Will DMs Need to Plan the PC Strategy?

[Rabbitbait]

In 3.5, the overall capabilities of the party are somewhat limited at low-to-medium level. During this phase of a campaign, the DM has to be very careful when designing encounters and challenges. Depending on the set of classes in the party, it's easy to accidentally construct an impossible (or overly difficult) scenario for the players. As a result, many DMs talk about having to figure out how their players are going to be able to overcome whatever they're building.

At higher levels (once you get to around 5th and 6th level spells), the party's versatility increases tremendously. DMs can pretty much just make up anything, and the PCs can probably find a way to deal with it. The huge arsenal of crazy utility spells available to the Cleric/Druid/Wizard lets them overcome or circumvent almost any challenge. If they're planning to do something, and realize they don't have what they need, it's usually one in-game day of "We Teleport to some large city, buy the scroll(s) we need, Teleport back". At this stage, the DM can usually count on the PCs (if the players are somewhat experienced) coming up with solutions, even if the DM didn't bother to make sure that a solution existed.

Going back to the OP. I've always made sure that my players know before the start of any campaign that they will come across stuff that they won't be able to handle, and they'd better work out quick when to avoid situations or they will die. I then set up a number of story threads going on at the same time. This gives the advantages of the players feeling that there is a lot of stuff going on in the world, that their choices really do make a difference, and that they really need to think about where they can and can't make a difference.

The truth is that I'm not actually that harsh - I make the things that they can't handle pretty obvious. But it sets up a nice level of fear and paranoia.

When it comes to designing actual situations, I generally don't worry too much about how the PCs will get out of it. They're smart - they'll figure it out. If I've already thought of it then it's probably too obvious, and the level of satisfaction they get from coming up with something completely left-field is great. It puts me on the spot as a DM as well which I like.

I always try and leave the option of running away if I can.

However - I'm definitely not adverse to players having their characters die in the early levels. It's a good time to happen as they don't have so much of an emotional attachment, you can role up new characters without having them feel a bit plastic, and it sets a good level of fear for the rest of the campaign which makes the whole thing more fun.

In short - don't worry about working out ways for the PC's to survive. They'll either figure it out, run away or die. All are good options.

 

[pawsplay]

I await the day when you realize how condescending you sound when you post, because otherwise you come across as very intelligent and well spoken. Its a shame you choose to diminish that by sneering down at a subgroup of players. That said, I agree that its foolish to not account for those sorts of spells/abilities in those scenarios (The typical of example doing so in the ubiquitious 'Testimony of the dead is inadmissable as evidence.'

Like, whatever. I didn't have a problem with his post. I'm not sure what you hoped to add by using te word "foolish."

 

[AllisterH]

Er, to me, the relatively instanteous nature of magic in 4E AND the lack of buffs is highly reminiscent of SLAYERS. In Slayers, you pretty much can only maintain one spell at a time and thus there's no buffed to the gills wizard. The same way Henry explained how magic works is basically how it is defined in the Slayers world. It's relatively easy to do the instanteous stuff buy to maintain magic, unless you use a ritual, a mage has to ACTUALLY maintain it themselves. Thus, you don't see many buff spells being used.

That said, Now, are you telling me that Lina Inverse isn't an archmage?

 

[The Little Raven]

It basically bothers me that things like flying over a swamp instead of walking through it and cracking open locks are things which are apparently equal to defeating Pit Fiends and ruling countries.

Open Locks - Level 1 (Thievery skill)
Flight - Level 16
Pit Fiend - Level 26

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That's the whole point of having high walls. So that most people can't get over them. It makes people get a grappling hook, ladder, siege tower, or siege ramp in order to get over the wall and the ladder can then be pushed off the wall, the line on the grapple cut, the siege tower fired, and the wall built higher so that the siege ramp doesn't help.

If anyone could just climb the fortress walls, there'd be no point to having them. (Now, you expect that the super ueber ninja of death may be able to climb the walls slowly in the dead of night and Robin Hood will be able to climb the wall so he can speak with maid Marian, but those are high level people with lots of climb ranks/climb as a trained skill--if people who have no special skill at climbing can routinely climb the walls of the fortress, the design of the fortress needs rethinking.)

Why?

 

[hong]

(Now, you expect that the super ueber ninja of death may be able to climb the walls slowly in the dead of night and Robin Hood will be able to climb the wall so he can speak with maid Marian, but those are high level people with lots of climb ranks/climb as a trained skill--if people who have no special skill at climbing can routinely climb the walls of the fortress, the design of the fortress needs rethinking.)

Exactly. People whose schtick it is to climb walls can still do it. This is a long, long way from saying walls are unclimbeable.