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="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 2740089" data-attributes="member: 11300">Hi Kahuna Burger,The key to taking this route or approach is communication. This means not only the words you speak but the actions and body language that you convey. When done well, the players become completely submersed in what you are describing. When done poorly, it is as Peter Gibbons said, hiding the ball rather than playing hardball. A game of "guess what's in the DM's head" would be terrible to play in. It all comes down to the skill of the DM to communicate as well as the players to roleplay their characters.Rather than thinking "I've just taken 5hp of damage and am now nauseated", they're thinking about the burning streaks of acid across their skin from the beetles inside their armor as well as the dozen or so acid beetles that they are trying to vomit loose from their mouth. Would you try to cast a spell under these conditions? Would you try and get out of the swarm? It all depends on the character and for example if they had experienced a swarm before. If the player understands what's going on, then they will roleplay their character appropriately. Whether this is sub-optimal or not is neither here nor there. Some players though are conditioned to always try to do the most "optimal" thing. It is this that slows the game down and wastes time, not the DM's description.In terms of opponents making genuine and realistic mistakes, it all depends. Different opponents have different motivations and it is this that I try to get across when I DM. For example, a hungry wolf will charge in to try and take a chunk out of a PC, tripping them up in the process. A wolf defending it's territory might hang back growling readying an action to attack. If the mage then blasts the wolf with magic or fire, the wolf will most likely run away. As such, I try to roleplay the enemies as best as I can. This is not about deliberately "making mistakes" but conveying motivations. If in the heat of battle it is appropriate for an enemy to make a non-optimal decision then cool, that's what happens. My players generally find though that my main antagonists tend to "not" make mistakes. My players are exceptionally good themselves though so heh... it balances out nicely and everyone enjoys themselves.As for your implication of adversarial DMing, what is adversarial DMing? Is it more the DM not wanting to "lose"? Is it the DM "cheating" so that they don't lose? Is it the DM deliberately making things difficult for the players through lack of communication? These are more elements of poor DMing rather than "adversarial" DMing.I conceive of adversarial DMing as more roleplaying your NPCs and enemies through their abilities and motivations. This generally means that yes, you are opposing the PCs and "trying" to defeat them. If this roleplaying means reflecting hatred (coup de gracing a downed PC at risk of giving away an AoO) then so be it. The players will understand that if one of their group goes down, protect them as best as you can or they will certainly be dead. To be honest, if I had an enemy like this and I did not roleplay them this way, then I would feel I had done my players a disservice. A dangerous opponent is not just someone who has big plusses or flashy magic. An opponent who really wants you dead and will do anything and everything possible to accomplish it should be far more frightening for the players. As long as the players are under no false illusions of how the game will be played, then I see no issue at all in this style of gameplay. It is not for everyone, but neither is it an invalid approach.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification