Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 5711155" data-attributes="member: 1210">This sounds fine.Still fine.D'oh!! IMHO, or at least IMP (in my playstyle), you should never stop the game to explain what choices the party should make. The fun of the game is making choices  and seeing what happens, and dm interference with that is one of the biggest DMing Sins (again, IMP). A TPK is far preferable.Oh noes, a pc died in a fight with a bad-ass monster in a game where dying is very possible!!!That said, it sounds like you had a very specific sequence of events and choices that you wanted the party to follow. That's probably the problem right there. Every encounter, or darn close, should be a possible roleplaying encounter, and a possible combat encounter, depending on the choices the pcs make. It isn't really up to you, and it shouldn't be. If the pcs burn down the farmer's house where the clues were, well, they won't find those clues. If the pcs try to negotiate with those orcs, well, given sufficient Diplomacy or other social skills, they should be able to do so. And so on.Having an A->B->C map for your game is a terrible thing, because as soon as many players detect the railroad they start trying to throw it off the track. I know that one of my flaws as a player is a complete willingness to blow the railroad to hell, which means I try to avoid railroady games- they aren't satisfying for me to play in, and I might spoil the gm's enjoyment.Basically, I'd say let the pcs do as they will and suffer the consequences for it.</blockquote>

Verification