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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 4028676" data-attributes="member: 704">I suspect the Whiner has a play style that skews towards the tactical side of things, and that you run a game that skews towards narrative gaming.He seems to expect that you wont put fights in the game unless the fight its self is a level appropriate challenge, something that is not overwhelmingly difficult, but not a cakewalk either.  Being the DM, he does not have the benefit of knowing what is fully going on, so the low level bandit fight would seem like a waste of time.  Forgetting about the traitor is the sort of thing I tend to deal with by having my players throw semi-trivial Int checks so I can remind them of things their character ought to know.  My players wont remember something that happened 3 games previous and 2 months ago, but I will.But the dungeon of Golems and High spell resistance monsters?  I would be quite angry as a player if I was in an adventure where nearly every monster I faced was immune to what I could do.  As a DM, I avoid running games where the challenges are tailored to exploit the party's weaknesses or where the game would call for a Rogue if my players are a Fighter, a Ranger, a Sorcerer and a Cleric.  Stocking the dungeon with monsters that do not need food and could be functioning after several thousand years is Ok from a narrative standpoint, but not from a gameplay standpoint.  I think I would have thrown in some other monsters for which time would not be an issue, like Demons, Devils, Elementals, misc Undead (sans high spell resistance), Gargoyles, or creatures subjected to something like a Bind spell that would be in stasis until someone entered.  Not that I would not use the Golems, I just would avoid All Golems All the Time.END COMMUNICATION</blockquote>

Verification