Search results

It's illusionism in the sense that the encounters are the same regardless of the path (albeit, as I've said, a useful and accepted form of illusionism). If the GM simply decides the PCs encounter A, B, and C regardless of which path they take, we can both agree that that is clearly...

Rolling more frequently on the different roads means the paths have agency. It doesn't make the encounters not illusionism. If the first roll is a traveling merchant caravan, the second is a dragon, and the third is a band of mischievous pixies, what does it matter for illusionism whether the...

Yes, I wasn't implying that your game rolls were illusionism, or that all random rolls are. I was talking about the scenario in the OP (and assuming that the same encounter table was used for both roads). If you think that the same encounter table for two roads is in bad faith, let's use the...

Sure, if they have different encounter tables, then it's arguably no longer illusionism.

If you refer back to the post that @pemerton quoted, you'll see that I said that players have agency, because the two roads do present a valid choice (fast but dangerous vs slow and safer). But if you get to the first area to roll a random encounter and you roll, I think it's fair to say that...

It may not have been. I don't have enough information from your description of the session to infer whether it was or was not. The pertinent question is, had the players made different choices, would you have made those rolls on those same tables? If yes, then I would argue that it was in fact...

Interesting, I've never heard of random encounters beings handled this way. The closest I've done was used random tables to help prep before game, but I usually just roll and use random encounters one at a time at the table. How do you handle it if the players pivot and change the plan? For...

Haven't read most of the thread, so maybe this was already covered. Let's say the slow road takes 2 days with 3 encounter rolls each day. The fast road takes 1 day with 6 encounter rolls. Either way, 6 encounter rolls total. That's still a meaningful choice. The players can take the slower...

My take on this is that more people preferred a faster-paced, reduced-tedium game and the designers listened. If lots of people didn't enjoy those changes, then it wouldn't be as popular as it is. I mean, how dare the game designers create a game that lots of people enjoy!? They might as well...

I would say that post-1e, D&D has been more of a heroic adventure game with heroic resource management. You need to manage your HP and other limited resources. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the time scale. Whereas previously resources were recovered at a slower rate, they've...

If you feel that way, either house rule it to your preferences (not that hard) or just accept that 5e isn't your cup of tea. Maybe consider giving the overused "video game" comparison a break. It was already a played out and lazy criticism over a decade ago, and it certainly hasn't improved with...

It was never a week of downtime. The cleric would have them full in a day or two. You're not waiting on the fighter's hp to recover, you're waiting for the cleric's spell slots to recover.

Agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong with downtime but it doesn't belong in the middle of an adventure just because you took a few unlucky Crits IMO.

Same difference. The core is what the game is about. If it's not core to the design, then it doesn't really matter. Especially with something like realism, how do you implement that without it being core (apart from the occasional head nod, which still exist)?

Have you ever known a group where one person tracks everyone's encumbrance or components? I've never even heard of such a group. That works fine for some aspects, like mapping, but it certainly isn't a panacea for tedium. It isn't as though they removed spell components from the game, they're...

If 50% of players dislike the rule and 50% love it, then it's a bad rule for the core ruleset. It would likely be a good optional rule (for the 50% that may love it), but not a core rule (because 50% find it tedious). Keep in mind that I'm referring to a target audience. If the 50% that...

IMO, whether you like it or not, their design speaks for itself. I'm not aware of them having claimed that realism is core to 5e, so why do you consider their not outright stating that less than honest? Why would you need them to tell you something you already seem to know? D&D has never been a...

IMO, if a significant portion of your target audience finds the rule tedious, then it's tedious. Admittedly, "a significant portion" is also subjective, but there are certainly breakpoints where it's fairly objective. If 10% of your audience ignores a rule because they find it tedious, there's...

What if all but one player finds it tedious? Should they all have to do it because the one prefers it that way? Would that not also be "tyranny of the individual"? IMO, core rules that are tedious are just bad design, unless maybe your target audience are people who enjoy doing long form taxes...

I don't think that tedious bookkeeping is ever a legitimate form of balance. That said, I don't think your example is one of tedious bookkeeping. Yes, there is a bookkeeping element involved, but the real balancing factor is time, which is a reasonable form of balance. You can only use this...