Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Drawmack" data-source="post: 554965" data-attributes="member: 4981">Interesting question but I voted other. It depends greatly on the type of game I am running.My last game involved a great deal of overland travel and at least 3/4 of the game was spent on random mini-adventure tables. These were generally balanced to the party maybe + or - 1 CR or something but really close to balanced for the party. Though once in a while I'd throw in a rediculously easy or rediculously difficult one (just cause you're a city boy don't mean you aint gonna see a bear in the woods).My current game is city based with very little travel and therefor very few random mini-adventure charts. So in this campaign after each adventure we have 1d4 weeks ''off-screen'' time. I hand the players a print out of clippings from The Freeport Gazete, and possibly some private offers. As they are a mercenary investigating group (2 rouges, 1 investigator, 1 ranger, 1 druid, 1 monk) they then decide which of the leads in the paper to follow up on. I have told them that every lead in the paper has a preplanned plot with it. They must decide from the (often sketchy) sotries which adventure they take. I balance every adventure to the PCs but not every encounter. I add up all the ECLs, divide by # of encoutners and make sure that equals the party's CR. Some encounters are hard, some impossible and some easy. We play in freeport which is a surrounded by a tropical jungle. You bet your rear quarter that if my PCs decided to go out into the wilds they would run into stirges, apes, dire apes, boars, dire boars, snakes, vipers, constrictors all kinds of stuff that is above their ECL. I call this realism.My world does not revolve around the PCs, on the other hand part of my job is to keep them alive and keep the story believable at the same time - that is not an easy job at times.</blockquote>

Verification