Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5726689" data-attributes="member: 46713">I think this discussion isn't going anywhere fast. Claiming objectivity is tricky.I've not yet seen any argument convincing me that arbitrarily restricting options can ever be better than not doing so. So, subjectively, I think, you're wrong <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />You've said it can make a challenge 'harder'. That's true of course. But does it create a 'better' challenge? 'Harder' doesn't equal 'better'. As someone else pointed out, restricting too many options a priori will lead to a game of 'guess what the DM's thinking'.As a DM, if my players come up with a great idea I didn't think of, I'll usually play along unless I feel it will trivialize the challenge.Since I don't absolutely define beforehand that some things are utterly impossible, I never run into the problem that I have to tell them that their cool idea cannot work because I happened to write down that it cannot work.Not restriciting options beforehand gives me the freedom to decide on the spot if it would be better to allow it to (possibly) work or not. Why should I be a slave to things I've written down weeks ago? I'm not writing a novel!I prefer it if nothing is fixed - let the players' actions (and their dice rolls) decide what happens!Is that an objectively better approach than deciding beforehand that some actions cannot work? I don't know, but for me it's preferable.</blockquote>

Verification