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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ShinHakkaider" data-source="post: 2960573" data-attributes="member: 9213">I don't consider it an affront to my gaming style. What I do have a problem with is people saying that X or Y WILL improve your game, when I've pretty much stated that I've tried X or Y in the past and it hasnt really worked for myself or many of my groups. My players like focus they like to know where they are going. Putting lots of things for them to do on the map is great, but then What to do? They can spend HOURS sometimes entire sessions trying to figure out what to do and then you know what? NOBODY ACTUALLY GETS TO PLAY. In a scenario like that, If I as a DM take control of the situation and start nudging them in a general direction it might be percieved as "railroading" and then I'll be forced to summon C'thulhu to consume my players and then finally my own frail sanity. Fortunately, my players dont mind the nudging, so no C'thulhu for them. But you lot however...Wow, youre really reliant on the actual system to do everything that an actual half decent DM could pull off in his sleep. Youre right most parties dont know the relative toughness of a monster. But as a DM part of your job is to frame the world that exists around the players. They should know that the area to the north where the HILL GIANTS are at constant skirmish with the Korchac Barbarian Tribes is a DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE. Any group that doesnt at least ask questions about an area that they are going to venture to is asking for trouble. When they ask you either tell them through RUMOR or through people  who have actually been there or through history or whatever means that you can that this area might be a little over the heads of some Novice adventurers. I really dont understand how this is a hard concept to grasp. Once again it's nitpicking details that usually get worked out at the actual table, during actual play, not discussions on theory. Once again this is all handled IN GAME. There are any number of ways to address these things. In fact I dont see any problem with the first thing that you mentioned (not using literal signposts, but dropping little hints that this might not be an area that they want to be in). One of the things that I did waaaaay back in second editon was have the PC's have a freindly rivalry with 2 or 3 different groups of adventuring groups, some higher level and some lower level. I had them witness, from a distance of course one such group get taken apart by  a threat that would have been too tough for the PC's. How did they know that, because the PC's knew that the other group was more experienced and tougher than they were. So they knew that proceeding would have spelt the end for them. Like I said, most thinking DM's have ways to communicate information to thier PC's that work within the context of the world that they are playing in. That much is NOT in the ruleset and is handled by the DM. How is this metagamey and Elminster like? You seek to limit the scope of an argument by using an archtype (the mentor) and then calling it metagamey? Seriously D00d, if the PC's do have a mentor, to you presume that the mentor has no other sources of information? The mentor has no idea what the PC's may or may not be able to handle? No idea that once again the PC's may or may not be the only adventurers who may want to attempt to enter the Marshes of Certain Doom and that a reasonably powerful group of adventurers entered there last month and NEVER RETURNED. Or is using his own resources to investigate the threat him/herself and gauge when the PC's might be able to interceed? If all of that is metagamey then I might have misunderstood what metagaming is....D00d, isnt what you just described metagaming?</blockquote>

Verification