Search results

A party of three requires some serious modification from the assumed party size.

I think that's why they're releasing this.

Right. My point is though, that we can't agree on where the error lies because we're human. I have been using my position to illustrate why some people are happy with the amount of fluff in the core books, and why preconceptions are a reason for that. Surely there's a tipping point (where...

It's the first edition I've ever played RAW.

Definitely not a haiku.

Excellent point. However I'm not a fan of starting new threads because I usually don't have much more to initially say on a topic than my one line: "Be aware though that lack of personification in these threats can be unsatisfying for some players." It's not until I'm drawn into a discussion...

No, I think you're crediting me with assumptions I'm not standing on. Of course I may be resting on assumptions neither of us are aware of. Welcome to humanity. I think you see me making a statement of absolutes where I am intending to portray a grey area. I am saying it is possible to both...

Obviously anything might not be for somebody. That's a given. The reason for posting why the environment might not be a satisfying threat for some groups was exactly that - a reason why. Of course the environment-as-threat has been a given in probably every version of every RPG ever written...

Ah I see what you've done. I still don't see the relevance though. My caveat was specific to the threat you mentioned (environmental). Rarely do we see discussion of how environmental threats play out at the table and so little understanding of why they mightn't work for a certain group so I...

You're the one who suggested lack of personification in environmental conditions had anything to do with repetition of threats. Players may well not enjoy the same threats repeated over and over again (I don't imagine many people would), but that's got nothing to do with their inability to...

I dunno man. People will believe what they want to believe.

I'd say n+3 is a more-or-less standard fight at Epic level, especially given less fights per day (purely for story reasons IME). And given your problem of PCs hitting too easily, the levels of the monsters in your fights is certainly more important than the level of the overall encounter.

I think you're confusing lack of personification with lack of characterisation. A nameless combatant is still personified, as long as they display humanlike characteristics (including speech, emotion or even just a humanoid shape).

No I think you've misread (or misunderstood). If what I say is true, then that justifies the need for published campaign settings. That is, keeping setting information in the core books to a minimum necessitates more detailed settings for those who don't have time to flesh out the implied...

My experience of Epic tier play was that fights feaured less combatants and therefore those combatants were of higher level.

Fair point. With some explicit agreement from the players that they won't take their characters 'off the map' until you're ready, the map can be as small as you like.

lol Erm, the size of the area should be in proportion to the fastest mode of transport you intend to allow. An area with all land 'borders' and either no roads or no horses can be a lot smaller than a region which has one or more borders cutting through coastline.

Be aware though that lack of personification in these threats can be unsatisfying for some players.

IMO too. I think B10 single-handedly shaped my DMing style.

Well of course you're right. However "those people" are potentially a majority, especially given the way we (geeks) like to remain especially informed about things. When starting a new game where some of the assumptions of the implied setting have changed, the DM has to state those changes...