Do you reequire your players to think?

[JediSoth]

I require them to think and a lot of times the majority of them disappoint me. I used to throw them a bone everyone in a while, but by they time they got to region I of the World's Largest Dungeon I just decided to let the dice fall where they may and if they can't find something or figure something out, tough cookies (they're 8th and 9th level and the highest anyone can manage on an unassisted search is 28. Disable Device is even lower).

JediSoth

 

[The_Gneech]

I'm not sure that "require" is the right term for it ... I certainly try to set up situations where a little thought will make life much easier, tho.

Chances are, if the characters went in to most of my scenarios with both barrels blazing, they'd be just as effective -- they'd just take more of a pounding themselves in the process.

-The Gneech

 

[Greywarden]

I do not require them to think, but they understand that stupidity can be fatal.

 

[BlackSilver]

Most of my Players don't like puzzles, but they like mysteries, and they like tactical situations.

It is a challenge to me to some times to keep pace with them. Thankfully they do all their planning right there in front of me so it makes it a bit easier for me not to get side swiped by their planning.

Smart Players need to have smart campaigns. Hope I am keeping pace guys.

 

[genshou]

There is this wonderful art that is called tactics. Characters who don't use it in my games find themselves quite dead. Players who never use it find themselves frustrated at first, but it is curable I've found. Usually I have to first teach them to play chess, and since I'm no good at the game...

 

[shaylon]

I think it is important to have players think in a game. It is part of the game, a big part IMO.

That said sometimes people are too tired to think, not smart enough to figure it out, or just plain bored with thinking and want action in a game. If you judge your players right on those nights then you should curb the thinking aspect, or at least dumb it down.

Too many times have I seen a group sitting around for twenty minutes not saying anything. Myself included.

-Shay

 

[was]

I'm always throwing puzzles/traps/situations at my players to keep them mentally on their toes.

 

[Corinth]

Think or die. No Saving Throw.

 

[Mercule]

I voted "yes", but it's a soft yes. Things go much smoother when they think. I never assume that I haven't been too "cute" for my own good, though, and try to give them an out.

As to rules: You'd better believe it. They are responsible for at least understanding what their character can do. They've got just as much access to books as I do, and are in a similar income bracket (for purchasing books). IMO, it's inexcusible for them to expect me to know more about their dozen or so abilities than they do. Especially not when I have to figure out the other 2400 pages of rules at use at the table. Questions on specific applications and/or how I'd rule a tricky issue are fine. Asking me whether the spell they just cast allows a save is not.

Also, my game is deviant enough (UA spell points, classes from the "Complete" series, etc.) that it is officially unsupported by any of the character generation tools out there. I don't see how calculating a single character by hand is that bad.

 

[Rassilon]

"The only reason that we ever succeed in your adventures is that the villains over-estimate how smart we are and under-estimate how dangerous we are."

The above has nothing to do with my point really, but it is so beautiful . . .

I voted "Yes" but I'm not sure if I do or not, or if I should or not. Beware: the following involves me delving into my gaming philosophy:

Excluding uninteresting cases such as 'thinking' = know own bonuses and abilities, of course I do.

The issue is real world vs. game world understanding. In my current game I assigned an investigation adventure to a group that is not optimised for such things, but are still okay at it. They spent months (game time) running around - they may say that I made them think, and too much! They could not find a direction or plan, and their fun was being reduced as a result (frustration). Now part of a good adventure is fun, not just thinking exactly as your DM does - so I nudged the adventure, an NPC turned up to help (but not takeover, d. ex. mach. BAD) and on we go. SO in this I didn't expect them to think, I provided a partial solution when they were unable to find one.

BUT: I think this is a good thing. Whilst it may have been once of those legendary adventures if they had solved it all themselves, enforcing thinking was getting boring, or in other words, they were thinking, just not in the same way as I was.

This is where Skill Checks are such a fabulous addition to 3.x. The situation I try to avoid is like the following: In a game where I play, our guys caused a massive black dragon to flee, who then went and destroyed the town that we were trying to save. No player had ever thought that this might be the case, though to the DM, it did in fact make perfect sense. Anyone should realise that powerful evil will trey to extract vengence if it can't obtain victory.

Not unreasonable, but as a simple fact it is not always possible for every person playing an entirely imaginary game to have the same thinking - hence skill checks. The DM is a great DM, and I love the campaign, but a K:Arcana check to remove the 'thinking' component even just enough for the DM to say "the dragon will seek revenge against an easier target" puts the players in a better position to come to the same conclusion as the DM. The increased responsibilty would make saving the town a true accomplishment, or alternatively a greater tragedy that we felt we were responsible for, rather than just feeling "shafted".

Rassilon.