2017-05-01 08:09 pm (UTC)
I think it should usually be ok: usually the tactical situation would be familiar to the players, and a hint from the GM that this course of action is a bad idea is picked up.
I've been fortunate that Liv and Osos seem to instinctively be on the same wavelength as me about this kind of stuff.
But in the old campaign something went wrong (and slightly this session, although it was sufficiently flexible that a frontal assault was well within parameters, I played up the conflict in the write up because I thought it would be funny). Some GM-player communication broke down.
Maybe it's that players realise they can't charge *all* situations head on, but they expect to be able to charge antagonists head on? Or the fact that I'm signalling "these are the antagonists" makes it look like I'm telling them to frontal-attack and they feel like any other approach is cheating?
DnD doesn't help with that, there's a lot of "the mechanics only really support rushing to melee distance and bashing face to face". But Osos haven't played enough to have strong experience either way, and I thought the old players had a reasonable grasp of what was plausible and what wasn't.
Probably it was just an isolated incident, but if it keeps happening I'll see if I spot a pattern.
Thread from start
(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Check spelling during preview
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.
Active Recent Entries
Synecdoche vs Metonymy
Preventing traffic jams by driving at constant speed
Things I apparently need to bear in mind before reading Man who was Thursday
Roleplaying session IIb
Top of page