Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6148957" data-attributes="member: 2303">I agree with this description, but I also get the impression from my players that those who pick martial classes don't want these kinds of tools. They are satisfied to be reactive rather than proactive. I've felt resistance from the players when I tired to put purely narrative tools in PC hands.I wonder if my lack of problems with this is because I don't run sandbox games? At my table, there is generally a problem to solve each sessions, something that I as GM set up for the players to solve. That encourages more reactive play. I allows the players to solve these problems as they choose, keeping the likely spellcaster options at the back of my head when I design/select the adventure. This means that there are some scenarios that simply don't work at my table past a certain level - a story based on the PCs inability to fly won't work past level 5 with a wizard in the party, and so on. But in general, PCs are reactive, not proactive - and martial characters are usually great at being reactive - defending themselves when attacked, investigating, pursuing villains.Abilities like these might work, but I also find that my players enjoy the role-playing involved in rallying the villagers. And also that (in DnD at least) they don't want the villagers involved, fearing excessive noncombatant casualties.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes, my players are the kind that wouldn't use nature's ally spells until I ruled that the summoned animals were not real, live animals but spirit animals summoned from some otherworldly place, and never hurt at all by being summoned (and killed).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starfox, post: 6148957, member: 2303"] I agree with this description, but I also get the impression from my players that those who pick martial classes don't want these kinds of tools. They are satisfied to be reactive rather than proactive. I've felt resistance from the players when I tired to put purely narrative tools in PC hands. I wonder if my lack of problems with this is because I don't run sandbox games? At my table, there is generally a problem to solve each sessions, something that I as GM set up for the players to solve. That encourages more reactive play. I allows the players to solve these problems as they choose, keeping the likely spellcaster options at the back of my head when I design/select the adventure. This means that there are some scenarios that simply don't work at my table past a certain level - a story based on the PCs inability to fly won't work past level 5 with a wizard in the party, and so on. But in general, PCs are reactive, not proactive - and martial characters are usually great at being reactive - defending themselves when attacked, investigating, pursuing villains. Abilities like these might work, but I also find that my players [b]enjoy[/b] the role-playing involved in rallying the villagers. And also that (in DnD at least) they don't want the villagers involved, fearing excessive noncombatant casualties. Yes, my players are the kind that wouldn't use [i]nature's ally[/i] spells until I ruled that the summoned animals were not real, live animals but spirit animals summoned from some otherworldly place, and never hurt at all by being summoned (and killed). [/QUOTE]

Verification