Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6870401" data-attributes="member: 1465">No no, it's not like that...You will probably encounter locks anyway, as long as those locks make some sense in the adventures. If you have a Rogue (or lockpicker) you'll pick the locks, and if you don't have it, your party will find other ways to deal with locks.Same thing if the players build a party low on combat capabilities. It just means their story will be more about avoiding combat rather than throwing yourself into battle automatically. But they can do it by themselves, it's not me who always needs to force the story so there is no combat, I just need to make sure I don't force the opposite either (i.e. that I don't make something unavoidable if they can't handle it). *I don't &quot;retrofit&quot; the challenges, because my assumption is that if everybody wants to play fighters then they probably want to fight, while if everybody wants to play a bard then they probably want to deal with quests differently. It's their choice, by I don't necessarily need to adapt everything around the party, I just need to make sure that they can find a way to progress in the story whatever they capabilities.That said, making adaptations isn't wrong either, but I tend to do it more about the theme or the general type of adventure: for example if a player designs an undead or dragon hunter PC, then I do feel responsible for featuring undead/dragons in the setting (theme), and if they all want to play explorer-types I have to make sure the exploration pillar is represented plentifully. But there's no need to remove all locks from the world just because there is nobody in the party who can pick them using the standard skill check.* I suppose this is more understandable, if you know that as a DM I try to be more like a referee and less like a movie director, and I favor a &quot;sandbox&quot; approach to campaign design</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6870401, member: 1465"] No no, it's not like that... You will probably encounter locks anyway, as long as those locks make some sense in the adventures. If you have a Rogue (or lockpicker) you'll pick the locks, and if you don't have it, your party will find other ways to deal with locks. Same thing if the players build a party low on combat capabilities. It just means their story will be more about avoiding combat rather than throwing yourself into battle automatically. But [I]they[/I] can do it by themselves, it's not [I]me[/I] who always needs to force the story so there is no combat, I just need to make sure I don't force the opposite either (i.e. that I don't make something unavoidable if they can't handle it). * I don't "retrofit" the challenges, because my assumption is that if everybody wants to play fighters then they probably want to fight, while if everybody wants to play a bard then they probably want to deal with quests differently. It's their choice, by I don't necessarily need to adapt everything around the party, I just need to make sure that they [I]can[/I] find a way to progress in the story whatever they capabilities. That said, making adaptations isn't wrong either, but I tend to do it more about the [I]theme [/I]or the general [I]type[/I] of adventure: for example if a player designs an undead or dragon hunter PC, then I do feel responsible for featuring undead/dragons in the setting (theme), and if they all want to play explorer-types I have to make sure the exploration pillar is represented plentifully. But there's no need to remove all locks from the world just because there is nobody in the party who can pick them using the standard skill check. * I suppose this is more understandable, if you know that as a DM I try to be more like a [I]referee[/I] and less like a [I]movie director[/I], and I favor a "sandbox" approach to campaign design [/QUOTE]

Verification