Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ladyofdragons" data-source="post: 480999" data-attributes="member: 5718">I&nbsp; have the opposite opinion, I think, if I'm understanding you correctly.&nbsp; I tailor everything for my players.&nbsp; If I'm using a Dungeon adventure, I look at the challenges and make sure I think they're a match to the party.&nbsp; if not, I beef them up!&nbsp; If I don't think the party's ready for an adventure yet, I just put it off until they are.&nbsp; If I'm designing from scratch, of course I tailor it for the party I'm writing it for!&nbsp; if I didn't that'd be silly.&nbsp; Why go through all the trouble of writing an adventure for someone else's group?&nbsp; Then again, I've never ever run a pre-generated adventure path like WotC's.&nbsp; Personally I prefer a campaign that is built around the characters, where each new story arc is built on events that have gone in the previous, using a combination of both purchased and personally written adventures.&nbsp; But that's just me.But, getting back to the original question, I guess it depends on whether you run a roleplay-oriented or action-oriented campaign.&nbsp; Action-oriented campaigns with less emphasis on roleplay make it easier to juggle two characters.&nbsp; I personally don't like playing two characters, it makes it so you can't give the amount of attention to each character that they deserve.&nbsp; Our long-running campaign has one player who has two characters, and it is confusing and makes it very difficult to interact with him when he's trying to hold two conversations at once with two very differing opinions (one character is a dwarven fighter, the other a rogue).&nbsp; Once when his rogue character got a throat injury, he had to make signs to hold up so we knew who was talking since his sore throat voice sounded very much like his dwarf voice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ladyofdragons, post: 480999, member: 5718"] I have the opposite opinion, I think, if I'm understanding you correctly. I tailor everything for my players. If I'm using a Dungeon adventure, I look at the challenges and make sure I think they're a match to the party. if not, I beef them up! If I don't think the party's ready for an adventure yet, I just put it off until they are. If I'm designing from scratch, of course I tailor it for the party I'm writing it for! if I didn't that'd be silly. Why go through all the trouble of writing an adventure for someone else's group? Then again, I've never ever run a pre-generated adventure path like WotC's. Personally I prefer a campaign that is built around the characters, where each new story arc is built on events that have gone in the previous, using a combination of both purchased and personally written adventures. But that's just me. But, getting back to the original question, I guess it depends on whether you run a roleplay-oriented or action-oriented campaign. Action-oriented campaigns with less emphasis on roleplay make it easier to juggle two characters. I personally don't like playing two characters, it makes it so you can't give the amount of attention to each character that they deserve. Our long-running campaign has one player who has two characters, and it is confusing and makes it very difficult to interact with him when he's trying to hold two conversations at once with two very differing opinions (one character is a dwarven fighter, the other a rogue). Once when his rogue character got a throat injury, he had to make signs to hold up so we knew who was talking since his sore throat voice sounded very much like his dwarf voice. [/QUOTE]

Verification