Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7165705" data-attributes="member: 6785785">The two camps that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] was speaking about were those who prefer to play in a tactical manner, such as you, and those that enjoy "escapist roleplaying". This wasn't necessarily about changing content or not. And I don't see why people can't view the game as a tactical game, and also as escapist roleplay. I feel like my game incorporates both.Meh, agency is being "tainted" either way. Sure, you can say that a DM making content up on the fly could minimize the PCs' agency. I don't think that it must do so, but it certainly could. But your style is no less guilty. They must proceed in the manner expected by your pre-written adventure. That is a limitation on their agency. Now, your players may not mind it at all, so it may not be an issue for your group, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it. This is why I think that games can utilize elements of both styles. Why can't they? I mean, I can design an adventure with a linear section followed by a sandbox section pretty easily.....let's say they have to take a road to get to the "lost valley". The road is linear, the valley is an open environment. I think there are so many examples of this that I cannot even really understand your insistence that they cannot coexist.Okay....but have you not ever made a mistake in what you've prepared? What if you realize that you have made an encounter that is unintentionally far too challenging? How do you handle that when it happens? Don't get me wrong....I throw encounters that are beyond my PCs from a combat perspective from time to time. But I do it to remind them that sometimes combat is not the answer, and there are always ways past such incredibly difficult combats. But that's a benefit of a more open approach. In a very linear style, it may very well be that there is one route to progress to the next part of the story....and if that one route is blicked by an unintentionally difficult encounter, then the PCs may very well be screwed. As a DM, do you try to correct such a situation or do you just play the villains to the hilt and crush the PCs? So you are willing to adjust encounters based on the prevailing circumstances at the table....how is that really different from what others have said? Do you limit such changes to be based on the number of players only? Are there other factors that may warrant such changes? Do you only allow changes that you've considered and written beforehand? You use the "omniscient DM" comment as a joke a lot....but it sounds like you must be one in order to never make a mistake along these lines....I find it interesting that you delegate to a player for rulings. I don't think there's anything wrong with that....but since I've seen you question a DM's impartiality, I am surprised to see you rely on a players impartiality for rulings. Surely if a player can be impartial, so can a DM, no?</blockquote>

Verification