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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8398516" data-attributes="member: 86653">Maybe. The way I see it is if the DM presents a game idea, this is what they want to run, and the players agree...then reinforcing those ideas isn't adversarial. If enforcing those ideas becomes a problem, then it's a misalignment of expectations. Like the DM says they want to run an old-school dungeon crawl and the players agree. Then after a few sessions the players decide nah, let's just leave to do something else. Or a 5E game with variant encumbrance, to which the players agree, then all show up with firbolg and goliath artificers with the replicate bag of holding infusion in their back pocket. That's a clear sign that there's a misalignment of expectations.What's fun is different from person to person. So making sure everyone's expectations are as aligned as possible for a group is paramount.I disagree. It's not adversarial to have a world that exists independent of the PCs. That's strong worldbuilding. If it's a party of all squishy wizards that doesn't mean they'll never face a well-armed and armored melee combatant. You don't give out extra healing potions because no one wants to play a cleric. To me, that's a player-side problem. They can generally be assumed to know what to expect, if they choose not to prepare for that, it's on them. They can easily pick up a hireling or two to cover their deficiencies. But if they choose not to...that's on them. A world that's always shifting to perfectly suit whatever the PCs have in tow is way, way too video gamey for my tastes.Bad DM for that group, yes.Yeah, definitely.</blockquote>

Verification