Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much control do DMs need?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9007811" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>But you recognize that--even for yourself--this is the minority opinion. That, as a rule, players <em>care</em> about trying to do things that are achievable but also which give rewards (XP, loot, holdings, safety, knowledge, what-have-you) fitting the work done. They will not always <em>reach</em> that. In the words of the great philosopher Saxa Voluta, "you don't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need." That this is not always practical does not mean that, in general, they do not care. Pretty consistently, human beings engaged in more or less rational action (not <em>homo economicus</em> nonsense, but practical rationality, <em>phronesis</em> one might call it) will <em>try</em> to do things that they believe are possible, if sometimes difficult, and which give rewards worth the work.</p><p></p><p>Hence, the players themselves will--in general--<em>self-select</em> for things that are very roughly appropriate to their level, when they are able to select at all. Sometimes they can't select in the first place. Even when they can, there will always be variation, and that is okay. My problem is in decrying the very possibility <em>that</em> the GM can make solid (not perfect) predictions about whether and to what degree the forces they go against will be threatening to them. A well-constructed encounter-building system gives you a good idea, but never a perfect one, of what the opposition is capable of and how that matches the PCs. That's balance--<em>even if it means there are fights the party essentially cannot win</em>. Even if it means fights the party is essentially guaranteed to win! Balance is in the <em>knowing</em>, not in the perfect lockstep matching. But of course, whenever anyone criticizes it, they always hold up the infuriating straw-man effigy of "who wants dull, lifeless combats that are always perfectly calibrated to match the party? Certainly not me!"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9007811, member: 6790260"] But you recognize that--even for yourself--this is the minority opinion. That, as a rule, players [I]care[/I] about trying to do things that are achievable but also which give rewards (XP, loot, holdings, safety, knowledge, what-have-you) fitting the work done. They will not always [I]reach[/I] that. In the words of the great philosopher Saxa Voluta, "you don't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need." That this is not always practical does not mean that, in general, they do not care. Pretty consistently, human beings engaged in more or less rational action (not [I]homo economicus[/I] nonsense, but practical rationality, [I]phronesis[/I] one might call it) will [I]try[/I] to do things that they believe are possible, if sometimes difficult, and which give rewards worth the work. Hence, the players themselves will--in general--[I]self-select[/I] for things that are very roughly appropriate to their level, when they are able to select at all. Sometimes they can't select in the first place. Even when they can, there will always be variation, and that is okay. My problem is in decrying the very possibility [I]that[/I] the GM can make solid (not perfect) predictions about whether and to what degree the forces they go against will be threatening to them. A well-constructed encounter-building system gives you a good idea, but never a perfect one, of what the opposition is capable of and how that matches the PCs. That's balance--[I]even if it means there are fights the party essentially cannot win[/I]. Even if it means fights the party is essentially guaranteed to win! Balance is in the [I]knowing[/I], not in the perfect lockstep matching. But of course, whenever anyone criticizes it, they always hold up the infuriating straw-man effigy of "who wants dull, lifeless combats that are always perfectly calibrated to match the party? Certainly not me!" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much control do DMs need?
Top