Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7193168" data-attributes="member: 71699">Yes, I think I agree that the system can be improved by loosening the ties a bit. To give it flexibility to accommodate a wider range of scenarios in play. [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] asked &quot;Why XP?&quot; That came out of noticing that significant balancing assumptions are expressly built into the game maths, and are revealed for us in the DMG. The game flatly assumes one long rest and two or three short rests per adventuring day. And an adventuring day flatly assumes 6-8 medium or hard encounters (more if easier, fewer if deadlier). Given that the core RAW demands XP to level, and awards XP for resolving encounters, we can derive the ratio of rests to level-ups. My thought then was to cement rests ineluctably to those balancing assumptions to see how that looked. If that works, the job is largely done.The insights acquired have been so far valuable. It does look like one wants to dial back on how hard the parts are locked together. Traps need either CR or perhaps a rating as encounters. A third kind of rest - for &quot;world&quot; effects - is probably needed. My intuition is that for no-risk out-of-combat encounters, the cost of a resource is a fair payment for whatever is gained (i.e. in the absence of risk). There remain a list of issues that will have to be looked at, although I think one would rev the system once - maybe toward OB1's EP system - and then playtest it before reacting to envisioned issues that might prove to arise rarely or have tolerable consequences, once we're out of theorycrafting. A game designer always needs to respect what they know, and think about the most efficient path to knowing more. Frequently, fixing every possible issue envisioned up front is not the shortest route to a great solution.I do feel firm in a conviction that next-gen D&amp;D would benefit from a mechanical solution to the issues around rests. Instead of the present reasonable attempt that shows signs of being subverted by its own designers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7193168, member: 71699"] Yes, I think I agree that the system can be improved by loosening the ties a bit. To give it flexibility to accommodate a wider range of scenarios in play. [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] asked "[I]Why XP?[/I]" That came out of noticing that significant balancing assumptions are expressly built into the game maths, and are revealed for us in the DMG. The game flatly assumes one long rest and two or three short rests per adventuring day. And an adventuring day flatly assumes 6-8 medium or hard encounters (more if easier, fewer if deadlier). Given that the core RAW demands XP to level, and awards XP for resolving encounters, we can derive the ratio of rests to level-ups. My thought then was to cement rests ineluctably to those balancing assumptions to see how that looked. If that works, the job is largely done. The insights acquired have been so far valuable. It does look like one wants to dial back on how hard the parts are locked together. Traps need either CR or perhaps a rating as encounters. A third kind of rest - for "world" effects - is probably needed. My intuition is that for no-risk out-of-combat encounters, the cost of a resource is a fair payment for whatever is gained (i.e. in the absence of risk). There remain a list of issues that will have to be looked at, although I think one would rev the system once - maybe toward OB1's EP system - and then playtest it before reacting to envisioned issues that might prove to arise rarely or have tolerable consequences, once we're out of theorycrafting. A game designer always needs to respect what they know, and think about the most efficient path to knowing more. Frequently, fixing every possible issue envisioned up front is not the shortest route to a great solution. I do feel firm in a conviction that next-gen D&D would benefit from a mechanical solution to the issues around rests. Instead of the present reasonable attempt that shows signs of being subverted by its own designers. [/QUOTE]

Verification