Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
breaking the healing rules with goodberries
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6686415" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>No need to get defensive. Not status quo doesn't mean soft-balling. It can mean going full bore killer DM. Or, as I assume you're going for in your case, creating a challenging encounter for the party.</p><p></p><p>That doesn't necessarily follow. If you dream up Asmodeus and his arch-devils having a tea party in the dungeon, and your 1st level party blunders into them, I doubt it'll go that way. ;P I don't know why the status quo would include dukes of hell hanging out under a ruined guard tower in an out-of-the-way township, but if it did, oh well, don't go in that dungeon again until your new characters are much higher level.</p><p></p><p> I don't think anyone was suggesting that the DMs intent in creating an encounter, whether tailored or status quo, changed the intent of the creatures making up that encounter. For one thing, they're imaginary: strictly speaking, they have no intent. For another, a tailored encounter meant to be a roll-over for the party could consist of outmatched, but overconfident, monsters none-the-less determined to kill the party. Conversely, I suppose, you could have a lethal encounter with a bumbling young StormGiant who 'doesn't no his own strength' ("whoops, sorry 'bout crushing your buddy, little guy..."). Intent of the monsters has nothing to do with it, just intent of the DM. </p><p></p><p>Your intent is clearly to challenge your players and thus run a game session that doesn't suck for everyone at the table. Perfectly reasonable.</p><p></p><p>Hemlock's intent is probably to create an imagined world that is typical of a certain fantasy sub-genre, and, while the genre might typically revolve around a hero(es) who improbably win through deadly danger after deadly danger, the party is just going to have to deal with survival in such a world with nothing but dice luck and 'player skill' to see them through - no artistic license from the author is going to help or hinder them.</p><p></p><p>You can each adapt 5e to those purposes. I suppose you might have a little more work to do in that regard than he.</p><p></p><p> Happens all the time - more the less well-balanced the game, and less dependable it's encounter guidelines. Classic D&D, for instance, not well balanced at all, and no encounter guidelines to speak of. Kinda a long learning curve, but a lot of us stuck with it. </p><p></p><p> Soft-balling or over-killing or challenging - it's all the same in the eyes of an old-school DM. You're basing the encounter on the party. You may be justly proud of doing so /well/ - which has rarely been easy in a game like D&D - and thus consistently producing challenging encounters, but Hemlock may well be indifferent to that distinction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6686415, member: 996"] No need to get defensive. Not status quo doesn't mean soft-balling. It can mean going full bore killer DM. Or, as I assume you're going for in your case, creating a challenging encounter for the party. That doesn't necessarily follow. If you dream up Asmodeus and his arch-devils having a tea party in the dungeon, and your 1st level party blunders into them, I doubt it'll go that way. ;P I don't know why the status quo would include dukes of hell hanging out under a ruined guard tower in an out-of-the-way township, but if it did, oh well, don't go in that dungeon again until your new characters are much higher level. I don't think anyone was suggesting that the DMs intent in creating an encounter, whether tailored or status quo, changed the intent of the creatures making up that encounter. For one thing, they're imaginary: strictly speaking, they have no intent. For another, a tailored encounter meant to be a roll-over for the party could consist of outmatched, but overconfident, monsters none-the-less determined to kill the party. Conversely, I suppose, you could have a lethal encounter with a bumbling young StormGiant who 'doesn't no his own strength' ("whoops, sorry 'bout crushing your buddy, little guy..."). Intent of the monsters has nothing to do with it, just intent of the DM. Your intent is clearly to challenge your players and thus run a game session that doesn't suck for everyone at the table. Perfectly reasonable. Hemlock's intent is probably to create an imagined world that is typical of a certain fantasy sub-genre, and, while the genre might typically revolve around a hero(es) who improbably win through deadly danger after deadly danger, the party is just going to have to deal with survival in such a world with nothing but dice luck and 'player skill' to see them through - no artistic license from the author is going to help or hinder them. You can each adapt 5e to those purposes. I suppose you might have a little more work to do in that regard than he. Happens all the time - more the less well-balanced the game, and less dependable it's encounter guidelines. Classic D&D, for instance, not well balanced at all, and no encounter guidelines to speak of. Kinda a long learning curve, but a lot of us stuck with it. Soft-balling or over-killing or challenging - it's all the same in the eyes of an old-school DM. You're basing the encounter on the party. You may be justly proud of doing so /well/ - which has rarely been easy in a game like D&D - and thus consistently producing challenging encounters, but Hemlock may well be indifferent to that distinction. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
breaking the healing rules with goodberries
Top