Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emirikol" data-source="post: 6362948" data-attributes="member: 10638">Seems about as easy as 0D&amp;D/BD&amp;D, back when I first started in 1981.GMs seem to fall into 2 camps:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; --[I say GMs because I GM other games with the same issues as D&amp;D]* Those that like math-heavy, &quot;perfectly balanced&quot; encounters* Those that wing the encounters to be whatever they want, using their previous experience and gut feeling about thingsI don't believe in &quot;perfectly balanced encounters.&quot;&nbsp; Each encounter should serve a purpose and drive the storyline, not just be thrown into the game for crap for the PCs to kill, just cuz, just for x.p.[below gets into why we shouldn't tie x.p. to combats..and that gives you more flexibility in &quot;encounters.&quot;]In fact, I'm still preaching that D&amp;D made a serious mistake, AGAIN, in tying x.p. to killing stuff rather than tying it to game time and story/plot..but such is the nature of D&amp;D - shackled by it's past.&nbsp;&nbsp; This fact is something that cripples future DMs, who fall into a rut of chains of bandit-ambushes and dungeon crawls because that's all they get to read in official adventures and official books.&nbsp; Murder mystery?&nbsp; The dungeon did it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Kidnapping?&nbsp; The dungeon did it.&nbsp; Two farmers not getting along with each other?&nbsp; The dungeon did it..oh, and throw in a bandit-goblin-ambush just to complete the cliche.I understand that crafting a viable plot without attempting to copy D&amp;D's past is more work, but it would help TRAIN us DMs to get out of our rut, and to craft encounters that aren't just&nbsp; toe to toe slugfests..over and over.What I've learned from 5e is that they have moved away from the grid-combat.&nbsp; Great.&nbsp; Now throw us a bone with plots written in such mindset that it isn't based on grid combat.D&amp;D's crippling move, yet again this edition, is defining all &quot;encounters&quot; as Combats.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sure there's a trap sprinkled here in and there and some peasants who are so darned gossipy that they'll tell you any clue you really need to know, but it seems too plain that D&amp;D is still just &quot;combat encounters.&quot;&nbsp; DMs gotta' move away from that, imo, or you're back in 4e, attempting to emulate what computer games do betWhere am I going with this?&nbsp; I think that EL/CR is a bad idea for crafting encounters. DMs SHOULD go with whatever feels right in terms of MONSTER.&nbsp; You want a tarrasque at 1st level?&nbsp; Sure, it doesn't make a good &quot;encounter&quot; in D&amp;D's [culturally-authorative-limiting-mindset], but it is one hell of a plot driver.&nbsp; Something this obvious will make players say, &quot;What do we do now?&quot;---instead of the DM saying, &quot;What do you do now?&quot;jh</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emirikol, post: 6362948, member: 10638"] Seems about as easy as 0D&D/BD&D, back when I first started in 1981. GMs seem to fall into 2 camps: [SIZE=1] --[I say GMs because I GM other games with the same issues as D&D][/SIZE] * Those that like math-heavy, "perfectly balanced" encounters * Those that wing the encounters to be whatever they want, using their previous experience and gut feeling about things I don't believe in "perfectly balanced encounters." Each encounter should serve a purpose and drive the storyline, not just be thrown into the game for crap for the PCs to kill, just cuz, just for x.p. [below gets into why we shouldn't tie x.p. to combats..and that gives you more flexibility in "encounters."] In fact, I'm still preaching that D&D made a serious mistake, AGAIN, in tying x.p. to killing stuff rather than tying it to game time and story/plot..but such is the nature of D&D - shackled by it's past. This fact is something that cripples future DMs, who fall into a rut of chains of bandit-ambushes and dungeon crawls because that's all they get to read in official adventures and official books. Murder mystery? The dungeon did it. Kidnapping? The dungeon did it. Two farmers not getting along with each other? The dungeon did it..oh, and throw in a bandit-goblin-ambush just to complete the cliche. I understand that crafting a viable plot without attempting to copy D&D's past is more work, but it would help TRAIN us DMs to get out of our rut, and to craft encounters that aren't just toe to toe slugfests..over and over. What I've learned from 5e is that they have moved away from the grid-combat. Great. Now throw us a bone with plots written in such mindset that it isn't based on grid combat. D&D's crippling move, yet again this edition, is defining all "encounters" as Combats. Sure there's a trap sprinkled here in and there and some peasants who are so darned gossipy that they'll tell you any clue you really need to know, but it seems too plain that D&D is still just "combat encounters." DMs gotta' move away from that, imo, or you're back in 4e, attempting to emulate what computer games do bet Where am I going with this? I think that EL/CR is a bad idea for crafting encounters. DMs SHOULD go with whatever feels right in terms of MONSTER. You want a tarrasque at 1st level? Sure, it doesn't make a good "encounter" in D&D's [SIZE=1][culturally-authorative-limiting-mindset][/SIZE], but it is one hell of a plot driver. Something this obvious will make [B]players[/B] say, "What do we do now?"---instead of the [B]DM[/B] saying, "What do you do now?" jh [/QUOTE]

Verification