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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5839215" data-attributes="member: 2011">I prefer more middle of the road games.I dislike a game where every player is expected to roleplay as if the player is an actor. Roleplaying is fun, but not to acting and LARP extremes.In the same way, I'd just as soon not have a DM standing behind his screen, partially falling over when a bad guy drops, pontificating on what happens when an NPC takes a hit, etc. A little bit of hamming like this is ok, but some DMs think that they are Laurence Olivier playing MacBeth.I'm not too keen on DMs hiding rolls behind their screen. Let what happens, happen and never fudge dice rolls.In the same vein, I'm not keen on the DM assuming that it's his story and not a shared story by the entire table. Hence, the DM uses rule 0 excessively to change outcomes. Not just railroading, but an assumption that the DM knows best. Let the rules and random dice results mostly determine what happens, it sometimes leads to some very fun and unexpected (as opposed to scripted) situations. The DM is there to adjudicate, not to force feed a given story down the throats of the players. D&D isn't the place for the DM to tell his pulitzer prize story.No Deus Ex Machina.An unprepared DM or player.Forcing players to play their PCs in certain ways. For example, assuming that just because the players are sitting at a table with PCs in a group, that all players are willing to play their PCs as helpful and cooperative with the other PCs all of the time. I actually like some amount of party conflict. It makes the PCs seem more real.Adventures where the PCs cannot succeed unless a DNPC is along for the ride. I prefer adventures where the PCs shine, not the NPCs. Again, once in a while, it's ok (middle of the road), but not too often.DMs who want PCs to explore every tiny detailed part of their world. I often play PCs that cut to the chase and blow off a lot of things to accomplish their goals. They miss stuff this way and might get in trouble because of it, but that's ok.In this same vein, DMs that reiterate information and assert themselves into the party decision making. For example, the NPC Cleric tells the group about the mayor and the sewers. The PCs walk away, have a discussion, and decide to go check out the sewers, so the DM reminds everyone that the Cleric also talked about the mayor. hint, hint, wink, wink. Suddenly, half of the players want to go talk to the mayor. No. Let the players decide what they want to do and do not try to script the game. DMs have a lot of influence, so except for descriptions and NPCs interactions, the DMs should mostly keep their mouths shut when the players are deciding on a course of action unless the players ask for knowledge or memory rolls or some such.Monsters that always fight to the death. In fact, monsters that fight to the death should be rare.I do prefer campaigns where there is a certain amount of plausibility to them. The PCs come into town, they are treated like strangers, not like best friends. They are treated politely when it comes to commerce, but NPCs don't just come up and tell them secrets out of the blue. I don't like campaigns where the PCs are in the dark, but the NPCs seem to know a lot about the PCs. I don't like campaigns where the monsters surprise the PCs in combat, but these trained PCs never or almost never surprise the monsters. Or ones where the PCs are encounter magnets (the town is safe, until the PCs show up and suddenly, monsters are attacking in town right and left). If a town is being attacked by monsters, then the NPCs should have prepared defenses for this and the PCs should find out about it quickly upon arrival (why do you have catapults set up in the town square and makeshift walls around the town?).Edit: I can't believe that I forgot about cross table talk. Although a certain amount is inevitable, I vastly prefer each player running his or her own PC without a group tactical discussion. If a player wants another player to do (or not do) certain things in combat, I'd prefer if that other player talked about it "in character". The concept of "No, no. Don't move there. I'm going to do a fireball on my next turn." grinds me. And I don't like more tactically capable or experienced players running roughshod over less capable players.The same thing annoys me when players talk out of character in a roleplaying session. No, you do not get to discuss the situation without the NPCs hearing you. This is also a reason why I don't like the Telepathy of Kalashar (and the feats that boost it). It's an ability designed to get around roleplaying and make everything a group discussion "off stage".</blockquote>

Verification