Buy a lot more of teh stuff you like. I mean, what would speak louder than ordering 137 cases of your favorite PHB.
D&D DMing is not playing chess against the players!!
- Thread starter Silverblade The Ench
- Start date
Buy a lot more of teh stuff you like. I mean, what would speak louder than ordering 137 cases of your favorite PHB.
Well, I was previously talking about game development, not game play.
For your case, there's a different dynamic. If you've got personal access to the human being in question ('cause, I dunno, maybe you see 'em at the gaming table every couple of weeks or something) and they are direct impacting your game, you could try the stunningly original ploy of talking with them about the issue. Personal communication - so crazy it just might work!
Well, Sturgeon's Law still applies - 90% of everything is crud.
Plan B? Why do you need a Plan B? You just said you bought stuff that you like. That implies that you now have stuff you like to play. So, what's the problem?
The Shaman
First Post
Perhaps I'd like some new stuff, too?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
No, I don't think so. Speaking your mind AND putting your money where your mouth will do more than simply speaking with your wallet. When a company looks at the balance sheet, they don't know why the sales are as they are without more information. Did I buy it because I like the content? Did I buy it to throw on the latest anti-D&D book burning? The reason I bought it in both of these cases pretty much diverge as much as they can and, if WotC assumes that they mean the same thing, they'll be mighty surprised when their long-term projections fail.
That said, nattering away on some message board won't necessarily be the best forum. I daresay ENWorld has a higher profile than most with the D&D designer crowd, so it's a far better place to post than on some individual blog that isn't well-known in the community. Getting into personal contact with the designers would be even better, but I'm sure they have some gatekeepers in place to stop random D&D cranks from sending them their manifesto of the day.
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
I do not see D&D as a case of 'story telling vs chess'. Neither analogy really fits what I like most about D&D.
The story aspect of D&D is important. But I would hate to play in a game where the DM over writes the story. I also do not quite like the DM completly deciding the outcome of a fight based on fiat. Yes, any DM can win a fight with the players. But constantly rigging things in the players favor is not exactly the sign of a great DM to me either.
As for chess master / all monsters are tactical geniuses type of DM that will metagame which actions every monster will take, I do not care much for that either. A DM that always runs unwinnable fights is not going to have players in his game for very long.
A good DM does 3 things.
- Create the circumstances that lead to any given in game encounter.
- Let the actions of the players, the circumstances of the situation, and the rules of the game determine the outcome.
- Find a way to use any outcome to move the game forward.
When I create a combat encounter, I am going to choose monsters within the range that I know the players ought to be able to handle. But once the game is running, I am going to have those monsters act consistent with what the monsters are and what their motives are.
So I will try not to run a swarm of giant rats in a way that suggests they are trying to set up flanking attacks or draw the players into a bad tactical position. But I am also not going to have goblinoid type monsters provoke AoO's just because the goblins are doing a bit too well. Those goblins are going to try their best to kill every last player they can using the best means at their disposal. Or they are going to run away if they are losing or have other reasons not to engage in combat.
As a rule, I wont bother setting up for combat unless that combat has a reasonable chance of being tactically significant.
END COMMUNICATION
The story aspect of D&D is important. But I would hate to play in a game where the DM over writes the story. I also do not quite like the DM completly deciding the outcome of a fight based on fiat. Yes, any DM can win a fight with the players. But constantly rigging things in the players favor is not exactly the sign of a great DM to me either.
As for chess master / all monsters are tactical geniuses type of DM that will metagame which actions every monster will take, I do not care much for that either. A DM that always runs unwinnable fights is not going to have players in his game for very long.
A good DM does 3 things.
- Create the circumstances that lead to any given in game encounter.
- Let the actions of the players, the circumstances of the situation, and the rules of the game determine the outcome.
- Find a way to use any outcome to move the game forward.
When I create a combat encounter, I am going to choose monsters within the range that I know the players ought to be able to handle. But once the game is running, I am going to have those monsters act consistent with what the monsters are and what their motives are.
So I will try not to run a swarm of giant rats in a way that suggests they are trying to set up flanking attacks or draw the players into a bad tactical position. But I am also not going to have goblinoid type monsters provoke AoO's just because the goblins are doing a bit too well. Those goblins are going to try their best to kill every last player they can using the best means at their disposal. Or they are going to run away if they are losing or have other reasons not to engage in combat.
As a rule, I wont bother setting up for combat unless that combat has a reasonable chance of being tactically significant.
END COMMUNICATION
Silverblade the Ench said:
Maybe the kind who lives in a monster-crawling underworld periodically beset by heavily armed, greedy and bloodthirsty lunatics who would think nothing of killing him while he is indisposed?
A trap, as much as an alarm, can be easy to avoid if one knows of it. The triggering mechanism, indeed, may be identical.
But your buying habits say you like old stuff.
(Of course that's stuff that is "old" now.)
BryonD
Hero
I think you have the idea of "voting with your wallet" wrong.
It isn't like a regular election where the most votes win and the others lose. It is simply a question of sufficient "aye" votes for a given product to exist or persist. A "nay" vote has no bearing on the tally. (Beyond being a lost chance for an "aye", it certainly does not off-set an "aye".)
I agree with your preference as stated. The fact that there is also simple crap flying off the shelves doesn't bother me though. If anything, it makes me feel a bit smug.
I'm quite happy because what I want, what I do vote *for* with my wallet also "wins". So I can buy what I want and smirk at the crap as a bonus.
If one considers treating monsters as "critters with tactics and their own minds" as part of presenting a fun challenge for the players, then it all comes together.
I think there's a bit more pressure on the 'encounter' in current D&D, because the designers expect it to take up such a chunk of time. An 'encounter' these days is not so much a possible event in the environment as a set-piece game in itself.
There are indeed prominent board-game features in 4e. The game gets a lot of mileage out of the square grid and moving pieces on it. The mass of rules built up around that, roughly in the neighborhood of the 3e corpus, is certainly impressive when compared to the basic abstraction of old TSR-D&D (or even old RuneQuest).
On the other hand, the explicit game-mechanical bits and bobs were merely the starting point of potential considerations in the old mode of play. The fundamental premise was that characters existed in a world no more fully described in the rule-books than is our real world. Give Amber Diceless a try sometime, if you think it takes a "board game" to get into fine points move by move!
I think there's a bit more pressure on the 'encounter' in current D&D, because the designers expect it to take up such a chunk of time. An 'encounter' these days is not so much a possible event in the environment as a set-piece game in itself.
Silverblade the Ench said:
There are indeed prominent board-game features in 4e. The game gets a lot of mileage out of the square grid and moving pieces on it. The mass of rules built up around that, roughly in the neighborhood of the 3e corpus, is certainly impressive when compared to the basic abstraction of old TSR-D&D (or even old RuneQuest).
On the other hand, the explicit game-mechanical bits and bobs were merely the starting point of potential considerations in the old mode of play. The fundamental premise was that characters existed in a world no more fully described in the rule-books than is our real world. Give Amber Diceless a try sometime, if you think it takes a "board game" to get into fine points move by move!
Last edited:
The Shaman
First Post
What exactly do you know about my buying habits?But your buying habits say you like old stuff.
(Of course that's stuff that is "old" now.)
Pop quiz: what's the last rpg product I purchased?
That would be Mythic Russia for HeroQuest.
Similar Threads
