Do you reequire your players to think?

[Crothian]

A thread in rules brought this up as someone said recalculating skill points with int gain or lose would be a hassle. And while that may be,m I don't think requireing the players to think is a bad thing.

So, should the players be required to think in the game? Do you dumb it down for your players or do you smart it up for them? Would the players refuse your game if you made them think at the table? It just seems that sometimes people don't want their players to think or expect much of them. I expect a lot from my players and I think it rewards the game.

 

[Hjorimir]

Well, I voted yes, but the truth of the matter is that I only encourage them to think. I do require them to make new characters when a lack of thinking has got them killed though.

Does that count?

 

[RithTheAwakener]

Well, its my first time DMing (nearly) and i really want my players to think. Im DMing the Worlds Largest Dungeon, and theyre loving it so far, but theres plenty of times where they run across a problem, and they DONT think to bypass it, and i nearly want to shout out the answer of 'what to do in this situation'. I want them to think and succeed, and i wont hesitate to kill them when they dont use their brains, but i really do want them to overcome their obstacles.

So i guess i leave it in the middle; i dont dumb it down or smart it up.... yet.

 

[Jdvn1]

I want my players to think, but thinking about the game and the puzzles involved, if any.

 

[caudor]

I voted no.

My players are rather young and have recently been introduced to the game. My goal: making sure they are having fun whether they think much or think little. Because of this, I tend to make heavy use of skill checks, knowledge checks, etc. to help separate player knowledge from character knowledge.

As they become more familiar with the game rules, I'm sure I'll add scenerios that do require more thought and foresight on the player's part. Right now, it is all about learning the game and having fun.

 

[Wombat]

I would say "Yes", but about the world and the situations, not about the rules.

The rules, for our money, merely facilitate the larger story. We are quite willing to let rules slide (and not worry about some recalculations), but forgetting the intricacies of social obligations, political positionings, fencing rivalries, and modes of spirituality can be deadly in the game. Sometimes four or five NPCs must be talked to before anything like a clear position on the situation is seen; equally, sometimes seemingly disparate information from several sources will lead to a deeper implication for the night's game or the campaign in general.

Yes, I encourage them to think a LOT.

Sometimes they love me for it; sometimes they fear me

 

[Mouseferatu]

As with others, a "yes" vote, but about the contents and events of the game, not necessarily about math or the rules. I run a lot of mystery-based stories, f'rinstance.

 

[Bront]

I voted Yes, but mostly in context of the game. I usually have to do most of the character rules/math stuff, as I have a much better undertanding than most of my players, and they tend to not be inclined to spend too much more time learning them, which is fine.

 

[Starglim]

I voted no (with the same proviso as Hjorimir), but I probably do require them to think a little bit. I don't require or allow the players to work out in-game puzzles and mysteries that should rightly fall under their characters' skills, but I do expect them to notice that their character has skill x that might help in this situation, and to listen to (or even, if they are really keen, note down) the results that I give in response to the character's action.

On the original question, working out changes to skill points is not so much thinking in game as character maintenance. Some people don't know the rules that well, have much interest in such details or time to work on them. I don't mind keeping an eye on the aspects of a character that affect balance, weaken the party if neglected or otherwise hurt other players, and handwave the rest if the player's not interested. I agree for other reasons that changing skill points retroactively is a really bad idea.

 

[Morte]

I require them to think about how they're going to get out of the adventure alive and successful.

I try to avoid avoid game mechanics that require the sort of OOC number crunching you described.