Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8384847" data-attributes="member: 97077">I don't understand why the DM should care at all about this. A challenge is there to be overcome (and sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't). The difficulty of the challenge is going to go up or down depending on what decisions the players make given the context of the situation and what resources they're willing to spend on it. So what do I care if the challenge of getting lost, for example, is overcome by a ranger in favored terrain? This should not be frustrating to the DM in my view, no more than successful navigation, resolved by a Wisdom (Survival) check that hits the DC, to overcome the challenge of getting lost would be frustrating.Also, I will reiterate something that's been said before in this thread: The people who are criticizing the rules for exploration or challenges that employ these rules are very often just assuming that the party has the right composition of classes to overcome the challenge, that they have the right spells and equipment and class features (or, with ranger, are always in their favored terrain), that they have plenty of spell slots, and that there is no risk or trade-off to anything they do. (And to top it off, if they don't, then it's because the DM is adversarial or railroading.) That has never been true in any game I've ever played. Sometimes they have the right tools and solutions; sometimes they don't. If it is true that the party just has everything they need all the time with no risk or trade-off in every game that these posters have played, then we really need to look at what content is being presented in the game and how they adjudicate the PCs' actions in the context of the rules, not the rules themselves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 8384847, member: 97077"] I don't understand why the DM should care at all about this. A challenge is there to be overcome (and sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't). The difficulty of the challenge is going to go up or down depending on what decisions the players make given the context of the situation and what resources they're willing to spend on it. So what do I care if the challenge of getting lost, for example, is overcome by a ranger in favored terrain? This should not be frustrating to the DM in my view, no more than successful navigation, resolved by a Wisdom (Survival) check that hits the DC, to overcome the challenge of getting lost would be frustrating. Also, I will reiterate something that's been said before in this thread: The people who are criticizing the rules for exploration or challenges that employ these rules are very often just assuming that the party has the right composition of classes to overcome the challenge, that they have the right spells and equipment and class features (or, with ranger, are always in their favored terrain), that they have plenty of spell slots, and that there is no risk or trade-off to anything they do. (And to top it off, if they [I]don't[/I], then it's because the DM is adversarial or railroading.) [I]That has never been true in any game I've ever played.[/I] Sometimes they have the right tools and solutions; sometimes they don't. If it [I]is [/I]true that the party just has everything they need all the time with no risk or trade-off in every game that these posters have played, then we really need to look at what content is being presented in the game and how they adjudicate the PCs' actions in the context of the rules, not the rules themselves. [/QUOTE]

Verification