NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wedgeski" data-source="post: 1921520" data-attributes="member: 16212">I don't understand why, when people say they're 'burned' out on the game, they blame the rules as opposed to the way they've been running their game.   [1] If all encounters were cataclysmic session-stealers, then the game would get very boring very fast. It's only because the smaller, easier, bite-sized encounters exist that the larger encounters stand out, as well as giving players an opportunity to stretch their abilities (and roleplaying) in the run-up to the big fight. Take out the smaller encounters and you potentially strip the non-combat characters of most opportunities to show off their expertise. All that would happen is that the game would go nowhere, very fast indeed, with massive fights and lethal traps punctuated by long periods of dullness. Still, if you want to do it this way, then why are the rules stopping you?   [2] Options. I somewhat agree with this but I've seen players create fantastically memorable characters within these 'limitations'. On the other hand, extra plusses and getting around limitations *do* give a fighter many more combat options. Drop in something like the Book of Iron Might and your fighter is all set (not core, I know, but I'm kind of agreeing with your fighter stance here).   [3] Taking massive damage and healing up to brand spanky newness in the middle of a firefight is all part of the fantasy game. Climbing sheer walls and cracking impossible locks by tickling the cogs is a D&D staple. There have been long discussions on ENW about whether they're 'required' or not, and I see nothing about your 'one encounter per session' idea that brings anything new to the party. You'd like to see your group tackle a massive dungeon twenty feet at a time and retreat to town every time they get injured? Good luck with that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   [4] Any game, anywhere, in any system, that has equipment-based bonuses, is never going to achieve this. The equipment will inevitably become as important a part of a character's repertoire as his innate skills. Still, I do like the idea of weapons getting better with their wielders, and always have.  Edit: Got a little tetchy there, sorry about that. I blame my cold. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification