Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6177278" data-attributes="member: 17106">The advantage of this approach is speed.The classic statement about inaccuracies is movies is "if the audience is paying attention to the plot holes, your movie has failed to be interesting". D&D is much the same. If the player is worried about where the obstacles are, the combat is not interesting enough.I find the best approach to these types of things is to focus on what the player can do rather than what he can't. If there's an obstacle, come up with the plan of attack for going around it in a couple of rounds. If the player asks whether he can bypass it, either say yes is it seems reasonable or no if it doesn't, and move on. Don't argue, just make a decision and move on. Ideally, you want the player to come up with something (I jump over the obstacle, I move and attack someone else and get to the main guy next turn, etc.) and have it work. You want to encourage that kind of thinking.I also find it helpful to take a relatively active stance as a DM and suggest/explain things that characters might try to do. You can see the battlefield and they can't, so you want to convey as much information in as many ways as possible.Also, I would suggest avoiding the 15+ enemies in general. Those are the ones I break out the maps for. Your memory can only hold so much information.</blockquote>