Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3481871" data-attributes="member: 4937">So, in other words, you weren't actually interested in a discussion?If you are interested in discussing challenging PCs with weaker enemies on any level, practical or theoretical, I'm all for it.&nbsp; Shilsen for example has been discussing things on a very practical level.&nbsp; That's cool, and I'm happy to contribute to that.&nbsp; I've been more interested in discussing several theoretical aspects of challenging PC's with lower level creatures that I feel directly impact the DM/player relationship.&nbsp; In part this is because I think substantial discussion of practical aspects need to move from the general to the specific if we are to wring any more out of that topic.&nbsp; Several posters have already made suggestions in that area, and we are largely at this point repeating ourselves with broad general suggestions like, 'take advantage of cover'.&nbsp;&nbsp; And I was prompted in part by complaints by people in the thread that practical suggestions of maximizing the threat of monsters was too adversarial approach to DMing, which is I think a somewhat legitimate complaint, and a case like 'Tucker's Kobolds' struck me as a case in point.&nbsp; The question of the 'style' and 'tone' of how a DM challenges his players and the approach that he takes to that is I think very much a legitimate component to a discussion of 'DM tricks to challenge tough PCs' with weaker enemies.&nbsp; &quot;Why would you want to do that?&quot;&nbsp; &quot;What does actually constitute a weaker enemy, is it merely the perception of being weak?&quot;&nbsp; &quot;What is meant by a challenge?&quot;&nbsp; and &quot;What aspect of the scenario actually makes the weaker enemy challenging?&quot; are IMO also relevant topics, and if you don't think so I'm perfectly willing to demonstrate why they are relevant, starting with they are likely to impact how much fun your players experience in either the short or long run.&nbsp; A number of posters challenged my conclusions in these areas.&nbsp; Whether they were argumentative in doing so is less important than that they had something to say.What is it that you really want to talk about?&nbsp; You want to talk about the topic, or do you want to talk about the thread?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3481871, member: 4937"] So, in other words, you weren't actually interested in a discussion? If you are interested in discussing challenging PCs with weaker enemies on any level, practical or theoretical, I'm all for it. Shilsen for example has been discussing things on a very practical level. That's cool, and I'm happy to contribute to that. I've been more interested in discussing several theoretical aspects of challenging PC's with lower level creatures that I feel directly impact the DM/player relationship. In part this is because I think substantial discussion of practical aspects need to move from the general to the specific if we are to wring any more out of that topic. Several posters have already made suggestions in that area, and we are largely at this point repeating ourselves with broad general suggestions like, 'take advantage of cover'. And I was prompted in part by complaints by people in the thread that practical suggestions of maximizing the threat of monsters was too adversarial approach to DMing, which is I think a somewhat legitimate complaint, and a case like 'Tucker's Kobolds' struck me as a case in point. The question of the 'style' and 'tone' of how a DM challenges his players and the approach that he takes to that is I think very much a legitimate component to a discussion of 'DM tricks to challenge tough PCs' with weaker enemies. "Why would you want to do that?" "What does actually constitute a weaker enemy, is it merely the perception of being weak?" "What is meant by a challenge?" and "What aspect of the scenario actually makes the weaker enemy challenging?" are IMO also relevant topics, and if you don't think so I'm perfectly willing to demonstrate why they are relevant, starting with they are likely to impact how much fun your players experience in either the short or long run. A number of posters challenged my conclusions in these areas. Whether they were argumentative in doing so is less important than that they had something to say. What is it that you really want to talk about? You want to talk about the topic, or do you want to talk about the thread? [/QUOTE]

Verification