Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5727257" data-attributes="member: 48965">I've already stated that I believe at times it is...  And yet, surprisingly enough there are players that still play 3.0/3.5/PF/etc. with those same rogues... so apparently for some/many your preference is inferior, perhaps they enjoy the intrinsic challenge that limited options in certain situations present. For the purposes of me introducing a complication into an encounter... again your preferences are inferior since they only allow for the possibility that a complication might be introduced. On another note... how does removing a single non-class specific option from one skill challenge in one game of an entire campaign in any way equate to the broad immunities in certain monsters? Again with the extremes huh?    Well since you know and understand it's a preference vs. objective thing... I really don't understand what you are arguing for?   Wrong... just wrong. Do you know how many hints the PC's will need before they figure out who did it? You didn't specify the NPC's they can talk to either.  Can you account for every mode of investigation they will use to garner the clues?    No, you have, like my example earlier, only defined a part of the bigger collaborative effort. Again you're jumping from an NPC murderer and the setting up of clues to knowing exactly how the adventure will run and how the PC's will act... that assumption makes absolutely no sense.  Couldn't this happen if you decide to just make it all up at some point in the adventure... in fact with less time to think everything through I would say it's more likely to happen with your preferred method than in the method that plans things out beforehand.  Well knowing your views I would assume you would use player narrative control and let your PC's fix everything. If I feel it's the right tool for what I am trying to accomplish I would too. But that in no way means it is the correct tool for every campaign/DM/playstyle/player/etc. Of course you know this, as you stated earlier, so it's no need for me to go into depth.  Really you are off on a tangent that is so far from the intial premise of a complication in an encounter that I'm not even sure what you're point is. How do you go from adding the complication of their being no shortest route in a single encounter to an entire adventure written out as a railroad with no other option for the PC's but to do what the DM has predicted they do. Honestly this is getting absurd and I'm not sure if you keep trying to strengthen your position with these extremes because you can't without them or you are unaware that you are doing it... but it makes discussion hard since I'm not advocating extremes for either playstyle but for a GM using either tool at the right time to produce a better game. If that's always letting your players have narrative control for you, great. But I don't think one size fits everyone. Touching on another of your points...I mean honestly, you let your players basically write the scenarios, decide the events and solve them but only if it meets your standard of compelling? So they get to create but only if what they create meets your standard of approval... so you are eliminating options just in the moment. That doesn't seem like the unbridled freedom you seemed to be advocating.   Wait...I thought we were playing a game called D&D... so now we're all authors writing a story? Huh, go figure? On another note... all feedback isn't helpful and you keep glossing over the fact that you are still arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't possible by whether it's "compelling" (whatever that means)to you or not and that your whole argument seems based on taking everything to extremes which I haven't seen anyone but you arguing for.</blockquote>

Verification