Question
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
30 comments displayed.
#4
-
jeffthellamaking (12/22/2015) [-] Combination of 1&2.
It's good for it to be fun, but a DM needs to know when to put his foot down and make rolls matter from time to time.
It's good for it to be fun, but a DM needs to know when to put his foot down and make rolls matter from time to time.
#12
-
afaik (12/22/2015) [-] Honestly a mix of all the 3 is preferred. A by-the-books DM makes the whole campaign a game rather than a story. An experience-oriented DM makes the campaign actually interesting and immersive. An "evil" DM makes sure you cant faceroll through the campaign.
Different people find appeal in different aspects of a game, be it challenge, story, social, etc.
Different people find appeal in different aspects of a game, be it challenge, story, social, etc.
#22
-
magicmatchsticks (12/22/2015) [-] Two is the most important, but one and three are needed in some amounts. If your characters don't enjoy it, you won't enjoy it either, and then it's sort of pointless, right?
On the other hand, you need to challenge your players, make them hate you, don't make it easy for them. But that's part of making it fun for them, having it be a challenge. When it starts to be such a pain in that your players don't want to deal with your campaign, you've failed. It's OK for the players to hate the DM, but don't make them hate your campaign. Finally, campaigns need structure or they break down and people start to go off course. The flip side is that you can bend the rules for a good enough exception or if you think the benefit of the change outweighs the problems that stem from a loss of structure.
On the other hand, you need to challenge your players, make them hate you, don't make it easy for them. But that's part of making it fun for them, having it be a challenge. When it starts to be such a pain in that your players don't want to deal with your campaign, you've failed. It's OK for the players to hate the DM, but don't make them hate your campaign. Finally, campaigns need structure or they break down and people start to go off course. The flip side is that you can bend the rules for a good enough exception or if you think the benefit of the change outweighs the problems that stem from a loss of structure.
#3
-
marshalllee (12/22/2015) [-] Personally, I like #3, mostly because everyone in our group plays and DMs Dark Souls-esque campaigns.
#14
-
Nihatclodra (12/22/2015) [-] mix of all 3, with a preferencial order of magnitude being:
2
3
1
2
3
1
#11
-
malhaloc (12/22/2015) [-] Personally I like the "true neutral" DM. The DM who knows there's nothing important about that room, but won't stop you from spending 10 straight sessions making search checks there. That's the DM I like to try to be.
I have my own DBZ based RPG that I made and a couple of my friends were running through a desert and they come to an oasis. One of my friends wants to check it out because "if there was nothing there you probably wouldn't have put it there.". I hate meta gaming like that, but if there was something there, I wouldn't have changed that just because he said that. But it was just an oasis. So his meta gaming punished itself.
I have my own DBZ based RPG that I made and a couple of my friends were running through a desert and they come to an oasis. One of my friends wants to check it out because "if there was nothing there you probably wouldn't have put it there.". I hate meta gaming like that, but if there was something there, I wouldn't have changed that just because he said that. But it was just an oasis. So his meta gaming punished itself.
#18 to #11
-
darkparadox (12/22/2015) [-]
Oh how true that is with my group. I think they've spent 8-10 sessions going through a CR 1 dungeon at 4th level with 6 people in the party, mainly because they like to search EVERYTHING
It's made for some interesting comedy, also the Paladin has a phobia of rats after a single malnourished rat almost brought him down to negatives when he fell down a hole. Ahh good times
It's made for some interesting comedy, also the Paladin has a phobia of rats after a single malnourished rat almost brought him down to negatives when he fell down a hole. Ahh good times
#33
-
peliaosfiendline (12/28/2015) [-] 1.5
It's a game and games are meant to be fun, but if the DM can't, you know, actually DM and keep the game going, it's not worth it.
It's a game and games are meant to be fun, but if the DM can't, you know, actually DM and keep the game going, it's not worth it.
#6
-
sptnfouroneseven (12/22/2015) [-] 2 and 3 are the best DMs, rolls should determine most things however. Such as, apperantally, it's a rule in Pathfinder a player character can not use intimidate, diplomacy, or bluff to influence another character's actions. IE: You can't intimidate someone to steal when they're a Paladin. It's supposed to be roleplayed out, no rolls allowed to prevent a charisma stacked character from ruling the party. Even though they're already the 'face' usually.
I personally don't like that, as some people aren't good with verbal roleplay, or will take player bias into account. So I like to meld the two, you gotta come up with a convincing argument, and roll high enough. So if you threaten a Fighter who has no family, with killing his family, and roll well it won't have much worth. If you threaten say his dog, or home, or something valuable of his and roll well, it'll be worth a LOT more.
I personally don't like that, as some people aren't good with verbal roleplay, or will take player bias into account. So I like to meld the two, you gotta come up with a convincing argument, and roll high enough. So if you threaten a Fighter who has no family, with killing his family, and roll well it won't have much worth. If you threaten say his dog, or home, or something valuable of his and roll well, it'll be worth a LOT more.
#24 to #16
-
sptnfouroneseven (12/22/2015) [-] Again, that's why I use a combo. You still gotta put forth a compelling argument for the character, but the roll is there to back it up, put some force behind it.
#26 to #25
-
sptnfouroneseven (12/22/2015) [-] It's also a good way to keep people like myself, who play very stubborn characters, from just saying "Lol no **** you" to the party.
#34
-
iceblue (01/12/2016) [-] I would consider a mixture of all 3. First of all, it is a game, and games are supposed to be fun. But actions have consequences. If your idea of having fun is killing every single thing you can, then you are going to run into something that is going to hand you your ass on a platter. But if you always play it safe, then you can't find anything worth while. The front of the rule book states that the rules are guidelines so that everyone starts on the same page and that there is a universal basis, but all of the final decisions will be left up to the DM and the players.
#30
-
dongers (12/23/2015) [-] Changing between 2 and 3 (as in one campaign will be a try hard campaign of min/maxxing out the ass and others will be do what seems like it will be fun.) But with a base of 1. Meaning rule of thumb go by the rules but also remember one of the biggest rules is screw rules for the sake of making sense/having fun/etc.
#17
-
dndxplain (12/22/2015) [-] mostly 1, but I'm willing to be 2. and nearly always am I 3 for some reasons.
the book is there to streamline things. you don't have to sit there and calculate how much damage hitting someone in the face with a stone is because miraculously it's in the book.
but if there's something that's not in the book, or I don't agree with a minor thing in the book, then I will change it while informing my players.
also go hard or go home.
the book is there to streamline things. you don't have to sit there and calculate how much damage hitting someone in the face with a stone is because miraculously it's in the book.
but if there's something that's not in the book, or I don't agree with a minor thing in the book, then I will change it while informing my players.
also go hard or go home.
#10
-
BrownBearninetysix (12/22/2015) [-] I like DMs that roll with players thinking outside the book. THings like thinkng outside of the rules for combat, like "I break the support beams so that the barrels above fall on the enemy's head."
#9
-
AllanLancebricole (12/22/2015) [-] It's a combination of the three, actually. My definition of a good DM is the one who allows fun and lots of roleplay, without forgetting to add difficulty (nobody wants to eternally fight weak goblins), and this difficulty comes also with luck, given by the dices. Thus, I have spoken.
