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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6133925" data-attributes="member: 42582">No. He never said that his players didn't like the dungeons he designed. In fact [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] said his players prefer engaging the dungeon to blowing it up with disintegrate, and are therefore happy when he (as GM) informs them that their PCs attempts to circumvent it via disintegrate fails.I'm sure that's good advice but I don't see how it bears upon what Majoru Oakheart described upthread. He never said anything about his players being annoyed.He actually described a fairly standard feature of high level D&D play (and other gonzo fantasy games, like Rolemaster, have the same issue) - that the PCs have abilities that make it rational for them to act in ways that can make the game less than maximally entertaining at the table (disintegrating towers, scry-buff-teleport, etc - the worst example in my own RM games was "completing" whole adventures within the scope of future-oriented divination, and once a successful approach had been identified within the scope of the divination then declaring that it was undertaken by the PCs for real).For me, what I notice is that the locations are pre-specified. The NPCs are all pre-specified. The players have basically no authorship role, and if they try to choose their loyalties or response to situations then the whole package more-or-less falls apart.Of more-or-less zero interest to me, and not at all what I would think of as a player-driven game.You may have misread the post you quoted - it is only when Majoru Oakheart starts improvising that his playes complain about boring games.</blockquote>

Verification