Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8649719" data-attributes="member: 6855114">For the bolded part.We should a bit more precise.The game as written does a good job.But the writings do a poor job in conveying the intent and the RAI.It is not evident, if you do not carefully read the DMG that the game is based on the assumption that there should be 6-8 encounters between long rests.It is clear that there is an exp budget for characters and that this budget is to be adjusted for the number of players.What is less clear is how to divide the daily budget into a meaningful adventuring day that will not be too easy or too hard.In using &quot;natural&quot; language, the game became easier to handle and learn for the neophytes. But it also blurred a few rules and made them relatively hard to handle once you get stuck with trickier situations.As for the rest of the post.I rarely encountered this type of player. The type that simply do not care about the consequences of the actions of their characters. My pick on them was to avoid at all costs a TPK. Make sure that at least one character not belonging to the uncaring player survives and have every players that lost a character make new characters one level lower than the survivors. Ho god could you see the face on the uncaring one! The other players usually knew that I would put treasure to help them out save the uncaring one. Either that player started to &quot;care&quot; and amend for his/her way or that player would leave and the players that got hosed because of the other would quickly rise in level to catch up on the surviving ones. But since the 2ed, I have never encountered this type of player ever again. (Either that or I am instinctively screening these players out of game right before they can even enter my groups.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Helldritch, post: 8649719, member: 6855114"] For the bolded part. We should a bit more precise. The game as written does a good job. But the writings do a poor job in conveying the intent and the RAI. It is not evident, if you do not carefully read the DMG that the game is based on the assumption that there should be 6-8 encounters between long rests. It is clear that there is an exp budget for characters and that this budget is to be adjusted for the number of players. What is less clear is how to divide the daily budget into a meaningful adventuring day that will not be too easy or too hard. In using "natural" language, the game became easier to handle and learn for the neophytes. But it also blurred a few rules and made them relatively hard to handle once you get stuck with trickier situations. As for the rest of the post. I rarely encountered this type of player. The type that simply do not care about the consequences of the actions of their characters. My pick on them was to avoid at all costs a TPK. Make sure that at least one character not belonging to the uncaring player survives and have every players that lost a character make new characters one level lower than the survivors. Ho god could you see the face on the uncaring one! The other players usually knew that I would put treasure to help them out save the uncaring one. Either that player started to "care" and amend for his/her way or that player would leave and the players that got hosed because of the other would quickly rise in level to catch up on the surviving ones. But since the 2ed, I have never encountered this type of player ever again. (Either that or I am instinctively screening these players out of game right before they can even enter my groups.) [/QUOTE]

Verification