Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hafrogman" data-source="post: 5909933" data-attributes="member: 8858">I don't think it takes a &quot;bad&quot; DM to have problems crop up, just one who doesn't quite meet &quot;great&quot;.&nbsp; If you have always played with DMs who can adjust on the fly to rebalance and react to the more or less free-form nature of D&amp;D, then you are indeed lucky.&nbsp; But in my neck of the woods, finding anyone willing to DM at all is a blessing.&nbsp; I wouldn't stay in a game with an antagonistic DM, but I'll stick with a dry or inexperienced DM just so I can keep playing.So anyways, my horror stories aren't DM horror stories, they're just player horror stories.&nbsp; Players who love to role play, and create fun and interesting personalities for their characters.&nbsp; They just happen to be mechanically &quot;flawed&quot; characters as well.&nbsp; And when that happens, when combat crops up, they shut down, become bored, disengaged.&nbsp; And no matter how much or little of the game is spent in combat, having a chunk where players wander off and get distracted because nothing they do has a significant impact isn't good for immersion, the group or the survival of the game.This is why the design principle of &quot;presumed competence&quot; is one that I enjoy.&nbsp; I want a player who prioritizes their character in an entirely flavor-oriented design to be able to meaningfully contribute to every aspect of the game.&nbsp; This means two things to me.&nbsp; One, making sure that every character CAN contribute, and two, making it non-trivial for a broader character to invalidate their contributions.That way, next time my friend wants to make a bard, because she likes the concept, we don't have to gently remind her how frustrated she's always felt in the past when her combat options devolved into &quot;I sing&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hafrogman, post: 5909933, member: 8858"] I don't think it takes a "bad" DM to have problems crop up, just one who doesn't quite meet "great". If you have always played with DMs who can adjust on the fly to rebalance and react to the more or less free-form nature of D&D, then you are indeed lucky. But in my neck of the woods, finding anyone willing to DM at all is a blessing. I wouldn't stay in a game with an antagonistic DM, but I'll stick with a dry or inexperienced DM just so I can keep playing. So anyways, my horror stories aren't DM horror stories, they're just player horror stories. Players who love to role play, and create fun and interesting personalities for their characters. They just happen to be mechanically "flawed" characters as well. And when that happens, when combat crops up, they shut down, become bored, disengaged. And no matter how much or little of the game is spent in combat, having a chunk where players wander off and get distracted because nothing they do has a significant impact isn't good for immersion, the group or the survival of the game. This is why the design principle of "presumed competence" is one that I enjoy. I want a player who prioritizes their character in an entirely flavor-oriented design to be able to [U]meaningfully[/U] contribute to every aspect of the game. This means two things to me. One, making sure that every character CAN contribute, and two, making it non-trivial for a broader character to invalidate their contributions. That way, next time my friend wants to make a bard, because she likes the concept, we don't have to gently remind her how frustrated she's always felt in the past when her combat options devolved into "I sing". [/QUOTE]

Verification