Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 4694579" data-attributes="member: 14506">Majoru Oakheart, I am going to agree with you. And disagree as well. From my DMing experience I have modify things when I thought they were dumb and convoluted. I have also ran straight through modules verbatim before too. I always try to add in different elements to spice them up. Lets face it running through an endless string rooms with combat encounters is not that interesting. Where I really agree with you is most DMs (again from my XP) do just throw together encounters in a lets see what happens fashion. The take that and learn from it and begin to see weaknesses and strengths in the group and whether consciously or not they can plan encounters with that experience of how the party handled previous encounters. So I agree, not as formulaic in designing encounters that will deeply challenge the party maximizing their weaknesses and minimizing their strengths. But... the DM learns and adapts their encounters to suit the party and make for challenges, possibly throwing in a couple extra reinforcements or throwing that fire giant in knowing the fighters flaming sword will be less than helpful.I understand if you are running the "living" stuff, mostly those lend the as per the book types of games, I don't think most gamers are limited in that way. And don't be offended by what I said about mindless computer bla bla bla. The living stuff should be played by the rules in the book because there are too many house rules out their and if one DM is doing it one way, then you can pretty much count on every DM doing it a different way and consistency is important for the players. Most D&Ders do not play "living" stuff so are more free to house rule things and mod encounters and stuff.I am hearing you say that 4e is not a robust system that it cannot handle any change to its intricately fragile system and a single up tick or down tick will collapse the game. That is bogus. I argue your perfect balance never existed in the first place. I argue that this 4e balance that is always touted was a driving design factor but never materialized. A game by default never can be balanced. It is all a matter of how subtle you want the discrepancies to be. They are less severe than 3e, but it is still unbalanced. Balanced is achieved with no options - the same class, the same race, the same feats, the same weapons, the same everything even tactics. The closer you get to that balance the less interesting things become (IMO). The point is, I submit the game will not collapse with a change like this.I think you mostly have it.</blockquote>

Verification