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
Haffrung Helleyes
First Post
adversarial tone
I think there's a balance to be struck here.
I want my players to win. But I don't want their accomplishments to be easy.
So, I don't give PCs a lot of breaks once combat begins. If a monster is brilliant, I try to come up with a brilliant plan. Conversely, if it's stupid or cowardly, I run it that way.
I think it all comes down to trust. If your players trust you, there can be a bit more of an adversarial tone to the game without anyone feeling angry or cheated.
I do the following:
I roll all dice in the open. I express sympathy when PCs die.
My monsters flee when it's appropriate for them to do so.
I try not to take the parties plans and capabilities into account when my monsters wouldnt know about them
I don't mind when the PCs make secret battle plans. If 'conspiring to beat the DM' is fun for them, that's alright with me.
I make extensive use of spot, listen, hide, and move silently skills, letting PCs who have invested in spot and listen surprise monsters and avoid being surprised.
It also helps that I have a pretty solid knowledge of the rules, and that I am open to being corrected when I'm wrong about something. I know that a lot of GMs don't like being corrected on a rules issue in-game, but I think it preserves the sense of things being 'fair', and I run combat quickly enough that it doesn't slow the game down too much.
By the way, Age of Worms really is hard. But the PCs in my game (including the halfling sorcerer who _never_ died) seemed to really enjoy it.
Ken
Ken
I think there's a balance to be struck here.
I want my players to win. But I don't want their accomplishments to be easy.
So, I don't give PCs a lot of breaks once combat begins. If a monster is brilliant, I try to come up with a brilliant plan. Conversely, if it's stupid or cowardly, I run it that way.
I think it all comes down to trust. If your players trust you, there can be a bit more of an adversarial tone to the game without anyone feeling angry or cheated.
I do the following:
I roll all dice in the open. I express sympathy when PCs die.
My monsters flee when it's appropriate for them to do so.
I try not to take the parties plans and capabilities into account when my monsters wouldnt know about them
I don't mind when the PCs make secret battle plans. If 'conspiring to beat the DM' is fun for them, that's alright with me.
I make extensive use of spot, listen, hide, and move silently skills, letting PCs who have invested in spot and listen surprise monsters and avoid being surprised.
It also helps that I have a pretty solid knowledge of the rules, and that I am open to being corrected when I'm wrong about something. I know that a lot of GMs don't like being corrected on a rules issue in-game, but I think it preserves the sense of things being 'fair', and I run combat quickly enough that it doesn't slow the game down too much.
By the way, Age of Worms really is hard. But the PCs in my game (including the halfling sorcerer who _never_ died) seemed to really enjoy it.
Ken
Ken
