Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="catsclaw" data-source="post: 4831894" data-attributes="member: 59911">Forked from: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4831703" target="_blank"> Different party, same adventure, big variation </a>Sure, but you're the one designing the roller coaster, operating the controls, and manning the concession stands.&nbsp; Really, the one thing you can never say as a judge is &quot;It's out of my control.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;I won't run it that way,&quot; maybe, or &quot;These are the rules I choose to adhere to.&quot;&nbsp; But never &quot;I couldn't change things.&quot;There's a mentality that's handed down from the early days of the hobby which, oddly, both expects the judge to be an impartial arbiter of rules as well as setting them up as an antagonist to the party.&nbsp; This might be called the Tomb of Horrors approach to DMing.&nbsp; The judge designs an adventure full of monsters and traps and treasure, trying to outwit the players and then, when running, steps back and lets the dungeon do the work.&nbsp; You don't make things harder or easier on the fly, you don't tone down undead encounters if the cleric can't make it that week, you don't ease up if there's a new player who does something stupid.&nbsp; It almost has to be that way, because if you're intentionally stacking the deck against the party when you design the dungeon, you need to be able to say you don't have your thumb on the scale when you're running it.There's nothing wrong with that style of game.&nbsp; In fact, I'm prepping a one-shot 4e dungeon crawl using Grimtooth's Traps right now.&nbsp; Characters will die.&nbsp; Horribly and unfairly.&nbsp; I will laugh.But in general, especially for long-running campaigns, I think it's more productive to consider yourself cooperating with the players, not antagonizing them.&nbsp; You're supposed to have fun.&nbsp; Sure, that means fighting tough monsters and risking death--and that has to be a real risk, or it feels cheap--but by the same token you need to make the players feel like they've got a shot.&nbsp; The players are supposed to ultimately win.&nbsp; You can knock them down and beat them with sticks while they're down there, but eventually you have to let them get back up and kick your ass.It's very tempting to &quot;punish&quot; players for making stupid decisions, for attacking rather than retreating when they're outclassed, or for failing to prepare for something they know is coming.&nbsp; But ultimately, that's counterproductive.&nbsp; I'm not sure what I would have done in your situation.&nbsp; Maybe nothing differently.&nbsp; But you could have had it start knocking PCs unconscious; or grab one and fly away; or just had it get bored, kill a couple PCs, call in a bunch of minor creatures to mop up, and leave.&nbsp; The PCs are going to still feel horrible because they lost, but each also provides direction and motivation moving forward.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="catsclaw, post: 4831894, member: 59911"] Forked from: [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4831703] Different party, same adventure, big variation [/url] Sure, but [i]you're[/i] the one designing the roller coaster, operating the controls, and manning the concession stands. Really, the one thing you can never say as a judge is "It's out of my control." "I won't run it that way," maybe, or "These are the rules I choose to adhere to." But never "I couldn't change things." There's a mentality that's handed down from the early days of the hobby which, oddly, both expects the judge to be an impartial arbiter of rules [i]as well[/i] as setting them up as an antagonist to the party. This might be called the [i]Tomb of Horrors[/i] approach to DMing. The judge designs an adventure full of monsters and traps and treasure, trying to outwit the players and then, when running, steps back and lets the dungeon do the work. You don't make things harder or easier on the fly, you don't tone down undead encounters if the cleric can't make it that week, you don't ease up if there's a new player who does something stupid. It almost [i]has[/i] to be that way, because if you're intentionally stacking the deck against the party when you design the dungeon, you need to be able to say you don't have your thumb on the scale when you're running it. There's nothing [i]wrong[/i] with that style of game. In fact, I'm prepping a one-shot 4e dungeon crawl using [i]Grimtooth's Traps[/i] right now. Characters will die. Horribly and unfairly. I will laugh. But in general, especially for long-running campaigns, I think it's more productive to consider yourself cooperating with the players, not antagonizing them. You're supposed to have fun. Sure, that means fighting tough monsters and risking death--and that has to be a real risk, or it feels cheap--but by the same token you need to make the players feel like they've got a shot. The players are [i]supposed[/i] to ultimately win. You can knock them down and beat them with sticks while they're down there, but eventually you have to let them get back up and kick your ass. It's very tempting to "punish" players for making stupid decisions, for attacking rather than retreating when they're outclassed, or for failing to prepare for something they [i]know[/i] is coming. But ultimately, that's counterproductive. I'm not sure what I would have done in your situation. Maybe nothing differently. But you could have had it start knocking PCs unconscious; or grab one and fly away; or just had it get bored, kill a couple PCs, call in a bunch of minor creatures to mop up, and leave. The PCs are going to still feel horrible because they lost, but each also provides direction and motivation moving forward. [/QUOTE]

Verification