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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 2752686" data-attributes="member: 812">Sigh. No, I'm not.I'm observing that fun comes from overcoming challenges. Obviously everyone has their own threshold of how difficult a challenge needs to be before frustration overwhelms enjoyment.Okay, maybe it's not so obvious, since this conversation continues. So I'll say it clearly:Everyone has their own threshold of how difficult a challenge needs to be before frustration overwhelms enjoyment.In addition, everyone has their own ideas as to what constitute reasonable challenges.Finally, being challenged as to your ideas on challenges isn't ALWAYS a bad thing.All that said, a game will be fun to the extent that the DM is able to provide the players with sorts and degree of challenges they find fun.The players' assumptions about sorts and degrees can be wrong, as can the DM's, of course.Only different.But I agree, it's important for DM and players to have some common ground as to what sort of game they want to play. I even said so earlier in this thread, so it's nice we agree on that.Okay, I'll admit that the type of game you're defining as "open" exists. And if you want to use the term "open-ended" to describe it, that's fine with me. I don't consider the word "closed" very suitable to describe my games, since I literally have NO IDEA what direction they're going to go in.I know what the NPCs are doing (or at least what they're PLANNING to do), and I know what crazy "acts of god" events I intend to introduce, but what will happen as a result? No idea whatsoever.I think you're missing the point here. Your definition of "poor tactics" is not necessarily going to be the same as anyone else's. I think it's reasonable to say that in a, say, urban mystery game, that deciding who to talk to and what to ask them is part of the tactics the party must employ. So if they decide to talk to somebody who doesn't know anything, they could be reasonably accused of employing poor tactics, and thus their lack of success is appropriate, as opposed to a failure of the DM or evidence of some very different "type" of game. It's just a question of what you consider tactics and what you consider necessary story development, and everyone is going to place that line differently.Like I said. Except that obviously it's NOT so obvious, since you keep missing it.It seems like we agree, pretty much, and I bet that you'd frickin LOVE my games, Bastoche. I don't just sit there like a lump letting the PCs waste their time, nor do I give them every little thing their cold hearts desire. They struggle and they get cranky at times, but they cheer like mad when things turn out and they have a great sense of accomplishment in the end.I think you're assuming I'm a DM like the one you're currently saddled with, who sounds to me like a crappy DM -- mainly because he runs sessions his players find boring. I don't know of any other criteria for determining how good or bad a DM is.</blockquote>

Verification