Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 8586687" data-attributes="member: 7635">I think equal blame can be put here on DMs who didn't allow &quot;clever play&quot; to work. The idea that monsters are automatically hostile, wise to simple cons and tricks, fight to the death, and unwaveringly loyal didn't emerge from thin air. If negotiations always end in combat, if stealth is always going to fail to a multitude of repeated checks (and they were always stacked against the PCs success; you might roll a dozen rolls to succeed, but fail one and you're noticed), then what is the point? Kick down the door!I'm pretty sure many modules further reinforced the notion of killing everything in the dungeon as the primary method of play as well. Some of those old modules were heavy on the unavoidable encounters. So I think that it cut both ways. Smart play is something you reward with success, and the more a DM attempts to stymie it, the less likely players will go to that option.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 8586687, member: 7635"] I think equal blame can be put here on DMs who didn't allow "clever play" to work. The idea that monsters are automatically hostile, wise to simple cons and tricks, fight to the death, and unwaveringly loyal didn't emerge from thin air. If negotiations always end in combat, if stealth is always going to fail to a multitude of repeated checks (and they were always stacked against the PCs success; you might roll a dozen rolls to succeed, but fail one and you're noticed), then what is the point? Kick down the door! I'm pretty sure many modules further reinforced the notion of killing everything in the dungeon as the primary method of play as well. Some of those old modules were heavy on the unavoidable encounters. So I think that it cut both ways. Smart play is something you reward with success, and the more a DM attempts to stymie it, the less likely players will go to that option. [/QUOTE]

Verification