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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9615934" data-attributes="member: 6790260">For me, it starts getting boring even faster. Because now I'm not even playing at all. I'm just sitting there, waiting to get to play again.It'll probably be...a very long time. But if I do finish them, I'll share them here on ENWorld.I will say, the way SCs should be implemented is often far removed from how WotC actually implemented them in a lot of the early/easily-accessible adventures. Which is an eternal frustration for me, because SCs can be really really great. When done well, they're memorable and exciting and offer a spectrum or space of possible outcomes, rather than the stupid yes/no binary that so many WotC adventures inflicted upon players.So, if that criticism is mostly "WotC-written SCs usually suck, so I'd prefer not to have that happen", then believe me, I'm right there with you.I'm reluctant to include fumble tables because fumble tables are extremely unpopular in general, but I could see that as an opt-in branch that could apply either way. Given my proposed idea of making it so it's quite possible to do nearly all combats as "Skirmishes"--to evoke more of an old-school feel--this is actually a good point I really should've already considered. This is part of why I enjoy engaging with folks whose playstyles are orthogonal to my own. They remind me of design needs I'm likely to forget because they aren't my design needs.I could see this being implemented as a mix of "harsher consequences" rules (including things like fumble tables, Dark Sun-style wilderness survival challenges, and lingering injuries) that DMs could elect to use or not use, whether on a case-by-case basis or universally for a campaign, and being a tad more rigorous about Skirmishes.Sure. That is, as always, the kicker. But, in general, I aim to identify things that are hard for a DM to develop on their own, but easy to deviate away from (in the sense of game design, not in the sense of persuading players*) once they exist. Hence why I would want a generally pretty reliable monster-building and encounter-building system, because such a thing is very difficult to will into existence out of whole cloth, but very easy to simply ignore, or only pay attention to when you feel like it, if it is already present.But, as a converse (since the above is an example where "what would be hard for DMs to develop themselves?" favors my interests, rather than opposing them), slow and methodical levelling is hard to wrangle out of a system that is fast and chunky. Not impossible, but certainly of loosely-comparable difficulty to wrangling reliable monster/encounter building out of the steaming pile that was 3e's monster design, for example. Hence the need for "novice levels" and incremental advancement; these directly implement a way to slow levelling down almost indefinitely, while still giving clear and measurable progress, and giving some of that "I want to feel like my growth is organic" feel that some players really really love.*I am, personally, of the opinion that persuading players is, was, and always should be 100% on the DM. If the DM can't persuade the players to accept a particular set of rules for a campaign, the system neither can nor should intercede to force it to happen. That's a recipe for simmering player resentment, which is destructive to any campaign regardless of system or style.</blockquote>

Verification