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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 4776480" data-attributes="member: 1106">Nice distinction (although I think the jargon needs refinement).  A couple of observations:1) Tailored encounter design is D&D's core conceit, and it's a good one for playability.  But tailoring everything to a Goldilocks "just right" level is bad for verisimilitude inside of a sandbox environment.  The scope is too wide for "just right" to remain a believable coincidence.2) The problem with status quo as I see it is that as the PCs level, only metagame knowledge will let them know what encounters are appropriate for them.  What level can we do the Tomb of Doom?  No NPC or signpost would know unless they're a spying deity, because they'd have to know how tough the PCs are now relative to the unexplored tomb.  Likewise, dropping hints all the time or letting PCs always be able to flee when way, way out of their depth is highly artificial.I think the best solution is a compromise between the two - the uncompromising and realistic but nigh unplayable "status quo sandbox" and the highly playable but uncompelling and unrealistic "goldilocks sandbox".  So here's my suggested compromise: The encounters scale alright, but only such that no encounter becomes unbeatable nor a walkover.  This maintains danger and the core conceit, and also prevents yawnful cakewalks.  So those giants will always be a tough fight (but not overpowering) if the PCs are too low level, and those kobolds will always be a fairly swift and easy fight (but not a cakewalk where rolling dice is pointless) if the PCs are too high level.  Note that treasure will have to be scaled too.  Probably need a computer program.The occasional outlier as an exception to the rule also seems acceptable - Orcus will never be beaten by low level PCs, but players should probably guess that.</blockquote>

Verification