Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6594189" data-attributes="member: 2011">Probably not. I just dislike a game where the DM fudges the most logical decisions/actions of the NPCs to allow an excessively lopsided NPC advantage become a disadvantage and protect the PCs.I guess my understanding of the two was closer to:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles" target="_blank">Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&amp;D Play Styles...</a>Our fights are not always between two roughly evenly matched sides.And the fight you described was not a one-sided massacre for the PCs based on their brilliant plans. It was a &quot;I'll make it look like a tough fight, but in reality as the DM, I'm not going to really do that&quot;. It sounds like you might be playing a third style or a modified CaW.And quite frankly, I think that the tables I've been at often have a little bit of both of the CaS and CaW styles. The 12 on 6 fight I mentioned earlier was the party knowing that there was a large enemy force nearby, so we wiped out a small group of the enemy in a side camp and set up an ambush (with traps and plans and such), waiting for when reinforcements would show up to investigate why the side camp wasn't sending back reports (we even had fake letters created so that if we had to abandon the side camp, the NPCs might be misled to our future intentions). The reinforcements, though, were really tough. It wasn't us winning because the DM thought we came up with a great plan and the DM did not hold our hands on it. The entire intent of our plan was to whittle down the large force and to trick them into sending out groups to look for us where we would not be. It was not a &quot;just go in and fight a basically even set of foes once initiative is rolled situation&quot;.One comment that I found amusing from that thread was:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 6594189, member: 2011"] Probably not. I just dislike a game where the DM fudges the most logical decisions/actions of the NPCs to allow an excessively lopsided NPC advantage become a disadvantage and protect the PCs. I guess my understanding of the two was closer to: [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles]Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...[/url] Our fights are not always between two roughly evenly matched sides. And the fight you described was not a one-sided massacre for the PCs based on their brilliant plans. It was a "I'll make it look like a tough fight, but in reality as the DM, I'm not going to really do that". It sounds like you might be playing a third style or a modified CaW. And quite frankly, I think that the tables I've been at often have a little bit of both of the CaS and CaW styles. The 12 on 6 fight I mentioned earlier was the party knowing that there was a large enemy force nearby, so we wiped out a small group of the enemy in a side camp and set up an ambush (with traps and plans and such), waiting for when reinforcements would show up to investigate why the side camp wasn't sending back reports (we even had fake letters created so that if we had to abandon the side camp, the NPCs might be misled to our future intentions). The reinforcements, though, were really tough. It wasn't us winning because the DM thought we came up with a great plan and the DM did not hold our hands on it. The entire intent of our plan was to whittle down the large force and to trick them into sending out groups to look for us where we would not be. It was not a "just go in and fight a basically even set of foes once initiative is rolled situation". One comment that I found amusing from that thread was: [/QUOTE]

Verification