Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The_Furious_Puffin" data-source="post: 6841353" data-attributes="member: 11831">The game has been published, but they publish new content for it all the time. One of the design principles mentioned in interviews was 'modules' to allow them to deploy new content etc. The point of this sort of discussion as I see it is mostly: A) Identify a problem - Do we actually have an issue here? If most people are playing 6-8 adventuring days it's not really a problem. If most people are not, maybe they will publish some content that addresses the problemB) Kick around potential house rules. This is a huge part of the discussion: how do I make 3-4 encounter adventuring days work?It's a discussion forum, people are going to discuss the issues they experience in the game. Isn't the problem here that Joe, Sarah and Bob didn't talk about what game they wanted to play before starting?&nbsp; When I set out to DM a game, I float the actual game concept, setting and rule set and if people don't buy in to bad.Indeed, this is heavy handed DM control - if 1/3rd of the participants wants to play a modern game you should probably talk about it.Ehh I dunno - I think it more reflects a lack of focus. Like, the game COULD mechanically incentivise taking more encounters per rest if it said you got a point of inspiration every encounter you complete before you short rest (or every encounter after the first or whatever), and if you have at-least 6 encounters before long resting you can keep them.Or you can do what torchbearer does with conditions and trying to establish a risk/reward mechanic - but that all assumes that the game is actually supposed to be about clever resource management as you&nbsp; forge onwards - a nod to basic box D&amp;D. But is it? I bet if you asked that question you'd get a ton of 'nope, it's supposed to be this instead'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The_Furious_Puffin, post: 6841353, member: 11831"] The game has been published, but they publish new content for it all the time. One of the design principles mentioned in interviews was 'modules' to allow them to deploy new content etc. The point of this sort of discussion as I see it is mostly: A) Identify a problem - Do we actually have an issue here? If most people are playing 6-8 adventuring days it's not really a problem. If most people are not, maybe they will publish some content that addresses the problem B) Kick around potential house rules. This is a huge part of the discussion: how do I make 3-4 encounter adventuring days work? It's a discussion forum, people are going to discuss the issues they experience in the game. Isn't the problem here that Joe, Sarah and Bob didn't talk about what game they wanted to play before starting? When I set out to DM a game, I float the actual game concept, setting and rule set and if people don't buy in to bad. Indeed, this is heavy handed DM control - if 1/3rd of the participants wants to play a modern game you should probably talk about it. Ehh I dunno - I think it more reflects a lack of focus. Like, the game COULD mechanically incentivise taking more encounters per rest if it said you got a point of inspiration every encounter you complete before you short rest (or every encounter after the first or whatever), and if you have at-least 6 encounters before long resting you can keep them. Or you can do what torchbearer does with conditions and trying to establish a risk/reward mechanic - but that all assumes that the game is actually supposed to be about clever resource management as you forge onwards - a nod to basic box D&D. But is it? I bet if you asked that question you'd get a ton of 'nope, it's supposed to be this instead' [/QUOTE]

Verification