Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5045493" data-attributes="member: 3400">I think you're making too much of the Candyland quote... and yet not enough.Candyland is a game with absolutely no challenge. No player decision, other than playing in the first place, matters a whit to how the game is resolved. It's pure chance.By contrast, Gygax is talking about playing a game in which player decisions matter and either contribute or detract from the success of the players, sometimes in substantial ways. And it's up to the DM to actually make those decisions challenging enough that bad decisions, good decisions, worse decisions, and better decisions lead to appropriate results for the players. In the case of players not wanting to risk the poison needle in the lock traps, death from goblin ambushes, etc, then perhaps the decision they should make is to not adventure. If the game adheres to a guideline that all encounters should be level-appropriate, then what or whose decisions are we concerned with? If all encounters are expected to be successfully fought, then the only decisions are in tactically how, not strategically whether or not the fight should be fought at all. That may not constrain the decisions as tightly as Candyland, but I would argue that it's not as broad as it should be either. It also means a degree of challenge in the game is lost, the challenge of understanding when to throw down the gauntlet and when to not and even of assessing when to disengage if the decision to fight turns out rash.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 5045493, member: 3400"] I think you're making too much of the Candyland quote... and yet not enough. Candyland is a game with absolutely no challenge. No player decision, other than playing in the first place, matters a whit to how the game is resolved. It's pure chance. By contrast, Gygax is talking about playing a game in which player decisions matter and either contribute or detract from the success of the players, sometimes in substantial ways. And it's up to the DM to actually make those decisions challenging enough that bad decisions, good decisions, worse decisions, and better decisions lead to appropriate results for the players. In the case of players not wanting to risk the poison needle in the lock traps, death from goblin ambushes, etc, then perhaps the decision they should make is to not adventure. If the game adheres to a guideline that all encounters should be level-appropriate, then what or whose decisions are we concerned with? If all encounters are expected to be successfully fought, then the only decisions are in tactically how, not strategically whether or not the fight should be fought at all. That may not constrain the decisions as tightly as Candyland, but I would argue that it's not as broad as it should be either. It also means a degree of challenge in the game is lost, the challenge of understanding when to throw down the gauntlet and when to not and even of assessing when to disengage if the decision to fight turns out rash. [/QUOTE]

Verification