Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1511897" data-attributes="member: 5171">I think that there are two very different aspects of DMing -- Game Preparation and Game Execution.Some DMs are out to beat the PCs in Game Preparation (&quot;Aha, THIS will throw them for a loop!&nbsp; They can't even hit this with their best weapons!&quot;) but then turn into softies for the Execution, offering lots of ways out and chances to work around things.&nbsp; Other DMs are pretty general in Game Preparatoin but then turn into death machines for Execution (&quot;Well, you're here and here and here, so a fireball, followed by Black Tentacles, followed by flanking here and here, and I can kill everyone in two rouns!&quot;).Either type can be good or bad -- it depends on how well it's done in each case.&nbsp; One of my fellow RBDMs swears by &quot;Make a killer encounter, but then allow the PCs to succeed when they try to work around it,&quot; and it seems to work really really well.&nbsp; When I've tried it that way, my players have gotten unhappy with me, saying I was just negating any real chance of legitimate victory and forcing things into a &quot;DM lets us win&quot; category.&nbsp; That's probably because I wasn't doing it very well.&nbsp; The other end, playing an encounter hard and trying hard to defeat the PCs, is also good -- but if you're doing that, you shouldn't also be planning a tough encounter.&nbsp; After all, you wouldn't want to play in a wargame against someone who got to decide what the terrain looked like, what forces you had, what forces he had, and who could come up with rules on the fly to nerf many of your abilities, would you?&nbsp; I wouldn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takyris, post: 1511897, member: 5171"] I think that there are two very different aspects of DMing -- Game Preparation and Game Execution. Some DMs are out to beat the PCs in Game Preparation ("Aha, THIS will throw them for a loop! They can't even hit this with their best weapons!") but then turn into softies for the Execution, offering lots of ways out and chances to work around things. Other DMs are pretty general in Game Preparatoin but then turn into death machines for Execution ("Well, you're here and here and here, so a fireball, followed by Black Tentacles, followed by flanking here and here, and I can kill everyone in two rouns!"). Either type can be good or bad -- it depends on how well it's done in each case. One of my fellow RBDMs swears by "Make a killer encounter, but then allow the PCs to succeed when they try to work around it," and it seems to work really really well. When I've tried it that way, my players have gotten unhappy with me, saying I was just negating any real chance of legitimate victory and forcing things into a "DM lets us win" category. That's probably because I wasn't doing it very well. The other end, playing an encounter hard and trying hard to defeat the PCs, is also good -- but if you're doing that, you shouldn't also be planning a tough encounter. After all, you wouldn't want to play in a wargame against someone who got to decide what the terrain looked like, what forces you had, what forces he had, and who could come up with rules on the fly to nerf many of your abilities, would you? I wouldn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification