Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pilgrim" data-source="post: 5651612" data-attributes="member: 6680799">Unfortunately it looks as if you've run out of original ideas for contributing to the discussion, and instead, devolved into the stereotypical "it's time to try and twist his own words against him to win the argument on the internet" scenario.Which is fine, it happens, and I've seen it enough to recognize it.So I'll just say this in a manner that is less confusing for you; there are generally two instances within a game session where PC encounters, of any sort, take place. There are the DM planned encounters, which follow a progressive track, as the PCs do what is necessary to follow the adventure as the DM has it laid out, and there are the encounters that are spur of the moment, off the cuff, DM winging it because it was not part of what was planned.In the first encounter type, the DM knows what he wants the PCs to do, knows what the PCs are capable of (ie. how optimized the PCs are), and tailors the adventure to do so. Lets call this the straight path. It moves from point A to point B. If the PCs make all their skill checks, (lets assume because they are all optimized to the fullest extent and never fail checks) find all the clues, defeat all the monsters, this is the path they follow from start to finish. They encounter everything the DM has planned prior to the game session, it's pretty cut and dry.In the second encounter type, the PC start following the straight path as planned out by the DM, except in this case, the PCs who are not optimized don't make all their checks, lets say that they can't collectively pass a knowledge or Arcana check needed to decrypt writing in an ancient tomb above a door that is sealed with no visible method for getting it open. Even though the PCs need to get through the door to continue down the straight path, they aren't optimized and so their skill checks fail. The DM asks the players what they would like to do now. The PCs, realizing that they can't solve it on their own, retreat back to town in hopes of finding someone with a better understanding of the strange writing. The DM didn't plan for this, but as the PCs begin exploring the local town, the DM whips up a local NPC sage which the PCs can ask for advice. From there the DM can be as simplistic or elaborate in the encounter with the sage as preferred. He could simply get the PCs back on the straight path, or use the opportunity to throw something completely random into the mix before they get back to the task at hand.This shortfall on part of the PCs was unexpected but provides the DM with a chance to change the path from straight to winding. Ultimately the PCs reach the end goal, but along the way there are more spontaneous encounters not originally included or planned for in the adventure. So, at this point I'll say, yes, "suckage" CAN provide more of an opportunity for adventure within a game session than optimized characters. You might not like it, you might not agree, but sorry to say, there it is. The only way in which optimization (ie. passing a check) would support spontaneous encounters is if the PCs are suppose to fail a check and pass instead, which makes little sense.tl:dr - Less optimized PCs can provide the DM with more opportunity for unplanned encounters, role-play and whatever else than optimized characters do.</blockquote>

Verification