Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6846324" data-attributes="member: 6688858">Not really; a typical dungeon level might have what...12-18 turns, for 2-3 expected random encounters? Feels right to me. I think even if I wanted a very empty megadungeon feel I would stick with 1 per turn and just reduce the proportion of rooms with monsters in them.Yep, that's pretty much it. It's both the story weight and the linear structure; they tend to go together. I'm trying to explain why the linear AP style adventure is not ideal from a gamist perspective without using the word railroad, because a railroad can be undesirable for other reasons.So I'm thinking of a game like an "experiment" to test for skilled play. The difficulty is like the significance level of the experiment. Hardcore gamist play requires a stringent significance level (they know they're good; they want to know how good) and is therefore prone to a type II error: failing to distinguish good play from poor. Reducing the chance of the false negative requires increasing the statistical power.To do that we can either increase the sample size of decision points (classic sandbox) or if insist on a smaller sample size (linear AP style adventure), decrease the variance of the data--by bickering with the DM to make sure every encounter is run 100% BtB, and with the other players to make sure everyone optimizes their characters. Or straight up tampering with the data (DM fudging).Many of the decision points in classic sandbox D&D are low-tension, and I can see why there is a temptation to skip to the fun, but over time they add up to significant differences in player accomplishment. One of my regular players is risk-averse (often plays a Cleric) and one is notoriously risk-seeking (like to play scouty Thieves/Rogues and instigative Fighters). It's interesting to see which strategy tends to be more successful over time. Typically the latter player has more characters die early but by mid-levels has the character with better stats (more chances at chargen) and magic items (point man gets first choice). I do try to remind myself as DM to reward (or at least not punish) instigative play.I think the powergamers here would enjoy a big community MMO-style sandbox with multiple DMs, a campaign wiki and where much of the content is procedurally generated, more than the adventure they're playing ("testing") now.(I know it's not a real game, it's a test of the encounter building rules, but functionally it's hardcore gamism and I think that's exactly why they're getting into it).With a sandbox game they wouldn't have had to kick out the guy who didn't optimize well enough. He could still play, his character just wouldn't get invited to the toughest raids and would advance more slowly than the others.Yep, I think that's right.Could you say more about what you mean here? I just read the example of play in the AD&D DMG again and I was struck by how richly the PCs interact with the fictional space; I found it inspiring. Although I thought it was unfair to give the spider a free attack just because the player touched it to throw it to the ground.I'm not convinced 5e is poorly suited for the classic style of play, but I'll have a stronger opinion on that in a few months.</blockquote>

Verification