Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6908084" data-attributes="member: 996">The range of monsters is certainly similar, even if the range of numbers modeling them is nominally 'bounded.'&nbsp; Similarly, while the range of DCs may be narrower in terms of numbers, checks conceptually range from the easy to the nearly impossible.&nbsp; (OK, Maybe Epic 3e or 4e shaded into outright impossible checks, at an extreme.)I guess it also depends on how flexible the DM is with statting out challenges.&nbsp; You could, in 3e or 4e, stat out a whole unit of, say, orcs or goblins, as a single monster, a swarm or mob or the like.&nbsp; It'd make fighting a 'large number' of conceptual enemies a more workable in the small-unit scaling typical of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Nothing stops you from doing the same in 5e.&nbsp; Well, nothing about 5e stops you.&nbsp; Maximizing meaningful, viable choices, is the mark of a balanced game, anyway.Yes, I've heard that restrictive definition of RPG from you before.&nbsp; It may work for you.&nbsp; I find it too limiting to be of value.&nbsp; Heck, I find GNS excessively limiting, and even the 'S' part of that theory is less restrictive than what you propose as a OneTrueWay.Balanced encounters are an option, it's up to the DM whether to use guidelines to create such encounters, or ones imbalanced in one direction or another, for whatever reasons drive his campaign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6908084, member: 996"] The range of monsters is certainly similar, even if the range of numbers modeling them is nominally 'bounded.' Similarly, while the range of DCs may be narrower in terms of numbers, checks conceptually range from the easy to the nearly impossible. (OK, Maybe Epic 3e or 4e shaded into outright impossible checks, at an extreme.) I guess it also depends on how flexible the DM is with statting out challenges. You could, in 3e or 4e, stat out a whole unit of, say, orcs or goblins, as a single monster, a swarm or mob or the like. It'd make fighting a 'large number' of conceptual enemies a more workable in the small-unit scaling typical of D&D. Nothing stops you from doing the same in 5e. Well, nothing about 5e stops you. Maximizing meaningful, [i]viable[/i] choices, is the mark of a balanced game, anyway. Yes, I've heard that restrictive definition of RPG from you before. It may work for you. I find it too limiting to be of value. Heck, I find GNS excessively limiting, and even the 'S' part of that theory is less restrictive than what you propose as a OneTrueWay. Balanced encounters are an option, it's up to the DM whether to use guidelines to create such encounters, or ones imbalanced in one direction or another, for whatever reasons drive his campaign. [/QUOTE]

Verification