Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6644232" data-attributes="member: 97077">I disagree. I think a DM should design challenges that allow for the player to make choices that increase or decrease the difficulty based on their choices. That is part of what makes a challenge satisfying because it gives those choices meaning. At the same time, difficulty is also part of what makes a challenge satisfying. If the players have found some scheme to reduce difficulty to unsatisfying levels, however, they have a hand in their own dissatisfaction. The DM can then set up encounters to counter these tactics specifically, but this often results in something of an arms race. A better solution, in my view, is for the players to be cognizant of the goals of play and to make choices accordingly. Sometimes that means making the most optimal choice. Sometimes it does not.I can agree with that. I spend time during my own Session Zero making players aware of the goals of play and building consensus on what that might entail. But we've been talking about games where the DM is having to go in and change or eliminate these feats because of a problem he or she has seen in play. Or, in some cases, games that have ended because of these feat and tactics. The approach I have been advocating is advising players that their choices matter when it comes to achieving the goals of play and it's simply not enough to always choose the most optimal path and use the rules as a shield even when it creates a dissatisfying game for others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6644232, member: 97077"] I disagree. I think a DM should design challenges that allow for the player to make choices that increase or decrease the difficulty based on their choices. That is part of what makes a challenge satisfying because it gives those choices meaning. At the same time, difficulty is also part of what makes a challenge satisfying. If the players have found some scheme to reduce difficulty to unsatisfying levels, however, they have a hand in their own dissatisfaction. The DM can then set up encounters to counter these tactics specifically, but this often results in something of an arms race. A better solution, in my view, is for the players to be cognizant of the goals of play and to make choices accordingly. Sometimes that means making the most optimal choice. Sometimes it does not. I can agree with that. I spend time during my own Session Zero making players aware of the goals of play and building consensus on what that might entail. But we've been talking about games where the DM is having to go in and change or eliminate these feats because of a problem he or she has seen in play. Or, in some cases, games that have ended because of these feat and tactics. The approach I have been advocating is advising players that their choices matter when it comes to achieving the goals of play and it's simply not enough to always choose the most optimal path and use the rules as a shield even when it creates a dissatisfying game for others. [/QUOTE]

Verification