Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Character play vs Player play
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lerysh" data-source="post: 6412307" data-attributes="member: 6783796"><p>To the puzzle answer, that's fine. No reason to change it. To the Description, unless it's really VITAL to the story the wizard has a certain appearance, it is actively hurting your game to say no to your players here. Like I said, he asked a question because he has an idea. If you say no, that idea fizzels and dies. If you say yes then your player runs with it, feels like he's accomplishing something, and the plot advances. Which sounds better? Maybe his disguise doesn't work out in the long run, but he has a plan, implements said plan, and lives by the results. It doesn't matter if the plan FAILS ultimately, it matters that the player felt he had control over the actions of his character.</p><p></p><p>Letting your players walk all over you is practically in your job description as DM. It is, after all, in your best interest to lose and let the PCs win. Obstacles to overcome are fine. Specific variables necessary in overcoming said obstacles is bad form. Not allowing warforged is one thing, that's a rules question not a roleplay question. Not allowing a PC to take a plan of action because it deviates from your idea of overcoming the obstacle at hand is another thing entirely.</p><p></p><p>As to the puzzle question, say you had clues and hints around for the puzzle and it unlocks some kind of door. What if said Int 9 Wis 11 Barbarian just wants to walk up to the door and smash it in? Do you not allow it because it doesn't follow the clever plan? Clever comes in all guises, and it's actually MORE clever for a player to figure out a solution that is in character for his PC than for that barbarian to figure out the torch puzzle.</p><p></p><p>This sounds more and more like you are expecting your PCs to act in a certain way, and when they don't you punish them rather than rolling with it and letting the player's act in their own way. You can reward cleverness, but at the same time don't punish ingenuity or outside the box thinking (which are all basically synonyms). Bottom line is let the player's play their character and don't force them onto a particular logic train.</p><p></p><p>Foreshadowing is fine, but what you described wasn't foreshadowing. Foreshadowing would be guard attacks, is subdued, and then ADMITS to dealing with the succubus. Now the players encountered an obstacle, dealt with it, and acquired a puzzle piece to advance the story. An unsolvable puzzle does none of those things. What exactly does the suicide foreshadow? If the PC's can't figure out the cause then nothing is hinted at, except an alarming trend of NPC hangings.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lerysh, post: 6412307, member: 6783796"] To the puzzle answer, that's fine. No reason to change it. To the Description, unless it's really VITAL to the story the wizard has a certain appearance, it is actively hurting your game to say no to your players here. Like I said, he asked a question because he has an idea. If you say no, that idea fizzels and dies. If you say yes then your player runs with it, feels like he's accomplishing something, and the plot advances. Which sounds better? Maybe his disguise doesn't work out in the long run, but he has a plan, implements said plan, and lives by the results. It doesn't matter if the plan FAILS ultimately, it matters that the player felt he had control over the actions of his character. Letting your players walk all over you is practically in your job description as DM. It is, after all, in your best interest to lose and let the PCs win. Obstacles to overcome are fine. Specific variables necessary in overcoming said obstacles is bad form. Not allowing warforged is one thing, that's a rules question not a roleplay question. Not allowing a PC to take a plan of action because it deviates from your idea of overcoming the obstacle at hand is another thing entirely. As to the puzzle question, say you had clues and hints around for the puzzle and it unlocks some kind of door. What if said Int 9 Wis 11 Barbarian just wants to walk up to the door and smash it in? Do you not allow it because it doesn't follow the clever plan? Clever comes in all guises, and it's actually MORE clever for a player to figure out a solution that is in character for his PC than for that barbarian to figure out the torch puzzle. This sounds more and more like you are expecting your PCs to act in a certain way, and when they don't you punish them rather than rolling with it and letting the player's act in their own way. You can reward cleverness, but at the same time don't punish ingenuity or outside the box thinking (which are all basically synonyms). Bottom line is let the player's play their character and don't force them onto a particular logic train. Foreshadowing is fine, but what you described wasn't foreshadowing. Foreshadowing would be guard attacks, is subdued, and then ADMITS to dealing with the succubus. Now the players encountered an obstacle, dealt with it, and acquired a puzzle piece to advance the story. An unsolvable puzzle does none of those things. What exactly does the suicide foreshadow? If the PC's can't figure out the cause then nothing is hinted at, except an alarming trend of NPC hangings. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Character play vs Player play
Top