Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6177736" data-attributes="member: 2525">Cool.&nbsp; Then we need a really good DMG, to teach DMs how to keep their players entertained, no matter what options they choose for their PCs.&nbsp; That's the only solution to preventing boredom,&nbsp; is good DMing.&nbsp; You can have a game that includes all three aspects, but you can't insist on characters who do all three...because the players who control them may not want to do all three.&nbsp; All you can control is the world...not the players choices.&nbsp; No matter how much you prefer they fight, they may not want to fight.&nbsp; No matter how much you want them to explore, they may not want to explore.&nbsp; No matter how much you want them to engage in a social drama, they may not want to engage in that.&nbsp; There is no way, through the rules, you can make them do any of this.&nbsp; As a role playing game, all you can do as DM is give them opportunities and see what they choose to do with them.ANY character can &quot;contribute&quot; to combat.&nbsp; I gave a example earlier of using a little girl character to contribute as a scout and someone who lures foes into a party ambush.&nbsp; That's contributing...without ANY inherent fighting ability.&nbsp; We're talking about trading an existing combat ability (SA) for a non-combat one.&nbsp; We're not talking about trading an existing non-combat ability for a combat one.&nbsp; Raise the specific issue and we can talk about it.Fortunately they got rid of that sort of mechanical social encounter issue.&nbsp; Now, if the PCs want to engage, even with an 8 charisma, they can still do OK.&nbsp; They have that.&nbsp; Their mouths.&nbsp; The players tell you what their characters do, and you determine what happens based on what they do.&nbsp; It may involve a roll, or an opposed roll, and it may involve circumstance bonuses or penalties based on what they said they did.&nbsp; But nobody is useless in that encounter.Cool. So, what are we debating then?The players need to be inventive enough to figure out how to contribute even without extraordinary tools to do so.&nbsp; They can all hit something with a club or a sling stone.&nbsp; They can all aid another or defend another.&nbsp; They can call distract and lure foes.&nbsp; They can all dump over a barrel of nails or throw caltrops or toss burning oil.&nbsp; Nobody is helpless in combat, even without sneak attack.No.&nbsp; That's an excuse for lazy DMing.&nbsp; You, as DM, need to adapt.&nbsp; Your players need to be inventive.&nbsp; A thief without backstab is not inherently boring in combat.&nbsp; I am cool with an explanation of how it will impact the game (not that exaggerated and misrepresentative one) - but it should be the player's choice to still choose that option if they want to.There is no such issue in play here though.&nbsp; Nobody is saying the rogue can trade their ability to stab with a sword or shoot a short bow.&nbsp; Let's talk about the issue at hand, not an exaggeration for effect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6177736, member: 2525"] Cool. Then we need a really good DMG, to teach DMs how to keep their players entertained, no matter what options they choose for their PCs. That's the only solution to preventing boredom, is good DMing. You can have a game that includes all three aspects, but you can't insist on characters who do all three...because the players who control them may not want to do all three. All you can control is the world...not the players choices. No matter how much you prefer they fight, they may not want to fight. No matter how much you want them to explore, they may not want to explore. No matter how much you want them to engage in a social drama, they may not want to engage in that. There is no way, through the rules, you can make them do any of this. As a role playing game, all you can do as DM is give them opportunities and see what they choose to do with them. ANY character can "contribute" to combat. I gave a example earlier of using a little girl character to contribute as a scout and someone who lures foes into a party ambush. That's contributing...without ANY inherent fighting ability. We're talking about trading an existing combat ability (SA) for a non-combat one. We're not talking about trading an existing non-combat ability for a combat one. Raise the specific issue and we can talk about it. Fortunately they got rid of that sort of mechanical social encounter issue. Now, if the PCs want to engage, even with an 8 charisma, they can still do OK. They have that. Their mouths. The players tell you what their characters do, and you determine what happens based on what they do. It may involve a roll, or an opposed roll, and it may involve circumstance bonuses or penalties based on what they said they did. But nobody is useless in that encounter. Cool. So, what are we debating then? The players need to be inventive enough to figure out how to contribute even without extraordinary tools to do so. They can all hit something with a club or a sling stone. They can all aid another or defend another. They can call distract and lure foes. They can all dump over a barrel of nails or throw caltrops or toss burning oil. Nobody is helpless in combat, even without sneak attack. No. That's an excuse for lazy DMing. You, as DM, need to adapt. Your players need to be inventive. A thief without backstab is not inherently boring in combat. I am cool with an explanation of how it will impact the game (not that exaggerated and misrepresentative one) - but it should be the player's choice to still choose that option if they want to. There is no such issue in play here though. Nobody is saying the rogue can trade their ability to stab with a sword or shoot a short bow. Let's talk about the issue at hand, not an exaggeration for effect. [/QUOTE]

Verification