Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6294611" data-attributes="member: 7006">Personally... I think the entire issue comes down to one thing-- how supportive or how much of a jerk is the DM being?The DM controls the pace of the game.&nbsp; Anything that happens (especially related to combat) is under his purview.&nbsp; The DM decides just how much stuff to throw at the PCs, and he/she knows whether or not they are or are not equipt to handle it.&nbsp; If the party is without a caster who has a Cure Wounds spell... the DM knows this.&nbsp; And the DM decides just how much healing is necesary for the group to have, for the pace which the group travels at.The DM can literally do anything to make sure the group is capable to adventure at the pace the DM is setting for them.&nbsp; Adjust the 'healing during rest' modules.&nbsp; Hand out more potions of healing.&nbsp; Allow non-magical healing.&nbsp; Throw less damaging enemies at them.&nbsp; Change the adventure pace so that natural healing is all that is needed.&nbsp; That's *all* up to the DM.&nbsp; He knows how he'd like the adventures to flow, and he can facilitate it himself... all without forcing the players into positions they might not care to take.But too often, I think some DMs get into the mindset of &quot;Here's how my campaign works and I ain't deviating from it... so if you players don't set yourselves up in an optimal situation to deal with it, that's YOUR problem!&quot;&nbsp; As a result, the players feel guilted into making sure someone runs a Cleric, because they know full well the DM isn't going to change things and will kick the crap out of them if they don't.&nbsp; The DM doesn't specifically SAY they need to have a Cleric... but it sure as hell is implied if they have any hope to play and not get killed.&nbsp; So someone ends up feeling &quot;forced&quot; to play the Cleric and they take one for the team so the team can actually play.Which to me, is the exact opposite of what a DM should be doing.&nbsp; Forcing players to play characters they don't want, all because you have some grand ideas about how &quot;your world&quot; works that you are unwilling to bend a little bit on.&nbsp; To me, that's a rather icky attitude to have-- that the essence of your campaign world is sacrosanct and it's up to the players to adjust to you.&nbsp; If that's the case... then why bother having other people play in your world to begin with if you're unwilling to facilitate it?&nbsp; And bending their desires to your will because your world is more important than their enjoyment is not something I feel Wizards needs to go out of their way to condone by how they design the game.&nbsp; As an option?&nbsp; Absolutely.&nbsp; But a requirement?&nbsp; Hopefully not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6294611, member: 7006"] Personally... I think the entire issue comes down to one thing-- how supportive or how much of a jerk is the DM being? The DM controls the pace of the game. Anything that happens (especially related to combat) is under his purview. The DM decides just how much stuff to throw at the PCs, and he/she knows whether or not they are or are not equipt to handle it. If the party is without a caster who has a Cure Wounds spell... the DM knows this. And the DM decides just how much healing is necesary for the group to have, for the pace which the group travels at. The DM can literally do anything to make sure the group is capable to adventure at the pace the DM is setting for them. Adjust the 'healing during rest' modules. Hand out more potions of healing. Allow non-magical healing. Throw less damaging enemies at them. Change the adventure pace so that natural healing is all that is needed. That's *all* up to the DM. He knows how he'd like the adventures to flow, and he can facilitate it himself... all without forcing the players into positions they might not care to take. But too often, I think some DMs get into the mindset of "Here's how my campaign works and I ain't deviating from it... so if you players don't set yourselves up in an optimal situation to deal with it, that's YOUR problem!" As a result, the players feel [I]guilted[/I] into making sure someone runs a Cleric, because they know full well the DM isn't going to change things and will kick the crap out of them if they don't. The DM doesn't specifically SAY they need to have a Cleric... but it sure as hell is implied if they have any hope to play and not get killed. So someone ends up feeling "forced" to play the Cleric and they take one for the team so the team can actually play. Which to me, is the exact opposite of what a DM should be doing. Forcing players to play characters they don't want, all because you have some grand ideas about how "your world" works that you are unwilling to bend a little bit on. To me, that's a rather icky attitude to have-- that the essence of your campaign world is sacrosanct and it's up to the players to adjust [I]to you[/I]. If that's the case... then why bother having other people play in your world to begin with if you're unwilling to facilitate it? And bending their desires to your will because your world is more important than their enjoyment is not something I feel Wizards needs to go out of their way to condone by how they design the game. As an option? Absolutely. But a requirement? Hopefully not. [/QUOTE]

Verification