Search results

Yes, and that's why 4e was not pure encounter based design. It had daily attrition as well, and suffered from similar issues regarding the number of daily encounters than 5e does, albeit to a lesser degree. But pure encounter based design would suffer from the issues I mentioned, and that to me...

Yeah, I'm not convinced. "Let's remove attrition but then if we want the fights not to be meaningless we can add it back case-by-case basis," does not to me seem like particularly functional or desirable design.

So daily and weekly abilities. Just like with 5e gritty rests...

True. And I think there certainly were some viable babies in that 4e bathwater. However, I really do not think making everything encounter based is good direction. It has a lot of issues both from gameplay and verisimilitude perspective. Like I said before, without attrition only cost fights...

You can have social contract and conventions to avoid such things, but I generally feel it is awkward and bad design if the system incentivises certain things and then we just have to agree not to do it as it would not lead to fun gameplay. A well designed system incentivises doing things that...

Sure, but that people really did not like how 4e solved the issue doesn't mean that they still wouldn't like to have some solution for it. Just not that one.

Yes. Just ban it. I however find a lot of GMs are for some reason reluctant to ban problematic spells and features. And regardless, it is ludicrous that they included in the first place at least in the invincible bunker from it exists in 5e.

I don't think with eight hour long rests and Leomund's hut existing random encounters are a viable deterrent unless the GM constantly tailors the random encounter list with monsters designed to overcome this obstacle.

That the game has been designed to work roughly like Mearls says has been clear from the get go. That most people actually do not play like this has been clear about as long. I agree that the design goal is absurd. In all my decades of playing RPGs, I don't think there has ever been an in-game...

Right. Go with the flow. If the players think the sewer goblin is interesting, then make them meaningful. And if there is some big plot you're desperate to run, then loop the goblins back to that. Like the sewer goblins are upset that the big bad has been dumping toxic waste caused by his undead...

Hours of inconsequential freeform RP just is not a thing I see happening. Like sure, there can be sometimes five or ten minutes of talking to a shopkeeper or catching up with old acquaintance that do not really lead to anything, but most of the in-character RP is driving the action. It is either...

I can't decide it. But it is a difference of people watching a sad scene in film or just being told "now pretend to be sad." The chances are the former will produce far more genuine feeling than the latter. And it does not need to be any specific feeling, but some feeling. Mediocre GM thing...

Oh, absolutely! Most of combats in CR are dull and pointless. They are super easy, there is no real danger, and attention does not matter as they take long rests so often. Easily the worst part of the show.

I don't think I have gone into much detail about how much time I expect to spend on this beyond "some." Yes. But then they will care, so there is no problem. And it is not necessarily about whether the characters accept the quest at all, it is about giving emotional context which will inform...

But seriously, to me it seems people are mostly just throwing around disconnected bits of mechanics. I think one needs to start by nailing down the fiction that is to be represented by these mechanics first. If psions and spellcasters are different, then what that difference is in the fiction...

Non-magical psions are easy, we have plenty of examples of such psychics from the real world. They just need expertise and other boost for their bluff skill, so that they can con people into believing that they have supernatural powers whilst they actually do not.

Then, in my opinion, they can never be more than mediocre GM at best. It is such a crucial aspect of the GM that I do not think you can neglect it. For reason to have real emotional weight, it need to be backed by something. It is unlikely that this can be done in a sentence. And I am not...

Well, if the situation is that dire then the GM certainly needs all practice they can get and they should do more of such scenes! To give context to why we are even doing this at all! Action without reason seems narratively rather pointless to me. Not specific emotion. Some emotion. Perhaps...

Yes, but it is an actual interaction and not just passively watching one, which makes it more personal. What other way? By narrating the situation dramatically? But the same objection can be raised, the average GM is not a professional author or narrator either. Ultimately you somehow need to...

I really don't see how it is less effective in an RPG. If anything, I think it more effective as the players are directly interacting with the NPCs via their characters. Now you don't need to frontload all of this in the beginning of the adventure, NPCs affected by the situation can also be met...