Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3412256" data-attributes="member: 3192">These example cases, like in past discussions, have always lent towards the extreme.&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; I can't for the life of me figure out how a group of 5th level PCs could win against a Balor.&nbsp; However, if they did, I would not shirk in awarding treasure or XP.&nbsp; They earned it.&nbsp; If I'm running it at my nastiest, ratbastard worst, something as intelligent, skillfully played, and absolutely appropriate for a CR 20 demon, and they still win, I'm giving it to them.&nbsp; Hell, I'm probably taking them out for dinner.The extreme example is not the point.&nbsp; If you can get there, awesome.&nbsp; My point was: if your group is so good they can regularly beat creatures 5, 6, 7+ levels higher than their suggested EL, than they get to be above their suggested wealth level.&nbsp; By considerable amounts even.&nbsp; They also get to keep all the XP earned.&nbsp; In this way, they advance far faster than beginners and intermediates and reach levels where their skill is more appropriately challenged.In most typical campaign worlds, you're right.&nbsp; It's far over what most creatures in the world will have as treasure.&nbsp; But if they can earn it, like in the example above with the balor, it's not Monty Haul.&nbsp; That's what Monty Haul players are trying to pass themselves off as.I've heard this many times before too.&nbsp; It seems, if players are good enough to beat the Balor, they get stuck with &quot;level-appropriate&quot; treasure and only enough XP to advance 1 level.&nbsp; That's not incentive IMO.&nbsp; That's an advancement cap.&nbsp; It tells players they can't beat the system, so don't bother trying.&nbsp; In reverse, it can prop up poor players and give a sense of entitlement, like I mentioned before. My question is: why bother trying for &quot;the far end of doable&quot; when it's only likely to get your character killed and offers rewards you can achieve with less risk?&nbsp; In my games the players choose what to face (either purposefully or by accident).&nbsp; And they are just like any other players; they get intrinsic value from success.&nbsp; It's a blast from beating their opponents whatever the type of challenge.&nbsp; But if treasure* and XP have an artificial limit, why risk their necks for more?&nbsp; *(treasure here includes all those less easily measured things like titles, followers, lands, and reputation that come from noncombat challenges).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 3412256, member: 3192"] These example cases, like in past discussions, have always lent towards the extreme. Yes. I can't for the life of me figure out how a group of 5th level PCs could win against a Balor. However, if they did, I would not shirk in awarding treasure or XP. They earned it. If I'm running it at my nastiest, ratbastard worst, something as intelligent, skillfully played, and absolutely appropriate for a CR 20 demon, and they [i]still[/i] win, I'm giving it to them. Hell, I'm probably taking them out for dinner. The extreme example is not the point. If you can get there, awesome. My point was: if your group is so good they can regularly beat creatures 5, 6, 7+ levels higher than their suggested EL, than they get to be above their suggested wealth level. By considerable amounts even. They also get to keep all the XP earned. In this way, they advance far faster than beginners and intermediates and reach levels where their skill is more appropriately challenged. In most typical campaign worlds, you're right. It's far over what most creatures in the world will have as treasure. But if they can earn it, like in the example above with the balor, it's not Monty Haul. That's what Monty Haul players are trying to pass themselves off as. I've heard this many times before too. It seems, if players are good enough to beat the Balor, they get stuck with "level-appropriate" treasure and only enough XP to advance 1 level. That's not incentive IMO. That's an advancement cap. It tells players they can't beat the system, so don't bother trying. In reverse, it can prop up poor players and give a sense of entitlement, like I mentioned before. My question is: why bother trying for "the far end of doable" when it's only likely to get your character killed and offers rewards you can achieve with less risk? In my games the players choose what to face (either purposefully or by accident). And they are just like any other players; they get intrinsic value from success. It's a blast from beating their opponents whatever the type of challenge. But if treasure* and XP have an artificial limit, why risk their necks for more? *(treasure here includes all those less easily measured things like titles, followers, lands, and reputation that come from noncombat challenges). [/QUOTE]

Verification