Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[Tiefling]

None of that will make him enjoy it, though.

True, ultimately it's his own trust in me that allows him to enjoy it. What I tell him merely makes him willing to give that trust.

 

[Tsyr]

Tysr- Maybe the players are playing it wrong, though?

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You completely miss my point.

If people aren't enjoying the game, the game is being played wrong. Period. End of story. There is no blame here. It's no ones "fault".

The intent of the game is to have fun. If someone isn't having fun, the game is being played wrong. That isn't a point that includes a "....by this player" clause. If someone isn't having fun, the purpose of playing the game is being invalidated, and thus, the game is being played wrong. This isn't a blame game.

I disagree with your premise, though, anyway - some people just won't have fun playing D&D, no matter how it's GM'd.

I said there would always be odd men out. That will never change. But I'm not convinced that is what we are dealing with here, yet. For one thing, he's (apparently) been gaming too long for this to be the case.

Also I think it's a lot easier for individual players to make the effort to enjoy different styles of GMing than it is for the GM to adapt his game to suit all players' preferences.

I reject the notion that you can *make* anyone find anything fun. I also reject the notion that the DM is any more protected from the need to adapt than any other player... Otherwise you have an inequality of people outside the game, not just roles in the game. That's not something I enjoy.

That said, I don't think I'd enjoy being in a game with you Tsyr, whether you were playing or GMing - our attitudes and expectations are just too different.

Possibly not; though I'd like to think that you don't really know anything about my playing style... I've not really posted much on it on these boards. But, whatever...

 

[fusangite]

This took what, a minute? I think that, in an emergency, it might very well take longer to get in touch with someone on a cell-phone...

Excuse me for now being convinced you went out of your way to screw your players...

The sequence of events to which you respond with this comment was my explanation of a scene explaining how the PCs were able to enlist the aid of a powerful NPC. How is allowing an NPC to assist my players "screwing" them?

This was me adjusting to the fact that the three characters with special anti-undead powers were not coming to the combat and giving my PCs the benefit of the doubt in carrying off a backup plan.

I guess you're right that I could have made the duke unwilling to come right away or have a new shift of guards decide not to obey the duke's standing order to let the characters into the palace. But in my view, that would have been unfairly penalizing the characters who actually decided to engage the adventure.

 

[Tsyr]

True, ultimately it's his own trust in me that allows him to enjoy it. What I tell him merely makes him willing to give that trust.

It's not a matter of trust.

Some people just don't find certain things fun.

For example, I don't find games with insanely high levels of magic fun. Period. That's not an issue of trust, I just don't enjoy them. Likewise, some people don't enjoy games where the adventuring party is expected to behave like a well-oiled modern team of Marines or something. Heck, I'm not that fond of that play style either. Again, it's not because I don't trust the GM... I just don't find enjoyment in that style of play.

 

[Tiefling]

It's not a matter of trust.

Some people just don't find certain things fun.

Quite right, and I'm assuming that this player is the type who enjoys challenges of a combative nature. This seems likely, as fusangite would probably have mentioned something if it was otherwise. Assuming that is the case, and assuming that he enjoys being challenged in any way, it is difficult for me to imagine that the player is incapable of enjoying an encounter wherein his character and the characters associated with him are at a disadvantage. It seems more likely that he merely presupposes that fusangite is trying to cripple the characters for spite, for the sake of doing so. If that is the case, it's fundamentally a lack of trust.

 

[fusangite]

Tsyr, I actually work hard in my campaign to write different kinds of episodes to appeal to the various tastes in my gaming group. Some of the players really like the miniatures/combat/tactics element of the game. Others really like the puzzle solving and politics. Still others place their emphasis on the role playing aspect of the game. (The player with whom I had the disagreement falling into the third category.)

So, for me, I guess it's a complex calculus of fun -- sometimes I can put all three elements in equal proportions in every episode but some episodes favour one particular interest. The episode in question was really written for the people who get off on combat and tactics. The episode previous heavily emphasized the politics and puzzle solving aspect of the game; those who have little interest in that were chomping at the bit for an intense combat scene where they could show off their capacity for tactical superiority under duress.

I cannot equally please all of my players at the same time. It sounds to me as though you perhaps work with a group whose tastes are more homogeneous than mine.

 

[Numion]

The sequence of events to which you respond with this comment was my explanation of a scene explaining how the PCs were able to enlist the aid of a powerful NPC. How is allowing an NPC to assist my players "screwing" them?

You're screwing your players because you enforce realism in the armor dressing to the point, but let your NPC react with unrealistic speed to the same situation.

It seems to me that you got bogged down by the rules instead of trying to run a smooth encounter. Even though it might make you "right" in the rules lawyering sense, you still lost because the encounter, and ultimately the whole gaming session, suffered.

 

[Hejdun]

There's a big difference between throwing occasional encounters at the party when they're not prepared, and intentionally designing a climactic encounter with the BBEGs in such a way that only some of the characters won't be prepared. This wasn't a random occurence, but an intentional setup on your part that put several of the characters at a huge disadvantage.

That's the key point. The nature of the combat effectively eliminated one of the major advantages of part of the party, and such a disadvantage would have put those players in moral danger.

If you do it once, it's not that big of a deal. Certainly not something to create a major argument over. If you do it regularly, I would have a problem with it as a player.

Hmmm, at the very least it sounds like you now have an ex-paladin on your hands... Not reacting when he actually had a good idea of what was going on is not going to sit well with his god.

[sarcasm]
Don't forget kids, real paladins commit suicide.
[/sarcasm]

 

[Valiantheart]

You're screwing your players because you enforce realism in the armor dressing to the point, but let your NPC react with unrealistic speed to the same situation.

It seems to me that you got bogged down by the rules instead of trying to run a smooth encounter. Even though it might make you "right" in the rules lawyering sense, you still lost because the encounter, and ultimately the whole gaming session, suffered.

Exactly.

 

[D'karr]

BULLET TIME anyone?

Once again the Duke is doing his Superman thing... LOL

He is the One.