Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5268599" data-attributes="member: 21169">I'm quite conflicted here. I like the tactical part of the game and, to a lesser extent, the strategic, and I'm down with having to make a decision about when to fight and when to run. When we played 3e D&D, we run away quite a few times, we're definitely not 'no surrender' types.And yet I can totally understand that a player might be very good in a number of ways - nice person, portrays character's personality well, interested in the game world - and yet be terrible at the tactical side of things. And I can understand players wanting to be big damn heroes. Like the heroes in fiction, they take on impossible odds all the time, and triumph. Or even if they fail, the last stand, the doomed 'Charge of the Light Brigade', the Alamo, all that stuff, it's pretty darned heroic. Many players might prefer to die a hero than live as a coward.So yeah, as Mallus says, if a normally pro-tactics GM has these types of players, it's a matter of who changes first, isn't it? Does the GM change to accomodate the players or do the players change to accomodate the GM? Either approach is perfectly reasonable imo.</blockquote>