Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 7769110" data-attributes="member: 158">I will say, in defense of Lewpuls' point, I do see far less tactical thought than was evident back in the old days - it's why I loved that dungeon survival article from him so much thirty-five years ago. It had great points about:1) Brainstorming multiple uses for spells (a fun pastime)2) Coordination of characters on a team so that friendly fire and conflicting objectives are minimized (i.e. everyone engaging in one-on-one duels with foes and grandstanding like you're at some tournament, even if you're NOT playing the headstrong Cavalier)3) Not assuming that all NPCs are honest4) Not blindly interacting with unknown features in a dungeon (The &quot;Critical Role style of Dungeoneering&quot;)5) Gearing for defense as well as offense (The &quot;always pack at least one dispel magic&quot; axiom)I'm not going to interrogate every party member with truth serums before every session, or check every coin from a treasure haul for numismatic value on the chance that my DM is screwing us over, but all of the above points are very worthwhile, and do add a tactical element to adventures that I find quite fun. I ran the infamous &quot;dead-end high room with evenly-spaced stone holes in one section of the wall, containing wood fragments in each hole&quot; on an adventuring group years ago, (this was an example from both the 1st edition DMG, and from a Dungeon Magazine module), and my players were stopped for three hours trying to figure out what the deal with that room was -- but it never occurred to them to check above 5 foot height on the walls for secret doors. They had other ways to go, but they fiddled with that room for three hours trying to figure it out.&nbsp; Same thing with puzzles or riddles -- most of my players over the years seem to hate 'em, to the point I don't bother to include 'em&nbsp; any more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 7769110, member: 158"] I will say, in defense of Lewpuls' point, I do see far less tactical thought than was evident back in the old days - it's why I loved that dungeon survival article from him so much thirty-five years ago. It had great points about: 1) Brainstorming multiple uses for spells (a fun pastime) 2) Coordination of characters on a team so that friendly fire and conflicting objectives are minimized (i.e. everyone engaging in one-on-one duels with foes and grandstanding like you're at some tournament, even if you're NOT playing the headstrong Cavalier) 3) Not assuming that all NPCs are honest 4) Not blindly interacting with unknown features in a dungeon (The "Critical Role style of Dungeoneering") 5) Gearing for defense as well as offense (The "always pack at least one dispel magic" axiom) I'm not going to interrogate every party member with truth serums before every session, or check every coin from a treasure haul for numismatic value on the chance that my DM is screwing us over, but all of the above points are very worthwhile, and do add a tactical element to adventures that I find quite fun. I ran the infamous "dead-end high room with evenly-spaced stone holes in one section of the wall, containing wood fragments in each hole" on an adventuring group years ago, (this was an example from both the 1st edition DMG, and from a Dungeon Magazine module), and my players were stopped for three hours trying to figure out what the deal with that room was -- but it never occurred to them to check above 5 foot height on the walls for secret doors. They had other ways to go, but they fiddled with that room for three hours trying to figure it out. Same thing with puzzles or riddles -- most of my players over the years seem to hate 'em, to the point I don't bother to include 'em any more. [/QUOTE]

Verification