Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Old Silver Dragon" data-source="post: 5813346" data-attributes="member: 6689230">Actually I think the issue exists on both sides of the screen. There's always been issues with poor players. As you note its easier to change the books than it is to tell one of your best friends that the hours of effort he put into the gaming session you're in the middle of were a waste of time because he sucks as a DM, or that because he's a pushy, argumentative player who's always gaming the rules that he ruined your session of a campaign.I didn't DM much 3.5, never played 2e but I was a DM through BECMI and 1e and I've played and DM'd alot of 4e. I enjoyed almost every minute of every game I've ever played.The battles and encounters I enjoyed DMing most were those that fitted more broadly into the CaS approach. Looking back I don't think I was ever comfortable with the CaW approach. The variability, volatility and complexity of that kind of combat conflicted with my desire to create a story and a setting - a least one I had a significant element of control over. There's nothing wrong with the CaW approach and I should be happier with player control of the story than I probably am, but what drives me to DM is the desire to let a story framework I created unfold. Now where I do embrace the CaW approach is outside of encounters. I try to focus the non-combat elements of my games - the roleplaying or the skill challenges - around affecting the players world and environment. Humanoid army approaching? OK you've got two days what are you going to do? The choices the players make and the effectiveness of their actions influence the later combat with the humanoids. The resource tracking that many talk about is crucial here - if they repair the castle gates they can't train the militia. The effectiveness of both will play a part in the battle. Give the players choices, meaningful choices, let them affect the flow and direction of the story but I don't want to lose control of the story. Even here I suspect I'm still taking a CaS approach because I want to limit the extent of success or failure.I like to know with a fair degree of certainty what's likely to happen in an encounter or skill challenge. The CaS approach gives me that element of control. It also allows me to play the game too. I can robustly engage in combat knowing that I'm unlikely to get a TPK. My object in each encounter is to fight the monsters I have as hard as possible in order that the PC's should always fear that result because it is absolutely possible almost every time. I get to enjoy the combats because I'm not holding back which is something I found myself doing at higher levels in CaW systems.Obviously all psychoses are my own. Other gamers may get different results. But at least its how I approach a game.</blockquote>

Verification