Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6315862" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well I do consider the Tomb of Horrors really hard and I wouldn't want a group to try it unless they really wanted to put their characters at serious risk.&nbsp; On the flip side, I do not consider it a bad adventure given fair warning.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some groups like a really hard challenge.&nbsp;&nbsp; I am not anti-pixel bitching as you call it (we need a less loaded term for sure).&nbsp; I and my group want to be rewarded for caution and thoughtful play.&nbsp; The DM creates a world that is challenging to the players as much as it is to the characters.&nbsp;&nbsp; For some thats good and for some it's bad.&nbsp;&nbsp; I only get my dander up when people proclaim the new way as better universally instead of just better for them.Plenty of people have just kept plodding along using the same playstyle they fell in love with at the beginning.&nbsp; I know that with 3e and 4e I kept trying to get it to work the way it used to work.&nbsp;&nbsp; With 3e it was very hard.&nbsp; With 4e pretty much impossible.&nbsp;&nbsp; That doesn't mean those games didn't work okay for somebody.&nbsp;&nbsp; Just not for my playstyle.It's not a test like a math test.&nbsp;&nbsp; Dungeons are full of traps for a very logical reason.&nbsp; The owners want to protect their stuff.&nbsp; A lack of traps wouldn't make sense.&nbsp; I strive for a world that makes sense.&nbsp; As the group levels up, the traps become harder to catch.&nbsp; Standard pixel bitching won't work every time.&nbsp; Still, if a DM completely dropped pit traps for example from his game at 3rd level, then some players are bound to metagame that fact and not take the time (in game time) to deal with these kinds of things.&nbsp;&nbsp; Obviously the nature of the dungeon will dictate the propensity of traps.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm always careful to make sure it makes sense given the context.I think tournament play forces some people out of their comfort zone for sure.&nbsp; I never cared for tournaments nor do I care for encounters now.&nbsp; I'm very campaign and world focused in my games.&nbsp;&nbsp; I do though think the tournament approach fits the playstyle of some groups well because that is how they naturally operate.&nbsp;&nbsp; My groups are non-adversarial.&nbsp; They know working together is the only way to survive in the world.&nbsp; If the DM is playing the monsters straight and fairly then no antagonism need arise.&nbsp; He should play them appropriate to their intelligence (to the degree he can of course).&nbsp;&nbsp; He should not metagame his own knowledge of the group.&nbsp;&nbsp; I also find writing up monster &quot;plans&quot; ahead of time helps keep me honest.&nbsp; I have more time to sit and think about how the monsters react in general to someone invading their lair and not so much my group in particular.&nbsp; I try and figure out what they would know and how often they've confronted the type of group represented by the PC's.&nbsp; If the answer is almost never then they will not be prepared.&nbsp; If on the other hand, it is an enemy well versed in PC type challenges then they will be well prepared.It actually fit the person I was responding to and his example.&nbsp; I realize there are all sorts of metagaming.&nbsp; For the most part I dislike it almost universally.Again, I was responding to the accusation that the new style supported those things and the old style did not.&nbsp; In my games, the plot and character interactions are deep and fulfilling.&nbsp;&nbsp; My PCs are not cardboard counters.&nbsp;&nbsp; They have histories and the NPCs are deep and well drawn (at least the key ones).&nbsp;&nbsp; That has nothing to do with the fact that I am also old school in how I handle player vs character challenge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6315862, member: 6698278"] Well I do consider the Tomb of Horrors really hard and I wouldn't want a group to try it unless they really wanted to put their characters at serious risk. On the flip side, I do not consider it a bad adventure given fair warning. Some groups like a really hard challenge. I am not anti-pixel bitching as you call it (we need a less loaded term for sure). I and my group want to be rewarded for caution and thoughtful play. The DM creates a world that is challenging to the players as much as it is to the characters. For some thats good and for some it's bad. I only get my dander up when people proclaim the new way as better universally instead of just better for them. Plenty of people have just kept plodding along using the same playstyle they fell in love with at the beginning. I know that with 3e and 4e I kept trying to get it to work the way it used to work. With 3e it was very hard. With 4e pretty much impossible. That doesn't mean those games didn't work okay for somebody. Just not for my playstyle. It's not a test like a math test. Dungeons are full of traps for a very logical reason. The owners want to protect their stuff. A lack of traps wouldn't make sense. I strive for a world that makes sense. As the group levels up, the traps become harder to catch. Standard pixel bitching won't work every time. Still, if a DM completely dropped pit traps for example from his game at 3rd level, then some players are bound to metagame that fact and not take the time (in game time) to deal with these kinds of things. Obviously the nature of the dungeon will dictate the propensity of traps. I'm always careful to make sure it makes sense given the context. I think tournament play forces some people out of their comfort zone for sure. I never cared for tournaments nor do I care for encounters now. I'm very campaign and world focused in my games. I do though think the tournament approach fits the playstyle of some groups well because that is how they naturally operate. My groups are non-adversarial. They know working together is the only way to survive in the world. If the DM is playing the monsters straight and fairly then no antagonism need arise. He should play them appropriate to their intelligence (to the degree he can of course). He should not metagame his own knowledge of the group. I also find writing up monster "plans" ahead of time helps keep me honest. I have more time to sit and think about how the monsters react in general to someone invading their lair and not so much my group in particular. I try and figure out what they would know and how often they've confronted the type of group represented by the PC's. If the answer is almost never then they will not be prepared. If on the other hand, it is an enemy well versed in PC type challenges then they will be well prepared. It actually fit the person I was responding to and his example. I realize there are all sorts of metagaming. For the most part I dislike it almost universally. Again, I was responding to the accusation that the new style supported those things and the old style did not. In my games, the plot and character interactions are deep and fulfilling. My PCs are not cardboard counters. They have histories and the NPCs are deep and well drawn (at least the key ones). That has nothing to do with the fact that I am also old school in how I handle player vs character challenge. [/QUOTE]

Verification