Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grydan" data-source="post: 5833878" data-attributes="member: 79401">I would posit that the mixture of pillars is determined by the players to the extent that the DM allows it.If the DM wants an event to happen, it happens. All they have to do is say so.If the DM wants your Orc scenario to result in a combat scene, then attempts at negotiation are refused (blatant rejection) or break down in progress and result in the orcs attacking over the negotiating table (more subtle).If the DM wants to avoid combat, the orcs can go out of their way to avoid every attempt by the PCs to engage, or be described as travelling in sufficiently large and powerful bands as to make direct combat a suicide mission.If the DM wants to avoid the infiltration/assassination, the orc camp might be described in such a way that infiltration is clearly non-viable, or more subtly, allow infiltration but have it inevitably end in discovery (leading either to capture and negotiation, or combat).If the DM has spent a good deal of effort setting up for one of those options, chances are they're going to attempt to guide the players into it, whether blatantly or subtly.Do all DMs do this? No. Do many DMs do this, to some varying extent? Certainly. It can be taken too far, and lead to railroads where the players don't have real choices, in which case the players will revolt to some degree or another, which brings up the corollary to my first statement:DMs control the mixture of the pillars to the extent that the players allow them to.---Regardless, say we grant your position that the players determine the mixture. What does that resolve when it comes to the balance issue?The players aren't all going to be playing the same class, in most cases. So there's not going to be one mixture that's "right" for all of their characters, unless all of their characters are viable in all mixes.</blockquote>

Verification