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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2963175" data-attributes="member: 6777">Hmm...I think it can depend on what you mean when you say a player "doesn't like" what's happening. I.e., I think there's a difference between the player who is simply not mature enough to deal with adversity and challenge (the classic "I want to win all the time!") and the player who is either uncomfortable or uninterested in what's happening to his PC in-game.The former case isn't relevant to the discussion, IMO, because this is just someone you need to boot from the table.In the latter case, if you, as their DM, are forcing them down a path—be it one filled with adversity OR even ample reward—that they are not genuinely enjoying, then we may very well be talking "railroad."E.g., throwing a CR20 red dragon at a 1st-level party may be entirely justified by the setting ("Hey, dragons live around here, okay?"), and may even help you get the party to some sort of desired, dramatic follow-up scene. Unfortunately, it also completely negates their ability to act; the challenge is unfair and the outcome is inevitable. Even for players who had dragon-hunting as a goal for their PCs are going to feel cheated.However, throwing a more appriopriate, young CR3 dragon at the same group gives them a chance to strut their stuff. They may very well die in the process, but at least it'll be a good fight that likely could have gone either way.The former is adversity in the basest sense; it's the DM asserting his alpha-dominance at the player's expense. The latter is the kind of adversity that builds character (literally, in D&D's case). I think players should be allowed to let you know whether they feel they're on the business end of one or the other.</blockquote>

Verification