Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GMforPowergamers" data-source="post: 8697348" data-attributes="member: 67338">yeah this reminds me of another arguement... this one me trying to set up a con game and running it as a playtest before the con.the players had to get from A to B. there were 3 routes they could take. They could go up and over the mountain, that was the longest it would take almost 3 weeks. They could go through the pass this was the quickest less then a week. They could go through the woods avoiding the path entirely but it would take anywhere from 1-2 weeks depending on skill checks. the PCs had the choice to try to get more into in point A, but by default they knew the pass was the most dangerous and the mountain was the least dangerous.  SO they got to pick speed or safety.  I then designed level appropriate challenges for each path.  And again they had resources they could choose to use (but would take time) to get more info on any/all paths. BUT there was a timer of sorts. the thing they needed to get from A to B was a magic elixir that would heal a disease that was plaguing the town. One of the pregens was also a paladin that could help when he got there. the argument was that I wasted too much time and energy making 3 paths. Since I would only be running this twice at most it would have 2 paths used and my home group bet anything that both would take the more dangerous faster route. At the very least just have over the mountain or threw the pass no one would be dumb enough (especially since no pregen was a ranger or druid) to try to trail blaze through the woods.now we play tested all 3 paths anyway (even though they thought it a waste) and of the 2 times I ran it both in 4 hour slots... 1 time they never left point A. They spent the entire aloted time trying to decide. the other time they took the fast dangeus path, and TPKed.so what do you think, was I wasting my time giving those choices?</blockquote>

Verification