Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6989595" data-attributes="member: 12731">I am not denying either 1) or 2). Especially 2) - of course even the most minmaxed characters can be turned into minced meat by a trivial encounter if in the hands of young players that has never experienced a roleplaying game ever before and thus are completely oblivious to even the most basic of rpg survival rules (i.e. stick to one and the same tactic even if you personally would have chosen a different one; never split the party; focus your fire, etc) Let me only speak for myself - what I would need to even consider a table useful would be the table author clearly stating for which assumptions the table is meant to be used:There needs to be a clear choice between assuming players being able to (pretty much) rest at will, and assuming there are constraints in place (whether by story-induced time restraints, self-imposed restraints or whatever doesn't matter). Do note that for the most part, the rules might assume the second, but published adventures certainly don't. Since the game assumes the latter, I suggest the former.I consider an assumption of an 3-4 encounter adventure day vastly more practical than an 6-8 encounter day. For one thing, even in the theoretical extreme case of players playing it ultra-safe and resting as soon as they've used up any resources the former is still only 2-3 encounters off, while the latter remains 5-7 encounters off. A considerable difference. (While this is purely theoretical, I guess my point is that since the game doesn't meaningfully discourage players from resting, an assumption of 3-4 encounters might come close to a practical limit of 2-3 challenging encounters; while an assumption of 6-8 encounters will still be off by a significant degree)Furthermore, since the DMG assumes "easy mode" in all respects, I feel your table should not do the same. Guidelines that are meant to actually make veteran players playing reasonably well-tuned PCs sweat a bit would be much more useful as a complement to the DMG ones.Except for one thing: I honestly don't know what you can gain out of all this, except perhaps the personal satisfaction from a well-executed thought experiment. After all, if you target the group where veteran DMs run veteran players, you're also targeting the group which doesn't need DMG guidelines and wouldn't look at your efforts.I mean, if you could force WotC to have its designers look at your resulting table when they design the next adventure, it would be highly interesting, but since that is unlikely... well.What we can hope for in the meantime is that WotC really is pulling out the stops for Yawning Portal dungeon #7, making it actually deadly and not merely "carebear deadly". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification