Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7192621" data-attributes="member: 71699">Thank you. It feels worthwhile to try to picture the system in actual adventures. For me our concerns about non-combat encounters are most suggestive of a need to enhance the XP system. However, we should also think about risk. What's at stake in a non-combat encounter? As a DM, one guideline for when I award XP is - was there a risk of loss that was faced and overcome? So assuming for the sake of argument that we were awarding XP for non-combat situations where there are risks of loss that are faced and overcome (in fact, I already do this!) then that is covered. We give those Tomb of Horrors traps a CR and we're done. So what about when PCs expend resources in a risk-free non-combat situation not worth XP. Perhaps then the cost - their risk of loss - rightly becomes the resource itself? I would predict that if we do that, PCs will start thinking about what they get for what they expend, and join the world economy. Prima facie, that sounds like a good thing.Strahd I argue is fine. His goal in appearing multiple times must be in part consuming PC resources. If we don't allow him to accomplish that, then we're taking a no-consequences approach. As I've said above, not wanting consequences is fine, but our goal here is to have consequences. You suggest that it will add work for the DM, but I don't see right now what that work is. Can you expand on that point?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7192621, member: 71699"] Thank you. It feels worthwhile to try to picture the system in actual adventures. For me our concerns about non-combat encounters are most suggestive of a need to enhance the XP system. However, we should also think about risk. What's at stake in a non-combat encounter? As a DM, one guideline for when I award XP is - was there a risk of loss that was faced and overcome? So assuming for the sake of argument that we were awarding XP for non-combat situations where there are risks of loss that are faced and overcome (in fact, I already do this!) then that is covered. We give those Tomb of Horrors traps a CR and we're done. So what about when PCs expend resources in a risk-free non-combat situation not worth XP. Perhaps then the cost - their risk of loss - rightly becomes the resource itself? I would predict that if we do that, PCs will start thinking about what they get for what they expend, and join the world economy. Prima facie, that sounds like a good thing. Strahd I argue is fine. His goal in appearing multiple times must be in part consuming PC resources. If we don't allow him to accomplish that, then we're taking a [I]no-consequences[/I] approach. As I've said above, not wanting consequences is fine, but our goal here is to have consequences. You suggest that it will add work for the DM, but I don't see right now what that work is. Can you expand on that point? [/QUOTE]

Verification