Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ristamar" data-source="post: 6644172" data-attributes="member: 1207">People are naturally inclined to take the path of least resistance, regardless of the level of the challenge at hand, unless the challenge is so insignificant that the choices become moot.&nbsp; A DM shouldn't ask players to fight or ignore that urge.&nbsp; He should embrace it and let his encounters flourish through the players' exploration and manipulation of those choices.&nbsp; If that means the DM is modifying or removing options from table, so be it.&nbsp; But it's the DM's fiat, and player's should not have to self-police the efficiency of their tactics.&nbsp;As a DM, I have no problem with a player taking any course of action available to them.&nbsp; As an arbiter of the rules and as the invisible engine that pushes the game forward, it's my responsibility to account for the choices available to tackle an encounter.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not the players' responsibility to control the challenge level of an encounter.&nbsp; And if there is an easy out to an encounter because the players are clever or because I poorly designed an encounter, the players are going to take it.&nbsp; And they should take it.&nbsp; The players don't have a road map of the adventure.&nbsp; They don't know what lies behind the next door.&nbsp; They don't know who or what might come for them in the night.&nbsp; If combat breaks out, they're trying to survive, and survival means efficiently using the resources at hand so they can be best prepared for the next challenge.This is hardly unique to tabletop games.&nbsp; Any challenging video game with a breadth of build options suffers the same fate.&nbsp; The most efficient choices are quickly discovered and typically reduced to a handful of variants.&nbsp; These builds remain commonplace until the choices are modified in some fashion, or the game itself is changed in some way that influences the efficacy of those choices.&nbsp; This doesn't mean the players are bad people.&nbsp; It just means they're human.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ristamar, post: 6644172, member: 1207"] People are naturally inclined to take the path of least resistance, regardless of the level of the challenge at hand, unless the challenge is so insignificant that the choices become moot. A DM shouldn't ask players to fight or ignore that urge. He should embrace it and let his encounters flourish through the players' exploration and manipulation of those choices. If that means the DM is modifying or removing options from table, so be it. But it's the DM's fiat, and player's should not have to self-police the efficiency of their tactics. As a DM, I have no problem with a player taking any course of action available to them. As an arbiter of the rules and as the invisible engine that pushes the game forward, it's my responsibility to account for the choices available to tackle an encounter. It's not the players' responsibility to control the challenge level of an encounter. And if there is an easy out to an encounter because the players are clever or because I poorly designed an encounter, the players are going to take it. And they should take it. The players don't have a road map of the adventure. They don't know what lies behind the next door. They don't know who or what might come for them in the night. If combat breaks out, they're trying to survive, and survival means efficiently using the resources at hand so they can be best prepared for the next challenge. This is hardly unique to tabletop games. Any challenging video game with a breadth of build options suffers the same fate. The most efficient choices are quickly discovered and typically reduced to a handful of variants. These builds remain commonplace until the choices are modified in some fashion, or the game itself is changed in some way that influences the efficacy of those choices. This doesn't mean the players are bad people. It just means they're human. [/QUOTE]

Verification