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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MNblockhead" data-source="post: 7501855" data-attributes="member: 6796661">Wow, I guess we just enjoy very different play styles. I don't want to make assumptions on how you run your games @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=57112" target="_blank">Gradine</a>, anyone who gives as much thought to the game as you do is likely to be run a good game and I can enjoy all manner of GM styles if the GM is dedicated and cares about everyone having a good time. But I have to say that I love the style of play that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] describes. From how he describes his style, it brings me back to how we played 1e but without the annoying prepubescent "gotcha" style that immature DMs have. I like having to explain how my character is acting with the world. It makes the game more immersive for me to have to give some thought to specifying not just that I do something but how I do it, not just that I may have some knowledge, but how I have that knowledge. When other players do this, it makes the game more immersive for me. When everyone does it, its magic. What I feel is missing in many of the games I play in, is that everything seems on autopilot until there is a "big challenge" or "combat." Or everything is reduced for a call for rolls and the players stating roll results. As a DM, in my 1st 5e campaign, and the first game I ran after a long time of not playing TTRPGs at all, I started to get bored and disillusioned with many dungeons crawls once you had rogues in the mid tiers. It seems I either had to set DC levels for traps crazy high, in which case I could force auto passive-perception fails or they would notice every trap on autopilot.The way I handled it at the time, was I wanted to play 5e RAW. So I would just describe that he notices something off about a wall the floor, etc. Then he would have to use his Investigation to see if he could tell if there was a trap or secret door. I would also in my descriptions give red herring descriptions. I would describe discolorations, etc. and the player would make investigation roles. But really, it was just more of the same. You notice something. I investigate...I got an 18. Etc. Something was missing.Iserith has laid out a clear play loop, that follows RAW, and would solve something that has been holding my games back.Now, I think I might go easier on my players. I might telegraph more heavily with newer players. Also, I might help by asking some leading questions. How are you searching the room? How are you examining the statue?  How are you inspecting the non-matching tile? Also, I think Iserith's patient explanations in this and other threads also have helped me better understand how to use other passive checks besides perception. Anyway, I don't have too much to add to this already monstrous thread tangent, I've not thought about it as deeply as you all and don't have as much experience as a DM, but I think the comments about the playability and enjoyability of Iserith's games are off base. For me, they sound fun and have given me some ideas on how I might improve my games.</blockquote>

Verification