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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6910144" data-attributes="member: 15700">Almost everyone does both, to some extent.  I'm sure there are some exceptions, but for the most part you would need to do both.I lean mostly to a living world, but when I create adventures and campaigns, I do design them with certain level parameters in place.  I won't adjust, eliminate, or add encounters just because the PCs did something off script though.  That clan of ogres up there in the hills?  They are still there regardless if the PCs are level 1 or level 10.  However, I would advise that the PCs not get blindsided a lot and surprised by these off balance encounters.  E.g., if the PCs are in town and are asking about, they probably will hear about the clan of ogres, or the dragon, or whatever.  They'll hear whatever makes sense in the game world and what actions they do.  That means if the PCs aren't proactive, they may in fact be surprised.  That isn't me being a bad DM.  That's them learning really quick to find out about an unexplored wild area as much as possible before just blindly heading out.I ascribe to the advice given in the AD&D 1e DMG.  If the PCs have given it their best, then maybe some adjustment might be made to keep the adventure going (say, by placing a raise dead spell capable priest in town or something).  However, if bad things happen through poor planning on their part, such is life.  It's about being fair, and understanding it's not you as the DM against the players, but you as the DM to be impartial and run all the NPCs/monsters as they would normally behave.And in my 35 years of experience, the vast majority of players prefer a game where they aren't assured of victory in every encounter via combat.  Almost all of them find that boring because there is no risk, and those encounters surely aren't memorable.</blockquote>

Verification