Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 9324359" data-attributes="member: 1465">Very good food for thoughts...Especially the &quot;no attrition&quot; remark, although we could actually talk about it, as it is in fact quite a complex topic... On one hand, I think focusing on the benefits of good exploration is totally a good idea, without the need to feature attrition costs such as traps, hazards or wandering monsters if you don't like them. On the other hand, you can use them all without making them feel like attrition, if you make the cost most tangible and dramatic.Few people would say they like a trap or hazard that does 1d6 of damage. It is annoying as much as it is underwhelming. The cost itself is actually not necessarily negligible for a 1st-level character (could be half their HP) but if it happens when the party is on a day's fresh start, the HP cost might end up easily converted into a spent spell slot to provide the needed healing.But what about a trap or hazard which, if faced recklessly or carelessly by the party, can result in temporarily losing a PC? What if the traps causes a few levels of exhaustion, turns your speed to 0, drops one of your ability scores to 1, or affects your action economy in case of a battle? What if the hazard results in losing all your rations, or a single important item you're carrying? That is still attrition in a sense, if it doesn't kill anyone or straight cause a quest's failure, but the cost is high enough to potentially make the continuation of your adventure harder.Perhaps, a good adventure/campaign design approach might be, to pair a significant risk with a significant gain. In free-form exploration maybe eschew costs altogether other than the passing of time, while in quest-oriented exploration, offer&nbsp; sometimes multiple paths, some with low-risk/low-reward, others with high-risk/high-reward.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 9324359, member: 1465"] Very good food for thoughts... Especially the "no attrition" remark, although we could actually talk about it, as it is in fact quite a complex topic... On one hand, I think focusing on the [I]benefits[/I] of good exploration is totally a good idea, without the need to feature attrition costs such as traps, hazards or wandering monsters if you don't like them. On the other hand, you can use them all without making them feel like attrition, if you make the cost most tangible and dramatic. Few people would say they like a trap or hazard that does 1d6 of damage. It is annoying as much as it is underwhelming. The cost itself is actually not necessarily negligible for a 1st-level character (could be half their HP) but if it happens when the party is on a day's fresh start, the HP cost might end up easily converted into a spent spell slot to provide the needed healing. But what about a trap or hazard which, if faced recklessly or carelessly by the party, can result in temporarily losing a PC? What if the traps causes a few levels of exhaustion, turns your speed to 0, drops one of your ability scores to 1, or affects your action economy in case of a battle? What if the hazard results in losing all your rations, or a single important item you're carrying? That is still attrition in a sense, if it doesn't kill anyone or straight cause a quest's failure, but the cost is high enough to potentially make the continuation of your adventure harder. Perhaps, a good adventure/campaign design approach might be, to pair a significant risk with a significant gain. In free-form exploration maybe eschew costs altogether other than the passing of time, while in quest-oriented exploration, offer sometimes multiple paths, some with low-risk/low-reward, others with high-risk/high-reward. [/QUOTE]

Verification