Search results

A level 3 fireball does on average 28 damage and 14 on a miss. I don’t know the actual hp of cr appropriate enemies for a level 10 party, but I think 140 is probably a fine estimate. Do you do between 10% and 20% of hp damage for every enemy hit. Essentially you end the encounter about 15%...

On control vs damage IMO direct damage aoe spells are very underrated by modern d&d char op community. But so much depends on how the particular encounters are structured. So it doesn’t surprise me that at some tables direct damage aoe fares worse than control spells. What I believe happens...

Do we have enough for an enworld league?

IMO. Sometimes the players have tons of choices and you just know them and which they are going to make. Or at least have a good idea of which, not due to railroadiness but due to understanding what drives them as players.

For me, player buy in and fairness go hand in hand. If you’re giving the player what he bought into then you are being fair. If you give him something else then there’s a risk that’s unfair (though sometimes this can result in the player being pleasantly surprised). Railroading all goes back...

@Crimson Longinus One can go from A to B to C provided one doesn’t too specifically define A, B or C. Or maybe better to say, where A, B and C aren’t events but fields of events that occur where the distance of events a1 and a2 is relatively small. What’s happening is your grouping alot of...

I don’t know if I fully agree but I like this perspective. There’s no railroading test unless the players do something not in the predicted campaign. Then it depends on the deemed unfairness of the dm handling IMO.

Is your point that fairness is always in the eye of the beholder? I don’t know that I disagree. But it doesn’t change that this is what railroaded has traditionally referenced. Usually it’s a degree of unfairness that most people independently agree it’s unfair.

Going to the criminal trial example. Assuming the trial process is fair we don’t ever say a court process railroaded a defendant, even if he is sent to prison against his will (in some sense). Thus, railroading stems from the unfair process. That’s what is meant about a defendant being railroaded.

I think you are focused on the wrong aspect. Focus on unfairness. IMO players willingly accept that which they deem fair and don’t willingly accept that which they deem unfair.

The way I see it is if the players willingly follow the path then there is no inherent unfairness involved in keeping them on said path. The unfairness inherent in forced railroading, forced being a bit superfluous but included for emphasis, is what defines it and why it is bad.

Because railroad has a negative connotation established long before rpging. Example: ‘The innocent defendant was railroaded in the backwood southern court.’ The elements are the same here as in rpging. Forced outside the bounds of fairness + predetermined ending. Sandbox has no negative...

Can a player railroad the other players? What about can the players railroad the DM?

IMO. A lot hinges there on player expectations of plausible vs dm ones.

Next up you’ll tell me player agency is easy to define. I’ve been to that rodeo before.

IMO. In our context, there is a difference between updating a single dc number and updating the entire mechanical representation of a creature. Not that I’m particularly a fan of ever increasing dcs for doors but there’s at least a contextual argument that if you are in a level appropriate...

IMO it’s maybe less your intended meaning that’s at issue and more the specific words you are attempting to use to convey that thought. I’ve often phrased that as d&d isn’t the the best choice for any given playstyle. Though I’d certainly say it’s a good compromise choice for players wanting...

I can see that. Like we could simulate the world by never changing the pc stats and just changing monster stats when the PCs level. Relativity for d&d! We could theoretically partially change pc stats and partially change monster stats. However, minions didn’t just possess different core...

I think quantum was negative by us. While we ultimately recognized some aspects of d&d as possessing that quality as well, we doubled down on there being something we intensely disliked, some subset of quantum that we were trying to describe by quantum.

You really don’t see how claiming that D&D doesn’t do any one thing good comes across as claiming it’s piss poor?