|
What is D&D? A Game. What is the object of a game? To have fun. Tuckers Kolbolds is a exercise in frustration, and definitely “NOT FUN”. The players had every right to put their foot down.
What about the players who WERE having fun? Which group had the right to put their foot down? The ones that say 'no we will not, I'm not having fun' or the ones that say 'yes we will, I am having fun'?
I of course never played in the original Tucker's Kobalds adventure.
However, I happen to like adventures where a cunning and trickey enemy does what they can to defend themselves (or attack their enemies) rather than just sit around waiting for us to slay them. Then I can feel a sense of accomplishment for overcoming them rather than just ok, we blasted through a whole lot of them again.
My only questions is whether it makes sense for that particular enemy. In most of the campaigns I've been in, kobalds are known for cunning clever, near constant, low-tech, low-magic traps and ambushes. In many (but not all) campaigns, goblins are not. They are too stupid and lazy to put up a bunch of traps and tactical choke points points. They only rely on sneak-up and mass wave attacks. I think it depends on how that particular monster is imagined in that particular campaign.
What is D&D? A Game. What is the object of a game? To have fun. Tuckers Kolbolds is a exercise in frustration, and definitely “NOT FUN”. The players had every right to put their foot down.
No argument that D&D (and PF) is a game and is meant to have fun with.
However, I personally enjoy challenges. I don't want to have my hand held throughout any sort of game, except while I am learning it. I like being able to careful partition resources and weigh options. When a game presents a problem that doesn't have a clear cut solution, I am having fun. That does not mean I do not enjoy having a more laid back campaign where we solve simple puzzles and just kill stuff - usually the source of my enjoyment comes from hanging out with my friends, roleplaying, and just having a relaxed night of fun.
I do not currently belong to a group that would have much fun with a Tucker's Kobolds scenario (there is one particular in person I am thinking of that would probably spend the better part of it arguing with the GM over every detail). I would think our GM would have made a poor decision if he introduced us to that. However, I know I would like it, and I know people I used to play with would like it, and if we were all in a group, I would think the GM made the right call.
Basically, I'm trying to say, you're projecting your own version of fun onto other people, and it's not always accurate. I do not think we as observers can say whether or not Ravingdork's group appeared to be interested in Tucker's Kobolds-esque encounters as if they would enjoy it - we only know that they did not, in the end, because he's told us their reaction to it. All signs might have pointed to them possibly liking it. If RD missed those signs, then oh, well, it was just a mistake, not a big deal.