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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7929896" data-attributes="member: 23935">I expect it's a combination of perception and an assessment / understanding that the ad hoc nature of the improv allows the GM to adjust the threat level on the fly as opposed to the players managing to "solve" a particularly tough scenario.So if you feel particularly clever because of certain strategems that actually ended up working and let you bypass what appears to be half or more of the defenders in what you thought was a scenario pitting your party's abilities against a static situation then discover it wasn't, you feel cheated.  What appears to have been a success based on brilliant (and typically unorthodox) strategy could just have been handed to you.  Note the 'could'.  Players can never know for sure, but the suspicion is enough to dull the pleasure.The narrative remains the same, but the value of the player's input to its success is called into question.editThe type of player I'm talking about is like The Tactician in Roblin Laws' Types of Gamers:The Tactician is probably a military buff, who wants chances to think his way through complex, realistic problems, usually those of the battlefield. He wants the rules, and your interpretation of them, to jibe with reality as he knows it, or at least to portray an internally consistent, logical world in which the quality of his choices is the biggest determining factor in his success or failure. He may view issues of characterization as a distraction. He becomes annoyed when other players do things which fit their PCs' personalities, but are tactically unsound. To satisfy him, you must provide challenging yet logical obstacles for his character to overcome.</blockquote>

Verification