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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 5805194" data-attributes="member: 25619">I'm a CAW DM, and I'm not a gamist, I'm a simulationist.I build complex plans for what the NPC's (monsters) will do in certain situations (before the game even starts), and then ROLEPLAY the monster's actions without the monsters knowing what the PC's are going to do.  They will react, in character, based on their plans, their abilities, and their reactions in character to what they are aware of the PC's doing.So if the monsters are planning to lay in wait and ambush the PC's, they won't be inclined to follow the PC's plan to get them to chase a PC.  But if the monsters were planning to find the PC's and run them down, they would.If I don't know at all how the monster would react, I'll roll a die to decide for the monster.I also ask advice from people outside the campaign.A super example of that? On the Paizo/SCAP discussion board, a DM had a situation where his PC's were holed up in a dead-end stone room, with a stone door.  He decided the intelligent monsters could figure out where they were sleeping, and would set a fire to "smoke them out".  He wanted to know what would happen, given the stone door (not airtight but not flamable).  A bunch of other DM's offered opinions, and I got a friend who is a fireman to tell me.  That's simulationist CAWS.  And it's not remotely, IMHO, about the DM "letting you win" -- it's about the DM playing the monsters to win, and the PC's playing the PC's to win, and we figure out what happens.Or, as I'd put, it's what's best in life in D&D.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification