Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3588274" data-attributes="member: 18280">I'm not sure about this at all.  The adventure design said where the ogre was and what the ogre would do.  It didn't say "No matter what the PCs do, they can't lure the ogre out of the cave."If this is addressed to me, I was responding toandMistwell is correct in thinking that the CR/EL System is designed with the stated intent that Tailored Encounters are the norm, and that this is a "video-gamey" approach.  KM is correct when he says you don't have to use that approach (I do not myself) but not when he claims that this isn't the norm for the game, or that, as a result of having other options, one cannot (or should not) express a lack of contentment with that norm.I run a much lower magic and lower wealth game that the book suggests, too, but that doesn't mean that the book doesn't take a certain amount of ready magic and wealth-by-level as its norm.I honestly don't think that CR is an improvement over ML (at least, not as I used it; I didn't divide XP by APL, and this allowed the desired rate of progression without generally giving XP for treasure, though I did give story awards).  ML allowed a greater variance in reward (XP determined by creature, as opposed to XP by ML), and it was a system whereby you knew exactly how the numbers were determined.  You also knew, therefore, how changes in your setting would affect those numbers.The only thing that would make a ML-type system difficult to use in 3.X is the lack of an exponential XP chart.  This isn't a good tradeoff, IMHO, although it seems to be popular with some.Static XP values for monsters allow the DM to note the XP of creatures and encounters in their adventures, making calculating XP simple at the end of a game.  If you are a DM who runs several groups in the same campaign setting, you cannot necessarily precalcuate based upon the APL, as several groups of differing APLs might be active in the same area.As I said earlier, previous encounter systems have not suggested that the creatures PCs encounter be tailored to their level, but rather to the area they explore. Moreover, previous encounter systems (or at least before 2e) included the idea that areas might be designed (through chutes, or gently sloping floors, for example) to channel PCs into tougher encounter areas with or without their knowledge. This was part of "fair play" and taking steps to prevent/minimize the effects of it on the players' part was part of "good play".The idea that the players have some responsibility to learn about the area they are in (through divination spells, gathering information, etc.), and then make appropriate choices, is crucial to a fun game IMHO.  But then, I am a sandbox player/DM all the way.  As a player, I don't want the DM to force me to follow an Adventure Path, nor do I want him to hold my hand or pull his punches.  If I want someone to tell me a story, I'll read a book.As a DM, I refuse to take responsibility for the PCs getting in over their heads.  If a group of 1st level PCs think its a good idea to sneak into an ancient red dragon's lair, that's their own look out.  If they never bother to ask questions, likewise.  OTOH, clever (or even lucky) play can reward characters far beyond the 3.X "Character Wealth By Level" guidelines.  I still run games that way, BTW.....but it is no longer the standard way to run games. Even official modules that arguably follow the EL guidelines (Forge of Fury, for example), might suggest that you remove the overwhelming encounters if you think the players will attack them (this is the advice given in FoF for the roper).RC</blockquote>

Verification