Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7073064" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Discussions centered on how best to model a given concept, or help eachother with other game related things? ONe can dream? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> First thing, I don't think that creatures that are immune to non magical weapons represent good game design, on any level. That is a personal opinion, obviously, based in my own design priorities and philosophies, but IME, they don't accomplish anything remotely interesting or fun, and end up feeling like what video game enthusiasts call "fake difficulty", or "arbitrary difficulty". ie, it doesn't present a challenge to anyone's skill, it just makes the game arbitrarily frustrating. Like a platformer where it's hard to see where you're going to land, or your character doesn't always jump the same distance, and there is no way to figure out how far you'll jump this time. That said, I think if the DM is going to keep using adventures that present a lot of immune creatures, yeah, they should get you a better solution than you currently have. Even if it's just letting you learn to brew a concoction from ingredients you can forage as part of foraging food, that you can coat your arrows in and make them bypass that immunity, or something like that which bypasses the question of a magic item without continueing to make the game a pain in the butt. Then again, if you aren't even frustrated by it, then no, the DM has no real need to address it, necessarily. It's my opinion that absolutes are nearly always stupid, and usually egregiously wrong. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I also would like to clarify that I'm not in the habit of pulling a one true way, so no, I'm not saying the DM "must" do anything, except respect the players, and not be a dick. What I'm saying is that there are benefits to making sure that there are ways around obstacles, and players can just build their character naturally, rather than always boosting strength because the DM always make exploration challenges require athletics and endurance to pass. I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with accounting for the PCs when making adventures. That doesn't mean the DM needs to "include the option to allow the PC's to use their strengths in every situation", but rather that every challenge, in this style of DMing, includes ways for the PCs to succeed, even if none of them are good at doing research, or climbing, or whatever. Bonus points if the direct route isn't "constantly" the route they suck at, but as long as there are other routes, it's fine. But then, I don't make adventures before knowing what is going to be at the table, thematically, either. So, let's examine that Gladiators example, right? Shows like Leverage like to, occasionally, put the characters completely outside their comfort zones. That is great! I love doing that! But, my theory of DMing involves doing so on purpose, and with a plan, not by accident. If you run Gladiator straight, without taking into account your deceptive, insightful, knowledgeable, etc, PCs, at best Elliot and Parker make it out alive. The end result is the same as if you intentionally build the adventure to kill them. If you take Gladiator, and tailor it with NPCs to trick, social and exploration encounters between fights, a gambling on fights subplot, etc, you can build a really excellent Gladiator episode of Leverage. Most times, the need to tailor won't be anywhere near that extreme. And it isn't always about strengths. Most PCs also have stuff they just...don't suck at. Or the ability to make up for eachother's weaknesses through teamwork. But yeah, if you have a Sophie in your party, and you keep running wilderness exploration/fight bugbears and hunt polar bears adventures...something has gone wrong, IMO. I don't really understand why you would even come up iwth the concept for an adventure without knowing what the players are making, unless you are coming to them with a concept, and telling them to make PCs for it. But that's just my preference. I don't want to play in or run a game where the adventure feels like it was designed for an entirely different kind of story than the PCs.</blockquote>

Verification