Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 3378310" data-attributes="member: 8439">I prefer a non-adverserial relationship as well, both as a player and as a DM.It seems to me that the best way to be non-adverserial is to say yes to fun. You say that this campaign is harder than some of the players are used to, but then you deny a feat as too powerful. The message your players may be getting is that you are the one who wants to keep them from "winning" too easily. Sometimes players want to be good at something. Realy really good. And then be allowed to actually do it. Sometimes players want to be ale to set up for a fight and make it a cakewalk through planning, instead of life being an endless cycle of hoping to eliminate the other guys' suprise round. How do you respond to questions in the form of "Is there any way to...?" "Is there an X I can use to...?" "Do we know anyone who could...?" If your response is to check the module and only say yes if its mentioned as a specific possibility, this could be encouraging the adverserial mindset. If they can influence the plot in very small ways (and allowing an idea to be plausible* is a good one, imo) they are more likely to see themselves as partners in the story rather than players trying to beat you.* plausible meaning that the tools needed are at hand, not that it will neccassarily work. If there is an old tapestry to slide down, you still need to make a jump or tumble check to land on your feet.Also, in my expereince, modules lead to adverserial thinking because they are so level based. Sometimes you want to wipe something out to show you now can. And the whole "there is one way to solve this problem and if you try another way it will fail" thing that many have going. (Bastion of Broken Souls, I'm looking at you!)</blockquote>

Verification