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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cyronax" data-source="post: 4112820" data-attributes="member: 822">I don't know if I understand this point. Sticking within the CR system is supposed to give the PCs a better chance of winning than making them face something higher. Of course there are very different playing styles. I may be at an extreme end of the spectrum. Some past players have said as much, but I think I've had more success as a DM then displeasure with the following method of running a campaign:1) after extensive experiences with building a campaign around a story idea, I realized that myself and the players felt railroaded by events. 2) upon realizing this, I switched to the a method that has actually led to fewer player character deaths than I thought probable in a game like D&D. 3) essentially, I explicitly told my players that I have no dog in the race. I built a detailed campaign world in which they could aid in development through early, detailed character backgrounds. 4) For my part I did create a wide array of NPCs that each had their own agendas. I also built the world to account for Good's ability to on occaision tolerate certain strands of Evil. (Essentially Good plus LE and a greedy NE types saw it to be more beneficial to help fight off CE, which would ruin everyone's party). 5) The PCs then would grope around the world for stuff to do. They can do whatever they want, and its their's to suffer the benefits or negative consequences. They have gone off on several wild tangents that I didn't expect, but its increased their buy and made the game feel more real. 6) In the end, I also explicitly told the players that by and large, any ruling I hand down will probably be in their favor. They just need to know that with this method, they do have the potential to sometimes face foes wildly above their level. In those cases (in which I often throw up a few hints) they should remember that RUN is always an option. 7) And yes it was a lot of work for prep time and ad hoc unexpected PC-chosen paths. IMO that's the type of objective-reality-fantasy that allows for truly surprising and satisfying outcomes. It helps me feel like I'm a player to in many respects. I forced myself to not have a 'favorite' NPC, and just contented myself to playing NPCs with their own well thought out agendas that sometimes ends up helping the party. More than one session has ended with the party convincing a somewhat hostile group that inmity was not necessary (and of course they got proper XP for overcoming the encounter).Anyway ..... a dissertation length way of saying, I look forward to 4e making monster design less time consuming, but I do like having published adventures have a select set of DCs for specific skill checks in order for (non-combat) success. I don't like the idea of all skills being equally valid ..... in every situation.C.I.D.</blockquote>

Verification