Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Don't make me roll for initiative.........again
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="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2944395" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>NPCs do not play the game. Period.</p><p></p><p>Players play the game. They play PCs. The game is all about fun for players, not NPCs.</p><p></p><p>If you screw the NPCs, nobody cares. If you screw the PCs, some of your players might care to the point that they quit playing your game.</p><p></p><p>And, it is not a matter of stacking the deck in favor of the PCs. It is a matter of not stacking the deck <strong>AGAINST</strong> the PCs.</p><p></p><p>The deck is already stacked against the PCs. The PCs are in virtually every combat and the NCPs are in one or a few each. Hence, the odds are already against the PCs continued survival because there is a large finite number of NPCs that can combat against the PCs and the PCs are typically (in many campaigns) in a large finite number of combats.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is not simply different, it changes game balance. Granted, game balance is often a subjective area of discussion, but this area of game balance (which you have conceded occurs with your "So what if multiple "unanswered" actions hurt the PC" statement) has been illustrated to have potential results often twice as effective (when done twice as often in a given timeframe) or more depending on situation.</p><p></p><p>It is not subjective when examples illustrate a doubling (or more) of effectiveness of certain attacks. That is objective, you just apparently choose to ignore it.</p><p></p><p>The game is designed to average x amount of damage, have as minimum of zero damage, and have a maximum of y amount of damage per round per opponent given the circumstances. Typically, y is less than the maximum hit points most characters have when they are fully up. When you double the potential of x and y per round, even if it is a somewhat rare occurance, you change game balance and you do it in an objective manner. Especially when 2y and even 2x might be more than the maximum full up character hit points.</p><p></p><p>If you combine the "roll every round" init system with the "roll init once for a group of NPC opponents", you are drastically changing game balance. And, the higher the levels, the more this will lead to character death.</p><p></p><p>I don't know about your game, but my players typically do not have as much fun when their PCs die as when they survive to continue on the storyline. Course, that's subjective too. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 2944395, member: 2011"] NPCs do not play the game. Period. Players play the game. They play PCs. The game is all about fun for players, not NPCs. If you screw the NPCs, nobody cares. If you screw the PCs, some of your players might care to the point that they quit playing your game. And, it is not a matter of stacking the deck in favor of the PCs. It is a matter of not stacking the deck [b]AGAINST[/b] the PCs. The deck is already stacked against the PCs. The PCs are in virtually every combat and the NCPs are in one or a few each. Hence, the odds are already against the PCs continued survival because there is a large finite number of NPCs that can combat against the PCs and the PCs are typically (in many campaigns) in a large finite number of combats. It is not simply different, it changes game balance. Granted, game balance is often a subjective area of discussion, but this area of game balance (which you have conceded occurs with your "So what if multiple "unanswered" actions hurt the PC" statement) has been illustrated to have potential results often twice as effective (when done twice as often in a given timeframe) or more depending on situation. It is not subjective when examples illustrate a doubling (or more) of effectiveness of certain attacks. That is objective, you just apparently choose to ignore it. The game is designed to average x amount of damage, have as minimum of zero damage, and have a maximum of y amount of damage per round per opponent given the circumstances. Typically, y is less than the maximum hit points most characters have when they are fully up. When you double the potential of x and y per round, even if it is a somewhat rare occurance, you change game balance and you do it in an objective manner. Especially when 2y and even 2x might be more than the maximum full up character hit points. If you combine the "roll every round" init system with the "roll init once for a group of NPC opponents", you are drastically changing game balance. And, the higher the levels, the more this will lead to character death. I don't know about your game, but my players typically do not have as much fun when their PCs die as when they survive to continue on the storyline. Course, that's subjective too. :lol: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Don't make me roll for initiative.........again
Top