Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheSword" data-source="post: 7410846" data-attributes="member: 6879661">It depends where you stand on the concept of difficulty. Satisfaction comes from achievement and achievement requires effort to attain it. Therefore difficulty should be tailored to the party. A DM decides whether to use goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears or fiendish bugbear vampires depending on the difficulty required. Some parties will find some challenges dramatically harder or easier. The methods you suggest in your earlier posts of designing encounters independently of the party usually result in large numbers of uninspiring encounters. I much prefer a smaller number of more challenging combats. A lot of the fights in published adventures even when level appropriate would would last less than 3 rounds and result in no expenditure of resources for a relatively experienced party. As both a player and a DM this gets dull quick.Secondly there is more than one person at the tables enjoyment to consider. The other players would probably like the cleric to take some share of the burden of risk. In my experience characters with combat abilities that dramatically exceed the rest of the party are seldom fun to play next too.When a character extenuates a strength then undoubtably leave weaknesses, spreading risk to take these into account is only fair. Adding a rust monster (one not an army) adds an element of jeopardy to character and vulnerability which reminds them they are mortal and gives them some real skin in the fight. They have something to fear. As Ned says, that’s the only time we can be brave.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheSword, post: 7410846, member: 6879661"] It depends where you stand on the concept of difficulty. Satisfaction comes from achievement and achievement requires effort to attain it. Therefore difficulty should be tailored to the party. A DM decides whether to use goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears or fiendish bugbear vampires depending on the difficulty required. Some parties will find some challenges dramatically harder or easier. The methods you suggest in your earlier posts of designing encounters independently of the party usually result in large numbers of uninspiring encounters. I much prefer a smaller number of more challenging combats. A lot of the fights in published adventures even when level appropriate would would last less than 3 rounds and result in no expenditure of resources for a relatively experienced party. As both a player and a DM this gets dull quick. Secondly there is more than one person at the tables enjoyment to consider. The other players would probably like the cleric to take some share of the burden of risk. In my experience characters with combat abilities that dramatically exceed the rest of the party are seldom fun to play next too. When a character extenuates a strength then undoubtably leave weaknesses, spreading risk to take these into account is only fair. Adding a rust monster (one not an army) adds an element of jeopardy to character and vulnerability which reminds them they are mortal and gives them some real skin in the fight. They have something to fear. As Ned says, that’s the only time we can be brave. [/QUOTE]

Verification