Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Noah Ivaldi" data-source="post: 6834350" data-attributes="member: 6797143">Everyone keeps saying that you can't be in the wrong as long as your players are having fun, and there's merit to that, but consider these angles: How comfortable are you? How much fun are you having? Could changing things up provide more fun to the players and/or you than you anticipated?I recall a certain video that complained about how self-defeating the addition of an easy mode in a Dark Souls game was. The excerpt that I refer to is one in which the player explains this:Some people have this silly idea that they already know everything that they like and enjoy, and anything novel will only get in the way. More "old school" gamers tend to, or tended to, perhaps, have a completely different philosophy. Trying out a different paradigm can be far more enjoyable than anticipated. In the example, the player had gotten into Dark Souls not because he enjoys a challenge, as is the hallmark of the franchise, but because he was told that the lore and production values were impressive, and others pressured him. Convinced that he, a lover of lore, would be too overwhelmed by difficulty to enjoy the game thoroughly, he gave a timid try. After overcoming initial adversity, he came to appreciate the challenge of the game, and then, he loved it. He learned to love something that he hated previously, something that he still hated in other settings.I don't enjoy tieflings, aasimar, and other uninspired, eye-rolling demon/devil/angel/celestial-flavored characters, personally. However, for one evil party campaign, I played a horrible tiefling warlock bitch who had a pact with Abhoth, and it was loads of fun! I wouldn't like to dwell on the themes, but for that campaign, it was great.I am easily bored by racing games, but Kirby Air Ride is the <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, man.The fact that you're even asking about this means that you're open to the fact that your comfort zone is not omniscient. You need not go to the opposite extreme, as that will likely go poorly and be unsavory, but might I recommend my mentality as an alternative to try?I deal with things realistically. I fudge nothing, but I also don't let the dice dictate the story more than I do. I look for reasons to give bonuses, penalties, advantage, disadvantage, and ways to circumvent. A die roll may help me decide between a plethora of scenarios to occur, but won't tell me that one PC is dead for sure or that the party gets a major, game-changing boon.If my players make a mistake, I don't seek to punish them, but I adjudicate things reasonably, so consequences do tend to roll around. Just as in real life, they don't have to face the consequences of every failure, or not immediately, as things get shoved down the road, they escape and leave others holding the proverbial bag, others get blamed, what-have-you. Just as in real life, the consequences are sometimes softer or harsher than deserved, according to the personalities and motivations of those who persecute.By the same measure, I don't give people unnecessary boosts every time that they do well. A nat 20 is a critical, not a turn of playing Superman, just as a nat 1 is a failure, not a meteor dropping onto your head. Yes, your cleric has been very faithful through your very thoughtful and intelligent RPing. Your deity conjures a common magical item, gives you an inclination of where you should go next, or gives a bit of healing; it doesn't start dropping free, daily miracles on you or slay the villain for you.I tell people to have backup character sheets. I'm not a killer DM by any means. So far, my only administrative kills have been on my RP forum, and the two victims were entirely to blame for that one situation. Still, I don't guarantee anything. If players bite off more than they can chew, I play what they chew the way that it would logically play. If the T-rex is now pissed off and wants to kill them, it'll chase until they get away, it gets tired, or they manage to conquer the odds and beat it. If the apatosaurus is pestered by the party, but they screw off when it nearly one-shots one of them with a tail sweep, it doesn't want to bother with them; it just swatted some flies away and is going back to eating in peace. One lich may as soon kill the party as look at them, but another may be the kind that actually <a href="http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html" target="_blank">wants you to escape and eventually provide a challenge</a>. When I'm not sure which to be, I may decide by die roll, or I may go easy or hard because I feel that it's healthier to the story.I don't even give plot armor to NPCs. If I want someone to be resilient for story purposes, I design them to be resilient. If they die anyway, oh, well. That's why I make a bunch of contingencies and alternative scenarios like a good DM, rather than relying on one railroad.Put briefly, I focus on making things go as they would go, not on coddling or brow-beating.Maybe coddling has been just fine for you thus far. Maybe characters haven't gotten exceptionally stupid and broken your immersion, ruined the story, or ruined the mechanics of the game because the players behind them know that you're always going to be a marshmallow. Maybe everyone is totally happy with things as they are . . . but try a new paradigm, maybe with some warning, in which you let events fall as they may, and you may find yourselves getting a level of enjoyment that you didn't account for. Worth a shot, no?</blockquote>

Verification