Do you reequire your players to think?

[Truth Seeker]

Yes, and yes, and bloody yes...the game would be stale, if they didn't.

 

[William Ronald]

Yes, and yes, and bloody yes...the game would be stale, if they didn't.

I concur. While I have only run an occassional game at EN World Gatherings in the last few years, I try to include things to make characters think. Characters have investigated ruins, and by careful observation figured out someone was using it as a training camp. (A spot check revealed that a wooden post had multiple claw marks -- with larger claw marks on the top than on the bottom. The players concluded that whatever sort of creature was training in the ruins was getting bigger.) Similarly, I have had characters try to solve some mysteries, track people down, and figure out why something is happening.

As for paperwork, I think it should only be done in game if it really matters. Possibly a good approach might be to wing it until after the session. (So, a good rule of thumb for lost ability scores is to assign a -1 per relevant point of a lost ability score. This may not be entirely accurate, but it may speed up play.) The rules should be in service of the game and having fun.

As a player, I enjoy solbing problems, using tactics against foes, figuring out what is going on and then what to do next. I like to think that a good DM can engage both the intellects and emotions of players, so that a game can be satisfying on many levels.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I don't want players to have to do more than the minimum of math necessary. I want them thinking in terms of roleplaying and action in the game, not mechanics and points. I much prefer describing a thing or an action than a rule mechanic.

 

[iwatt]

I don't want players to have to do more than the minimum of math necessary. I want them thinking in terms of roleplaying and action in the game, not mechanics and points. I much prefer describing a thing or an action than a rule mechanic.

me too. I've hOuse ruled a lot of stuff to keep the math simple even though the God's of balance could easily smite me for introducing gamebreaking changes. For instance:

- Off hand atacks have the same strength bonus damage than main hands. Also, my Pcs tend to find matching sets (dual short swords or dual hand axes).

- Dodge gives a +1 Dodge bonus to AC against evreybody...

 

[ForceUser]

...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.

Every group is different, but I enjoy challenging my players mentally as much as I challenge their characters' fighting prowess. It's a fine line, however; a person playing a wizard almost always expects to be able to solve problems with Int checks or appropriate Knowledge skill checks, and some players resent puzzles or riddles that force them, on a metagame level, to think critically, as opposed to simply making skill checks to allow their PCs to find the answers. I understand that perspective and even find merit in it, but generally, I am of the opinion that well-designed puzzles that require critical thought from the players are a good thing. I don't hesitate to use them against mature players who appreciate such challenges.

More often than not, however, I've noticed that players don't want to think too hard about issues or puzzles--they want clear direction, good story, an opportunity to role-play, and many opportunities to fight. Problems that are too difficult often leave groups quite frustrated.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I voted "yes" but I suppose I don't require them to think, so much as I don't provide conveniently-placed information. I will figure out what's going on, and then the PCs are thrown into the situation. It's up to them to figure out what's happening and why.

For instance, at one point they were investigating a series of murders. After they eventually found the murderer and killed it, they were able to go back and piece together that the Intellect Devourer was using a certain tavern as a place to find victims, that the reason the victims alternated between male and female was because the creature was luring victims away through romantic appeal, and the reason the second murder scene had a piece of jewelry belonging to the third victim was because each murderer became in turn the next victim.

Sometimes it's hard to stick to the plan, when occasionally the players pick up on what's happening right away, but it's my policy to never deviate from the planned course of action, unless the PCs have done something that would stimulate a change. Otherwise, give the players their props for figuring things out quickly and keep going. Changing things so the players are always wrong only stagnates thought, rather than encourage it.

 

[Yeoman]

I voted yes, but with the caveat of, I don't (and have never been in a group that) require my players to recalculate skill points for intelligence loss.

 

[Mark CMG]

Do you reequire your players to think?

Damnit! I voted "Yes"...



...but I thought you said "stink"...

 

[Templetroll]

Our most recent DM had been trying to get our party to think and plan ahead. He especially wanted us to use tactics.

We found a hole in the ground where our rogue went missing. we go down, decide the wise thing to do is to station a guard by our only known exit from underground. We leave someone else at a spot that could be closed on us. The sneak along and have some else hold an ambush spot. The rest see the rogue about to be sacrifised and send on back to bring the party quickly to help take out the cult. The undead priest and his minions brought about a TPK that would NOT have occurred if we had just 'reconnoitered in force' like we usually did. Thinking gets you killed more often than not thinking but hitting hard and fast.

 

[Truth Seeker]

It should not be amazing to see the results of this poll...a sure lopsided one at that.

Sometimes, just sometimes...when a player brings an angle that DM did not think about or planned. It can be quite refreshing...bringing a true novice thought to the table.

Hence the term...inspiration.