Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7185493" data-attributes="member: 6689191">Nope. Nothing of the sort.In my first post I said: I would instead prefer to see any management of party resting rates dealt by the GM in story and world terms, rather than by XP/Levelling terms. Namely that if you want to limit resting for whatever reason, make it tied to story/world limitations rather than a hard rule of 'x' rests per level. The situation above involved 2 specific situations with &quot;hard rule&quot; vs Story Rule, which is why perhaps it seems unclear....Basically point 1 is that with a story focus, you have the flexibility to reward a player who potentially does something, say, sub-optimal in HP terms, but awesome in narrative roleplay terms. I'm thinking of Matt Mercer talking about grappling a wyvern while crawling down a cliff and trying to ride it, instead of just hitting it with an axe. He barely survived, the wyvern didn't, but with a hard rule, he's now at 3 HP and is now hindered by resource managment. A more narrative approach would flex any rest constraints basically allow an additional quick rest, because Damn! that was cool.....Point 2 is that a more narrative approach allows a 3rd option when faced with a tough decision: facing the BBEG with your Barbarian at half HP, you can fight, not fight, or rest and pray there arent' any consequences for dallying. With a hard Rest-to-Level rule, there is no option 3. It's Fight or go back to town and buy potions. Couching it in narrative terms (&quot;The clock is ticking!&quot;) allows for consequences of choices, rather than making it a binary yes or no. It also means you as a GM can allow things to move forward even when the party have.....kinda failed.This isn't a situation of GM vs Players, this is the GM laying out a challenge and using time/resource constraint (resting) to modify what &quot;Success or Failure&quot; looks like</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hillsy7, post: 7185493, member: 6689191"] Nope. Nothing of the sort. In my first post I said: [I]I would instead prefer to see any management of party resting rates dealt by the GM in story and world terms, rather than by XP/Levelling terms.[/I] Namely that if you want to limit resting for whatever reason, make it tied to story/world limitations rather than a hard rule of 'x' rests per level. The situation above involved 2 specific situations with "hard rule" vs Story Rule, which is why perhaps it seems unclear.... Basically point 1 is that with a story focus, you have the flexibility to reward a player who potentially does something, say, sub-optimal in HP terms, but awesome in narrative roleplay terms. I'm thinking of Matt Mercer talking about grappling a wyvern while crawling down a cliff and trying to ride it, instead of just hitting it with an axe. He barely survived, the wyvern didn't, but with a hard rule, he's now at 3 HP and is now hindered by resource managment. A more narrative approach would flex any rest constraints basically allow an additional quick rest, because Damn! that was cool..... Point 2 is that a more narrative approach allows a 3rd option when faced with a tough decision: facing the BBEG with your Barbarian at half HP, you can fight, not fight, or rest and pray there arent' any consequences for dallying. With a hard Rest-to-Level rule, there is no option 3. It's Fight or go back to town and buy potions. Couching it in narrative terms ("The clock is ticking!") allows for consequences of choices, rather than making it a binary yes or no. It also means you as a GM can allow things to move forward even when the party have.....kinda failed. This isn't a situation of GM vs Players, this is the GM laying out a challenge and using time/resource constraint (resting) to modify what "Success or Failure" looks like [/QUOTE]

Verification