Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4702302" data-attributes="member: 40961">Except you left out the key aspect that makes it the same (for the purposes of level responsive design, I don't want to get into another argument about how dragons are different from wyverns).&nbsp;In the first example, the DM (at least the one I'm talking to, also good DMs in general who don't trap the party into TPKs and then blame them for unavoidable mistakes) also makes sure that the players know enough information to make meaningful choices.&nbsp; Reasonable choices by the PCs still lead to level appropriate challenges.&nbsp; If combat with a particular foe would lead to inevitable death, warning signs are carefully erected so that combat with that foe does not occur.&nbsp; If that foe is otherwise encountered, the context (such as the &quot;sneak past the dragon&quot; scenario discussed above) is one of a level appropriate encounter.&nbsp;I don't see a major difference between &nbsp;1. &quot;there's no enormous dragon next to the town because I didn't want the PCs to blunder into it and die at level 1&quot; and &nbsp;2. &quot;ok, there IS an enormous dragon next to the town, but I don't want the PCs to blunder into it and die at level 1, so I'm making sure they know the dragon will inevitably eat them if they fight it, and I'm making sure that any DM instigated encounters with the dragons are non combat scenes where the PCs sneak past or hide from or flee the dragon.&nbsp; Technically the PCs could decide to do something moronic and end up eaten by the dragon, but only if they ignore the clear and obvious warning signs.&quot;&nbsp;Its technically true that the second option offers the PCs a choice that wasn't available in the first option (its also true that whatever else the first DM uses instead of a dragon would offer new choices), but the second option takes extra care to make sure that the &quot;choice&quot; it offers is really a non-choice.&nbsp; The cards are all on the table.&nbsp; There is a dragon, and it will eat you dead.&nbsp; Do you want to be eaten dead by the dragon?&nbsp; Y/N.&nbsp; Obviously no.&nbsp;So... yeah.&nbsp; There's two big ways that the second option represents level responsive game design.&nbsp; First, all of this effort is done to accomplish precisely the same task- to engineer the world to be suited for adventure by players of low level characters.&nbsp; Second, if the engineering works, the additional choices offered have only one practical outcome- level appropriate challenges are encountered (although the challenges are sometimes &quot;hide from the big bad monster&quot; instead of &quot;kill the big bad monster&quot;).&nbsp;As this forum's perhaps foremost advocate of illusionism, I'm hardly going to criticize the offering of a false choice to the PCs.&nbsp; &nbsp;I just don't think that DMs should start believing in their own illusions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4702302, member: 40961"] Except you left out the key aspect that makes it the same (for the purposes of level responsive design, I don't want to get into another argument about how dragons are different from wyverns). In the first example, the DM (at least the one I'm talking to, also good DMs in general who don't trap the party into TPKs and then blame them for unavoidable mistakes) also makes sure that the players know enough information to make meaningful choices. Reasonable choices by the PCs still lead to level appropriate challenges. If combat with a particular foe would lead to inevitable death, warning signs are carefully erected so that combat with that foe does not occur. If that foe is otherwise encountered, the context (such as the "sneak past the dragon" scenario discussed above) is one of a level appropriate encounter. I don't see a major difference between 1. "there's no enormous dragon next to the town because I didn't want the PCs to blunder into it and die at level 1" and 2. "ok, there IS an enormous dragon next to the town, but I don't want the PCs to blunder into it and die at level 1, so I'm making sure they know the dragon will inevitably eat them if they fight it, and I'm making sure that any DM instigated encounters with the dragons are non combat scenes where the PCs sneak past or hide from or flee the dragon. Technically the PCs could decide to do something moronic and end up eaten by the dragon, but only if they ignore the clear and obvious warning signs." Its technically true that the second option offers the PCs a choice that wasn't available in the first option (its also true that whatever else the first DM uses instead of a dragon would offer new choices), but the second option takes extra care to make sure that the "choice" it offers is really a non-choice. The cards are all on the table. There is a dragon, and it will eat you dead. Do you want to be eaten dead by the dragon? Y/N. Obviously no. So... yeah. There's two big ways that the second option represents level responsive game design. First, all of this effort is done to accomplish precisely the same task- to engineer the world to be suited for adventure by players of low level characters. Second, if the engineering works, the additional choices offered have only one practical outcome- level appropriate challenges are encountered (although the challenges are sometimes "hide from the big bad monster" instead of "kill the big bad monster"). As this forum's perhaps foremost advocate of illusionism, I'm hardly going to criticize the offering of a false choice to the PCs. I just don't think that DMs should start believing in their own illusions. [/QUOTE]

Verification